Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
ITEM 1. Call to Order
Planning Board called to order on June 7, 2007 at 7:02 P.M. by Eric Bahr,
Chairman
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Eric Bahr (EB), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-
Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr. (PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH),
Daniel Greene (DG), John Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex Officio, and Delores
Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent: Peter Newell (PN), Alternate and Chris Conlon (CC),
Alternate.
ITEM 3. Public Hearing for continued reconsideration of revocation for a
one-bedroom watchman’s apartment, an auto repair shop, and a pallet shop
filed by Walter Jensen, P.O. Box 2645, Concord, NH 03302 for property
located at 12 Broadway, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U-2, Lot 1). This
property is located in the COMMERCIAL Zone.
(EB) We have received communication from Mr. Jensen that some supplies
necessary for the completion of the fire alarm installation have been
backordered and that it will be complete in three days. The Fire Chief is
also on vacation so rather then render a decision today; Mr. Jensen’s hearing
will be continued to June 21st. The Fire Chief and Building Inspector can
provide an inspection prior to that date so that a report can be ready at that
time.
(BM) Motion to continue hearing to date certain June 21, 2007 at 7:00 P.M.
(DG) Second. Carried 5-0.
2
ITEM 4. Continued Public Hearing for review of proposed road/sprinkler
plans on Governors Road, Pittsfield, 03263 for a proposed eight-lot subdivision
(Tax Map R-43, Lot 10). The property is owned by Paul and
Melissa Bicknell of 195 Governors Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263. The firm
sub-dividing the property is James Mullaney, DBA: Juniper Hills Builders,
89 South State Street, Concord, NH 03301. The property is located in the
RURAL Zone.
Paul Metcalf, Jr. recused himself and was seated in the audience.
Mr. Mullaney related that he has addressed the road situation with Tony
Puntin, Berger Group, who indicated that it was preferred that the lots have
50 ft. right of way frontage. This has now been done. Mr. Puntin also
suggested some changes in the road design, which have been accomplished,
and the Road Agent has viewed them and they are both satisfied with the
changes.
Mr. Mullaney requested that no actual road improvement begin until the
fifth lot was sold and thus eliminate the bond requirements till Building
Permits for the fifth lot are requested and then bond it and review fees would
be required. He related that technically the first four lots could be sold and
building be done prior to his setting up the road bond.
PB and Mr. Mullaney discussed various ways/means of how and when the
road bond should be established. Initially, it was thought that the subdivision
could have a Phase I, which would include the first four lots, and a
Phase II, which would include any of the lots five through eight. However,
internal controls as to when Phase II would actually require a road bond and
how and when this would be tracked could result in the requirements not
coming to fruition. Mr. Mullaney related that if he did the road with his own
equipment it was estimated it would cost about $20,000. If he had someone
else do the road, he estimated the cost would be about $35,000.
PUBLIC INPUT
Donna Keeley questioned how Phase II of the project would be monitored
and how the information would be stored and projected for future Planning
Boards or the Town as a whole. She noted that the “clean” way of resolving
the bond issue would be to simply bond the entire road now since business
3
owners change, go out of business, sell parts of properties and the ability to
track progress on the sub-division could be difficult. It was noted that
information such as this could be noted on the Mylar, tax cards, deed
and via a computer program, but this all allows for the possibility of an
incorrect result as far as follow through.
(RH) related that he thought the road should be bonded now. “If you get a
bond, you get a road improved.”
CLOSE PUBLIC INPUT
(EB) related that since these houses assumedly would not be built in the very
near future, that it would be difficult to project and control the bond issue.
He apologized but felt that the road bond should be issued now before any
building is begun.
Mr. Mullaney related that he felt that he has made a lot of concessions in
order to comply with the PB requests and he is a little disappointed in the
results. (RH) suggested that the bond be done now and the engineering fees.
Mr. Mullaney was agreeable to this noting that if we get a bond we can build
on any lot, “Right?” (EB) Yes, it would open up all eight of them. How the
amount of the bond would be determined was discussed and it was decided
the Mr. Mullaney’s engineer would project a cost of the road bond, submit it
to Tony Puntin and if he agrees, the amount of road bond would be
established. Mr. Mullaney agreed with this.
(DG) Motion to accept application for sub-division based on the bonding of
the road and inspection fees prior to any Building Permits being issued for
Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8 also described as Phase II on the plans.
After some discussion, it was noted that the acceptance of the application
should be with the acceptance and approval of the BOS. (DG) Amend
motion to include – conditioned upon Board of Selectman approval and
acceptance of the Bond. (BM) Second to amendment of Motion.
Carried 5-0.
(EB) Mr. Mullaney, your application for an eight lot sub-division is
conditionally granted. However, there is a 30 day appeal process and should
there be an appeal, anything that has been accomplished would be at your
own expense.
4
Paul Metcalf, Jr. returned and was seated on Board.
Break 7:50 P.M. for five minutes. (EB) When we return from break we will
be doing the Pittsfield Self Storage Site Plan Review and Major Sub-
Division and I will be recusing myself.
Resumed at 7:55 P.M.
ITEM 5. Continued Public Hearing for application for a proposed twolot
commercial Minor Sub-Division on High Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263
(Tax Map R-15, Lot 30). The property is now owned by Pittsfield Self
Storage, 20 Montgomery Street, Concord, NH 03301. This property is
located in the COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Zone.
(BM) noted that they have now made application for a Major Sub-Division
and what would you like to do with this application for Minor Sub-Division?
Jeff Lewis, Northpoint Engineering, “We would like to withdraw our
application for a Minor Sub-Division.”
(BM) “Your application is withdrawn.”
ITEM 6 & 7: Public Hearing for application for Site Plan Review and
Major Sub-Division for proposed Pittsfield Self Storage, LLC located on
High Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-15, Lot 30). The property is
owned by Pittsfield Self Storage, LLC, 20 Montgomery Street, Concord, NH
03301. The property is located in the COMMERCIAL/LIGHT
INDUSTRIAL Zone.
(BM) related that the PB would first need to deal with the application for
Major Sub-Division. Until we create lots, we cannot do a Site Plan Review.
(DG) Motion to approve application for Major Sub-Division. (JL) Second.
Discussion on Major Sub-Division:
(BM) questioned whether all abutters had been re-notified and fees paid.
(Affirmative by Recording Secretary.) He noted that applicant had checked
on Page 6 items regarding cluster sub-division, which this is not, and
5
applicant noted that these should be N/A. PB agreed. Also, on Page 8, all
plans existing topography….. Mr. Lewis noted that these would not apply.
(BM) agreed, and noted it would be discussed at Site Plan Review level.
(BM) I believe, application is complete.
Vote: Carried 5-0.
(RH) Motion to approve Major Sub-Division. (PM) Second.
Discussion
(BM) noted that for all those that had been here two weeks regarding the
Minor Sub-Division, the same information would apply though this is a new
application for a Major Sub-Division.
Mr. Lewis reiterated that this concerns Tax Map R-15, Lot 3. He noted that
there is 17.3 acres and they want to sub-divide into two parcels. One parcel
would be 6.6 acres and one would be 10.7 acres. He noted they would like
to build the self-storage unit on the smaller parcel of land. (FH) inquired as
to how much wetland was on the 10.7-acre parcel? Mr. Lewis responded
about 6.5 acres is wetland. (BM) The three acres of dry buildable land have
access on High Street. Mr. Lewis, “Correct.” Mr. Lewis noted that
everything remained the same as at his presentation several weeks ago and
he would be glad to answer any questions for anyone who was not present at
that time.
Open Public Input
Mr. Buatti, “I gather no plans have yet been made for lower lot.” He wanted
to again note that there is a very old cemetery here and that it would be
appreciated if a dense buffer could be established to maintain the dignity and
reserve concerning the cemetery. (BM) noted that Board cannot grant what
might happen in the future concerning the second lot.
No other comments were noted concerning the Major Sub-Division.
Vote: Carried 5-0. Unanimous (BM) advised applicants of 30 day appeal
process.
6
Site Plan Review
(DG) Motion to accept application as complete. (RH) Second. Carried 5-0.
(RH) Motion to approve application for Site Plan Review. (JL) Second.
Discussion:
Mr. Lewis again reiterated that he was here a couple of weeks ago and he
had discussed in some detail the plan for the self-storage unit. He related
that there were really no changes. The uppermost lot would be utilized for
the storage facility. He related that there would be a small office area, and
exterior overhead doors on the storage units. He explained briefly the
drainage, lighting and landscaping plan. He related the drainage area slopes
towards the wetlands, but will not go directly into the wetlands. We are very
sensitive to not increasing any run-off. We will try to maintain as many
trees as possible except those that absolutely have to be taken down but will
be replaced and there will be areas of grass. The water detention area is in
accordance with the Regs and did require a permit from the DES. The State
will be evaluating all roads and drainage to meet their Permit requirements.
There will be a small septic system for the office area and a Permit has been
issued by the State for that as well. The landscape plan also meets DES
requirements, but we could possibly do additional screening for cemetery
purposes if required.
(BM) questioned the detention pond position and whether it was within
25 ft. of the sideline area. How would you justify that? The detention pond
is a structure, not a natural thing and you should probably redesign it. Mr.
Lewis related that this could be complicated. Mr. McGraf noted that by
definition, typically a detention pond is not a structure. Mr. Lewis related
that they would clear close to the property line, about 30 ft. from property
line and explained how the water would disperse. He related that they were
meeting the intent of the Ordinance. Mr. McGraf related that the draining
pond is not within the setback. (BM) asked if they were going to alter it.
(RH) read the Ordinance as to what a structure would entail. (BM)
questioned the discharge of the retention pond and Mr. McGraf explained
this to him. He also wanted to know if it was going to divert water unto
another lot. Mr. McGraf related that it would drain into a lot that they now
own on both sides. He related that both wetlands are permanently preserved.
(BM) again reiterated that he believed a retention pond was a structure and
7
felt it would be difficult to allow it within the setback. Mr. McGraf related
that the natural buffer would remain though it might be possible they would
have to take down a couple of trees which would be replaced. Permeable
asphalt was discussed as an option though they feel that as the plans stand
now, the roofs pitch as does the pavement away from buildings will provide
for drain off.
PUBLIC INPUT
Gil Blackman representing the Windwalker Corporation related that he used
to own this property and questioned the swale on the side and whether there
were any changes in the grade there? It cannot be one or two feet as there is
a steep grade on the back slope and the water will drain on other property.
What happens if the retention pond breeches like many roads did with the
past rainstorm. Mr. Lewis explained the swales, retention ponds, paved area,
run-off of the roofs of building, and the parking area, which will all drain
into retention basin. It is designed for a fifty year storm. All run-offs will
go into retention basin. He explained that the State has different
requirements and if the retention basin is not maintained or clogged up then
it could possibly blow out the road but related how this could be prevented.
Mr. Blackman related that his issue was”… not what your are doing but the
space you are doing it in.” There is a radical drop on the right side and there
are two to three foot dips in the wetlands in the back. Scott Ward also had
several questions regarding the wetlands and the swale areas. Mr. McGraf
explained the old logging road area and the position in relation to the
wetlands.
Donna Keeley as a representative of the Conservation Committee read a
memo dated May 1, 2007 as well as a second memo from a Ms. Willoughby
who is also on the Committee as well as an employee of the DES. She also
commented on several personal concerns she had in reference to this project
such as buffer zone of trees and their types, lighting, and that she thought it
was a good project and liked the way it looked. Mr. Buatti also related that
he felt the design was a good one and it looked efficient and felt it would
work well. He did want to reiterate the cemetery is old and should have
sufficient buffering zone. Scott Ward requested the old maple trees in front
not be destroyed and that they attempt to keep them intact as well as his
concerns regarding buffer zone for his property which would face the
entrance area of the storage facility as it is currently planned.
8
Mr. McGraf agreed to work on the lighting issue of low candescent lighting
and pointing down, lighting being on a timer or something along those lines
so that the lights would not be on 24 hours a day, a “quiet” gate, and
possibly motion lights.
(EB) suggested that they could, perhaps, trade a buffer zone on High Street
for visibility on Route 28 and that it might be advisable to use the Town’s
engineering firm for the water issues.
Mr. Buatti wanted to know if they had any plans for the other parcel of land.
Mr. McGraf related that it would be put up for sale.
Public Input Closed
(BM) related that he did not feel it was necessary to send this to Berger
Group. Mr. Lewis related that a condition of approval could be contingent
upon State permits being approved. (BM) related that he thought it would
work. (RH) related that he did not feel that the retention basin was a
structure and noted that “we have excluded fences from our setbacks, so we
cannot say it is a structure.”
Because of the items covered in the various discussions, (DG) withdrew his
Motion and (RH) his second. A new Motion was:
(RH) Motion to approve Site Plan Review to include a buffer zone of 10 ft.,
light on demand, and State site specifics. (JL) Second. Carried 5-1 (BM).
Applicant notified of 30 day appeal process.
(EB) returned and was seated on the Board.
ITEM 8. Determination as to roads to be used for road counts, CNHRP.
(EB) related that he had discussed this with George and his thoughts were
that he was more interested in dirt roads. The Board discussed the various
appropriate roads and decided on:
Will Smith at Tilton Hill Road.
Clough Road at Jenness Pond Road.
9
Tan Road at Governors Dr.
Wildwood Rd at Tilton Hill Road.
Prescott Road off Dowbury Road.
Mountain Road at South Pittsfield.
Winant Road at Pump Station.
Possibly Route 28 and 107.
(EB) to develop a complete list and contact CNHRP or Dee.
ITEM 9 Selectman’s Report, ITEM 10-Approval of Minutes of May 17
and May 24, 2007, ITEM 11-Members Concerns.
Tabled until the June 21st meeting.
ITEM 12. Adjournment
Approved: June 21, 2007
_____________________________ _________________________
Eric Bahr, Chairman Date