March 21, 2013 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, March 21, 2013

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Planning board members present:
Clayton Wood (CW), planning board member and chair;
Pat Heffernan (PH), planning board member and vice-chair;
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary;
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member; and
Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Peter Dow, alternate planning board member, and
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate planning board member.

Other town officials present: Jesse Pacheco, building inspector.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board:
Carol Lambert, 83 Governor’s Road, Pittsfield, NH; and
Paul Rogers, 112 Catamount Road, Pittsfield, NH.

“Members of the public appearing before the planning board” includes only members of the public who spoke to the board. It does not include members of the public who were present but who did not speak to the board.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Agenda Review

CW said that that tonight’s meeting should be short. The board will elect its officers at the next meeting (April 4, 2013). CW said that PD had agreed to seek reappointment as an alternate. CW said that he wanted to discuss sending a letter to the board of selectmen in relation to the AHG’s request that the board of selectmen vote to authorize the issuance of building permits on the class VI highway Thompson Road. (RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).) CW welcomed new member EN, the selectmen’s representative to the planning board.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of March 7, 2013

BM moved to approve the minutes of March 7, 2013, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

No board member saw any problems in the draft minutes.

Vote to approve the minutes of March 7, 2013, as written in draft: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: EN.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: Waiver Site Plan Review – Paul Rogers, Jitters Café

CW asked the board to decide the disposition of the conditional exemption from site plan review that the board granted on February 7, 2013.

JP moved the board to revoke the conditional exemption from site plan review that the board granted on February 7, 2013.

BM seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to revoke Paul Rogers’s conditional exemption from site plan review that the board granted on February 7, 2013: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: EN.)

CW said that the board had been trying to help Paul Rogers get past the 30-day appeal period (RSA 677:15) as soon as possible, but the board’s efforts were for naught because the 30 days would not have started until Paul Rogers had his relief from the parking requirements of the zoning ordinance.

CW said that Paul Rogers’s new request for exemption from site plan review is the same as his request of February 7, 2013, except that now he has a variance from the parking requirements of zoning ordinance article 16.

Building inspector and code enforcement officer Jesse Pacheco said that Paul Rogers had written a letter to the board of selectmen agreeing to proceed at his own risk within the 30-day appeal period. (RSA 677:15.)

EN said that he would abstain from the vote but would comment on the application for exemption.

BM moved to approve Paul Rogers’s request for exemption from site plan review.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

EN said that Matt Monahan, of Central NH Regional Planning Commission, had recommended that the board deny the exemption and require a site plan review because the change of use from a salon and a video-rental store to a restaurant is significant.

CW said that the site plan review regulations do not condition an exemption on what the change of use is. (Site plan review regulations section II, B, 1.) The issue is what happens to the exterior of the building.

PH asked for feedback from Jesse Pacheco.

Jesse Pacheco said that signage is the only possible concern. The signage will be similar to the existing signage and should not be a problem.

Vote to approve Paul Rogers’s exemption from site plan review: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: EN.)

CW explained the 30-day appeal process of RSA 677:15. CW asked Paul Rogers to confirm that he is proceeding within the 30-day appeal period at this own risk.

Paul Rogers agreed.

BM said that Paul Rogers had come in on February 7, 2013, requesting an exemption from site plan review, but the board had not granted the exemption on that day because Paul Rogers did not meet the zoning requirement for off-street parking. (Site plan review regulations section II, B, 1, a.) Last year’s town meeting adopted parking regulations with a mathematical formula for required off-street parking. BM had said that the regulations would not work and would not be necessary. Paul Rogers had to get a variance from parking regulations that clearly do not work. BM thought that the planning board should do something about the parking regulations in the Commercial District instead of asking applicants to determine the area that they intend to use as commercial. The regulations take the relief-granting authority away from the planning board and give the relief-granting authority to the zoning board of adjustment. BM said that Paul Rogers’s application showed that BM had been correct in saying that the parking regulation would not work.

JP said that he did not want to discuss BM’s comment at length except to say that he disagreed with BM.

CW said that the board could discuss the parking regulations at a future date. The argument has two sides.

Paul Rogers said that applicants could use better instructions on the land-use review and approval process.

CW explained some of the issues of site plan review and exemption from site plan review.

BM asked why did a business owner who has no parking problem and who is moving 100 feet have to go to the zoning board of adjustment?

CW said that this requirement is the law. The law says that an exemption from parking requirements requires review. CW agreed that this requirement is “crazy.” The board needs to educate the public and change the zoning ordinance. But Kentek had to count parking spaces. If Kentek must do it, then Paul Rogers must do it.

BM said that, in the compact part of the downtown, there just is no parking. The planning board should get rid of the parking requirement in the zoning ordinance. The parking requirement will never work because everyone will have to go to the zoning board of adjustment to get a variance from it.

CW said that he wanted to stop the discussion but would let JP speak.

JP said that BM was going on and on. BM’s analysis is unfair. Is the board going to discuss the parking regulations or not?

CW said that he was just trying to answer Paul Rogers’s question while Paul Rogers is still present.

EN said that Paul Rogers now has an exemption from site plan review for change of use, so Paul Rogers will move the restaurant Jitters Café to a building that was just a movie rental store and a salon with just a few cars needing to park. A restaurant at the movie rental location will need many parking spaces. Jitters is an existing restaurant, so someone could put a restaurant where Jitters is leaving, and the new restaurant would also need many parking spaces. The board must weigh these two different situations.

BM said that he would like downtown Pittsfield to have a parking problem.

JP asked the board to stop its discussion of the parking situation. The discussion is unfair.

CW agreed and asked the board to stop the discussion. CW said that the board will resume the discussion later.

BM said that he does not give up.

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Discussion of a letter to the board of selectmen regarding AHG Properties’ request that the board of selectmen vote to authorize the issuance of building permits on class VI highway Thompson Road (RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1)).

JP recused himself because his mother is an abutter to the Stagecoach Station project.

CW referred to the third paragraph of AHG’s letter of February 28, 2013, to the board of selectmen:

“RSA 674:41 requires the review and comment of the planning board prior to the vote of the selectmen. It is AHG’s position that this review and comment requirement was satisfied when the planning board reviewed and approved the plan in 2006. Should you disagree with that position, the selectmen may request the planning board review and comment on the issuance of building permits at this time, as well.”

CW said that the planning board had sent the board of selectmen a letter discussing the selectmen’s potential concerns in relation to Stagecoach Station. One of these concerns is the RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), process. CW wants to send the board of selectmen another letter giving the planning board’s current recommendation under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1). The planning board wants the board of selectmen to defer AHG’s request until the planning board can review and comment. The planning board should tell the board of selectmen that the planning board will address this matter at the planning board’s regular meeting in April (April 4, 2013).

EN asked for clarification that the planning board’s recommendation would be ready for the board of selectmen at the selectmen’s first meeting after April 4, 2013.

CW said yes.

CW said that the planning board is currently writing two letters to AHG regarding (1) AHG’s proposal to move the stone wall at the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field and (2) the “as amended from time to time” language in the conservation restriction. The Local Government Center (“LGC”) currently has these two letters. CW is seeking comment from LGC.

CW wants the board of selectmen to know that the planning board’s past conditional approval of Stagecoach Station should not be taken as the planning board’s current recommendation. The planning board’s recommendation under RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), is not binding.

EN suggested that the planning board use town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan “to make sure everything is proper.”

CW said that the planning board is using LGC.

EN said that the board of selectmen had authorized the planning board to use “the full run of Laura Spector[-Morgan].” EN said that Laura Spector-Morgan is very good in land-use law.

CW said that the board of selectmen can use Laura Spector-Morgan.

EN reemphasized that the planning board should use Laura Spector-Morgan because she is perfect at land-use law.

BM said that he lives on a class VI highway. BM said that the planning board’s comment on authorizing the issuance of building permits on class VI highways is only advisory. BM said that Attorney Sullivan erred is saying that the planning board’s conditional approval was in 2006; the conditional approval was in 2007.

CW said that the board of selectmen should have a public hearing. This was Laura Spector-Morgan’s advice in 2007. Laura Spector-Morgan did say that the board of selectmen could use the conditional approval as the planning board’s comment, but that was a long time ago, in 2007. CW wants the planning board’s consensus on an advisory letter to the board of selectmen. CW agreed with BM that the planning board’s comment is not binding, but planning board must make the comment nonetheless.

BM said that the planning board should vote on advising “yes” or “no” on RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1).

CW said that he wanted to decide the planning board’s comment at the planning board’s next meeting. In the meantime, CW will send the board of selectmen a letter saying that the planning board wants to update its comment. Many things have changed and much time has passed since the conditional approval of 2007. CW said that he will try to send the letter by tomorrow.

EN said that he will tell the board of selectmen to defer the RSA 674:41, I, (c), (1), vote until after the planning board’s April 4, 2013, meeting.

CW said that Stagecoach Station is very different from the typical situation of just allowing a building permit for one house on an existing lot on a class VI highway. Here, AHG proposes to “redo” a road completely.

EN asked whether he had the conceptual materials that the planning board has adopted for the selectmen.

CW said yes. The planning board sent two letters to the board of selectmen. One letter was regarding the NH DOT driveway-permit renewal, and one was regarding a list of things that the selectmen must do to allow AHG to build on and improve Thompson Road. CW recommended a public hearing on these issues.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Selectman’s Report – Eric Nilsson, Selectman Ex Officio

JP returned to the board.

EN said that the board of selectmen had made committee appointments such as to the planning board, but the board of selectmen had deferred much of its business because of snowstorm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013. The board of selectmen did a timber-tax levy.

CW said that LK is still the selectmen’s alternate to the planning board.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Members’ Concerns

JP said that the parking regulations based on square footage have been around since 1989. The 2012 town meeting did not create this requirement, so the 2012 regulation did not create the requirement to know the area that the commercial use would occupy. The new regulation took advantage of the fact that the old regulation already required this area information. The significant difference that the new regulation made is that the authority to reduce parking regulations came out of the planning board and went to the zoning board of adjustment. No new process was created here. The planning board had a good reason for this change. JP referred to the Look Before You Leap essay from LGC on conditional use permits. If the town wants to ensure public comment on something, then the matter should be a special exception instead of a conditional use permit under the planning board’s authority. Paul Rogers’s application had had much pressure to do it quickly, and, if the planning board could have waived the parking requirements without taking abutter comment, then the planning board probably would have waived the parking requirements without taking abutter comment. Because of the process that was in place, the planning board could not brush the abutters aside. JP referred to his experience in the audience and said that he does not favor brushing abutters aside in the interest of expediency. JP said that EN had pointed out that Paul Rogers’s move could substantially change parking conditions in the future. Having a good idea is fine, but the parking regulations have been around for a long time, and last year’s revision did not make all of the changes that BM said. The new regulations simply created guidelines to implement what was there. JP acknowledged that the regulations may need change, but JP wants to research any change, especially if the change proposed is to delete them.

CW said that researching the parking regulations may be a good project to do. The requirements are in the zoning ordinance, so they are completely out of the planning board’s hands. CW said that he wanted to move on.

BM said that the planning board can propose zoning amendments to the town meeting.

Jesse Pacheco referred to a draft letter that CW had written to November 26 on Bailey Park.

CW said that the planning board will have a meeting on Bailey Park at board’s regular meeting in May.

EN said that he is deputy building inspector and is trying “to straighten out the office.” The office of building inspector is using a zoning compliance form and is trying to funnel everything through the building inspector’s office to avoid bouncing people around.

CW said that he had been advocating this approach for a long time. CW said that he would like to be involved less because things get fouled up if CW pushes too hard.

EN said that the building department is coming together.

BM said that the town should have something on the town bulletin board and the web site stating the steps that a person would have to take to establish a use. This information should be available without having to find out when the building inspector is available.

CW said that this issue arose when Paul Rogers applied for his exemption. The site plan review regulations give an applicant, such as Paul Rogers, the right to go to the planning board directly. CW had advised Paul Rogers to go to the building inspector Jesse Pacheco first, but Paul Rogers decided to go straight to the planning board, which Paul Rogers had the right to do.

JP said that the idea of having some flowchart is nice but naïve. JP agreed with EN in directing people to the building inspector. Each land use is different and the process may be different. When JP asks for information, he asks town employees in the office for directions. Many town ordinances or regulations—the zoning ordinance, the subdivision regulations, the site plan review regulations, the planning board’s rules of procedure, and the zoning board of adjustment’s rules of procedure—may come into play. To tell someone what to do is to give him all of these rules and tell him to figure it out. The better way is to send prospective applicants to the building inspector for guidance first. There are reasons why there are many different rules, and these differences are why an applicant should go to the building inspector first. The planning board’s rules of procedure say that an applicant should go the building inspector first.

CW said that much has happened this year, and CW and Jesse Pacheco have done much work on a system to process applicants. Jesse Pacheco and the Central NH Regional Planning Commission review the application as first submitted, and CW comes in after that. In the case of the Treem-Gendron lot line adjustment, the town did this process thoroughly and properly, but the applicant or his surveyor gave the town false information.

BM said that, if JP is correct in saying that people should start at the building inspector, then the town should have a big sign in the hall saying so. A Pittsfield property owner living out of town should be able to go on-line, find out where his property is, how it is zoned, what can be done, and how to go through the procedure. The town does not provide this information.

CW said that the planning board has checklists for minor and major site plans and minor and major subdivisions.

BM said that the checklists have been around for a long time, but the board has no clear direction of where to start.

Jesse Pacheco said that most people who call ask where to start, and these people get directed to the building inspector. Jesse Pacheco agreed that information should be on the web site, but Jesse Pacheco said that many people do not read what is available. Jesse Pacheco constantly gets calls for the housing standards authority even though the town’s information clearly says that Jesse Pacheco is the building inspector. Jesse Pacheco is trying to organize and define the process.

BM said that he did not care where the starting point is; BM just wants to say where it is.

CW said that the board will work on this project this year. The board faces the problem that applicants do not want to hear what the board tells them.

BM said that people naturally want to avoid bureaucracy.

Jesse Pacheco said that BM’s analysis is true but only part of the problem. Applicants are always saying, “you did not do it before, so you do not need to do it now.” The building department is trying to follow established procedure now whereas the building department did not do so before.

CW said that the building department is trying to simplify the confirmation of a new project’s zoning compliance. Applicants do not want to hear that they cannot establish a particular use where they want to establish the use. Applicants take months to accept this statement. To address this problem, the building inspector will make an administrative decision on zoning compliance. If the building inspector denies the use, then the applicant can go to the zoning board of adjustment and appeal the administrative decision. (RSA 674:33, I, (a).) Many times, the board must tell applicants that the lot is not zoned for the use that the applicant wants. Applicants do not want to hear this. Applicants ask why is the town enforcing the zoning ordinance now when the town did not do so previously. The planning board must either enforce the law or change the law.

JP said that the board seemed to be talking about whether the town should have a zoning ordinance or not. The town has decided this question. If the town has a zoning ordinance, then the town must enforce it. If the town does not enforce the zoning ordinance, then the town effectively has no zoning ordinance.

CW and BM said that JP had not stated the issue correctly.

JP said that enforcing a use classification at a particular location sounded like zoning to JP.

CW said that the law is somewhat confusing but not as confusing as applicants say. CW said that the board could include more information in the site plan review regulations to give Jesse Pacheco more authority to decide exemptions from site plan review. CW said that the site plan review regulations give the building inspector some authority to decide exemptions, but the authority is so vague that the building inspector never grants exemptions. Site plan review regulations from other towns have specific guidelines giving the building inspector authority to approve exemptions. (RSA 674:43, III.) CW is not suggesting a change now but is suggesting considering a change.

Jesse Pacheco repeated that funneling applicants through the building department is the best way to process applications. Paul Rogers could have been approved faster if he had not bypassed the building inspector.

JP referred to the board’s discussion of site plan review exemptions. JP said that his comprehensive zoning revision included mandatory site plan review exemptions based on the size of the project. (RSA 674:43, IV.) The board did not like JP’s proposal. Maybe the board will reconsider JP’s idea now. Currently, the site plan review regulations have no provision for an exemption from site plan review for a nonresidential use unless the person comes to the planning board and asks for an exemption. JP does not think that everyone should have to go to the planning board, but, if the planning board wants to use this statutory provision (RSA 674:43, IV), then the planning board will have to create some more regulations. People will see two more pages of regulations and will not want them. Ways exist to do things, and, if the board does not want to use those ways, then the board will not get the desired results.

CW said that the board must educate the public. The board has basically four categories: minor subdivision, major subdivision, minor site plan, major site plan. CW said that the board had argued among itself whether the Treem-Gendron lot line adjustment was a subdivision. It is a minor subdivision. Some things are simple; others are complicated. The board is currently working together, the public is listening, the building inspector is enforcing the zoning ordinance. The board needs to propose little changes to the zoning ordinance.

JP said that the important issue is that the board must have consensus. Board members insulting what other board members are trying to do is not constructive. If the board does not work together, then it will not accomplish much.

CW agreed with JP and said that the board needs to put into these land-use regulations the same energy that the board put into AHG’s application.

BM said that he is passionate about having a zoning ordinance, but BM wants a zoning ordinance that lets a property owner living out of town know where his property is and what he can do with it. The property owner can ask the building inspector, but the building inspector will say “no, the zoning ordinance is just like the STOP sign at the end of Carroll Street.” The driver does not ask why the STOP sign is there. A person cannot have a pig farm on Carroll Street.

CW said that he had read at least 50 zoning ordinances from around the state. The regulations can be difficult to read. The easy-to-read zoning ordinance does not exist. The board should work on small but important issues, such as getting businesses in the downtown.

JP said that BM wants a precise zoning ordinance, but a precise zoning ordinance requires precise verbiage. Saying that the planning board can do as it pleases, which is what the parking regulations used to say, is not precise verbiage. Giving the planning board authority to do as it pleases is at odds with telling someone what his rights are. The board must choose one option or the other. Precise regulations will increase the thickness of the zoning ordinance, which people will not like.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Public Input

Carol Lambert said that the board had taken about a hundred steps back. Carol Lambert said that it is no secret that BM and JP do not like each other. JP is a precise, detail-oriented person, while BM “comes from a broad spectrum of areas.” Carol Lambert thought that tonight’s conversation was not about zoning but was about BM trying to get at JP, and JP trying to retaliate. Carol Lambert thought that the board had put these matters behind it. Carol Lambert was very disappointed in tonight’s discussion and was disappointed in BM and JP. Carol Lambert repeated that the board had taken a hundred steps backward. Carol Lambert asked the chair to tell both BM and JP to “knock it off and go on.” Carol Lambert said that she is angry. The board had momentum and was looking at laws, and members were not voting to be contrary to another member.

JP, speaking from the audience, apologized for having given an impression of trying to attack BM. JP said that this was not his intent at all. JP said that he is passionate in his belief that abutters should have the opportunity to speak on matters happening next to them. JP said that he would defend this position whether BM, PH, EN, or CW were opposing it. JP said that he is not trying to attack any of these people. JP said that he wants the zoning ordinance to spell out rights clearly. To do this, the zoning ordinance must be written clearly. This consideration has nothing to do with BM or any of the other board members.

JP referred to EN’s statement that town attorney Laura Spector-Morgan is excellent at land use law. JP said that Laura Spector-Morgan is no doubt excellent at land use law, but JP said that Laura Spector-Morgan had said that moving the stone wall, as a boundary marker, at the edge of Kathy Bleckmann’s field, is a private matter between AHG Properties and Kathy Bleckmann. JP said that he had looked at the map, and AHG does not own land on either side of the highway where AHG proposes to move the stone wall. JP could not understand how the town attorney’s advice on land use in this matter is anything other than absurd.

EN interrupted JP and asked for a point of order, which EN did not identify.

CW explained to EN that JP is giving public input.

CW called a five-minute recess at 8:09 PM.

CW resumed the meeting at 8:14 PM.

JP resumed his public-input discussion from the audience. JP said that the town attorney’s advice on the stone wall movement is not believable by any person who is remotely impartial to Stagecoach Station. Laura Spector-Morgan may be a very good land-use attorney, but her enthusiasm for Stagecoach Station has clouded her professional judgment.

JP returned to the board.

After JP’s return, the board had a lengthy discussion about (1) how the board might evaluate, research, and change the parking regulations, (2) how the board could process applicants better, (3) how board members could work more cooperatively in general, and (4) how BM and JP might resolve their differences. BM suggested a 5-minute conversation would be enough to resolve differences between BM and JP, and JP agreed to meet with BM with Jesse Pacheco chaperoning. PH said that he would like the board to research changes to the parking regulations but would prefer to defer work on the parking regulations until after the board had finished Stagecoach Station.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of March 21, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of March 21, 2013, is adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

Minutes approved: April 4, 2013

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on March 23, 2013, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on March 21, 2013, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Clayton Wood made on March 22, 2013.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary

2 Town tapes.