JANUARY 29, 2009 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 29, 2009

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

Roll Call

Members Present:

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

Members Absent:

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

PUBLIC HEARING

(GL) The Public Hearing that was continued is now back in session. Will (BM) and (DS) please step up and be seated on the Board.

Before allowing Public Input, I would like to catch everyone up on what transpired on January 22nd. He explained to Board and audience that a letter had been received noting that any changes made to the document should be substantative. Board ultimately decided not to change anything within the document.

PUBLIC INPUT

Jim Pritchard: Last week, John Lenaerts asked where the density numbers came from, and I do not believe he ever got an answer. I have been to all Planning Board Work Sessions this past year, and I believe the density numbers came from various members in relation to a developer coming in. Another thing, last week at the Work Session, (MR) noted that she did not understand the cluster development geometry and she would like to see a diagram of it. I do not see how anybody can understand how the cluster subdivision relates to open space preservation if they do not know how the geometry works out.

Lastly, regarding the so-called typographical errors, it should be noted that the Board initially agreed that was what they wanted. At the Work Session, Fred Hast said they would talk about changes of these typographical errors in the future. There is no reason to think that these typographical errors will ever be corrected, if adopted. As noted, each of these typos are things they originally wanted. Board felt they would have a hard time getting this document through if they asked for these things. So, I do not think anybody should think these “typos” would be corrected at a future date. The only way that they will ever be corrected is if someone got a citizen petition together to do it that way.

John Lenaerts: There is so much in here that I believe is bad. I would encourage the Board not to go forward with it. He referred to the cluster and related that it is a “personal interest.” I believe it will get soundly defeated.

Eileen Legg: I agree with John Lenaerts. I do not believe it should go forward. There are too many things that are of question. Look at the cluster development. It is a burden that you are putting on the Town and it will cost the Town. You will regret it.

Fred Hast: To answer John and Eileen, a developer comes in with plans. We will look at it and if we do not see the right dimensions of open land, we can tell him what he can/cannot do. We can change cluster if we want.

John Lenaerts: Where in the Ordinances does it say that?

Fred Hast explained that there are two clusters within Town and explained the open space in conjunction with these clusters and his conception of how a cluster should be planned. We do have to “tweak” it a little bit more, but if it is passed, we can do that next year. We do not have a lot of clusters going in within Pittsfield.

We are asking the public to pass it and it will be “tweaked” next year. We have decent working Ordinances but we need to work on them year after year to make them better. The original Ordinances have been changed over the years

Jim Pritchrd: Mr. Lenaerts said there was an error in the cluster number, but he needs to interpret it in another way. The Court would assume that the density is correct. I disagree with Mr. Hast. The Planning Board has no authority to do something different than what is in the Ordinances. What is in the Ordinances is what you get to do. If they meet the conditions set forth in the Ordinances, Board cannot do anything else. The function of the Town Meeting is when they get to accept it.

James Theodore: How do the clusters benefit the Town?

Fred Hast: They benefit the Town and residents because you then have open spaces. A lot of people do not want two acres of land.

James Theodore: If I have my house and someone builds a cluster next door, what is he going to pay in taxes?

Bob Elliott: You and he would pay whatever the assessor assesses it for. Only the assessor can answer that question.

Bill Miskoe: The way you have presented the cluster development, people do not have to build on a ten-acre lot. What we are debating is whether there is a need for multiples.

James Theodore: I am asking these questions because I am wondering if more services – fire, police, ambulance would be needed. I am asking if this will create any revenue for the Town?

Fred Hast: Yes, it will create revenue for the Town.

Bob Elliott: This is a perfect situation where multiples work. It makes sense. We are not the first Town to come up with this concept of open space. (While trying to explain to Bill Miskoe, his thoughts, he “shushed” the Acting Chairman.”

Bill Miskoe: I sat on Planning Board previously, and you may think you can persuade developers your way, but it does not work that way.

Gerard Leduc: Bob, do not ever shush me. We do have public who want to speak.

Eileen Legg: Does anyone know how much it costs to educate a child? (Several Board members commented.) She noted that cluster developments would bring approximately two children per house and you will not get back in taxes what it costs to educate a child and will not put the Town “in the black.” These clusters would invite families with young children.

John Lenaerts: Your example of ten acres, you think that doesn’t put children in the school. There will be children in these houses.

Jim Pritchard: I have discussed this with Fred Hast and Bill Miskoe in the past. There is nothing in proposal noting the conditions of open space and it would not apply.

James Theodore: Last time I was here, Dan Schroth resigned, why is he sitting on Board tonight?

Gerard Leduc: Board will only accept questions regarding the Public Hearing. If you come to the meeting next week, you can ask your question then and we will give you an answer.

No further public input.

Close Public Input

BOARD DISCUSSION:

Fred Hast: In response to Ms. Legg’s questions, he noted that the enrollment in the elementary school is down. I speak from experience, I have six children and 12 grandchildren, but now families are raising fewer children. They cannot afford them. It costs x number of dollars to keep the schools open. School dropped three teachers this year.

Eileen Legg: I teach so I understand how the school works. “Build houses and they will come.”

Fred Hast: Years ago we had 750 apartments, and now have about 150 apartments vacant. Why is Welfare down? Going back to the cluster, we have a Site Plan Review to “slow them down.” Then, we can work with them. Times are changing every day.

Bill Miskoe: We are talking about what we are going to put on the ballot. On January 15th, Board brought document to Public Hearing. Questions were posed and Board admitted that some things were not as they intended to be presented. Board continued Public Hearing to correct the “typographical errors.” On January 22nd, Board looked at document and noted that these were not typographical errors. Because of Statutes, we were not allowed to correct some of the proposed Ordinances. Board admitted that it was flawed. On that date, Board voted to bring it forward tonight as is.

If Board wants to put this Ordinance on ballot, it will do damage. Why does this Board want to put this on the ballot? We have a cluster ordinance. Two members of the Board would benefit from this and have other interests. There is no demand for it. The Zoning Ordinances should be implemented as noted by the Master Plan. The Master Plan has not asked for these changes. I asked if any other Town group requested these changes and the answer was “No.”

It is a flawed document it meets no demands and Planning Board does not benefit by putting it on the ballot.

Gerard Leduc: Dan, you have five minutes to explain your thoughts, but do not ever go “off” on a Board member like you did previously.

Dan Schroth: Every once in a while you have to go back to the basics. What this proposal does, it lets the Town vote for less and not more.

He continued by reading from the Bill of Rights, Article I, II, III and XXXVIII.

This gives you something to think about. Ours is more in line with the Constitution and I vote yes for it.

(DS) Motion to approve the Planning Board Proposed Zoning Ordinances changes as presented and put it on the ballot. (BE) Second.

Discussion:

Bill Miskoe: I think we should consider both the State and Federal law. If Ordinances are not entirely clear to reader as to their intent, they are not sufficient. I keep hearing Board will take care of it. We won’t allow bad things to happen. It should not be subject to some unwritten policy. It is not just my opinion, but it is State law. If it is enacted as is, it is to become challengeable in a Court of law because it has too many undefined requirements in it. Fred Hast keeps saying Board will hold a Site Plan Review. We should not put in place Zoning Ordinances if they are unclear in their written intent and it depends on a Board to work it out at some point in the future.

As Fred Hast says, we always have a Site Plan Review. We will “tweak” it next year. That is not good enough. If it is not good enough, let us not put it on the ballot.

(GL) Rather than take a general vote, I will poll the individual members:

(DS) Yes. (MR) No. (DG) No. (BM) No. (BE) Yes. (FH) Yes.
(GL) Since there is a tie, I will also vote. Yes. Carried 4-3.

ADJOURNMENT

(FH) Motion to adjourn. (BM) Second. Carried 7-0.

Meeting adjourned at 7:40 P.M.

Approved: February 5, 2009

___________________________ _________________________
Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman Date