MARCH 19, 2009 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, MARCH 19, 2009

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman
Roll Call was accomplished by (GL)

Members Present:

Gerard Leduc (GL), Acting Chairman, Fred Hast (FH), Selectman Ex Officio, Daniel Greene (DG), Bill Miskoe (BM), Jim Pritchard (JP), Dan Schroth (DS) and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger, (RH), Chairman

ITEM 2. Conceptual – Joe Darrah

Larry Konopka noted that he was representing the Building Inspector tonight and provided some written information regarding tonight’s conceptual.

Mr. Carl Sherblom was present representing Mr. Joseph Darrah.

Mr. Sherblom related, “Joe wants to build a 4,000 square foot storage building as shown on the plan which I have just distributed.”

(BM) related that Board should first explain the function of a conceptual hearing. (GL) We can review the plans….. (BM) This is a non-binding hearing which is informal, advisatory and hopefully helpful to you. (BM) noted that it is indicated as a dry storage, will there be people in there? Mr. Darrah indicated that there would not. The Board, Carl Sherbloom and Joseph Darrah further discussed, water line, paving, underground electric, clean property, lighting including timers and sensor lighting and the saving of money and electricity, the ability to drive around the building, alarm systems, petroleum fuel storage, maintenance within building, front glass doors, and sprinkler system.

(BM) “It should be noted that Joseph Darrah and my company have done business in the past and the Board can request that I recuse myself.”

Further discussion with potential applicant included pitching of paved area and catch basin, property layout, driveway permit, the necessity of a Site Specific Approval by DES, which was determined unnecessary and the neighbors at the proposed site.

PUBLIC INPUT – CONCEPTUAL

Pat Heffernan posted some questions in regard to lighting.

Mark Riel noted that he currently owns some houses in that area, which he is hoping to sell, and that lighting could be an issue. Mr. Darrah noted that he would do what he has to do so that neighbors are satisfied.

At the conclusion of the conceptual and public input, it is noted that Mr. Darrah has submitted a Site Plan Review, which is currently scheduled for April 2, 2009.

ITEM 3. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman

(GL) This will be deferred to a future date since we do not normally elect until April. (BM) We also have a letter from a potential Alternate, when will we be taking that up? (JP) noted that Mr. Hunsberger’s term is not yet up until April. (GL) agreed that he is still Chairman until the April meeting when election will occur. (DS) noted that (RH) should be contacted to determine his plans. (GL) “We have tried to contact him, unsuccessfully.” Board members noted that he has not attended for an extended period of time. It is noted that several attempts have been made to contact (RH) via E-mail and phone, which have been unsuccessful. After further discussion:

(BM) Motion to instruct Board to send a letter to Rich Hunsberger, Chairman, requesting his clarification as to the status of his intent concerning membership on the Planning Board. (FH) Second. Carried 6-0.

ITEM 4. Approval of Minutes of March 5, 2009

(BM) Motion to approve Minutes of March 5, 2009. (DS) Second.
Carried 4-0. (DG) and (JP) Abstain.

ITEM 5. New Business

a. CNHRPC Traffic Counting Program

(GL) requested suggestions by the Board. (FH) In the past, we have always had the option to do this. We can suggest which roads we would like to see included. (BM) I am not certain that the Planning Board would want to do a traffic count on any roads now since currently there is no particular growth within the Town. (FH) In the past, the Planning Board more or less instituted this. We can ask Highway Department, Police Chief, Fire Chief and BOS as to their thoughts on this. (It is noted that all Department Heads have already received requests regarding this.) We should discuss this after we get their input.

(GL) Okay, we will wait for their responses and then discuss.

(GL) I would also like to advise Board that the Annual Planning Board and Zoning Board Conference is coming up on May 2, 2009. I would like to see more Planning Board members attend this conference. If anyone would like to attend, please let Dee know. If you would like any additional information on the conference, you can call the number listed.

ITEM 6. Selectman’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

(FH) “At the last Board of Selectman meeting, we appointed committee members.” (He read into the Minutes the names of the various Board members and the committees.)

ITEM 7. Building Inspector’s Report

Larry Konopka noted that he had provided information to the Board concerning the conceptual for Joseph Darrah. He related that the Building Inspector has not yet reviewed the plans for the Site Plan Review but he understood that there was some discrepancy in the plans presented to the Board. (FH) noted that he was reviewing the plans and noticed the discrepancy after the Public Hearing notice was posted. Mr. Sherblom noted on the plans that the building was 1,500 sq. ft. when in actuality it was
4,000 sq. ft. I do not believe that it is an issue but I will check with LGC to clarify this.

ITEM 8. Members Concerns

(JP) noted that he had attended the last BOS meeting and was requested to determine the status of the Town Charrette information that was forwarded to the Board in January. What is the status of this and what is it all about? (FH) explained how Town participated a few years ago when the Charrette occurred and noted that he believed it was too late to plan for it now. (JP “I guess that it is a moot point.”

(JP) also explained that he has noted that the Public Input section of the meeting occurs at the end of the Planning Board meeting. It would be beneficial if this item was more flexible and earlier in the meeting since not many people attend meetings anyway. I would like to see the Board open the Public Input item as an ongoing process.)

Please see Minutes of April 2, 2009 for correction to this paragraph.

(JP) Also, since we have no alternates yet, perhaps the Planning Board might want to advertise. We could put a letter in the Sun as an editorial and there would be no cost. He noted that he had authored such a letter (which was passed around to Board members for their review.) (GL) noted that the BOS usually advertises for all necessary committee members and alternates as a whole. (DS) agreed that since it was free, it might be a good idea. (BM) “If we all want to see Jim’s letter go in, why not? I think it should indicate two alternate positions are open.” (FH) “I still feel it should be done all at once. It should be done as a body. In the future, if someone resigns then this Board can advertise for it.”

(JP) Motion to approve the letter and have it posted in the Sun.
(BM) Second. Carried 6-0.

(JP) I noticed while reading an article concerning the Office of Energy and Planning that they have a model ordinance regarding windmills, which is free. I think it would be a good idea to have something like that if anyone would like permission to do this. (Board agreed that Dee would send letter to Office of Energy and Planning requesting this.) (BM) This could be put verbatim into revised Zoning Ordinances.

(JP) read into the Minutes information concerning the tax base and innovative land use (cluster) noting that if the Town “does not spell it out, they will not get it.”

(FH) Concerning the conceptual we heard tonight, I called Carl Sherblom to advise him of the size of the building, and he related that he would present new plans tonight which indicates the correct size of the building. Dee has already sent out the notice to the Concord Monitor due to the time period for posting. By the way, ten days means ten days including weekends and does not include the day of posting nor the day of the hearing. (GL) requested (FH) contact LGC and get back to Board members via E-Mail regarding the posting. (FH) related that he did not think this changed anything since it was only the size of the building that changes. (LK) noted that the BI has not had an opportunity to review this application. He had an appointment to review it tomorrow but Fred “jumped the gun on this one.”

(DS) related that all new members took an oath when we were sworn in. You notice that when we took the oath, we swore to abide by the laws of the Constitution and the State laws. Two weeks ago, we did not uphold the Constitution. What the problem is that you are so focused on State Law but you need a better foundation. I have a special book, which I know I gave to you before, Bill, but this book has what applies.

What happened two weeks ago is that we did not use Article 38. What it says is that justice is one of the things that you have to use as a fundamental principle of the Constitution. You have to use it as an adherence to justice, moderation, temperance and legality. The reason I bring this up is that we did not give this woman justice. There were four people on the Board that misinterpreted the law and we sent her away. I asked Bill, Why? How can this law apply to her? What good would it be? Bill said it did not matter; we had to follow the law. We did not double-check the law. (GL) Dan, please to not use personal names. (DS) Fred, he also did not pay attention as to whether we administered that woman justice or not. What has happened was you guys did not use the Constitution to double-check the matter. When you have State law, you find out the circumstances and you see how it applies to that person and you look at the Bill of Rights and the Constitution and you see if you are taking away that person’s rights. If you are, there is probably something wrong, and if you had done that two weeks ago, you would have realized that justice wasn’t being served.

So on that note, I want to relate if you feel like it, read it. I dug this out. A lot of good narrative is in here. The fight for freedom today is not on the battlefield but rather in the Courts, Board of Selectman hearings and on the Planning Boards. That is where the fight for freedom continues. Just because we are not in the Revolutionary War today does not mean we do not have to protect the Constitution.

All of you swore to administer State law you also swore to administer to the Constitution too, just as much as to the State laws. I would like to give you all a copy. (DS requested to distribute Constitution books, but was requested not to do so at this point.)

With that in mind, I would like to make a

Motion to reconsider the application of Christine Lyman Chase because of misinterpretation of that law or at least look at the application again to consider whether it does not need a Waiver for a major subdivision. (FH) Second (for Discussion purposes.)

(FH) There are rules and regulations. (DS) Does that mean you are going to follow them blindly?” (FH) No, but it is in black and white. (DS) Not if those laws go against this Book. You have to check your math. You cannot take it verbatim. You have to look at each case and cannot follow them blindly. (FH) I am not following them blindly. I had my eyes and ears open.

(BM) I would like to point out that the State Laws, Zoning Ordinances and the Town’s Rules and Regulations all come from the Constitution. Those rules are the means by which the Constitution is implemented. So, when we apply properly documented laws, we are following the Constitution. (DS) What about the time you would not allow trailers in here unless they were two years old? It was proven that this was unconstitutional. Were you administering that law, too? (BM) I was not on the Board at that time, so I can’t say.

(DS) You have to question the laws, not follow blindly. (BM) We have a mechanism for questioning the Constitution – it is call the State Supreme Court not the Pittsfield Planning Board.

(JP) Bill is right. The issue here is not whether or not the rule was followed but I think that (DS) question is whether the rule was followed properly. (The issue is See correction in Minutes of April 2, 2009) whether the rule has a rational basis and that is what the Supreme Court has said early and often. What you are suggesting is that it should be haphazardly applied. In other words, do you grant it to this person and that person and double-check with the Constitution each time? It does not work that way if you haphazardly apply a rule that way it is certainly not justice and both State and Federal Courts have ruled that early and often as well. Now as to whether or not it would have been nice that this woman had gotten her subdivision, certainly I think the rules should be more narrowly tailored to the means we are trying to achieve with the minor subdivision versus the major subdivision rules. I would agree it is something that could and should be done but it has not been done yet.

That is what I tried to do with the Zoning Ordinances. Now you are telling me we do not need more rules and regulations. Do you want narrowly tailored rules or don’t you? If you want narrowly tailored rules, justice will require somebody like Mrs. Chase gets treated that way. The rules can be written in a way that are more narrowly tailored to what municipalities need but they are not.

(DS) First of all, the law in front of you, people are misinterpreting. (JP) No, Dan, they are not. (DS) I believe they are. (JP) I read them before coming here. (DS) My point is she cannot do any more subdivisions like the guy on Shaw Road who kept coming in for minor subdivisions. (JP) You can subdivide by building an interior road. There are two issues that you are confusing. (DS) Not the way the law was written. They do not have any more frontage. (JP) One has to look at the language of the law. You are confusing two issues. The first is what does the law say and was it applied. The second is that she requested a Waiver and whether she satisfied the conditions for a Waiver. I cannot say whether she satisfied the conditions for a Waiver because I was not on the Board and did not look at the application and how they justified the request for a Waiver. That is a completely different question as to whether or not the minor versus the major subdividison is constitutional. It is constitutional. Could it be better written – Yes? Does it have to be under the Guidelines of the State Supreme Court? – No. I would like to see it better written.

(BM) Responding to Dan’s statement about not enough frontage to do further subdivisions, it is on a Class VI road but by upgrading it, there is nothing to prevent an interior road being built. So, I object to the idea that it is not possible for further subdivision. I do not think you understand the way it works. (DS) That is a difference of opinion. We need to vote. (JP) noted that he would not vote on this issue, as he has not seen the application.

Vote: 1 (DS) to 2. (GL) and (JP) Abstain. Motion dies.

ITEM 9. Public Input

(GL) Mr. Martin Dieter is here tonight and has requested that the Board hear a conceptual in regard to some rental property that he would like to utilize.

Mr. Dieter explained that he would like to do is to rent an office at 5 Main Street and run his real estate office from that site. He noted that he had discussed this with the Building Inspector who was unsure whether he would need a Site Plan Review. He explained that he also has a real estate office in Massachusetts. (FH) Where is the office going to be? (BM) Is it the same office as previously used by Suncook Leather? Mr. Dieter noted affirmatively. He noted that he would be renting the entire office but for now only utilizing a portion of the space for his real estate office. (FH) Amenico is not going to have their office there? Mr. Dieter noted that he did not know the answer to that question. (BM) noted that as the applicant he can apply for an exemption since the site was previously used for office space. (Mr. Dieter was given the printed information that explains the requirements for exemption and use of Waiver.) (FH) Where is Amenico going to have their offices? (BM) It is not up to this Board to worry about that. I do have one question and this is what about signs? Mr. Dieter noted that there would be a sign displayed above the windows. For now, there will be a sign displayed in the window as required by NH State law. (JP) If you are planning on having a sign, I would check with the Building Inspector regarding zoning requirements for the sign. I think this might require a special exception. Mr. Dieter agreed that he would contact owners of building to apply for Waiver and talk to the Building Inspector concerning the sign.
Tom Hitchcock: If you are moving into a place that was already for offices, why would you have to get a Site Plan Review. It should be automatic rather than requiring a Waiver. The NH State Constitution was written a long time before the Town laws were written. The Town came up with their own laws and they should be followed with the spirit of the law not just the letter of the law. In our own Regs it talks about hardships, about putting a person into hardship. Are we dealing with land or people? We are a Town of people not land.

(BM) Tom, this board is a land use regulatory board. Tom Hitchcock: But don’t people use the land? (BM) Yes, they do but we have rules and regulations. Laws are the price you pay for living in a civilized society. Tom Hitchcock: You are suggesting we look at the purpose not just the letter of the law because the letter of the law is not going to do a man justice. (BM) That is for the courts to decide. Tom Hitchcock: I think it is for the people to decide. We are a country of people not courts. (BM) Anyone in this Town has a legal recourse on our decisions. Tom Hitchcock: Have you ever heard love your neighbor as yourself. Consider that, too.

(FH) If the State of New Hampshire wants to do something, they do it. Why can’t we do that on our own property? The State says “No.”

Tom Hitchcock: We have given up a lot of rights in this country. I am afraid of anarchy, I come from New York and I have seen it happening there. Pittsfield has an advantage because we are a small town and can work with each other. So if you can help your neighbor, why not? You have to think about what you are doing as a human being.

(FH) I am getting criticized for trying to help someone build a building. Maybe I did step on someone’s toes, but I was trying to help.

Tom Hitchcock: As another side note, my property was approved for an in-law apartment, which did not happen. I never used it or rented it. I am getting ready to rent it. I am going to do what is necessary without going overboard to make that legal, but if I get too much trouble out of this Town, I will do it anyway and I will win. I have to pay my taxes and if I can’t, you people are restricting me from doing that. I have a house that could be a bed and breakfast and I am thinking about that, too. People have to get creative with their lifestyles or they are not going to survive. People come in my store all the time and hear these stories and are amazed. They see the benches that Dan makes and they think it is great. The laws are written for the people.

Other

(GL) We have a letter from Ted Mitchell to serve as Alternate. Mr. Mitchell, can you tell us something about yourself.

Mr. Mitchell: I was born in Pittsfield, moved around some within Town, went into the Navy for 21 years and after discharge worked in a grocery store in Norfolk for about eight years. I moved home to help my Mom so she would not have to go into assisted living and took care of her. I love gardening and am now looking for something to do at night to benefit the Town. I am happy assisting people and will do anything I can to help the Town. I would like to be on the Board, get educated and make a difference in the Town. I am the type of person that learned what I learned from listening. I do not believe that “yakking” accomplishes much unless you have a true objective.

(BM) After all you have heard tonight, do you still want to be on the Planning Board? Mr. Mitchell answered affirmatively.

(BM) Motion to appoint Ted Mitchell as Alternate on Planning Board.
(JP) Second.

Discussion: (DS) “I have a question. Do you have a copy of the Constitution?” Mr. Mitchell (TM), “I do not need to be lectured on the Constitution. (DS) “Do you have a copy of the Constitution?” (TM) I do not need a copy. (DS) “You do not want a copy of the Constitution because it is not important to you?” (TM) “Do you know why you are a laughing stock in this Town?” (DS) “I do not care about being a laughing stock.” (TM) “You have intelligence and you have some great ideas… (DS) “I have my freedom and I intend to keep it.” (TM) “People do not listen because you turn them off because of the way you feel and deal with other people.” (DS) “I am just the opposite.” (TM) “No, I am just the opposite. I can get my point across without coming across that way. I am logical and concise.” (DS) “That’s fine.”

(FH) and Mr. Mitchell discussed his relationship to several individuals in Town.

(DS) left the meeting during this discussion at 8:34 P.M.

(JP) I am very impressed with Mr. Mitchell and he is very clearly thorough, organized and clearly intelligent I think he should be approved.

Vote: 5-0.

(GL) Welcome to the Board. Please see the Town Clerk to be sworn in.

(JP) Let the Minutes reflect that (DS) left the meeting with an unexcused absence from the Board. (GL) The Minutes will so reflect.

Larry Konopka congratulated all the newly elected Board members. Anything that the Building Department can do or assist you with, let us know.

(JP) Thank you, Larry.

ITEM 10. Adjournment

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

Meeting was adjourned at 8:37 P.M.

Approved: April 2, 2009

____________________________ _________________________
Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman Date

II Tapes