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

DATE: THURSDAY, DECEMBER 16, 2010 at Pittsfield Middle/High School, Lecture Room, Oneida Street, Pittsfield, NH

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:02 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Chairman.

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Bill Miskoe (BM), Chairman, Ted Mitchell (TM), Vice-Chairman, Fred Hast (FH), Selectman Ex Officio, Dan Schroth (DS), Pat Heffernan (PH), Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate, (Arrival at 7:08 P.M.) and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Daniel Greene (DG) and Rich Hunsberger (RH).

Others Present: Larry Konopka, Ed Vien, Ralph O’Dell, Nancy Christie, John Lenaerts, Dan Kramer, Building Inspector.

Also Present: Matt Monahan, Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of December 2, 2010

(FH) Motion to approve Minutes of December 2, 2010. (TM) Second. After brief Discussion: Carried 4-0. (BM) Abstain.

Discussion: Only change in Minutes was signature line, which should be Ted Mitchell, Vice-Chairman.

ITEM 4. Selectman’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

(FH) Really nothing to report at this time, other than Board is working on Tax Deeds for delinquent taxes. There are about 14 or so.

ITEM 5. Members Concerns

(DS) Fred, when you were talking about the 14 notices for delinquent taxpayers, does that include any bank involvement? (FH) No, not at this time. (DS) People own the properties, so this is the beginning of the proceedings by sending letters to those people? (FH) Yes. (BM) I believe it can take up to three years for this process. (DS) So no one is out of their houses as of yet? (FH) No.

ITEM 6. Public Presentation of Zoning Ordinances to review/discuss
proposed revisions/changes.

(BM) Thank you all for coming tonight. I do wish that more were able to attend. The Board has been working on these revisions since about April right after the Town Meeting.

Matt Monahan of the Central New Hampshire Planning Commission has assisted us in this endeavor and we have gone through the Zoning Ordinances line by line to make sure it makes sense. Matt did the research for us on Federal and/or State law and assisted us with what our problems were and what options we could take.

Clayton Wood, Alternate, arrived and was seated on the Board.

(BM) Tonight, we would like to explain how we got there. The Public Meeting will be the time when individuals can express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction. The Board will go back and check things and if we approve it, we will have it on the ballot. If we do not have enough time for everyone’s input on January 6th, we can have another Public Meeting on the 20th also. The Board will put together a Warrant Article for the voters’ approval.

Matt Monahan (MM) explained that in general, Board had not changed any zoning boundaries but tried to open up and add new uses in the various zones. The frontage definition was also revised. He noted the high points included two areas – Process (Clean-up Changes) and Policy Changes such as Table of Uses. He provided an Outline of Changes (see attached) and proceeded to explain some of the high points and thoughts regarding these changes such as updated Table of Uses, density incentives for cluster development and guidance for home occupations. Most importantly, he noted that this would give the Building Inspector the tools regarding boundaries of choice. He demonstrated the various zones (via a map) to the audience.

(MM) explained parking requirements and read the Intent of Parking Requirements as noted in the Zoning Ordinances (Page 14).

He read to the audience Article 10 – Signs, emphasizing that signs should not create a navigational hazard, block clear view by exiting and entering vehicles, and not create a lighting hindrance to drivers on the road. Questions arose regarding height of signs and it was noted that 35 ft. was usually the maximum, which would be a benefit should there be a need for fire apparatus. Board discussed the use of lighted and moving signs and that Building Inspector really has no criteria to rely on for this and whether something should be put into the ordinance covering this. (DS) noted that since we do not have sign problems, keep it to safety issues. “Just leave it with the people since it is not a huge issue.” We should tread lightly on this as it is not a problem. Ed Vien noted that anything concerning signs would have to be enforceable. Dan Kramer, Building Inspector noted that it should not be arbitrary. It was ultimately agreed that height and light should somehow be noted.

John Lenaerts wanted to discuss that there were no restrictions on Home Occupations. (MM) read into the Minutes Article 12 – Home Occupation. Discussion covered the premise that property owners should not have to be subjected to neighbors that have offensive odors emitting from their property or anything that interferes with their quality of life whether it is noise, smell visual impact and possibly vibration. (DS) “We have a noise ordinance in Town, leave it to the Police.” The use of signs for Home Occupation was also discussed. Ed Vien noted that when you are dealing with the Sign Ordinance, it depends upon the individual and what kind of business you are talking about. Larry Konopka noted that not all sign ordinances would work in all zones; it is dependent upon the zone and the occupation. It would probably be better if in all zones, it was subject to a Site Plan Review by Planning Board. (CW) What fits in one area does not fit in other areas. Dan Kramer noted that a Site Plan Review gives a greater amount of people a review process.

(MM) read into Minutes Article 9 – Cluster Development purpose (Page 27). He noted that currently there is no density for cluster and explained the criteria and base acreage including the type of property associated with cluster development (Page 28). Board and audience discussed what minimum ratio should be and that it should be dependent upon the type of cluster development proposed.

The Table of Uses was reviewed and it was noted that several items on the list do not include definitions which will be revised, if necessary.

Dan Kramer suggested adding wind farms and outside wood furnaces, which is regulated by the State.

Ed Vien questioned whether the zoning boundaries had been changed and it was noted that this would probably be something that the Board would address in the future since it can make a huge difference in some cases and might even require the addition of zones such as a Light Industrial/
Commercial II Zone. It was noted that zoning changes have a big effect on taxes. (BM) related that the Board did not feel it was the right time to address this.

John Lenaerts commented that Mobile Home Parks are a “real poison pill.”
(BM) noted that Town has to have them somewhere and this way it can be controlled.

Matt Monahan stated that Board will decide how many of these will ultimately be separate Warrant Articles. People vote on things according to how they feel about it.

Ed Vien: I would like to thank you all for your efforts in this.

Larry Konopka: I also would like to thank you guys. You did a lot of hard work. Thank you Matt also.

(BM) Thank you all for coming tonight and hope to see you on January 6th.

Meeting was ended at 9:00 P.M.

Approved: February 3, 2011

___________________________ ____________________
John W. (Bill) Miskoe, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that this presentation was recorded by me on December 16, 2010, transcribed and publicly posted on December 23, 2010.

______________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

II Tapes