February 4, 2013 Minutes Public Hearing: Citizen’s Petitions

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

DATE: Monday, February 4, 2013

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:01 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Planning board members present:
Clayton Wood (CW), planning board member and chair;
Pat Heffernan (PH), planning board member and vice-chair;
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary; and
Gerard LeDuc (GL), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member;
Peter Dow (PD), alternate planning board member; and
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate planning board member.

Other town officials present: Several town officials were present at tonight’s meeting, but all were present as members of a large public.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board:
Stan Bailey, 395 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH.
Romeo Dubreuil, 59 Johnson Road, Pittsfield NH.
Carol Lambert, 83 Governor’s Road, Pittsfield, NH.
Ted Mitchell, 77 Dowboro Road, Pittsfield, NH.
Helen Schoppmeyer, 419 Dowboro Road, Pittsfield, NH.
Dan Schroth, 295 Clough Road, Pittsfield, NH.
Matthew St. George, 101 True Road, Pittsfield, NH.
Jacob Zoeller, 29 Will Smith Road, Pittsfield, NH.

“Members of the public appearing before the planning board” includes only members of the public who spoke to the board. It does not include members of the public who were present but who did not speak to the board.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Public Hearing: Citizen Petition – Are you in favor of the repeal of the Pittsfield Zoning Ordinances as proposed by petition of the voters of this Town? (Repeal proposal is on file for public inspection at the Town Hall.)

CW said that the order of the public hearings is the order in which the petitions will be on the town meeting ballot.

CW said that he would ask whether any member of the audience would like to speak as lead petitioner and answer brief questions. After the person speaking as lead petitioner finishes, CW will open the hearing to public input. At that point, questions should go through the chair.

CW read the repeal petition and asked whether anyone would like to speak as lead petitioner.

Dan Schroth said that he would speak as lead petitioner. Dan Schroth said that the town badly needs to repeal zoning. Think globally, act locally. Dan Schroth had researched Pittsfield history. Dan Schroth circulated to the audience pictures of old gasoline filling stations. Dan Schroth remembers Pittsfield before zoning. Zoning was not necessary to make the buildings look as they did, and, when buildings got old, people demolished the buildings. The town does not need zoning to make that choice.

Dan Schroth said that the town had had zoning for only 25 years and had had no zoning for 200 years before that. Zoning does not have to be forever. The zoning ordinance should have been sunsetted.

Dan Schroth circulated to the audience two letters that he had sent to the Suncook Valley Sun and that the Suncook Valley Sun had rejected.

Dan Schroth said that many people had had requests denied because of zoning. Dreams have died. Sol Buatti was denied an ice cream shop because of parking concerns. That was 10 years ago, but there was a recent letter in the Suncook Valley Sun objecting to Stagecoach Station, and there is a petition to get rid of zoning on class VI highways. Nothing has changed.

Dan Schroth referred to the brown book of state statutes. The book is big. Americans are turning into sheep because so much is written down. No choices remain.

Dan Schroth showed a picture of people in 1930 outside the building that is now the town hall. These people did not have to ask permission to light a fire or to start a business or to sell a car.

Dan Schroth cited Life on Tilton Hill, by Porter C. True in 1820.

Dan Schroth cited a book from 1930 showing old factories. These people did not need zoning to tell them to demolish their buildings.

Dan Schroth said that the future generation will have nothing.

Dan Schroth cited the New Hampshire Constitution, Article 38. Dan Schroth read from this article. The planning board should be dedicated to justice to preserve liberty and good government. No one comes to the planning board because the board would say “no.” People have no choices.

Dan Schroth showed a large sign saying “Liberate Pittsfield” and showing a person gagged and bound to a chair.

For supplemental income, Dan Schroth had started cutting wood and building stone walls from stones that he excavated from his land. He built 210 stone walls. Then the tornado came, and he made tornado-wood furniture for three years. One of his log benches is in a museum in New London, CT. He built 106 benches and sold 50. Now Dan Schroth sells eggs, and he is considering selling used cars. Zoning does not work for Dan Schroth. He could have a store front on Ebay and sell worldwide. The U.S. borrowed $3 billion today. Work is drying up. Labor is going down. Only half, or less than half, of the people have a real job. Years ago, everyone worked. Dan Schroth wants to repeal zoning to give the people back their choices. Dan Schroth is helping someone to turn a junkyard into a pig farm. Dan Schroth is helping someone else with alternative energy. Dan Schroth is not asking for permission. Dan Schroth will petition to repeal zoning every year until he succeeds.

Dan Schroth asked whether the audience knows what $1 trillion is. $10,000 is 1/2 inch of $100 bills. $1 million is a suitcase full of $100 bills. $1 trillion is a football field 12 feet deep of $100 bills.

Dan Schroth said that the planning board should help people. The state does not want to have to obey local land-use regulations. The people can say “no.” Dan Schroth has rotting benches that he will replace with cars. Dan Schroth will ignore code enforcement. Zoning just makes people hide their stuff. The government should start paying money back.

Dan Schroth said that zoning causes climate change because zoning makes people use cars.

Dan Schroth said that he had apologized to AHG’s lawyer at the selectmen’s meeting of January 15, 2013. AHG should not invest in Pittsfield.

Dan Schroth said that Pittsfield has a high tax rate. The town should have freedoms.

Dan Schroth said that his stone-wall business is petering out because rocks are getting scarce after 26 years. He will do something else, maybe sell used cars and used tires.

Dan Schroth said that the town did not have the Internet when the town adopted zoning.

CW asked whether the audience had questions for Dan Schroth.

Ted Mitchell said that he is against repealing the zoning ordinance.

Helen Schoppmeyer said that she is against repealing the zoning ordinance.

Jacob Zoeller asked whether repealing the zoning ordinance would eliminate the zoning board of adjustment.

JP said yes.

Jacob Zoeller asked why this hearing is happening before the planning board instead of before the zoning board of adjustment.

CW said that this hearing is happening before the planning board because state law requires all zoning amendments to go through the planning board. (RSA 675:2, II.) CW explained that a town must have a zoning board of adjustment if the town has a zoning ordinance. (RSA 673:1, IV.) The zoning ordinance governs land use town wide. The planning board did not create the zoning ordinance; the town meeting created the zoning ordinance, and the town meeting can change the zoning ordinance. Towns with effective zoning ordinances change their zoning ordinances frequently. The town has more power with the zoning ordinance than without it. If the zoning ordinance were repealed, then the planning board would still exist, would still have the power to approve or disapprove subdivisions and site plans, and would still create its own subdivision regulations and site plan review regulations, but the planning board would have no guidance from the zoning ordinance. The only input that town voters would have to planning board regulations would be to change planning board personnel via town elections.

Jacob Zoeller asked whether the planning board could be abolished after and if the zoning ordinance were repealed.

CW said yes.

Matt St. George asked whether the planning board fell under state laws different from zoning.

CW said yes. If the zoning ordinance were repealed, then the zoning board of adjustment would cease to exist, but the planning board would continue.

Dan Schroth said that repealing zoning would eliminate many stupid laws. The town would operate the same without zoning.

Stan Bailey said that he is against repealing zoning. He does not want a strip club, saw mill, or piggery next to him. Without zoning, things like that could happen. Such protection is the reason for zoning. Zoning separates uses appropriately.

Helen Schoppmeyer said that zoning protects property values in residential neighborhoods. The variance process is available for reasonable exceptions that will not hurt the neighborhood. Zoning is protection.

CW closed public input at 7:28 PM.

CW moved to recommend for adoption the citizen petition to repeal the zoning ordinance.

GL seconded the motion.

PH said that Dan Schroth had shown pictures of beautiful old buildings before zoning. Now those buildings are apartment buildings. The creation of those apartment buildings attracted overflow from Concord and Manchester, and now Pittsfield has a welfare problem. These are not people who lost their jobs; they are second and third generation welfare recipients. If the town had not adopted zoning, then the town would have even more apartments and welfare recipients. This problem is expensive.

PH disagreed with Dan Schroth’s claim that the planning board and zoning board of adjustment stifle growth in town. Since PH has been on the planning board, the board has approved a business in the box shop, and the label company bought a company. The planning board helped Barry Podmore expand. The planning board helped Wayne Summerford get financing. The retail shops have more customers because of these businesses that the planning board helped. Kentek will renovate a building in town. These improved properties will generate more taxes. If someone wanted to have a junkyard next to PH, then the land use boards might be an obstacle because PH would object, but the town does need some rules. PH does not like more rules than are necessary, but repealing zoning would not be a good idea.

JP agreed with PH and said that he had nothing to add.

CW said that many people in town do not understand what the planning board does. The planning board only regulates businesses and subdivisions. Much of what the planning board does is by command of the zoning ordinance. CW wants the town to have more confidence in the planning board so that the board can propose regulations that will serve the town better. Downtown parking is a problem when the board is trying to help a new business establish itself. Other towns frequently change their zoning ordinances to correct mistakes and to adapt. Sometimes people build something that fails, and then some of these people ask for help or a bailout from the selectmen. The town has helped some of these people. The town must recognize that it controls its own destiny.

JP asked for confirmation that a “yes” vote on CW’s motion means to recommend the repeal petition for adoption.

CW said yes.

Vote to recommend the repeal petition for adoption: failed 0 – 4 – 0. (Voting “yes”: none. Voting “no”: JP, PH, GL, and CW. Abstaining: none.)

JP moved the board not to recommend the repeal petition for adoption.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote not to recommend the repeal petition for adoption: carried 3 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: GL.)

AGENDA ITEM 4: Public Hearing: Citizen Petition – Are you in favor of an amendment to the Town Zoning Ordinances that defines the road frontage required for subdivision, but not for building on an existing lot, as frontage on any paved or dirt road that the town or state maintains. The purposes of the amendment are (1) to ensure that fire trucks, ambulances, and police cars can reach new development and (2) to make the developer instead of taxpayers pay for the road improvements that the new development will make necessary. (See the amendment itself for its full text.)

CW read the amendment petition and asked whether anyone would like to speak as lead petitioner.

Ted Mitchell said that he would speak as lead petitioner. Ted Mitchell distributed an outline of his presentation. His presentation followed the outline closely:

1. Same frontage definition as proposed last year by planning board.

2. Why support this proposal?

· Ensure safety of fire trucks, ambulances, police cars when responding to emergency.

· Ensure safety of emergency personnel.

· Make the developer NOT TAXPAYERS pay for road improvements that new development makes necessary.

3. Example of why this frontage definition makes EVEN more sense: STAGECOACH STATION – AHG

· Selectmen applied to the State DOT for a driveway permit for THIS PRIVATE DEVELOPER.

· AHG has NOT been assessed market-value taxes on a lot they cleared as a house lot (way back in 2006). Who pays AHG’s share of market-value taxes? THE REST OF US TAXPAYERS! Who allowed this to happen? THE SELECTMEN!

· What does this prior experience say will happen due to allowing AHG to develop on a class VI road?

THE TOWN WILL ULTIMATELY PAY THE BURDEN!

4. Stagecoach Station – AHG is the poster child for why class V frontage definition is VITAL.

5. By allowing substantial development on class VI roads, the town is RESPONSIBLE for ANY burden that the Town itself caused.

6. Because “frontage” is not defined as class V, the planning and zoning boards can’t distinguish between a 2-lot subdivision and a 12-lot subdivision–like Stagecoach Station.

7. Planning and zoning boards from 1988 until 2003 understood that “Frontage” meant class V roads. ZBA had the power to distinguish large subdivisions from small subdivisions.

8. The citizen petition isn’t changing Pittsfield zoning as much as it is restoring zoning to a process that worked, until the town attorney interfered in 2003 BY NOT taking into account the precedent Pittsfield had already set with its prior decisions.

9. People living on a class VI road want to be allowed to subdivide.

· Without approval by the board of selectmen, they can’t. That’s because the state DOES NOT give them that right.

· So, when they say this frontage definition takes away the right, it doesn’t.

10. Class VI road residents say this definition will decrease their property value, IT WON’T.

· Their property values have already been decreased JUST BY THEM LIVING ON A CLASS VI ROAD.

· Their property values are assessed, approximately 15% lower than others on class V roads.

· An unsubdividable class VI property is not worth less than a subdividable class VI property. Compare the excess acreage values of the Miskoe and Forst properties. Both are $1480 per excess acre.

· Tax records show this.

11. I strongly urge the planning board to, again this year, support this frontage definition.

Ted Mitchell said that, at the last meeting of the budget committee, the police chief had asked the town to buy a four-wheel-drive vehicle so that the police can respond to emergencies on class VI highways.

Ted Mitchell explained that the Miskoe tax card says that the homesite assessment is not less than 100% of the base value because the nice view of Eaton Pond offsets the negative impact of the bad access. So the Miskoe property assessment is reduced because of the class VI highway.

Matt St. George asked where Ted Mitchell had found the 15% difference in property assessment.

Ted Mitchell said that he had found the difference in the tax cards.

Matt St. George said that his taxes are just over $5000 per year. Matt St. George said that the frontage amendment, if adopted, would make him have to seek a variance if he wanted to subdivide. The zoning board of adjustment might deny the variance. Matt St. George said that he might have to pave his road in order to subdivide for his children. The frontage amendment will hurt the smaller property owners. Matt St. George said that the town had voted five times against this or a similar proposal during the past 10 years. The planning board should not recommend this proposal that the town has rejected repeatedly. Matt St. George said that the town already has two four-wheel-drive vehicles, and the police need them not just for class VI highways. Matt St. George said that he is personally invested in Pittsfield and that this frontage definition does not work.

CW asked for confirmation that the 15% assessment difference came from tax cards.

Ted Mitchell said yes. Ted Mitchell said that this amendment should go before the town again because there had been much confusion last year. The recount showed that 75 people who voted for town officers did not vote on any of the zoning amendments.

Helen Schoppmeyer said that class VI highways are dirt or paved highways that the town does not maintain. Class V highways are highways that the town does maintain. Helen Schoppmeyer has sold real estate in the Pittsfield area for 40 years. Class VI properties sell for much less than class V properties, and the difference is because of the lack of road maintenance. These people should not expect the town to take responsibility for road maintenance, but they sometimes do nonetheless. When enough people live on some class VI highway, they can petition the town to provide maintenance, because these people pay taxes too. Because of this potential for town responsibility, the town historically never allowed subdivision on class VI highways. The selectmen would allow building on an existing lot if the property were close to a class V highway. Helen Schoppmeyer thought that the town had not voted on this definition five times before.

Matt St. George asked JP to correct Helen Schoppmeyer.

JP said that he could not correct Helen Schoppmeyer because he did not have the information and because the question of town voting on frontage was more complicated than Matt St. George was saying.

Helen Schoppmeyer said that the planning board should approve the frontage petition.

Romeo Dubreuil said that the town should realize that the federal No Child Left Behind Act could force the town to upgrade a class VI highway where a school child lives. Romeo Dubreuil had asked the selectmen for a class VI building-policy statement, and the selectmen did not seem to have one. Romeo Dubreuil said that the frontage proposal should be clear about what development would or would not be allowed. Last year’s proposal was confusing.

Stan Bailey said that he pays a little over $5000 for his house on three acres, whereas Matt St. George also pays a little over $5000 for his house on 11 acres. Stan Bailey said that he did not know whether class VI properties are assessed less. Stan Bailey confirmed what Ted Mitchell had said: the police chief said that the police need a four-wheel-drive vehicle for class VI highways. Most highways in town are passable by two-wheel-drive vehicles. The fire department is in the same situation as the police. Rocky Point Road is a very bad road. Stan Bailey said that he had been aware of the potential impact of No Child Left Behind. Stan Bailey is against more development on class VI highways.

Dan Schroth is against the frontage petition because it will take away choices. Dan Schroth has a four-wheel-drive vehicle. Need for a four-wheel-drive vehicle has nothing to do with class VI highways.

Matt St. George said that a class VI highway is no different from a driveway. Will the town limit the length of driveways?

Helen Schoppmeyer said that Matt St. George would probably not create more than two lots from his property, but not having the frontage definition opens the door to a 13-lot subdivision on a driveway if driveways are comparable to class VI highways. If a handicapped child lives on that driveway, then the town must pave it, and the taxpayers must pay for the paving. This is not fair. The developer should pay for the improvement.

Matt St. George said that the town should focus on solving the problem of No Child Left Behind.

Helen Schoppmeyer said that handicapped children are involved too and that these laws are federal.

Jacob Zoeller asked about distinguishing smaller developments from larger developments.

Ted Mitchell said that the law does not allow the town to distinguish between large landowners and small landowners.

Jacob Zoeller asked how the frontage definition helps the town to distinguish between large and small developments.

Ted Mitchell said that the frontage definition would send such projects to the zoning board of adjustment. The zoning board of adjustment is very lenient and will approve reasonable projects. The petition will help to remove the potential to favor some people and not others.

Dan Schroth said that no new developers will be coming to Pittsfield. Taxes are too high. The zoning board of adjustment is untrustworthy.

Carol Lambert said that she favors the petition. It will remove ambiguity from the zoning ordinance.

CW closed public input at 8:17 PM.

CW moved to recommend for adoption the citizen petition to amend the zoning ordinance with a definition of “frontage.”

PH seconded the motion.

PH said that he had opposed this definition last year. Since then, PH has thought much about this issue because of Stagecoach Station. The driveway permit and whether the town can or cannot permit AHG to work on Thompson Road are unresolved controversies. When the project first returned last May for final approval, everyone thought that approval would be straightforward, but people started finding one problem after another. PH is sympathetic to giving Matt St. George, George Bachelder, or Larry Konopka a lot or two for their children, and they should be able to do that. But if they have to go to one more board in order for the town to avoid the problem in South Pittsfield, then PH will have to support the petition. But whether the planning board supports the petition or not, the town will have the final say. The town’s regulation on frontage should be black and white, but it is very ambiguous. The regulation should be clear. PH said that he now supports this petition.

JP said that he had little to add to what PH had said. JP read from New Hampshire Practice, third edition, page 414, saying that the class VI waiver (RSA 674:41, I, (c), (2)) “is not designed to afford a broad immunity for the municipality.” (New Hampshire Practice cites Vachon v. New Durham, 131 N.H. 623, 557 A.2d 649 (1989).) JP said that he lives on a class V dirt road and drives a two-wheel-drive car. JP will not go on any class VI highway in the winter because class VI highways are worse than class V highways.

GL said that he had not supported this definition last year. GL has since done much soul-searching, and again he will not support it this year.

CW said that people had told him to check to see what other towns do. CW found that most other towns restrict development on class VI highways. Then people told him to check the master plan. The master plan is concerned that the town has no class VI development policy. CW tried to interest the selectmen in working with the planning board on a class VI development policy. Owners on class VI highways should know what their rights are. If this amendment passes, then that passage will pressure the selectmen to develop a class VI development policy. The state web sites have much information on class VI development policy, and none of these web sites recommends permitting subdivision on class VI highways. If this petition passes, then people wanting to subdivide on class VI highways will have to go to the zoning board of adjustment, but many people already have to go to the zoning board of adjustment. The zoning ordinance is not perfect, but improving the ordinance is difficult when such an important part is ambiguous.

CW said that he had consistently supported a class V or better subdivision frontage definition. CW supported this definition last year, and he will support it again this year.

Vote to recommend for adoption the citizen petition to amend the zoning ordinance with a definition of “frontage”: carried 3 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, and CW. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 6: Adjournment

The agenda had items 4 and 6 but not 5.

JP moved to adjourn the meeting.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of February 4, 2013: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of February 4, 2013, is adjourned at 8:29 P.M.

Minutes approved: February 7, 2013

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on February 5, 2013, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on February 4, 2013, and from a copy of the one Town tape that Chairman Clayton Wood made on February 5, 2013.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary

one Town tape.