June 3, 2010 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 2010

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:11 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Chairman.

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Bill Miskoe (BM), Chairman, Ted Mitchell (TM), Vice Chairman, Daniel Greene (DG), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Dan Schroth (DS) and Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate.

Members Absent:

Donald Chase (DC), Selectman Ex Officio, Pat Heffernan (PH), and Hank Fitzgerald (HF), Alternate.

Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate seated on the Board.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of April 15, 2010.

(CW) Motion to approve Minutes of April 15, 2010. (DG) Second.
After Discussion, Motion amended to include correction.
Carried 5-0-1 (DG) Abstain.

It is noted that on Page 3, bottom of page it should read, (TM) noted that according to State Law, dedicated parking spaces are required for every establishment with signage on Route 28, ……..

(CW) Thanks, Dee for a wonderful job on these Minutes.

(DG) Motion to approve Minutes of May 20, 2010. (CW) Second.
Carried 5-0-1 (DG) Abstain.

ITEM 4. New Business
a. Bailey Park Articles of Agreement and Declaration of Covenants

(BM) I have been reading this and I am hoping that this Board will hold off on this as it appears that if we approve it as is, it will apply to all fourteen (14) lots in the subdivision. We have opinions from several people that there are five (5) lots that have been transferred out and though they should have been included, we cannot retroactively encumber these people with this. As I read this document, it seems like they are going to do it that way. I would like to table this until I have an opportunity to talk to Attorney Rossen tomorrow. We need to have some statement in there specifically excluding the five (5) lots that were not purchased by K & M Developers when they bought the remaining nine (9) lots.

(CW) Our attorney said we could do that, but it is not right to force it on them. My feeling is that if you do include those owners, then we have to have a Public Hearing to notify these people. How do you vote on this and include them without a Public Hearing?

(BM) We are not going to vote on it tonight. I am not comfortable with it while it includes those other lots. (CW) Our attorney said we did not have to notify the abutters and the people, but I am very uncomfortable with that.

(RH) There would be no point in including them because you cannot enforce it. (BM) You are actually right but I want it specifically noted in there. (DG) Do these people want to be included? Have they been notified what is going on? (BM) I have no idea. (RH) It involves them in legal matters now and when they go to sell their property, they have to make sure that they pass all that information on. I say we cannot do it.

(TM) We need to mention it because we are not approving that; we are approving this and it is up to them to enforce it. If they try to enforce it, then it is up to those people to go after them.

(BM) I would rather have it noted in the second sentence that it specifically excludes all lots that were not transferred to K & M Developers even though they were originally part of the Bailey Park subdivision. I do not want to put those five people in the position, as Rich said, of having to go to Court to fight this. (RH) I think we can exclude the lots specifically but add that these people can at anytime be free to join. (CW) They are free to join this. (BM) They are not included because we can’t do that. I see this as an attempt by K & M Developers to get around the fact that they did not perform adequate due diligence when they purchased the lots. They want these people living there because it makes it easier to sell the other lots. I do not think we need to clean-up after them. They should have known this when they bought it and it is not up to us to correct it.

(RH) What you could do is get K & M Developers to go to all those owners and attempt to have them sign something noting that they would like to be included. If they do not want to be included then we cannot do it.

(BM) I will discuss with Attorney Rossen tomorrow. I would prefer to table this until July 1st meeting because next Planning Board meeting is June 20th and it is the work session on the Zoning Ordinances. This thing has been dragging on long enough. Is everyone agreeable with continuing this until July 1st? (Board agreed.)

(CW) What are you specifically saying, that we will not approve this unless it is changed? (BM) I am going to tell Atty. Rossen that we will not approve this unless in the preamble statement there is a specific statement that notes that the five (5) lots that were previously sold out of Bailey Park are excluded, unless individual owners would like to join the owner association.

2. Other

Letter to Town from Rustic Crust

(BM) I talked to Kyle about this yesterday and he said they did take out permits for some of the work, but it appears the work they got permits for was on one side of the building. They got permits to put in a slab on the side of the building closest to the mechanic’s garage. It is not pretty, but they have now put a sizeable modular refrigeration unit on that slab and Rustic Crust is claiming that it is a portable device and does not need a Building Permit.

I told Kyle that he should go there and tell Rustic Crust that the easiest way out of this situation is to apply for a revised Building Permit that includes the refrigerator unit. Get the permit – pay for it and everything would be fine. There is no reason why they cannot have a refrigeration unit there. It is just that they did not note it in the permit. I do not want to pick a huge fight with these people, but we do have rules and regulations. The easiest way would be for the Building Inspector to advise them that they need to apply for a revised permit that includes the refrigeration unit.

(DS) Why would they have to do that? (BM) For tax purposes and because it involves electrical wiring. It is a code governed matter. I do not like to give the impression that we are unfriendly to businesses, but I think we should make it clear that we do business in a business-like manner. We have a code and they can pay the $50 or so and get a permit and then everybody is happy. I do not know if Kyle has done this or not.

(CW) It seems like he feels he is being harassed – which seems to be the “theme of this Town” and I am not sure why he feels that way, but this seems like a simple thing.

(RH) He would not necessarily have to pull a separate permit, but his permit could be upgraded and would only have to pay another $10 – $20.
(BM) Exactly, we need an upgraded permit – either a new one or an amended one. I do not think being asked to get a Building Permit is harassment. (CW) You have to wonder what would cause him to make that statement. (BM) It is a very nebulous statement. I am saying if he comes in here to revise the Building Permit then no one can complain because he would have all the necessary permits he needs. (RH) If he got a permit and then changed the plans, then he should have gotten a modified Building Permit.

Board members further discussed the permit that the Rustic Crust originally got and what he actually did, how and by whom this harassment came about and if the permit was posted adequately.

(RH) I do not understand how he got a permit for a slab without explaining what he was going to put on that slab. (BM) explained how the original permit was issued and what happened after the slab was built.
(TM) explained that this area was included in the revitalization program area and that is how it all started.

(BM) As the recognized Chairman of the Planning Board, there have been occasions when people have asked me “What is going on?” I am planning on going to the Board of Selectmen meeting to offer some comments about the ineffectiveness of our current code enforcement officer because I am getting tired of hearing about it. We have a situation going on over on Depot Street and ….(DG) and on Crescent Street.” Since I have been on the Planning Board, people find me. It is my opinion that this Town needs better code enforcement and I am going to go to the Board of Selectmen with that request. Because I am the Chairman of this Board, I need to tell you what I am doing.

(DS) How come you feel that way? Are people complaining or do you actually see a problem?

(BM) I see a problem. There are three foundations down on Depot Street and the owner has been requested to fix the fence around it and it has not happened. I talked to Kyle the other day and related that at this point it is a public safety issue and I think the Town should either send in their own employees or other contractors and fix it up and send the owner the bill.

(DG) If it is life safety, then the Fire Department should be taking care of it.

(RH) What has to happen is this information has to be verified in writing as to what violations exists and cite codes. You have to set this all up to have a paper trail to eventually take these people to Court. It is not going to go away. It is going to take a judge to make it go away. (BM) The Code Enforcement Officer is not doing that. (RH) That is my point, he is not doing that. I would not encourage the Board of Selectmen to give him more hours if he is not doing what he is supposed to be doing.

(BM) I am just telling you all that I am going to Selectmen with a complaint about the code enforcer. (DS) You are going to have cite particular sites. (BM) I will do that. I feel the Code Enforcement is not adequate. (TM) He should be driving around Town and if he sees any glaring violations, follow through. There are others that have violations in Town.

A discussion ensued between Board members which was not decipherable on the record.

It was noted that 25 Crescent Street was another issue. (BM) He should have slapped on a Cease and Desist Order when he found out it was being built as a two-family house. We need a Building Inspector that is going to do the job.

(BM) Another safety issue at the Rustic Crust is that the doors of the refrigeration unit are on the outside, if someone goes inside and the doors slam, it could be a real issue; also, what if someone parks in front of the doors?

(BM) I do not think asking the Rustic Crust to comply with building codes is harassment. (RH) They might have felt that they have complied.
(BM) Whether they are in compliance is up to the Building Inspector and can be done tactfully. It can be fixed if he is able to do the job.
(RH) Building Inspector should first try to resolve it, and then write it up.

(DG) If we or anyone has a problem with the Building Inspector, shouldn’t it go through Town Administrator? Wouldn’t it be better to go the Paul first?

(BM) I have not gone to the Town Administrator yet, but I will do that. I do not like to “dump” on an individual but I am dumping on the “job holder.” Whether or not I like the guy, and I do as I think he is a really great, but he is not doing his job and Town is not getting its money’s worth. (DG) Maybe he does not have enough hours to do his job. (BM) He has enough hours to do plenty, but it is not getting done. He is getting paid at an equivalent salary and for that kind of money in this Town, you can get good people. (DS) How many hours is he working – 8 hours? (BM) More than that; approximately two days a week and there is not a whole lot going on in Town these days. I have tried to work with him on this, but it has not happened. I will go and talk to Kyle (BI) tomorrow. I do talk to Kyle every week to determine the necessity of his appearance at Planning Board meetings and advise him of what we are going to address at meeting. We have talked about all this and it is not getting done.

(DG) What certifications does he hold? (BM) One out of seven. (DG) and he has been there for about three years? (BM) It is public knowledge that he is paid $25.00 an hour – for that kind of money we can get better.

ITEM 6. Selectman’s Report – Donald Chase, Selectmen Ex Officio

None, Donald Chase is not present tonight.

ITEM 7. Members Concerns

(DS) noted that he had some thoughts on Zoning Ordinance changes which would conform to some of the Master Plan suggestions. (BM) noted that rather than addressing tonight, it would be good if it was addressed at the next Work Session when Matt Monahan is here.

NEW BUSINESS CONTINUED

(BM) There is a report from Kyle noting that there are two new businesses open in town which were open before he was aware they were in Town. He notes that neither requires a Site Plan or change of use.

One business is The Browsery, Paula Hodakoski, address unknown. The other is Candy Stahley which is a children’s consignment shop.

(RH) They should have requested a change of use waiver from the Planning Board. (BM) I will talk to Kyle about this also. I am not opposed to exempting them, but Board should be approached.

ITEM 8. PUBLIC INPUT

None.

ITEM 9. ADJOURNMENT

(DG) Motion to Adjourn. (CW) Second. Carried 6-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:05 P.M.

Approved: July 1, 2010

_______________________________ ____________________
J. W. (Bill) Miskoe, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were transcribed by me and public posted on June 10, 2010.

____________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

I Tape