May 1, 2014 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, May 1, 2014

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 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; and
Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member, and
Gerard LeDuc (GL), selectmen’s ex officio alternate planning board member.

The planning board has no alternates at this time.

Other town officials present: Carole Dodge, chair of the zoning board of adjustment; Ted Mitchell, chair of the economic development committee; Jesse Pacheco, building inspector and code enforcement officer; and Mike Williams, town administrator.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: None.

“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 he would add a preliminary conceptual consultation with Rustic Crust for site plan review. (See RSA 676:4, II, (a).)

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Preliminary conceptual consultation with Rustic Crust for site plan review. (See RSA 676:4, II, (a).)

Brad Sterl, president of Rustic Crust, said that Rustic Crust would maintain its executive office at 5 Main Street and that Rustic Crust would use the building on Barnstead Road (NH Route 107) for production only.

Matt Peterson, of Hillside Design, presented two sets of plans: (1) plans from November 28, 1983, showing Rustic Crust’s old, now destroyed, building on Barnstead Road and (2) Rustic Crust’s conceptual site plan for a new building at the Barnstead Road site. The old building had a certain maze character that hindered production. The new building will be a simple rectangle of 105 feet by 230 feet, with no such barriers between the exterior walls. The old building was substantially within the setback yard next to Barnstead Road. The new building will have a slightly longer setback from Barnstead Road but will still be within the setback yard and will also have a longer front along Barnstead Road. The new building will have 21,920 square feet of industrial space and 3,500 square feet of office space. The driveway on Barnstead Road (NH Route 107) will be relocated. The conceptual site plan also shows an existing sewerage easement and the Suncook River, but the conceptual plan does not show the exact distance from the Suncook River to the proposed construction.

Matt Peterson said that Rustic Crust wants to begin construction (“to put a shovel in the ground”) by June 1, 2014, and finish within the year.

CW reminded Matt Peterson that he would need a permit from the NH Department of Transportation for the driveway.

Matt Peterson said that he understood the driveway-permit requirement.

Matt Peterson asked two questions about zoning regulations:

1. Would the board treat the office space and the industrial space as all one use—industrial—in applying the parking regulations? (See zoning ordinance article 16, section 3, Number of off-Street Parking Spaces Required on a Lot for One or More Uses, as amended March 11, 2014.) Matt Peterson thought that the building had only one use, industrial, and that the parking regulations should treat the building as such. If the regulations treat the building as all industrial space, then the regulations require 25 parking spaces. Matt Peterson said that some towns would treat the office space as office space and the industrial space as industrial space in calculating parking requirements. Matt Peterson said that the office space should be treated as industrial space because (a) the use of the building will be principally industrial, (b) Rustic Crust will typically use fewer than 25 parking spaces, (c) the number of required parking spaces would be 40 if the office space were treated as office space, and (d) Rustic Crust has space for only 35 parking spaces.

2. Does zoning ordinance article 4, section 4, (b), permit the extended front of the building? Article 4, section 4, (b), says as follows:

“Additions to non-conforming buildings shall be permitted provided they do not increase the degree of non-conformance or make a new area that would be more non-conforming under this Ordinance.”

CW said that the distance to the Suncook River could invoke RSA 483-B, Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act.

Matt Peterson said that the loading dock of the new building would be over the existing sewerage line.

The consensus of the board and Carole Dodge was that zoning ordinance article 4, section 4, (b), would not permit the extended front of the building because the extended front of the building would occupy an area of a setback yard that the old building did not occupy.

JP said that he could not express an opinion on the application of the zoning ordinance parking regulations because Matt Peterson had presented too much too fast for JP to understand it.

PH asked whether Rustic Crust were proposing to move the sewerage line to remove it from under the loading dock.

Matt Peterson said that Rustic Crust is not proposing to move the sewerage line. Rustic Crust is proposing to widen the sewerage-line easement so that the town could move the sewerage line away from the building if the town should ever need to move the sewerage line.

EN asked whether the widening of the sewerage-line easement would invoke RSA 483-B, Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act.

Matt Peterson did not know. Matt Peterson said that he did not know exactly where the 50-foot distance from the Suncook River is.

Matt Peterson asked for a sense of whether the zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) would likely grant the variance from the front setback regulation.

CW said that the planning board cannot express an opinion on what the ZBA might do.

JP said that the normal procedure is to apply to the ZBA for a variance before applying to the planning board and that the ZBA does not require elaborate plans; the ZBA accepts hand sketches. But the ZBA does need to know how far into the setback yard Rustic Crust proposes to encroach.

CW said that he agreed with Matt Peterson’s analysis of the application of the zoning ordinance parking regulations—that the office space should be treated as industrial space in calculating parking requirements—because the building is not a mixed-use building even though the building will have some offices. CW said that the ZBA, not the planning board, will have the authority to decide whether to grant relief if CW’s opinion on the use classification of the office space is mistaken.

Jesse Pacheco asked whether the fire department had approved access to three sides of the building.

Matt Peterson said that he would talk to the fire department.

CW said that the planning board uses reports from the department heads in evaluating site plans.

CW urged Matt Peterson to determine the exact distance from the proposed construction to the Suncook River. This distance will determine the application of the RSA 483-B, Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act.

Matt Peterson asked whether the ZBA would likely ask the planning board for a recommendation on a variance application.

CW said that the planning board could schedule a joint meeting with the ZBA.

JP said that the ZBA almost never asks the planning board for its opinion.

CW said that the planning board typically keeps its jurisdiction separate to avoid prejudicing itself or the ZBA.

Carole Dodge, chair of the ZBA, said that a variance would be necessary for the longer front of the building. Carole Dodge said that the ZBA could schedule a hearing for Thursday, May 22, 2014, if Rustic Crust had its application filed on Monday, May 5, 2014. Carole Dodge reminded Rustic Crust that there would be a 30-day appeal period after the decision. Carole Dodge agreed with Matt Peterson and CW on the parking question in that Carole Dodge thought that the office space should be treated as industrial space use in applying the parking regulations because there is one owner, one business, and one use.

CW said that the planning board decision would also have a 30-day appeal period. CW suggested that the two boards could lessen the effect of the two 30-day appeal periods by the two boards’ voting at the same time.

Matt Peterson said that he would go to the ZBA for a variance before he would go to the planning board.

CW said that the planning board could do the completeness review and the hearing on the merits in one night. The two processes would need only one notice to abutters and the public. The site plan review should go smoothly because Rustic Crust is rebuilding on the same site as the old destroyed building.

JP said that the boards sometimes cause delays by trying to rush an application. JP had had this haste-makes-waste idea in mind when he suggested going to the ZBA, focusing on the ZBA, and not looking ahead to the planning board’s review. Taking the application step by step will be less expensive and quicker in the overall process than rushing.

CW agreed that trying to rush often causes problems.

Matt Peterson said that the site survey was not finished, that he did not know exactly what the setback of the front of the new building would be, and that he would like guidance on how to apply for a variance with this uncertainty.

Carole Dodge said that the ZBA would have to evaluate the variance request as Rustic Crust would make the request.

JP recommended that Matt Peterson ask for a variance that Matt Peterson knew would satisfy Rustic Crust’s needs.

Matt Peterson suggested asking for a variance “to put the building in the front setback.”

JP recommended against asking for a variance “anywhere in the front setback [yard]” because this variance would permit construction right out to the road. JP said that he was advising Rustic Crust to ask for what it needs but not more. Rustic Crust should state some closest-approach distance. JP said that zoning boards of adjustment should not grant variances for carte blanche.

John Jordan, architect for the new Rustic Crust building, presented a picture of how the new building will appear.

Matt Peterson asked about the planning board’s meeting schedule.

JP said that the board uses a regular meeting, that is, the meeting on the first Thursday of the month, to begin review of an application for subdivision or site plan approval.

CW called a brief recess from 7:45 PM to 7:50 PM.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approvals of the Minutes of the April 3, 2014 Meeting

EN moved to approve the minutes of April 3, 2014, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked for the following change:

Agenda item 2, page 1: change “Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member, and.” to “Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member, and” (remove the period after “and”).

Vote to approve the minutes of April 3, 2014, with the change that JP requested: carried 3 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: EN.)

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Introduction of the new town administrator, Mike Williams

Mike Williams introduced himself, and CW introduced the board members.

Mike Williams said that he had been on the Chichester Planning Board but that he had resigned when Pittsfield hired him as town administrator. Mike Williams said that he had also been on the Chichester Budget Committee, that he had worked three years as an attorney for the New Hampshire Municipal Association, and that he had worked for the New Hampshire Department of Revenue Administration for five years on property appraisals and municipal services.

CW said that the previous town administrator focused on the board of selectmen to the neglect of other town committees.

Mike Williams said that he wanted to attend as many town-board meetings and town social events as he could.

CW said that an accessible town administrator would be a valuable resource to all of the boards and to the board chairs.

AGENDA ITEM 5: All Boards Meeting Presentation – Commercial District Plan

CW said that he would work with Jesse Pacheco in preparing a presentation for a plan for the Commercial District. CW said that RSA 79-E can be used for a mixed-use building, with “mixed-use” meaning commercial combined with residential. RSA 79-E cannot be used for uses that the town’s land-use regulations prohibit.

The next all-boards meeting will be on May 31, 2014, from 9:00 AM. to 12:00 PM. CW hoped to have a draft presentation ready for the next all-chairs meeting, on May 14, 2014.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Selectman’s Report – Eric Nilsson, Selectman Ex Officio – Gerard LeDuc, Alternate

EN said that the board of selectmen had hired a new town administrator, Mike Williams, and that Robert Wharem had retired as chief of police effective July 19, 2014.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members’ Concerns

No board member expressed any concerns.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Rules of Procedures

CW reviewed the draft rules of procedure document with a watermark saying “DRAFT April 28, 2014”:

CW said that the board will not change section IV, Administrative Assistance, or section XI, Application for Site Plan or Subdivision Approval. These sections define the expert review that the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission provides for the planning board. Sections IV and XI have serious problems, but correcting these sections would require correcting corresponding sections of the subdivision regulations. CW wanted to finish the project that the board started on the one document. CW said that the current review procedure has an unhelpful overlap of preliminary and final review. (See RSA 676:4, II, (c).)

CW referred to rule V, 3:

“The board shall hold special meetings at either the call of the chair, the vote of the board, or the written request of a majority of the board members. Members shall not request a special meeting on the basis of communication between board members outside a meeting open to the public in accordance with RSA 91-A.”

Calling a meeting at the written request of a majority of the board members would violate the Right-to-Know law, RSA 91-A, except in very unusual circumstances. The second sentence of rule V, 3, is a warning not to use this means to call a meeting in violation of RSA 91-A.

EN and JP suggested that the rules might want to add that the board ordinarily uses the third Thursday of the month when the board needs to hold a special meeting.

CW referred to rules V, 11 and 12, encouraging members to vote and discussing the scheduling of so-called work sessions. The draft rules delete these two rules. Work sessions are not a type of meeting; meetings are either regular meetings, on the first Thursday of the month, or special meetings.

CW referred to section VI, Public or Board-Member Participation in Meetings. The chair needs authority to maintain order and keep the discussion on topic, but the board also wants to encourage public input. For certain types of hearings—such as subdivision applications, site plan applications, and proposed regulations—the board must hear public input before the board decides the case. No law requires the board to have periods for public comment unrestricted by subject, but Pittsfield has gone far beyond what the law requires and has such periods for public comment. In the past, the board has allowed subject-based hearings—such as subdivision applications, site plan applications, and proposed regulations—to get off topic. When the board gets off topic in such hearings, the board is not doing its job. When many people are present, the chair may have to impose a time limit to ensure that all who want to speak will have a chance to speak.

Mike Williams said that the state legislature asks people to submit their requests to speak on cards so that the chair will know how many people will want to speak and how much time to allot for each person.

CW referred to the model agenda in section VIII, Order of Business at a Meeting. The board may want to consider having two public input periods, one at the beginning of the meeting and one at the end of the meeting. The board currently has only one public input period ordinarily. The board of selectmen currently has two public input periods, one at the beginning of the meeting and one at the end of the meeting.

CW referred to rule XVII, 1:

“Any advertising, letter to the editor, or other communication claiming or purporting to represent either the planning board or any committee appointed by the planning board must first be reviewed and approved by the planning board.”

The draft rules propose to eliminate this rule as being redundant to rule III, 6:

“The chair shall preside over meetings, shall make such appointments as the board may direct, and shall act for the board on all matters not requiring a vote of the members.”

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

EN moved to adjourn the meeting.

JP seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of May 1, 2014: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of May 1, 2014, is adjourned at 8:25 P.M.

Minutes approved: June 19, 2014

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on May 3, 2014, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on May 1, 2014, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on May 2, 2014, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary