January 19, 2012 Minutes

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263

DATE: Thursday, January 19, 2012

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:04 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, arrived at 7:12), and Ray Conner (RC, alternate, arrived at 7:12).

Members absent: Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex officio alternate).

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Steve Aubertin, Bob Elliott, Mitch Emerson, Hank Fitzgerald, Tom Hitchcock, Bill Miskoe, Andy Osborne, Matt St. George, Diane Rider, Merrill Vaughn.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Recorder for Board

TM asked whether the board should redo the vote on the board’s recorder.

CW moved to reappoint JP as the board’s recorder.

TM seconded the motion.

Discussion:

GL said that he prefers to hire someone from the outside.

TM said that the board will look into that.

Vote to reappoint JP as the board’s recorder: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of January 5, 2012

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

JP seconded the motion.

GL referred to page 9 and asked to include a question by Matt St. George on whether the vote on the final form of Amendment No. 3 was the end of it.

JP said that he would have to review the tape because JP did not know what Matt St. George had said.

TM deferred approval of the January 5, 2012, minutes until JP can review the tape.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Approval of Minutes of January 12, 2012

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

JP seconded CW’s motion.

GL referred to page 2 and objected to JP’s editorial comment, which reads as follows:

(Editorial comment by planning board recorder and member Jim Pritchard: Tonight’s meeting of the planning board was at the main conference room of the Pittsfield Town Hall, 85 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH. The board ordinarily meets at this place. The notice that the board gave was on planning board letterhead, which states the address of the board as “TOWN OF PITSFIELD, PITTSFIELD PLANNING BOARD, Town Hall, 85 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263,” and the notice itself says, “The Planning Board will be meeting on Thursday, January 12, 2012 at 7:00 P.M. for a Work Session.” The board has long used this same form to notice the board’s ordinary regular and special meetings.)

GL said that this comment “is an opinion of an individual and not an opinion of the board.” GL said that editorial comments are not part of official minutes.

TM told JP to remove the editorial comment.

JP agreed to remove the editorial comment if the board replaced it with CW’s discussion of the same point at the end of the meeting. CW had said that he had four notices similar to the one that the board used for January 12.

TM asked whether CW had discussed the notices of prior hearings before the meeting halted.

JP said that he thought that CW had discussed the notices of prior hearings before the meeting halted. JP said that the minutes should reflect what happened at the meeting and that deleting the editorial comment will suggest that the meeting did not happen at the town hall.

CW asked for an up-or-down vote on his motion.

TM asked for a statement at the front of the minutes that “the meeting was deemed illegal.”

JP said that the end of the draft minutes explains why the meeting halted. The chair halted the meeting because the notice itself did not say where the meeting was to be held. The draft minutes do not say where the board met. The board can delete the editorial comment if the board wants, but the board must say somewhere where the board met.

TM asked whether CW’s comments on prior notices would be enough.

JP said that he was not sure that CW’s comments on prior notices would be enough because CW may have commented after the meeting halted; if so, then CW’s comments cannot be included as discussion during the meeting. A statement of where the meeting happened has to be in the minutes somehow.

CW asked for an up-or-down vote on his motion with JP’s editorial comment deleted.

Vote to approve the minutes of January 12, 2012, with JP’s editorial comment deleted: failed 2 – 3 – 0. (Voting “yes”: TM and CW. Voting “no”: JP, PH, and GL. Abstaining: none.)

GL said that he was waiting for JP to find when CW made his comments.

AGENDA ITEM 6: New Business – Amendment 3 – Frontage

TM said that the tape of January 5 showed that TM had not intended to kill Amendment No. 3. TM was trying to buy time for another public hearing. The minutes reflect that TM asked about another public hearing. TM’s error ended the discussion and having it go to another public hearing. TM said that he has the legal right to call this special meeting to correct TM’s error and to propose Amendment No. 3 for another public hearing. TM said that the board needed to vote to revive Amendment No. 3 and then vote on the wording.

JP moved as follows on the final form of Amendment No. 3: “I move that the final form of Amendment No. 3 shall be the same as the Amendment No. 3 dated October 6, 2011, and proposed for public hearing on January 5, 2012.”

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

GL asked whether TM were voting for reconsideration.

TM said yes.

GL asked about the timetable for the hearing.

TM said that the notice had been posted in time.

GL said that the notice posting seemed illegal to him.

TM disagreed.

Vote that the final form of Amendment No. 3 shall be the same as the Amendment No. 3 dated October 6, 2011, and proposed for public hearing on January 5, 2012: carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: PH and GL. Abstaining: none.)

JP moved as follows for another public hearing on Amendment No. 3: “I move that the board hold another public hearing on Amendment No. 3 on February 2, 2012, at 7:15 P.M. at the Pittsfield Town Hall, 85 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH.”

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote on the motion to hold another public hearing on Amendment No. 3: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: GL. Abstaining: none.)

TM explained that the notice had gone in the paper on Wednesday because Thursday’s snowstorm might have made TM cancel the meeting. If the meeting had been canceled, and if the notice had not gone in the paper, then there would not have been enough time to notice the hearing. TM asked whether he needed the board to confirm by vote the placement the advertisement.

JP said that the vote for the public hearing confirmed the placement of the ad. The chair has the authority to put matters on the agenda and to give notice when required. If the board were dealing with a subdivision application, the chair would have put it on the agenda and bought an ad without any board involvement at all.

PH asked whether the board would take public input at the February 2 hearing.

TM said yes.

PH asked whether the board would listen and be influenced.

TM said that it depended on what the input was. TM explained that he had wanted another hearing because TM wanted time to look at Epsom and their ZBA voting record. Epsom is very restrictive. TM then got the Pittsfield ZBA voting record since Dee Fritz became secretary. During that time, the Pittsfield ZBA has approved 26 variance requests and denied 7. The variance process in Pittsfield is not a death sentence.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Building Inspector Report

GL had nothing to report.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Selectman’s Report –Gerard LeDuc, Selectman Ex Officio

GL had nothing to report.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Members Concerns

JP said that the notice for the February 2, 2012, meeting is erroneous.

TM authorized JP to help Dee Fritz correct the notice.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Public Input

TM said that the minutes would record every concern. The board will listen, and TM will note anything to which the board must respond, and the board will respond at the end of public input.

Hank Fitzgerald said, “All your handwritten notes, your private tapes, everything, are a part of the public record of this meeting if and when you use them to perform editing of tapes, of minutes, and so forth. That is 91-A very clearly states it, Jim’s aware of it because I know he’s used it in the past, okay, that any citizen has a right to request your own personal notes or copies thereof. I presently am going to request them for the last four meetings, okay, I want it on tape. And I will put it in writing, which I know is the official, and you will have it tomorrow.” Hank Fitzgerald said that the board’s actions were despicable at best. The board voted “no” and said that it was over. The board said that the amendment was divisive among the town. The next Saturday, Hank Fitzgerald saw CW and TM at Dunkin Donuts talking and CW saying that there would be building everywhere. On Monday, Hank Fitzgerald asked TM for JP’s evidence that Hank Fitzgerald did something wrong, and TM said that JP had given it to him. Consequently, TM saw JP over the weekend before TM explained his change of mind. That is three members. Hank Fitzgerald cited RSA 91-A saying that sequential conversations between board members shall not be used to circumvent the intent of this law. “Him calling you and him calling you is a sequential conversation. You are supposed to do it in public.” Hank Fitzgerald referred to the Concord Monitor article that JP gave TM to give to Hank Fitzgerald. The planning board had sat on an application for two years without even having a hearing. The town would have fired Hank Fitzgerald if the article had been based in truth. The article is not proof of anything. A board member has gone after Hank Fitzgerald in a slanderous and libelous manner. JP also misrepresented Tim Bates at the court hearing. JP’s account of Tim Bates could not have happened because JP did not have standing. Hank Fitzgerald complained about JP’s foul language on January 5. The minutes do not reflect the “vibes of what happened.” That is against 91-A. The town is liable, and board members are personally liable for allowing it to continue.

Bill Miskoe objected to the board’s approving minutes for a meeting that was illegal from the beginning. Bill Miskoe also read a letter that he had written to TM. In brief, the letter says that TM should abstain from further voting on Amendment No. 3 because TM is prejudiced. Bill Miskoe said that TM had not abstained.

Hank Fitzgerald said that the fact that the notice was wrong in the past did not make it legal to continue using it.

Merrill Vaughn asked whether the board held a meeting on January 12.

TM said yes.

Merrill Vaughn said that, on the basis of information from Bill Miskoe and Hank Fitzgerald, tonight’s vote was erroneous. That vote should be revoted or vacated. The board should take into consideration tonight what the public says. Merrill Vaughn said that actions in a public place with even only two board members present are illegal.

Matt St. George said that he had attended all public hearings. The road agent and the ZBA vice-chair did not support Amendment No. 3. The board worked on this all year and should be educated. The board voted on January 5 to defeat Amendment No. 3. Matt St. George said that TM said that he did not know what the complications of Amendment No. 3 would be. Matt St. George wants all of his comments on the record and wants everything that he said on January 5 after the vote on Amendment No. 3 put in the record. Matt St. George does not want the board to reenter Amendment No. 3 because it will cause legal issues with the town because the chair and the recorder, JP, said that Amendment No. 3 would not be on the ballot. Matt St. George has made decisions based on that advice. The town could be responsible. The board should be responsible. TM called Matt St. George out of the blue and told him that TM would change his vote. That is disrespectful and terrible. Both TM and JP should never be able to vote on Amendment No. 3 because both TM and JP said that the matter was over. It will not be legal if TM or JP votes. This matter is personal to Matt St. George. Matt St. George said that TM had called public input a privilege, that the board does not have to let the public speak. The voters should remember that.

Bill Miskoe said that the planning board’s rules of procedure provide for public input. Public input is a right.

Mitch Emerson said that he had been in the process of signing a purchase and sales agreement. He has now signed the purchase and sales agreement. He wonders whether the revote could affect his deposit. Perhaps the board should delay this measure for a year or simply use the original vote.

Matt St. George said that the board should rescind its vote. He asked for a board member to move to rescind the vote.

Diane Rider asked why did the amendment have to go on the ballot this year instead of next year? She does not think that it is necessary to put this matter on the ballot this year. She lives on a class VI highway. She was before the planning board 11 years ago. She wants to pass on the property to her children, who are now in their twenties. She feels that the board is betraying her with these restrictive measures. The board is going back on what it said 11 years ago. Diane Rider is trying to build generational wealth. The Pittsfield ZBA variance-granting frequency could change suddenly. She wants assurance of what she can do with her property in the future.

Bill Miskoe asked TM how many people attending the public hearings have spoken for the public hearings and how many have spoken against.

TM said that probably only a couple in favor, but TM noted that, as a former planning board chair, Bill Miskoe knows that hearings on controversial matters usually draw the opposition, not the supporters.

Matt St. George asked whether opposition would be better stated as “people affected.”

TM said, “Right, okay.”

Bill Miskoe commented about the purpose of a hearing being to educate the board. The town recording tape ended, and Bill Miskoe did not wait for CW to flip the tape. The rest of Bill Miskoe’s comment is lost.

Steve Aubertin said that he is a real estate agent and that Amendment No. 3 would devalue land. This consideration is important. Waivers have been signed.

Merrill Vaughn said that he was speaking as one committee chair to another. Merrill Vaughn asked the board to revote. TM should abstain from the vote, and that vote should be recorded on the audio tape. Merrill Vaughn and TM both sit on the same committee. Amendment No. 3 will not help the town.

Andy Osborne owns land at 171 Siel Road. The entire frontage is class VI. Andy Osborne has an approved building plan. Will the approval be valid if Amendment No. 3 passes?

TM said yes, existing lots are grandfathered.

Matt St. George said that the board should appear friendly to the public. The recent tapes do not reflect the board as advertising. The board has a hard job because emotions in the audience run high. The board should understand that the audience is not against board members personally. Emotions in the audience are high because what the board is doing affects audience members personally. Matt St. George said that TM had called public input a favor. The public tonight is overwhelmingly against Amendment No. 3. The board appears to be listening tonight because there are many more people tonight. The board has said that more rules and hoops would be good, but those comments are not in the minutes. Those comments and swearing should not go on. If the board can change its vote, then the board has no integrity and is not looking out for the best interest of the town. JP had told TM that a “no” vote would end the matter. Changing the vote must not be legal. Matt St. George cannot change how he voted in the primary.

TM said that “courtesy” for public input was a poor choice of words. TM said that he had also said that the state law requires it.

Matt St. George said that the board should work on changing that state law instead of Amendment No. 3, so that the public is listened to. Pittsfield voted for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not for bigger government and more rules.

Tom Hitchcock said that he used to be planning board vice chair. Tom Hitchcock’s board served the town. This board is serving itself. The board is supposed to be serving the town but is cutting the legs out from the town. Tom Hitchcock does not own land on a class VI highway, but this little gentleman in a plaid shirt needs to take a hike because he’s the fly in the ointment, and he’s causing trouble. Get rid of him.

CW and TM said that the little gentleman in the plaid shirt is a voted-in official.

Several members of the audience began speaking over each other without identifying themselves or being recognized by the chair.

Tom Hitchcock said that he would never get another vote if Tom Hitchcock had anything to say about it.

A male voice who did not identify himself asked about the benefit to the town.

TM said that the board would answer such questions at the public hearing.

Several members of the audience began speaking over each other without identifying themselves or being recognized by the chair.

Bob Elliott said that this has been going on for several years that JP has been trying to get this passed. What it does is takes inventory out of the town because those lots will not be buildable. It will make the tax situation worse. The board will be taking people’s land.

Several members of the audience began speaking over each other without identifying themselves or being recognized by the chair.

Bob Elliott said that the board should explain why Amendment No. 3 is good for the town. Amendment No. 3 is hurting the town, and it is hurting individuals. People have put their lives here, and the board will destroy them with a switch of a pen. The board should not put off explaining to the hearing. This is just JP’s little agenda that’s been going on.

TM said that each of the surrounding towns has the class V standard. If class V is so terrible, why do these towns adopt it? The ZBA will decide these matters case by case.

Bob Elliott said that that would not be true if Amendment No. 3 passed. If everyone around you were killing people that they did not like, would that be the thing to do? If other towns are doing this, then they are wrong because they are taking people’s land and their right.

Hank Fitzgerald said that this is something that JP has done before on town warrants. It has not passed. Now he is going to use the board to present it, so that his name is not attached. JP’s recording is questionable at best.

Tom Hitchcock said that the board owed it to the class VI property owners to talk to those owners. Those owners voted in the board members.

Bill Miskoe asked why the amendment is on the ballot. The zoning ordinance makes many references to frontage: number of feet required in each zone and so forth. The zoning ordinance does not define “frontage.” That was an oversight when the ordinance was written. The ordinance should define frontage, but the town does not need the definition that the board is proposing. Bill Miskoe proposed the definition of “frontage” in RSA 674:24, I, emergency temporary zoning ordinance. The town does not support the board’s definition. Bill Miskoe was on the board and was there in total longer than anyone else. Pittsfield had a practice of discouraging subdivision on class VI highways. The practice was not written, it’s just been the way the town worked. Some subdivisions on class VI highways were allowed. The planning board and ZBA used their discretion in these cases, and that practice has worked well. The town has in place a practice or an unwritten policy that allows subdivisions on class VI highways if the application makes sense. If Amendment No. 3 goes in the zoning ordinance, then that practice will cease, and every class VI subdivision will require a variance. A variance is very difficult to get, and it requires, among other things, hardship. Class VI property has no inherent hardship. Hardship exists when a lot is so different from others in the zone that it cannot comply. No one should count on getting a variance. Amendment No. 3 means that there will be no possibility for class VI subdivision. That will be a major change that does not have to happen. The state law is that the board of selectmen has the final decision on whether to issue a building permit. Bill Miskoe lives on a class VI highway. He got his building permit from the selectmen and signed necessary waivers. The selectmen have the final say, no matter what happens with Amendment No. 3. No one has spoken for Amendment No. 3. The board has not listened to the public.

Merrill Vaughn asked who was the actual recorder for the board.

TM said that JP is the recorder.

Merrill Vaughn asked why were both JP and CW taping the meeting.

CW said that he is making the town’s tape.

Merrill Vaughn asked whether he could request JP’s tape.

TM said no. JP uses the town tape to prepare minutes.

Merrill Vaughn asked whose tape does he request. Is one tape more accurate than another?

JP said that he does not use his own tape to prepare minutes.

Hank Fitzgerald said that the law clearly states that a board member’s personal notes and recordings and everything becomes a matter of the board’s record, and the citizens have a right to review it five days afterward. That includes JP’s private tapes because he is sitting as a board member, acting as a board member sometimes. And those tapes are also part of the board’s public records. The board members’ handwritten notes are part of the public record. Hank Fitzgerald said that he requested them earlier, and he just wants to make sure that the board members all understand, look at 91-A, it clearly spells out, and JP, please do.

Tom Hitchcock said that JP has been recording these meetings ever since JP was sitting in the audience trying to get on the board. So be careful of JP; JP is not a nice guy.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

JP seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of January 19, 2012: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of January 19, 2012, is adjourned at 8:12 P.M.

Minutes approved: February 2, 2012

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on January 21, 2012, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on January 19, 2012, and from a copy of the one Town tape that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on January 20, 2012.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

1 Town tape.