Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
December 6, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Vice -Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Jr.
(PM), Fred Hast (FH), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Daniel Greene (DG), John
Lenaerts (JL), Selectman Ex Officio, Chris Conlon (CC), Dan Schroth (DS),
Alternate, Gerard LeDuc (GL), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording
Secretary.
Members Absent: None.
ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of November 15, 2007.
(FH) Motion to approve Minutes of November 15, 2007. (CC) Second.
Carried 5-0 (DG) and (PM) abstain.
ITEM 4. Work Session
(BM) “The reality is that any Warrant Articles to the Town must be
presented by next Wednesday, December 12th, so we need to wrap it up
tonight. I have begun summarizing it though I have not completed it. I did
not realize till just last week that this would have to be done by the 12 th; I
thought we had more time. We need to deal with the cluster ordinance and
look at the Table of Uses. If this Board agrees, I will put it together and
present it on Wednesday. Do we need another meeting, say Monday or
Tuesday, or do you want me to do it.”
(PM) felt that if Board could not finalize it tonight, that, perhaps, another
meeting would be necessary to review it. (BM) “If I sent out an E-Mail or
contact you with the changes on Sunday night, will you all get back to me
2
with your thoughts regarding changes before Wednesday morning.” He
related that on Sunday night he would E-Mail, or via telephone, give a
summary of what the Board had worked on and I will come in Wednesday to
present it as Warrant Article. I have distributed a copy of the Summary I
have done. I have reviewed all my notes as well as those of Eric’s. The
only definitions listed are the ones we are trying to change.
(BM) At the last Work Session, we discussed cluster and I had asked (RH) if
he could find some cluster ordinances from other towns and he has done
that. (RH) noted he had gone on-line and reviewed cluster ordinances with
such towns as Gilford, Belmont, and Chichester. What you will find is that a
lot of towns are trying to encourage open space though different language is
used, but it amounts to the same thing. For elderly clusters, almost all
indicate an increase in density. Clustering includes about 50% open land
and most are on 10-acre parcels. This is something we have to decide for
our ordinance. We need to encourage responsible development to bring it
in. All towns work it differently. In Northwood, they have attracted some
elderly housing units and they are allowing those to be duplexes with 40 ft.
between units. They also allow mixed housing, elderly/conventional, with
40 ft. between units and a 10 acre parcel which is reasonable, though,
everything is reduced, road frontage included. When you are doing this you
are encouraging growth. If you get a good ordinance, people will come in.
In Northwood, they call it a development ordinance and they use many ways
to define it – open space, cluster, green spaces – and mixed uses are allowed.
(BM) noted that modular manufactured homes can be good structures and
used for this purpose. (RH) “ All these towns did have professional
planners.”
(BM) “This is the decision point, Gentlemen.” I do not believe much will
be happening in Pittsfield in this regard in the next 18 months. Do you want
to attempt to change cluster now or spend money and go to professional
planners to prepare an ordinance that will serve the Town? We can think
about this for now.
Board discussed modular manufactured housing for clusters. (RH) noted
that Board could modify the Zoning Ordinance and then put some criteria in
to cover this. (BM) noted that Board would have to deal with Tables of
Uses. Do we have the capability to come up with something that is useful
and give the new Board in 2008 a new ordinance to work with? It should be
3
done well or not at all. He noted that if one buys property in the Rural Zone
of this Town, one does not expect a village to be put up next door.
(RH) “Actually, the Rural Zone for a cluster is better. (BM) noted that for
age-related housing, he had a different opinion, not with the cluster idea but
with the density issue. Board discussed the mobile house as opposed to
manufactured modular housing and what the difference entailed. (RH) By
passing a good Zoning Ordinance, it does not mean it is going to be popping
up all over Town. There are mobile parks that are designed to be for the
elderly. (JL) and (RH) discussed the “view” issue in reference to cluster
subdivisions. (JL) did not feel that he would like to have to “view” a cluster
and (RH) noted that actually with open space it would be ideal area to have a
cluster subdivision, especially if it is placed further back and barely seen
from the road. (JL) noted that he would not like to take the Special
Exception capability away from the Zoning Board. (RH) noted that his
reasoning was that all Special Exceptions should have a criteria to be met.
Special Exception is just another “hoop” that they have to go through. Take
the Special Exception and the criteria from the ZBA and make it part of the
Planning Board instead. (BM) noted that the Special Exception criteria is
really a poorly defined set of criteria. It is a bit vague.
(BM) Do we tonight want to create something for a Warrant Article
changing cluster? Board deferred making decision at this time.
(JL) questioned whether (RH) was suggesting that there be no more
multifamily units in Town? (RH) noted that there are many single-family
homes, which are being turned into apartments, and we allow it. We should
change this so they cannot have it downtown.
(FH) noted that Board needs to do more work so there are good
developments that happen and not do it in a short period of time.
(PM) noted we should not rush it. (BM) noted that he also would rather do it
later than badly now. Anything submitted by Planning Board needs to be
submitted by Wednesday, December 12th. If we do not get it in on
Wednesday, it will not be on the ballot for this year. What we have now
works. (RH) “Maybe we should modify our present ordinance.”
(CC) noted, “I believe that because not a whole lot is defined, if we limit it
to just better defining what a cluster should be based on rather than be a
typical development, we could encourage developers by saying, “Have you
seen the Gilford cluster (or other cluster that fits Pittsfield)?” If we make a
change, even a small one, we have a device to get public input.
4
(BM) noted that he thought that Article I, Cluster Development, as it is now
written should stay the same rather than propose a change right now. (CC)
suggested taking it off Special Exception, that would be enough of a change.
(RH) noted he would like to see Board make a change to maybe “beef up”
the criteria, such as mentioning that it would require ten acres. (BM) noted
that as indicated in No. 1 that density is the same as a conventional
subdivision and maybe we should replace it with something productive and
that really works.
(JL) noted he was hesitant to change it. We should have professional
planners do it. (BM) noted that he believed the PB budget has money to do
it. He suggested checking with CNHRP and have them help in writing a
cluster ordinance. (FH) We could have them draft one for us and then come
in and we could address it. (CC) noted that he had some printed materials
regarding the background of open space. “Expert help may not be as
expensive as you think it would be.”
(BM) related that he would contact CNHRP to see what they could come up
with. I will check with Cara and see what there is in the budget. I am sure
for something like this, we can get the money. (CC) noted that the Office of
Energy might have a matching grant for this.
(BM) continued in relation to Table of Uses changes. Can you see any
changes within this Table that need to be made? In Table I, look at Fuel
Storage (Oil & Propane) – we agreed on changing to Liquid Fuel Storage for
the Light Industrial and Commercial Zone. Table II and III – no changes.
Anyone want to discuss any changes in these Tables?
As we go through the list of definitions, do we all agree with the definitions
and is it what the Board wants to do. It is not compl ete, but the ones done
should be right. Again, Sunday night I will E-Mail Board members with the
final draft. We can change the Tables and bring them in line with the
definitions.
Board further reviewed definitions of Hospital, Hotel & Motel, In-Law
Apartment, Junk Yards (specified by RSA’s), Manufactured Housing,
Mobile Homes. (RH) noted that the State has definitions for both
manufactured housing and modular houses. He noted that mobile home
usually comes in complete but with a modular home there are things such as
5
heating system and other things, which are installed on-site. Manufactured
houses come in on a steel frame and modular comes in on a wood frame.
Modular homes are approved by the State Fire Marshall. (BM) noted that
manufactured housing should be regulated differently than modular homes.
He noted that he would check the definitions in the RSA’s. There should be
a different definition for each. (RH) suggested striking Manufactured Home
from Table I so that it cannot be done. Definitions need to be clearer so that
people will not confuse the two.
Board members also discussed definitions of Agriculture (deleting reference
to home farming), Repair Shops, Rest Home (which should be a separate
definition), Small Repair Shop, Heavy Equipment Repair Shop, Truck,
Heavy Equipment & Trailer Repair, Plazas, Malls, Multiple Use Business
Parks, Variance (as specified by RSA’s) and Special Exception. It was
noted that the Master Plan is being reworked and these definitions should fit
in with the Master Plan as noted in Article 6, 2(e).
Board agreed that Article 6 and 7 should remain as is. (RH) noted that in
Article 10, that there are manufactured housing specs but we do not allow
them anywhere. The manufactured housing park should be deleted. (JL)
noted that a lot deals with a single unit and should be kept in there because
of existing ones and the ability to be able to control them. It was suggested
that the bottom of Page 19 and top of Page 20, Manufactured Housing Park
be stricken completely. It was suggested that Mobile Home be deleted from
Table I and leave Manufactured Home in but add Modular Home in Urban,
Suburban and Rural. (DG) questioned how you get rid of mobile homes
when they are allowed? (RH) noted that mobile home would be allowed on
a single lot but not in a park.
(RH) Motion to alter Table I so that Manufactured Home and Mobile Home
not be allowed in Urban Zone. (FH) Second. Carried 6-0.
Board agreed the Article 14 remain the same.
(CC) had several questions in regard to tower heights, Shoreland Protection
Ordinance and that Board should someday consider addressing setbacks of
wetlands.
Work Session Closed
6
ITEM 6. Selectman’s Report
None.
ITEM 7. Members Concerns
(FH) noted to (JL), At the last meeting you had asked me if I would run for
this Board in 2008. I told you then I hadn’t decided. You noted that (RH)
and myself were not part of the “slate” and this is the second time you
misrepresented something about me.”
ITEM 5. Public Input
Mr. Pritchard related that Board had noted that you were required to stop
using my definitions and whether you asked for permission or not. You
could ask for my permission and you should stop making comments about
plagiarism. When the Warrant Articles are completed, will they be available
for public review and if so, when?
(BM) noted that he would be E-mailing members and hopefully submitting
Warrant Article on December 12th but I am unsure when it will be available
for review. Mr. Pritchard questioned if it would be available at the next
meeting? (BM) noted the Board would probably be reviewing it at that time.
(RH) noted regarding Mr. Pritchard’s comment about his definitions, “We
have not used any of his definitions.” Mr. Pritchard commented, “You told
me. You did not ask my permission to use them.”
Close Public Input
OTHER
(BM) noted that since any changes to the Zoning Ordinance had to be
submitted on a Warrant Article by Wednesday, there would be no need for a
Work Session meeting on December 20th. The next meeting will be
7
January 3, 2008 at which time we have a Public Hearing scheduled and the
definitions will be noticed and available for review.
ITEM 8. Adjournment
(JL) Motion to Adjourn. (DG) Second. Carried 6-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:10 P.M.
Approved: January 3, 2008
___________________________ _______________________
Bill Miskoe, Vice-Chairman Date