Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
DATE: MARCH 6, 2008
ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:03 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Vice -Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr.
(PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Daniel Greene (DG), John
Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex Officio Alternate, Chris Conlon (CC), Dan
Schroth (DS), Alternate, Gerard LeDuc (GL), Alternate and
Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent:
None.
Others Present: Tom Hitchcock, Larry Konopka, Jim Pritchard, Art Morse,
and Dave Rushford.
ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of February 4th, February 7th, and
February 21st, 2008.
(BM) We will defer the approval of the Minutes to later in the meeting.
ITEM 4. CNHRP Recommendation: “Site Plan Review Required”
(BM) explained the history of this proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment.
He noted that the Planning Board had some concerns in adopting this
amendment as suggested in regard to limiting or preventing Planning Board
granting exception based on its current rules. Board was confused and did
not push forward but rather moved to this hearing. I sent this to legal
counsel to determine whether it would have an impact on granting
2
exceptions. Town counsel says it is illegal and conflicts with RSA 674:43
which states which type of special exception will require Site Plan Review.
Because of this deficit, it was their recommendation that Planning Board
should not move to place this on the ballot at the Town Meeting. This
hearing had already been scheduled, and I will allow public comment and
then Board will vote.
Public Input:
Mr. Jim Pritchard noted that if he understood correctly, Planning Board had
not changed the wording at the last public hearing. “The Minutes do not say
you voted on what the text should be. You should not have a hearing
procedurally from that point of view.”
Mr. Gerard Leduc noted, “I am glad to see it might be illegal. If NHRPC
“sells us” something that can be challenged and we would lose, I would not
want it as part of our ordinances.” (BM) noted that Laura Specter did not say
“might” but rather, “…it is illegal.” It was questioned as to what exactly
was illegal? (BM) explained that as the amendment was proposed, it states
any special exception request has to go through a Site Plan Review by the
Planning Board. State law 674:43 states,”…for nonresidential uses or for
multi-family dwelling units, ….”
Mr. Dan Schroth noted, “We voted to amend that.”
Mr. Pritchard noted that the Board should not have a hearing because they
did not vote as to what the exact changes would entail. Mr. Schroth noted
that it did not matter. (BM) reiterated that it was the advice of legal counsel
to not put it on the ballot for April 15th so it is relatively moot.
Close Public Input
(RH) Motion to not place the recommended amendment by NHRPC
regarding Site Plan Review on the ballot for April 15, 2008. (PM) Second.
After discussion: Carried 7-0.
Discussion:
(BM) and (RH) further discussed reasons why they were not assured that the
proposed amendment was clear as to what circumstances a Site Plan Review
3
was required and if and under what circumstances a conflict would arise. It
was noted by (CC) that there was still the potential for applicants, once a
special exception goes to the Zoning Board, to determine that the process
was complete. It was expressed that this was where the confusion probably
existed. (RH) noted that applicants that are granted special exceptions
would still have to come before the Planning Board.
(BM) noted (after reading from RSA 674:43) that the Planning Board does
not give up that condition at all. “We have the right to grant special
exception after the six criteria has been met.” He also noted that Town
Administrator would be discussing this matter with CNHRP as to why they
proposed the amendment the way that they did.
Vote: Motion carried 7-0.
(BM) There is only one matter on the ballot for April 15th, which is the
Floodplain Ordinance, and will bring us in compliance with the National
Flood Insurance Program and FEMA.
ITEM 5. Citizen Petition Zoning Ordinances Changes
(BM) noted that the Citizen Petition, which is now a BOS petition had been
voted upon not to go forward on the April 15th ballot. (RH) Should we vote
not to send it forward? (BM) The BOS originated it and has withdrawn it,
so it is gone. (RH) questioned whether the Board should vote on it “right or
wrong.”
(RH) Motion to withdraw recommendation that the BOS (Citizen Petition)
on proposed Zoning Ordinances amendments be on ballot at Special Town
Meeting on April 15th. (CC) Second. Carried 6-0. (DG) Abstain.
(BM) Again, the only thing that will be on the ballot will be the Floodplain
Ordinance. (RH) questioned what majority is needed in order for it to pass?
(FH) noted “simple majority.”
4
ITEM 3. Minutes
(CC) Motion to approve Minutes of February 4, 2008. (DG) Second.
Carried 7-0.
(DG) Motion to approve Minutes of February 7, 2008. (CC) Second.
Carried 6-0. (RH) Abstain.
(DG) Motion to approve Minutes of February 21, 2008. (CC) Second.
Carried 7-0.
ITEM 6. Selectman Report
(JL) noted that there was nothing to report at this time.
ITEM 7. Members Concerns
(FH) requested that all show up next Tuesday (Elections).
ITEM 8. Public Input
Mr. Pritchard questioned, “Since the Floodplain Ordinances is the only thing
on for April 15th, just how urgent is this proposal? Can it wait until next
year so that there can be more of a representative vote on it?” (BM) noted
that if we do not adopt it, anyone in that area would not be eligible to buy
flood insurance through the Federal Program. If people were denied right to
participate in this program, they would be denied right to participate in a
very valuable program concerning them. An extra Town Meeting is not very
expensive in relation to the benefits derived from this. Mr. Pritchard
questioned how long Town has “been in this position?” (CC) noted that the
process started in September 2007. (AM) noted that also the Town would be
jeopardized in receiving FEMA monies. (BM) noted, “If we do not have
Floodplain zoning, we would not be eligible for emergency repairs monies
which could be very serious. (GL) “We would probably lose FEMA
monies.”
Dave Rushford questioned “The Board voted against this?” (BM) assured
him that the Board did not vote against this but that it continues to be on the
ballot for the April 15th meeting.
5
Mr. Tom Hitchcock advised the Board that he had recently attended the
meeting of the Regional Planning Commission explaining that they had
reviewed and discussed the legislation pending/passed and how they felt
about all the legislation. He noted that alternate funding sources,
transportation issues, ground waters, shoreline protection, and disposal of
hazardous household wastes matters were also discussed. (He provided
various brochures to Bill Miskoe for the Board to review.) He related that
the Commission would welcome anyone from the Planning Board that
would like to attend meetings.
(BM) noted that he was unsure who would be on the Planning Board come
Tuesday, but related that the Planning Board currently has a respite from
development pressures which will probably only be for a short period of
time. We are not seeing subdivision requests lately, but this will not last
forever. The Planning Board can meet twice a month and be thinking about
all these things. Mr. Hitchcock thought it might be a good idea to do an
assessment of what has been accomplishe d. (BM) related that this might be
a great opportunity to look at Zoning Ordinances and Master Plan now,
marking time and preparing for changes.
Mr. Hitchcock also related that the Planning Board could campaign for
citizens to increase their house values. Keep people thinking about their
houses as the market is eventually going to go up. (BM) noted that Pittsfield
has fallen behind in many areas. Mr. Hitchcock noted that perhaps the next
Planning Board could give consideration to having each individual become
an expert in a different area so that when something does come before them,
they would have someone well versed and specialized in that area.
Mr. Dan Schroth noted that he had never gotten to listen to Jim Pritchard and
what his petition encompassed. Mr. Pritchard related that the Town did not
give proper notice, and we were never given a chance to be heard through no
fault of our own. (BM) reminded audience that the citizen petition is now
moot. Mr. Schroth questioned, “How did it become moot?” Mr. Pritchard
referenced him to Laura Specter and noted it was due to Town’s improper
noticing. (BM) explained to audience how the citizen petition came to be
BOS petition and the circumstances as to why it was not going to be on the
ballot for April 15th. Mr. Schroth questioned, “The BOS decided to vote it
off?” (BM) offered more details on what had occurred in reference to the
citizen petition of Zoning Ordinance amendments. (JL) noted that 29 of the
6
original residents signed the petition to take it off of the Town Meeting. Mr.
Pritchard noted that Bill Miskoe’s interpretation was not “entirely right.”
ITEM 9. Adjournment
(DG) Motion to adjourn. (CC) Second. Carried 7 -0.
Meeting adjourned at 7:52 P.M.
Approved: March 20, 2008
______________________________ _________________________
Gerard Leduc, Vice-Chairman Date