Pittsfield Planning Board

Town Hall, 85 Main Street

Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
DATE: July 3, 2008

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Rich Hunsberger, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present: Rich Hunsberger, (RH), Chairman, Gerard Leduc (GL), Vice-Chair, Fred Hast (FH), Robert Elliott (RE), Marilyn Roberts (MR), Dan Schroth (DS), Alternate, Tom Hitchcock (TH), Alternate (arrival at 7:23 P.M.) and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Larry Konopka, Selectman Ex-Officio, Daniel Greene, and Tom Hitchcock, Alternate (Arrived at 7:23 P.M.).

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of June 19, 2008

(DS) Motion to approve Minutes of June 19, 2008. (GL) Second.

Carried 6-0.

ITEM 4. New Business

(RH) advised Board that there would be no meeting on July 17th. In lieu of an actual meeting, I thought members could be assigned some “homework.”

All members of the Board were in favor of not meeting on July 17th.

ITEM 5. Selectman’s Report

None.

ITEM 6. Building Inspector Report

None.

ITEM 7. Members Concerns

(DS) related that he was concerned that Board was doing a lot of work on Zoning Ordinances and that in order to complete, Board would have to hold extra meetings towards the end.

(FH) noted, “I thought we were supposed to meet with the Master Plan Committee?”

(RH) noted that he had correspondence from Master Plan requesting a representative from the Planning Board. “Is anyone willing to sit on this committee?” (DS) noted that he would like to. (RH) To date, we have had limited communication with that committee. (DS) “I am interested in what they are doing.” (FH) “We could still have them come in with a little presentation.” (RH) I would like to see what they are doing also. It was noted that Ralph Odell, Chair, Master Plan Committee, used to be on the Planning Board but made very few meetings.

(RH) All agreed that (DS) would be the representative to the Master Plan Committee. (FH) noted that it would be a good learning experience for him.

ITEM 8. WORK SESSION

Setback Exemptions: (RH) I am working on elderly housing right now and have started a list of structures exempt from setbacks such as fencings, driveways, wells, signs, and etc.

Height Exemptions: I have also been working on exemptions from height, which should be measured one-half way down the gable and which needs to be in the definition. Some exemptions from height would include chimneys, antennas, light poles, flagpoles, church steeples, cell towers, and etc.

(RE) Why do we have a 35 ft. height requirement? (DS) Because of the Fire Department. (BE) noted that in the Industrial/Commercial Zone, there could be a high-rise.

Tom Hitchcock (TH) arrived at 7:23 P.M.

(RH) noted that he really did not see Pittsfield getting a high-rise. (RE) I would consider an exemption on the NH 28 corridor maybe for a hospital or something like that. Board further discussed possibility of making the height requirement 50 ft. (RE) “I would leave it open.” (RH) noted that it would have to be built to code. (RE) We could not put it in as an exemption although we are exempting it. (FH) If we do allow anything over 50 ft., we should have an impact fee. (RH) I think it should be an exception in the corridor. It still might not happen for twenty years. (RE) noted that we want to be “business friendly.” (RH) noted that criteria is going to be an important part of the Industrial/Commercial Zone. (RE) Being “business friendly” means not having to jump through unnecessary hoops. We should minimize the “hoops” businesses have to jump through.

(RH) In the elderly housing ordinances from Massachusetts, it is mostly the Planning Board, which decides what is/is not acceptable. We need to make it attractive to developers. (TH) noted that you have to have a unique selling proposition and something like a hospital would be a good thing.

Fairgrounds: (RH) Tonight, we had planned to accomplish definition for Outdoor Sports and Fairgrounds. If we were to make allowance for fairgrounds, where would it go? Maybe off a State road? We could just limit it to a State road. Fairgrounds should have criteria and be at least 50 acres. (TH) A good example would be the Fryeburg Fairgrounds. They have buildings, racetrack, and all kinds of other things. (FH) “I would say they have about 200 acres there. Deerfield had 800-900 acres.” (RH) We could make a provision for the future. (TH) Pittsfield should be an “event” town, not just a fair once a year. (RE) Why put in controls you do not need. (FH) If you will note, fairs are scheduled from August to October and there are really no dates available to enter “new fairs.” (RE) We need to minimize rules where you put them so people really want to be there. Towns are competing vigorously, and we need to minimize the restraints we will put on people to compete with every other town. I have been talking to people and the more constraints in the Regulations the more difficult it is to get investors to come into the Town. “If we need it, “Yes,” but why put limits on things when we still have the control.” I would like to see investors review our Regs and come in and say, “These people are pretty reasonable.” (RH) There are people who will not invest in Pittsfield because of our Ordinances.”

Board agreed that Fairgrounds definition should include, “must have State road access.”

(TH) noted, “I talk to people every day, and they say it is a nice town, but too bad they can’t get their act together. It is not a business town.”

Outdoor Amusements/Sports.

(RH) What zones do we not want it in? (DS) Urban. (RH) We know we do not want it in Urban and Rural. (RH) We could say all zones and have them go through review. All agreed.

Recycling Facility: (DS) We should also add Recycling Facility to the Table of Uses. (RH) If we have recycling facility, we do not want to include automotive. I would like to have a recycling use but usually it is indoors with outside storage. Junkyard is outdoors, not under cover. We are open to industry if we can get it here. What zones should it be in? It could be in all zones as an indoor facility. It can be done anywhere if it is done right. We should include criteria with a buffer of 25 ft.

Board briefly discussed junkyards and it was suggested it be allowable in suburban, rural and light industrustrial/commercial. Board discussed the suburban and rural zone map lines and why they were arranged they way they were.

Junkyards: (RH) Because of where it is going to be and because it is outdoors, it should be totally fenced and meet all pollution requirements mandated by EPA and should be away from water. I would still like to have a buffer zone say like 25 ft. shrub buffer so that no one could drive on it. This should also require sufficient land along with the non-useable buffer – maybe not less than 5 acres. (MR) I think 5 acres is good as long as there is a buffer and it is fenced. Board noted that storage and/or travel would not be allowed in the buffer. The buffer should be undisturbed land, be wooded/shrubs, should have a fence and meet DES standards. (FH) If it were a natural buffer, they would not need a fence?

Campgrounds/RV Park: (RH) We need to write criteria for this which should include 25 ft. unused wooded buffer for campsites with minimum 5 acre requirement.

Cemetery: We also would need to write what the setbacks would be and criteria should include 25 ft. buffer.

Board discussed the possibility of requiring a certified plot plan, which would indicate setbacks. (RH) I feel this would be important. Many Board members did not agree.

(RH) suggested that since there will not be another meeting until August 7th, that Board members think about the definitions and requirements suggested tonight for the next Work Session along with specific criteria.

ITEM 9. Public Input

None.

ITEM 10. Adjournment

(RE) Motion to Adjourn. (MR) Second. Carried 6-0.

Approved: August 7, 2008

_______________________________ ____________________

Rich Hunsberger, Chairman Date