July 2, 2009 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 2, 2009

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Gerard Leduc, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Gerard Leduc (GL), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice Chairman, Fred Hast (FH), Selectman Ex Officio, Daniel Greene (DG), Jim Pritchard (JP), Dan Schroth (DS), Ted Mitchell (TM), Alternate, Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger (RH)

(TM), Alternate was seated on the Board.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of June 4, 2009 and June 18, 2009

(BM) Motion to approve Minutes of June 4, 2009 as amended by Jim Pritchard. (DS) Second. Carried 7-0.

(BM) Motion to approve Minutes of June 18, 2009. (DS) Second.

Discussion: (JP) noted that there were a lot of inaccuracies in the Minutes which he would like to note if it could be done without harassment, otherwise I will vote “No” to Minutes and post the corrections on my Website. (BM) The amendments, what are they? (JP) Bill asked the question, but you are the Chairman and I am awaiting your decision. Now, would you like me to do it or not? Chairman allowed him to present his “revisions.” (DS) We are still in the discussion phase of these Minutes. We should be voting for what is front of you.

(BM) We cannot have another motion while there is a Motion on the table. I will withdraw my motion as to approve the draft Minutes as presented by Recording Secretary. (DS) I withdraw my Second.

(BM) Motion to approve draft Minutes as proposed by Jim Pritchard. (DG) Second.

(JP) Anything I can do to make it easier, I will do. He explained that he would be happy to complete revised Minutes with “corrections” to expedite it. The Planning Board has a duty to assure the accuracy of its Minutes. He noted that as the Board well knows what happened with the revisions on the proposed Zoning Ordinances amendments which he did not “blame Dee for” and as Marilyn Roberts said she and the rest of the Board should have fixed the “typographical errors.”

(BM) I would like to qualify my motion to approve the Minutes. This Board has to decide. (DS) noted that the Minutes have a (JP) slant on them. (JP) noted that his job was to correct inaccuracies and note if it is incorrect, (DS) would need to show it. (FH) If you are going to go through this every week, why don’t you give us a copy prior to the meeting and Dee can copy it for us. (JP) I agree with (FH), obviously you folks do not want to listen to tapes. (BM) I have made the Motion, but we are endorsing (JP)’s version. He is not a certified court reporter. He claims to be accurate but anyone can make a mistake. (FH) Give us a printed copy ahead of time with proposed changes. There are many Minutes in the Town Hall, but the Minutes are highlights of what took place and are not verbatim. Carried 5-2 (GL) and (DS).

After discussion, it was agreed that Recording Secretary would draft Minutes, forward to (JP) and he would make the “necessary” revisions after each meeting and forward them to Dee for distribution. This would be on a trial basis.

ITEM 4. New Business.

a. E-Mail – Jim Pritchard

(GL) noted that he had received a copy of an E-Mail from Jim Pritchard to Bill Miskoe. (JP) “There are two E-Mails and each of them is marked “CONFIDENTIAL, TO BE READ BY ONLY THE ADDRESSEE(S). PLEASE DO NOT FORWARD WITHOUT PERMISSION.” Bill’s distribution of them is illegal. I am not going to do anything to give permission to use these E-mails.

(BM) “I received two unsolicited E-Mails. More than that, but I received these two as unsolicited E-Mails. I have not entered into any confidentiality agreement with Mr. Pritchard. I am not bound by any confidentiality requirements. These are unsolicited messages which have arrived in my Internet E-Mail box and such as, if they had arrived in my mailbox or been pushed under my door, I consider them to be my property to distribute so long as I do not amend them without disclosure, and I have made no amendments. These were sent to me, they became my property, and I have distributed them. And let the record show that Mr. Pritchard has accused me of breaking the law, which I believe I have not done.” (JP) He is mistaken, they are my property, and they are copyrighted property, and one is obviously a response to Bill’s E-Mail. (DS) You have my name in here as well. You should be doing Planning Board business. This is bad business. (JP) I am not going to discuss this. (BM) These are E-Mails between two Town officials. It is the right-to-know issue. (JP) Find me the RSA that indicates it is right-to-know. Don’t you have a complaint set forth in this letter? (BM) I have a letter to the Chairman basically complaining about your (JP) behavior. (GL) At this point, I feel it should go to the Ethics Committee and ask them to see if any RSA laws have been broken. (BM) That could happen, but I believe before that happens, I have to bring my complaint to the Board at which the whole thing originated, hence this letter. (GL) How does the Board feel about it going to the Ethics Committee? (JP) “You are right; this would go before the Ethics Committee if that’s what Mr. Miskoe feels. Now, just to say, well, thus and so happened, the Ethics Ordinance has certain provisions, and Bill has to decide which of those provisions has been violated. Now, I don’t see any reference here to the Ethics Ordinance or which provision or some RSA that I am supposed to have broken. It seems to me that it would be a good idea for Bill to figure out which provision of the law it is that I am supposed to have broken and say so. And until he does, I don’t know why we are wasting our time on this.” (BM) “If, in fact, a complaint goes to the Ethics Committee, those definitions, those specifications will be met. This is not a complaint to the Ethics Committee. It is a complaint to the Planning Board.” (JP) “How does it constitute bribery?” (DS) This is backroom deal-making. (JP) “Mr. Schroth can call this backroom deal-making, but Bill Miskoe and I have been up front in discussions about the Zoning Ordinance, we have told the Planning Board, I know that I have, that he and I have been discussing this through E-Mails. The Board knows it.” (BM) agreed that there had been many E-Mails between (JP) and himself concerning the Zoning Ordinance proposal for which he has sought my vote. (JP) “And there is nothing wrong with that – Is there?” (BM) “No, there is not.” (JP) “All right, thank you.” (BM) “However, fourth paragraph, an E-Mail began on the 3rd of May which began with a discussion of the Zoning Ordinance proposal but ends with the information that Mr. Pritchard was inclined to make a complaint about me but would not do so if I agreed to vote in support of his Zoning Ordinance proposal. I felt… (JP) “No, I didn’t say, that’s not a quote. That’s wrong.” (BM) “Would you let me finish? I believe that this last statement, it is the last paragraph in the E-Mail dated 3 May is an attempt to influence my vote. (JP) “Why shouldn’t I try to influence your vote on the Zoning Ordinance matter, Bill? Explain to me why I shouldn’t do that?” (BM) “You may have the right to influence my vote, but not by threat of some sort of defamatory action.” (JP) “What sort of defamatory action was I threatening?” (BM) “I’m not sure what your complaint about my conduct was going to be.” (JP) “Well, the problem with discussing this, of course, Bill, is that I was responding to a completely unsolicited E-Mail of yours, which we don’t have here. You should have brought it with you if you wanted to discuss this one. It’s clear that I was answering things that you had to say in your E-Mail. So I suggest that we not bother talking about this E-Mail until you come up with yours.” (BM) “I’m not certain I still have mine. The point is the last paragraph stands alone.” (JP) “No, it doesn’t stand alone. Nothing in that letter stands alone,” (DS) asked (BM) to read the last paragraph. (BM) read into the Minutes the last paragraph of the E-Mail in question dated May 3, 2009, “I am inclined to complain about your conduct in the Darrah application. Of course, in the interest of practicality, I would not do so if you would give me reason to think that you were going to rethink your opposition to the CZOP.” (DG) “That’s not a vote, is it?” (BM) “No, but there is no connection between my conduct in the Darrah application and my potential vote on the CZOP.” (JP) “Well, that’s your opinion, Bill.” (JP) You want to get into it, let’s get into it.

(JP) “You and I have been butting heads since the Darrah application.” (BM) “Probably before that.” (JP) “No, this situation started with the Darrah application. And do you know how it started with the Darrah application, Bill?” (BM) “Tell me.” (JP) “I will tell you. It started with an E-Mail that you wrote and isn’t labeled confidential. And your E-Mail says, I quote, ‘I told Joe that his application was OK and sure to get approved.’ You had an improper conversation with Joe Darrah, and you assured him of approval, and he hadn’t even submitted his application yet.” You couldn’t be fair with that application. You were prepared to let (FH) take the blame for it. “Now, I went to the NH DOT and talked to them; otherwise they wouldn’t have known about Mr. Darrah’s application.” You told Mr. Darrah that it was going to be approved. Why didn’t you tell the Board you had talked to Mr. Darrah and told him it was going to be approved? (BM) and (JP) continued to discuss the issue of the E-Mails and (BM)’s intervention with the Darrah application. (BM) felt that the E-Mail was an unreasonable attempt to coerce him. (TM) noted that his reading was that (JP) was trying to be fair about this. (JP) This should be in the electoral arena. I come up for election in March. (DS) Jim, you do too much dealing outside of this Town Hall. You should try taking your business to this Board. Do it in public.

(FH) I do not have the E-Mail, but you made a lot of innuendos here. You stepped over your boundaries. You had no right to go to the DOT on Darrah, or even go onto his property a couple of times. If you want to see a site, you need to ask the owner. You cannot step over your boundaries. (JP) noted that he was not going to discuss the E-Mails with the Board as there is a copyright warning on the E-mail. You were not supposed to copy it. “I had every right to go to the Dept. of Transportation to seek their expertise on this matter.” (FH) The driveway issue has nothing to do with this Board. (JP) “I didn’t ask them about the driveway. I asked them about the drainage issue, and that is definitely our concern.” (FH) I am looking at this as an ethical problem.

(BM) We have not discussed the second E-Mail yet. Mr. Pritchard complains about the Minutes along with some actions against me as noted in the third paragraph, “Thus, I will not warn you again; I will just do.” These are not specific threats but are emphatic. This is venomous stuff. (JP) Bill has invented a tactic here. On three occasions, he has tried to get my revisions to the Minutes rejected without regard to their substance or their accuracy. That’s never happened that I have ever seen on this board before. That was his idea. He has opened Pandora’s Box. This is my duty whether he likes it or not. What you are saying is to exclude (JP). Do not listen to (JP) because you are putting too much work on our plate. (DS) You called me Bill’s ally and I am one guy who is not. We are no allies. (BM) and (JP) continued to express their thoughts on these issues.

(GL) Does the Board feel this matter needs to go to Ethics Committee? (FH) Not if we can get it settled here. (DS) Whether he stepped over the line, I would want some action. (TM) Jim, had every right to E-Mail him, but just used some unfortunate words. (GL) Does the Board choose to take any specific action? (FH) We can make a recommendation to the Board of Selectman. I am not up-to-date on E-Mail distribution, but there are classes on it and when they come up, I will be taking them. (DS) felt that these were two officials talking. (JP) Two Board members are not a quorum. (GL) Since it was mailed to me, I figured it was a right-to-know law. (JP) When you got it, you should not have read it. (FH) I did not like the use of my name.

(FH) Motion that this matter concerning E-Mails be sent to Board of Selectman. (DS) Second.

(DG) This question is to (FH). The last time we sent something to the BOS, did they do anything then? (JP) Each person who has received it and read it should recuse himself. I formally object. Anyone who read that E-Mail, should have noted it was “Confidential”. (BM) I was the one who distributed this. It became my property. (JP) It was copyrighted. You broke the law when you copied it verbatim. People accepted it and read it. (DS) Send it to the BOS; they can remind us that we should not be doing things like this.

Vote: Carried 4-3 (DG), (TM), (JP).

b. List of Services – CNHRPC – Matt Monahan

(GL) This book tells you everything they can offer along with a cost of services. (FH) Has anybody had time to digest this information? I do not believe that the BOS has seen this yet. It is basically a $100,000 price tag. We can review it and quickly address this at the next meeting. There is a lot of stuff to digest in there and some of which Town can do themselves. We can review and make comments next meeting.

c. Amenico Letter

(DG) Motion to accept letter of Exemption based on reasons in letter. (TM) Second.

Discussion: (JP) I suggest we get confirmation from Mr. Parker as to whether or not this is indeed a formal request for exemption.

Kyle Parker (KP), Building Inspector noted that it is not a formal request for a Waiver. I would not like to see Amenico have to come in for a Site Plan Review when all they need is an exception. I dropped it off for all the Board to see, but I would like some direction as to the way to point them so they do not waste their money coming in.

(BM) It seems they were trying to find out if they should apply for an exception. If (KP) tells them to write a letter, then the specifics for an exemption from Site Plan Review should be indicated by going into the Site Plan Regulations and noting the reasons for an exemption and we can act on it.

(JP) I noted a problem with their request. Nobody else has given any feedback on this letter? (KP) No. (JP) Other than the issue that I pointed out to you, do you see any problem with their meeting the other conditions? (KP) No. (GL) What’s your issue? (JP) I noted they furnished incomplete information on parking requirements. They need to say what use they are going to have, what square footage that use is going to occupy, and how many parking spaces they have for that use. (TM) I thought we discussed this at the last meeting and they were to put in a formal request for exemption. (JP) I have no way of knowing if they have complied with the parking issue and I would like them to provide that information. (KP) noted that he had never discussed this with them. (FH) I have no issue with the exterior of the building. I have no problem with the parking. I would like to see where all the businesses are located. There are five businesses located in that building. (TM) You could give them guidance for this request. (KP) Either they need a Site Plan Review or they do not. (TM) They could provide us with just a diagram not a site plan. (FH) agreed that this would be acceptable and not take very long for them to do. (JP) I have to disagree; it is a Site Plan Review. I see no reason not to grant it if they comply and provide the missing information on my request on parking. A Site Plan is a Site Plan. They are either exempt or they are not exempt. If they meet the conditions then they get it. (FH) We do not know where the businesses are located inside that building. That is what happened at previous fire. Fire Department did not know where the chemicals were located.

(BM) I believe their application for exemption is acceptable as long as they meet the specific requirements. They can include an outline of what is inside not a detailed survey. They should also consult with the Fire Chief and provide some supporting documents. They should talk to the Fire Chief and assure board that there are no concerns. (JP) No, you need to convince me that they need a Site Plan. He related that he is hearing we should be helping businesses. “It appears I am the only person here who did anything for Amenico to help them get this exemption to go through on the first time.” (DG) didn’t Twin M change hands recently? (GL) Yes, but there was no change of use. (DG) There is no change of use there either. It is still warehousing. (KP) Gary has been in there working with them. (BM) There is a bit in change of use from fixing truck bodies to refining oil. (JP) Let’s stay within our own jurisdiction. He requested that Board show him on the list where it is indicated that the Fire Department should check out the businesses. Which exemption requires the Fire Department to go in there? (FH) Letter D. (BM) I believe under D we can make them show that it is not going to put an unnecessary burden on the Fire Department. (JP) Everything puts a burden on the Fire Department. (DG) Did you do that with Darrah as far as the ice backing up? No. “If we’re going to overlook the public safety like that, then why are we being so nick-picky with this?” (FH) There is a time and place for the exemption but Fire Department needs to go in and check it out. (TM) Which they have done.

(KP) I believe there is a misconception here. They are spinning water and food particles out of vegetable oil and trucking it out. (BM) I believe I could vote for this if under D the fire services indicated that there is no problem inside the building that they are incapable of dealing with. (DS) I agree. (DG) First of all, I believe Bill recused himself last time because he has had dealings with Amenico. The Motion has been made to accept the letter of exemption and has been seconded. (BM) The letter did not specifically request an exemption. (GL) Bill, two members of the Board consider this to be a letter of exemption. (KP) First paragraph, fourth line down in the letter notes, “Accordingly, the following is Amenico’s official Exemption request.”

(DG) If anyone has an exception to this, they should have a reason as to why. (FH) I gave you my reason.

(TM) “I vote we move it to vote.” (BM) recused himself at this point and was seated in the audience. (DG) Bill should have recused himself earlier. (BM) “I’m not voting on it, that’s all you’re going to get.”

Clayton Wood, alternate was seated on the Board.

(CW) and (JP) requested that (KP) contact Amenico regarding the parking spots. Board continued to discuss whether to wait for parking information.

(JP) We have another problem. Dan is right. Bill participated in the discussion after Dan made his motion. The process has to be started over. We should discuss the merits of that.

(DG) Withdraw my Motion. (TM) withdraw second.

(DG) Motion to accept letter from Amenico as letter of exemption. (TM) Second.

(JP) I wish we would wait. Couldn’t we wait until the next meeting? The request has to be complete and it is not. (FH) I have to back (JP) on this. The outside I know, but not the inside. There are other businesses in there, and it was shut down because of the sprinkler system. (DG) I believe you are wrong and explained why he felt (FH) was wrong. (DS) Jim might have a point. I would love to do this tonight but I would like to get it right.

Board continued to discuss the merits of Amenico’s letter for Exemption. (JP) related that he did not require a diagram but would like to poll the board as to whether a majority of the board will require a diagram so Amenico will know. Vote: 1(FH) to 4 against requiring a diagram (JP), (DG), (TM) and (DS).

(GL) We can table it until the next meeting until 1 a. requirements can be met.

ITEM 5. Selectman’s Report

(FH) The special town meeting will be held on the 25th. (JP) The Warrant Article contains misinformation. It says the Board consisted of seven members. It never consisted of seven people.

(FH) left meeting at 8:40 P.M.

ITEM 6. Building Inspector Report

(KP) All issues have been addressed.

ITEM 7. Members Concerns

(JP) I would like to repeat my concern that a summary rejection of proposed corrections to the minutes is a violation of Right-to-Know. (BM) Do you believe this board has summarily rejected your revisions of the Minutes? (JP) Did “Board” come out of my mouth? (BM) “No, it didn’t.” (JP) I was expressing Members Concerns and I have something to say and you badger. (DS) Concerning the Darrah application you say it is blown apart. You make him sound like a criminal. “He is nobody’s b…… .”

(TM) Darrah is the same person who allegedly took out an underground oil tank without proper legality and State orders. Had I known that at the time, I would have questioned him a little bit more.

(DS) left at 8:45 P.M.

(JP) We have a forum for people stating their concerns. When a decision is rendered, you get to vote, and you get to state your reasons. And this happens repeatedly that I have something to say, we have proper order, and I state my position, and Bill starts questioning me. And in the Darrah matter in particular, he told me that I had no right to vote based on the reasons that I had, and he put in his E-Mail that this is his First Amendment right. It isn’t his First Amendment right; it’s disorderly conduct, and it’s permitted all the time. Bill goes on and on and on. It happens all the time. (TM) As a result of the fiasco with the Site Plan for Darrah, I am going to be much more careful in granting conditions. This has turned into a nightmare.

(JP) I do not want to say I told you so. No one likes to say “No” but if you cannot do it, you should not be on the Board. The DOT said his plan would cause ice on an adjacent road. Everyone except (DG) and I ignored it. Now, he has been denied a driveway permit. (DG) Is there a cease and desist order? (JP) Because of this head butting between me and Bill Miskoe, which started over this, because he told Mr. Darrah, you’re going to get approved; I am going to BOS for sanctioning. (BM) I suggest this Board read the decision that it is conditioned upon State requirements being met and until we hear from DOT that Mr. Darrah has not met and will not meet their requirements, I see it as an ongoing ability to meet conditions. (JP) “No, Bill.” (DG) We have that letter. (JP) Yes, we do. We have that letter. He has to make a very substantial change to his site plan. That requires him to come back here. (TM) Keep in mind that on a Site Plan, it is as much as to protect the individual as it is to protect the Town. (JP) Mr. Darrah misrepresented information. (TM) You can only learn from your mistakes. (JP) I guess that is true. I was the one most vocal about not making that mistake. Bill pushes, and pushes, and pushes and now I have to go to the BOS. (GL) From what I understand, he has until July 30th. (JP) He is scr…. either way. (BM) He can apply for an extension from the State. (JP) You read letter. He submitted different plans to the Town and the State. This letter will be copied to the Town. Why is he entitled to an extension? (BM) I said he could apply for an extension. State is not that difficult to deal with. Just how many more applications is Jim going to take to attack me?

(DG) This is a comment for you, Gerard. As Chairman, you need to start saying something when Dan starts swearing. (GL) agreed.

ITEM 9. Public Input

None.

ITEM 10. Adjournment

(BM) Motion to adjourn. (TM) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:55 P.M.

Approved: September 9, 2009

___________________________ _________________________
Bill Miskoe, Vice-Chairman Date

Revisions/corrections to Minutes by Jim Pritchard.

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me and publicly posted on July 8, 2009.

___________________________________
Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary

II Tapes