October 4, 2012 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, October 4, 2012

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Members present: Jim Pritchard (JP), secretary; Pat Heffernan (PH), vice-chair; Gerard Leduc (GL), selectmen’s ex officio member; Bill Miskoe (BM); Clayton Wood (CW), chair; and Peter Dow (PD), alternate.

Members absent: Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate.

Other town officials present: None.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Carol Lambert, 83 Governor’s Road.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Agenda Review

CW said that he had planned to add an application of Paul Rogers to waive site plan review for expansion of a nonresidential use at Jitters Café, but Paul Rogers cannot be present tonight to present his case. CW will schedule a special meeting on October 18, 2012, for the Rogers application.

BM asked what was the change of use at Jitters?

CW said that Zoya’s, the restaurant that preceded Jitters, had had two rooms. Paul Rogers wants to reopen one of those rooms.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of September 6, 2012

CW said that BM had complained about being called an “associate member” in the minutes. CW investigated and found that JP had been using this term to identify non-officers since before JP was the recorder. In 2010, JP signed his report on Bailey Park as an associate member. But, because BM does not like the term, CW asked that JP delete it from the September 6, 2012, minutes and not use it in the future.

BM said that he had been a board member for most of the time since 2003. The board never called him an associate member until JP started writing the draft minutes.

JP said that, in the future, he would use the same format that Dee Fritz uses. She identifies board officers as such but puts nothing after the names of non-officers. JP said that the usage of “associate member” had been correct according to the dictionary.

BM agreed that the usage was correct, but BM said that the town ordinances and state statutes do not refer to planning board associate members.

CW referred to the controversy and multiple votes of JP’s writing the draft minutes when JP has disqualified himself to sit. The controversy with JP is only because it is JP. The board voted 4 – 1 – 0 last April to elect JP as recording secretary. The multiple votes are undermining the board’s credibility and must stop. CW referred to PH’s statement last month that JP is the best person to write the minutes. Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission likes JP’s minutes. CW cited Gelinas v. Portsmouth, 97 N.H. 248, 85 A.2d 896 (1952). In that case, a board member expressly disqualified herself and took no part in the deliberations or decision although she was present, acting as clerk. The NH supreme court found that the disqualified board member acting as clerk did not prejudice the board’s decision. CW said that he had read approximately 10 supreme court cases on disqualification. CW read RSA 673:8, letting boards create board offices. The matter of JP’s writing the draft minutes is settled until next April. Future votes on this matter before next April will be out of order.

BM argued that the matter should not be deemed settled. The board might be able to find someone better than JP if the board sought a non-member.

PH said that the board will not find someone better than JP short of an actual professional court stenographer. PH does not want to spend taxpayer money for that.

GL moved to approve the minutes as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

GL noted the following error:

Agenda Item 5, page 9: Kathy Bleckmann’s name is misspelled in three places.

JP noted the following errors:

Agenda Item Added (Edwin Kaminski), page 3: “The new fabrication will not change” should be “The new fabrication shop will not change”.
Agenda Item 6, page 11: “the Planning Board Handbook – A Handbook for Local Officials” should be “The Planning Board in New Hampshire – A Handbook for Local Officials”.
Agenda Item 6, page 13, CW’s point 3: “decision must be on” should be “decision must be listed on”.
Agenda Item 7, page 15: “JP returned to the board, and PD left the board.” should be inserted at the beginning of the agenda item.
Agenda Item 7, page 15: “section 5, K, 4 requires” should be “section 5, K, 4, requires”.

Vote to approve the minutes of September 6, 2012, with the changes that CW, GL, and JP requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission review of Final Plat Approval of Cluster Subdivision/Site Plan for AHG Properties, Inc., Stagecoach Condominiums, Tax Map R44, Lot 1

JP recused himself because his mother is an abutter to the AHG project.

CW asked PD to sit in JP’s place.

CW said that the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (“CNHRPC”) had issued its report on Stagecoach Station last Friday. CW said that he had worked with CNHRPC and had met with them five times during the last two weeks. CW did his best to expedite the CNHRPC review. CW went to CNHRPC five times and delivered requested materials promptly, within a day or two of each request. CNHRPC did a thorough review.

CW plans to follow most of the CNHRPC recommendations on action items related to the building inspector or the applicant, AHG Properties.

CW said that AHG should have an opportunity to clarify, add, or change their application in response to CNHRPC’s report.

CW said that he will offer to meet personally with AHG to explain the results of the review so that the board and AHG will both be prepared. Tonight, CW will not go through the CNHRPC report line by line, but CW will summarize the report. AHG must address three general matters:
1. AHG must correct certain information on the plat itself.
2. AHG must submit condominium documents.
3. AHG must submit bonds and escrow money for the roadwork and infrastructure.

CW said that the plat has some critical changes. CW spent two hours with building inspector Jesse Pacheco studying the 2007 and 2012 plats, and both CW and Jesse Pacheco missed a few things. AHG has made many changes between 2007 and 2012. Some changes were minor changes related to permits, but some changes were substantial.

CW said that the board must verify that what the board ultimately endorses is the same as what the board conditionally approved in 2007.

CW said that page 9 of CNHRPC’s report requires AHG to make changes. If AHG refuses to make such changes, then the board may have to have another hearing. CW referred to plat sheet 3: one parking lot, in Lot 1P, is in a front setback area. (See CNHRPC report page 9, bullet point 3 (the second bullet point on page 9).) CW laid two plans, one plan dated July 2006 and last revised December 11, 2006, and one plan dated February 3, 2012, on the table for board members to examine.

CW said that he will send his own letter, separate from the CNHRPC report, making each of the three points. The report exposes two major problems: (1) the parking area in the setback area may need a variance and (2) the new plan proposes a large, 24-inch, drainage culvert onto Sargent land without a drainage easement from the Sargents.

BM asked whether there might be a third plan dated April 2007.

CW said that there might be such a plan. CW might have the wrong original plan tonight.

CW said that the drainage onto Sargent land and the parking lot in the front setback yard are the two major issues.

CW said that plat sheet 3, note 13, says that the condominium documents have been recorded; consequently, AHG must record those condominium documents. The condominium documents must address (1) the road construction and maintenance of both Thompson Road and the internal private road, (2) the waiver of maintenance liability (RSA 674:41, I, (c), (3)) on the class VI highway Thompson Road, and (3) the driveway permit.

CW told GL, the selectmen’s representative, that the planning board needs (1) a vote from the board of selectmen that building is permitted on this part of Thompson Road and (2) a waiver, signed by AHG, of maintenance liability on the class VI highway Thompson Road. In the future, the planning board and the board of selectmen can work together to create a uniform policy for development on class VI highways. The board of selectmen should always act first because the selectmen’s review is the least expensive and because the other reviews—zoning board of adjustment and planning board—depend on the selectmen’s decision. CW said that there is evidence that the board of selectmen worked on AHG’s case.

CW referred to the bonds and money in escrow. Both the subdivision regulations (section 7, A, 2, (a)) and state law (RSA 674:36, III, (b)) require the bonds to be posted before the planning board gives the plat final approval. Under state law (RSA 674:42), the planning board has exclusive jurisdiction on security. The board must get permanent bonds. The Developer Improvement Agreement links everything together, with provisions to release bonds as the project is completed. The security is vital because the first person entering a condominium association is in jeopardy.

CW said that AHG must work with Louis Berger and then make a bond proposal to the planning board. The bonds must be permanent bonds. In Bailey Park, the bonds were not permanent. No one released them; they expired when the selectmen accepted the road. The planning board should not have accepted that bond. The bond must remain in effect until the planning board releases it.

CW said that the board must decide whether it will do its business properly. Bailey Park shows how the board can go wrong. The board endorsed the Bailey Park plat prematurely. The board forced the chair to sign it. The bonds were improper, and the conservation restriction was nonexistent. The applicant must do these things before, not after, the board endorses the plat.

CW said that he has been stating these matters since June. The report from CNHRPC gives CW’s concerns credibility.

CW said that he will send a letter to the building inspector, as CNHRPC recommended, telling the building inspector not to issue building permits in Stagecoach Station. The building inspector should know not to issue building permits in Stagecoach Station, anyway, because the plat is not recorded.

CW said that common courtesy demands that the board provide AHG a list of problems with their application. The board should not tell AHG how to respond. CW said that he is willing to meet personally with AHG.

CW said that conditional approvals can require multiple meetings. The board often tries to combine the completeness review with the merits review in one meeting. Rushing applications in this way may be a bad idea.

BM said that he had been on the board awhile and had never seen this level of diligence applied to an application and an approval. BM thanked CW and Matt Monahan and said that he had not realized that the board had not been so diligent. BM said that the opponents of Stagecoach Station have worried that AHG would not do a good job. CNHRPC’s inspection should assure the opponents that AHG will have to do a good job. BM hoped that the opponents would, as a consequence, reduce their opposition to Stagecoach Station.

CW said that the board should have had these discussions in 2006.

PH asked about CW’s meeting with AHG. Will CW ask building inspector Jesse Pacheco to participate?

CW said that he would consider asking Jesse Pacheco to participate. Jesse Pacheco’s help has been invaluable.

BM asked CW to tell AHG that the board will use Louis Berger and that AHG must put money in escrow.

CW said that he must confirm the town engineer with the selectmen.

GL asked for a list of the board of selectmen’s responsibilities.

CW referred GL to the CNHRPC report for the selectmen’s responsibilities.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Members’ Concerns

JP returned to the board, and PD left the board.

Members’ concern 1: PD’s concern with the master plan committee’s town-wide survey.

PD, the board’s representative on the master plan committee, said that the master plan committee had finished a draft of the survey that the committee wants to mail to households in Pittsfield. The drafts are available for planning board members. The master plan committee wants to know of any questions that planning board members want to add to the survey. The target mailing date is February 2013.

PD explained that the master plan committee is currently doing the transportation chapter. CNHRPC is helping.

Members’ concern 2: GL’s selectman’s report.

GL said that John Freeman came to the board of selectman on Tuesday. John Freeman has a Nellie Mae grant and is applying for another grant. He needs a consortium of towns because the new grant would require a large number of students.

PH asked for clarification of the Nellie Mae grant.

GL explained that the Nellie Mae grant is a technology grant for education. The grant promotes an innovative education environment in which a student’s role in defining how he learns is greater than in the traditional education environment. In this new environment, teachers act more as consultants than as traditional instructors.

Members’ concern 3: CW’s concern with the October 18, 2012, meeting.

CW reminded board members that the board will hold a special meeting on October 18, 2012, for Paul Rogers.

Members’ concern 4: GL’s concern that AHG should have a copy of the CNHRPC report.

GL asked CW to send AHG a copy of the CNHRPC report.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Public Input

Carol Lambert thanked CW for his due diligence. CW’s work and the CNHRPC report have confirmed what the abutters have been saying about the project and mindset of this developer, who, at the last meeting, tried to bully the board into giving the plat final approval.

Carol Lambert said that due diligence is not just CW’s responsibility; it is every board member’s responsibility. The voters expect due diligence from every board member, not just CW, and for every project. Carol Lambert said that she was embarrassed for the current board members who were members in 2007, who approved this plan, and who recently said that the plan had no problems. The plan obviously has many problems.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of October 4, 2012: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, BM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of October 4, 2012, is adjourned at 8:20 P.M.

Minutes approved: October 18, 2012

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on October 6, 2012, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on October 4, 2012, and from a copy of the one Town tape that Chairman Clayton Wood made on October 4, 2012.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary

one Town tape.