Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
Item 1. Call to Order on January 18, 2007 at 7:03 P.M.
Item 2. Roll Call
Members Present: David Simpson (DS), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM),
Vice-Chairman, Larry Konopka (LK), Rich Hunsinger (RH), Paul
Metcalf, Jr. (PM), Peter Newell (PN), Alternate, Dan Green (DG),
Alternate.
Members Absent: Donna Keeley (DK) and Ralph Odell (RO).
Item 3. Approval of Minutes
Motion to approve Minutes (EB), Seconded (PM). Unanimous x4, Abstain
(LK) and (BM)
Item 5. Brandon Guida – Mitchell & Bates research, approval of
application continued from December 21, 2006.
David Simpson recused himself. (BM) continued as Vice-Chairman.
(PN) seated.
(BM) related the history of approval of this application of Mr. Guida’s
planned use on Highway 28 for the display/sale of modular homes. The
question of dual use in regard to this property, which is zoned
commercial, is the issue. The matter was researched by Laura Spector
and her response, via E-Mail to (BM) was that it is a dual use and a
variance would be required. The matter was reheard on December 14,
2006, as Mr. Guida would not be seeking a variance from the Zoning
Board, and the Board withdrew it’s motion to approve and requested
legal counsel be consulted. Again, it was noted that Mr. Guida would
need to go before the Zoning Board for a requested variance. Mr. Guida
related that he has a three-acre lot, which is zoned and taxed as
2
commercial property. He felt that the attorneys were “dead wrong”
stating that it pre-exists as commercial use and that is not the primary use
of the property. He asked the Board to consider the fact that he is taxed
for commercial property. He disagrees with the findings of legal counsel
and stated he would appeal it to the Superior Court, if necessary. He
requested that this Board not go with the findings of Laura Spector. He
feels that it is his right as owner of property in a commercial zone to use
as primary use.
Open to Public:
Jim. Pritchard noted that legal counsel did not cite any Zoning Ordinances in
their response. (BM) related that this was true, but he had discussed
Zoning Ordinances in his E-Mail.
Fred Hast related he resides on property, which is zoned commercial. “If I
want to put another business in my field, I couldn’t?”
(BM) related that every applicant’s requests are different.
Mr. Guida related that he though Mr. Hast’s analogy was exactly correct.
Closed to Public.
(RH) Motion to approve Site Plan Review for Brandon Guida, (LK)
Seconded.
A discussion ensued as to whether Atty. Spector was aware of the fact
that the property was zoned and taxed as commercial property. (PM)
wanted to know if Atty. Spector was aware that the property was taxed as
commercial property. (BM) related that he did not establish that fact and
felt that since legal counsel was retained that their advice should be
taken. (EB) felt that what Atty. Spector knows or does not know about
the property does not change the basis of the argument – Is this existing
dual use and can it be expanded? (BM) asked Mr. Guida if he would
reconsider and request a variance from the Zoning Board. Mr. Guida
replied in the negative. (RH) related that there are several businesses
which had dual use in town such as the trucking business that exists in
the old tannery. (BM) related that he felt that residential and commercial
use are different, not the same as the tannery situation. (RH) related that
3
if you have over three it becomes a commercial building. Mr. Guida
related that his waiver would no longer be valid after tonight.
After reading the Court’s findings, and a lengthy discussion, (BM) related
that he felt this matter was not a bad idea, but it is setting a bad
precedent.
Vote on the motion to approve granted (PN), (PM), (LK), and (RH).
Against motion to approve (BM), (EB), (DG). Motion to accept
application approved.
Dave Simpson resumed seat as Chairman. Paul Metcalf recused himself and
Peter Newell recused himself. Dan Green seated as alternate.
Item 6. Review of proposed road plans for proposed eight-lot subdivision
on Governors Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-43, Lot 10). The
property is owned by Paul and Melissa Bicknell of 195 Governors Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263. The firm subdividing the property is James
Mullaney, DBA: Juniper Hills Builders of 89 South State Street,
Concord, NH 03301. This property is located in the Rural Zone.
(DS) advised Mr. Mullaney he had a right to a full board, and Mr. Mullaney
waived this right.
Mr. Mullaney related that he was here today to inform the Board of the
monies for escrow. He related that an initial fee of $4,615. was requested
but that he felt that this amount was not necessary at this time in the
building process. It was agreed that the amount of $2,005. would be
accepted at this time and the additional amount at a later time. This
escrow amount would cover engineer reviews and response to Planning
Board for outside engineering company. (BM) Moton to accept, (PN)
seconded. Unanimous.
Mr. Mullaney related that the design for the dry hydrant is copyrighted and
they are in the process of purchasing a copy. He related that the Building
Inspector advised him that sometime this summer, sprinkler systems will
be required and should this happen, they will comply accordingly but not
do both.
Motion to Continue to February 15, 2007 (EB), (LK) seconded. Unanimous.
4
Item 7. Continuation of public hearing regarding an application for Special
Exception of Article 2 filed by AHG Properties, Inc. of 46 Strawberry
Hill Road, Bedford, NH 03310 for a 12-unit family residential
condominium cluster development in the Rural Zone on Thomson Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Map R-44, Lot 01).
(DG), (LK), and (RH) recused themselves. (PN) and (PM) seated. (EB)
related that he is an abutter of non-issue property. Sonny Sell related that
this is not an issue. (EB) remain seated.
(DS) questioned whether an additional 90-day waiver was being offered.
Sonny Sell related that he is waiving his 65 days and giving a 90-day
extension instead.
Jennifer McCourt, Engineer, related that there are several issues that can be
solved quite easily after she gets an opportunity to meet with Tony.
Several issues which she feels are still pending after this would be:
Meeting with Select Board regarding Thompson Road; DOT permit
which would have to be signed by Select Board; and Review of
condominium documents which are outstanding before they can proceed.
She discussed the water well system supply relating that there would now be
two wells. (DS) suggested she discuss this with the Fire Chief and she
related that she would follow-up with this.
(DS) related that monies be placed in escrow for legal review and related
that he spoke to Atty. Spector and she related that it would be
approximately $150. per hour. It was discussed and agreed that Sonny
Sell would place $500. in escrow for “legal review.” (EB) Motion to
accept $500 in escrow for “legal review”, seconded by (PN). Unanimous
except for (BM) opposed.
It was agreed that applicant as well as representative from Planning Board
be present when meeting with Select Board so that the “big picture”
concerning this matter can be offered in general terms. It was agreed that
they would appear before Select Board on February 13, 2007 and again
before the Planning Board on February 15, 2007. (EB) Motion to
5
continue to February 15, 2007 before Planning Board, (BM) Seconded.
Unanimous.
Item 9. Public Input
Jim Pritchard asked if monies had been set aside for legal use so far? (DS)
related that it had not.
Fred Hast related that for Class 6 roads all you have to do is have Road
Agent approve, tell applicant what they have to do –
build/asphalt/sufficient width. Town still own Class 6 road and maintain
it and applicant would release Town from liability. As long as engineers
are happy, then Town should be happy.
Jim Pritchard related that we are not talking about one road, but rather two
roads – Thomson Road and easement.
Atty. Sullivan related that it is not dedicated and a private way and are
covered by same parameters.
Jim Pritchard related that there is more than one way to dedicate a highway.
(BM) related that there were cases where developers deeded it over to the
town.
Jim Pritchard related that it has been done before, legal or not.
Atty. Sullivan related that there is a mechanism for that.
Public Input Closed.
(DS) Short break of 5 minutes at 8:43 P.M.
Resume at 8:50 P.M.
Item 4. Trigger Development – Escrow Refund
(DS) related that he has been trying to acquire the paperwork to determine if
a refund is due from escrow and that a corrected version of the road bond
(which bears incorrect date) has been requested.
6
A discussion ensued and it was agreed that no monies would be refunded
from escrow or building permits issued until these matters were
corrected. A memo relating this information will be sent to Building
Inspector regarding this. (EB) Motion to this effect, (BM) seconded.
Unanimous.
Item 10. Old Business
(DS) brought up the 12 Broadway Project in relation to Mitchell & Bates.
It was discussed as to whether a memo to Building Inspector and Fire
Department requesting they do another inspection or whether a letter to
applicant be sent requesting him to make an appointment for the Building
Inspector and Fire Department do another inspection. It was also
suggested that owner of 12 Broadway be asked to attend a Planning
Board meeting. (BM) stated that the applicant needs to request a hearing
for Board to proceed. (EB) Board is asking Court to let Board rehear
this. (DS) suggested Board check with Laura Spector for guidelines as to
how to proceed.
(BM) Is the Planning Board going to make any changes that will be on the
upcoming ballot? Maybe definition of frontage? (EB) related that at one
time the Board’s devised definition of frontage was on the ballot, but it
was pulled. (RH) related that it needed to be defined clearly. (EB)
related that it only allowed frontage on Class 5 roads. Do we want
frontage on Class 6 roads? The bulk of this was done, but we pulled it
back. (RH) related that this can be very complicated. It was decided that
a Work Session would be held at the next meeting and the definition of
frontage would be reviewed along with the proposed changes in the
Zoning Ordinance by the Zoning Board.
(DS) related that there is a meeting on February 7, 2007 at 7:00 P.M. of the
N.H. Regulatory Planning Committee. Impact fees would be discussed
and perhaps a “formula” could be acquired from that meeting for impact
fees.
Item 8. Selectman’s Report
(LK) related that all is well regarding the Selectman’s Board.
7
Item 9. Public Input
Fred Hast related that he was recently at the site of the development on
Route 107 and that on the right side of the road there was about a foot of
standing water. He related that he was concerned that the houses would
be close to this area. He stated that he felt that the houses should be
placed further back in this area. (LK) suggested that we might meet with
Tony Puntin. (DS) suggested he be invited to attend February 15th
meeting. Mr. Hast stated that Class 5 roads are asphalted. (DS) related
that the Town’s acceptance of maintenance of the road makes it a Class 5
road.
Scattered and premature roads were discussed briefly.
Item 10. Member’s Concerns
(DS) The tree with exposed roots on Route 107 subdivision was discussed
briefly. (DS) had talked to Merrill Vaughn about it and it was suggested
that he talk to the Building Inspector.
Item 11. Adjournment
Meeting adjourned at 9:47 P.M.
______________________________
David Simpson, Chairman
_______________________________
Date
APPROVED February 1, 2007
Date