April 7, 2011 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, April 7, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Vice-chair and acting chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:09 P.M. Mr. Mitchell delayed the call-to-order from 7:00 P.M. to accommodate the late arrival of member Pat Heffernan.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Welcome New Members – Roll Call

Mr. Mitchell welcomed the public and new member Jim Pritchard and called attendance.

Members present:

Jim Pritchard (JP, associate member), Pat Heffernan (PH, associate member), Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex-officio), Ted Mitchell (TM, vice-chair and acting chair), and Clayton Wood (CW, associate member).

Members absent:

None.

The planning board has no alternates at this time.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Election of Chair and Vice-chair, Recorder

Appointment of a planning board recorder:

TM explained that the board does not have a recorder secretary. TM asked JP to be the recorder. JP will make his own tape on his own hand-held tape recorder, and TM will make a copy of the Town’s tapes for JP to use if necessary in compiling the minutes. TM asked JP to note any motions from the board today and to note who is for or against each motion.

CW asked if JP were willing to accept the position.

JP agreed to do the job on a trial basis.

TM said that JP’s accuracy was very good when JP was on the board before.

PH clarified that JP will record who voted for what.

FH said that the proposal sounds good.

TM said that the board did not need a motion on this matter.

Election of chair:

TM asked for nominations for chair and vice chair.

JP nominated TM.

PH seconded the nomination.

Discussion:

TM opened the matter for discussion.

JP said that he had nominated TM because JP wants to move forward in good will. JP expressed his concern that he had been attacked in the past and accused of being a troublemaker and not being a team player. JP thinks that these attacks were unfair and were contrived to avoid the merits of what JP was saying. JP wants to know how TM will move the board forward from this conflict.

TM said that he wants not to relive the past and wants everyone to be respected. The board is here to do the business of the town. There have been genuine disagreements. That is normal. Everybody on the board needs to be respected like everybody else, and that is TM’s goal. If there is any hint, whenever the board is dealing with an issue, that somebody is starting down that path, TM will nip it in the bud.

JP said, “Good.”

FH acknowledged that JP had been criticized said that FH too had been attacked in the past. The new board should go forward and forget the past.

CW mentioned the letter from AHG to the town attorney and to the planning board as an example of where the board might contact the town attorney. CW wants to know what TM thinks is the right use of the town attorney by the board not specifically in this situation but in general.

(Editorial explanation by planning board recorder and member Jim Pritchard: The planning board received a letter from AHG Properties dated April 4, 2011, with copy to town attorney Laura Spector. Laura Spector wrote to the town administrator on April 5, 2011, saying, “I will be happy to assist the board with this if it would like.”)

TM said that the board has no need to use the town attorney if the board follows the laws.

CW said, “Great answer. I’m ready for the vote.”

FH and CW briefly discussed TM’s response. CW said that TM had answered his question. CW is not asking TM to address the AHG letter, just general policy.

FH said that many, many times there is no need to use the town attorney.

TM clarified, “I’m not going to become subordinate to an attorney to get their point of view.”

PH asked what letter is CW talking about.

CW identified the letter from AHG but explained that he did not want to discuss that letter at this time.

Vote for TM as planning board chair: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, FH, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: TM.) TM is elected chair.

Election of Vice-Chair:

JP nominated CW.

FH seconded the nomination.

Discussion: None.

Vote for CW as planning board vice-chair: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, FH, and TM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: CW.) CW is elected vice-chair.

AGENDA ITEM 4: New Business

AGENDA ITEM 4, a: Outline of Board’s Priorities Re: Zoning Ordinances

TM said that he does not want to overshoot on zoning ordinance change. He wants to set goals, and, if the board makes those goals, then the board can add more.

CW asked whether the board is making the zoning ordinance a priority.

TM said yes. TM suggests revisiting the three things that did not pass.

JP suggested looking at the things that did pass first. JP explained that the ordinance designated the planning board as the administrator of the two things that passed, and the planning board should know how to apply those regulations if the board should happen to receive an application relating to those regulations. JP said that he did not know how to apply the new parking regulations.

TM agreed that adding the things that passed is a good idea. The board should start with those and then go to the article on the March 8th ballot that did not pass.

CW said that the last thing that the board wants to do is to be revisiting that ordinance when the first person comes in to the board. There is no precedent to guide the board in applying that ordinance. The board should go through it with a dry run.

PH was happy that the two things that passed did pass. PH thinks that the problem with the others is that they were long and windy, and people don’t understand them. What can the board do to condense it?

TM said that legal reasons mean that the ordinance itself can’t use plain English, apparently. But the planning board could put a letter in the local paper after each time the planning board has decided on something to propose, and that letter could give a plain-English explanation. The board should suggest that the public keep these letters for reference at the town meeting election.

CW said that the board should make this thinking part of the review. The board also needs to look again at the process. The changes were too ambitious, and things changed from what the board had agreed to propose. The board should look at the process. Is the board too ambitious? Does it deliberate enough? For two hearings, no board member had a copy of the proposal. Only Matt Monahan had a copy. That is unacceptable.

TM said that every time you turned around, there was a change, and, each time there was a change, the board updated the whole ordinance. The board needs to do changes one at a time and then integrate them at the end of the process.

CW said that the board should not solve the process now. The board does not want to go backward, but here is one case where the board needs to go back and see where it made mistakes. CW wants to put the process on the table.

PH agreed.

CW asked whether the board is going to go back and start with what passed and look at implementation and then expand to ones that did not pass. The board needs work sessions soon. The board cannot wait.

TM said that already the election had cost the board a month. Anytime the board does not have something before it, it will have a work session.

The board agreed to have these work sessions.

TM said that the board needs to propose a ballot issue to make retail on Route 28 a use permitted by right instead of as a special exception.

JP asked the board to stay away from the use table because changing the use table invites controversy. The board needs to correct the structure and definition of the zoning ordinance first, things that do not change how uses are permitted or prohibited. JP noted what Susan Muenzinger had said to the planning board in November of 2009* when she was a member of the zoning board of adjustment: the zoning board of adjustment grants almost every special exception. JP said that Susan Muenzinger was correct. The problem is not special exception. Someone applying for special exception would get it. If the board wants to contain the scope of what it is doing, then it should avoid controversial issues and fix the structure of the zoning ordinance first.

(*Editorial correction by planning board recorder and member Jim Pritchard: “November of 2009” is wrong. The correct date is November 29, 2008.)

CW agreed with JP. The use table is going to be a hot-button topic. Every time that the board proposes to change the use table, the proposal has unexpected results. The board has a bad record in anticipating public reaction. Go into a meeting, and there will be 50 different opinions on the use table.

JP reiterated that the ballot will be complicated anyway, and the use table will be controversial because any change affects someone’s property rights. The board should stay away from the use table and fix structure and definition so that everyone understands the meaning of the regulations and the processes that applicants must follow.

TM said that the board should keep it simple. The board should table zoning revision until after the board has reviewed what passed and what did not pass.

The board agreed to this approach.

AGENDA ITEM 4, b: Matt Monahan Attendance

TM explained that this discussion was about when the board brings Matt into the process.

CW said that the board is using Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission in two ways: reviewing applications, and this use of CNHRPC was to be evaluated after a short time. (Editorial explanation by planning board recorder and member Jim Pritchard: Matt Monahan is contract help from CNHRPC.) The board should review the regional planning commission’s performance. The other part of Matt Monahan is that the board has contract money for zoning ordinance revision, but the board should review Matt Monahan first. CW also wants to discuss Larry Konopka’s subdivision. Mr. Konopka complained that the planning board unreasonably made him set monuments, which cost him over $1000. Matt Monahan was involved, and the board still made the mistake. The board relied on Matt Monahan too much, and the board dropped the ball.

TM agreed.

CW said that the process degrades when we put too much confidence in Matt Monahan, like in the town attorney.

TM said that more planning board self-reliance is better for Matt Monahan. The board knows when it needs outside help.

FH said that the board had not had a powerful, knowledgeable building inspector. The board has one now. He could replace Matt’s work.

CW said that expert talent is good, but outside review should not interfere with the board’s decision making.

TM said that the board should go to Matt Monahan after the board review.

CW said that the board should review the decision on Larry Konopka’s application. If he is owed an apology, then it should be in the public record.

TM said that the board did apologize.

CW said that it was not in the public record.

TM said that it should have been in the public record.

PH said that Mr. Konopka’s application was the first time that the board had required certified pins.

FH said that it is always required in site plan review.

Larry Konopka, speaking from the audience, said that the board had asked him to certify all pins on his land. In the past, the board has required certified plans, not certified pins.

JP said that CW had asked JP to look into the Konopka decision. JP checked subdivision regulations, not site plan regulations. JP could not determine from the public record what the planning board had required Mr. Konopka to do.

CW said that he would review the tapes.

AGENDA ITEM 4, c: Planning & Zoning Conference

TM said that there is lots of information at this conference.

CW said that talking to other attendees is as informative as the lectures.

TM read the schedule: Registration starts April 15, 2011. Conference is Saturday, June 11, 2011, at the Radisson Hotel in Manchester, New Hampshire. TM suggested that members could carpool.

CW said that only two members can carpool because three or more members make a quorum of the board.

FH and TM said that three or more can gather if they do not discuss planning board business.

AGENDA ITEM 4, d: Traffic Counting Program – 2011

FH said that the board had discussed this issue in the past. The board does not know where the highway supervisor (George Bachelder) wants the counts, so the board turns the decision over to him.

All board members agreed with FH.

TM said that he would touch base with Mr. Bachelder.

AGENDA ITEM 4, e: New Meeting Date

CW said that the board should go for April 21. Make that a work session.

TM agreed.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Approval of Minutes of March 3, 2011

CW moved to approve the minutes as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW said that the board met only because it was the required monthly meeting.

TM said that the meeting was very short.

Vote to approve the March 3, 2011, minutes as written in draft: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: PH, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: JP.) The minutes of March 3, 2011, are approved as written in draft.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Members Concerns

Members concern 1: TM’s concern that the board should meet at the site of an application for site plan review.

TM said that he had attended the planning and zoning conference in Manchester. The conference encourages the board to assemble at the site when there is a site plan. TM wants to start doing that.

The board discussed whether to have a noticed, public meeting at the site, or whether to send two people to report to the board, or whether to send groups of two people so that everyone would see the site. The board discussion, with input from the public (Larry Konopka), agreed to have a noticed, public meeting at the site.

Members concern 2: TM’s concern that the board know about training.

TM discussed RSA 673:3-a. RSA 673:3-a entitles new members to training designed and furnished by the New Hampshire office of energy and planning.

FH said that the training is quite informative.

Members concern 3: JP’s concern that the board vote on applications for appointment as alternate.

JP said that the board had received applications from Peter Dow and Michelle Conner for appointment as alternates. Ms. Conner is present in the audience, and Mr. Dow is absent only because he is sick. JP wants the board to vote on the applications.

CW seconded the request for a vote.

Discussion:

JP said that the terms for alternates have to be staggered in the same manner as elected members.

TM wanted to make sure that Ms. Conner is committed to the job.

Ms. Conner explained that she had recently attended several planning board meetings and that, yes, she is committed. She asked about the planning board’s meeting schedule.

CW explained that the planning board has to meet on the first Thursday of each month and that the board usually meets on the third Thursday also.

TM asked whether having two people from the same house is a problem.

CW said, “no.”

JP said, “no.”

JP asked Ms. Conner whether she had decided what length term she wanted.

Ms. Conner wants a 1-year term. “two one-year positions.”

CW moved to appoint Peter Dow and Michelle Conner to two one-year alternate positions.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to appoint Peter Dow and Michelle Conner to two one-year alternate positions: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) Peter Dow and Michelle Conner are each appointed to a one-year alternate position.

Members concern 4: FH’s concern that his spot in training should not go unused if he cannot go.

FH said that, on June 11, he wants to attend. No fee is good. But if FH cannot go, then he wants someone to be able to take his spot.

TM said that there is no limit so long as everyone gets in before it fills up.

Gerard Leduc, speaking from the audience, said that the two alternates should go.

Members concern 5: CW’s concern that the planning board should create a web log (“blog”) that town citizens could use to give feedback to the planning board.

CW said that he wanted to discuss having a blog to get public feedback.

The board agreed that a blog was a good idea. The board will test it for a year, and CW will moderate it.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Public Input

Gerard Leduc: The blog is a good idea. Alternates’ training should be a priority.

Larry Konopka: Who is chair, vice-chair, and recorder? I was not here.

TM: I am chair, Clayton Wood is vice-chair, and Jim Pritchard is the board recorder.

Larry Konopka: What did you decide on the regional planning commission?

TM: The board will use them more sparingly than it did last year.

Gerard Leduc: TM has to notify Liz Hast of the appointment of alternates.

Denise Morin: Is training $50 per person? How many people are going to go?

TM: Yes. Probably everyone will go.

Denise Morin: Do you know how much is budgeted for training?

FH: $250.

Denise Morin: Then you will be over that line. The budget is very tight, and there is no extra. The Local-Government Center has free classes.

Paul Richardson: I served on the planning board when Helen Schoppmeyer was chair. An applicant and the board could have an informal review at a work session. In addition, the Route 28 situation is going to take care of itself. It will be economics driven, and the traffic conditions are not hospitable. There is not much that the planning board can do.

TM: The building inspector and Matt Monahan get together and review an application to make sure that it is complete.

FH and TM: A person can come in for a conceptual review in a work session.

Larry Konopka: Do applications still go to the regional planning commission?

TM: Yes.

Larry Konopka: The regional planning commission is a great tool.

FH: A good building inspector eliminates a lot of problems.

TM noted that there is no further public input.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the April 7, 2011, planning board meeting: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of April 7, 2011, is adjourned at 8:26 PM.

Minutes approved: April 21, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on April 9, 2011, from notes and tape that I made during the planning board meeting on April 7, 2011, and from a copy of the Town tape that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on April 8, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

1 Town tape