November 29, 2008 Public Hearing Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, November 20, 2008

PLACE: Pittsfield Middle/High School, Lecture Hall, Pittsfield, NH

Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Gerard Leduc, Vice-Chairman

ROLL CALL:

Members Present: Gerard Leduc (GL), Vice-Chair, Fred Hast (FH), Marilyn Roberts (MR), Larry Konopka (LK), Selectman Ex-Officio
Dan Schroth (DS), Alternate, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger, (RH), Daniel Greene (DG), Robert Elliott (RE), Tom Hitchcock (TH), Alternate.

PUBLIC HEARING

(GL) The Chair is absent tonight and I will be conducting the meeting. I would first like to introduce the Board members present.

The hearing tonight is about taking input from the public in regard to the changes being proposed to the Zoning Ordinances. Changes have been made to improve Pittsfield’s outlook. There will be a one and half hour time period for input. Each speaker, one at a time, should approach the podium and speak his/her name into the microphone to offer any questions or input. Each period will have one chance to speak before anyone is to come up a second time.

Bill Miskoe, since the November 6th meeting, is this now the revised Zoning Ordinances? It appears the Planning Board met between then and now. Was the notice for that meeting posted? (GL) Yes. (FH) We wouldn’t dare not to.

(GL) There have been a few changes made since the last meeting. Mr. Miskoe, it noted previously that * denotes criteria and now the asterisk denoting criteria has been deleted. (FH) Many people were confused with the asterisk and its purpose, so it was deleted. Mr. Miskoe, So, now no criteria applies. Have you eliminated the criteria or not? (LK) The criteria has not been deleted only the asterisk denoting criteria has been deleted. We can put them back in if it is easier to understand. Mr. Miskoe, Why doesn’t Table I show criteria. (FH) People did not understand them, so we took them all off. Donna Keeley, But some of them had criteria before. Mr. Miskoe, “What has changed? It is confusing for people because at the first meeting you had them and now you do not. Many of them have a number of criteria. Mr. Eric Percy noted that Page 8 should be reversed and become Page 2.

Mr. Miskoe, “Is the Site Plan Review intended to be a mechanism defense use or a means of regulating use? Are you using this criteria to determine if use is permitted?” Ms. Keeley, “There is a question of whether Planning Board has legality of Site Plan Review.” (LK) If it were not correct, then it would end up in court if not the right criteria. We can make whatever we want for criteria. Planning Board has the right to deny Site Plan Review. We called this Public Hearing, and it really should be a public Work Session to gather everyone’s thoughts. We did not plan on giving it to LGC, CNHRPC, or any Board until we held this public hearing. It was noted that the final cut-off date for finalizing would be January 20th.

Ms. Keeley suggests Board continue dealing with this in a lot friendlier manner. Mr. Miskoe, “It was brought up that the Site Plan Review would have to have significant criteria for certain use determinations.” (GL) We are working on the Zoning Ordinances, not Planning. Mr. Miskoe, The Site Plan Review has major criteria for applicability of use. If Planning Board denies use by it’s Site Plan Review process, how is that decision appealable?” (FH) Superior Court. Mr. Miskoe, “Are we not exposing the Town to a lot more Superior Court action by rejection of Site Plan Review applications. I am wondering whether this would work or not if there is no other appeal process. Are we going to be in Court all the time?” (DS) What about other Towns? Everything else might pass the Site Plan Review. There are many other Towns that rely on the Site Plan Review. Mr. Miskoe, if you enforce this, a large amount of use determination hinges on the Site Plan Review and would put Town in jeopardy for appeals to the Superior Court. (LK) The Site Plan regulations gives us reasons for denial, and we would not end up in court. You have to read the tables and follow the regulations. Mr. Miskoe, There is a heavy reliance on the Site Plan Review. (LK) “I do not want to put the Town in jeopardy.”

(DS) The point of this, Bill, is in order to create new job opportunities; we have to go another route. No one gets something for nothing, if we were scared by lawsuits. John Lenaerts, “ At the last meeting, I pointed out some serious and frightening things in the Ordinances. I could have car dealers and apartment houses next to my home. You said this would not happen because of the Site Plan Review. If someone is keeping minutes, we simply will not let them do it.”

Linda Small, “Let’s go through the changes.” Donna Keeley, let’s go through it line-by-line.

Board and members of the audience reviewed and offered various reasons and suggestions as to why they would/would not want a particular use in a particular zone and noted reasons why they felt they should be changed.

Agriculture – Commercial: Noted that it should be “E” in all zones, depending on neighbors.

Bakery: “E” in Suburban and Rural depending on type of bakery and size.
(FH) This would require a Site Plan Review and State license.

Ms. Keeley noted that out of 53 uses, there have been changes in 29 of them. (DS) We are trying to encourage people by allowing them to have businesses in a lot more areas and creating job opportunities. Ms. Keeley noted that her concern is that they are now allowable in the Suburban and Rural Zones.

Boarding Stable: It was noted that a boarding stable could be two horses or forty horses. (MR) This would start at four horses or more. Mr. Lenaerts, “I am worried about more.” My problem is more horses in rural areas where there are homes. (GL) suggesting going to definition of stable. (FH) State law only allows one horse per acre. Mr. Lenaerts noted that the Site Plan Review allows Planning Board to do as they see fit whether it be an auto dealer, apartment house or salvage yard in areas where I live. “What if you pass the Site Plan Review?” Mr. Miskoe, “Under boarding stable, there is an asterisk and it says see stable. You should put definition of stable under boarding stable.”

Business Office: Question as to size was again raised. Ms. Keeley, people live in Rural Zone because there are no businesses. (GL) How many people you know would have a business office in a Rural Zone? Ms. Keeley, “It might bring people to Pittsfield and it might make them move out.”

Campground/RV Park: This needs review with having in Rural Zone. It was suggested that this should be “E” across the board. (FH) reminded citizens that we have one in Town already. Concerns were noted about someone who has fifty acres available. Susan Muenzinger noted that in the current Zoning Ordinances, Campground is not allowed in Urban and Suburban Zones, perhaps because of lot sizes. “Why wouldn’t you want commercial uses in Commercial Zone? You need to consider lot configurations for bonified year-round commercial uses. (FH) We just expanded it. If you look at it, you need ten acres. Where can you find ten acres in the Commercial Zone that is suitable?

Conservation: Question posed why not have it for all areas. If someone had the property and wanted to do that, they should be able to do it. (LK) We didn’t change it. (FH) noted it was left as originally noted. Ms. Keeley noted that it should be allowed in all areas of Town. Ms. Muenzinger, “You have Conservation Uses but no definition. On the Table it is noted as Conservation Uses and in the definition it is noted as Conservation Areas. Ms. Small, There is so much conservation in Town, I would not want to see more put into conservation use.

Executive & Administrative Office for Business, Govt. (other than local) or Professional Use: Ms. Muenzinger, “Why did you delete this heading?” (MR) Because we felt it would fall under Business Office.

Fairground: Why is fairground defined the way that it is. (DS) Everyone knows what a fairground is. Mr. Miskoe, “It is not in the Table of Uses and is not very well defined. It is not allowed any way, why is it in there?”

Flea Market: It was noted that again, this could be a small operation or it could be massive – similar to the one in Londonderry. (FH) It was unfortunate that we had one open up and it did not survive. You need the right place and the right people.

Funeral Home: It was suggested there should be “E” in Suburban and Rural Zones. Board noted it would take under advisement.

Health Club/Indoor Sports Facility: It was suggested that this type of facility could be huge. (GL) noted that he was thinking of the Urban and Suburban Zones because they usually start out small and then enlarge. It was noted that this leaves, “the door wide open.”

In-Law Apartments: Ms. Small, “Why would it be allowable in Commercial and Light Industrial?” (MR) How can you keep it from happening? (DS) We would not advocate adding houses, just increasing to the apartment.

Junk Yards: (GL) We have replaced frontage with the word setbacks. More often it is a recycling facility, doesn’t that have a little more State requirements? (DS) A lot of people have to get State licenses for businesses.

Lumber Yard: Why would it be taken out of Light Industrial? (DS) It is not specific enough. Suggestions were that this type of business could be small or large. There are hundreds of acres on Tilton Hill Road but I would not like to see a lumberyard consisting of 75 acres. (LK) That is where the Site Plan Review comes in. The Planning Board has the right to deny it. Ms. Keeley, “Then why do we have Zoning Board?” (LK) The Zoning Board is an important tool and that is why we have Zoning, but I believe in some cases we can cut a step and be more user friendly. “Maybe we are going in the wrong direction there.”

Mr. Miskoe, “If the Planning Board denies a use it is appealable to the Zoning Board. If Planning Board uses Site Plan Review to deny a use, it has to go to the Superior Court. We should keep the Zoning Board as an appealable means. We do not want to take the Zoning Board out of the appeal process and have to use the Superior Court.”

Marine Facility: One of the things that were mentioned as standing out was that it would be allowed to sell fuel. (FH) There is a marine facility in Hooksett and it is not allowed to have/sell fuel. Mr. Miskoe, “There is an inconsistency between Marine Facility and Fuel Storage.”

Medical Testing Lab: It was noted that there was no definition for this. It should be across the board. Mr. Miskoe, “What is the difference between a hospital and medical testing lab?” – the amount of people. (MR) There is currently a testing lab on Eaton Road.

Multi-Family Dwelling: Mr. Lenaerts, “I would rather see this blank across the board.” This is an apartment house not a two family. Ms. Muenzinger, “Why is it not allowable in the Urban Zone? Why not put it in the Urban Zone?”

Nursing, Convalescent Facility: (GL) This would fall under State regulations. It was noted that several individuals questioned whether they would choose to have this type of facility next door to their home.

Outdoor Amusements/Sports: Many felt that these should be two separate entries.

Parking Facility: Mr. Miskoe, “Having a parking facility in the middle of Rural Zone does not make any sense.”

Recycling Facility: Mr. Miskoe, “Do you have criteria for recycling facility? What makes it clear that various licenses are required? Isn’t junkyard and recycling facility same thing. It was noted that it is not the same thing due to the type of materials processed through these facilities.

Repair Shop: (MR) We put “Y” across the Board because of the definition.

Research and Development Offices: Ms. Small, “You should take Medical Testing heading out.”

Retail Sales: Mr. Miskoe, “Retail has always been restricted. We have to be very careful about retail coming into Rural.” Size is also an issue. No definition as to size is noted.

Sawmill: (GL) We were thinking in terms of cut it/remove it.” So it would be temporary and should be defined accordingly, per Ms. Keeley. Mr. Miskoe, “What defines temporary? You should tidy up the language.”

School: Again, size was an issue. A school or a campus? Mr. Miskoe, “I would think that you would want to encourage schools that are profitable.

Theater: It was suggested that, perhaps, this might require criteria.

Two Family Dwelling: Should be in Urban Zone only. It was noted that Board was thinking in terms of duplexes either side by side or up/down levels. Mr. Miskoe, “This changes it to a rental property.” (DS) “Times are changing.” Mr. Miskoe, “It brings rental into Rural Zone.” (GL) I see more families living side-by-side.

Art Morse questioned, “What happens next? If you do what we are suggesting, do we come back for another public hearing? What I would ask is to narrow it down so that people walking into the booth would have an easier time deciding.” Ms. Keeley, “It may be a long process.”

Veterinary Hospital: Isn’t that putting a business in a rural area? (DS) Yes. A veterinary hospital is more like a grocery store than a home business. It was thought that this type of business should be in a Commercial Zone. (GL) Usually they start out small.

Warehouse and Wholesale Marketing: Ms. Small noted that Board should be careful on that one. We wouldn’t want one in a Residential Zone. It should be an “E” in the Urban, Suburban and Rural Zones.

Ralph Odell related that Master Plan Committee had one issue on Zoning that they would like to bring forward. Arrangements were made for Master Plan Committee to meet with Planning Board on Thursday,
December 4th.

Mrs. Topouzoglou questioned whether the Board was going to address cell towers and windmills? (GL) Not at this time.

During the course of the evening, Planning Board members noted that they would re-address Bakery, Business Offices, Cemetery, Conservation Areas, Fairground, Funeral Homes, Health Club/Indoor Sports Facility, In-Law Apartments, Medical & Testing Laboratories, Multi-Family Homes, Nursing, Convalescent Facility, and Truck, Heavy Equipment and Trailer Repair.

Meeting was closed at 8:50 P.M.

(Donna Keeley submitted a copy of proposed revised Table I along with some comments/questions regarding the Proposed Zoning Ordinances Changes 11/6/08.)

After the public hearing, Board reviewed proposed conceptual for Maxfield’s Hardware. They explained what they would like to do but have not yet filed any applications. It was advised that they first file the application, as it seemed as if there were only minimal changes being made to the property.

It was agreed that Larry Konopka, Mr. Maxfield and his contractor would meet Friday morning with Kyle Parker to further determine the process by which this could be accomplished.

Meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.

Approved: December 4, 2008

_________________________________ ____________________
Gerard Leduc, Vice-Chairman Date