Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
May 17, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to Order
Planning Board meeting called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Vice-
Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Eric Bahr (EB), Chairman (Arrival at 7:58 P.M.), Bill
Miskoe (BM), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr. (PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich
Hunsberger (RH), John Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex Officio, Peter Newell
(PN), Alternate, Chris Conlon (CC), Alternate, Daniel Greene (DG) (Arrival
at 7:04 P.M.), and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Chris Conlon, Alternate was seated on Board in lieu of absence of Eric Bahr.
ITEM 3. Appointment: 7:15 P.M. – Jim Steenbeck
Non-binding conceptual presentation regarding 5 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH
03263 (Tax Map U-06, Lot 1). The property is owned by Suncook Leathers,
Inc., 5 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263.
(BM) explained to Mr. Steenbeck that this is a conceptual presentation and is
non-binding. At this time, this is an informal application and Board will
give honest criticism though this is in no way a binding opinion.
Jim Steenbeck, Steenbeck Lumber, related that he would like to establish an
indoor paintball field at the location as noted above. There is one outdoor
paintball field in Barnstead, but this one would be interior. He related that
there is a 16 ft. ceiling at this location, which houses a sprinkler system.
Included in this facility, he would also have a video arcade, where potential
2
customers could entertain themselves while awaiting their reservation to
begin the paintball game, a pro shop that would sell paintballs, paintball
guns, masks, etc. and a place that would sell pizza slices, which would not
be made on the premises. He would be utilizing approximately 10,000 to
15,000 square feet and current businesses within building would not be
affected and remain as situated. He related that it would be fully contained
with netting extended over top of walls. The main entrance would be off
Main Street. Part of the hallway would access the restrooms and the
concession areas. No structural changes would be made to the
exterior/interior of the building other than a spiral staircase that would be
replaced with metal stairs to conform to fire codes.
He noted that there would be very little set-up of the area, though there
would be some repairs. The hours would probably be Tuesday through
Sunday from Noon to 9:00 P.M. and Friday and Saturday from Noon till
10:00 P.M. He related that there would be approximately 20 people per day
and perhaps, about 80 per day on the weekends, though not all individuals
would be there at the same time as reservations are required.
Mr. David Ossoff accompanied Mr. Steenbeck and related that there are
sufficient parking spots for potential customers. He estimated that about 20
spaces would be available and possibly additional spaces across the street
near the dam, which is currently State owned. He related that he would look
into this as a possible addition to the parking area. It was suggested that
possibly additional parking spaces could be arranged by agreement with
Precision.
Discussion ensued as to whether, according to the Ordinance, this would be
considered an Amusement – Indoor/Outdoor and would require Special
Exception by the Zoning Board or a Health Club – Indoor Sports, which
would not require going before Zoning Board. This would be decided in
concert with Building Inspector and his determination would guide them
through proper procedure. Mike McLaughlin, Building Inspector, related
that he felt it would require Special Exception from Zoning Board. Mr.
Steenbeck related that this is considered the new extreme sport and is the
fastest growing sport at the present time.
3
Mr. Steenbeck had some concerns about the timeframe involved of going
before the Zoning Board for a Special Exception with a 30 days appeal
process and then proceeding to appear at the Planning Board for a Site Plan
Review, also with a 30 days appeal process. Mr. Ossoff questioned Board as
to the best process to follow to allow completion in the most expeditious
manner. It was agreed that he could apply for the Special Exception and
once that is granted, could apply to the Planning Board during the 30-day
appeal process, which would also carry a 30 days appeal process with
acceptance. If it was not granted for some reason by the Planning Board,
should they have already begun their revisions within the structure, it would
be at their own financial discretion.
Questions regarding the need for 30 parking spaces (one space per each 500
sq. ft. of business), CO 2 containers and storage, and ability for entrance/exit
of emergency medical services were discussed. It was noted that applicant
could also discuss with the Police Chief and Fire Chief as this would have an
impact on their services.
Mr. Steenbeck and Mr. Ossoff were satisfied with the information obtained
and left at 7:40 P.M.
ITEM 6. Approval of Minutes of April 19 and May 3, 2007.
(RH) Motion to approve Minutes of April 19, 2007. (DG) Second.
Carried 4-2 (FH and CC Abstain). No corrections.
(RH) Motion to approve Minutes of May 3, 2007. (DG) Second.
Carried 6-0. No corrections.
Eric Bahr, Chairman, arrived at 7:58 P.M.
ITEM 4. Central New Hampshire Regional Planning – Determination of
location of traffic counts.
Board discussed potential roads/streets for possible traffic counts. It was
agreed that Mike would contact George for his input. Board’s preference
were roads that lead in/out of Town, highly travelled dirt roads, and those
assessed in the past to determine increase/decrease in traffic over period of
time.
4
Final determination as to exact roads will be made at June 7th Planning
Board meeting.
ITEM 5. Missing Planning Board Minutes from October 5, 2006 and
November 2, 2006.
Board members have checked their personal records and are unable to locate
any Minutes from these dates.
Recording Secretary will try to check tapes from that period of time to try to
determine if meetings were actually held on those dates. If this does not
clarify this information, a letter will be placed in the Planning Board Log for
that period of time to indicate that Minutes are missing.
Recess at 8:02 P.M. Resume at 8:11 P.M.
ITEM 7. Work Session
(EB) related that the Board in the past had not allowed development on
Class 6 roads, it was challenged and went to Court and the Town lost with
the Court indicating development could be established on Class 6 roads.
Basically, development is now allowed on all roads.
He related that the previous definition of frontage has been unclear and the
question exists as to whether Town wants to limit development to Class 5
roads or better and do we want to restrict sub-division to Class 5 or better.
Mike McLaughlin (MM), Building Inspector related that this opens
everybody’s land to developers. People do not understand what we are
doing and residents/voters need to be educated. He related that it would be
difficult for the “small guy” in these matters.
It was noted that it is up to the Town to decide whether to build on Class 5
or 6 roads. The Zoning Ordinance does not define frontage. It is defined in
the Sub-Division Regs but not in the Zoning Ordinace. Costs usually stop
individuals from bringing a Class 6 road up to a Class 5 road.
5
(EB) Question: Are we in agreement that we need to define frontage?
Board agreed.
Question: Do we agree it should be the voters’s decision as to whether we
build on Class 5 or better only, or continue building on Class 6 roads also?
It should be defined and it should be part of the Warrant Article. Board
agreed.
Various scenarios were discussed in relation to private landowners and
developers including those with large tracts of land and minimal frontage,
and the ability to continually sub-divide.
(EB) distributed printed material for the Board to consider in regard to
definition of frontage from various towns in the area. It was agreed that the
following would be applicable with some added definition.
Frontage – The distance along the lot line dividing a lot from either:
. A public highway, except limited access highways as defined by
RSA 230:44 and Class VI highways; or
. A road shown on a subdivision plan approved by the Planning Board
pursuant to the subdivision regulations.
Board discussed that perhaps, a third category of sub-division might be
needed beside Minor and Major such as Rural.
It was suggested that wording similar to ….Class VI road for the purpose of
creating a minor sub-division. Minor sub-division would include three or
less lots and any further sub-divisions would be considered as a major subdivision.
A minor sub-division cannot be divided and would become a major subdivision.
Ways or means of controlling this for the future were discussed
such as noting that the plan number would be on the Deed and restrictions
noted thereon. The Mylar would indicate what kind of sub-division it
actually was.
6
Many suggestions were made regarding these issues and it was noted that it
would have to be reviewed by counsel before any definite determination
would be made.
(SM) suggested Board should also try to define wraparound frontage for
corner lots. It was also noted that frontage requirements should be defined
for properties with multiple acres.
(MM) suggested that Building Codes for Town of Pittsfield might be a good
idea and to request property owners to certify plot plan at request of
Building Inspector.
(EB) related that another Work Session will be scheduled for June 21st to
further discuss this as well as wraparound frontage, and Cluster Sub-
Division Regs. He had hoped that something like this could be at Public
Hearing in August rather than in March when so much is on the agenda for
the voters.
(EB) related that Pittsfield Self Storage has re-applied to change from minor
subdivision to major subdivision. They have submitted a check for $100.00.
However, since all abutters have to be notified and it should be posted in the
newspaper, this would cost about $150.00.
(RH) Motion to allow Pittsfield Self Storage submit fee of $150.00
additional for major subdivision rather than a minor subdivision.
(JL) Second. Carried 6-0.
Ralph Odell made a brief presentation regarding the Master Plan Committee.
He related that they have completed the first three chapters and still need to
cover Education, Natural Historic Resources, Recreation and Economic
Development Sections. (EB) explained the Master Plan is really two years
overdue and since next year there will be a bigger turnover in the Planning
Board, it would be prudent to have this completed before that time. If Ralph
stays on as Chair, it will get done. Mr. Odell related that he would be
willing to stay on as Chair. (EB) related that meetings are on Saturday from
3:00 P.M. to about 5:00 P.m. and a member of Planning Board should really
be part of this committee. (DG) volunteered to be that person.
7
ITEM 8. Adjournment
(BM) Motion to adjourn. (PM) Second. Carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:30 P.M.
APPROVED: June 21, 2007
________________________________ ____________________
Eric Bahr, Chairman Date