November 7, 2013 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, November 7, 2013

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:07 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 (arrived at 7:15 P.M.);
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary;
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member;
Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member; and
Peter Dow (PD), alternate planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate planning board member.

Other town officials present: Jesse Pacheco, building inspector.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board:
John Arnold, Esq, of Hinckley, Allen & Snyder, Suite 400, 11 South Main Street, Concord, NH, attorney for Dr. Fredrick Vega;
Sybil Bond, 27 Leavitt Road, Pittsfield, NH;
Rose Culver, Esq., (address unknown) attorney for Dr. Deborah Varney;
Wayne Summerford, 790 Catamount Road, Pittsfield, NH; and
Deborah Varney, (address unknown) dentist and potential buyer for the Fredrick Vega (Maize and Blue, LLC) site at 50 Manchester Street, at the corner of Manchester Street and Oneida Street, tax map U-01, lot 95.

“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 Carole Dodge, chair of the zoning board of adjustment (“ZBA”), had sent the planning board a letter asking (1) that the planning board propose an article on the 2014 town meeting warrant designating the ZBA to act as the local building code board of appeals and (2) that the planning board hold a joint meeting with the ZBA. CW said that he would discuss Carole Dodge’s letter during agenda item 7, proposed zoning amendments.

CW said that the Deerfield Planning Board had given notice that Cellico Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless will construct a wireless telecommunications 150-foot monopole tower. CW said that he would discuss the Deerfield project after agenda item 6, the Vega request for exemption from site plan review.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of the October 3, 2013 Meeting.
Approval of the October 12, 2013 EDC’s Joint Board/Committee Forum.

BM moved to approve the minutes of October 3, 2013, as written in draft.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

No board member saw any problems in the draft minutes.

Vote to approve the minutes of October 3, 2013, as written in draft: carried 3 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: EN.)

BM moved to approve the minutes of October 12, 2013, as written in draft.

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked for the following changes:

Page 2: change “purposes of the joint board/committee forum, to” to “purposes of the joint board/committee forum: to”
Page 6: change “the weekly meetings as well as the meeting in February” to “the monthly meetings as well as the meeting in February”
Page 6: change “The meeting adjourned at 12:40 P.M.” to “The meeting adjourned at 11:40 A.M.”

Vote to approve the minutes of October 12, 2013, with the changes that JP requested: carried 3 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: EN.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: Subdivision Application for Mary and Wayne Summerford for Map R-29, Lot 6 located at 790 Catamount Road within the RURAL Zone District. The purpose of the proposal is to subdivide Map R-29, Lot 6, about 20.75 acres, into two lots a 5.07 acre lot for the existing manufacturing business and a 15.68 acre lot for the existing residence.
1. Review for completeness and acceptance by the board
2. Public hearing if the application is accepted by the board
3. Application review

PD sat in PH’s place.

JP recused himself because his mother is an abutter to the Summerford property.

BM recused himself because he is an abutter to the Summerford property. BM said that, by recent purchase of property (tax map R-29, lot 5) in February, he had become an abutter to the Summerford property and that the board had not notified him of the Summerford subdivision application. BM waived his right to notice and said that he did not object to the Summerford application’s proceeding.

PH arrived at 7:15 PM.

PD remained on the board because JP and BM were both disqualified.

CW said that the abutter list will be corrected. CW said that, because of the unusual nature of the Summerford application—two independent principal buildings on a single ownership lot—some changes were necessary in the completeness checklist. Item 7 (“3 lots or less with no potential for re-subdivision”) is currently checked “yes,” and item 9 (“Minor lot line adjustment or a boundary line agreement which does not create an additional buildable lot—i.e. there is not an increase in the number of lots”) is currently checked “N/A.” Item 7 should be changed to “no,” and item 9 should be changed to “yes.” These changes are necessary to clarify that the current application, if approved, will not preclude future subdivision.

BM said that the board should not process the Summerford application in the manner presented, as a boundary agreement (subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, c), because only one lot currently exists and thus no dividing boundary between two lots exists on which to agree.

JP objected that BM should not discuss the merits of the Summerford application outside of the public-input part of the hearing.

CW sustained JP’s objection.

BM said that he favors approving the Summerford subdivision, but BM does not like the way that the board is processing it.

Determination of completeness:

CW said that the applicant had requested six waivers of subdivision regulations. The waiver requests and their reasons as stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013, are as follows:

1. Reference No. 14 [completeness checklist item 14]: Location of existing streets, easements, water bodies, streams and other pertinent features such as wetlands.

A Waiver is requested for wetland delineation and certified stamp on the subdivision plan because there is no new development to occur at this time.

2. Reference No. 19 [completeness checklist item 19]: Name, License # and seal of engineer, wetland scientist or soil scientist.

A Waiver is requested for the license # and seal of engineer, wetland scientist, or soil scientist because of the previous waiver request.

3. Reference No. 21 [completeness checklist item 21]: Boundary survey including bearings, stations, radii, curve data, distance and monuments at front lot corners, changes in direction.

A Waiver is requested for the corners to be marked with Granite monuments. Iron monuments are in place as seen in the attached pictures. We also request a Waiver to have a monument every 700 feet because the lot line is in the middle of the wetlands at the 700 foot intervals.

4. Reference No. 25 [completeness checklist item 25]: Topographic from field data at 5’ contour intervals; spot elevations at high and low points.

A Waiver is requested for the need of topographic data at five foot intervals on the subdivision plan. Please refer to the construction approval for Lot 6. There is no new development occurring at this time.

5. Reference No. 26 [completeness checklist item 26]: Two foot contour intervals when needed.

A Waiver is requested for topographical intervals on the subdivision plan at two foot intervals. Please see reference request No. 4 above.

6. Reference No. 30 [completeness checklist item 30]: All error of closure shall exceed 1 to 10,000 for both raw traverse and plat closure; must tie to USGS and State Plane system.

A Waiver is request for the subdivision plan to be tied to the USGS and State Plane system.

CW asked the board to review the waiver requests. CW told Wayne Summerford that Wayne Summerford would have to sign the waiver requests.

CW moved the board to grant the requested waiver of the requirement for wetlands delineation and certified stamp (completeness checklist item 14) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for wetland delineation and certified stamp on the subdivision plan because there is no new development to occur at this time.”).

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion:

EN said that proposed tax map R-29, lot 6-1, could be further subdivided.

CW said that wetlands delineation might be appropriate in a future subdivision.

Vote to grant the requested waiver of the requirement for wetlands delineation and certified stamp (completeness checklist item 14) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for wetland delineation and certified stamp on the subdivision plan because there is no new development to occur at this time.”): carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW moved the board to grant the requested waiver of the requirement to state the license number and seal of the engineer, wetlands scientist, or soil scientist (completeness checklist item 19) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for the license # and seal of engineer, wetland scientist, or soil scientist because of the previous waiver request.”).

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the requested waiver of the requirement to state the license number and seal of the engineer, wetlands scientist, or soil scientist (completeness checklist item 19) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for the license # and seal of engineer, wetland scientist, or soil scientist because of the previous waiver request.”): carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW moved the board to grant the requested waiver of the requirements for granite monuments at corners and monuments at every 700 feet (completeness checklist item 21) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for the corners to be marked with Granite monuments. Iron monuments are in place as seen in the attached pictures. We also request a Waiver to have a monument every 700 feet because the lot line is in the middle of the wetlands at the 700 foot intervals.”).

EN seconded the motion.

EN asked about a drill hole that one of Wayne Summerford’s pictures shows in a rock.

Wayne Summerford said that the drill hole is in a rock in a stone wall along Catamount Road (NH Route 107).

EN said that drill holes in rocks are prohibited because people can move the rocks.

Wayne Summerford said that the lot line is in the center of the two buildings, which will not move.

Jesse Pacheco suggested that picture locations of the drill hole could be put on the plan.

CW agreed to label the pictures and make them part of the file.

Vote to grant the requested waiver of the requirements for granite monuments at corners and monuments at every 700 feet (completeness checklist item 21) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for the corners to be marked with Granite monuments. Iron monuments are in place as seen in the attached pictures. We also request a Waiver to have a monument every 700 feet because the lot line is in the middle of the wetlands at the 700 foot intervals.”): carried 3 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: EN. Abstaining: none.)

EN said that he voted against the waiver because of the stone with the drill hole.

CW moved the board to grant the requested waiver of the requirement to show 5-foot contour levels (completeness checklist item 25) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for the need of topographic data at five foot intervals on the subdivision plan. Please refer to the construction approval for Lot 6. There is no new development occurring at this time.”).

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the requested waiver of the requirement to show 5-foot contour levels (completeness checklist item 25) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for the need of topographic data at five foot intervals on the subdivision plan. Please refer to the construction approval for Lot 6. There is no new development occurring at this time.”): carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW moved the board to grant the requested waiver of the requirement to show 2-foot contour levels (completeness checklist item 26) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for topographical intervals on the subdivision plan at two foot intervals. Please see reference request No. 4 above.”).

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the requested waiver of the requirement to show 2-foot contour levels (completeness checklist item 26) for the reason stated in the waiver request dated November 7, 2013 (“A Waiver is requested for topographical intervals on the subdivision plan at two foot intervals. Please see reference request No. 4 above.”): carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

The board noted that waiver request number 6 (“A Waiver is request for the subdivision plan to be tied to the USGS and State Plane system.”) states no reason. But, on the basis of the board members’ experience, the board recognized that the tie to the USGS and the state plane coordinate system would be an undue burden.

Wayne Summerford said that the financial purposes of his subdivision would make the tie to the USGS and the state plane coordinate system an undue burden.

CW moved the board to grant the requested waiver of the requirement that the subdivision plan be tied to the USGS and the state plane coordinate system (completeness checklist item 30) because of (1) the undue burden that the tie would cause, (2) the subdivision’s not enabling new construction, and (3) the financial purposes of the subdivision.

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion:

EN asked that Wayne Summerford state the new reason in his waiver request, initial the new reason, and sign the request.

Wayne Summerford agreed.

Vote to grant the requested waiver of the requirement that the subdivision plan be tied to the USGS and the state plane coordinate system (completeness checklist item 30) because of (1) the undue burden that the tie would cause, (2) the subdivision’s not enabling new construction, and (3) the financial purposes of the subdivision: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW said that the plat had two minor problems: (1) tax map R-29, lot 5, should be shown as owned by BM, and (2) the zoning district should be identified as “Rural,” not “Residential.”

EN moved to accept the Summerford application as complete.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW invited questions from the board.

The board had no questions.

CW discussed the department-head reports. Police chief Robert Wharem is concerned that the Summerford subdivision may be spot zoning. CW disagreed because neither of the two proposed lots is being rezoned; both will still be in the Rural District.

EN said that the fire chief had said “subject to state fire code for new or change of use building.”

Vote to accept the Summerford application as complete: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Determination of regional impact:

CW moved the board to find that the Summerford subdivision is not a development of regional impact. (See RSA 36:56, I.)

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote that the Summerford subdivision is not a development of regional impact: carried 4 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Hearing on the merits:

CW opened the hearing on the merits of the Summerford application at 7:42 PM.

BM objected to processing the Summerford application in the manner presented, as a boundary agreement (subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, c, also completeness checklist item 9), because only one lot currently exists and thus no dividing boundary between two lots exists on which to agree. BM said that he supported Wayne Summerford’s subdivision but that the subdivision should be processed as a subdivision with no potential for future subdivision (subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, a, also completeness checklist item 7).

JP disagreed with BM. JP said that, even though no dividing lot line exists, there are two zoning lots because two principal buildings exist on the site.

Wayne Summerford asked for clarification of the difference between a minor subdivision according to subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, c, (boundary agreement) and a minor subdivision according to subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, a (three or fewer lots with no potential for resubdivision).

CW said that a minor subdivision according to subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, a, would prevent Wayne Summerford’s land from any future subdivision. A minor subdivision according to subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, c, would present no such obstacle.

Wayne Summerford said that he did not want a minor subdivision according to subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, a (three or fewer lots with no potential for resubdivision).

CW discussed the independence of the principal buildings. The site is already subdivided in respect to use; consequently, the board cannot deny this subdivision in respect to ownership. (For the legal analysis, see GRANDFATHERED – The Law of Nonconforming Uses and Vested Rights (2009 edition), by H. Bernard Waugh, Esq., chapter 8, section F, page 46.) Although this subdivision is minor as a boundary agreement, future subdivision, if any, may not be minor. CW said that processing this subdivision under subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, a, would be inappropriate because section 5, C, 1, a, would require a condition of no future subdivision.

Sybil Bond asked whether future subdivision would enable an expansion of Wayne Summerford’s manufacturing or business establishment.

CW said no. Lots created by future subdivision would have to conform to the zoning regulations of the Rural District. Wayne Summerford could build another residence but not another business.

BM repeated his objection to the boundary agreement process. BM said that the Summerford property has only one lot and therefore has no dividing boundary on which to agree. BM said that Wayne Summerford must apply for a minor subdivision under subdivision regulations section 5, C, 1, a (three or fewer lots with no potential for resubdivision).

CW closed the public hearing at 7:50 PM.

The board discussed the appropriateness of processing the Summerford application as a boundary agreement in view of the two existing principal buildings on the site and the absence of any existing ownership lot line.

CW moved to approve the Summerford subdivision.

PH seconded the motion.

Further discussion: None.

Vote to approve the Summerford subdivision: carried 3 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, CW, and PD. Voting “no”: EN. Abstaining: none.)

EN said that he voted against approving the Summerford subdivision because changes were made during the board’s review.

CW explained the 30-day appeal process of RSA 677:15.

Wayne Summerford signed the subdivision-regulations waiver request.

The board’s notice of decision approving the subdivision by boundary agreement is appended at the end of this minutes document. (See RSA 676:3, II.)

AGENDA ITEM 6: Request for Exemption from a Site Plan Review for an Expansion Of Use by Fredrick M. Vega, DDS (Map U01 Lot 95) within the URBAN Zone District.

JP and BM returned to the board.

PD continued to sit at the board table.

Attorney John Arnold appeared on behalf of Dr. Fredrick Vega, DDS, (Maize and Blue, LLC) who could not be present because of a pressing family engagement in Michigan.

John Arnold explained the proposal. The site at 50 Manchester Street has had a dental office operated as a home occupation for approximately the past 30 years. When Dr. Vega came in, the residence ceased, so the home occupation ceased too. Dr. Vega obtained a special exception (on September 12, 2013) to make the dental office the principal use of the property as a medical center. A change of use normally triggers a requirement for site plan review. Dr. Vega is asking for an exemption from site plan review. (Site plan review regulations section II, B.) The dental office is now on the lowest level of the building. Dr. Vega wants to move the dental office from the basement to the first floor. The move will increase the dental-office footprint by 150 square feet on the first floor. The lower level currently has three dental chairs. Dr. Vega proposes to add a fourth dental chair on the first floor. This fourth dental chair is not intended to increase the number of patients or employees; it is intended to improve the patient experience through better processing. Dr. Vega is just eliminating the residential component and adding one dental chair.

John Arnold reviewed the conditions for an exemption from site plan review (site plan review regulations section II, B):

1. No additional off-street parking is required as determined by the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance:

John Arnold said that the combination of the residence and the current dental office as a home occupation needs eight parking spaces under the zoning ordinance: two for the residence and six for the dental office as a home occupation in the basement. The larger dental office on the first floor will need seven parking spaces under the zoning ordinance, but the current residence and its parking needs will no longer exist. Therefore, the new use will need one fewer parking space under the zoning ordinance than the old use needed under the zoning ordinance.

2. Septage loading of the site does not increase beyond that which the existing system is already designed to accept:

John Arnold said that the septic loading on the site’s existing septic system will not increase because the site does not have an existing septic system; the site connects to the municipal sewerage system. Furthermore, the septic generation itself will not increase because the patient load of the new dental office will not be bigger than the patient load of the old dental office and because the site will no longer have its current residence.

3. No adverse impacts beyond the site boundaries will occur due to (1) increased traffic, (2) groundwater use, (3) drainage, (4) sanitary and solid waste disposal, (5) lighting and glare, (6) noise, and (7) fumes, odors or air pollutants:

John Arnold said that the new use will create no adverse impacts beyond the site because the new use will be the same type of use as the old use (that is, a dental office) and will not have a bigger patient load.

4. Municipal services, facilities and utilities will not be overburdened or adversely impacted:

John Arnold said that the new use will not overburden the municipal services, facilities, or utilities because the dental office is not changing its patient load.

John Arnold said that the new dental office satisfies the conditions for an exemption from site plan review.

CW invited questions from the board.

BM noted that the current parking lot has its access on Oneida Street. BM asked what will happen in the basement, which the new dental office will vacate?

John Arnold said that the new dental office will use the basement for overflow storage, with file cabinets and such, but will not use the basement for patient services.

CW said that the department heads have no objections.

EN said that he had a concern about “no additional off-street parking is required.” As of right now, the patients will continue to use on-street parking on Manchester Street even though the site has a parking lot. (Editorial comment of recording secretary JP: The “parking lot” is a vacant, unpaved area between the house and Oneida Street.)

John Arnold said that, in reality, the patients tend to park on the street. “In the long term, I think there may be plans to improve the parking lot and to change the entry way from the parking lot up to the first floor, but, for right now, we’re really just looking to make that move up to the first floor and leave things as are otherwise.”

JP asked for clarification that the dental office’s use of on-street parking on Manchester Street would remain the same as it is now.

John Arnold said that patients currently park on Manchester Street and that no off-street parking lot has a direct access to Manchester Street. “The way things are operating right now we expect to continue. There may be a time in the future when the property owner wants to change the kind of configuration of that parking lot and improve the entrance and access to the building, but that would be something separate.”

EN said that Oneida Street is a one-way street during two times of the day: 7:00 to 8:30 AM and 2:15 to 3:15 PM.

CW suggested putting a sign at the exit of the parking lot saying no right turn out of the parking lot. This dental office is in a school zone, and patients will have to leave the dental office, make a left turn, and go through the school parking lot. CW said that the dental office must understand that it cannot count on on-street parking.

JP said that he had thought that the off-street parking lot shown in the submitted diagram was part of the proposal. JP asked for clarification that the off-street parking lot is not part of the proposal currently under consideration.

John Arnold said that the diagram was “meant to be kind of a general indication of what the future plans are for the building, but there aren’t any imminent plans to go out and construct that right now.”

CW asked when Dr. Vega would move from the basement to the first floor.

John Arnold said that Dr. Vega would move soon. Dr. Varney would know better when the move would happen.

CW asked about abandonment of an exemption from site plan review. The special exception has an abandonment period of two years.

JP said that the special exception would expire by abandonment if the move to the first floor does not happen within two years. JP did not know of any abandonment time period for an exemption from site plan review.

John Arnold said that the move would happen well before two years.

JP suggested imposing as a condition of the exemption from site plan review that the exemption expire with the expiration of the special exception.

BM asked how many employees the dental office has.

Dr. Deborah Varney said that the dental office has four employees.

John Arnold said that the dental office typically has four employees but has five employees one day per week.

BM asked how the dental office with seven parking spaces would accommodate parking needs when five employees and three or four patients are on site.

John Arnold said that the patients have been parking on the street. The site plan review regulations require that the proposed use will not need more parking spaces under the zoning ordinance than the current use needs now under the zoning ordinance. The dental office will satisfy this requirement.

CW discussed the school-related traffic that the dental patients would have to navigate.

BM asked whether the existing unimproved parking lot has room for nine parking spaces.

John Arnold said that the parking lot has room for more than nine parking spaces.

PH said that the ZBA had discussed the parking requirement extensively and that the planning board should move on.

Attorney Rose Culver, representing Dr. Deborah Varney, said that Dr. Varney expected to take ownership of the dental office within the next two or three weeks. Attorney Culver asked for assurance that the parking lot is approved as part of the project.

CW said that the planning board does not have to approve the parking lot; the board must only confirm that space exists off-street for seven parking spaces. Dr. Varney may need other permits to build the parking lot.

JP said that he had thought that the parking lot was part of the proposal, but, now that John Arnold is saying otherwise, Dr. Varney needs to understand that the parking lot is not part of the proposal and that the planning board cannot approve it.

John Arnold said that the planning board’s concern is not whether the parking lot should be approved but whether the new dental office is entitled to an exemption from site plan review.

CW repeated that the planning board must only confirm that space exists off-street for seven parking spaces. Dr. Varney will not need any further planning board approval but may need other permits to build the parking lot.

Attorney Culver said that the dental office staff uses the off-street parking lot now. The parking lot has just a dirt surface, but Dr. Varney intends to pave it. Patients will park in the parking lot.

BM moved to approve the exemption from site plan review.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked to attach two conditions to the exemption:
1. that the dental office must put at the parking lot exit a sign saying no right turn when Oneida Street is one way (7:00 to 8:30 AM and 2:15 to 3:15 PM), and
2. that the exemption from site plan review will expire if the special exception expires by abandonment.

JP asked whether building inspector Jesse Pacheco and deputy building inspector EN agreed that no further approval would be necessary to build the parking lot.

Jesse Pacheco agreed that no further approval would be necessary.

JP asked whether Jesse Pacheco had any objection to approving the exemption from site plan review.

Jesse Pacheco said no.

EN agreed with Jesse Pacheco.

Vote to approve the exemption from site plan review with the two conditions that JP requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: The Verizon Wireless wireless telecommunications tower in Deerfield.

JP moved the board to find that the Verizon Wireless wireless telecommunications tower in Deerfield is not a development of regional impact to Pittsfield. (See RSA 36:56, I.)

CW seconded the motion.

Vote that the Verizon Wireless wireless telecommunications tower in Deerfield is not a development of regional impact to Pittsfield: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 7: Proposed Amendments by the Planning Board to the Zoning Ordinance

CW said that Carole Dodge, chair of the zoning board of adjustment (“ZBA”), had sent the planning board a letter asking (1) that the planning board propose an article on the 2014 town meeting warrant designating the ZBA to act as the local building code board of appeals and (2) that the planning board hold a joint meeting with the ZBA. CW suggested scheduling the joint meeting for December 5, 2013. CW did not want to discuss Carole Dodge’s request for a town meeting warrant article until the ZBA is present to explain.

CW referred to the conceptual proposal (dated October 29, 2013) that he and JP had composed and distributed to the planning board. The proposal is for three amendments to the zoning ordinance:
1. Revise and reorganize articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), 24, 5, 6, and 7 to comply with current state law.
2. Remove from article 10 obsolete building codes and obsolete permitting conditions for manufactured housing parks.
3. Revise article 16, Parking Regulations, to waive parking requirements for existing commercial floor area in the Commercial District.

CW said that he liked the concept of waiving parking requirements for existing commercial floor area but not for new or expanded floor area. Predicting the problems that new development might cause is impossible. The proposed approach will serve the current needs of the downtown while giving the town a tool to solve problems if they arise.

CW said that the board does not have much time. Can the board move fast? CW and JP had prepared three amendments based on the conceptual proposal of October 29, 2013. Can the board agree by its next meeting to proceed with these three amendments? The amendments can be reworded somewhat if necessary.

CW distributed copies of the three amendment proposals.

BM and EN agreed with CW’s proposal.

BM wanted to go further with the parking regulations. BM wanted to let market forces regulate the parking requirements in the Commercial District. Grandfathering existing buildings will discourage redevelopment.

CW said that he did not favor eliminating all parking requirements because the board cannot foresee what may happen.

JP said that he did not favor letting market forces regulate land use. The planning board would not need to exist if market forces could regulate land use appropriately. JP agreed that the board cannot foresee what may happen and should have some tools to solve unforeseeable problems.

Jesse Pacheco said that the downtown needs more parking spaces and that the solution that CW is discussing appears to be the only viable solution.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Selectman’s Report – Eric Nilsson, Selectman Ex Officio

EN said that the board of selectmen is working on the town budget.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Members’ Concerns

No board member expressed any concerns

AGENDA ITEM 10: Public Input

Sybil Bond said that the town needs firm zoning.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of November 7, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of November 7, 2013, is adjourned at 8:55 P.M.

Minutes approved: December 5, 2013

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on November 9, 2013, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on November 7, 2013, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on November 8, 2013, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary