FEBRUARY 5, 2009 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2009

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Gerard Leduc (GL), Acting Chairman, Marilyn Roberts (MR), Acting Vice-Chairman, Fred Hast (FH), Selectman Ex Officio, Daniel Greene (DG), Bill Miskoe (BM), Dan Schroth (DS), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger, (RH), Chairman, Robert Elliott (RE), and Tom Hitchcock (TH), Alternate.

(BM) I was under the impression that Bob Elliott has resigned. How many meetings has he missed? Larry Konopka (LK) told me that he has resigned. (LK) I was told that he was resigning. (BM) Since he has missed so many meetings, he should be asked to resign from Board. “Let’s get people not here regularly off the Board.”

ITEM 3. Conceptual – Amenico – Site Plan Review

Kyle Parker introduced Scott Spradling as representative from Amenico.

Mr. Spradling formally introduced himself to the Board as a representative from Amenico. (BM) This is a conceptual hearing and is not binding.

Mr. Spradling related that they have now formally closed on the purchase of the building and are getting ready to collect used vegetable oil though they are not fully operational. He explained Amenico’s plans of operation, benefits for Pittsfield and customer benefits. (See attached.) He related that they would be collecting, storing and filtering the vegetable oil for which they will require storage tanks. The end product is biodegradable and has no environmental impact.

(BM) questioned that they are talking about being up and running soon, “Do you expect to be doing a Site Plan Review for this building before this Board? You have changed the use of the building and should be here for a Site Plan Review.” Do not get ahead of us. It is typical that someone buys property, changes its use, and before you get up and running should present this to Board.

(DS) “Welcome to Pittsfield. The Town needs your business. The Planning Board wants to see your Site Plan Review before you put your business plans into effect. The Department Heads need to sign off on it.” Mr. Spradling noted that the Fire Chief has been through the building and checked the equipment and provided us with a list of changes. (DS) “Satisfying the Department Heads is a good place to start.”

(MR) I have a question about the trucks. “Where do you predict that the trucks will be going onto Route 28? The reason I ask is due to a problem with the bridge right near that area and I do not know if the trucks would impact the bridge.” Mr. Spradling noted that the last he had heard the bridge had been repaired by DOT. (FH) The bridge is safe, but it was the abutment that was not safe.

(BM) related that he would have a lot of detailed questions in relation to the facility. “When do you plan to have a presentation of Site Plan Review to the Board?” Mr. Spradling noted that he did not know. (BM) I do not think that this Board would be happy if they were told everything has already been done. We would like to see it before it happens. Mr. Spradling, “What judgments would you be making?” (BM) Some technical questions would need to be answered. Mr. Spradling, “Is there some king of manual we can follow?” (BM) I would be asking such questions as “How much oil will be stored there, how floor boards are connected and some other things that you will have to deal with.” We would like to look at it before it happens. “I know I am a mechanical nitpicker, but these are questions that need to be answered when you bring us the Site Plan Review.” Mr. Spradling noted that he would bring this information back to them and have their resident “scientist” deal with that. This will help all of us and perhaps you will see things that we do not see.

(FH) and Mr. Spradling discussed the 5% additive to home heating oil and diesel and how it would be regulated. Mr. Spradling explained that it would not be done at the residential level though eventually this may happen but rather by the individual oil company adding additive prior to delivery. They also discussed whether they would be selling furnaces, burners, and etc., which he explained were long-range plans. (FH) questioned whether there were any other businesses housed within the building. It was noted that there are several businesses but have been there for quite some time. (FH) “I rest my case about site plans.” Kyle Parker, “It is my understanding that some of these businesses existed prior to Amenico’s purchase of the building.” (BM) “It is a change of use of commercial property. I have a question in regard to an oil spill, wouldn’t that seal off the water surface?” Mr. Spradling explained that the “scum” from petroleum oil and what we have is different. (BM) “Oil is oil.” Mr. Spradling agreed that it would be a big mess. The government is supportive of our business product. We are not dealing with bio-diesel.

Jim Pritchard, “I have heard a lot about a Site Plan Review, but they also have the Zoning Ordinances to deal with.”

ITEM 4. Approval of Minutes of January 29, 2009

(GL) We also need to address approval of Minutes of January 22, 2009.

(DS) Motion to approve Minutes of January 22, 2009. (FH) Second. Carried 5-0. (DG) Abstain.

(BM) Motion to approve Minutes of January 29, 2009. (FH) Second. Carried 6-0.

ITEM 5. New Business

(GL) There is a meeting of the CNHRPC on February 12th, which I will attend.

ITEM 6. Selectman’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

(FH) There is not too much going on right now except for the budget. Board is working on the Warrant Articles. (DS) There is a budget hearing on February 11th at the Elementary School. (FH) Please attend if you can. No one usually attends this hearing.

ITEM 7. Building Inspector Report

Kyle Parker, “I have prepared a short report of matters pending.”

As noted:

No. 3: Amenico – We have already discussed this.

No. 5. Draft letter about Depot Street building. This is the building next to the Laundromat, which belongs to Pittsfield Weaving. I have drafted a letter to them. Chief Johnson and I may do a site walk.

No. 1. Pittsfield Self-Storage Site Walk – This was to address the concerns of the Conservation Committee. The owner has agreed to some changes in regard to planting and lighting. (BM) The owner was very agreeable and if he does in the Spring what he says he will do, it will be fine. (FH) What about the concerns about the retention ponds? Building Inspector noted that they actually could not see a great deal because of the snow. (BM) Conservation had requested plantings to separate the cemetery view and they are going to accomplish this. The buildings themselves are very low. Building Inspector, “They are not doing anything that is not part of the original Site Plan.”

No. 4. New Applications – There has only been one small application that has come in.

No. 2. Dan Schroth Signs – This is an issue as to the zoning violations with Dan Schroth’s property. I have taken a drive out there and taken some pictures, which I unfortunately cannot download through my computer. I am unsure if this is a zoning violation or an ethics matter. I do not think it is a good idea for the signs to be up when Dan is sitting on the Board.

(DS) I think I am grandfathered. “I am tired of talking about my business.” (FH) I am not sticking up for you, Dan, but there has been a sign on stone fences up for the past ten years. (BM) Stonewalls are not a retail business. (DS) I am done with this. (BM) It is a violation and the Board does have a problem with it. (DS) “I am not going to resign. I did resign and the Board took me back. I pulled some of the signs down. I am not going to get into my personal business. If you want to know anything personal, ask Kyle.”
Kyle Parker (KP), “It is ambiguous. I took the liberty of driving around Town and there are a lot of signs on a lot of properties. I am not looking to give anyone a hard time. Are they running a business or are they not? I guess I would have to determine if this is a retail business. (BM) Has anyone else complained? (KP) Yes, Bob Lincoln (DS) “He is not an abutter.” (DG) Do any of the abutters have a problem with you selling benches? (DS) My neighbors say they cannot even hear me. I am not going to answer any more of your questions. (BM) Mr. Chairman, I think you can direct him to answer. (DS) These members cannot throw me off the Board. This is my private life.

(BM) This is a misrepresentation. You came back to the Board and said you are not in violation of the Zoning Ordinances. Now, we are not allowed to ask him questions. I would ask that Chair enforce my ability to speak and “get him to shut up.” Dan misrepresented to the Board when he withdrew his resignation. The question is whether he is in violation. Dan stated he did not care if he was in violation. The Planning Board appointed him as an alternate and can also take him off the Board.

(GL) related that he had called LGC and asked the same question. It was noted that the Board of Selectman have to have a public hearing to remove him from the Board. We now have a letter from Jim Pritchard to the Board of Selectman. They will have to investigate and schedule a Public Hearing.

(DS) For what reason? Mr. Pritchard, “Malfeasance in office.”

ITEM 8. Work Session

(GL) There is really nothing to be covered in Work Session.

ITEM 9. Members Concerns

(BM) “What is the Board’s policy on accepting resignations for Board members not in attendance?”

(MR) I called LGC and they frankly said no one was able to require or request a resignation for poor attendance. It is up to the individual whether they are appointed or elected. (BM) It seems some people do not attend regularly and if they are not attending, why not appoint the alternate?

(LK) Is there going to be a meeting of the Planning Board on February 19th? (GL) No, I thought we would allow people who are running to work on their campaigns. (BM) Who is not up for re-election? Board members related terms that would be expiring in March and those individuals that would be running in March. (FH) Should we send a letter to Rich Hunsberger regarding his intentions on coming back? We could ask him when and if he is coming back. (RE) has missed a few meetings. He attended during the summer, but after the fall started, has not been attending. (BM) Board should have six elected members. We do have an elected vacancy due to (FH) stepping down as elected members and stepping up as Board of Selectman Ex Officio. (DS) You can get me off if I am elected. (FH) “Dan, why not straighten up and fly right?”

(LK) At the last Board meeting Rich Hunsberger attended, he offered to step down as Chairman, but the Board would not accept this. He did say that he would not be back this winter. (BM) If there is a persistent vacancy, does the Board of Selectman not have the right to replace him? (LK) I would grant a leave of absence to any Board member that requested it. (BM) The Town deserves to have people on the Board who show up.

ITEM 9. Public Input

Jim Pritchard: Mr. Miskoe has been making a lot of noise about absent members. He was not here when the Board was working on this. He was not part of the audience and did not show up at all until November when he attended the Public Hearings.

Regarding the campaigns, I am not sure if you all understand that if adopted, each term would effectively end. Each member would be dismissed and replaced by Board of Selectman.

Paul Skowron gave me copies of the Warrant Articles. I notice that Articles 2, 3, 4, & 5 refer to amended articles. “They are all screwed up” and Town is in jeopardy because of this. I think you should correct this. The Board presented it as a “single unit of change” and what you have done is put it on the ballot as several articles. This needs to be changed to create a single Warrant Article. You need to create a topical description. This way it does not tell the voter what he is voting on. (FH) I believe it has already been sent to the printer. Mr. Pritchard, “I was at the Board of Selectman meeting and it is my understanding that the Warrant Articles are being finalized next Tuesday. (LK) Have you talked to Town Administrator? Mr. Pritchard, “No, I was here late today around 3:55 P.M. and just happened to notice the articles. It is not my issue. I know Board does not want to be disappointed on this.” (FH) “He is supposed to be the top dog on warrant articles.” Mr. Pritchard noted that it is not his responsibility but rather the Planning Board’s responsibility. (DS) We never knew how it was going to be on the ballot. Mr. Pritchard, “If you did it like it was posted in the paper, it would be legal.” (BM) Last week, I believe the Board voted to put a Zoning Ordinance revision on as a Warrant Article. Why is it now four different articles? Mr. Pritchard related that this is a clerical issue. It is not a legally binding document. Paul Skowron made an error. I would suggest you note error and someone let him know. The warrants are under the BOS’s jurisdiction and they determine if it is right. (FH) Those warrants differ than the last three or four drafts I have seen. The only one I have is the one that I got Tuesday night at the BOS meeting. (LK) I would suggest having the Selectman representative deal with Paul. (FH) related that he would be out of town. (LK) I suggest you get a Board member to talk to Paul.
(FH) Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

Mr. Pritchard: Also, the Building Inspector noted that it was an ambiguous issue. It is not. There are retail sales going on at Dan Schroth’s property. Retail sales are pretty clear and it is not ambiguous. The issue is not whether he has signs up but is he running a retail business? Dan has gone on that what he does in his private life and what he does on the Board is different. The problem is not that as an alternate he is in violation of the Zoning Ordinances but rather that he has declared himself as an alternate and then has lied while on the Board. (FH) You may remember that I asked the Building Inspector if he was in compliance. Mr. Pritchard: The Building Inspector corroborated that he did that because (LK) told him to. (LK) I told Building Inspector that all signs had been removed from what I was told. Mr. Pritchard: You got your information from Dan.

8:20 P.M. Fred Hast and Dan Schroth left meeting.

(MR) I think that any of us as fellow Board members and as businessmen, that what a person tells us to be true, we should take as truth. We should be able to take people at their word. We have to take him at his word.

(BM) I believe Board should not take Dan’s statement as true. This Board should suggest to BOS that Dan misrepresented himself to this Board. (GL) This has been taken out of our hands by presentation of Jim Pritchard’s letter.

(MR) The concern to me is that he was allowed to sit on Board and took part in the votes pertaining to the Zoning Ordinances changes and it might have had a different outcome as well as other things that hinged on that.

(LK) As soon as this was brought to my attention, I called the Building Inspector and suggested that he go up and take pictures.

(BM) Motion that this Board notify Board of Selectman that Dan Schroth misrepresented himself to the Planning Board when he requested resignation be withdrawn and since he misrepresented himself, that any votes that Dan Schroth made should be nullified. (MR) Second. Carried 3-0. (GL) Abstain.

(BM) I believe that the Planning Board should submit request to the Board of Selectman to determine if Dan Schroth misrepresented himself and nullify any votes.

Mr. Pritchard: It may be that Dan should not have been voted back on Board and it is questionable whether or not he should be voting, but you are on shaky ground by asking Board of Selectman to do that. I am not aware of any State laws that address this situation. I think you are going to have a hard time. (BM) This reflects badly on this Board. Mr. Pritchard: When Board asked for collaboration, it was given. I also had complete faith that the problem had been taken care of. The problem is that the Building Inspector acted on what he was told.

Kyle Parker: I was not directed as to what to say or what to do. Larry as Associate Building Inspector passed the information on to me. I like (MR) live my life trusting what someone tells me and do not assume it is a lie. I have requested to be on the BOS Agenda next Tuesday.

Board members and Mr. Pritchard continued to discuss Dan Schroth’s misrepresentation to Board, Board’s internal issues regarding this, nature of offense, Board enactment on his resignation and if Warrant Articles are illegal because of his participation in the vote. Mr. Pritchard suggested that (BM) make two motions.

(BM) Motion that Planning Board request Board of Selectman remove Dan Schroth from Planning Board on basis that he misrepresented himself to the Planning Board, withdrew his resignation noting that he would like to be returned as an Alternate to the Board. (MR) Second. Carried 3-0. (GL) Abstain.

(BM) Motion that Planning Board withdraw its request to Board of Selectman for nullification of votes taken on January 29th Zoning Ordinances changes. (MR) Second. Carried 3-0. (GL) Abstain.

(LK) The Board of Selectman meet on the second and fourth Tuesday of the month. In order to hold a Public Hearing you have to provide notification of posting ten days prior and by then the ballot will be out. (BM) Mechanically it is a bit moot, but people need to know what is going on.

Mr. Pritchard: On January 29th, James Theodore was here and he tried to discuss why Dan Schroth was seated on the Board. Mr. Leduc said that No, it would not be discussed as it was not on the Agenda. If you had dealt with it then, timeliness issue could not be raised. You had obligation to consider this question then. Mr. Theodore tried to address issue. (GL) We also had a responsibility to do our job and be accountable. I stopped him because I wanted it to be just a Public Hearing. Mr. Pritchard: You may have had to do something then. This is a very unusual situation. (GL) Interesting. It is one to bring up at Spring conference. Mr. Pritchard noted that Board is on a “slippery slope” in trying to remove him from the Board. Malfeasance in office is the issue. He is an Alternate and is in violation of the Zoning Ordinances and lied to the Board.

ITEM 11. Adjournment

(DG) Motion to adjourn. (MR) Second. Carried 4-0.

Meeting adjourned at 9:00 P.M.

Approved: March 5, 2009

_____________________________ _________________________
Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman Date

II Tapes