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

Minutes of Planning Board Work Session
Thursday, September 17, 2009

ITEM 1. Meeting called to order at 7:01 P.M. by Richard Hunsberger, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Richard Hunsberger (RH), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM) -Vice Chairman, Larry Konopka (LK)- Selectman Ex Officio, Dan Schroth (DS), Jim Pritchard (JP), Ted Mitchell (TM), Hank Fitzgerald (HF) – Alternate, Clayton Wood (CW)- Alternate, and Dina Condodemetraky (DC), Recording Secretary.

All Alternates asked to sit at table for meeting

Members Absent:

Daniel Green (DG)

ITEM 3. Presentation by Scott Spradling of The Spradling Group

Hired by Selectman and Economic Development Committee to boost Economic Development in Pittsfield

1. To attract new businesses to town with as little additional financial pressure as possible.

2. Coordinate info to help boost attention to downtown and along Rte 28

There had been a survey done that will be released for feedback and suggestions.
The purpose of tonight’s presentation is to introduce himself and let Planning Board know what his company is doing for Pittsfield along with the Economic Development Committee.

Formal presentation and results of Survey will be given at next Town Hall meeting. All boards are invited to participate.

7:05 P.M. – End of presentation

ITEM 4. Planning Board Work Session
Workshop on Roles and Responsibilities
Presentation given by Matt Monahan (MM)
Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission

Overview:

• Planning Board approval is about due process with a specific focus.
• Presentation is based on RSA’s, case laws, his work with an Engineering company for a period of time and experience in giving this presentation over the years.
• A Q&A session will be provided at end to answer any presentation questions/comments.
• Reviewed his most utilized reference books and recommends the Town has a copy on hand at every Planning Board meeting (See Resources below).
• Offered himself as a resource for the PB to assist in process.
• Planning Board members and Planners can be frustrated by inability to do more planning.
• Prone to assume worst-case scenario.
• When process is not iron clad, unhappy applicants, opponents, or both can leave the board unappreciated.
• Smooth-talking applicants and presentations can mislead boards.

Topics covered:

• Planning Board Duties
Approving Applications – what applications present Developmental Regional Impact (DRI) and how the PB must make that determination
Guide via the Master Plan
Write Zoning Ordinance
• Zoning Board of Adjustment has role to interpret and administer the zoning ordinance. It is important that the Boards communicate with each other. Input from other Boards is very important in many cases. But Planning Board should only appeal to Zoning Board to make a zoning interpretation.
• Subdivision and Site Plan Regulations: “Creative plagiarism” from what works at other towns is a good thing. Utilize it.
• Application and Review Procedures: Make Public Hearings a normal operating procedure. Be transparent with process. Site visits are critical.
• Master Plan articulates Rural Character.
• Innovative Land Use Controls: Prepare for new Land Use Law coming into effect January 1, 2010
• Completeness of an Application: Be conspicuous and transparent with procedure.
• Conducting a Meeting: Stay neutral, create predictability for the applicants so that they can feel comfortable and trust in the Planning Board.
• Listen to the Applicants: Have a checklist, utilize resources, and be careful not to share opinions on any given project out in public.

Resources:

1. NH Planning and Land Use Regulations
2. NH Practice – Loughlin (Third Edition)
3. RSA 155-E – Law Governing Earth Excavations (1999)
4. A Hard Road to Travel – NH Laws of Local Highways, Streets and Trails
5. The Planning Board in NH – A handbook for Local Officials Prepared by the NH Office of Energy and Planning (January 2007)
6. Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission – 226-6020 or cnhrpc@cnhrpc.org

Question/Answer Session:

(RH) DRI can you expand on that?
(BM) What are the criteria for establishing a DRI?
(MM) Read definition as stated in RSA 36:55 Pg. 67 on Developmental Regional Impact. The role of the Planning Board is to make the determination for or against. If determined to be DRI, notify Regional Planning Commission and Abutters.
(RH) Does a DRI have to be negative? A major grocery store could be a DRI, although it would be a very big positive for the region, it could still be a concern to the region.
(MM) agreed.
(RH) For example, Timco in Barnstead – neighbors complained of noise in Barnstead but not in Pittsfield. Could be a DRI?
(MM) Yes. Make a determination taking any and all concerns into considerations.
(HF) read RSA 36:56 interpreted that it is totally up to Board to determine the DRI
(RH) Even if it is a lot line adjustment?
(BM) It is important to be on the record of making a decision?
(MM) Yes! Even if the Board decides not to follow the comments suggested, it must take them into consideration.
(HF) Law allows that all commentators have rights as an abutter does.
(BM) Does applicant have recourse against PB if not handled correctly?
(MM) did not have a hard fast answer for that, but understands that there could be.
(BM) We get notifications for Communication Towers. Is it a DRI?
(MM) Yes. Notify even if you don’t act.
(CW) Recusal is very worrisome, guidelines are very inept. A major conflict of interest.. what specifically does the law say to make someone step down and how can the Board improve in taking this stand better?
(MM) Have a written rule and procedure to fall back on. If there is an actual or perceived conflict of interest, then recuse. When in doubt, error on the “c-y-a” side of things. Board can suggest someone to recuse himself or herself but cannot make them do it. Procedures can be written to give it more teeth and shrink the gray areas. Further, so much is subject to interpretation. If you have an interest in the project, a specific vested interest – that should be your guideline. It can be a difficult process.
(CW) commented we are helping many groups. We should talk to the applicants before the hearings and help them have everything complete.
(MM) We can help do that for the Board.
(CW) CNHRPC should not be asked to make the decision of the PB but to assist us in our procedure.
(MM) Yes.
(CW) I would like to see a procedure in place in regards to DRI. Can we make it clearer?
(MM) With the DRI, treat local towns as an abutter
(BM) This is a small town. If there is a casual conversation held and the person then later submits an application, did the applicant actually have an official discussion with a planning member?
(MM) One individual member cannot speak for the board. A vote of the board is required.
(HF) There is so much conversation between would be applicants and officials. You will see results of the conversations in the work presented. But the conversations are with one person.
(MM) Process and outcome are two different things
(CW) Have upfront conversations and move forward
(MM) Where you start to get into trouble is when you have an opinion. Stand firm on which hat you are wearing when having a casual conversation.
(LK) Members of town know people on the Board. They will approach us. We must send them to the Building inspector or CNHRPC right away.
(MM) If you are not comfortable, then say so and don’t discuss it.
(JP) wanted to reinforce (CW’s) statement on “just one vote does not count-but…” they can still have a major impact.
(MM) Follow what the regulations say vs. opinion. Don’t go down that road. It is a process question or a result question?
(BM) The Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements, what is that?
(MM) It is an area related thing. Referred to Loughlin, NH Practice reference book Ch. 22:03 for definition
(RH) It is a retroactive waiver
(BM) Definition and criteria of what is scattered or premature?
(MM) Be very careful with this. Referenced to Loughlin 29:08. Premature – when you are getting ahead of the town. Scattered – Depends on the effect of specific development on community not the general development on community. Is the project ahead of town services? You must be project specific or you will be sued and will lose. How will the Court perceive it? Contact town counsel right away. Think about how perception will pay out.
(CW) When is the last time we have seen the Master Plan?
(DS) The Committee has been meeting and will be sending a letter soon to the Planning Board.
(HF) gave an example defining what would hurt infrastructure? It is a complex, very subjective situation.
(BM) What is the difference between an impact fee and exaction? Exaction is used for specific improvements. There are four: roads, drainage, sewer and water. Impact fee requires zoning authorization, PB methodology, there are 25 items that you can charge Impact fees for: community wide facilities, a capitol facility police services, for example. You have to demonstrate the need with population projections. Must be separate from general fund and all accounting must be done. Have a CIP but do err on the side of caution. Stay away from the arbitrary. Impact fees are community wide and vast.
(RH) and the Board thanked (MM) for coming and asked for any Public input. None given
(MM) feel free to call and ask any questions.

Workshop ended at 9:00 P.M.

Written sworn statement officially swearing in (HF) as Planning Board Alternate was signed by Board members.

Minutes from August 6, 2009 and September 3, 2009 – will be discussed at October 1st meeting.

ITEM 5. Adjournment

(BM) Motion to adjourn meeting

(TM) Seconded

Discussion: None

Vote: Carried 6-0 unanimous in favor

Approved: October 1, 2009

______________________________ _________________________
Richard Hunsberger, Chairman Date