August 17, 2011 Minutes

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263

DATE: Wednesday, August 17, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:06 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Members present:

Jim Pritchard (JP, associate member), Gerard Leduc (GL, selectmen’s ex officio alternate), Ted Mitchell (TM, chair), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), Peter Dow (PD, alternate), and Ray Conner (RC, alternate).

Members absent: Pat Heffernan (PH, associate member) and Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex officio) excused absence.

TM asked RC to sit in place of PH.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes of August 4, 2011

CW moved to approve the minutes of August 4, 2011, as written in draft.

JP seconded the motion.

Discussion:

TM asked for the following changes:
Agenda Item 6 (page 7): change “JP thanked TM and said that JP” to “JP thanked TM and stated that he (JP)”
Agenda Item 9 (page 16): change “at the last selectmen’s meeting” to “before the last selectmen’s meeting”

TM called for a vote on the minutes with the changes that he requested.

Vote to approve the minutes of August 4, 2011,with the changes that TM requested: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, RC, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: GL.) The minutes of August 4, 2011, are approved with the changes that TM requested.

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Bicknell subdivision

TM said that, at the last planning board meeting (August 4, 2011), he had agreed to investigate the conditions on which the Bicknell subdivision on Governor’s Road had been approved (approved June 7, 2007). TM said that he would do the research for the next planning board meeting (September 1, 2011).

JP said that, at the last planning board meeting, he had overlooked the fact that his mother abutted the Bicknell subdivision. JP will not participate in any board decisions on the Bicknell matter.

CW said that the board should be careful not to start digging into past projects at random. The potential problem with the Bicknell subdivision is a code-enforcement matter.

AGENDA ITEM 4: WORK Session
a. Rules of Procedures – Re: Alternates
b. Frontage

AGENDA ITEM 4, a: Rules of Procedure – Re: Alternates

TM asked JP to present the draft rules of procedure that JP had prepared.

JP said that the board had told him to prepare language for alternates’ participation in meetings and to correct any other obvious errors. The rules have many obvious errors. For example, current Section II, Membership; Terms of Office; Officers; Vacancies, has “VACANCIES” in its title, but the body of the section says nothing about vacancies. Many of the rules in current Section II are wrong.

JP said that current Section II contains two subject matters that should be separate: (1) the board’s establishment and membership and (2) the board’s officers. Consequently, in the draft rules, JP divided current Section II as two new sections: draft Section II, Establishment and Membership, and draft Section III, Officers.

JP said that current rules II, 4 and 7, were confusing in relation to the secretary and recording secretary. The rules seemed to say that the secretary and the recording secretary were two different people and that the secretary might be an elected official. JP did not know how Dee Fritz (the board’s administrative secretary) fits into the rule scheme. JP did not understand current rule II, 7, or what to do with it.

JP said that current rule II, 5, which says that a “Chairman shall serve for one year,” is wrong because the board sometimes elects an interim chair when the chair elected in April vacates the office. Current rule II, 6, has the same problem with the vice-chair.

JP said that he had had to research each of the rules, and, because most of the rules in current Section II are wrong, the easiest and best way to correct them was to replace them with quotes of the town meeting resolution or state statute on which a given rule was based. Consequently, all of the text in draft Sections II and III is new. To make future research easier, JP cited the RSA statutes that he used. Because all of the text in draft Section II and III is new, JP used underlining in draft Sections II and III for new material but not for corrected existing material.

JP said that draft Section II, Establishment and Membership, is exclusively quotations of either (1) the town meeting resolution establishing the 5-member elected planning board, or (2) state statutes. JP said that he had added rules relating to planning board members and alternates serving on other town boards. (See RSA 673:7, I, and RSA 673:6, IV.) JP asked if the board agreed that the rules of procedure should have these rules.

TM and CW said yes.

CW said that the planning board is the only town board that has such a restriction.

JP said that he had added draft rule II, 8, saying how vacancies are filled.

JP said that he did not touch Matt Monahan’s amendment that the board had adopted on February 18, 2010.

JP explained that he had created a new section for that part of current Section II that describes how the board chooses its officers. This new section is draft Section III, Officers. State law requires the board to have a chair. State law does not require a vice-chair but does allow one. Draft rule III, 5, provides for the board to elect an interim chair (or vice-chair) if the chair (or vice-chair) elected in April vacates the office.

JP said that he divided current rule II, 7, in two parts: (1) the secretary’s general administrative functions and (2) the secretary’s function of signing approved plats. JP said that he understood function (2) but not function (1). Is current rule II, 7, saying that there are two secretaries?

The board agreed that current rule II, 7, seemed to be saying that there are two secretaries, one elected from the board and one retained from outside the board.

JP said that identifying the secretary—as a board member or a non-board member—is important because the second part of current rule II, 7, requires the secretary to sign approved plats.

CW said that no secretary retained except Dee Fritz would have authority to sign the board’s paperwork. Any person who signs board paperwork has to be appointed by the board.

JP asked if what CW was saying meant that any person who signs board paperwork has to be a board member?

CW said yes.

GL explained that the planning board had adopted the second part of current rule II, 7, because the signer used to be the building inspector, but there had been a high turnover in building inspectors, so the board had shifted the signing responsibility to the administrative secretary.

RC asked why did the vice-chair not countersign the plat instead of the secretary?

JP explained that the building inspector had been an administrative official, but, because he had been hard to reach, the board had shifted the signing responsibility to the next logical administrative official.

GL agreed and said that the board had adopted the second part of current rule II, 7, in 1991.

JP said that the reason that the vice-chair does not countersign for the chair is that the chair sometimes has to disqualify himself. Then the vice-chair signs in place of the chair. So the board needs a third person to countersign.

The board agreed that the correction of current rule II, 7, (written as draft rule II, 8) would replace the first sentence (“A secretary shall be appointed as needed.”) with “The board shall appoint a secretary from the appointed or elected members as needed.” The correction will also delete the last sentence (“However, the board may retain a recording secretary whose minutes shall be reviewed by the board for accuracy.”)

JP asked if he were supposed to be signing the approved minutes.

TM said that he would ask Dee Fritz.

JP proceeded to draft Section V, Meetings and Hearings, which corresponds to current Section IV, Meetings and Hearings. Here JP marked every change with underlining. The current rules often have multiple rules under a single number. JP separated the individual rules in these multiple-rule passages and assigned each rule its own number. Then JP rearranged the rules so that the rules relating to public participation in work sessions and alternate participation in meetings in general would fit nicely into the flow. Draft rule V, 11, provides for public participation in work session:

“The board invites members of the public to attend and participate in work sessions. The chairperson shall recognize any member of the public who raises his hand to speak at a work session.”

The board agreed that this provision accurately reflected the board’s intent to allow public participation in work sessions.

Following draft rule V, 11, draft rule V, 12, provides how alternates may participate in planning board meetings:

“Any alternate member who is not sitting for an absent or disqualified member may participate in planning board meetings in the same manner as any member of the public may participate in planning board meetings. (See RSA 673:6, V, and RSA 676:1.)”

Other changes in draft Section V are either to improve readability or to conform to state statute, such as in the matter of a quorum (draft rule V, 13).

JP set off current rule IV, 7, relating to issuance of decisions, as a new (draft) Section VI, Issuance of Decision. This new section corresponds well with RSA 676:3, Issuance of Decision.

TM and CW said that separating the Issuance of Decision section was a good idea.

JP said that draft Section VII, Disqualification, is essentially the same as current Section VI, Disqualification. Current Section VI is very long, so JP divided it into three separate rules.

TM said that this division was a good idea. People have difficulty reading long, continuous blocks of text.

PD asked if the selectmen were allowed only one alternate to the planning board.

GL said yes.

JP said that there was one other rule change relating to alternates participating in board meetings. That change is to current rule VIII, 5, which reads as follows:

“Any person who is not a Board member or alternate and who desires to ask a question of another person must do so through the Chairman.”

Current rule VIII, 5, must be changed because it does not distinguish between sitting alternates, who have full member powers, and non-sitting alternates, who participate as members of the public according to draft rule V, 12. The revision of current rule VIII, 5, (as draft rule IX, 11) reads as follows:

“Any person who is not a board member or an alternate member sitting for an absent or disqualified board member and who desires to ask a question of another person must do so through the chairperson.”

JP said that the changes that he described so far concluded the matter of alternates participating in planning board meetings.

JP said that current Section VII, Order of Business, has less than a planning board agenda typically has.

TM agreed and said that he had thought that current Section VII was incomplete.

JP asked if he should fill out current Section VII.

TM said yes.

JP said that he would use a typical agenda as a guide to fill out current Section VII (draft Section VIII).

JP said that current Section VIII, Conduct of Public Hearings, does not seem to follow the flow of a typical hearing.

CW discussed Matt Monahan’s outline describing the flow of a typical hearing. CW felt that the chair should have flexibility to deviate from such a rigid flow if a more informal discussion would help the public to express its questions or comments.

JP said that, years ago, the board always used to announce that abutters had been notified. The board seems to have stopped making this announcement. JP added draft rule IX, 2, to restore the announcement.

GL agreed that the board had always made this announcement.

JP said that draft rules IX, 5 through 8, could be deleted, or the rules could have a provision to deviate from them.

CW said that having draft rules IX, 5 through 8, was not a bad idea, but there should be flexibility to deviate from them.

CW said that draft Section IX, Conduct of Public Hearings, covered most of the elements of a public hearing but did not cover the acceptance of an application.

JP said that the acceptance happens at a meeting, not at a hearing.

CW said that Pittsfield’s practice is to accept the application as complete and to have the hearing on its merits at the same meeting.

The board discussed the extent to which the acceptance meeting and the merits hearing should be clearly separate. The board agreed that the chair should make clear to the audience that the acceptance meeting is separate from the merits hearing and that, under state law (RSA 676:4, I, and DHB v. Pembroke, 152 N.H. 314, 876 A.2d 206 (2005)), no member of the public has a right to speak at the acceptance meeting. The board may request input from the applicant or from other attendees, but no one has a right to speak.

AGENDA ITEM 4, b: Frontage

The board discussed an e-mail that JP sent to TM relating to the zoning ordinance provision for merging nonconforming lots (Article 4, Section 2) and how the proposed “frontage” definition might affect application of the lot-merger provision. The lot-merger provision is unclear about whether the zoning ordinance permits nonconforming lots to merge if the result is a nonconforming lot. JP was concerned that the board should be prepared to answer questions about whether two abutting lots on a class VI highway could merge if the town adopted the class V highway frontage standard.

CW asked for clarification of how the proposed zoning revisions were to be grouped as ballot articles.

JP said that the following matters go in the first ballot article: (1) Zoning Ordinance Article 16, Parking Regulations; (2) the definitions of “principal floor area” and “street” to go in Article 3, Definitions; and (3) Article 6, Special Exceptions. The following matters go in the second ballot article: (1) Article 7, Variances, and (2) Article 5, Section 3, Powers of Zoning Board of Adjustment. The following matter goes in the third ballot article: the “frontage” definition alone.

The board agreed that the lot merger provision (Article 4, Section 2) is vague and needs revision. But this problem exists now and is separate from and is not caused by the proposed “frontage” definition. Two abutting lots nonconforming in area could merge and still be nonconforming in area.

The board concluded that Article 4, Section 2, should be revised later, when the board would have more time, because the board thought that Article 4, Section 2, intends to permit all lot mergers; consequently, the board would simply approve any merger of abutting lots on a class VI highway.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Gravel Pit – Metcalf

JP disqualified himself and left the board.

PD sat in place of JP.

TM said that he had talked to George Bachelder, the road agent, to get his view of the problem of water flowing out of the Metcalf gravel pit area and washing out Tan Road. George says that the retention pond that had been created for the runoff is insufficient. The pond has filled up with silt. Moderate rain will cause a problem. The state law requires that the gravel excavation operation must put 4 inches of topsoil on areas where gravel excavation has been finished. The sifted soil, the residue, is what is being used as topsoil. This topsoil is impermeable, so the water runs off. The water goes to the culvert and washes out the culvert. TM called the state, and the state is supposed to call back on August 22. TM will call the state on August 29 if the state has not called TM by then, and TM will ask for another inspection.

CW asked what is the planning board’s responsibility?

TM said that he did not know. The town administrator sent TM a letter saying that the planning board has responsibility. The state has responsibility to do the inspection. The planning board’s responsibility may be to go to the state and ask for an inspection and enforcement.

PD asked whether the town administrator could talk to the state.

TM said that the town administrator does not do planning. He is an administrator.

GL said that the town administrator is sending the matter to the board that regulates land use.

CW said that gravel pits are not the planning board’s jurisdiction.

TM agreed.

PD said that, if a person asked a question about land use, then the board might have a responsibility to say that the board had no authority, if that were the case, but the board could help the person to get more information on who does have authority.

TM said that the town administrator has the same contact and telephone number for the state that TM has.

CW said that the planning board needs to understand its jurisdiction.

TM said that the question about the Metcalf gravel pit came from Ed Vien. Ed Vien chairs the zoning board of adjustment. TM will discuss this matter further with Ed Vien at a meeting, and, when the meeting opens to public input, TM will express the opinion that the planning board does not have responsibility.

GL said that TM should speak to Matt Monahan for advice on the Metcalf gravel pit. Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission has a lot of resources.

TM agreed.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Release of Escrow – Linda Martin (Mud Run)

TM explained that Linda Martin had put $450 in escrow for her Mud Run application. The board had used $400. She would like the remaining $50 returned.

CW moved to return the unused $50 to Linda Martin.

PD seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

TM called for a vote on CW’s motion

Vote to return the unused $50 to Linda Martin: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PD, RC, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The board will return the unused $50 to Linda Martin.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Selectmen’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

PD left the board, and JP returned.

GL gave the selectmen’s report in place of FH, who is absent.

GL said that the board of selectmen went to the town gravel pit to inspect it for police use. The abutters are complaining that there is too much noise from the shooting, so the selectmen did a site walk. GL was not there, but he read the report. The selectmen may be able to satisfy the abutters by limiting the number of police using the pit at one time. Chief Wharem will discuss this option with the board of selectmen. TM is an abutter, and one other person with a nonconforming lot is an abutter.

Budget season starts tomorrow night. The selectmen will try to keep the budget as tight as possible to avoid any tax increases.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members Concerns

Members concern 1: TM’s concern with the town’s grant under Safe Routes to School.

TM said that the New Hampshire Department of Transportation had awarded Pittsfield $260,668 for sidewalks and traffic calming for the Safe Routes to School project.

Members concern 2: TM’s concern with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

TM said that Merrill Vaughn had asked TM to make the board aware of the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. Vaughn gave TM a web site that board members should visit:

http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/adahom1.htm

(Editorial comment by planning board recorder and member Jim Pritchard: CW said on September 1, 2011, that this link is correct but does not work anymore.)

The board discussed that the building inspector is supposed to vet incoming applications for compliance with the state building code, which includes compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

JP said that some familiarity with the state building code would help board members. The planning board is not supposed to approve a development project that violates the state building code.

Members concern 3: TM’s concern with thanking the Suncook Valley Sun.

TM read a draft letter to Arthur Morse thanking Mr. Morse for publishing TM’s bi-weekly letters discussing the planning board’s business.

CW said that the letter should be addressed to both Arthur Morse and his son, Ross Morse. Ross is doing most of the newspaper’s routine operations.

TM will change the address and bring a new copy to the next board meeting.

Members concern 4: TM’s letter to the Suncook Valley Sun.

In brief, TM’s letter to the Suncook Valley Sun states the board’s activities on August 4, 2011: (1) alternates will participate in public meetings in the same manner as member of the public, (2) “frontage” was defined for class V roads or better, and (3) the town attorney’s letter saying that the board of selectmen, not the planning board, has enforcement responsibility regarding 14 Depot Street.

The board agreed that TM’s letter was good.

Members concern 5: TM’s concern with planning the board’s activities.

TM said that the board would finalize the rules of procedure at the next meeting. The board should start planning what to do in preparing to propose the zoning amendments to the town meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

RC seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of August 17, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, RC, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of August 17, 2011, is adjourned at 9:01 PM.

Minutes approved: September 1, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on August 20, 2011, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on August 17, 2011, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on August 18, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

2 Town tapes.