December 1, 2011 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, December 1, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

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

Members absent: Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex officio alternate).

AGENDA ITEM 3: Public Hearing
a. Amendment No. 1 – 7:00 P.M.
b. Amendment No. 2 – 8:00 P.M.
c. Amendment No. 3 – 8:05 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 3a: Public Hearing on Amendment No. 1 at 7:00 P.M.

TM began the public hearing on Amendment No. 1 at 7:04 P.M.

TM explained the board’s objectives in Amendment No. 1. The board did a “dry run” on implementing the parking regulations that the town adopted last March. The board found that there is no mechanism to implement the parking regulations fairly and consistently. The board created a formula to give on-street-parking credit in the downtown area. The board found that the regulations violated RSA 674:20, which requires that regulations be uniform throughout a zoning district. The board therefore proposed to limit the parking-relief provision to the whole of the Commercial District.

TM opened the hearing to public input.

Bill Miskoe, of 61 Thompson Road, said that the board had adjusted the area of the unit on-street-parking credit, but Bill Miskoe still opposes the proposal. There is no parking problem now, but this ordinance will create one. Bill Miskoe thinks that, even though the ordinance says that the on-street-parking credit does not give anyone a proprietary right to public parking spaces, applicants will think that the on-street-parking credit does give applicants a proprietary right to public parking spaces. Therefore, businesses will fight among themselves for the limited parking spaces in the downtown, and they will ask the police to enforce the two-hour parking limit. Therefore, the proposed parking regulations conflict with the two-hour parking limit because the town does not currently enforce that limit. Hank Fitzgerald at the last hearing had the right approach. Delete the parking regulations on commercial uses. Let commercial uses solve their own parking problems by themselves.

TM reminded Bill Miskoe that Bill Miskoe chaired last year’s planning board and spearheaded the parking regulations that Bill Miskoe now says should be repealed. TM asked Bill Miskoe whether Bill Miskoe were saying that he, Bill Miskoe, was wrong last year?

Bill Miskoe said yes, he was wrong last year. Bill Miskoe apologized for proposing those regulations. There is no parking problem. Hank Fitzgerald had the right solution. Delete the parking regulations on commercial uses. The town should deal with any parking problem after it develops, not before.

TM said that the board is trying to implement what the town meeting adopted.

Bill Miskoe said that that proposal should not have been made.

TM said that the board would have no credibility with the voters if the board followed Bill Miskoe’s advice.

Bill Miskoe said that the board must tell the town meeting that deleting parking requirements on commercial uses will fix the mistake that the board made last year.

TM said that he did not see how the new regulations placed any new burden on applicants.

JP said that the draft minutes of the November 3 hearing said that Hank Fitzgerald had not recommended deleting parking requirements on commercial uses. To the contrary, Hank Fitzgerald advised keeping those requirements and deleting the provision for parking relief. Hank Fitzgerald was on the opposite side of this issue from Bill Miskoe. The proposal says that the on-street-parking credit does not, by itself, give anyone a proprietary right to any public parking spaces, because the town meeting does not have jurisdiction, through the zoning ordinance, to grant such a right. The planning board wants this fact to be very clear. JP said that Bill Miskoe had said at the last hearing that the regulations would be “complicated, inflexible, and expensive to implement.” JP said that Bill Miskoe had said that he, Bill Miskoe, was an engineer qualified to make this determination. The hearing devoted an hour and a half to discussing 806.5 square feet, but Bill Miskoe had given no other specifics on what new requirements the regulations would impose on applicants, or what current options the proposed regulations would take from applicants. JP asked Bill Miskoe to specify the new requirements that the proposed regulations would impose and the current options that the proposed regulations would eliminate.

Bill Miskoe said that an applicant would have to do a very detailed interior survey in order to calculate his on-street-parking credit. Such an interior survey is expensive and unnecessary.

JP said that the Table of Parking Requirements, which is in the zoning ordinance now, already requires an applicant to measure the area that his use will occupy. Except for retail sales, where the measurement is specified at 150 square feet, the requirements are defined in terms of areas specified to the nearest 100 square feet. The area of a unit on-street-parking credit is 800 square feet, so it is specified to the nearest 100 square feet, too. JP asked Bill Miskoe to explain how the on-street-parking credit requires something that the Table of Parking Requirements in effect now does not already require.

Bill Miskoe said that the Table of Parking Requirements should not apply to businesses, either.

JP said that that was not what JP had asked. What new requirements will the proposed regulations impose, and what current options will the proposed regulations eliminate?

Bill Miskoe said that his previous evaluation of the proposed regulations “was erroneous.” The proposed regulations are “inflexible, expensive, and unnecessary. It isn’t any more than it was, but it still is.”

JP asked for clarification that “We haven’t made it any worse.”

Bill Miskoe said, “Not yet.”

Larry Konopka, 160 Shaw Road, asked whether the planning board had sought input from other town boards.

TM said no.

Larry Konopka asked, “what gives you guys the right, five of you guys, to change the zoning in our community without reviewing it with the master plan committee or the zoning board?”

CW said that the planning board had not changed anything. The town meeting had adopted an ordinance authorizing the planning board to give credit for on-street parking in certain cases, but there are no guidelines. All that the board is trying to do is to take what is currently the law and give the board the tools to avoid being arbitrary. There is no need to go anywhere. The board did a mock site plan and realized that there are no tools to do it. But nothing has changed. The town has already said that the planning board can give credit for on-street parking.

Larry Konopka said that the planning board should have invited the zoning board, the board of selectmen, and the department heads to a planning board meeting before the planning board had public hearings.

CW, JP, and TM said that the planning board is currently having a public hearing that had been noticed and that any of these people were welcome to attend.

Larry Konopka said, “Come on, Clayton, we all know better than that.”

CW said that TM had put letters in the paper after every board meeting since April. The information is on the web site. The board is publishing more information about what the board is doing than the board ever has published before. It is unreasonable to suggest that the board is not being open.

Matt St. George, 101 True Road, asked whether the board wants to do what the town meeting has adopted.

TM said yes.

CW said that the planning board had proposed and the town meeting had adopted a provision for parking relief in the downtown. The board is just trying to create a way to grant that relief. At the last meeting, the board asked the public whether anyone had a better way than the formula that the planning board has proposed. The board could delete parking relief, but the town meeting seems to want parking relief.

Bill Miskoe asked whether the planning board would consider proposing to repeal parking requirements for commercial uses.

TM said that repealing the regulations is risky because, if there is a problem, everyone will be grandfathered, and the town will be unable to undo the damage.

JP said that Bill Miskoe’s judgment is not reliable if he has changed is mind since last year when conditions in the downtown have not changed.

Bill Miskoe said that he changes his mind according to what he can learn, and he may be wrong now, but he still asks the board “to solve the problem” by proposing to repeal parking regulations for commercial uses.

JP said that he did not know what “problem” Bill Miskoe was proposing to solve.

TM said that Bill Miskoe’s proposal would create future problems.

Bill Miskoe said that the problem that he would be solving is that there are no guidelines for granting on-street-parking credit. Bill Miskoe will not say that he is wrong next year.

Larry Konopka asked whether the board had sought input from the Local-Government Center (“LGC”).

TM said yes.

JP said that he had discussed the on-street-parking credit with the LGC. The LGC said that many municipalities give credit for on-street parking, but most municipalities do it poorly. The LGC said that the method that the Pittsfield Planning Board had chosen appeared to be one of the best methods that the LGC had seen.

Bill Miskoe repeated his belief that applicants will think that the on-street-parking credit gives proprietary rights to parking spaces even though the ordinance says otherwise.

TM said that giving credit for on-street parking spaces is not the same as reserving particular public parking spaces.

Bill Miskoe repeated his belief that businesses will fight among themselves for the limited parking spaces in the downtown and that they will ask the police to enforce the two-hour parking limit. People will not like getting parking tickets.

JP said that Bill Miskoe had said multiple times that the planning board should propose to repeal the parking regulations for businesses.

Bill Miskoe repeated his belief that applicants will think that the on-street-parking credit gives proprietary rights to parking spaces even though the ordinance says otherwise. The solution is to repeal the parking regulations for businesses.

TM said that Bill Miskoe is raising a non-issue. Customers in the downtown do not routinely use the public parking spaces for more than two hours. Residential users do stay more than two hours, but residential users are not commercial users.

Bill Miskoe said that he was thinking about businesses that might hire employees who would need to park all day.

TM said that Bill Miskoe was talking about non-consumer-oriented businesses, which do not exist in the downtown.

Bill Miskoe referred to Main Street in Concord, where he said that off-street parking is not required.

TM asked how many public parking spaces on Main Street in Concord have parking meters.

George Bachelder, 40 Clough Road, said that Kentek, across from the Post Office, had caused a problem with employees parking on the street all day.

Larry Konopka said that input from the department heads would have made the planning board aware of the Kentek situation earlier. The board should get input from the other boards and department heads and try to get a better parking proposal ready for next year.

JP said that the planning board is holding its second hearing, and the date is only December 1. The board has plenty of time.

CW said that Larry Konopka should look at the minutes because the board has discussed many of the issues that the public is raising now. The audience wants to repeal parking regulations, and, if the board were proposing something major like that, then the board would definitely have to do an impact study and would want the input from other town committees. But the board is not proposing to change anything. All the board is trying to do is make it workable and be fair to everybody.

TM asked Bill Miskoe what was the input from the other boards when the planning board created the proposal last year.

Bill Miskoe said that he did not recall that there was such a meeting. That omission was a mistake that the planning board should not repeat. Bill Miskoe said that the proposed parking amendment is not good, and he asked the board not to put it on the ballot.

JP said that, last year, the proposal was reviewed by the board of adjustment, the board of selectmen, the planning board, and the town attorney. The result was what went on last year’s ballot, including the parking regulations currently in effect. JP asked Bill Miskoe to calculate the number of parking spaces that the current regulations require for a machine shop with 2500 square feet outside the downtown. Very simple situation.

Bill Miskoe said, “two and a half.”

JP said that Bill Miskoe had made the point perfectly. Parking spaces do not come in halves. The current regulations cannot even generate a number for the simplest situation.

Larry Konopka suggested that the board have a work session with other boards and department heads.

TM said that the current board had reached out to the public more than any other board had, and people are still complaining that it is not enough.

Larry Konopka said that he was not complaining. The planning board was simply not communicating enough with other town agencies.

JP said that public hearings are for such communications. Furthermore, no one has identified any problem that the existing proposal will create. TM has been putting lots of letters in the paper to inform the public. No person at these hearings has proposed a solution to any existing problem. JP does not understand how the public hearings that the board is having are not working.

TM said that the board had set up a web site and a blog. No one has used it.

Matt St. George said that George Bachelder had identified a parking problem in the downtown. The board should propose some regulations to correct that problem.

CW repeated that the board is just trying to create guidelines to assure that businesses in similar situations will be treated similarly. Last year’s town meeting voted in the problem of no guidelines. Last year, the regional planning commission was involved, and the town spent $17,500 getting their input. This year’s board did not create the problem.

TM said that, if the town meeting wants to get rid of parking regulations, then the town meeting can do that. The town meeting gave the board the task of implementing what the town meeting adopted last year. The board has done that.

JP asked for clarification that the audience is complaining about yet another problem and that the board should have addressed that problem instead. The board knows that there are many problems. The board had to start somewhere.

Bill Miskoe asked whether the board had discussed repealing the parking regulations for businesses, and what was the board’s reasoning for not doing so.

JP said that the board rejected that approach because the board was unsure of the result and would not be able to correct a problem if repeal were a mistake. Everyone would be grandfathered. Furthermore, the definition of the on-street-parking credit releases an applicant from all off-street-parking requirements if his fair share of on-street-parking will serve his needs adequately.

Bill Miskoe asked JP to cite the provision that JP was discussing.

JP cited Article 16, Section 5, (d), (3).

Bill Miskoe said that Amendment No. 1, at 10 pages, is too long.

JP said that using some extra space is worthwhile because it generates unambiguous results. The current ordinance wastes all the space that it takes because a person cannot figure out anything from it.

TM said that, when things are too short, you have a mess because the regulation lacks the necessary detail. If people cannot understand a regulation, then you may as well not have the regulation.

Bill Miskoe repeated that businesses on Main Street in Concord do not have to have off-street parking.

TM said that Concord has parking meters everywhere. Pittsfield does not.

TM closed the public hearing on Amendment No. 1 at 8:00 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 3b: Public Hearing on Amendment No. 2 at 8:00 P.M.

TM began the public hearing on Amendment No. 2 at 8:00 P.M.

TM explained that Amendment No. 2 was a required amendment to comply with RSA 674:33 as amended in 1983 and 2009.

TM opened the hearing to public input.

There was no public input.

TM closed the public hearing at 8:02 P.M.

The board recessed for three minutes.

AGENDA ITEM 3c: Public Hearing on Amendment No. 3 at 8:05 P.M.

TM began the public hearing on Amendment No. 3 at 8:05 P.M.

TM explained that Amendment No. 3 would define the frontage requirement as class V highway frontage. The zoning ordinance does not currently define “frontage.” Under state law RSA 674:41, property owners on class VI highways do not have the actual right to subdivide. Subdivision on class VI highways requires the selectmen to agree.

CW said that the proposed definition originated from Kerrie Diers, Executive Director of the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. She proposed this definition to Pittsfield in 2004.

Matt St. George, 101 True Road, said that TM had said that the board wanted to do what the town meeting had voted. Matt St. George said that the town meeting had defeated a similar definition twice before. The board should not propose it again.

CW said that the town has to define the frontage requirement. Frontage is an important requirement in subdivision regulation. The matter has to be corrected. If the town allows enough people to build on class VI highways, then the residents can force the town to take responsibility for those highways. People complain about how the taxpayers get stuck with roads.

Larry Konopka said that the planning board and board of selectmen can already decide, case by case, how much road improvement should be required for a given applicant.

CW said that the town meeting can assume the financial risk if it wants to. It should have the option not to assume the risk. The frontage requirement is currently undefined.

Larry Konopka said that state statute does define a frontage requirement. Towns define frontage only when they are trying to restrict subdivision on class VI highways.

CW said that most people think that there is no frontage definition.

George Bachelder said that he is against this definition because “some of us” have bought much land on class VI highways hoping to give it to “our kids.” George Bachelder personally has spent a lot of money buying land on class VI highways for his daughters. George Bachelder owns 3/4 mile of class VI highway frontage. George Bachelder will sell his land to a developer if the town adopts Amendment No. 3, and the town will have 200 more houses.

JP said that both class V-only and class VI-also frontage proposals had been gone to the town meeting, and both had failed. The margin of failure on class VI-also was much larger than for class V-only. JP clarified that CW was saying that, if the town has a policy of allowing class VI highway subdivision, then the town will be responsible for the problem that that policy causes. JP offered to read the supreme court decision defining an occasion for a class V layout. JP did read the supreme court decision (Glick v. Ossipee) stating the purpose of RSA 674:41, I, (c): “The purpose of the limitation on building on class VI highways is to provide against such scattered or premature subdivision as would necessitate the excessive expenditure of public funds.”

Matt St. George said that the limitation in the statute already allows the town to stop a class VI highway subdivision. The town currently considers each case individually. The proposed frontage definition would eliminate that option.

TM said that the board is not proposing to eliminate anything.

CW said that the definition would make an applicant go to the zoning board.

Matt St. George said that all the proposal is doing is making the applicant go to another board in addition to the planning board and board of selectmen.

CW said that the zoning board will create another opportunity for review and public discussion. The planning board needs the frontage definition so that the planning board knows whether an applicant meets the requirement or not. Some people in town are very happy to have things loose. Others want guidelines.

Larry Konopka asked whether there had been any problems with class VI development while TM has been on the planning board.

TM said no.

Larry Konopka asked whether the board had taken input from the zoning board.

TM said no.

JP said that there had been no subdivisions, period, so of course there have been none on class VI highways. What the frontage definition will do, like the parking regulations, is to create guidelines defining when you can subdivide on class VI highways and when you cannot. Some people do not want guidelines; they want to come in and get a favor. The board has decided that there should be guidelines to assure that everyone is treated fairly.

George Bachelder said that the town had stopped two class VI subdivisions. George Bachelder agrees that class VI subdivision should not be allowed, except George Bachelder thinks that one lot should be allowed for a child.

Matt St. George clarified that “one lot” meant a two-lot subdivision.

CW said, “show me the law that allows me to treat his daughter different than a developer. Once she owns the land, she owns the land.”

Matt St. George said, “show me the law that says that you can’t treat them differently.”

CW said, “Here is a perfect example of how this town likes to run.”

JP said that the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution is the law against favoritism.

Matt St. George said that he was talking about application of the state laws. The board is making it harder for a person to do one subdivision.

CW said yes. The board is not taking anyone’s right. The board is making it harder so more people will be involved. Many projects in the past have problems.

Mitch Emerson, 50 Range Road, asked why did the frontage issue return to the planning board’s agenda.

CW said that the board needs it to regulate subdivisions in general and cluster subdivision in particular.

PD said that defining the frontage requirement was a prerequisite to correcting the elderly housing ordinance that the town adopted.

CW said that the board had done a mock drill with the elderly housing ordinance and had found problems there, too.

Matt St. George asked whether the board would consider defining the frontage requirement otherwise.

CW said that he is committed to class V highway frontage. There have been many problems in the past. CW compared the vagueness of the frontage requirement to the currently effective on-street-parking credit option: “When applicable, the Planning Board may consider available on-street parking near the premises when making its decision.” What does this mean?

Matt St. George suggested that frontage be the main access to the property. Would the board consider other suggestions?

JP said that the board is taking input and listening. The problem is that the subdivision regulations are geared to safe access. Class VI highway frontage does not provide safe access. The subdivision regulations do not mean anything on class VI highways. For example, subdividers on a class V highway must widen a narrow road, but a subdivider on a class VI highway could get a waiver from that provision because the town will never need to maintain the road. The board proposes to make class VI subdivision permitted upon the conditions for a variance.

Matt St. George asked whether the definition could include class VI.

JP said that including class VI highways in the definition would eliminate the variance conditions for class VI subdivision. The conditions should connect to the zoning ordinance, not the subdivision regulations, because enforcement of the variance conditions is not discretionary.

Scott Aubertin, 52 Catamount Road, asked for clarification of what he called the “setback.”

JP said that he had been talking about widening the road, not a setback.

Matt St. George discussed dedicating land along the sides of class VI highways.

JP said that the land-dedication example was only supposed to illustrate how the subdivision regulations worked. The dedication of land is not a major issue. The primary issue is road improvement.

TM explained that the primary issue is the cost to the taxpayer.

Larry Konopka said that the class V highway frontage requirement would diminish the value of class VI highway properties.

Rob Johnson, 55 Ring Road, asked which statute was the board discussing.

JP said RSA 674:41, I, (c).

Matt St. George repeated his opposition to a class V highway frontage requirement. There should be some middle ground between class V and class VI.

JP said that he had sought information on what the problems with the parking regulations had been so that he could propose corrections, and JP is listening for problems with a class V highway frontage requirement.

Matt St. George said that its failure to pass in a previous election is the problem. Matt St. George said that JP is not listening to the voters.

JP said that he had not finished when Matt St. George interrupted. JP is soliciting suggestions about what is wrong with the frontage proposal and how to correct it. JP also objects to Matt St. George’s suggestion that JP does not listen to the voters. JP is listening to Matt St. George. JP listened to Matt St. George’s concern with having to pay for his own road improvements. But taxpayers do not want to pay for Matt St. George’s road improvements, either. JP has spent huge amounts of time trying to find some creative way to accommodate someone like Matt St. George. But every approach that JP has tried has run afoul of state or federal law.

Mitch Emerson said that he had been thinking of buying some land on a class VI highway for his children. Because of what he has learned at this hearing, he will not buy that land.

Matt St. George repeated that there should be some middle ground between class V and class VI. Matt St. George does not have “a cure.”

CW pointed out that the board of adjustment grants variances routinely. When an applicant has a variance, he has much more control, not less. Without the variance process, the applicant has to rely on getting a favor.

Matt St. George said that the permission without a variance is not “a favor.”

CW disagreed. Permission granted without guidelines is “a favor.”

RC asked what are the conditions for a variance.

JP said that the conditions for a variance are in the new Amendment No. 2 and come from RSA 674:33, I, (b). JP read the statutory conditions.

RC wondered about how the frontage requirement would impact future town development.

Larry Konopka described the process by which the town approved his subdivision on Granny White Road, which is class VI. The process went smoothly because he worked with the boards and knew the community.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Close Public Hearing 9:00 P.M.

TM closed the public input at 9:03 P.M. and opened the board’s deliberations on the three zoning amendments.

CW said that Amendment No. 1 had two typographical errors on page 5. The document says “off-STREET-parking credit” in two places when it should say “on-STREET-parking credit”. This error is easy to overlook.

JP said that Amendment No. 2 has a spelling error on page 10. “centerline” should be “center line”.

TM said that the board should have a work session on December 15.

TM asked whether the board might want to withdraw Amendment No. 3 to propose it next year. If a property owner cannot subdivide at all, then that is a problem.

JP said that the board is not proposing to make subdivision impossible. The board is proposing to permit subdivision by variance. JP said that CW had repeatedly said that permission that is not a right and that is not permitted on conditions is a favor. Favoritism is the issue here. If you have conditions, then you do not have favoritism. If you have no conditions, then you do have favoritism. The matter will be no different next year. The variance conditions remove the favoritism problem.

RC said that the variance conditions are vague.

JP agreed, but there is much case law interpreting the conditions.

RC asked whether the board of adjustment knows the case law.

JP said that the process relies on public input, especially by the adversarial inputs of people for or against the proposal. Each side does its best to educate the board in a way favorable to its cause. The board has only state and federal law to work with. The Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection. Equal protection prohibits favors. The town has to have a class VI highway policy. Supporters of class VI subdivision could have proposed a class VI highway policy, but they have not done so. The frontage issue is difficult but not complex. New Hampshire Practice sums it all up:

“Note that municipalities are not required to allow building on a Class VI highway. Even when building is allowed on Class VI highways, subdivision will generally be prohibited. In other words, while a municipality may be willing to issue a building permit to a landowner having an existing lot on a Class VI highway, subdivision on that same lot is a commercial activity which will definitely increase the demand for services. (Blevens v. Manchester, 103 N.H. 284, 170 A.2d 121 (1961).) Few of the equitable arguments in support of an individual who has paid taxes on an existing lot for a number of years and simply wants to construct a single-family home can be mustered by an individual wishing to subdivide.”

Subdivision is inherently different than simply building. Trying to get around this basic fact leads to all kinds of complications.

RC asked whether the frontage regulation could be written to limit the number of lots ultimately subdivided from the parent lot.

JP said that people had tried to use the minor-subdivision concept to reach this result. It does not work. JP has tried all sorts of angles on the problem. None has worked. Every time, some state or federal law has blocked the solution.

TM said that he was concerned about the impact on property values.

JP said that the argument that property values would be diminished was based on a claim that the town would take away a right to subdivide. The claim is false. There is no right to subdivide on a class VI highway. Instead, the property owners think that they will get favors. Matt St. George identified the issue. CW had said that the town cannot treat a family owner differently from a commercial subdivider, and Matt St. George had replied, “show me the law that says that you can’t.”

CW said that the system runs on favoritism. The board is responsible not only to people who live on class VI highways but also to the rest of the town. The board is not proposing to take anything away. The board is proposing guidelines that will assure that everyone gets treated the same.

PH said that he thought that the class V frontage definition would be defeated. The board needs to find “a better mousetrap.”

TM said that the board is not going to find a better mousetrap. The board’s problem is educating the voters.

PH said that the board could give itself more time to think it over.

JP said that now is the best time to propose this frontage regulation because there is no development pressure.

TM said that the board needs to compose a very good letter explaining the reasons for the class V highway frontage regulations.

JP said that if the board is seriously considering postponing something in order to focus on the frontage, then the board should consider withdrawing the parking regulations, not the frontage proposal.

TM wanted to go forward with the parking proposal. The voters understand it.

JP said that the planning board has never proposed class V highway frontage, and the board opposed the citizen petition. The elections do not say as much as Matt St. George suggests, because the planning board always opposed class V highway frontage in all of the elections.

RC said that she still had questions about frontage. Is there some way to have a dialog in a forum where the public is not yelling at board members?

CW said that the audience that attended was small and has strong self-interest against the frontage proposal. The board should not let this hearing stop the board from presenting the result of a large amount of work. The board is not changing anything. The board is just creating an extra step that will include guidelines defining when subdivision on class VI highways should be prohibited and when it should not.

TM said that the board of adjustment involvement is a good thing.

RC said that the board should create a set of bullet points of concerns that the public has raised and how the board will answer them.

TM asked JP and CW to work on such a list.

The board discussed putting the amendments in final form following tonight’s hearing.

JP moved as follows on the final form of Amendment No. 2:

“I move that the final form of Amendment No. 2 shall be the same as the currently proposed Amendment No. 2, dated November 3, 2011.”

GL seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

TM called for a vote on the motion on the final form of Amendment No. 2.

Vote to approve the motion on the final form of Amendment No. 2: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The motion on the final form of Amendment No. 2 is approved.

JP moved as follows on the final form of Amendment No. 3:

“I move that the final form of Amendment No. 3 shall be the same as the currently proposed Amendment No. 3, dated October 6, 2011.”

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

PH asked what the board could change.

CW said that the board could change the road classification.

JP said that the frontage definition either has class VI or does not.

CW agreed. CW will not support class VI.

TM agreed that class VI would never pass.

GL said that every person against the proposal owns property on a class VI highway. Do they have legitimate concerns? Yes, because they want to give land to their families. But the board cannot cater to one small group. The board represents all of the town.

CW said that, under the law, the board cannot cater to one group on the basis of family lineage. A property owner is a property owner. If there were a way to protect people who want to keep land in their families, then all of the board members would do it.

GL agreed.

TM called for a vote on the motion on the final form of Amendment No. 3.

Vote to approve the motion on the final form of Amendment No. 3: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: PH. Abstaining: none.) The motion on the final form of Amendment No. 3 is approved.

JP asked the board to consider adding the following sentence below the Table of Parking Requirements in Amendment No. 1:

“The minimum number of parking spaces that the Table of Parking Requirements specifies for a use may have a fractional part.”

JP said that this sentence is not necessary to correct any error, because Article 16, Section 4, (a), says that the minimum number of parking spaces that the Table of Parking Requirements specifies may have a fractional part. Nonetheless, JP thinks that adding the sentence below the table will make the table easier to read and to use in Article 16, Section 5, (d). If the sentence is added below the table, then the table will stand by itself. JP distributed a draft to the board showing the change below the table.

The board agreed that the new sentence would make the table easier to read.

JP moved as follows on the final form of Amendment No. 1:
“I move that the final form of Amendment No. 1 shall be the same as the currently proposed Amendment No. 1, dated November 11, 2011, except with the following changes:

1. On page 4, Article 16, Section 4, (c), Table of Parking Requirements, the sentence “The minimum number of parking spaces that the Table of Parking Requirements specifies for a use may have a fractional part.” shall be added below the table and after the currently existing sentence ending with “the area that the use uses for parking.”

2. On page 5, Article 16, Section 5, (c), (2) and (3), (2 places) “off-STREET-parking credit” shall be changed to “on-STREET-parking credit”.

3. On page 10, in the definition of “principal floor area,” the word “centerline” currently written without a space between “center” and “line” shall be changed to “center line” with a space between “center” and “line”.

4. On page 1, the proposal date shall be changed from November 11, 2011, to December 1, 2011.”

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

TM called for a vote on the motion on the final form of Amendment No. 1.

Vote to approve the motion on the final form of Amendment No. 1: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The motion on the final form of Amendment No. 1 is approved.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Ralph Odell’s Letter (Master Plan Committee, Chair)

Ralph Odell, chair of the master plan committee, was present and had submitted a letter to the board asking the board to ask the board of selectmen for $2000 to produce, distribute, and analyze a survey for the master plan. The board agreed that the survey is necessary and that the costs to do the survey are accurate.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Planning Board Letter to Select Board (RE: Ralph Odell’s Request)

TM submitted to the board a draft letter that TM wrote to the board of selectmen asking for $2000 to do the survey for the master plan.

JP moved the board to authorize TM to send his letter to the board of selectmen asking for $2000 to do the survey for the master plan.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

TM called for a vote on JP’s motion.

Vote to authorize TM to send his letter to the board of selectmen asking for $2000 to do the survey for the master plan: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) TM is authorized to send his letter to the board of selectmen asking for $2000 to do the survey for the master plan.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Approval of Minutes of October 20, 2011, November 3, 2011, and November 11, 2011.

CW moved to approve the minutes of October 20, 2011, as written in draft.

TM seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

TM called for a vote on the minutes as written in draft.

Vote to approve the minutes of October 20, 2011, as written in draft: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The minutes of October 20, 2011, are approved as written in draft.

CW moved to approve the minutes of November 3, 2011, as written in draft.

TM seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked for the following changes:
Agenda Item 4, (page 12): change “because it was not very specific” to “because they were not very specific”
Agenda Item 4, (page 12): change “805.6” to “806.5”
Agenda Item 4, (page 17): change “that that such subdivision” to “said that such subdivision”
Agenda Item 4, (page 17): change “developers dime” to “developer’s dime”

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

Vote to approve the minutes of November 3, 2011, with the changes that JP requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The minutes of November 3, 2011, are approved with the changes that JP requested.

TM moved to approve the minutes of November 11, 2011, as written in draft.

Discussion:

JP asked for the following changes:
Agenda Item “Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 1,” (page 2): change “nearest whole number” to “next whole number”
Agenda Item “Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 1,” (page 2): change “greater than” to “greater than or equal to”

CW moved to approve the minutes of November 11, 2011, with the changes that JP requested.

PH seconded the motion.

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

Vote to approve the minutes of November 11, 2011, with the changes that JP requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The minutes of November 11, 2011, are approved with the changes that JP requested.

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Scheduling a Work Session for December 15

TM said that the board should have a work session before the next public hearing on the zoning amendments.

CW and JP said that the board should invite the board of selectmen, the board of adjustment, the economic development committee, and the department heads.

The board decided to have a work session with the other town agencies on December 15. This date will leave the board with opportunities for subsequent public hearings on January 5, 2012, and February 2, 2012.

The board set the notice of public hearing for January 5, 2012, for Amendment No. 1, at 7:00 P.M., and Amendment No. 3, at 8:00 P.M. The board will have no more hearings on Amendment No. 2.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of December 1, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of December 1, 2011, is adjourned at 10:20 PM.

Minutes approved: December 15, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on December 3, 4, and 5, 2011, from notes and tape that I made during the planning board meeting on December 1, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

3 Town tapes.