February 4, 2010 Minutes

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2010

ITEM 1. Call to Order

Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Acting Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Bill Miskoe (BM), Acting Chairman, Larry Konopka (LK), Selectman Ex Officio, Dan Schroth (DS), Jim Pritchard (JP), Dan Green (DG), Ted Mitchell (TM), Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate, and Dina Condodemetraky (DC), Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Richard Hunsberger (RH)

Alternate (CW) asked to sit at table for meeting.
Hank Fitzgerald (HF), Alternate also present.

ITEM 3. Agenda Review

Open invitation given to add items into agenda.

(DS) suggested upcoming Zoning Proposition as a topic; accepted to be discussed during Members Concerns; (DG) CIP concerns; (BM) Budget Committee has asked PB to get the CIP’s started.

Ralph Odell responded that he will head up the CIP sub-group, and will be meeting late spring early summer to give info to Budget Committee in the fall. Spaces available for Members, any interested parties should approach Ralph Odell.

(JP) Master Plan Review (MP) should come after the Federhen/Stiles hearing since MP review might be a lengthy discussion.
Leslie Federhen, applicant, was awaiting their surveyor but appreciated the consideration.

(BM) noted that on Item 6, there will not be a Public Hearing tonight. Notification process failed with a typographic error caused by the newspaper. Also, for this issue, no public hearing is required. Applicants agreed to not have to wait for re-notification so discussion will be held tonight instead of public hearing. (LK) The Town has an ordinance that states that a Public Hearing must be held although the State authority may say it is not necessary.

(JP) questioned the statutory authority. This is a movement of a boundary line. Matt Monahan (MM), RSA 676:4 I subparagraph e.: It is not needed unless it is spelled out in Regs which it is in Section 5 subparagraph 4.
(BM) The applicants were approached, Abutters were contacted, no one has objected to having the discussion tonight. (DS) noted he has been part of a Lot Line Adjustment without a public hearing in the past.

Topic left to follow the agenda. Further discussion held on Item 6.

ITEM 4. Approval of January 7, 2010 Minutes

(LK) Motion to approve Minutes as written. (CW) Seconded.

Discussion: (JP) suggested amending top of Pg. 4 at end of paragraph to add: “(BM) announced that he had researched whether board members who signed the petition were disqualified. (BM) said that signing the petition did not disqualify any board member.”

(DG) suggested a strike of derogatory remarks against (JP) in the Discussion Paragraph on Pg. 6

(LK) withdrew Motion to approve; (CW) withdrew Second.
(TM) Seconded.

(BM) moved to approve the minutes with revisions suggested by (JP) and deletion suggested by (DG). Seconded by (TM). Vote: 5-0 carried. (JP) and (DS) Abstain.

There was a side discussion held on whether minutes need to be verbatim or not. (HF) Read RSA that Minutes do not have to be verbatim.

ITEM 5. Public Hearing – Master Plan Review (MP)

Opened hearing at 7:15pm

A draft copy of MP has been submitted to the Board for review. Board must decide to accept or not. Acceptance is the desired outcome. Further discussion is required.

Ralph Odell presented an overview:

Master Plan is mandated by RSA to cover certain issues:

• Demographics: People in early 20 and 30s are moving out of the area and returning in their 50s. School system is getting less pressure.
• Education: A rather high percentage not completing high school.
• Income: Is below median average in County and State.
• Aesthetics: A higher percentage of rentals in area; lots of rich history in buildings and downtown; wildlife presence.
• Transportation: Pittsfield is shaped with limited space along Route 28. Lots of rural area. Alternative transportation – hard to find a clear-cut plan for that here.
• Fire Department, Police Department, and Public Works: All have need for increase in viable methods of communication to and from community; other departments.
• Waste Water Treatment and Solid Waste Disposal: Both have growth potential up to year 2025 with respect to expected growth in the area.
• School System: The years 2006-2009 have seen a decrease in enrollment – stable in 2010. Inefficiency is due to its small size. Smaller schools have lower teacher salaries. Teachers are being attracted away.
• Tax Rate: Pittsfield does not have the taxable property that neighboring towns have so tax rates here are higher.
• Resources for Hiking, Walking, Kayaking, and Boating: Historic views are present here.
• Business: The number of businesses has declined over the years here.
• Types of Employment Opportunities: They are here but it is a matter of matching those opportunities with people in the area.
• Summary: There are many qualities about the Community that can be utilized and built upon.

(BM) Opened hearing for Public Input at 7:29pm

Susan Munszinger wanted to recognize the four people of the MP Committee. They gave three (3) years of service, and rigorous commitment. They should be applauded. It my hope that the Plan is adopted and implemented. There should be a formal Planning Board discussion on record before the adoption to provide stronger validity.

John? – Seconds Susan’s statement and asked for a round of applause. A rousing round was given.

(BM) Board should decide whether to hold a discussion tonight or not.
(DS), PB rep to Master Plan, asks that everyone go home and review it thoroughly first then give it to Matt Monahan and Board of Selectmen for their input on how to implement the ideas so discussion can be productive.
(BM) Zoning Ordinance is one of the means that helps implement the MP. The MP is a guide on how the town should act in the next 15 years.

(DS) moved to continue the Public Hearing to further discuss the MP until February 18, 2010 meeting. Vote: carried 7-0 in favor to continue.

(HF) added that the MP is a non-ordinance item. Public hearing is only to discuss it. Vote must be in full view of public.

ITEM 6. An application for a Boundary Line Adjustment filed by William H. Stiles and John V. Learson, 278 Shaw Road, Pittsfield,
NH 03263 and the Leslie M. Federhen Trust, 18 Range Road, Pittsfield,
NH 03263 (Tax Map R-3, Lot 3 and Tax Map R-2, Lot 6.) These properties are owned by said individuals and both properties are located in the RURAL Zone. Paul Darbyshire, Surveyor, was present

Notice of public hearing was defective but abutters were noticed. The name of the Leslie M. Federhen Trust was inadvertently omitted by the newspaper from the published notice.

(JP) questioned if the notice was defective or not? (BM) The abutters were notified and the notice was placed in the Post Office and Town Hall.
(LK) There is a chance that the discussion could be challenged with improper notice. This could fall into litigation at a later time. We cannot go forward. (JP) agrees. (BM) They can appeal in 30 days if there is a question after holding the hearing today. (TM) The paper should run the ad again free of charge for their mistake. Don’t want to charge the applicant further cost.

(MM) The Town sent out notice properly, but the Newspaper omitted the information in the middle. Are we opening ourselves to a challenge? Although RSA states any aggrieved party can appeal to the Supreme Court, he suggested waiting until February 18th. (MM) A corrected advertisement could go to the Concord Monitor as soon as Tuesday. Applicants called to present.

(HF) suggested that if re-advertising, a separate notice be put up in addition at Town hall and Post Office that due to a clerical error, the hearing was rescheduled for XX date. (DS) Who might challenge? This is wasted energy due to a missing sentence. (There was one abutter present tonight.)

(BM) We must do this right. He apologized for error in thinking that the discussion could still be held tonight despite the newspaper’s typographical error and will reschedule on Feb 18th Agenda with proper notice and corrected date posted at Town and Post offices.

Matt Monahan (MM) noted he will work on it personally to make sure that it is properly noticed in a timely fashion since office administrators don’t work on Fridays.

Paul Darbyshire: Can we hear it, and then continue public hearing to after it is properly noticed? (BM) We cannot continue a Public Hearing that we cannot open. (LK) In addition, Application was not reviewed by Building Inspector, (MM) or Dee prior to tonight. A strict process must be solidified. Discussion ended 7:56 P.M.

ITEM 7. New Business

a. Bailey Park Subdivision: Articles of Agreement and Declaration of Covenants

Bailey Park Subdivision approved by this Board 4 years ago as a Cluster Subdivision. Articles submitted for review.

(BM) noted he had some difficulties that attorney Laura Spector has responded to via email. (JP) asked to comment why open space restriction should be submitted to PB for approval. ZBA has jurisdiction on open space for cluster development. Subdivision was approved four years ago. How does the PB have to discuss this now? After research, he found there were no open space restrictions, in fact, on this property. Town Attorney offered to assist, but it is unclear if that is allowable or not. Approval was conditional in 2006 but the actual restrictions never materialized so is approval valid at all? There are occupants living in the subdivision already. What role does the PB have to play in this?

(BM) Laura Spector replied via E-mail asking that PB determine if initial provisions have been met. Will the Board vote to approve the documents?
Kyle Parker (KP) noted he was unaware that this was an older issue when he reviewed it. He is willing to take a second look now.

(JP) In spite of Ms. Spector’s response, noted he still does not understand how PB has jurisdiction here. How do we make this fair for the abutters since it was originally discussed in May of 2005? He asked Cara Marston to distribute minutes from ZBA and Notice of Decision for this discussion.

(BK) asked if the recorded plat had the restrictions noted on them. (JP) had not gotten to that yet in his research, but someone does have to check.
(HF) When conditional approval is granted by Board, it can be put on Mylar and be recorded, but approval is not final until all conditions are met.

(DG) read from Subdivision Regs and stated: “There needs to be a clarification in the Regs first.” (LK) asked that (KP), Building Inspector and (JP) research this further and present a report for review at March 4th meeting. They accepted the request.

(BM) Board is not ready to approve at this time. We should not comment on Zoning Board yet. (JP) agreed.

ITEM 8. Selectman’s Report – Larry Konopka, Selectman Ex Officio

• Petition received to place a five (5) person Planning Board election on the Ballot
• Request that (MM’s) discussion on Rules and Procedure be heard at 7:15 P.M. on February 18, 2010.
• Rules and procedures should have a set format and we should be embarrassed by the way the discussion went on the Federhen topic. Board members should have all the information in advance of Monday before the meeting. That is not adequate time. The administrators and Board must follow process to avoid unnecessary fumbles during the meetings.

(MM) reviewed the set-up of the memo he submitted (not the contents) to show the structure and sought questions. Further discussion scheduled for February 18th meeting.

ITEM 9. Building Inspector Report

• Nothing new to add but wants to back-up Larry that he is there to be a part of the application process and should be utilized.

(JP) Neither administrator is in office on Fridays so there is no one in the office to handle the required administrative process in a timely manner.
(DG) A bin should be placed in the office for applications, which should not be touched by anyone until Building Inspector checks off all points.

ITEM 10. Members Concerns

(DS) suggested that the PB really read the Master Plan. (CW) The MP should be a topic for one meeting to pick it apart, then make a list and prioritize at least five items. Then it should go back to MP Committee with plans for implementation.

(MM) agreed with this plan. He is impressed by PB interest to take this tack. He spoke briefly on Spot Zoning stating Laughlin supports that Spot Zoning is a singling out of a specific parcel of land to the detriment of other owners. It must be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. It can be made for public safety. If there is a compelling need for it, it can be allowed. Does the community (Town) have an interest? It can be a political decision.
(LK) Even if we approve the MP, it is not law, just a guide.
(JP) Town should be more proactive in getting the information out to the Town members. They need to be more efficiently pulled into the process to get information on how it will affect them.

ITEM 11. Public Input

None

ITEM 12. Adjournment

(BM) Motion to adjourn meeting. (TM) Seconded. Carried 6-0 unanimous in favor.

Meeting adjourned at 9:08 P.M.

Approved: February 18, 2010

__________________________ _________________________
Bill Miskoe, Acting Chairman Date

II Tapes