January 7, 2010 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, JANUARY 7, 2010

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Acting Chairman.

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Bill Miskoe (BM), Acting Chairman, Larry Konopka (LK), Selectman Ex Officio, Daniel Greene (DG), Jim Pritchard (JP), Dan Schroth (DS), Ted Mitchell (TM), Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate, Hank Fitzgerald (HF), Alternate and Rory Cadorette, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger (RH)

Hank Fitzgerald (HF), Alternate was seated for absent member, Rich Hunsberger.

ITEM 3. Agenda Review

(LK) Safe Routes to School; (BM) Escrow Funding – West Meadow, CIP’s.

(BM) The West Meadow development was approved in 2005 and has had some difficulties. Merrill Construction Company is now completing the project. Louis Berger Association is doing the inspections for the Planning Board and noted that escrow has been depleted. Berger is now requesting the Town acquire additional escrow funding by April 15, 2010 from Merrill Construction to complete the project.

(BM) The Budget Committee has requested that this Board move ahead with the CIP’s. The Planning Board is charged with acquiring these from the Department Heads. At a previous Planning Board meeting, members were requested to volunteer for this endeavor with no responses, thus an ad has been placed in the Sun requesting citizen volunteer(s) to form this CIP Committee.

ITEM 5. Ralph Odell – Master Plan Review

Ralph Odell presented Board proposed copy of Master Plan. It was suggested that a Public Hearing should be scheduled on February 4, 2010.

(HF) Motion to schedule Public Hearing for Master Plan review on February 4, 2010 at 7:00 P.M. (LK) Second. Carried 7-0.

ITEM 6. Matt Monahan – Review Site Plan & Subdivision Revisions

Matt Monahan, Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission presented final draft of Rules of Procedures and Forms of Planning Board.

(LK) Motion to schedule Public Hearing for Rules of Procedures and Forms on February 4, 2010 at 7:30 P.M.

(LK) Withdraw Motion.

Matt Monahan (MM) reviewed the contents with Board noting that basically the forms will remain the same with a few minor revisions. These minor revisions were presented to Planning Board at the meeting of December 3, 2009 and will remain the same again with a few additional minor changes.

(LK) Motion to schedule Public Hearing for Rules of Procedures and Forms on February 4, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. (HK) Second.

Discussion: (JP) This packet is not ready for a Public Hearing. I have had conversations with Matt and I have concerns with the merits of what he is doing and explained various legal opinions that he had discussed with Matt. (MM) related that he had talked with (JP) and tried to compromise with some of the items.

(LK) I have reviewed this and feel comfortable going to Public Hearing. Town Attorney can now review this for legal matters. He requested that (MM) join with Building Inspector, Kyle Parker, and the Town Attorney to have the document reviewed. (BM) noted that timing could be an issue with forwarding to Town Attorney, allowing them sufficient time to review and the date of the Public Hearing. (HF) If timing is a problem, why not schedule this for the February 18th meeting rather than on February 4th. (MM) agreed that he would prefer the February 18th date to allow for review by Town Attorney to occur.

(LK) Amend Motion to schedule Public Hearing for Rules of Procedures and Forms on February 18, 2010 at 7:30 P.M. (HK) Amends Second.
Carried 6-1 (JP).

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of December 3, 2009

(DG) Motion to approve Minutes of December 3, 2009. (HF) Second.
Carried 6-0. (TM) Abstain.

ITEM 9. New Business

3. Safe Routes to School

(LK) Board of Selectmen has received a letter from the School Board requesting that a Planning Board member be part of a committee regarding the Safe Routes to School Grant. (TM) accepts this position.

(HF) Motion to approve Ted Mitchell for the Safe Routes to School Grant Committee. (LK) Second. Carried 7-0.

4. Housing Standards

It is noted that the Housing Standards requires a Planning Board member also. (BM) noted he had done this previously and is willing to do so again.

(HF) Motion to appoint Bill Miskoe to Housing Standards Committee. (DS) Second. Carried 5-0. (JP) and (BM) Abstain.

ITEM 7. 7:30 P.M. – PUBLIC HEARING – Citizen Petition Revision to Zoning Regulations – Frontage

(BM) read the citizen petition on Frontage in its entirety to the public in attendance. (See Attachment I)
(BM) The Rules of Procedures indicate that all questions are to be addressed to the Board. It should be noted that (JP) wrote this petition and one other Board member signed it. (BM) announced that he had researched whether Board members who signed the petition were disqualified and noted that signing the petition did not disqualify any Board member.

(JP) As the author of this, I have some comments to make as a citizen, but am not recusing myself from this Board. (BM) Do you mind if I defer questions to you? (JP) “No.”

Tom Hitchcock: I would like Jim to explain this in layman’s terms. What will this do to Town and builders? (JP) If you are subdividing a lot, this does not affect existing lots only subdivided new lots. The reason is public safety, ambulance and fire egress and exit, etc.

(BM) If subdivision builds a new Class V, is that okay? (JP) Only if it is dedicated to a public use. Mr. Pritchard continued with legal dissertation on this matter and included Matt Monahan in the discussion. Tom Hitchcock: I find in the worst building year, that we are trying to stop building from happening. (DS) Did you say this is public safety? How many houses now exist?

(BM) noted public input will be discussed first and then the Board will discuss.

George Bachelder: The Town already has a policy on Class VI roads that they must be brought up to a certain standard. The owner must sign a waiver to protect Town. I have a problem of driveways off Class V only. (JP) RSA 674 says access to a lot must be from frontage. There are two purposes for this. One is the lot size indicator and the second is safe access. (LK) reiterated how Class VI roads are approved, and questioned how this Petition would change anything. (JP) If building a Class VI road requires Select Board and Planning Board approval, Building Permit requirement will not, only for the creation of new lots.

Fred Hast: We have quite a few lots on Class VI roads now. They can’t continue? (BM) Only creating new lots would be affected. Fred Hast: If they build the road up to a Class V with pavement, is that acceptable?
(JP) Yes, it would be a Class V road, so that is fine.

Philip (Sparky) Gordon: expressed some concerns about tax issues.
(JP) replied that, “No, this would not affect taxes.”

George Bachelder: He is relating to the assessment. (JP) disagreed with this. Even though a building is allowed, on a subdivision it would not be allowed.

Jesse Pacheco: I question about how this will affect the growth of Pittsfield. We already have a Zoning Board and Planning Board to review subdivisions. Why is this needed? (JP) Because these decisions are being made ad hoc and this will make it fair. In several past instances, these Boards have allowed all sorts of subdivisions on Class VI roads including frontage on driveways, a twelve-lot subdivision, and etc. and other people have been denied similar requests.

(BM) explained that this will be on the ballot. This Board will vote to Recommend or Not Recommend these Citizen Petitions.

Jesse Pacheco: I suggest to the Board Not to Recommend. I am concerned with a growth stop for Pittsfield. (BM) If someone has Class VI frontage, he could raise to a Class V for subdivision. (JP) This will not stifle growth. Residential construction on Class VI roads is very expensive and should not be allowed.

Ed Vien, Chairman of Zoning Board of Adjustment: Everyone knows Zoning Ordinances need to be revised. The Town has already appropriated the money for Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission to be on board for this, let’s wait and do all zoning revisions at once. No piecemeal, let’s do it once. I recommend that this Board Not Recommend this petition.

Tom Hitchcock: I was on the Board when we tried to address Zoning and we ended up knit picking. I would support waiting for CNHRPC to help fix the entire Zoning Ordinances.

(BM) Jim, are you responding as a member of the public? (JP) Yes, I find this amusing because when I wrote a comprehensive re-write of Zoning, the Board wanted to do one small piece at a time.

Ed Vien: I am confused; either you are a citizen speaking or a member of this Board. I do not see how you can be both. Either recuse yourself and be a citizen or don’t. (BM) You either speak as a citizen and recuse yourself or sit as a Board member. (JP) Says who? What law is this? I do not have to.
(BM) I do not know how to enforce this.

Eve Kost: I am concerned with the timeframe for CNHRPC. Matt Monahan explained that this would occur over the next year. (BM) The goal is to have a completely revised ordinance ready for the vote in 2011.

(JP) Speaking as a citizen, I want to explain that this Board did not want to review my revisions, so they spent $17,500 for Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission to do it. Matt Monahan explained that Zoning is supposed to be based on the Master Plan and now that the Master Plan is complete, zoning revision can proceed.

Carol Lambert: I have reviewed the past information. Jim is correct. It is who you are and who you know as to how things are approved. I support Jim fully.

Meeting closed to public.

(DG) Motion that Planning Board Recommend the Frontage Petition.
(JP) Second.

Discussion: (DS) I don’t trust that this is for public safety. Every time we give up something like public safety, we take something away from the individual. I vote Not to Recommend this.

(HF) noted that a DOT road inventory had been completed and

Class V Town Roads 37.393 miles

Class VI Town Roads 8.75 miles about 20%
Old Route 107
Tan Road (Sections)
Thompson Road (3 Sections)
Governor’s Road (Section)
Berry Pond Road (Section)
True Road (Section)
Old Colony Road
Sanborn Road
Daroska Road (Section)
Range Road (Section)
Clark Street (Section)

(HF) continued, Jim has supplied Board with an incomplete report from Kerrie Diers, Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, stating how much in favor of this she is which is dated December 9, 2004. (See Attachment III) There is only one page of a two-page report so we do not know what the context is of what she was saying. Jim only pulled out the piece of that document that he wanted to support his petition. The article Jim has submitted from NH Practice states “Frontage requirements on Class VI highway is an extremely complex issue.”

I also believe we could be involved in a land taking issue because it would prevent someone from using his land by passing a Town ordinance. I am not a lawyer, but the potential is there. Was this reviewed by legal for the Town?

(BM) It was not sent by the Town for legal review. (JP) It was in 2005 and this is the same definition. (HF) RSA 674.24 in the New Hampshire Planning and Use Regulation book contains the definition of frontage as “Frontage – the portion of a lot bordering on a street, highway or right of way.” RSA 674.41 notes “On a Class VI highway, the Select Board after review and comment by the Planning Board, votes to authorize the issuance of a Building Permit.” There is a procedure in place now to handle Class VI roads. I do not see why we are recreating the wheel.

(BM) I am opposed to the Board making this recommendation for two reasons. The first is that there is no compelling reason at this time to make this change; secondly, we have already voted to go through a complete re-write with Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission and I think this is premature. (DG) We voted to wait until the Master Plan was done.

(JP) Since you bring up the Master Plan, it states that although no laws have been broken, private roads and driveways are requiring mediation.

(LK) We are all sitting here agreeing and disagreeing, but we are trying to look out for the best interest of the Town. I think dealing with CNHRPC is the best way to handle this.

(BM) All those in favor of Recommending this petitioned article to the voters – Vote: 2 (JP) and (DG) – 5. The Motion fails.
The Planning Board will Not Recommend this article.

ITEM 8. 7:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – Citizen Petition Revision to Zoning Regulations – Home Occupation

(BM) read to the audience the Home Occupation Citizen Petition in entirety. (See Attachment II)

Open to Public Input

Jesse Pacheco: “Will this affect grandfathered businesses or new?” (JP) No ordinance affects grandfathered businesses, only new.” Several questions on grandfathered matters were discussed. (HF) Grandfathering is something that exists prior to the vote of the Town to adopt the change.

Pat Heffernan: Just to clarify, on (a) and (b), if you vote in favor of this, do you get one or the other? (HF) No, you get both. Pat Heffernan: We are just coming out of the worst financial mess and here we are trying to limit things. First you are limiting travel to twelve (12) trips; that hurts business. Secondly, you are limiting it to four (4) people. (HF) The ordinance now limits it to four (4) employees. It is trying to limit the types of home business.

Tom Hitchcock: This ordinance is nuts. People have common sense. I am making a living. What Jim is doing is putting up a barbed wire fence around this Town.

Fred Hast: Why are you excluding kennels? If I own a piece of land and wanted to put a building on it and take care of dogs, why shouldn’t I be able to? (JP) Kennels are already excluded by the existing zoning.

Jesse Pacheco: I agree with Tom Hitchcock. I think this would hurt future residents.

Public Input Closed

(HF) Motion that this Board Not Recommend this ordinance. (DS) Second.

Discussion:

(JP) I have heard some very bad comments, but I think they should read what is already in the ordinance. This is nothing new.

(BM) I do not recommend this for the same reasons I noted regarding the Frontage issue. I also think as written, this is an absolute enforcement nightmare.

(HF) First of all, as the ordinance is now written, a kennel and home occupation is allowed in Town with a Special Exception so that Zoning Board must review the criteria and grant or not grant the exception. Why even have a Zoning Board or Planning Board if you are going to try and write everything so tight that these Boards are not needed.

Under Road Design Standards, a normal single family home is ten (10) trips a day; so, to allow twelve (12) means you are not making a living. Who’s going to enforce this and at what cost? This is an attack ordinance if you do not like someone.

There is a sign restriction when the Town of Pittsfield has no sign ordinance.

Kennels are already regulated by the ZBA. Why add this? I do not see the need for this.

(JP) I want to know, does Hank want answers to all his questions?
(HF) “No.”

(DS) How do all these changes, help the Town? People in our Town believe we should keep our basic freedoms to live on our land. This causes problems by making it harder to make a living.

(LK) I still feel we should wait for the Master Plan.

(BM) Vote: All in favor to Not Recommend the citizen petition on Home Occupation. Carried 5-2 (JP) and (DG). Motion passes. Board does Not Recommend this petition on Home Occupation.

Public Hearing Closed

Board recesses for five minutes. Board returned to order.

ITEM 9. New Business Continued

1. CNHRPC – Congestion Mitigation

For Board review. No action taken.

2. Human Services Transportation Plan

(BM) If someone wishes to go to this conference, please see me.

ITEM 10. Selectman’s Report – Larry Konopka, Selectman Ex Officio

None.

ITEM 11. Building Inspector Report

None.

ITEM 12. Members Concerns

(CW) I have a problem with how the Board interfered with (JP)’s right to present himself as a citizen. Show me the law that says he can’t do this? I do not think this was fair to a fellow Board member.

(DG) We operate under a double standard. The Chairman should be consistent.

(JP) Dan Greene has shown me that this Board has a double standard and if you are apologizing to me, it is way too little, way too late. That is my member concern.

ITEM 13. Public Input

Gerard Leduc: I am happy that the Master Plan is done and hope the zoning is brought into line.

Board had a general discussion about the events of this evening’s meeting.

(BM) A surveyor came in to ask us if what property owners were trying to accomplish was a minor subdivision or lot line adjustment. This is to inform the Board and they are now meeting with the BI and surveyor.

ITEM 14. Adjournment

(DG) Motion to adjourn. (JP) Second. Carried 7-0. Meeting adjourned at

Approved: February 4, 2010

_____________________________ ____________________
Bill Miskoe, Acting Chairman Date

II Tapes