February 2, 2012 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, February 2, 2012

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:00 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).

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Bob Elliott, Mitch Emerson, Hank Fitzgerald, Tom Hitchcock, Donna Keeley, Steve Keeley, Larry Konopka, Bill Miskoe, Eric Nilsson, Andy Osborne, Jesse Pacheco, Diane Rider, Matt St. George.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Approval of Minutes of January 5, 2012

CW moved to approve the minutes of January 5, 2012, as written in draft.

GL seconded the motion for discussion.

Discussion:

JP said that GL had been concerned that Matt St. George’s question about what was going to happen had been left out. JP said that JP had needed to check to see what Matt St. George had said and the circumstances in which Matt St. George had said it. JP said that, upon review, JP had found that Matt St. George had interrupted board deliberations. Matt St. George spoke when the board was not taking public input. Matt St. George spoke when the chair had not recognized him. Matt St. George spoke without identifying himself. JP said that, ordinarily, the board does not include such comments in the minutes, but this situation is not ordinary, as subsequent events have shown. There have been accusations and counteraccusations. JP said that it was necessary to elaborate on the situation of Matt St. George’s question. JP said that he had transcribed a large section of the deliberations verbatim. The verbatim transcript begins on page 6 of a second draft minutes. Changes are shown with strikethrough and italics. Strikethrough indicates text to be deleted, and italics indicates text replacing the deleted text. The verbatim transcript is of GL’s reasons for reversing himself and TM’s reasons for reversing himself. The verbatim transcript goes all the way to the selectmen’s report. The verbatim transcript includes Matt St. George’s question. JP said that board members would undoubtedly want to listen to the tapes to verify the accuracy of the transcript. Accordingly, JP suggested that the board defer approving the January 5 minutes until after board members have listened to the tapes and verified the accuracy of the transcript.

GL and CW agreed.

CW said that he had already listened to the tapes of January 5. There was much public interruption after public input was closed.

The changes that JP proposed to the January 5 minutes are given below after Agenda Item 8, Adjournment.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes of January 12, 2012

CW moved to approve the minutes of January 12, 2012, as written in draft.

GL seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP said that GL had been concerned about the editorial comment. JP said that GL had said the editorial comment “is an opinion of an individual and not an opinion of the board.” (The quotes are of JP quoting GL from January 19, 2012.) JP disagreed that the editorial comment in question is not the board’s opinion. In any case, JP said, the issue was that JP would review the tape and determine whether CW’s comments at the end of the meeting were enough the replace the editorial comment. JP said that CW’s comments were not enough to replace the editorial comment because CW did not say where the board was meeting or what the notice of meeting said. JP said that he had asked the Local-Government Center (“LGC”) about including the editorial comment in the minutes. The LGC had said that the editorial comment could be embedded in the minutes document if the comment were identified as an editorial comment that is not strictly part of the minutes and if the board majority agreed that the comment was appropriate, perhaps to clarify the historical record. JP said that the editorial comment is clearly labeled as such and is necessary to clarify the historical record. JP said that the minutes should include the discussion at the end of the meeting, too. JP made a verbatim transcript of that discussion, which begins on page 4 of a second draft minutes. Once again, strikethrough indicates text to be deleted, and italics indicates text replacing the deleted text.

TM said that the verbatim transcript was absolutely accurate. TM said, “now, going back to the editorial comment, I do believe it’s necessary to include something to indicate why the notice was deemed flawed. And the only way to do this is with this comment. So I agree with this.”

GL said that he stood by his initial assumption that the editorial comment is not part of the minutes.

TM said that the editorial comment could be included because the LGC had said that the editorial comment could be included if the majority of the board agreed with it.

CW said that nothing in the editorial comment is inaccurate, so CW said that he did not understand GL’s objection. CW said that other boards on which he serves have used editorial comments.

GL said that the comment was not part of the original discussion of that meeting.

CW said that nothing in the editorial comment is inaccurate.

GL said that he was just stating his fact.

TM said that the absence of that discussion during the meeting is why the editorial comment is necessary. If the minutes do not have the comment, then any reader will wonder why the meeting was stopped abruptly as it was. The public needs to know why the meeting was stopped.

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

Vote to approve the minutes of January 12, 2012, with the changes that JP requested: carried 3 – 1 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: PH.)

The changes that JP proposed to the January 12 minutes are given below after the changes that JP proposed to the January 5 minutes, which are after Agenda Item 8, Adjournment.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Public Hearing – Amendment 3

TM opened the public hearing on Amendment No. 3 at 7:15 P.M. TM read the notice of public hearing. TM explained the format for tonight’s hearing on the Amendment No. 3. Everyone will have one chance and one chance only to speak, which may be up to 5 minutes in duration. Then the next person will speak.

Hank Fitzgerald (7:17 P.M) referred to the ad for notice for tonight’s hearing. Hank Fitzgerald said that the chair and another board member had written the notice on January 18. The board did not vote on the ad until January 19. The chair and the other board member prepared the notice in opposition to the vote on January 5. Consequently, there is a timetable problem. The board can reconsider a vote, but someone has to move to reconsider. The vote of January 5 is on the books. As far as Hank Fitzgerald is concerned, tonight’s meeting is improper. Hank Fitzgerald referred to the page 2 from Kerrie Diers’ letter of December 14, 2004, that the board is using as an exhibit. The date shown on the letter is December 9, 2004. What does this letter have to do with tonight’s proposal? Hank Fitzgerald referred to a letter from former town attorney Tim Bates dated 2003. All of this documentation was compiled by one board member trying to get his own stuff passed. Is the board saying that this documentation is justification for tonight’s proposal? Hank Fitzgerald referred to the minutes of the December 1 board meeting, where TM had questioned whether the board should postpone Amendment No. 3 until next year. None of the board members supported this postponement. Then, TM voted against Amendment No. 3 on January 5. Three days later, after what Hank Fitzgerald claimed were “sequential conversations,” TM wrote and spent town money to buy advertisements, without discussing them with the board. TM is defying the board’s vote without giving the board the chance to discuss it. That is improper. TM is allowing an unlicensed attorney to give legal advice. The two letters that TM sent Hank Fitzgerald show this. They quoted RSAs and recited what Hank Fitzgerald had requested and said what he did not have a right to request. The town has a town attorney. The board should use her. Hank Fitzgerald referred to the tax cards that JP and TM had sent to Hank Fitzgerald to satisfy his Right-to-Know request. They are tax cards for every class VI property in town. There are many such properties, not half a dozen, who maybe do not come to the hearings. Hank Fitzgerald knows that JP is censoring the minutes. Hank Fitzgerald wants to see a document from the Local-Government Center. Hank Fitzgerald referred to JP’s conversation with the town appraiser. JP has no documentation. Hank Fitzgerald does not believe that JP is telling the truth. Hank Fitzgerald wants to see documentation. Hank Fitzgerald said that any of these documents is a public record. The board is hurting people.

At 7:24, TM said that Hank Fitzgerald had used his 5 minutes.

Tom Hitchcock said that he was giving his 5 minutes to Hank Fitzgerald.

TM agreed to let Hank Fitzgerald continue.

Hank Fitzgerald referred to the Epsom Zoning Board of Adjustment, which TM had wanted to research. Epsom approved one subdivision on a private road in the last 5 years. Epsom has never approved a subdivision on a class VI highway. Northwood will license it on a dog path. Epsom adopted the class V standard to get state funding for their roads. The board is wrong in saying that the class V standard will not cost tax money. If the board does not allow frontage, the property value will go down. If the board does not allow a building, tax revenues will go down. If current use land does not come out of current use assessment, the town will not get the land-use-change tax. Three board members making a decision is not a public meeting. That is sequential conversation, which must not be used to circumvent RSA 91-A. The board should not be listening to JP’s opinions on RSA’s.

Bill Miskoe (7:27 P.M.) said no one at any of the public hearings has spoken in favor of the board’s frontage amendment. TM had said one or two people had spoken in favor of it, but Bill Miskoe cannot find anyone. Bill Miskoe asked TM to change his assessment.

TM said “not at the meetings.”

Bill Miskoe said that, at each meeting, more people were showing up to speak against Amendment No. 3. Bill Miskoe said, “the board characterizes us as a ignorant, loud-speaking minority.” Bill Miskoe said that TM had said that the only people who showed up have an issue. The audience does have an issue. The audience has bought property in this town, which has historically allowed building permits on class VI highways and has never had a zoning prohibition against subdivision on class VI highways. There has been a practice of generally not allowing them, but it has not been in writing, and there have been subdivisions on class VI highways. People here have bought this kind of property expecting that they will have certain rights to use that property. Now the board says that the class VI owners are a minority. At the January 10 presidential-primary election, JP held a campaign sign saying “Jim Pritchard, Planning Board.” Bill Miskoe said that JP was telling anyone who would listen that only a minority opposed Amendment No. 3 and that the rest of the town favored it. In this country, minorities have rights. Class VI owners are a minority, but they have rights, expectations, and plans. If the board ignores the class VI owners and takes their property rights, then the board will not be acting in best interests of the town. The board should start listening to a minority. The board has been listening to a minority of one, namely JP, for a year. The board should widen its scope to a larger minority.

At 7:32 P.M., JP moved to continue the public hearing on Amendment No. 3 until after the board had opened and continued the public hearing on the citizen petition.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion: None

Vote to continue the public hearing on Amendment No. 3 until after the board has opened and continued the public hearing on the citizen petition: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

The public hearing on Amendment No. 3 resumed at 7:37 P.M.

Eric Nilsson (7:37 P.M.) asked why the board had opened and continued the hearing on the citizen petition.

TM explained that the board had to open the hearing on the citizen petition at 7:30 P.M. because the notice of public hearing had specified that time.

Steve Keeley (7:38 P.M.) said that he owns land on Tilton Hill Road and True Road. One of his parcels on True Road is 70 acres and has a half-mile frontage on True Road, a class VI highway. Steve Keeley bought his land to preserve it. Now, the town is telling him what he can and cannot do with it. Now, Steve Keeley cannot chop off an acre or two. The board says that there is no difference between the child owner and other owners, but Steve Keeley disagrees. Steve Keeley wants to preserve the land, but he does not want it to be worthless. He will build apartments on it and leave. Steve Keeley does not understand why he cannot chop off one or two house lots. Steve Keeley has invested in the town. If the town does not back his investment, then Steve Keeley will develop his land. Preserving land saves tax dollars. Building houses does not save tax dollars. There is no smooth flow of information between the board and the public. 20% of the residents pay 80% of the town’s taxes. Steve Keeley plows his road. He has no children. He gets no water or trash pick up. The town does plow Steve Keeley’s road but does nothing more. Communication should be better.

Mitch Emerson (7:42 P.M.) said that he had previously talked about a purchase of property. He waited for the Amendment No. 3 matter to become resolved. Mitch Emerson talked to two realtors. Mitch Emerson signed the purchase and sales agreement upon the board’s vote. Mitch Emerson read TM’s letter in the Suncook Valley Sun. Mitch Emerson asked whether TM would like to buy the land that Mitch Emerson has agreed to buy, because that land will be worth half of what Mitch Emerson paid. Neighbors should help on another. Board members do not look the audience in the eye. Board members should remember why they live in Pittsfield.

Larry Konopka (7:44 P.M.) asked board members who support Amendment No. 3 to explain their support.

CW said that he preferred to defer such discussion until after public input.

TM said that his concern is for the long term of the town. The state statute on class VI highways does not give the right to subdivide. The board’s responsibility is not just to people now; it is also to future generations. Land given to family members may end up in someone else’s hands. Such a person may expect services from the town. Enough of such people can demand the town to improve and take responsibility for the road.

CW said that he will comment after public input. The question is fair, but CW will not engage in banter.

Tom Hitchcock (7:44 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

Bob Elliott (7:48 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

Diane Rider (7:51 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

Jesse Pacheco (7:56 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

Bob Elliott (7:58 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

Hank Fitzgerald (7:59 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

Bob Elliott (8:02 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

PD (8:03 P.M.): Comment lost because of tape malfunction.

TM and CW discovered a tape malfunction at 8:05 P.M. CW corrected the problem.

TM called a 5-minute recess at 8:08 P.M.

The public hearing on Amendment No. 3 resumed at 8:13 P.M.

RC (8:13 P.M.) asked for clarification of why the board is defining “frontage.” She also asked to what extent does a class VI highway get built out (“saturated” in her words) when the town has to take responsibility for the road.

Matt St. George (8:15 P.M.) said that he had attended all public hearings on Amendment No. 3. Matt St. George said that board had misled R. One person can petition to take responsibility for the road. The matter goes to a town vote. Many people on class VI highways are there because they want to be there. They do not cost the town more money by being there. The board’s reason for Amendment No. 3 is because the town may have to take over the road. The residents would have to petition the town, and the petition would have to be proven. The town can take over the road much more cheaply than the citizens can. The town could just call it class V and start maintaining it. The board has said that living out there is a favor, and that class VI owners do not have the right to subdivide. If the board can deny subdivision on class VI highways, why does the board have to define “frontage”? The board is misleading. Matt St. George said that even TM has been confused. Matt St. George does not understand. The board’s January 5 vote should stand. The class VI owners will not be the minority at the town meeting. Matt St. George promises that the town meeting will defeat Amendment No. 3. The town could use the “frontage” definition in the emergency temporary zoning ordinance RSA 674:24. Matt St. George wants to know how many other definitions the board decided were not good enough, or did the board use only the current definition.

Bill Miskoe (8:21 P.M.) said that the zoning ordinance does need a “frontage” definition, but it does not need the definition in Amendment No. 3. Class VI people are a minority, but the fact that class VI people are a minority does not mean that they do not have rights and aspirations. They expect the board to uphold those rights. If the board wants to do the right thing for the town, then the board will not put Amendment No. 3 on the town meeting ballot.

Eric Nilsson (8:22 P.M.) said that citizens voted in each of the board members. A large group of citizens is trying to talk to the board. The board should listen and make the amendment go away because the audience does not want it.

Hank Fitzgerald (8:23 P.M.) said that a building permit from the selectmen requires the builder to sign a waiver relating to road maintenance. The waiver gets recorded at the registry of deeds and goes with the land, not the developer. A developer will have to upgrade any class VI highway to a paved class V because he will own the land forever if he does not improve the road in that way. Those waivers cannot be thrown away because they are at the registry of deeds. The fact that people can petition for the town to take responsibility for the road does not remove the waivers. The town as a whole does have protection from things getting out of control. If the board were looking clearly, then it would see that there is no problem.

TM closed the hearing to public input on Amendment No. 3 at 8:25 P.M.

PH said that he feels strongly that Amendment No. 3 is a bad idea. It is disenfranchising the people who own class VI property. PH is in the construction business, and he has talked to developers and others in the construction business. PH talked to these people about George Bachelder’s land and someone else’s land. These people want to buy these parcels of land. There will be many houses built. The real estate market is cyclical. PH wants to see development that brings in tax revenue. The town has many regulations to control the problems of the future.

CW referred to the question of why the board was proposing Amendment No. 3. The board is trying to put together a plan for the development of Pittsfield. The board discussed this approach at the beginning of last year. The board discussed clusters and senior housing, which got things started. CW sees the issue as either the town allows development on a maintained road or it does not. CW looked back at the history of the town. In 1990, class VI subdivisions went to the zoning board. That process worked well. The current vice-chair of the zoning board said that she wanted to see all of the class VI subdivisions. That process worked, but in 1993 [sic 2003], the board was told that it could not use that process because of how the zoning ordinance was written. There has been much discussion, and, unfortunately, it has been hard to get the discussion away from JP. But the board had much discussion about a plan for the town and what the board needed to make that plan. CW said that being in these board meetings is very difficult. CW is trying to help the town, and CW is proud of the conversations that the board had. The public hearings have hijacked the conversation. At the meeting right before the first public hearing, the board had an in-depth discussion about how to plan for the future of the town. All the board members participated and said that defining “frontage” was the first step. PH was the only one who had not agreed with class V frontage. In October, all of the other board members were saying that Amendment No. 3 is the first step that the town needs to take to move forward. The board had talked about working with the selectmen to create a class VI and private road policy, which some towns have. The board is not trying to stop all subdivision on class VI highways, but the zoning board already has in place a process that works; the 79% variance-granting frequency that TM mentioned is not for Epsom, it is for Pittsfield. The board has the 1990 class VI subdivision example, but later, the town attorney said not to use the variance procedure for class VI subdivision. The town has processes, but the problem is that the town does not always do things the same way. The vice-chair of the zoning board said that. The decision is difficult. The audience complains that the board is not listening. CW is trying his best to listen. CW has looked at 25 towns to see how they have developed a good plan. Developing such a plan is possible if the board and the public work together. Unfortunately, that discussion has not happened since October. In October, the board had that discussion and said that this definition needed to be done now. The problem with waiting is the precedent of things being inconsistent. CW said that he had used the term “favor” because there is no consistency in the town’s land-use-regulation practices. The waiver is not enough. The state law is that the town must consider the safety of the road. The zoning board is set up to do that; that is their job. The planning board had asked the fire chief whether he was in favor of it. He said, “Well, I think we need to reword it.” The board asked, “What do you do on a class VI road?” The fire chief said, “Well, we take our equipment down there, we try, we’re not going to let the place burn down.” There’s a dichotomy in all of these answers. Someone has to consider these things. The Local Government Center has a good article on RSA 674:41 preemption. The article summarizes the purpose of the statute as follows: “the purpose of this limitation of building on class VI highways is to provide against such scattered or premature subdivision as would necessitate an excessive expenditure of public funds.” The supreme court has said, “because the condition of the road substantially increased the risk to residents and emergency personnel and would create an increased possibility of financial impact to the town from increased liability or exposure to claims, injuries to town employees, and/or damage to town equipment.” The state has done this because the town cannot do it because of the emotion here in the audience. The state is protecting the town. The town is not saying that no one can subdivide on a class VI highway. CW said that PH had said that PH wanted to help family dependants and so forth. The board is still willing to consider those issues, but the board could find no way to do that without discriminating. The board has not found a way to use Diane Rider’s “generational-wealth” criterion. The board has to use something that relates to the conditions of the land, not the conditions of the sale. An owner is an owner. But, if the board could find a way, the whole board would be in favor. Bill Miskoe had said that the town needs a “frontage” definition. The definition is either restricted to maintained roads or not restricted to maintained roads. CW is the one who said that the neighboring towns have the class V standard in one form or the other. The board could have put this in the subdivision regulations without the town meeting vote. The surrounding towns have the class V standard in either the subdivision regulations or the zoning ordinance. Putting the class V standard in the zoning ordinance seemed the fairer place to put it. The planning board would work with the zoning board of adjustment. The planning board in 1990 had the right idea; that process worked well. There should be conditions on anyone building on a class VI highway because all of the class VI highways are different. PD had asked why not include class VI highways? CW said that the reason was that class VI highways are very similar to private roads. Leaving class VI out of the definition allows the zoning board of adjustment to apply the conditions that they have in their system. That is why the planning board decided on class V or better. CW sees no reason to think that the zoning board of adjustment will not treat applicants fairly. Property owners who already have an approved subdivision do not need the planning board’s approval to build. The selectmen have to ask for an opinion, nothing more, but the selectmen do not have to use that opinion, and they have not used it in the past, so the planning board knows that the planning board will not have much input in deciding such cases unless the planning board works with the board of selectmen to create a road policy. Subdivisions do have to come to the planning board and then to the board of selectmen and zoning board of adjustment. An applicant can appeal to the zoning board of adjustment to reverse a decision of the board of selectmen. CW suggests that the audience look at the minutes of October 20 to read the discussion that the planning board had on this town planning. The whole board was involved.

GL said that, at the selectmen’s meeting on January 31, GL asked the selectmen for guidance in how to vote on Amendment No. 3. On the basis of that input, GL drafted a statement, which GL read as follows: “The select board feels that Amendment 3 has no value for the citizens and the town of Pittsfield. Period.” GL said that the reason that he felt that statement is because Amendment No. 3 will not help the people on class VI highways and because GL thinks that Amendment 3 will so depress property values “that they will not be worth spit.” GL will not vote for this amendment.

CW asked to see GL’s statement.

GL pulled a 3-by-5 index card from his shirt pocket. GL said that his statement would be in the selectmen’s minutes for January 31.

CW asked why GL had not invited the rest of the planning board to the selectmen’s meeting.

GL said that the selectmen’s meetings are open to everyone.

CW asked whether GL were not a planning board member?

GL said that he is the selectmen’s representative. GL had asked for their guidance on this.

JP moved as follows: “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: None.

Vote that the final form of Amendment No. 3 shall be the same as the currently proposed Amendment No. 3, dated October 6, 2011: carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: PH and GL. Abstaining: none.)

TM closed the public hearing on Amendment No. 3 at 8:44 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Public Hearing – Citizen Petition

TM opened the public hearing on the citizen petition at 7:32 P.M. and read the notice of public hearing for the citizen petition:

“Are you in favour of amending the Zoning Ordinance to allow the following:

“Any Lot of Record located on a Class VI Road in Pittsfield shall be eligible to receive Planning Board approval for a Minor Subdivision Application if the lot meets the requirements of frontage and area. Such approval would create not more than three lots, none of which would be eligible for further subdivision prior to road improvement to Class V or better.”

JP moved to continue the public hearing on the citizen petition until after the board had voted on the final form of Amendment No. 3.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

GL asked for public input on the citizen petition.

PH said that it made more sense to finish with Amendment No. 3.

TM said that finishing with Amendment No. 3 would be easier.

Vote to continue the public hearing on the citizen petition until after the board has voted on the final form of Amendment No. 3: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: none.)

TM resumed the public hearing on the citizen petition at 8:44 P.M.

Bill Miskoe said that the citizen petition happened because some class VI owners had asked Bill Miskoe what would be the impact of Amendment No. 3. They wanted a way to guarantee their rights to do the things that they thought that they could do with their property. Bill Miskoe owns land on a class VI highway, but he is not affected because he has too short a frontage. The citizen petition responds to what Bill Miskoe thinks is a shortsighted and unnecessary frontage amendment that is being put on the ballot. Bill Miskoe hopes that class VI owners and others will see that class VI owners think that they have some rights and that they are being taken away and that the citizen petition is one way to mitigate that.

Hank Fitzgerald asked for confirmation that the planning board is holding a hearing on the citizen petition.

TM said yes.

Hank Fitzgerald said that a citizen created and filed the petition. The planning board does not have the right to judge and run the meeting. When the planning board held hearings on JP’s citizen petitions, the board directed questions to JP, not to the board. The board does not have a right to hold a hearing and vote on one and then hold a hearing and vote on an opposite one. The board does have to vote to recommend or not to recommend, but the board is not supposed to run the meeting; this is Bill Miskoe’s meeting. He is the one who filed it, not the planning board.

Diane Rider asked what would happen if both the citizen petition and Amendment 4 passed?

Bill Miskoe said that the class V frontage definition would stand, but the citizen petition would be an exception to it. Class VI frontage would qualify for a minor subdivision.

CW said that the planning board is simply trying to orchestrate the meeting. This is the first that CW knows that Bill Miskoe wrote the citizen petition.

Bill Miskoe said that RSA 675:4 says that the planning board shall “schedule” a public hearing, but nowhere does it say who “runs” the hearing. The planning board gets to recommend or not recommend.

TM asked whether there were more comments on the citizen petition.

Matt St. George asked for the citizen petition to be reread.

Bill Miskoe reread the citizen petition.

RC asked what did “frontage” mean?

Bill Miskoe answered that “frontage” means frontage on any public road. Everyone knows what frontage is, it just is not defined.

TM asked for a show of hands of support for the citizen petition. Most hands went up.

TM noted that there is no more public input, so he closed the public hearing at 8:53 P.M. and asked for board discussion.

TM said that he was concerned that the state law on class VI subdivision preempted the citizen petition.

Bill Miskoe asked which state law does not guarantee class VI subdivision.

CW cited RSA 674:41.

Bill Miskoe said that the planning board can use its discretion to approve class VI subdivision. Bill Miskoe sees no conflict between the citizen petition and RSA 674:41.

CW disagreed. There is preemption by the state. The Local Government Center has a lecture series on this matter this year. CW has their notes from this lecture series. Their notes make clear that “no zoning ordinance may waive the frontage requirements in the statute.” The statute that the Local Government Center is talking about is RSA 674:41. They have in parenthesis “although some have purported to do so.” Each class VI highway must be considered individually. To put in a blanket statement like “you’re eligible”

Bill Miskoe interrupted and said, “It’s eligible. It doesn’t mean it’s going to get it. It’s just eligible to apply.”

CW said, “Eligible is an interesting term because it can mean two things. Unfortunately, it can mean ‘right to.’ And it also can mean ‘right to with conditions.’ So that probably wasn’t the best terminology to use. If it means ‘eligible to try,’ then I don’t see what it’s given you. I’m not sure what it’s given you. It doesn’t seem to be any different than what we have right now. If the Amendment 3 doesn’t go through, I don’t see it giving you any more than what you have now. So I just assumed that it meant the other definition. If you look it up, you will see both things.”

Bill Miskoe said that he had written the petition and gathered signatures all during one week. No lawyer reviewed it before he filed it. The town attorney said that it was poorly written but that it could not be rewritten. Bill Miskoe thought that, if it came to a court case, the court would conclude that the intent was to give class VI owners relief from the class V frontage requirement. “Eligible” may not be the best word.

CW referred to the purpose statement and said, “I’m assuming that’s not going to be in there.”

Bill Miskoe said, “That’s not going to be in there.”

CW said, “So basically anybody, even though that’s the purpose of putting it together, anybody can do a minor subdivision. It doesn’t matter what your intention is.”

Bill Miskoe said, “That’s right. That purpose was propaganda on my part to get people to sign.”

CW said that, because of the state preemption, CW could see no difference between the citizen petition and what the town has now.

Bill Miskoe said that, if Amendment No. 3 passed, then the class VI people will have had their subdivision rights taken away. The citizen petition intends to circumvent Amendment No. 3.

Donna Keeley interrupted without being recognized by the chair and without identifying herself and said, “Can’t it be rewritten so that it’s more clear, and there’s not voting happening on two things?”

CW said, “no.”

Donna Keeley continued to speak without being recognized by the chair and without identifying herself and said, “I’m not asking you.”

Bill Miskoe said that the petition could not be changed.

JP said that he had had extensive discussion of the citizen petition with the Local Government Center. The petition might mean an exception, or it might mean that class VI subdivisions must meet frontage and area requirements whatever they may be. Therefore, if Amendment No. 3 passed, the citizen petition might reinforce Amendment No. 3 instead being what the petitioners want. The Local Government Center said that this petition might act differently than the petitioners say that they hope. JP had asked what “eligible to receive Planning Board approval for a Minor Subdivision Application” means as that phrase is used in the citizen petition. The Local Government Center did not know, and JP does not know. JP does not know what the citizen petition is going to do or what it means. JP said that it was unfortunate that the board and the public could not have had more real and honest discussion on compromise. The board must consider the words of the petition as they are and not what people wish those words were.

CW said that the board as a whole would support what the petitioners want if the board could find a legal way to do it. The board has found no such legal way.

Matt St. George suggested that the board reopen Amendment No. 3, defeat it, and work on satisfying the class VI owners next year. In that case, the petitioners might campaign against their own proposal.

CW said that Amendment No. 3 does not preclude a solution to the class VI problem, so CW will not support reopening Amendment No. 3. The citizen petition will be on the ballot regardless of what the planning board says. CW said that CW and JP are saying that they do not know how the citizen petition helps the class VI owners.

Matt St. George said that Amendment No. 3 is also confusing.

Bill Miskoe and CW discussed the relationship between Amendment No. 3, class VI subdivision, and variances.

TM asked that the discussion return to the citizen petition.

Larry Konopka discussed Amendment No. 3, variances, and allowing class VI subdivision by special exception. Special exceptions are much easier to get than variances. The special exception process would remove the objections to Amendment No. 3.

JP said that he did not want to get too far from the citizen petition. JP said that Larry Konopka had raised an interesting point. JP said that TM had asked JP to draft an Amendment No. 4 that would create a special exception that JP thought was a legal alternative to requiring class V highway frontage in some of these cases. Unfortunately, the January 5 defeat of Amendment No. 3 derailed Amendment No. 4. JP said that he had worked very hard on a compromise, and that he had drafted Amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 4 is not a governmental record because TM and JP are the only people who have seen it. JP had hoped that there would be an Amendment No. 4 as a compromise, but it is too late for Amendment No. 4 this year. Amendment No. 4 could go up next year, and there is no conflict with doing Amendment No. 3 this year and Amendment No. 4 next year. JP said that he wanted to return to the citizen petition.

Hank Fitzgerald said that the citizen petition may not be worded well, but the citizen petition will not supersede the board’s right to deem a project scattered and premature. The petition might have to be rewritten and resubmitted.

TM said that the petition is going on the ballot as is.

JP said that his notes indicated that public input closed at 8:53 P.M. JP asked whether TM had reopened public input and, if TM had reopened public input, when he had reopened it.

TM said that he had reopened public input 5 minutes later. But in fact, TM had not reopened public input at all.

Bill Miskoe said that he favored the citizen petition because Amendment No. 3 is a deliberate attempt to prevent all subdivision on class VI highways. The town attorney had said that changing a citizen petition is not appropriate.

CW said that, according to state law, when two provisions conflict, the stricter one controls.

Bill Miskoe said that defeating Amendment No. 3 will solve the problem because no one will invoke the citizen petition.

Bob Elliott said that the zoning ordinance works as it is now. It does not need Amendment No. 3. A one-size-fits-all approach is not necessary at this time. Bob Elliott asked why did the board have a public hearing and waste everyone’s time. The purpose of a public hearing is to take input and modify what the board is doing. Everyone is against Amendment No. 3. Bob Elliott asked the board to reverse its vote on Amendment No. 3 and then design an exception to class V highway frontage.

Matt St. George said that the board did have time to work on Amendment No. 4. The board is choosing not to listen to the public. Matt St. George discussed the board’s presentation of Amendment No. 3.

Bill Miskoe also discussed the board’s presentation of Amendment No. 3.

Andy Osborne asked about the purpose of Amendment No. 3.

TM said that the frontage issue had come up in the context of the senior housing article that the town adopted last year. In order to redo the cluster subdivisions and major subdivisions, the town has to define “frontage.”

JP said that TM had said that TM had reopened public input on the citizen petition at 8:58 P.M. JP does not want to interrupt public input on the citizen petition, but JP has not heard any discussion of the citizen petition recently.

TM asked the hearing to return to the citizen petition.

Diane Rider referred to the potential conflict between the citizen petition and Amendment No. 3, and the problem that the citizen petition might reinforce Amendment No. 3. She wants to know why the exception approach did not go forward as a compromise.

Bill Miskoe said that the citizen petition was strictly in response to the restrictiveness of Amendment No. 3. If Amendment No. 3 is not on the ballot and does not pass, then probably no one will invoke the citizen petition because it will not be needed.

Hank Fitzgerald said, “The best way for the public as a whole to deal with this issue is realize that two members sitting up there, the chairman and the vice-chair, are both up for their terms this year and need to be reelected or replaced.”

TM closed the hearing on the citizen petition to public input at 9:30 P.M.

JP said that Mrs. Rider had a very interesting question about an exception, and JP wanted to answer it. The short answer is that the thing for which an exception is to be made must be defined before the exception itself can be defined. The reason that the board did not get to defining the exception is because Amendment No. 3 was defeated on January 5. But nothing stops the exception from being defined next year. Amendment No. 3 would still have to come before Amendment No. 4.

JP suggested deliberating on the citizen petition.

TM asked board members for their comments.

GL had no comment.

CW repeated his concern that the petition may not be legal because state law preempts it.

JP repeated his concern that JP does not know what the citizen petition does. If it does what the petitioners says is their purpose, then the petition tries to preempt the state. The most favorable thing that the petition might do is nothing. If it does anything, then the petition would appear to be harmful because it will not do what the petitioners say that they want. JP does not know what the enabling authority is. JP will not campaign against the citizen petition, but JP cannot vote to recommend something that he does not understand.

CW moved that the ballot should say, “Not Recommended by the Planning Board.”

JP seconded the motion.

TM called for a vote on the motion that the ballot should say, “Not Recommended by the Planning Board.”

PH said that he would vote “yes” because he feared that the citizen petition might make things even more restrictive if Amendment No. 3 passed.

GL said, “I’m going to abstain. I don’t want to vote on this.”

Vote on the motion that the ballot should say, “Not Recommended by the Planning Board.”: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: GL.)

AGENDA ITEM 7: Approval of Minutes of January 19, 2012

CW moved to approve the minutes of January 19, 2012, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked for the following change:
Agenda Item 6 (page 5): change “bought and ad” to “bought an ad”

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

Vote to approve the minutes of January 19, 2012,with the change that JP requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 8: Adjournment

PH moved to adjourn the meeting.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of February 2, 2012: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of February 2, 2012, is adjourned at 9:38 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Approval of Minutes of January 5, 2012

JP proposed the following changes to the draft minutes of January 5, 2012:

Agenda Item 4 (page 6): change “JP discussed property values” to “JP discussed property values, noting that GL had been very concerned about tax revenues”

Agenda Item 4 (page 6): change

GL said that the selectmen had asked the town administrator to ask Cross-Country Appraisals whether the amendment would turn class VI property into so-called back land. The town administrator had chosen not to ask. Consequently, GL will probably vote “no.”

to

GL said, “When I made that statement at the selectmen meeting, and I am not going to correctly quote it, I just wrote it down from quick memory, what I stated at the selectmen meeting was what was suggested by Hank, calling it ‘back land.’”

JP said, “Right.”

GL said, “I wanted the assessor to give us, to answer that one question. I, we instructed the TA, the select board did, to have the assessor, for him to approach the assessor with that question. He chose not to do so.”

JP said, “Oh, really?”

GL said, “He did not go to the assessor.”

JP said, “Okay.”

GL said, “So by not going to the assessor, the question was never answered.”

JP said, “Well, I did go to the assessor.”

GL, said, “Yes.”

TM asked, “Now, the TA is who?”

GL said, “The town administrator.”

TM said, “Oh, oh, okay.”

JP said, “In fact, I talked to the town administrator to let him know what I was doing and that I had talked to Cross-Country Appraisals.”

GL said, “Yes, but he was instructed by, to put that question by e-mail so we had it in writing. He chose not to do so. He, because you two talked, you went over.”

JP said, “I didn’t, no, that’s not true.”

TM said, “Oh no, he was going to contact him.”

JP said, “In fact, Ted reemphasized that he was going to contact him after we talked to him.”

TM said, “Yes, I said, ‘You’re going to talk to him.’”

JP said, “I was talking, I made it clear that I was talking to him as a courtesy. Ted, he can confirm that one of the last things is he said, ‘when you talk to the appraiser.’”

GL said, “The town administrator never did it.”

JP said, “Well, that’s not my fault.”

GL said, “No, I know it’s not your fault. But by him choosing not to do that, he basically snubbed his nose at the four selectmen that requested it.”

TM said, “Right.”

GL said, “And that didn’t sit well with me. And it didn’t answer my question. And when a question ain’t answered by your bosses, and it’s a simple question, all I wanted to do was find out if that word, term ‘back land’ was going to cause an impact on the tax rate. You answered the question, I agree. But the appraiser did not because the town administrator chose not to do it.”

TM said, “You didn’t have anything in writing.”

GL said, “And I didn’t have nothing in writing. So I will probably be voting against this because of that alone, because I do not like to be snubbed by my employees.”

TM said, “Well, let’s deal with Amendment 1 first. Have you got that ready to?”

JP asked, “Well, do we know what we’re going to do on this?”

CW said, “Leave it as is.”

TM said, “Pardon?”

CW asked, “Leave it as is?”

TM said, “Yes.”

JP asked, “Are we satisfied with it?”

TM said, “Yes, I am.”

Agenda Item 4 (page 7): change

TM said that he thought that Amendment No. 3 would pass if it were proposed to the town, but TM was concerned that the resentment by class VI owners would cause a rift from which the town would never recover.

CW and JP disagreed with TM. The fact that some people have not attended these hearings does not mean that those people have no interest.

GL said that he will vote “no” because the town administrator did not do as the selectmen had asked him to do.

TM said that the board should have one additional hearing on Amendment No. 3.

to

TM said, “Okay, now the stickier one. We’re not ready to vote on that because I do have misgivings. I don’t know that I’m willing to promote something that is going to cause a rift in town. All the boards, the selectmen, all the committees, EDC, seem to have the same vision for the town. And this is the first time that I’ve seen that the town is actually working as one to accomplish something. And I am just afraid that if this goes up, it gets passed, which I believe it will get passed, it’s going to cause a problem in town, and who knows what the ramifications will be for the future of the town as far as people’s willing to cooperate with other people and so forth. So that is my concern. Anyways. Anybody else? [Long pause] And it’s not because I necessarily believe the doomsday scenarios that people have, have said. It’s just that, if that is the perception, even if it’s not actuality, it, in itself, causes a problem. Jim?”

JP asked, “Did I hear you just right say you think it would pass if it were put on the ballot?”

TM said, “It would be passed by people that had no stake in it, personal stake. And since I have seen not one person in these three meetings that were on a class V, other than Ralph, I have a concern. If there was more public participation, then I would feel a lot better about it. And I know that we have put it out, we put it on the web site, we do this and that. And we’ve done more than I think any other board has done to try to get the information out. But there’s no indication that anybody has paid attention and interested enough to be here.”

CW said, “Well, to be fair, there’s not much information that’s gone out. They, let’s realize that, people don’t pay attention until now. There’ll be plenty of information going out. There’ll be plenty of letters written, and then plenty of time to educate people. And, you know, just saying these other people are voting and don’t have a stake in it, I disagree. I think that it’s very hard for amendments to pass in this town. They vote ‘no’ if they don’t understand. And this is general terms, but I think the general terms hold up. There’s no proof of it. Things don’t pass very easily in this town. So we have an opportunity to educate people. People feel against it, they vote ‘no,’ or the people that don’t pay attention I believe will vote ‘no.’ But that’s the tendency to do it. I mean, look at the votes, they never even add up to the total number of people that voted on the amendments. It’s always, some people don’t even do anything on them. So, you know, to say that these people don’t have a stake in it, we don’t really know, we don’t really know now. We have the opportunity to make our point and educate the public and, and without having the back and forth. That’s the problem with this type of forum. It gets very, very personal very quickly. I’m really sick and tired of hearing about Jim Pritchard is running this committee. You talk about point of order. Please. The accusations made against this guy, are we going to provide one statement? I would have blown up a long time ago. Let me defend this poor man. I would have blown up a long time ago. I blow up just to listening how he gets treated. I could go over there and spit on him and show him more respect than this town shows him. I’m a little tired of it. I’m the one that brought up class, I’m the one that brought this up, because when we went over to talk about the stupid job we did last year, when we had the senior housing and realized the senior housing went against clusters, and if you look at the RSAs, if you want to ignore it, fine, but if you look at the RSAs, the more stringent thing wins. So the clusters, you can’t do this unless you combine them. So we said, ‘gee, we’re going to have to combine those things to give the town what they wanted, they voted the senior housing in.’ It’s all in these minutes that Jim magically put together for us. And boy does he get a lot of thank you for it. Oh, by the way, the tape, one night the tape didn’t work because somebody moved everything around so the speakers weren’t connected, that’s why I check this, if we didn’t have his tape, we made copies for the town.”

Larry Konopka interrupted without being recognized by the chair and without identifying himself and said, “You know, I really don’t like this shit. I come to a hearing and listen to get educated what you guys are proposing. Now I’m getting browbeated again. That’s what happened the last time.”

CW interrupted and said, “You’re not getting browbeaten.”

Larry Konopka continued and asked, “Are you going to allow a board member to sit there and browbeat in the public? He’s sitting there raising his voice.”

TM said, “He’s raising his voice, he is not attacking any individual. He is making a comment.”

CW said, “Someone’s got to stand up for this guy.”

Larry Konopka said, “I don’t need to hear. I come here to get educated and see you guys work as a team.”

TM said, “It’s done, now, Clayton. That’s enough.”

Larry Konopka said, “To work as a team.”

TM said, “Anyways.”

CW said, “It’s appalling.”

TM said, “That’s the way I see it. And we’ve done a lot of work on it. There’s some merit in it, but I don’t think it’s going to accomplish what we want it to accomplish. I think it’s going to have side effects that we don’t anticipate. If it was more clear-cut, but I just don’t see it that way. I think there’s a problem”

JP said, “I think your attitude is most unfortunate. One of the members of the public, I think it was Hank, but I’m not sure, said that I had put up a class V frontage proposal, I think he said, seven times. Is that right, Clayton, do you remember?”

TM said, “Yes.”

JP said, “I believe he said that. That is simply not true. What has happened is I have put this up through citizen petition three times. And each of those three times, the planning board has stamped it ‘Not Recommended by the Planning Board’ right on the ballot. Three times, the planning board has tried to get class VI allowed. Three times, the most recent being last year. And it has been shot down each of those three times with the full weight of the planning board behind it. In I think it was 2009, they put up a standalone article, and it was shot down by approximately 3 or 4 to one. I think it was 3 to one, but it could have been 4 to one, I’m not sure. So what we have had is we have had a total of six attempts: three on one side and three on the other. But, in each of those six attempts, the planning board has tried to get either the status quo of nothing, or it has tried to get class VI. So that’s six times that the planning board has stood in the way of letting the town make a truly informed decision on this matter. And what I’m hearing from you is you’re hearing about five people, most of whom are class VI owners, and they are very upset about this, and we’re deciding that this is going to be a terrible thing for the town because they’re going to be upset. And we talked about the fact that, if these roads get built out, this could be an occasion for a class VI highway, and this could burden taxpayers. You know, Chief Johnson came in here and said it’s a problem when you allow this development because, you know, what did he say—‘You know, we can’t say, well, you built out there, too bad, and let it burn.’—that’s what he said. He said it’s a problem for the fire department; it’s a problem for the taxpayers. And what we’re saying is, well, these people didn’t show up to defend their future tax bills. The future buyers didn’t come in here to defend themselves. And because they didn’t come in, we’re not going to, we’re not going to protect their interests. Well, I’m sorry, I think that’s wrong. This board is here to protect the town, not the few class VI owners who show up because they want to do something and it’s going to be harder, not impossible, but harder if this passes. I think that’s, you know, now we’re going to make it 7 and 0 that the planning board has been on the class VI side of things. And, you know, to say, well, the town, things are going great right now. It’s isn’t because this board has been saying, ‘let’s do class VI.’ That is not what has made this board be productive this year. We have been trying to create guidelines, we have been trying to create standards, we have been trying to make things fair for people. The class V proposal is a big part of the reason why it is that things have been going well. If we decide we’re going to shift gears, and let’s do things the way they were done the past six in a row, I predict that what we’re going to do is we’re going to very quickly return to the way things were done during those six in a row. This year has been remarkably different, and I’d like to keep it different. I don’t want to go back to the way things were when, when, you know, bang, bang, bang, we’re going to have class VI. That’s, that’s my feeling. I think that’s a mistake.”

Bill Miskoe interrupted without being recognized by the chair and without identifying himself and said, “I’ve been very vocal tonight, and I am not affected by.”

JP asked, “Is public input still open?”

TM said, “We’re discussing it with ourselves, now.”

Bill Miskoe said, “I just want to be on the record. I am not affected.”

TM said, “You already said this before, Bill.”

JP asked, “Do I have to take minutes of his comments? Do I take minutes of his comments?”

TM said, “No.”

JP said, “Thank you.”

Bill Miskoe said, “Just listen to them.”

TM said, “Gerard?”

GL said, “I’m still, like I said, when I didn’t get my answers from what I stated at the select board, I do not like my, the people who I ask, who are professionals, not do their jobs. When he didn’t do his job, I was offended. And I will not support this.”

CW said, “So that’s the thanks I get for showing up how many Thursdays have we been here? We could have been staying home because nothing’s happening in the town. We took the opportunity to really review, to really think through it. We did more on just that one parking proposal than we did on all the stuff we proposed last year. We looked for cause and effect. And I just, I agree, I think we might as well just go back to the way things were.”

JP said, “Yes.”

CW said, “You look at the minutes, whether you believe the minutes or not, you look at the minutes, you see a mature board that got along, had different opinions. We had Fred Hast representing the selectmen. I actually reviewed all the minutes after the first one, after the first public hearing. I read through all the minutes because it’s easy to get emotionally involved in this and be concerned about destroying the town. I take that very personally. I read through all the minutes. I was very impressed with the way this board behaved compared to my three years as an alternate on this board. It was disgusting. So, and we had two different people in here, and we had a variety of opinions, and now we just, that’s it. All that work, hey, a few people have done it. I’m not dissing their opinions, but I’d like to hear from the rest of the town. That’s the opportunity we have here. We have a chance, as a board, to educate the people in what we believe is right. We get challenged to go see what the other towns are doing. I did that. We get challenged to call up Local Government Center. I’ve done that. They’ve done a whole seminar series on this, by the way. And that article.”

JP interrupted and said, “We get challenged on property values. I’ve looked at about 80 tax cards.”

CW said, “It doesn’t seem to matter. So.”

TM said, “We’re still discussing.”

CW said, “We’re willing to do our homework, and we’re willing to bring it up to the town and have the town vote on it.”

TM said, “I think we should have one final public hearing on this. One final one.”

JP said, “We still have to, we’re still statutorily required”

TM said, “Oh, wait a minute.”

JP continued, “to vote on this.”

TM said, “Yes.”

JP said, “And, if you vote it down.”

TM said, “Now, now, if, wait a minute, wait a minute. What is the limitation as far as our amendments or our ballot initiatives, when does that have to be in? Is it different than the public, the citizen petition?”

JP said, “No, it all has to be, the deadline is all the same as far as when the last public hearing can be. And you talked about having a work session on this. I hope you’re thinking about having that work session next week, because if you’re thinking about the week thereafter, that will be too late to get notices in the paper.”

TM said, “No, we’re getting, the notice is going to go in next week.”

JP said, “Yes, that’s right. So, I mean, whatever we do, it’s going to be etched in stone tonight.”

TM said, “I know that.”

JP said, “We have to vote.”

TM continued, “I realize that, and we will have another public hearing on this as well as the citizen petition same night.”

JP asked, “We’re going to have another hearing on Amendment No. 3?”

TM said, “I want one more.”

JP said, “Are you, are you going to vote on it?”

TM said, “Yes.”

JP said, “Okay.”

CW said, “We are going to change the ground rules at that meeting.”

TM said, “Yes, absolutely.”

CW said, “I’m a little tired of hearing about lawsuits and all that stuff. We have got to change the ground rules.”

TM said, “It’s going to be an abbreviated time slot. Jim?”

JP said, “I’d like to point out that, for years, I, on my computer, I have got records of letters that I’ve written to town officials up the wazoo. Just about every member of the board of adjustment who’s been on that board for the past I don’t know how many years, I’ve written to them and said, ‘would you be willing to work with me?’ Carole Dodge was willing to work with me. Dan Greene was willing to work with me. Those are the two town officials that I can think of who responded. Other than that.”

TM said, “Okay, Jim.”

JP said, “The point is—there’s a point. You opened this issue yourself, Ted, when you said, ‘this is going to create a rift.’ I have been reaching out to people for years. I’m not telling you who didn’t respond. I’m just telling you an awful lot of people didn’t respond. How many times have I asked at this meeting, ‘What do you want? What’s the compromise?’ And what I’m hearing is ‘I want carte blanche.’ That’s what they’re saying. Nobody is saying, ‘Well, we understand this could put an undue burden on taxpayers.’ They don’t want that. They want it allowed as a matter of right. That is coming across loud and clear. Now, the state doesn’t allow that, but what they want is they want a statement from the town that it is to be allowed. They haven’t been able to get that, so the next best thing is nothing. But it’s not as if I haven’t been reaching out to these people for years and years and years, trying to reach a compromise. Now, if we’re talking about rifts, you know, the only way that this rift that you’re talking about is going to be sealed is if the people who feel strongly about the class V issue are going to have to be squashed. They are the ones, they have been to the past hearings that the planning board had when they were proposing class VI, and they were very angry about it, and they expressed their anger at the polls. To think that these people now don’t care I think is very naïve. I think that they’ve looked at this board and they’ve seen that we’ve been professional and that we’ve been doing what we should be doing, and they’re thinking, ‘We don’t need to come in and scream at these people, because they’re doing their job.’ And frankly, I don’t want to let these people down. I was elected to do something, and I can tell you for sure, I wasn’t elected to support class VI frontage.”

TM said, “Okay, we’re going to vote on this. No matter what the vote is, we’re still going to have one final public hearing.”

CW asked, “Will we have enough time for legal review?”

TM said, “Yes.”

CW said, “You say, ‘yes,’ but we’re running out of time really fast. We still need legal review.”

TM said, “If they all have to be.”

CW asked, “When does it have to get to the selectmen?”

JP said, “Well there, here’s the situation as far as legal review goes. If we don’t turn this in now, we can forget about legal review. Because the next time that we can have a hearing is in February. And then we have to give it to the”

TM said, “to the selectmen on the 7th.”

JP said, “That’s five days later.”

TM said, “Yes, so it will have to be all finalized after the public hearing on the 2nd.”

JP said, “Yes, but if we’re talking about legal review, we didn’t talk about that before, but if we’re talking about legal review.”

CW said, “Well, we can get the first two done.”

JP asked, “What?”

CW said, “We can get the first two done. We voted, no, I’m saying Amendment 1 and Amendment 2 we can get done. We don’t have to wait. We can get that finalized.”

TM said, “Yes, because there’s not going to be any more public.”

JP said, “In order for legal review to be done, you know, I got all kinds of comments from the Local Government Center, ‘well, you know, you don’t need to figure this out until after the town adopts it.’ Anyway, I don’t know what we’re discussing anymore. Should I make the motion?”

TM said, “Yes.”

Agenda Item 4 (page 7): change

Discussion: None

to

Discussion:

TM said, “Since we’re going to have one more hearing.”

CW said, “You have to ask for the vote.”

TM said, “I’m sorry, I just have to say ‘no’ to this one. Sorry.”

CW asked, “Did you ask for the vote?”

TM said, “Yes. Those in favor?”

JP and CW voted “Aye.”

TM said, “Those opposed?”

PH, GL, and TM voted “No.”

Agenda Item 4 (page 7): change

TM said that he wanted to know how often Epsom allowed subdivision on class VI highways.

JP said that the Pittsfield ZBA was a better indicator than the Epsom ZBA was of what the Pittsfield ZBA would do.

to

JP said, “I don’t know why we’re having another public hearing.”

CW said, “We have to have it for the citizen petition.”

JP said, “Yes, but we won’t be having a public hearing on the frontage thing, I assume. It’s just been killed”

CW said, “It’s just been voted down.”

JP said, “That’s the end of it.”

CW said, “The public hearing is for the citizen petition.”

JP said, “Yes.”

TM asked, “Now, that frontage can’t be on the ballot because it’s been shot down?”

JP said, “We just killed it.”

CW said, “We just killed it.”

PH said, “which takes care of the citizen petition.”

JP, CW, and TM said, “No, we can’t take that off the ballot.”

PH said, “Oh, all right, all right.”

GL said, “The citizen petition has to go on the ballot because it’s been polled by citizens.”

PH said, “Okay.”

JP said, “Absolutely.”

GL said, “That’s the law.”

TM said, “The only reason I did that is I wanted to check with Epsom and see what the statistics are as far as what has been approved for subdivision and the ones that weren’t. I should have thought of that ahead.”

CW said, “Yes.”

TM said, “Actually, we all should have thought of that ahead.”

JP said, “I think we pretty much thought of everything.”

CW said, “I’m sorry I didn’t think of it.”

JP said, “I can’t agree with you, Ted.”

TM said, “I know, look, I know you’re, I know you’re upset with me, but, look, we work together, and if it happens, it happens. I had to go with my gut. I’m sorry. And if.”

CW said, “I’m a big boy. I can take it.”

TM said, “But don’t throw that away.”

JP said, “Don’t throw what away?”

TM said, “What’s been done on that, because.”

JP said, “Because why?”

TM said, “If I find out the information that I want, and it satisfies my questions.”

JP said, “What are your questions?”

TM said, “I want to find out the percentage of people that went before the Town of Epsom to get a subdivision on a class VI. The percentage that was approved and the percentage that were not.”

JP asked, “What are you looking for in that?”

TM said, “To see if it is a deal killer. If they have ever allowed it. And if they haven’t, that indicates to me that there could be a problem.”

JP asked, “Why don’t you do something that’s a little closer to home, like go to the Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment and look at how many special exceptions they’ve approved, how many variances they’ve approved, and figure out how many variances they’ve denied. You know, I can tell you, Susan Muenzinger, who was on the board a few years ago, stood before the planning board at a meeting that was over in the high school and said, ‘hey, we approve pretty much everything.’ Now, you know, what are you going to Epsom for to find out what their zoning board of adjustment does when we have one right here, and we know what they are going to do?”

TM said, “But they have a definition of ‘frontage,’ and we don’t.”

JP said, “Ted, we, we, we, I’m sorry, we’ve been over this. We discussed this. Let me refresh your memory.”

Matt St. George interrupted without being recognized by the chair and without identifying himself and said, “This.”

JP continued and said, “I have information that I passed around.”

Matt St. George interrupted without being recognized by the chair and without identifying himself and asked, “That, that vote’s done? So the class V.”

JP interrupted Matt St. George and said, “Yup, it’s done. Yup, this has been killed.”

Matt St. George said, “It’s not on the ballot this year, is that on the record?”

TM said, “We not saying it won’t be next year, but not this year.”

Larry Konopka spoke without being recognized by the chair and without identifying himself and asked, “How much longer before public input?”

TM asked, “Everybody got the building inspector’s page, there, two lines?”

PH said, “Yes.”

TM said, “There’s been seven, what is it, permits. Selectmen’s report.”

AGENDA ITEM 6: Approval of Minutes of January 12, 2012

JP proposed the following change to the draft minutes of January 12, 2012:

Agenda Item 5 (page 3): change

After looking at the notice for tonight’s hearing and consulting the blue book of statutes, JP advised TM to halt the meeting immediately because Bill Miskoe is correct about the notice defect. The notice of tonight’s meeting does not state the place of the meeting.

TM halted the meeting at 7:21 P.M.

to

After looking at the notice for tonight’s hearing and consulting the blue book of statutes, JP said, “Ted, I really think I need to bring something to your attention. I’m not certain that this meeting should continue, because it seems to me plain that Bill is correct, the notice does not include the place of the meeting. We have to correct this and do whatever is necessary.”

CW said, “I got four notices here, this is standard procedure.”

JP said, “I realize that; however, this is not a standard situation. We have somebody who, you know, I have been down this notice thing before, as Bill knows very, very well. We can’t afford to have any blemish on this notice at all. We’ve had this before. We had a zoning proposal before, it was a defective notice, and this kept an important proposal off the ballot. The town attorney said, ‘you didn’t notice it properly, too bad.’ That’s what happened. And I strongly urge you to call a halt to this meeting immediately.”

TM said, “Okay, the meeting is closed.” at 7:21 P.M.

Minutes approved: February 16, 2012

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on February 4, 2012, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on February 2, 2012, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on February 3, 2012.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

2 Town tapes.