April 17, 2008 Minutes

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

DATE: APRIL 17, 2008

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Rich Hunsberger, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Rich Hunsberger (RH), Chairman, Gerard Leduc (GL), Vice-Chairman, Robert Elliott (RE), Fred Hast (FH), Marilyn Roberts (MR), Larry Konopka (LK), Selectman Ex Officio, Dan Schroth (DS), Alternate, Tom Hitchcock (TH), Alternate, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Daniel Greene (DG).

Others Present:

Michael McLaughlin (MM), Building Inspector; Susan Muenzinger (SM), Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Jesse Pacheco (JP), Larry Federhen (LF), David Rushford (DR) – Members of Zoning Board; and Jim Pritchard.

(RH) Since this is a Work Session and two of the Alternates are here tonight, would they please come forward and be seated on the Board.

(DS) suggested that in the future, once the Alternate is seated because of late attendance by Board member, that Alternate remain seated for that particular matter even if Board member appears once proceedings have begun.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of April 3,2008

(LK) Motion to approve Minutes of April 3, 2008 as amended.
(RE) Second. Carried 8-0.

ITEM 4. Work Session
Meet with Zoning Board

(RH) reminded members that Board wanted to review the first seven pages of the Zoning Ordinances including Table of Uses. We talked a little about combined dwelling/business uses.

I think it would be a good idea to get a copy of the Zoning Map like the one in the hallway to have for reference.

(RE) noted that definition should be amended. (DS) Is that like a detached house and business in garage, but it sounds like it is in one building?
(RE) suggested definition might better read – Buildings in which combined areas include separate dwelling units and business areas. What it means is that you can have dwelling/business units. (SM) requested that Board offer some parameters on how this would work.

(SM) noted that she, on behalf of the Zoning Board, had prepared a list of items that the Board had discussed over the years.

(RH) The Planning Board had made our own amendments last year but unfortunately, one person made a decision and our work was out in left field.

(LK) reminded Chair that this Work Session was to include Zoning Board.

(RE) related, “If Board is going to go through Zoning Ordinances, we should invite the Zoning Board to go over them.” (SM) noted that she had made a list (which was distributed to Board members) and related that should any explanation be necessary she would be happy to do so. She related that she felt there were many items that could be added to the list but this particular list was discussed by Zoning Board at the last meeting. (See attached.)

Board reviewed some of the items as listed including l. Signage, and
2. Cluster Subdivision Provisions. (RH) noted that the Planning Board agenda would include cluster and elderly housing. (SM) explained No.3 Site Plan Issue – you will re recall that NHRPC wanted to change this. It would be beneficial to clean that up. In relation to No. 4 Frontage definition, (RH) noted that the Board had come up with a definition, which was going to be on the Warrant, list but that did not go forward. (SM) noted on No. 5 that the Ordinance notes that the setbacks indicated, “clear to the sky.” We would like an interpretation regarding individuals for example, placing a sign within the setbacks. (RH) “Most towns say that a sign is not a structure.” (SM) related that this had been discussed with Zoning Board but it needs to be clarified. (RH) related that his goal was to make it “clear.” (LK) Does the Zoning Board have any ideas?” (SM) related, “No. We have identified the problem” but not the solution. (FH) noted that some people put fences in the setbacks.

Board further discussed list as to condo conversions, which become rentals and controls that could be instituted in these situations. (RH) noted that he would not like to see more apartments in the downtown area but did not feel that anything could be done about this other than perhaps, limiting number of ownerships. (MM) reminded Board that they could not stop this from happening. (SM) suggested that, perhaps, they could remove condos from the Ordinances. (TH) noted that people sometimes have to rent in order to pay their bills. (DR) noted that he was concerned about the safety issues regarding condos becoming rentals. “There are no standards. Any rentals should go to HSA and would have to be brought up to code.”

No. 8 on the list related to Table of Uses, and (SM) noted that some of the Board members felt it was inappropriate for a used car lot to be on Main Street because it is a residential area, though it was zoned for commercial use and Board limited it to only two cars.

(RH) noted that his hope was for Board to come up with some changes that would be recommended by Planning and Zoning Board and then approved at Town Meeting. There is a lot of work to be accomplished. I would think we would want clarity rather than complications.

(LF) noted that his concerns and ZB concern was that some of the uses allowed in Commercial Zone are not appropriate for those area if Town wants to reclaim it, like marine facilities. (MM) noted that would require re-zoning that part of Town. (RH) suggested that a zoning map be on the wall in conference room as it would be difficult to understand without referring to a zoning map. (RE) noted that there was a good set of zoning maps in the Master Plan. (MM) questioned when the last time the zoning maps had been revised. (SM) About three years ago.

(SM) “The NHRPC would be willing to work on cluster definitions. Sharon Wason has offered to do that which would not cost anything under our membership.” (RH) related that it would be nice to find a Town that we could emulate; one that we are impressed with. (SM) noted that the previous Planning Board had participated in a bus tour sponsored by NHRPC of cluster developments. (RH) related that they had gone through quite a few different towns. (TH) When you are in different towns, it is a different scenario. “People do not want to live in Pittsfield. With the housing crunch, you need to be sure you have a buyer.” What are we trying to develop first, people not having to drive to work and getting it all here. This would be worth developing. (RH) “It starts with someone doing something.”
(TH) People want to make a living by working in Town and living in town which has everything in it as its own entity. (DR) related that he had moved to Pittsfield because he is able to have both entities here. He can live in a small town and if he wants to go to the city, it is not far away. “You need to stop a minute and ask the community how big do you want Town to be?” (TH) noted that Pittsfield could be an entity unto itself. Right now, we cannot do that. We need job bases. (DS) noted that he would be willing to see several different proposals in this regard.

(RH) “We need to fix what is broken first and work on our Ordinances and Use Table is part of that. They are going to coincide with each other. Maybe greater density for one use and better use of our land, which should be a win/win situation for our community. In Durham, there are subdivisions that you cannot even see until you drive into them. Density matches the amount of space there.” (SM) This has been discussed with the Economic Development Committee and that is the dialog with them. They are moving on this. (TH) noted that the competition with the South is increasing because it is cheaper to build there though New Hampshire is number one in growth east of Mississippi. (PM) noted that one big asset is this Town’s good school system, grades 1-12, and we should incorporate that into the whole picture.

Board further discussed ways and means of utilizing Route 28 as light commercial/industrial use. They also discussed what is appropriate in the downtown area. (MR) noted that some businesses in Town wanted to be closer to Route 28 because of shipping and transportation. (SM) noted that light industrial zone on Route 28 cuts properties in half. There are many small properties and to redevelop them has been an issue. (RH) noted that Board would probably be going to amend the zoning map.

(RH) noted that the definition that the Planning Board had come up with which never made the Warrant Articles was:

– Frontage – The continuous distance along the front lot line dividing a lot (* on a Class V road or better) from either:

– A public highway maintained by the Town, or:
– A road shown on a major subdivision plan approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations, or:
– A Class VI public highway shown on a minor subdivision plan approved by the Planning Board in accordance with the Subdivision Regulations.

Board considered appointing a sub-committee to work on Table of Uses and definitions and one to work on sub-division and clusters. After discussion, it was decided that entire Board would work together to amend these ordinances. (SM) noted that it would be easier to amend the text rather than the zoning map, as it would in a lot of instances render properties non-conforming and lot size would be inappropriate. (RH) noted that non-conforming is really not the correct word, but rather it should be described as pre-existing. “That a non-conforming (or pre-existing) piece of property cannot expand is ludicrous.” If you want to change something, it has to be beneficial. (PM) agreed that pre-existing is a better explanation. People can understand that. (RH) We should go through and clean up the language.

Board discussed definition and allowable manufactured houses and modular homes, the list as presented by Zoning Board tonight, structure, in-law apartments and control thereof, box trailers or storage containers, mixed uses, two family homes and better ways to do enforcement. (RH) related “In Pittsfield, most people want to keep it simple, less government, not more government. A rule or policy that is adopted can cause enforcement issues.” In future Work Sessions, we will be going over the first seven pages of the Ordinances. If there were any suggestions on how to amend, we would welcome those also. (DR) noted that by bringing in jobs and with a population growth that not all people would want to live here. It could drive people out.

(RH) noted that he would like to see Route 28 corridor developed.
(RE) noted that there are 556 legal apartments in Pittsfield. (MM) noted that if we put one half to work, it would save on Welfare and help the tax rate. (RH) Board should get all of our uses ironed out and then go through the definitions. There are 50 pages and we could do 5 pages a meeting.
(RE) noted that Board would have to be very disciplined in the future in order to get this accomplished. (JP) suggested taking it zone-by-zone and focus on one at a time.

(MR) reminded the Board that the Economic Development Committee would be here at the next meeting. (SM) questioned what kind of interests are you looking for from the EDC? (RH) What they have come up in writing as to what their goals are, how can Planning Board help, any recommendations for changes and what we can do to help, zoning changes in area of planning in regard to potential businesses. PB is in the process of looking at the Ordinances, how can we help? I think once we get started on this, it will not be as difficult as we think.

Close Work Session

ITEM 5. New Business

None.

ITEM 6. Selectman’s Report

(LK) related that Board is looking at updating the conference rooms with new tables and chairs, and other improvements. Tuesday’s election resulted in the Floodplain changes passing 59-1. I also would like to see the Building Inspector Report added onto the Agenda each meeting.

Building Inspector related in reference to 12 Broadway, the Fire Chief, Fire Marshall and he had scheduled a re-inspection, but Mr. Jensen did not show up. It will be rescheduled.

ITEM 7. Members Concerns

None.

ITEM 8. Public Input

None.

ITEM 9. Adjournment

(RE) Motion to adjourn. (MR) Second. Carried 8-0.

Meeting adjourned at 9:05 P.M.

Approved: May 1, 2008

________________________________ ____________________
Rich Hunsberger, Chairman Date