Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
DATE: Public Meeting, February 21, 2008 at the Pittsfield Middle High
School Lecture Hall
ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:02 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Vic e-Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr.
(PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Daniel Greene (DG), John
Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex Officio Alternate, Chris Conlon (CC), Dan
Schroth (DS), Alternate, Gerard LeDuc (GL), Alternate and
Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent:
None. No alternates were seated.
Others Present:
Larry Federhen, Donna Keeley, Leon Kenison, Larry Konopka, Denise
Morin, Susan Muenzinger, Ralph Odell, Jim Pritchard, James Theodore, and
Ed Vien.
GENERAL DISCUSSION:
(BM) noted that the purpose of this Public Hearing concerned the three
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. He noted the Planning Board
would be discussing:
1. Citizen Petition on Proposed Zoning Ordinances changes
2. Floodplain Ordinance – National Flood Insurance Program
3. CNHRPC Recommendation: “Site Plan Review Required”
2
To expedite matters, we will be discussing them out of order, the first one
being the Floodplain Ordinance – National Flood Insurance Program which
will bring the Town in compliance with State and Federal guidelines and
essentially make some residents eligible for flood insurance. This is
basically a housekeeping change, which is in the best interests of the Town.
Would anyone like to address this issue or ask any questions?
(GL) questioned whether there were any maps available for review. (BM)
directed him and anyone else that would like to view the maps to the
conference table. (Several Board members including (GL) viewed and
discussed the aerial view of these maps.)
(BM) “Since there are no other questions, the Planning Board at the end of
this meeting, will vote to Recommend/Not Recommend each of the three
proposals.
Mr. Pritchard noted, “I wouldn’t do it that way.” (BM) noted that he did not
have to wait to hear how Board votes.”
(BM) The next one will be the CNHRPC Recommendation concerning the
verbiage on the “Site Plan Review Required” paragraph in the Zoning
Ordinance. The CNHRPC acts as a consulting agency t o most Towns in the
region researching zoning ordinances and other matters. They feel Article 6
would work better if changed to include the paragraph inserted after Table I:
“Site Plan Review Required”
The Planning Board shall require preliminary review of site plans and
review and approve or disapprove site plans for the development or change
or expansion of use of tracts for nonresidential uses or for multi-family
dwelling units or for uses requiring Special Exception as indicated in
Table 1 above, whether or not such development includes a subdivision or
re-subdivision of the site.
3
Open Public Input
Mr. Pritchard noted, “I am completely against this. It would eliminate an
exception for Site Plan Review. It does not provide a provision of
when/when not it would be acceptable. It would eliminate the ability of the
Planning Board to establish a threshold and it is illegal.” It would be a bad
idea to adopt this.
(BM) The Zoning Ordinances are created by the Planning Board Regs. It is
the mechanism by which the Zoning Board works. We have the ability to
exempt a Site Plan Review if nothing is gained. Mr. Pritchard noted, “Read
it.” He noted, “You are going to wait until someone questions it to figure
out what it means? Where is exemption?” (BM) It is not written into the
Zoning Ordinance, the exemption comes out of the Planning Board Regs
exception. (Mr. Pritchard read it to the audience.) “Nothing says you shall
require preliminary review, ‘Shall’ is mandatory. (JL) noted that the Site
Plan Review can be the most cursory review and it only takes minutes. Mr.
Pritchard noted Board would not be able to exempt it if this is passed.
Dan Schroth noted he agreed with Mr. Pritchard on this. We do not need
more “crap” and I am against any more zoning. Why more words? If it is
on paper, people feel need to enforce every word. Mr. Pritchard is
absolutely correct. There are so many laws especially in zoning. “I think I
am going to violate all Zoning Ordinances, that’s my comment.”
Larry Konopka noted that when he was on Planning Board, they did quite a
few Site Plan Reviews. It lets abutters and other people know it is a
positive. Jim is right on this; we would have to hold one. (BM) noted that
Board would seek legal advice on this. Boa rd may be required to hold
preliminary.
Close Public Input on Site Plan Review Required discussion.
(BM) The third matter tonight is the Citizen Petition. Along with the other
two, the Citizen Petition is not the product of the Planning Board and we are
required to hold a Public Hearing and then Planning Board will vote to
pass/not pass it. Does anyone have any specific questions in regard to this
Citizen Petition, which I will refer to the citizen who authored it?
4
(DG) noted that in the paper it stated, “from Board of Selectman.” (BM)
noted BOS does not have ownership nor does Planning Board. (CC) related
that there would be two different processes if supported by BOS, it should
be through the Town rather than citizen petition. (BM) Leon, could you
clear this up?
Leon Kenison, Town Administrator noted, “We were here last time on the
occasion of the Public Hearing, and it was noted that it was not properly
noticed. On advice of the Town Counsel we are achieving the same goal,
which is getting changes before the citizens for vote. It is on the ballot for
April 15th for Town vote and is presented tonight as a courtesy to unravel
the events of February 4th. The Board of Selectman maintains a neutral
position on this and is just bringing it forward. (BM) Since Jim Pritchard is
the author, to whom are questions directed? Mr. Pritchard noted that he
would like some clarification from Mr. Kenison. Is it being brought forward
according to RSA 675.4, Citizen Petition or RSA 675.3, Planning Board on
BOS Petition? (LKe) noted that on the advice of Town Counsel, he was not
identifying which Statute is involved in this process. Mr. Pritchard urged
the Board to interpret RSA 675.3 – Submitted by Planning Board from the
BOS. (JL) noted that sponsored and proposed are two different entities and
it does not say sponsored. Mr. Pritchard related “No, but I believe Mr.
Kinison did. It is noted, “….it is now proposed by the Selectmen, in its
original form, for consideration at a special town meeting.” Mr. Kenison
noted that he would like to be clear on this matter in that the Board of
Selectman neither recommend/not recommend this. It is just the process by
which to move it forward. The Board of Selectman had no other option
since it missed being on the agenda on the 11th, so the next option was a
Special Town Meeting. (BM) noted that Planning Board can either
recommend/not recommend it.
Mr. Pritchard questioned, “What Statute are you using – 675.3 or 675.4 as
the process is quite different. (BM) noted that because the deadline was
missed, the Board of Selectmen elected to go by 675:3 rather than 675:4.
Gerard Leduc noted that after viewing the signatures on the Petition, it is
noted that Dan Greene signed it. He should abstain from any vote on this.
Mr. Pritchard noted, “He does not have to, as this is not a judicial process.”
(BM) related that he signed it as a citizen and not as a Planning Board
member. (DG) affirmed, “This is true.” (BM) related that the Board
members are volunteers. Any member of the public can recommend that
5
anyone recuse himself, but it is on the member himself and it cannot be
demanded. Mr. Leduc noted, “I am doing that.”
Ed Vien, Chairman of the Zoning Board, related. “Basically, from my point
of view, the document is confusing and misleading and is way too much. It
does not help us. Any revisions should have been developed slower. We
did not need a complete re-write of the Zoning Ordinances. This is my
personal opinion and perhaps, not the opinion of the Zoning Board.”
(BM) noted that he would like to ask Ralph Odell, Chairman of the Master
Plan to address the petition. The Zoning Ordinances should somehow reflect
the Master Plan. A new Master Plan is close to being adopted.
Ralph Odell, Chairman of Master Plan Committee, related that the Master
Plan is to look at growth. We are working on the last chapter now.
Speaking for myself, it is not our objective to make any recommendations.
It is our goal to look at growth.
(BM) stated, “The Master Plan is not finished yet but ties in with what the
Zoning Ordinances will eventually become. Mr. Pritchard related that he
had not commented yet on this, but it is hardly a surprise that the Zoning
Board is against it the way the Town has processed this amendment. It
cannot be adopted this year. “I spoke to Cara and she spoke to Mr.Kenison
about the posting.” (BM) related that we are discussing the petition and not
the Town Hall personnel. Mr. Pritchard noted, “This cannot be legally
adopted this year. This document should not be sent to Special Town
Meeting this year.” Town Administrator noted, “It is beyond his grasp to
withdraw it at this point.” Mr. Pritchard commented that it depends upon
which Statute you are using, if it is 675:4, it can be withdrawn. (BM) noted
that this must go to Special Town Meeting. Mr. Pritchard related that
according to what Statute this is being discussed under would dictate the
final form.
(DG) Motion to hear this under RSA 675:3 and approve the other two
matters on the agenda tonight.
(BM) requested he withdraw his Motion and Board vote on them separately.
We should start with the Floodplain and entertain a Motion on that and then
do the other two. (D G) noted, “I am basing my Motion on Public Input.
Everyone is for the Floodplain amendment.” (DG) Since there is no
6
Second, that kills it. (RH) wanted to know if it is possible to amend the
CNHRPC suggestion and to allow for a Waiver. (BM) noted there is a
Motion on floor to deal with amendments as a group, no Second. Motion
dies.
(RH) Motion to approve the Floodplain Ordinance to comply with the
Office of Energy Planning suggestion as recommended and amended.
(DG) Second. Carried 7-0.
On the recommendation of the CNHRPC on Site Plan Review Required:
(RH) Motion to recommend with modification that Planning Board can
grant a preliminary Site Plan Review with a Special Exception but as a
clarification, the ability to grant/waive exception to the Site Plan Review.
After discussion: Motion withdrawn. No Second.
(BM) reminded him that Board has to have another Public Hearing if we
change the Site Plan Review paragraph on new proposal. (RH) Withdraw
Motion with amendment.
(RH) Motion to amend Site Plan Review Required amendment to include
that the Planning Board still reserves right to grant exception according to
Site Plan Regulation, if requested. (FH) Second.
Discussion:
(CC) Isn’t it in essence what we have now? (RH) noted that Board can
waive it and can also request it. Take “shall” out. They can request us to
waive it. If we adopt this, people will be worried. (BM) Leon, if we adopt
this will Planning Board be giving away the ability to grant an exception?
(LKe) “I do not know.” (BM) “I do not understand why we are giving up
that right.” On Page 2 of the Site Plan Regs, a set of criteria is noted which
can be used for consideration for exception and does give us the right of
exception to the Site Plan Review. “Does the Board give up their right to
exception?” (RH) suggested that Board only come back for P ublic Hearing
if attorney says differently. (BM) noted if Board revises this in any way,
another Public Hearing is required of the amended form. “If we adopt this
and grant an exception, is it legally challengeable?” (FH) related that Board
should change it. We have given exceptions in the past. (CC) “I can see
NHRPC amendment is confusing and where special exception is granted by
7
Zoning Board, there is no responsibility by Zoning Board after granting it to
say to applicant that he has to have a Site Plan Review.” (BM) Planning
Board has to act on this and can grant special exception. (EV) “ZB has
granted one in past and applicant had to have a Site Plan Review. This
sends it to the Planning Board to decide either on a major or minor, or
waiving it.” He noted that every one is sent to the Planning Board and then
falls within the Planning Board Regs. If you want them all to be looked at it
may not be a bad idea. All would have to ask what the Planning Board
wants to do regarding a Site Plan Review (674:43). (CC) read RSA 674:43
to public. (RH) related that the wording of “shall” makes him a little
nervous and would just be a “language” change.
(RH) related he could withdraw his Motion. (FH) related that so many like
to go right by line or Town gets sued. I think it just should be in black and
white and we should not pull it back. (BM) suggested to leave Motion as
made and if passes, Board can have a second hearing.
Vote: Carried 4-3 (JL), (CC), and (DG).
(BM) related there will be a second Public Hearing on March 6th regarding
this amendment. (FH) suggested it be held at the Town Hall rather than at
school. Board agreed that this would be acceptable.
Regarding the Citizen Petition:
(DG) Motion to take the Citizen Petition off the ballot at the Special Town
Meeting per RSA 675:3. (CC) Second.
Discussion:
(RH) If we were to pass this Motion, it would leave the Town open to being
sued by Mr. Pritchard. Mr. Pritchard noted “I will not sue you in relation to
Dan’s motion. If the issue here is whether to put on the agenda at the
Special Town Meeting, I will not sue you.”
(CC) noted that the document is weighty, has not been reviewed, there are
other procedural pieces to it, and it has been rushed through. We are all up
for election in a few weeks; we probably should not act on it but push it
forward for the next Board, as it is a challenge. We should table it for now
and later we can change it. (RH) If we do not do it, it will come back as a
8
Citizen Petition. Jim Pritchard noted, “The process will begin over again.”
(BM) noted that this petition has been brought to the Town by 25 citizens,
can one person delete it? The Planning Board should not recommend
passage; we should not negate. (DG) related that it is within our ability to
do this. (BM) related that this is a jurisdictional issue. (JL) requested Town
Administrator’s input. (LKe) None. (BM) The question is can the
Planning Board tell the Board of Selectman not to bring this petition to the
Town Meeting?
It was reiterated that (DG) has brought Motion that Pursuant to RSA 675:3,
that the Planning Board delete the Citizens Zoning Ordinance Petition from
the ballot at Special Town Meeting and has been seconded by (CC).
Vote: Carried 4-2 (FH) and (RH). (BM) Abstains.
Board further discussed the CNHRPC amendment.
MEMBERS CONCERNS:
(CC) questioned whether there was some kind of list that could be generated
to indicate the various Planning Board applications and the PB decisions.
(BM) noted if you would like a detailed list of what Planning Board did, you
could go through the Minutes. (DG) questioned what the cost of another
hearing would involve? (BM) indicated that mainly it would be notification
in the newspaper of the meeting. (LKe) noted it is about 1 ½ weeks wor th of
work.
BOARD OF SELECTMAN REPORT
None.
PUBLIC INPUT
Donna Keeley noted that (CC) had a good point. It makes sense to do
something like that if even for a year to determine the types of applications
the Planning Board had and it would not be difficult to track.
(BM) noted along those lines, he recently presented a short commentary that
will be included in the Town Report.
9
Larry Konopka noted that the Planning Board does not have the right to alter
citizen petitions. Only two people have requested that the process be
stopped and this concerns me. At least 25 people have signed it, apparently
they had a reason for signing it and they have not been heard. (BM) noted
that there is a hearing on March 6th. Mr. Konopka questioned whether they
could table it till that time. (BM) related that this was taken to a vote. Mr.
Konopka suggested it might be wise to seek legal advice and take it to
second public hearing.
(RH) noted the Board could rescind vote on (DG)’s Motion. Mr. Pritchard
noted, “On what grounds? You can’t do that. There is evidence here for an
error.” (DG) reminded Mr. Konopka that it is a different process now and
not as a citizen petition. Mr. Konopka related that they could a legal opinion
on this. Mr. Pritchard related, “They do not have to get legal advice. It is
now under RSA 675:3 and they can do whatever they want. The grievance
is when Mr. Kenison failed to buy advertisement for this.” (BM) related that
according to 675:3, the Planning Board can change content, but cannot take
it off the agenda. By taking it of the agenda for Special Town Meeting, the
Board may have made an error here. (RH) noted we can correct this, and
rescind that vote. Mr. Konopka related that he strongly urged that Board
continue this matter to a second Public Hearing and seek legal advice. Mr.
Pritchard noted, “You have to vote to determine final form tonight.”
(BM) related Board voted to undo what BOS did. (RH) What we should do
is rescind the vote, take it off the April 15th meeting, and alter text of the
Citizen Petition Zoning Ordinance to contain NO wording.
(RH) Motion to rescind (DG)’s Motion to take off of agenda for Special
Town Meeting. (FH) Second. Carried 4-3 (DG), (CC), and (JL).
(RH) Motion to delete in entirety the text of the Citizen Petition proposed
by Board of Selectmen and vote not to recommend amended form. (FH)
Second.
Mr. Pritchard related that the next thing the Board has to do is determine
how to change it.
(RH) Withdraw Motion. (FH) Withdraw Second.
10
Board further discussed various pros and cons of deleting text, the rights of
citizens who signed petition of having it on the ballot, whether to
recommend/not recommend, and allowing voters to decide on Petition at
Special Town Meeting.
(DG) Motion to delete text in entirety on Citizen Petition of Proposed
Zoning Ordinances amendments as proposed by Board of Selectman. (CC)
Second. Motion fails 2-5 (PM), (JL), (RH), (BM), and (FH).
(RH) Motion to send Citizen Petition Zoning Ordinance amendments
proposal by Board of Selectman to Special Town Meeting as written. (JL)
Second.
Discussion:
(EV) noted that (DG) made the statement that Zoning Board did not approve
of this petition. I would like to note that is just my personal opinion.
Board discussed several reasons why they would not vote for Petition and
reasons not to send to Special Town Meeting.
(RH) related that Board should vote not to recommend it.
Vote: Carried 5-2 (DG) and (CC).
(RH) Motion Planning Board Not Recommend Citizen Petition of Zoning
Ordinance Amendments. (PM) Second. Carried 4-0. (DG), (CC), and
(BM) abstain.
(BM) noted this would not carry the recommendation of Planning Board.
(RH) Motion Planning Board Recommend Floodplain Ordinance.
(FH) Second. Carried 7-0.
(BM) related that Public Hearing on March 6th would deal with the
CNHRPC suggested revision to Site Plan Review Requested.
11
ADJOURNMENT
(DG) Motion to adjourn. (CC) Second. Carried 7 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
Approved: March 6, 2008
_________________________________ ____________________
Bill Miskoe, Vice-Chairman Date