February 6, 2014 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, February 6, 2014

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.

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 reminded board members that the town would be holding an all-boards meeting on Saturday, February 8, 2014, at 9:00 A.M. in the cafeteria of the Pittsfield Elementary School on 34 Bow Street, Pittsfield, NH.

CW said that he would be nominating two candidates to represent Pittsfield on the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission. CW said that he would make this nomination after agenda item 6.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approvals of the Minutes of the January 27, 2014 and January 6, 2014 Meetings

EN moved to approve the minutes of January 27, 2014, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW asked that the date of the minutes, “Thursday, January 27, 2014”, be changed to “Monday, January 27, 2014”.

Vote to approve the minutes of January 27, 2014, with the change that CW requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

EN moved to approve the minutes of the board’s second meeting on January 6, 2014, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

JP asked for the following changes:

Page 1, Date: change “Thursday, January 6, 2014” to “Monday, January 6, 2014”.
Page 2: change “AGENDA ITEM 4” to “AGENDA ITEM 3”.
Page 14: change “an “official map,” presumably” to “an ‘official map,’ presumably”.
Page 19: change “AGENDA ITEM 5” to “AGENDA ITEM 4”.

Vote to approve the minutes of the board’s second meeting on January 6, 2014, with the changes that JP requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

EN moved to approve the minutes of the board’s first meeting on January 6, 2014, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW asked that the date of the minutes, “Thursday, January 6, 2014”, be changed to “Monday, January 6, 2014”.

Vote to approve the minutes of the board’s first meeting on January 6, 2014, with the change that CW requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 5: Application for a Voluntary Lot Merger filed by Leo and Betty Aubertin, 37 Kaime Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 of property located at 9 Catamount Road (Tax Map U02, Lot 32) and 11 Catamount Road, (Tax Map U02, Lot 33) Pittsfield, NH 03262 located in the LIGHT INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL Zone.

CW said that the Aubertins had not answered the board’s letter warning them that their requested lot merger would erase grandfather protection that the two nonconforming lots to be merged currently have.

BM said that the proposed merger is of (1) a lot that has a building and (2) a lot that has a parking lot. The merged lot will be a through lot but will be more conforming than the current two lots.

BM moved to approve the proposed voluntary lot merger of tax map U-02, lot 32, and tax map U-02, lot 33.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

BM asked whether the applicants had submitted a survey plan.

CW said that the applicants did not have to submit a survey plan. (RSA 674:39-a.)

BM asked who decides the tax map and lot number of the merged lot.

CW said that the selectmen’s administrative assistant, Cara Marston, had already decided the tax map, lot number, and street address. The property will be tax map U-02, lot 33, 11 Catamount Road.

Jesse Pacheco asked whether the board could withhold merger approval if there were some violation of town regulations at the property.

CW and JP said that the town could withhold approval if and only if “such merger would create a violation of then-current ordinances or regulations.” (RSA 674:39-a.) Because the merged lot will itself be a new nonconforming lot, CW and JP thought that the board technically could disapprove the lot merger.

BM disagreed and said that the merger would not create any new nonconformance.

Vote to approve the proposed voluntary lot merger of tax map U-02, lot 32, and tax map U-02, lot 33: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 6: Commercial District Map Review – Jesse Pacheco

Building inspector Jesse Pacheco displayed a color-coded map of Pittsfield’s Commercial District. Green indicates residential areas, and orange indicates nonresidential areas. The map is more green than orange. Jesse Pacheco said that the board should decide whether the Commercial District will be a commercial area or a residential area. Jesse Pacheco thought that the board might want to “do something with [Route] 28 instead of having it industrial and then turn around and make it commercial.”

BM said that Jesse Pacheco’s division of uses as residential and nonresidential is less helpful than a division of uses as commercial and noncommercial. The Episcopal church, the police station, the town hall, and the historical society are not commercial. By contrast, rental apartments are commercial. BM said that planning development on Route 28 is a matter separate from planning development in the Commercial District.

Jesse Pacheco said that planning development on Route 28 is relevant to the discussion of the Commercial District because Route 28 traffic that used to pass through the Commercial District now bypasses the district and, as a consequence, development on Route 28 is necessary to make the town grow.

BM said that the board should “admit that residential is a legitimate commercial activity in the downtown area, and let’s make it good residential. Let’s bring in some people who’ve got some money and some initiative. If we turn the residential part of this downtown area around and make it good residential, that people want to live in, pay good rent, pay good money, you’ll get people with money, and then there’ll be some businesses start up.”

Jesse Pacheco said that the town had created the problem by allowing single-family homes to be turned into multi-family dwellings when the town had no zoning ordinance.

CW said that the only residential use allowed in the Commercial District is the “combined dwelling and business.” (Zoning ordinance article 2, table 1, Zoning Districts and Uses.) The problematic apartments are not allowed under the zoning ordinance. The town has added to the problems since 2005, when CW moved into town. CW said that anyone who wants residential buildings in the Commercial District must get the zoning ordinance changed to allow them.

Jesse Pacheco said that he had been part of the zoning board of adjustment that had made some of these problems. Educating people about the problem and how it gets worse is critical to solving it.

CW said that the surrounding Urban District was more suitable than the Commercial District for the apartments that BM was proposing.

JP said that the board should learn what the state will allow for access from Route 28. Various town officials have different opinions. JP said that he intended to ask the state directly.

CW said that the downtown development problems stood on their own separate from potential development on Route 28. Allowing residential development in the Commercial District will make solving the loss of commerce impossible. The idea of making an interconnected community with a downtown area makes sense. Most other communities have lost this character of their towns.

JP emphasized what CW had said earlier: The discussion starts with whether the zoning ordinance is going to be changed to allow apartments in the Commercial District.

CW said that the board needs to develop a plan for the downtown. The downtown is a valuable asset that other towns do not have.

Jesse Pacheco suggested that some of the downtown apartments may be unlawful in that they were never permitted by the planning board or zoning board of adjustment.

JP said that the master plan questionnaire said that the town strongly opposes residences in the Commercial District. A zoning amendment to allow residences in the Commercial District would fail.

CW said that the town so far has had no plan. The town has to develop a plan with broad-based town support.

Jesse Pacheco said that apartments continue to proliferate. The town boards continue to allow the proliferation.

JP was skeptical that rental apartments with no on-lot parking spaces, as BM is proposing, could command high rents.

EN said that, for a plan, the town would have to buy residential properties and then sell them but that the town is not in the real estate business. The apartment-building owners have no reason to improve their buildings. The owners are already making money.

BM said that the town should create what BM called a “tax-incentive district” for developers to build high-quality residential rental housing in the Commercial District. The “tax-incentive” plan would “commit the town to finding some grant money to buy up blighted properties” and then leasing the properties to developers for 30 years. The lease payments would equal what the tax payments would have been if the developers themselves owned the land except that the town will not collect rent corresponding to taxes that the town would have collected on improvements that the developer makes during the first five years. A condition of the lease would be that the developers would have to build “good residential,” meaning that the construction “meets code, meets zoning ordinance, and probably meets some financial threshold.” Finally, the town would waive off-street parking requirements because “you have to allow some flexibility.” BM thought that some dwelling units will need only one parking space and that some dwelling units will need no parking spaces at all.

CW said that encouraging residential development in the adjacent Urban District was more appropriate than redeveloping the Commercial District as a residential district.

JP said that BM’s suggestion that some dwelling units might need only one parking space is irrelevant because there are not enough off-street parking spaces to meet even one parking space per dwelling unit. Most of the residents in BM’s proposal will have to have no car.

JP asked what is the town’s authority for BM’s proposed “tax incentive.”

Jesse Pacheco said that he had asked Ted Mitchell to investigate whether there were a statute corresponding to RSA 79-E for residences, and Ted Mitchell said that he had found none.

BM said that he did not know what the town’s authority would be and that the town would probably have to ask the state legislature to authorize Pittsfield specifically to grant BM’s proposed “tax incentive.”

Jesse Pacheco said that landlords in the Commercial District have no incentive to improve their properties because the landlords are already making money.

JP said that the master plan questionnaire showed that the townspeople oppose more residential development in the Commercial District. BM is proposing to divert tax revenue to create more residences that the people think are causing high taxes. JP said that he is a voter and that BM is not convincing JP that BM’s proposal will work.

BM said that the leases would be tax neutral.

Jesse Pacheco said that apartments continue to proliferate and no one stops it.

CW said that the town can stop the proliferation of apartments. The town needs to have a plan with broad support. Changing the zoning of the Commercial District would be a monumental task. Just correcting simple errors is difficult. CW said that the town might have broad support to change the complexion of the downtown area, but CW was not convinced that changing the complexion of the downtown area is a solution.

Jesse Pacheco said that so-called combined dwellings and businesses are permitted in the Commercial District but that many people do not know this. The board should educate people who have residences in the Commercial District that they can have businesses in the buildings that house their homes. Such businesses might be an acceptable alternative to renting as a means to make money from the property.

CW said that he favored action less drastic than BM was proposing. The town should stop permitting more nonconforming uses. The master plan should be an important part of town planning.

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Nomination of two town representatives to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission

CW moved the board to nominate Ted Mitchell for a four-year term and JP for a two-year term as Pittsfield’s representatives to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission (CNHRPC). Ted Mitchell has been a representative to the CNHRPC, and JP has been attending the meetings unofficially. Ted Mitchell and JP are both officially appointed members of the transportation advisory committee (TAC) of the CNHRPC.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

PH asked, “has anyone else stepped up to do this.”

BM asked, “has anyone else been considered.”

CW said no. CW said that Ted Mitchell is already an appointed member for the CNHRPC.

PH said that probably no one else in town would be willing to take the positions.

JP said that he had no objection to the selectmen’s advertising the position.

EN said that he favored sending the planning board’s nomination to the board of selectmen.

CW said that Ted Mitchell and JP are already doing these jobs, they know the jobs, and it makes sense for them to continue doing them.

Vote to nominate Ted Mitchell for a four-year term and JP for a two-year term as Pittsfield’s representatives to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: BM.)

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Letter to the Suncook Valley Sun seeking voter support for the board’s six proposed zoning amendments

CW said that he had met with the board of selectmen and had explained the six proposed zoning amendments. CW said that he is willing to meet with other boards to explain the proposed zoning amendments. CW distributed to the planning board a letter that he had composed for publication in the Suncook Valley Sun. In brief, the letter states the importance of voter interest, explains what the proposed amendments will do, and asks for voter support.

AGENDA ITEM ADDED: Flow diagram of communication between the planning board and various other town boards

CW presented a flow diagram titled “Pittsfield Planning Board Inter Board Communications.” The economic development committee will use CW’s diagram for the all-boards meeting on Saturday, February 8. CW may need to add more detail, such as showing the importance of Cara Marston (the selectmen’s administrative assistant), Dee Fritz (the planning board’s administrative secretary), and department heads (police, fire, highway, and wastewater treatment).

AGENDA ITEM 7: Selectman’s Report – Eric Nilsson, Selectman Ex Officio

EN did not present a selectman’s report.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members’ Concerns

BM said that the board no longer has an alternate. BM said that PD had told BM that PD will be teaching on Thursday nights.

CW said that he would speak to PD.

EN suggested changing the closing of CW’s letter to the Suncook Valley Sun to “on behalf of the Pittsfield Planning Board.”

CW said that he will ask Carole Dodge (chair of the zoning board of adjustment) whether she would like to submit to the Suncook Valley Sun a letter supporting amendment no. 3 (for an elected zoning board of adjustment).

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

BM moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of February 6, 2014: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of February 6, 2014, is adjourned at 8:11 P.M.

Minutes approved: March 6, 2014

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on February 8, 2014, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on February 6, 2014, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on February 7, 2014, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary