December 19, 2013 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, December 19, 2013

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:16 P.M.

The planning board’s meeting started late because the library improvement oversight committee occupied the meeting room until 7:15 PM.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Planning board members present:
Clayton Wood (CW), planning board member and chair;
Pat Heffernan (PH), planning board member and vice-chair;
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary;
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member; and
Eric Nilsson (EN), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Peter Dow (PD), alternate planning board member, and
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio alternate planning board member.

Other town officials present: Jesse Pacheco, building inspector.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: None.

“Members of the public appearing before the planning board” includes only members of the public who spoke to the board. It does not include members of the public who were present but who did not speak to the board.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Agenda Review

CW said that tonight’s meeting would focus on the board’s zoning-amendment proposals for the March 2014 town meeting. CW said that he would be looking for a motion to hold a hearing on Monday, January 6, 2014, on the board’s five zoning-amendment proposals.

BM moved to hold a hearing on January 6, 2014, on the board’s five zoning-amendment proposals.

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW referred to the draft notice of public hearing that he and JP had written. CW said that this notice ordered the amendments from simpler to more complex. The notice states January 9, 2014, as the date of the hearing. CW wants to hold the hearing on Monday, January 6, 2014, instead because the zoning board of adjustment has a meeting scheduled for January 9, 2014.

Discussion of amendment no. 1, a new definition of “agriculture”:

The proposed topical description of this amendment is as follows:

“replace the current definition of ‘agriculture’ with the state’s definition of ‘agriculture’ in RSA 21:34-a, II. The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate vagueness in the current definition.”

CW explained that the current definition of “agriculture” is vague because it allows “home farming” without saying what home farming is. The zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) asked the planning board to correct the problem. The planning board proposes to replace the current definition of “agriculture” with the state’s definition of “agriculture” in RSA 21:34-a, II. The ZBA approves of the state’s definition as a replacement.

JP said that the state’s requirement to permit the tilling of soil and the raising of horticultural crops in all districts (RSA 674:32-c, I) answers the question of what “home farming” should mean.

PH said that the state’s requirement to permit the tilling of soil and the raising of horticultural crops in all districts (RSA 674:32-c, I) means that the town must allow greenhouses.

BM discussed the appropriateness of keeping pigs and other livestock on two-acre lots in the Rural District. BM suggested that the board take this opportunity to propose some lot-size restrictions on various kinds of agriculture.

CW said that he preferred to limit the proposal to the specific problem before the board: the vagueness of the current definition of “agriculture.”

The board agreed that it would limit the proposal to replacing the current definition of “agriculture” with the state’s definition of “agriculture in RSA 21:34-a, II.

Discussion of amendment no. 2, a revision of article 10, regulating manufactured housing:

The proposed topical description of this amendment is as follows:

“revise article 10, Manufactured Housing & Manufactured Housing Parks, as follows: (1) eliminate building codes superseded by state law RSA 155-A, (2) eliminate specifications for currently prohibited manufactured housing parks, and (3) change the title of the article to just ‘Manufactured Housing’.”

CW said that building inspector Jesse Pacheco had asked the board to correct the building codes in article 10. CW thought that the building codes should simply not be in the zoning ordinance. The board is not proposing any new regulations on manufactured housing.

The board agreed that building codes are not appropriate in a zoning ordinance.

JP referred to RSA 674:32, II:

“Notwithstanding paragraph I or any law or rule to the contrary, no zoning ordinance or bylaw shall prohibit an owner and occupier of a residence which has been damaged by fire or other disaster from placing a manufactured home on the lot of such residence and residing in such structure while the residence is being rebuilt. The period of such occupancy shall expire in 12 months from the placement of such structure or upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first.”

JP said that he and CW had revised the draft version of November 7, 2013, to conform to this state law. The current article 10 allows only six month’s use of manufactured housing during construction of a residence.

The board discussed that article 10 regulates only mobile manufactured housing. A stationary manufactured housing unit is a single-family dwelling, which article 10 does not regulate.

EN noted that draft article 10, section 4, allows an unused mobile manufactured housing unit to be parked off-street indefinitely.

CW said that the current article 10 already allows such parking during periods of nonuse for no definite period of time. (Article 10 currently says, “A single manufactured housing unit owned by a Town resident may be stored or parked during periods of non-use on the premises of the owner provided the unit remains mobile and unoccupied.”)

Building inspector Jesse Pacheco said that state law may preempt the town’s regulation of mobile manufactured housing when the mobile manufactured housing is used as a business office.

JP and Jesse Pacheco agreed to research this matter.

Discussion of amendment no. 3, an elected zoning board of adjustment:

The proposed topical description of this amendment is as follows:

“convert the zoning board of adjustment from a board appointed by the selectmen to a board elected by the town voters.”

CW and JP discussed that amendment no. 3 and amendment no. 4 both change article 5 but do not interfere with each other. If the town meeting adopts one amendment but rejects the other, no conflict will result.

BM asked whether the ballot question should say whether all five members become elected members in one election, or whether elected members would be phased in.

JP said that elected members can only be phased in. (RSA 673:3, II.) Thus there is no need to specify the phasing in the ballot question.

EN asked what was the ZBA’s vote on converting to an elected board.

CW said that the vote was 2 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: Carole Dodge and Pat Heffernan. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: Al Douglas.)

Discussion of amendment no. 4, revisions to administrative provisions of the zoning ordinance (articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24):

The proposed topical description of this amendment is as follows:

“(1) revise administrative articles 1, 5, 6, 7, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24 to agree with current state law, and (2) combine articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24 as one article stating general administrative provisions.”

CW said that this amendment is just housecleaning to conform to state law. CW said that two members of the zoning board of adjustment (Carole Dodge and Paul Sherwood) had endorsed amendment no. 4. CW said that the amendment applies to administrative regulations and not to land use regulations per se.

BM said that voters would find the topical description difficult to follow.

After trying several revisions, the planning board decided that the topical description was acceptable but that combining the revisions of articles 5, 6, and 7 with the revisions of articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24 might be confusing. The board agreed to divide current amendment no. 4 into two amendments: one amendment for articles 5, 6, and 7 and another amendment for articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24. Current amendment no. 5 will become amendment no. 6; amendment no. 4 will amend articles 5, 6, and 7; and amendment no. 5 will amend articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24, respectively. The topical descriptions will be as follows:

Amendment no. 4 topical description:

“revise administrative articles 5, 6, and 7 to agree with current state law.”

Amendment no. 5 topical description:

“(1) revise administrative articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24 to agree with current state law, and (2) combine articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24 as one article stating general administrative provisions.”

Discussion of amendment no. 6 (which was amendment no. 5), revisions to article 16, Parking Regulations:

The proposed topical description of this amendment is as follows:

“revise article 16, Parking Regulations, as follows: (1) eliminate parking requirements for existing commercial buildings in the Commercial District, (2) eliminate the on-street-parking credit now used to reduce parking requirements for commercial buildings in the Commercial District, and (3) clarify that the table of parking requirements, when applicable, applies both to uses explicitly listed and to similar uses not explicitly listed. The purposes of this amendment are (1) to avoid having to grant a large number of variances that the planning board has historically found will be necessary, and (2) to avoid vagueness about whether the table of parking requirements applies to a particular use.”

CW said that he and JP had met with building inspector Jesse Pacheco and had discussed Jesse Pacheco’s concerns that the November 7 version of amendment no. 6 was incompatible with the character of the Commercial District. As a result of that discussion, CW and JP had revised amendment no. 6 so that the waiver waives off-street parking requirements for all nonresidential uses that do not expand their current floor areas and that do not develop off-street parking areas for other uses. Because the zoning ordinance will waive parking requirements for commercial uses but not for residential uses, the zoning ordinance will encourage commercial uses to take root in the Commercial District.

BM said that the waiver discriminated against residential uses in the Commercial District. BM said that the waiver should not discriminate against apartments relative to nonresidential uses because apartments are “the highest and best use of the land in the Commercial District,” so the planning board should be trying “to encourage better apartments there.”

The other board members disagreed with BM. JP said that “discriminate” is a harsh-sounding word meaning to treat differently and that the zoning ordinance already treats various uses differently. JP read from zoning ordinance article 2, table 1, Zoning Districts and Uses, and noted that nonresidential uses are permitted in the Commercial District whereas all residential uses—single-family dwellings, two-family dwellings, and multi-family dwellings—are prohibited in the Commercial District.

JP and CW discussed that the waiver was designed to allow the two burned out foundations to rebuild as commercial establishments without a variance. As the zoning ordinance is now, the properties need a variance to do anything except be a parking lot.

Vote to hold a hearing on January 6, 2014, on the board’s now six zoning-amendment proposals: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW said that would put a second notice in the paper on January 1, 2014, because of the distraction of the holidays.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of the December 5, 2013 Meeting Minutes.

BM moved to approve the minutes of December 5, 2013, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

No board member saw any problems in the draft minutes.

Vote to approve the minutes of December 5, 2013, as written in draft: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: EN.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
1. Proposed by the Zoning Board
2. Proposed by the Planning Board
3. Schedule

The board covered the matter of this agenda item in agenda item 3, Agenda Review.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Selectman’s Report – Eric Nilsson, Selectman Ex Officio

EN said that the board of selectmen is working on articles for the town meeting and that the library construction project is moving forward.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Members’ Concerns

JP, the planning board secretary, referred to the concern that he had stated on November 7, 2013: whether he should countersign the approved Summerford subdivision plat given that JP was disqualified from the Summerford case. (See subdivision regulations section 5, F, 3, paragraph 5, sentence 1, requiring the planning board secretary to countersign the chair’s signature on approved plats. Also see RSA 674:37.) JP asked board members CW, PH, and EN to decide whether JP should countersign the Summerford plat. JP asked BM to recuse himself from the discussion and to sit in the audience because BM, like JP, was disqualified from the Summerford case. JP asked board members CW, PH, and EN to disregard comments that BM had made at the board’s meeting of November 7, 2013.

JP and BM recused themselves and sat in the audience.

The board discussed that countersigning was a purely administrative act.

EN asked JP whether JP were comfortable countersigning the approved Summerford plat.

JP said that he was comfortable with whatever the board decided.

EN moved to approve JP to countersign approved plats when JP is disqualified from sitting judicially to decide the cases.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to approve JP to countersign approved plats when JP is disqualified from sitting judicially to decide the cases: carried 3 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: EN, PH, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 8: Public Input

Building inspector Jesse Pacheco said that the board had done a good job.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of December 19, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of December 19, 2013, is adjourned at 8:52 P.M.

Minutes approved: January 6, 2014

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on December 25, 2013, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on December 19, 2013, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on December 20, 2013, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary