January 21, 2008 Minutes

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
DATE: JANUARY 21, 2008 – WORK SESSION
ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Vice -Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr.
(PM), (Arrival at 7:05 P.M.), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Daniel
Greene (DG), John Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex Officio Alternate, Chris
Conlon (CC), Dan Schroth (DS), Alternate, Delores Fritz, Recording
Secretary.
Members Absent:
Gerard LeDuc, (GL), Alternate
ITEM 3. Work Session
(BM) introduced members of the Planning Board as well as members
present from the Zoning Board, Susan Muenzinger, Ed Vien, and Larry
Federhen.
He related that the purpose of tonight’s meeting was a continued Work
Session of the proposed Zoning Ordinances amendments. He related that a
Motion was currently on the floor from the last Work Session meeting of
January 3rd, which had been seconded and tabled until tonight’s meeting to
allow members a review of the full document.
He noted that since the last meeting, he had submitted copies of the
document to all ZBA members and had also given a copy of the document to
Town Counsel, Laura Specter for review. He related that he had met with
Laura Specter this morning and she had made several suggestions and
2
denoted that probably references to the RSA’s should be deleted as they
make the document quite bulky in length.
(RH) “Who gave you the right to go to an attorney? Why spend Town
money? You should have gone to the BOS for approval. You had no right
to do that. I am offended. Why are we spending money for counsel review
when Board is not even sure this would be going forward as a Warrant.”
(BM) noted that as Vice-Chairman, and Acting Chairman, he was trying to
get something done under the time constraints that exist. “I made the
decision and I will stand by it. The Planning Board is an autonomous Board
and has the right to secure legal review from any source it wants and does
not have to get BOS approval. I made that decision as Acting Chairman.”
He related that though this may be a contentious act, and he is being
criticized for it, he did what he thought was right.
Laura Specter had reviewed the document previously and went over the
proposed changes for about 45 minutes with (BM) here at the Town Hall.
(BM) related if the Board permits, he would like to note those changes and
Board and others could change their copies accordingly.
(PM) arrived at 7:05 P.M. and (BM) reiterated what had already taken place
at the meeting.
(FH) noted that the Board had discussed this briefly at the last BOS meeting
and they had made several comments including that there was too much in
the document and it was too late to put on ballot. They had noted that it
would be difficult for people to digest and it would not pass. “Why don’t we
save time and money and forget it. We spent a lot of money on this
already.”
(FH) I make a Motion not accept this proposal. No Second. Motion dies.
(BM) It is not up to the BOS what PB does. We are an autonomous board
and the BOS cannot tell us what to do. (RH) Yes, but we have a budget for
this. (BM) Noted there will be no more motions until the Motion from
January 3rd has been voted on. (RH) noted that the motion to approve a
document with town counsel modifications is not something I would be
willing to do. (BM) reiterated that was why he would like to note Town
Counsel changes before discussion continued. (RH) related that she
3
reviewed it on a legal basis and I went through it line-by-line and made
several deletions in regard to substance. I would not vote for this proposal
without major changes. (BM) noted that is why he felt it was appropriate to
have Town Counsel go through it. (RH) “You should have checked with
Board first. It is not fair to bring it back. At last week’s session, you
popped this on us when Board originally decided they did not want it. (BM)
“Your opinion and my opinion differ.” (RH) “It was not the consensus of
the Board to do it.” (BM) related that there was no time. (RH) noted that
Board members could have been called and Acting Chairman explained that
it held no validity to do it via telephone. (RH) “It has no validity. It is not
valid that you are bring it to us.” (BM) related that as Acting Chairman, he
did nothing underhanded in this matter.
(CC) noted that Board received document on January 3, 2008, we reviewed
it in our own time and compared it to what currently exists, copied it to
ZBA, and now have Town Counsel opinion. What do we want to discuss.
Lawyers are good at wordsmithing. I think the Board should talk about it
first, get ZBA input as well as Building Inspector and the Town Counsel.
(BM) related that Town Counsel is going to be the one upholding and
defending this document. It is silly of us to ignore Town Counsel’s advice
and then have them defend it. (RH) “It seems this is out of sequence.
Whatever we send to Public Hearing is going to have the recommendation of
this Board attached to it and you are assuming that we recommend it.” (JL)
asked “How long will it take to review the changes by Laura Specter?”
(BM) About 15 minutes. (JL) agreed that they should do it. (FH) noted that
though he is not a lawyer, it is in the Town’s best interest to have this
reviewed. However, why are you wasting her time? (BM) related that he
thought it was in the Town’s best interest that this document be reviewed.
“Is it the sense of the Board that we go through and listen and note her
comments?” (CC) It is prejudicial not to. I believe we should go through
the four steps and the last one being the Town Counsel. (BM) noted that
there are time constraints. This final draft has to be noted in newspaper, and
posted by Wednesday for citizen review. “What do the Board members
suggest?” (RH) I do not see it going anywhere. (BM) Should I call a vote?
(RH) Yes. (JL) But, we do not have Laura Specter’s comments. (RH) No
matter. (CC) suggest we hear the shared comments of ZBA and BI.
(BM) related that the Building Inspector is not a part of this process, he is a
staff person.
4
(FH) Again, it is too much with too little time. I prefer to go back to the 12
articles we originally discussed and then we have a whole year to do others.
This was just handed to us recently after reviewing another one, which cost
us about $546, and that one did not amount to anything. Now he has
condensed it and with this, we can’t do anything or build anything. It is a
waste of time to go forward. It has cost us too much money already.
(PM) noted that Board should not rush through something this lengthy and
whether it gets on or not, we should not rush through it. (BM) We are
trying to make up time. We should hear from the ZBA.
Ed Vien (EV) questioned how many hours were spent with Town Counsel?
(BM) about 45 minutes. (EV) You went through over 66 pages in 45
minutes? (BM) explained that she had previously reviewed it prior to their
meeting this morning. (EV) By changing any one item, it could possibly
change her opinion on document and she would have to review it again. We
should not be rushing just to get something done. It scares me that we
would do that. (BM) explained that there had been a change in leadership
and since then Board lost a lot of time and now we are trying to “catch up.”
(EV) related that he had gone through this and that there were some good
things and other things that the average person would not understand. The
size of the document alone is scary We are not going to get anywhere
blaming each other. I cannot say that I would support this document.
Susan Muenzinger (SM) requested the timeframes regarding this document
and it was explained to her by (BM) noting it was to be voted on tonight,
posted in Concord Monitor tomorrow and posted around town for the Public
Hearing on February 4th. There is no time for an additional Public Hearing.
(SM) questioned whether the changes as proposed by Town Counsel were
procedural or separative. (BM) noted mostly procedural. (SM) noted that
she went through the proposal thoroughly and made quite a few changes and
marginal notes, which would take about an hour to go through. I agree with
(EV) that there are some good things, some a little too stringent, and others a
little over the top. In total, I would not support this. There are too many
questions in my mind about this. I think it was a good effort but I wish that
the Planning Board had recommended it sooner. That being the case, I
recommend you not adopt this.
5
She also questioned that the PB had discussed another document that had
been agreed upon prior to this and asked whether they could modify that one
easily and use this document for next year. (BM) explained that they had
done some ordinances changes previously, which was mostly tweaking and
it did not go into much except for some definition changes. This proposal
submitted by a citizen is a much more thought out, comprehensive
document. He does not want amendments to it.
Larry Federhen (LF) noted that he agreed with Susan Muenzinger and Ed
Vien. There was just too little time to think about it. If this goes on ballot, I
predict it will get a “NO” vote. There were some things I liked and some I
did not like. In order to prevent certain things from becoming part of the
ordinance, I would have to vote “No” on it.
(BM) asked Board “Can we get this approved?” To present something much
smaller is not worth doing. It takes a long time to go through it and requires
a lot of work for acceptance. Getting it passed will clean up some of the
Zoning Ordinances. (DS) requested to speak and asked when he would be
heard. (BM) noted that as Chairman, he would decide when (DS) was able
to comment. (JL) “This Board should not be entertaining this pantomime.”
(DS) noted that if Board would give him some time to talk, he would be
okay with it. Chairman agreed that he would give some time to speak before
end of meeting.
(SM) wanted to know if there were elements that the PB could agree on such
as frontage, cluster, structures and maybe clean up some of the Ordinances?
I would hate to throw it all out, perhaps, if you apply yourselves, you could
clean it up. (BM) noted that Board had agreed that the CNHRPB would at
some point write the cluster ordinance and they could take tha t out and do it
next week. It is too big to deal with.
(DS) was called upon by Chairman to speak. “Who would sue Town would
be Jim Pritchard and he is the guy proposing this and normally, suits against
the Town are from him.”
He further related that this is all out of sequence due to time constraints.
That should have been a “red flag” that it was not in the best interests of the
Town. Also, spending taxpayer’s money. I have never spent a dime of
taxpayers money. It doesn’t bother you? You say you care about taxes but
every budget and lawsuit you support suggests you do not care. Why do you
6
feel the PB has to recommend this? (BM) Procedure dictates that the PB
recommends it. There is a Motion on the floor to recommend it.
Dan Schroth noted, “This doesn’t come from the people or from someone
who lives in Town. Making our land laws stricter should come from the
people of the Town. Why do the people need more rules and regulations? I
talked to you on the phone and you said without laws there is anarchy.
Zoning was passed in the 80’s and it failed three times before it was passed.
How is it going to help our Town? (BM) related that the Planning Board, by
State Law, deals with amendments to the Zoning Ordinances. (DS) noted
that they should not be stricter.
(CC) noted that part of (DS) comments I believe to be true. Though, what
some did in the past could affect future owners. No law existed in the past
that prevented harm in the future. My concern is that changing an appointed
board to an elected board changes the tone and tenure of this Board. I get a
sense that this is a lot of work, responsibility and a sizeable undertaking. I,
personally, would like to hear (SM’s) comments and others who have taken
the time to review this.
(RH) My reason for getting on Planning Board was to see Zoning
Ordinances brought up-to-date. This has not been done. It was not just to
tighten it up but also to make it cleaner and not discourage clusters. I feel
elected Board might not make it come forward. In the past I, personally,
interpreted Zoning Ordinances and right now no one is interpreting our
Ordinances, not even our Building Inspector. (BM) Why is the Building
Inspector not allowed to interpret Zoning Ordinances? (RH) Because he
has not been given this authority. (BM) The BI is an employee of the BOS
and they are the ones who put this in his job description. (RH) “He is
working for Town, not the BOS.” This is too much, too fast. There are a lot
of changes here. I would rather make changes to the current Zoning
Ordinances rather than just giving the people “something.” I thought I had
been clear about this.
(FH) noted that before the Tannery closed, the EPA came in and advised that
certain things had to be done to clear things up first. (BM) Previously the
BI was an administrator, but BOS changed that. This was not a PB decision.
(PM) I think I have already said how I feel about this document. We should
take all this input and combine it into one document. (BM) noted that the
timing is not our choice and we are in a big rush to have this done.
7
(DG) By going through the BI you get one interpretation and then the PB
offers another interpretation. This new proposal limits the amount of
interpretation that can be read into it. Person can come before Zoning Board
and it is all noted there with no mincing of words. (RH) I think the
opposite. This is ludicrous and no one understands it. Town counsel went
over this document for legal acceptance and not for substance. A lot of
substantive stuff needs to be changed.
(BM) I say we go through the legal advice and it will give us a somewhat
different document. I am asking (DG) to withdraw his original Motion and
make a new motion for an amended document. (JL) Until we have heard
what Laura Specter had to say, I do not know.
(DG) I would rather not withdraw my Motion.
(CC) reiterated that he would like to hear what changes other thoughtful
folks had made and that he would be willing to highlight changes and
prioritize any of them. (BM) explained that the time sequence does not offer
us the opportunity to do it this way to allow this to be on Warrant.
(BM) All in favor of recommending document which has previously been
recommended for Public Hearing on February 4th. Vote: Motion passes 4-3.
(Opposed: FH, RH, and PM). Proposed changes go to Public Hearing.
(JL) Is this going forward with corrections? (BM) No, there are no
modifications at all.
Ed Vien noted that he had hoped that three changes would come about
namely the frontage definition, what type of road is necessary for a
subdivision and in what cases a site review is mandated. (BM) noted that
some might have been included in Town Counsel’s recommendations. (EV)
Is it possible to get the Town Counsel’s recommendations? (BM) The ZBA
can come to the Public Hearing. I would be delighted to go through them
with you.
Susan Muenzinger noted that however this comes out, I would recommend
and hope that the Planning Board in its next effort regarding Zoning
Ordinances in Pittsfield would take a look at zoning of districts and the types
8
uses permitted and revamp them with clarification of terms. This would
make a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinances.
(BM) noted that there are several entities that should be involved in this
process. Namely, the ZBA, PB, BOS and Master Plan. The Master Plan is
really where the Zoning Ordinances come from as to what the Town wants
to do. He related that he has not heard from Master Plan in months. It
would be beneficial if all four of these entities met and then could formulate
a procedure to avoid what has happened tonight.
(RH) wanted to clarify, that the PB recommends this proposal. Can we put
the names on it as to who voted pro and against? I do not want my name on
it as someone who voted for it. Board discussed the possibility of noting
which Board members voted affirmatively for this proposal. They agreed
that it has been accepted by the Board as a whole. (RH) wanted to further
clarify that it now goes go Public Hearing and then PB will meet after this
time and will determine at that time if it should be a Warrant Article. So
there is still a chance it may not be put on the ballot? (BM) We have just
voted to bring it to Public Hearing. After Public Hearing, another vote will
be taken. There are no future Public Hearings available to us for changes
due to time constraints. (FH) As long as there are quite a few people at
hearing. (BM) Again, hearing is scheduled for February 4th at 7:00 P.M. at
High School Lecture Hall. (EV) questioned when last possible date for
Public Hearing would be? (BM) I believe it is either February 4th or 5th.
However, in order to get it posted properly, it has to be no later than the 4 th.
(FH) I do not think it will pass myself. The Hall is costing us, the ad in the
paper and copying it. I say wait until next year. The new Board can start
going through it in April and go through it line by line. At the Public
Hearing there will be a few people and some will say yes an d some say no.
On Election Day, how are we going to put this on the Ballot? (BM) related
that it is possible that Board can pass another Motion/Second/Vote to nullify
this one.
(RH) I make a Motion to rescind the previous Motion. (FH) Second. The
question is can we do this.
(DG) By doing this Motion, you are setting precedent.
Vote: Motion fails 3- 4 (FH, RH, PM).
9
Motion to have this proposal on Town Website (PDF and Word)
posted at Library, Police Department, Town Hall and Post Office. (DG)
Second.
Bill Provencal and Board briefly discussed how this could be accomplished.
They agreed on how and who could help accomplish this. Ways to include
various comments of various individuals were discussed with Clayton
Wood.
Board reiterated as to what the procedure would entail after Town Meeting.
(RH) noted it sounded like there is no time to make any changes. The Town
will only be voting on document as is with no comments from Planning
Board. I am disappointed unless Board votes not to bring it forward on a
Warrant Article. We all agree changes should be made but it makes no
sense to put it on the ballot knowing that the Board does not totally approve.
(BM) noted that he had tried to get the Board to note changes as suggested
by Town Counsel. (CC) questioned how citizens would go about requesting
changes to Zoning Ordinances and it was explained that this could happen
with them attending Zoning Board meeting.
PUBLIC INPUT
(DS) Meetings of PB should be on the first and third Thursday of the
month consistently. Many times there are no meetings. Why wasn’t this
one on the third Thursday. (BM) related that he was out of Town and
returned on Thursday. (DS) related that this makes no difference, it should
be on its regularly scheduled day. It was explained that sometimes Boards
do change their days. (DS) related that changes should be kept to a
minimum.
Jonny Popper questioned whether there will be a vote on February 4 th and it
was explained that voting takes place on March 8th.
(LK) related that he had to leave the room for a couple of minutes and
wanted to know if Board had gone over the changes as proposed by Town
Counsel? (BM) explained that Board did not choose to do this. (LK) noted
that usually recommendations of Town Counsel are taken into account and
2-3 Public Hearings with public input are held. Then Board can go back and
revise and educate the public on these matters. Because of the February 4 th
10
November, you would have had plenty of time. That is how I would h
deadline, there is a lack of time. If this had been done back in ave liked to
have seen it done. (FH) noted that the new Board starts in April and they
could have it done by October with plenty of time for several Public
Hearings. (BM) related that every year Board tries to start early but it never
seems to work out.
ADJOURNMENT
(DG) Motion to adjourn meeting. (JL) Second. Carried 7-0.
Approved: February 7, 2008
____________________________ ____________________
Bill Miskoe, Vice- Chairman Date