Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
DATE: FEBRUARY 7, 2008
ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:08 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Vice -Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr.
(PM), Fred Hast (FH), Daniel Greene (DG), John Lenaerts (JL), Selectman
Ex Officio Alternate, Chris Conlon (CC), (Arrival at 7:15 P.M.), Dan
Schroth (DS), Alternate, Gerard LeDuc (GL), Alternate and Delores Fritz,
Recording Secretary.
Members Absent:
Rich Hunsberger (RH).
(BM) Due to the absence of Rich Hunsberger and Chris Conlon, Alternates
will be seated – Dan Schroth (DS), and Gerard LeDuc (GL).
ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of January 3, 2008 and January 21, 2008.
(PM) Motion to approve Minutes of January 3, 2008. (JL) Second.
Carried 5-2 (DS) and (GL) Abstain.
(PM) Motion to approve Minutes of January 21, 2008. (JL) Second.
Carried 5-2 (DS) and (GL) Abstain.
ITEM 4. Work Session Items
a. Citizen Petition Zoning Ordinances Changes
b. Floodplain Ordinance – National Flood Insurance Program
c. CNHRPC Recommendation “Site Plan Review Required”
2
(BM) began meeting by explaining the Floodplain Ordinance noting it
should be approved. I see many advantages to adopting these .
He further explained that the Citizen Petition that has come in, the Planning
Board cannot make any changes to it at all.
The Planning Board will vote whether to hold a Public Hearing on February
21st and if necessary on March 6th. The special Town Meeting has been
scheduled for April 8th. It was noted by the Planning Board Secretary that
this has been changed to April 10th. (BM) Ladies and Gentlemen, I stand
corrected; the special Town Meeting is now scheduled for April 10th at
7:00 P.M.
What we need to do tonight is examine these three proposed changes and
vote whether we want to present at a Town Meeting.
NOTE: Chris Conlon arrived at 7:15 P.M. and was seated on the Board.
Gerald LeDuc stepped down and was seated in the audience.
(BM) noted that the Floodplain and recommendation by CNHRPC are
basically housekeeping items and would benefit for approval. What it
means is that those in the floodplain would be able to get insurance. Both of
these would be of benefit to the Town. It would bring our Zoning
Ordinances in line with how they do things.
He further explained that the Citizen Petition was difficult for him. We have
to vote tonight to put the Petition to a vote to send to a Town Meeting. (DG)
Are we voting for all three at once? (BM) noted that it can be done either
way.
(FH) noted that he wanted to discuss the Floodplain and bring everyone up
to speed. (BM) What we need is a motion to take the Floodplain Ordinance
to a Public Hearing.
(JL) Motion to have the Floodplain Ordinance at Public Hearing.
(CC) Second. After discussion: Carried 6 -1 (DS).
3
Discussion:
(FH) Have we applied for new floodplain maps? We should apply for the
maps. I would not like to see if the floodplain encompasses the library. We
should have paper copies to look at. (JL) noted that Town Administrator has
gone over it in entirety, read the whole thing, and it is in order. (FH) Again,
I ask, have we requested the maps? (JL) I am not sure. (FH) We should
have these maps to see if the library is in the floodplain. The sooner the
better. (BM) I hope the Town Administrator will do this. (FH) Once we
have requested the appropriate maps, copies should be made available to
Planning Board prior to the Town Meeting. (BM) We should request the y
be available at the Town Hall for review. It was agreed that (CC) would
request maps to be sent to Leon Kenison. (BM) noted, “If we do not vote on
this, it will slide into the future.” (DS) What is the cost of the Town
Meeting? (BM) related this is a BOS issue.
(BM) In regard to the CNHRP recommendation “Site Plan Required,” in
regard to Article 6: Special Exceptions. To eliminate any
misunderstandings, they have suggested that a paragraph be inserted after
Table I which reads as follows:
SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUESTED
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 a Special Exception as indicated in
Table I above, whether or not such development includes a subdivision or
re-subdivision of site.
NHRPC is recommending that we change the language. I am not sure
exactly why they are suggesting this, but we work and pay these people to
assist us in these matters.
(FH) Motion to approve taking the CNHRP “Site Plan Review Requested”
as noted above to Public Hearing. (JL) Second. After discussion
Vote: 6-1 (DS).
4
Discussion:
(DS) “How can you vote on something like this if you don’t know the costs
for a special Town Meeting. (BM) reminded him this is for a Public Hearing
not the Town Meeting. (DS) Until I know what the costs would be, I
wouldn’t vote on this. (FH) The effort has been made to schedule this and
the date has been set. (BM) There is a Motion on the floor for the Public
Hearing and (DS’s) statement is important but irrelevant at this time.
(CC) It seems that action by CNHRPC has been taken since they have
reviewed the RSA’s at the request of the Economic Development
Committee. (BM) This would put us in line with the RSA’s.
(BM) Regarding the Citizen Petition, the Planning Board is required to hold
a Public Hearing. Planning Board cannot prevent it from going forward. At
the end of the Public Hearing, the Planning Board will hold a meeting to
recommend/not recommend the document. If at the conclusion of the
meeting, there are significant changes requested to the Floodplain or the
CNHRPC recommendation, the Planning Board can make appropriate
changes. The Citizen Petition will show up with no modifications. (DG)
Then why vote on it. (BM) reminded him that Board is just voting to send it
to Public Meeting. After Public Meeting, the Planning Board will meet to
decide to recommend/not recommend each one. On the two other ones, but
not the Citizen Petition, we could make changes and if we have to, can hold
a second Public Hearing to review modifications. The Citizen Petition
cannot be changed in any way. If someone at the Public Hearing asks
questions in regard to the Citizen Petition, I am unsure who will answer
them. We will have to listen to the public as to recommend/not recommend.
(DS) Shouldn’t we have a legal review? (BM) noted there cannot be any
changes made to the Citizen Petition. (DS) “ Won’t citizens ask if it has
been legally reviewed?” (FH) noted it is not necessary to get it reviewed.
(FH) asked several questions in regard to the three different proposals that
were submitted by Jim Pritchard. The first one, which was quite lengthy,
then a shorter version, which was reviewed by Laura Specter and the Citizen
Petition. (PM) Shouldn’t we have the Citizen Petition reviewed by counsel
to determine if the Planning Board should recommend it? (JL) Planning
Board needs permission from Town Administrator for this. (DS) I would
hate to see us spend more money on this that maybe we don’t want to spend.
5
(CC) noted that this is a document that has been put forth to us and we are
facilitating a Public Hearing about the document. Apparently 25 citizens
want it, brought to vote, and in addition to the Public Hearing, people will be
asking questions about the document. (BM) Who on Planning Board can
answer those questions on something that we have not created ? By Statute,
we are required to review it. (CC) noted that potentially at that point, we
could possibly get the Town Attorney to review it. (JL) noted that it would
be too late once it has gone to Public Hearing and citizens have given their
opinions. It will go on the ballot either recommended or not recommended.
(BM) noted that we could have the Town Attorney review it, but still it
would not be able to be changed. They only reason for something like this
would be to determine if the Board should recommend it or not. There
would be no reason to hold a second Public Hearing if there are no changes.
(DS) Is this Citizen Petition similar to the other two that he submitted to the
PB? (BM) noted he was unsure of this. He noted that the Board’s
determination as to recommendation or not could be held off until after legal
review just to determine if the Board should or should not recommend it,
though it still cannot be changed.
(CC) questioned whether it would make sense to have legal counsel at the
Public Hearing? We could request that Laura Specter be there. (DS) noted
that she should look at it and research it. (JL) She was present on the
January 21st because of improper posting. (BM) noted that there is a Motion
on the floor which could be voted on or withdrawn and be rephrased to
include legal counsel attendance.
After further discussion on all of the different documents that have been
submitted to the Planning Board including the Citizen Petition, (DS) noted,
“I can’t go along with submitting this to a special Town Meeting. What
percentage of voters are you going to get? I would vote against it.”
VOTE: Carried 5-1 (DS), (FH) Abstain.
Board continued to discuss possibility of Town Counsel attendance at Public
Hearing to answer any legal questions.
(CC) Motion to request Town Attorney review Citizen Petition document for
any legal issues, and be present at and prepared to answer any questions at
Public Hearing. (BM) Second.
6
Discussion:
(PM) There are about 15 changes in the Citizen Petition, are some included
in the other documents previously submitted as well. (BM) I believe if we
are to determine this, it should be by Laura Specter rather than by us.
(DS) “How much has been spent on legal review?” (BM) I do not know.
(DS) I wouldn’t go along with voting for this. You don’t know what is in
our budget for this. (JL) The vote should not be based on how much it
would cost. I would persuade Board not to have a legal review. I have a
strong sense it would be a waste of time and money. (DG) What would be
the purpose of the legal review? (BM) Just whether the Board should or
should not recommend it. (DG) If this one is similar to the last one, did she
find anything legal or illegal? We cannot make any changes to document
any way. (BM) noted the review of previous document by Laura Specter
was how to make it better from Town’s point of view. The Citizen Petition
review would only be to determine “is it legal?” (DG) She should just say
legal/not legal. (BM) noted that not only the legality of it but is it good for
this Town? (DG) She does not live in this Town. It seems in the last few
years, she is not asking the right questions and we get all kinds of other stuff.
(BM) If we recommend it and Town Attorney says she cannot go into Court
and argue for it, then it becomes an issue. It needs to be defendable in
Court. The Judge would decide in these instances how it comes down. The
Town Attorney merely gives us advice. We need to ask, “Is this a
defendable ordinance?” (FH) requested some information from Jim
Pritchard in regard to the three different documents. A short recess was
called to offer him an opportunity to do this.
Recess 8:25 P.M. Resume 8:30 P.M.
Vote: Motion fails. Yes – (CC), (BM), and (PM) No – (DS), (DG), (JL),
and (FH).
ITEM 5. Selectman Report
(JL) noted that Union negotiations for the Town have been settled and will
be on the ballot with new labor contracts. (BOS) has completed its ballot
items.
7
ITEM 6. Members Concerns
(BM) noted that a letter from Mike McLaughlin, Building Inspector has
been received regarding 12 Broadway inspection. (BM) questioned what
was the status of the sprinkler system, which was given a two -year window
to be improved/replaced? BI is awaiting instructions at this point from
Town Counsel. The stay of Cease and Desist Order has been lifted, though
the BI may be in the process of reinstituting the Cease and Desist Order.
Board further discussed the letter and what needs to be done in the future.
(BM) noted the BI works for the BOS and this letter is just for informational
purposes, not much more.
(DS) noted that Board should know what the costs are for Public Hearing
and Special Town Meeting. We have a BOS representative right here; he
could report to us how much this is costing? Everything we do effects how
much money we have wasted. We should know what we are spending.
When he finds out the amount, you will see that three times we have wasted
legal fees. Bill, you have spent money three times frivolously. The first
time was the copying of the lengthy Jim Pritchard submission, then the
listing that the Board created, then the past one that Jim Pritchard submitted,
and then the Town Attorney attendance at the hearing on the 21st. You
should be more careful with our money.
ADJOURNMENT
(DG) Motion to Adjourn. (PM) Second.
(FH) noted that there has been no Public Input. (DG) Withdraw Motion for
Adjournment. (PM) Withdraw Second.
PUBLIC INPUT
James Theodore noted he was wondering if Town already has Ordinances
drawn up? (BM) explained that the Zoning Ordinances began in 1988 and
have been amended several times. Mr. Theodore further questioned the
Board whether they recognized any changes in the new petition. (BM)
“Yes.” Mr. Theodore questioned, “Do you not understand them?”
(JL) noted that there are 66 pages, double sided and it is very confusing.
(BM) noted that Board is still bound by RSA’s and should not promote
violation of State Laws. Mr. Theodore further questioned, “You have
8
Ordinances and they were changed. Wouldn’t you understand how new
Ordinance would effect us?” (BM) It still has to go to a Town vote. Mr.
Theodore, “If I was making an Ordinance and someone changed it, I would
know what the changes were.” (BM) noted, “We are not lawyers.” (CC)
noted that he would request to take document and applicable RSA’s and read
through them, and post it on the Website and at the library. (BM) noted that
it should be posted exactly as written.
Jonny Popper questioned, “Who is going to answer questions on the Citizen
Petition?” Jim Pritchard noted to (BM), “You don’t know how to conduct a
Public Hearing. Ask me any questions you would like to have answered.
Lawyers charge money per minute of their time. The more legal the
questions are for me the better.” (DG) If there are legal questions, Leon
Kenison is the person to ask them of. (BM) noted he would check on the
procedural basis of this. (PM) noted that anyone can speak at the Public
Hearing.
Denise Morin noted, “I am appalled at how this meeting has been held.
There has been a lack of professionalism and rowdiness. The Planning
Board is the backdrop of what we do in our community. We look to you for
guidance and take our cues from you. How are you going to decide on the
document if you do not have information on it for us? I am not a Planning
Board member and I am going to be looking for you to explain it to me.”
(BM) “On all three proposals or just the Citizen Petition?” Ms. Morin
noted, “On any questions I might have.” (BM) related that the Citizen
Petition was not written by this Board and I cannot explain a document that
the Planning Board did not create. We will vote to recommend/not
recommend.
(GL) related that the key to this is simple, just listen to input and t hen make
your own decision. We have done it in the past and we will do it again.
(BM) questioned how he would do that? (DG) noted it is done through the
Chairman. (BM) “I guess I have homework to do.”
Jonny Popper questioned when the Citizen Petition would be posted and was
advised as soon as possible.
9
ADJOURNMENT
(JL) Motion to Adjourn. (DG) Second. Carried 7-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:02 P.M.
Approved: March 6, 2008
___________________________ _________________________
Bill Miskoe, Vice-Chairman Date