Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
NOVEMBER 1, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:01 P.M. by Eric Bahr, Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Eric Bahr (EB), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-
Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr. (PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH),
Daniel Greene (DG), Arthur Morse (AM), Selectman Ex Officio Alternate,
Chris Conlon (CC), Alternate, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent: Peter Newell (PN), Alternate and John Lenaerts,
Selectman Ex Officio.
ITEM 3. Elect New Chairman
Deferred to later during the meeting.
ITEM 4. A Public Hearing for an application for a lot line adjustment
filed by James L. Snedecker, 629 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263
(Tax Map R-7, Lot 4B) and property of John and Phyllis Snedecker, 615
Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-7, Lot 4A) and property
of Edward and Wanda Lang, 645 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263
(Tax Map R-7, Lot 4). These properties are located in the RURAL Zone.
Minor Lot Line Adjustment Plan prepared by David W. Vincent, LLS, Land
Surveying Service, 5 Powers Drive, Barrington, NH 03825.
(BM) Motion to approve application as complete. (DG) Second. After
discussion: Carried 6-0.
(BM) noted that the property is currently in violation of the Junk Yard
Ordinance and I have concerns regarding this.
2
(MM) noted that the applicant needs to come in for a license. As noted on
my checklist, hopefully the Board will grant a conditional approval. (BM)
questioned how this junkyard was grand fathered? (MM) noted that it was
in existence before 1965. (DG) questioned what it would take to be brought
into compliance? (MM) noted the requirements.
Mark Faretra, Surveying Technician, represented Mr. Snedecker in this
endeavor. He noted that there are three parcels of land for a total of 18.9
acres. The applicant would like to create three new lots, Lot 4 would be
2.14 acres, Lot 4A would be 10.45 acres and Lot 4B would be 7.42 acres.
Currently on Mr. Lang’s parcel there is a dwelling and a mobile home and
Mr. James Snedecker’s there is a house. These structures have well and
septic systems; all meet Zoning Regulations. (EB) questioned whether there
was a structure on Lot 4 and Mr. Faretra noted that there was one, but it has
been removed.
Public Input
Mr. Richardson, an abutter, discussed lot lines, and Mrs. Richardson noted
she was not aware there was going to be a junkyard and questioned what
was going to be in junkyard and where. Mr. Snedecker explained that where
he is putting junk there is a fence up. He noted that he had discussed this
with the Building Inspector who advised him to put up a fence and clean up
the cars on his Mom’s property. He noted that he basically hauls cars and
sometimes they are parked up there when he is behind schedule. It is mainly
junk metal.
Discussion ensued as to where the junk would initially be placed, any
unregistered cars that might be on the property and for how long they would
be there. Mr. Snedecker felt that these questions had nothing to do with his
application for a lot line adjustment. He noted that the goal is for his Mother
to eventually sell the two-acre lot and live off the profit from this. Mr. John
Snedecker noted that there are five cars in his lot presently, but they are all
registered.
Board discussed with applicant the septic systems on all lots but agreed that
this was not an issue pertinent to the approval of the lot line adjustment.
3
Dan Schroth noted that he does business with Mr. James Snedecker. He
noted that people start small businesses and then try to increase them to a
larger business. Growth for the community comes from within.
Mr. Richardson noted that he has been a resident since 1971 and noted that
Mr. Snedecker is a hard worker. He noted that the request for the junkyard
permit should go through the proper channels.
(AM) and (RH) noted that the lot line adjustment did not have any bearing
on whether the junkyard is situated there. (AM) noted that Board should be
looking at the request for lot line adjustment and this would be regardless of
what property is going to be used for.
Close Public Input
(BM) Motion to approve lot line adjustment conditioned on junkyard issue
be resolved and upon violation order on property being lifted. (DG) Second.
Board discussed frontage, lot configuration, buildable land, and septic
system on smallest lot (which is probably to be sold). (MM) noted that there
would be plenty of area to build a house and have new s eptic system. “I
believe that the lot is buildable.” (RH) noted it is not our place to be
concerned with that, as it is a separate issue, which has nothing to do with
the lot line adjustment. (CC) Agreed noting that both are happening
concurrently. (RH) noted that there are three people affected by this. It is
not our job to put in a condition. This is not an issue that affects the
Planning Board’s decision. (MM) noted that (RH) made a good point. It
does affect three property owners. “I would like to rescind my comments as
noted on the Department Head sign-off. This Board should not be making a
condition that would affect three different owners. The Planning Board
should just deal with the lot line adjustment.”
(BM) noted that he realized that this was an unpopular condition, but felt
that it should stand. (DG) requested to withdraw his Second on Motion as
proposed by (BM).
(FH) noted that if the lot line is approved, there is still a thirty-day appeal
process. He can go to DES, request a junkya rd permit and have it approved.
4
(EB) noted that there is a motion on the floor to approve with condition the
violation be lifted, which has not been seconded. Motion dies because of
lack of second.
(RH) Motion to approve lot line adjustment as proposed. (DG) Second.
Carried 5-1 (FH).
Thirty day appeal process noted previously during discussion.
ITEM 5. Appointment: Dan Schroth and Tom Hitchcock
Mr. Schroth noted that Mr. Hitchcock and he had been coming to the
Planning Board meetings and wanted to offer a few pointers to Board.
“There are a couple of things you are not asking when you make a decision.
You are not asking the “poor people.” The poverty level is higher here. Try
thinking of these people.
Some ideas to work on to help our Town, you are currently working on
definitions. Why can’t we have elderly housing in the country areas? We
try to keep them near the services. We need higher density so developers
can have it easier. We could use regular housing also especially around
Route 28 and the feeder roads. Our revenue is flat and the Town faces
financial issues. He noted that Board should relax zoning so people remain
in town. It is obvious by letters to the Editor that people are not happy
(notably the letter by Bill Elliott). People work there way up from the
bottom. We need less taxation instead of spending all the money. We need
to get our Regulations in line, more manufacturing, and things for kids.
There is not a lot of balance for people who live in Town.
Mr. Hitchcock noted that small businesses could move on to bigger and
better things such as the junkyard. We should let smaller businesses get
started in Town. We are fortunate to have Globe Manufacturing in Town
and we need other businesses like them. We need some cre ative thoughts
and need to start working on them. Other towns are taking advantage of
subdivision for significant growth. Hooksett and Allentown are growing.
Pittsfield is a blank canvas. We had the Riverwalk plan, which was not
passed. Small ideas add up to bigger ideas. Fundraising stimulates growth.
Concord is growing by leaps and bounds because it is more fun to shop
downtown. If a builder invests in Pittsfield, you know he has done his
5
homework because they would not suggest it unless they felt it was
worthwhile. We cannot do this on our own.
Dan Schroth noted that Jim Pritchard wants to “tighten up Zoning
Ordinances” but we need to loosen them up. Farms at one time had
businesses and went on to do other things. Make it easier for people ins tead
of having the “big people” in control.
ITEM 6. Approval of Minutes of October 18, 2007.
(BM) Motion to approve the Minutes of October 18, 2007. (CC) Second.
Carried 6-0.
ITEM 3. Elect New Chairman
(DG) I nominate Bill Miskoe. (CC) Second.
(RH) Why put Bill Miskoe in as Chairman when at the last Work Session, he
himself noted that he did not have the leadership ability to continue the
meeting without Eric being here.
(FH) I nominate Rich Hunsberger.
(EB) noted that we now have two candidates. They do not require a Second.
Let’s take a five minutes recess. Recess 8:02 P.M. Resume at 8:09 P.M.
Paul Metcalf was seated on Board and Chris Conlon seated in audience.
Vote:
Bill Miskoe: (EB), (BM), (DG).
Rich Hunsberger: (FH), (PM), (RH).
Tie vote.
Abstain: (AM). He noted that he was abstaining since he was an Alternate
and was not present at a lot of the past meetings, therefore, he had not had
the opportunity to work with either of these individuals. This Board has
worked with them for quite some time.
6
(CC) questioned whether it was possible to have Co-Chairs. (EB) noted that
this would probably not work. I have submitted my resignation and the
Vice-Chairman will serve as Chairman until a new Chairman can be decided
upon.
ITEM 7. Work Session
(EB) noted that he had requested that Board members review the rest of the
definitions at their leisure and to come back with any changes.
(RH) noted that he had read through the entire list of definitions. “I think we
are going in the wrong direction. We are making it more restricted than
relaxed, which I have felt from the beginning.” Manchester’s definitions are
too complex for Pittsfield. We are taking the country out of the country. I
understand we use a lot of the definitions but to take the whole Ordinance
and revise it and have the Town adopt it is quite an undertaking. There are
seven pages alone on Street Line. (EB) noted that we are not making the
Ordinances looser or tighter but defining words we are using to make them
less complicated. We are making sure we have a good framework so people
will not be able to say it is so vague. (RH) We need good economic
development. What is our timeframe for this? Are we going to present this
whole Ordinance to Town? (EB) noted that Board could do Definitions and
Table of Uses and we have the potential to do the whole thing. The purpose
of this is to get us away from the band-aid approach. We need a good
framework.
(BM) suggested that we continue with the Definitions and finish those. (EB)
noted that if we can get the Definitions done, we will have done more than
has been done in five years. That does not mean necessarily tightening the
Ordinances. (FH) noted, “We should finish the Definitions and go back and
see where they fit in.” (RH) reiterated that there are seven pages of
Definitions for Street Line, which makes me think that what we are doing is
not right. I think we are “barking up the wrong tree.” (FH) noted that we
cannot compare Pittsfield with Manchester. We cannot go the way of
Manchester. There definitions do not all fit. (EB) agreed that (FH) makes a
good point and we may look at the Table of Uses for Manchester and say
they are not for Pittsfield. Manchester’s has been tested.
Board discussed definition of STABLE and briefly touched on Street Line.
7
ITEM 8. Selectman’s Report
(AM) noted that at the last BOS meeting, it was discussed how the Planning
Board members would be elected. Those Board members with terms that
are up in 2008 will be up for election and will continue that way until such
time as there is a fully elected Planning Board. BOS will appoint Alternate
only.
ITEM 9. Members Concerns
(FH) requested some memo to this effect be sent to Board members.
ITEM 10. Adjournment
(BM) Motion to Adjourn. (DG) Second. Carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.
Approved: November 15, 2007
_______________________________ ____________________
Bill Miskoe, Vice-Chairman Date