JANUARY 15, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING Minutes

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

DATE: JANUARY 15, 2009 PUBLIC HEARING

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), Tom Hitchcock (TH), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger, (RH), Chairman, and Robert Elliott (RE).

(GL) There are two separate Public Hearings tonight. One is a citizen petition and the other is the Planning Board proposed Zoning Ordinances changes. Before we start the meeting, please turn all cell phones off so as not to disturb the audience especially when someone is speaking. Please do not disrespect any individual speaking; only one warning will be issued and then you may be asked to leave, and when you are addressing the petitioner or the Board, please first state you full name.

ITEM 3. Introduction – Petition Proposed Zoning Ordinances Changes

At this time, I would like to have Jim Pritchard come up since he is the petitioner so that he can address any questions you might have or questions can be addressed to the Board.

Jim Pritchard (JP), “My name is Jim Pritchard. I reside at 125 Governor Road and I am the principal author of this document.” I have made these Zoning Ordinances changes to see if they can more fair. He noted that before questions begin, I would like to make a few explanations. He noted that some people feel that the document is too large and explained his rationale as to why these changes resulted. My goal was to make sure that that they mean the same to all individuals regardless of who you are and who you know; they follow State law; the respect of the property owners are retained and also that the Zoning Board be elected by popular vote rather than appointed.

I have fashioned the changes relying upon Manchester’s approach. I looked at many Zoning Ordinances from various towns and felt that this would be the most applicable. I have been to all the Planning Board and Zoning Board meetings this year. In my opinion, the Planning Board is not worse than the Zoning Board. They have appointed alternates without advertising first.

Before I address any questions from the audience, Mr. Leduc has asked the Planning Board members to be prepared for any questions that may be posed. “Are there any questions from the Planning Board before I begin?” Planning Board members indicated that they did not have any questions at this time.

PUBLIC INPUT

Carole Richardson, “Is the Planning Board in favor of what you are doing?” (JP), “I do not know. I have requested they share their thoughts with me and have offered to meet with them regarding this, but they have not done so.” Rich Hunsberger believes this should not be done by citizens but by the Planning Board. “What should be done is what is defined by State law.” I am not certain what their issues are as I have sought feedback and they have not answered me. I do not know what that means.

Dan Schroth, “Who did the legal work on this?” (JP) “A lawyer.” Dan Schroth, “How many lawsuits have you been involved with in Pittsfield?” (JP) “Quite a few.” Mr. Schroth, “How many have you won?” (JP) “What has that got to do with this?” Mr. Schroth, “Why do you want to take a man’s rights away?” Mr. Pritchard explained his rationale relative to cluster developments and subdivisions on Class VI roads. Mr. Schroth, “I wonder if some of these issues are decided because of the person?” You have a lot of “No(s)” in the Table of Uses. You are not addressing the problems of the world. (JP) “I surveyed the Town. No one told me to do that. You chose not to get involved in my survey” Mr. Schroth, “You are not allowing the property owner to do more things. It is not enough of a help. You tried and you failed.” (JP) “Dan, you are one of the people I invited to share feedback with and you refused.”

Jacob Savage, “What is the procedure if petitions get approved? Is there some overlapping? Which would trump the other?” (JP) The Planning Board can approve/not approve it. The citizen proposal will go on the ballot and the Planning Board proposal will be on the ballot, I presume. Mr. Savage, “Can they both be adopted?” (JP) Yes, and then whatever the Statutes dictate, will take effect.

Scott Ward, “Can you clarify the difference between the Planning Board’s proposal and your proposal?” (JP) The Planning Board has proposed changes in the Use Table, which should have been done via a survey of the Town’s citizens. They have done no such survey. He noted that a cover sheet notes the changes as he has proposed.

(FH) You tell us that no one can build on a Class VI road. (JP) explained that you can build on a Class VI road by going before the Board of Selectman and Planning Board. (FH) explained how it has been done in the past. There already have been twelve houses put on a Class VI road. (JP) “And there will be twelve more.” You are talking about a Building Permit. My proposal clarifies that point that if you want to subdivide, then you have to have Class V frontage, which is not uncommon. (FH) and (JP) further discussed the subdivisions on Class VI highways and that it has been done in the past.

Dan Schroth, “What does your proposal do with cluster developments?” We are going to need more housing in the next five years with smaller homes. It is better to increase density by building smaller homes. (JP) My proposal does address density – different lot sizes and different densities. Mr. Schroth, “Why do you have to keep going with things of the past? You should allow more uses in more places. You are not thinking far enough ahead.” (JP) I am thinking five years into the future.

Betsey Cafferty, “Can you give us a clear explanation of the differences between the proposals?” (JP) No, it would take too long. I do have a Website on that. This is not the forum for this. The function is to talk about the proposal. For voters who would like to know the difference, I have set up a Website. It is not finalized yet, because the Planning Board has not yet finalized their version. Ms. Cafferty, “Is the Town going to do the same thing so we can see both sides?” (GL) No. (JP) They will either approve/not approve the proposal. Mr. Miskoe, “They will either recommend or not recommend the proposal.”

Carole Richardson, “Is all of this going to be printed on the ballot?” (GL) “I have never seen things like this printed in entirety on the ballot” Ms. Richardson, “What is going to be on the ballot?” (JP) Just a topical description. “They can put whatever they want on the ballot.”

(TH) Does this proposal increase the wealth growth in this Town? (JP) I believe the Zoning Regulations are clear. “There are no greasy palms. If you abide by the law, there is no trouble. It attracts more people. It is better than having the Planning Board doing one thing one time and then another thing other times. This does not encourage responsible growth. (TH) I believe that the difference between Planning Board’s proposal and Mr. Pritchard’s is that we are trying to promote economical growth. People are pinned down and we should not stifle growth. (JP) Your plan will hurt this Town. (TH) In an ideal world, your idea would work. Things are changing hourly. People can have a good life in this Town. (JP) The Planning Board is a police authority. (TH) It is not a police authority. (JP) The Planning Board has no right to write laws. The Planning Board’s only function is to execute the laws as written.

Laurel Collier, “I can see the things that Tom is saying.” As the law is written right now, the Zoning Board gives you the right and then it goes to the Planning Board. The Planning Board has no right to counteract Zoning Board decision. There is no reason for change. (JP) “Are you saying that the Zoning Ordinances are in compliance with State law?” Ms. Collier, “I would like to find this out.” (JP) It is not my intention to get into Statutes. I am trying to help the little guy. (TH) You would like to be able to ignore laws whenever you feel like it. Ms. Collier questioned the rules stating what you can do with poisonous materials. (JP) noted that the Zoning Board does not say anything about poisonous materials. (TH) This is done on a case-to-case basis. (JP) This is governed by Federal and State law.

Donna Keeley, “Laurel talks about the Use Table which is what you are speaking to.” (JP) Mr. Hitchcock is suggesting that it does not give the Board enough flexibility. Whether he is right or wrong, the Supreme Court has given guidance as to what local ordinances have to do. Ms. Keeley, What part of this proposal is not going to allow wealth and health? (TH) I am not sure. Ms. Keeley, “I am asking this in reference to his proposal?” (TH) I am worried about the “spine” of his proposal. The whole economy is upside down. You cannot micromanage this. What he is proposing is to put people in a box. The Planning Board has addressed issues. The law is not specific and we are trying to work with it.

Dan Schroth, “People need their freedom. Rights cannot be surrendered. The Town’s proposal is more constitutional as it allows more uses in more zones. Cluster allows for smaller less expensive homes, which needs to be encouraged. Businesses come from small places. The Zoning Board is a crapshoot.” (JP) My proposal allows Home Occupation in all zones. Mr. Schroth, “He does not want cluster developments. His idea is to keep it as expensive as possible. People think that Social Security and their retirements are safe. It is all a big game.” (JP) “I do think it is important to give the common guy a hand.” Corporate welfare has gotten us into trouble. You are thinking more corporate welfare.

(FH) You explained that Home Occupation is allowed in all zones and so does the Board. Ms. Keeley noted that it does not.

Close Public Input at 8:00 P.M.

(GL) Does Board want to vote on Mr. Pritchard’s petition now or at the end of meeting? Board agreed that it should be at the end of the Public Hearing.

ITEM 4. Introduction – Planning board Proposed Zoning Ordinances Changes

(GL) After the Public Hearing a few weeks ago, I asked the Board to pick the top ten changes that they feel were of concern. (GL) read into record the top ten changes as indicated by the Board.

PUBLIC INPUT

Art Baron, “Could you give two or three examples where you have changed the special exceptions to yes under the old zoning regulations?” (MR) One example would be Bakery. There are now yeses across the board with criteria. (GL) This would require meeting health requirements from the State such as cleanliness. Greenhouses would be another example – all across the board. Ms. Keeley, “Greenhouses weren’t allowed before?” (MR) Not in all zones.

Bill Miskoe, “It is my understanding that the purpose of the Zoning Ordinances is to implement what the Town’s Master Plan has suggested. I assume they have made some suggestions on changes. What changes in the Master Plan has occurred that you have made these proposed changes? What is driving that? (GL) explained, “We did not go by the Master Plan.” Mr. Miskoe, “If no changes were proposed by Master Plan, what has occurred that has driven you to make these changes?” (MR) We asked the Master Plan Committee to meet with us but they did not meet with us until about three meetings ago. One big change they were suggesting was a change on Upper City Road requesting that there be a minimum of five acres lots and that was the only change they discussed. That was not the driving force as to why we made these changes. Mr. Miskoe, “If not the Master Plan, why is there a need for changes in the Zoning Ordinances? What is the cause and effect?”

(TH) noted that the Master Plan is a nice document and I agree with most of it. We do not have to follow it. It is a guide. I have reviewed it and I understand it. The Board discussed what would “loosen up” this Town to represent it as a green town. We wanted to open it up to more than what it is doing now. This is a live-work Town. Businesses in homes would mean people would not have to drive to work. This would make it more wide open. We still have Site Plan Reviews. People are not coming here. I would not ever have come here knowing what I know now.

Ms. Keeley suggested focusing on Use Table by going down list and discuss each one. Mr. Miskoe, “I would like my question answered. If not from the Master Plan, than from where was there a demand for these changes?” (GL) The Board reviewed the document and tried to do what was best for the Town. The Board worked on this. Mr. Miskoe, “There was no popular demand for these changes? Where did the Board hear that there is a need for these changes from outside the Board?” (GL) These changes came from within the Board.

Eileen Legg, “Regarding the Master Plan suggestion about Upper City Road and the five acre lots, what type of house is going to be put up there on those lots? What taxes would Town derive from a house valued at $500,000 or more? My point is, do you think a person coming to this Town would build on those five acres knowing that a used car dealership could go up next door to them? Which derives more taxes – houses or car dealerships?” This is a serious concern. What you are dong is not attracting people who would pay high taxes to this Town?” What are you doing about the heavy-duty trucks that are going up Tilton Hill Road? If you put in cluster housing, you would have to put in another Fire Department and Police Department. You would need to see what impact that would have on that infrastructure. I know that you want to increase tax revenue, but you have to be smart about this also.

(TH) “Don’t you think that people on the Planning Board have brains?” You are not going to get a used car dealer to establish on that road. It is too far out of the way.

Stan Bailey, “I would like to not have people interrupt people. Some people are talking all the time.” I was born in this Town. My problem is Home Occupation. I might walk in, want an exception on Tilton Hill road and get it. What I do not want to see in this Town is people coming to the Zoning Board and have several businesses on one property. Surrounding properties with home occupations on them can cause your property to be assessed at a lower value. I had my home assessed for $25-30,000 less because of exactly this. The noise pollution alone can affect your health. Yes, it depends on what the home occupation is, but I do not want to see this.

Donna Keeley, “What Stan is saying is a real concern. This is the scary part. Zoning can come in and grant a special exception though it is not agreeable to all. It is a concern. Why upset the public and make everyone nervous as to what happens next door. Granted, as long as it is not going to hinder your neighbors, it would probably be okay. People want to protect their property.

(JP) I respectfully disagree with Donna Keeley. “I have been to Zoning Board meetings and it is like having your arm cut off. The Board thinks that it can do whatever it wants.” You have to have rules so people know where they stand. Where does this put the abutter?

Larry Konopka noted “ Home Occupation was not changed at all. There were a lot of things that were not changed. I would like to thank the Board for putting all this time in. They worked hard all summer and then after the public hearing in November, they decided to minimize it. They did a great job.” (FH) reminded Stan that these people went to Zoning Board and Planning Board had nothing to do with that Home Occupation.

Ms. Legg, “Surrounding elements do have an effect on properties. It puts people ill at ease.” (FH) We have Site Plan Reviews and all abutters can come. “I have said it at our meetings, use common sense.”

Mr. Miskoe, “Is there anyone here who has observed a truck repair facility on Concord Hill Road?”

Pat Heffernan, “This typo has caused quite a bit of flap.” Addressing Home Occupation, I agree that one had the right to have a home occupation within reason. The cluster development is a great idea. Also, as a matter of point, every time the ambulance goes out, it makes money and generates a fee.”

John Lenaerts, “I am not sure about the cluster developments. I live in an area where people have two-acre lots. Several pieces of land, if clustered, would have hundreds of homes on them – with a ten-acre lot you get 28 and with forty acres you have a hundred. (MR) You are correct. Mr. Lenaerts, “Is that what you want on Clough Road? You want 30-40-50 homes there. People who live in these areas are not going to vote for this. I suggest you pull so many things out of this.” Bill Miskoe, “Where does the need for a four to one density come out of this? Cluster will provide development but why do you have to give a four to one density?” (FH) noted it could be “up to a four to one density” but it might not be. Larry Konopka noted that any subdivision of this nature would have to be evaluated by the engineer for the Town. The engineering group would guide the Planning Board. This firm is a tool for this Town.

Bill Miskoe, “Getting back to where I began, no where in Zoning Ordinances does it say I have to consult with engineers. This Zoning Ordinance says you can put 28 units on five acres.” (GL) When the engineering firm is put into place because of subdivision, then regulations are put into place. Mr. Miskoe, “Why are we introducing multifamily housing into clusters?”

(TH) A forty-acre parcel could become a golf course. You have to look at it both ways – negatively and positively. To attract people back to Town, you have to bring in businesses. Also, there is a workforce-housing rule. Do not look at it negatively. Look at it positively. That’s the spirit with which I worked on this. Mr. Miskoe, “You are allowing multifamily in this Town which we have suppressed for quite awhile.” (JP) Looking at Home Occupations, what happened is the Board got confused. The use did not fit the definition. You do not have good definitions. Looking at cluster, where does it say cluster development has to have conservation land? These are bad definitions.

Mr. Lenaerts, “Getting back to clustering, it says you are allowed a reduced percentage of land and do not have to calculate wetland for density. Do away with this. Do not put it on the ballot.”

Ms. Legg, “Regarding the cluster this way, could a wealthy developer start doing that and if he is not allowed to, can he take the Town to Court because of lack of clarity?” (TH) I would like to answer that. I was on the Board when Lily Pond came through. They worked with us. Any real estate developer coming to Town would not want to stir up trouble. They would walk away first. This is never going to happen. This Town has lost many developers because of Town’s hostility. Look at Hannaford, they left because of the ordinances. These ordinances are not going to stop this.

Dan Schroth noted that he wanted to read into the record a statement he had prepared regarding, The Big Picture. Everyone needs to look at the big picture and approve the Planning Board’s proposed Zoning Ordinances over Jim Pritchard’s.

Donna Keeley noted several items on the Table of Uses and asked some questions of the Board on Adult Business Establishment, Auto Body Shop/Auto Repair (which is noted as a typo), Bed and Breakfast Established Inn, Repair Shop, Truck Heavy Equipment and Frontage.

Mr. Lenaerts noted that on frontage, it notes “A Class VI public highway shown on a minor subdivision plan approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations. “I think you’re re talking about an old subdivision.” Ms. Keeley, “So on a Class VI road, you would approve it?” (FH) If it is brought up to a Class V and paved. That would be the criteria if someone came before us. Mr. Miskoe, “No where is that required in here.”

Jacob Savage, “Because of typos, if this is approved, does it have to be re-posted with corrections and then this hearing continued and have another hearing?” Ms. Keeley, “What is the deadline to get it on the ballot?”
(FH) We can work on it next week and continue hearing to the 29th. Mr. Lenaerts, “You are saying making these changes. What changes do you mean? Some of us feel the cluster should be thrown away.” Ms. Keeley, “You are saying you will discuss it on the 22nd and continue hearing to 29th?” (JP) Procedurally, you cannot do that. Make it simple. Are you continuing this hearing?” (GL) “Yes.” Mr. Miskoe, “If you continue this hearing, will public be notified of changes.”

(GL) We will continue this Public Hearing to January 29th. There will be a work session on January 22nd. Mr. Miskoe, “Can you have a continued hearing on a new document?” (GL) I checked with LGC and they advised that you can continue the hearing, change document, and in notice of Public Hearing publish changes.

(GL) Motion to continue Public Hearing on Proposed Planning Board Changes to January 29th at 7:00 P.M. (FH) Second. Carried 5-0.

ITEM 5. Miscellaneous Matters

(GL) We have a letter before us from Bill Miskoe, requesting to be Alternate on Planning Board.

(DG) Motion to appoint Bill Miskoe as Alternate to Planning Board.
(FH) Second. Carried 3-2 (TH) and (MR).

(DG) Motion to appoint Jim Pritchard as Alternate to Planning Board. Motion dies because of lack of Second.

(GL) Welcome Bill Miskoe. Mr. Miskoe explained that he would be willing to sit on Board as soon as possible, but because he was not involved in the proposed Zoning Ordinances changes, he would abstain from voting on those.

(DG) Motion that Planning Board recommend Jim Pritchard Proposed Citizen Petition on Zoning Ordinances changes. Motion dies for lack of Second.

(TH) Motion that Planning Board not recommend Jim Pritchard Proposed Citizen Petition on Zoning Ordinances Changes. (FH) Second. Carried 3-2 (DG) and (GL).

ITEM 6. Adjournment

(TH) Motion to Adjourn. (FH) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 9:50 P.M.

Approved: January 22, 2009

_____________________________ _________________________
Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman Date

II Tapes