JANUARY 22, 2009 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, JANUARY 22, 2009

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:03 P.M. by Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Gerard Leduc (GL), Acting Chairman, Marilyn Roberts (MR), Acting Vice-Chairman, Fred Hast (FH), Selectman Ex Officio, Tom Hitchcock (TH), Alternate, Dan Schroth, Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Rich Hunsberger, (RH), Chairman, Robert Elliott (RE), and Daniel
Greene (DG),

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of December 18, 2008, January 8, 2009 and January 15, 2009

(MR) Motion to approve the Minutes of December 18, 2008. (TH) Second. Carried 3-0. (FH) and (BM) Abstain.

(MR) Motion to approve the Minutes of January 8, 2009. (FH) Second. Carried 3-0. (TH) and (BM) Abstain.

(FH) Motion to approve the Minutes of January 15, 2009. (MR) Second. Carried 4-0. (BM) Abstain.

ITEM 7. Selectman’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

(FH) Tuesday night the DOT made a presentation at the BOS meeting regarding potential traffic lights at Route 28 and Leavitt Road. So far, the process has just begun. (GL) This year we should consider doing the traffic count on Concord Hill Road.

ITEM 8. Building Inspector Report

Kyle Parker (BI) noted that he had contacted LGC on the procedure involving continuation of Public Hearing. They advised that this was done properly as long as a definite given time/place/date was noted, you can continue the public hearing. Notice would not be required as long as there no substantive changes.

(GL) I also called and received the same information. Board can correct typographical errors as long as they are careful not to overstep substantive changes, it is would be legal.

(TH) We are trying to make the document better. (BM) The law is the law. The RSA is in place regarding this. There are specific amounts that you can change. (TH) We are not here to change too much. (GL) We can discuss this further during the Work Session.

(BM) Kyle, have you been following the West Meadow Development? Since the Building Inspector was unfamiliar with the development, (BM) explained the history of the project. The quality of the aggregate needs to be looked at and the culvert also. (BI) indicated that he had just heard today about this situation and he would investigate further.

(FH) Kyle, how did you make out with Amenico? (BI) noted that it was a great tour and that he had the opportunity to walk through the building. Right now they are just cleaning up scrap equipment within the facility. They continue to work out of Pembroke.

(BM) Does David Ossiff still have an office there? (BI) “I do not know.” (MR) I believe there is a small screen print shop there. (FH) Technically, they should be coming in to the Planning Board for their businesses. We are not getting the proper information regarding businesses that are starting up. (BI) “I believe these businesses existed prior to Amenico.” (BM) “Has Amenico come to the PB for a Site Plan Review?” There are nice new businesses in Town, which have slipped under the radar of the PB. The Planning Board should be asking why a business has gotten started without a Site Plan Review by the Planning Board. Why are these businesses showing up and no one knows about them? I would direct this to Fred Hast as Selectman. (FH) noted that this was all done “before my time.” I asked, and was told they are taking care of it. (BM) The Planning Board is an autonomous board. (MR) Is the Planning Board unable to direct the BI to look into that? (BI) I am in the process. They are not operating the facility just cleaning up. (BM) I am not sure what the appropriate authority is, but they do need to submit Site Plan Review. (BI) I might be able to get Scott Spradling to come in and discuss with Board. (BM) That would be a good way to start. We need them to go through the same approval process as everyone else. “I have been on Planning Board before, and I know I am being a pain in the neck, “ but the Town loses if this does not happen.

(FH) We have discussed this before. We could waive the Site Plan Review. In the past six or seven years, I have asked the Chamber of Commerce to give the Town a list of the businesses and their addresses. I have been told by the Chamber of Commerce that “they will get to it.” (MR) The EDC has that list and I will get a copy for the Planning Board.

ITEM 10. Public Input

Dan Schroth (DS), “On January 8, 2009, this Board convinced me to resign and I may have been a little bit hasty. I am not in violation now. I would like to open a bed and breakfast. I would like to withdraw my resignation and be seated on the Board. I worked all summer on these Ordinances and I would like to get involved and see this through. I resigned for you people but now have made adjustments to the property.” (FH) Kyle, is he in conformance? (BI) Yes, he is. I have heard no complaints now. (DS) I am working on the bed and breakfast.

(FH) Dan, if you start rambling and cutting in when someone is speaking, you will be out of order. (DS) agreed that the Chairman just has to say “enough” and I will back down. (GL) Dan, on the 15th, I asked you to stop and you did not. (DS) I had waited for an hour to speak and I felt slighted. I have another chance at the next Public Hearing. I never got a chance to offer my public input. “I do listen 99% of the time to the Chairman.”

Jim Pritchard, “Dan to say you had no public input is simply not true. You had talked earlier in the hearing.” (DS) But, I did not have an opportunity to talk on the Planning Board’s proposal. (BM) I was in the audience trying to ask the Board some questions. Dan, you interrupted me and would not allow the Board to answer my questions. “So, I disagree.” (DS) I am not off the Board, I rescind my resignation. The Board never approved it. (BM) The Board can appoint an alternate and the Board can ask the alternate to step down.

(TH) “Dan is having a life. Occasionally, he gets heated. I am okay with Dan coming back if he promises to be good. I am okay with it.” (FH) If you do get in a state like at the last meeting, I personally will make a motion to have you removed. Bill has made a valid point. (DS) “I was raising my hand and Gerard did not call on me.”

Jim Pritchard, “I do not agree or disagree. I am not sure if you are right. You should check the RSA’s on this.” You can re-appoint him. (DS) I am only doing this because I feel I should be here. (MR) “In the Minutes, it indicates that you resigned.” (DS) “But, it was never voted on.” (TH) “My take is if someone repents, I am into forgiving – as long as he repents.” (BM) Members who miss several meetings can be removed. (TH) “The alternates show up more than the members.” (MR) I would like to look into the RSA’s on this.

(TH) Motion to not accept resignation of Dan Schroth. (FH) Second. Carried 3-2 (BM) and (MR).

(GL) I would have rather seen (MR) call LGC and get the answer.

Close Public Input

Dan Schroth was seated on the Board.

ITEM 9. Members Concerns

(GL) We have received a letter from Jim Pritchard noting that the Board cannot make any changes to the document. Jim Pritchard, “You cannot make any substantive changes.”

(MR) When we have finished the document, what is our timeframe? Board noted that the continued Public Hearing was for January 29th at 7:00 P.M. (TH) noted that someone could argue that we are trying to make good changes to the document. (MR) I am very concerned about spending time going forward. I have been here for all the meetings and there are lot of inconsistencies in the document. She noted, “Such as repair shops, we were going to change it, but it is not in our definitions.” (TH) “You are right about that.” (MR) We did not propose this on our list of ten things we were going to change. This should have been looked at more closely. (TH) “I agree. The spirit of the Board was to do all these things.” (BM) But it is in violation of the RSA’s. (MR) We cannot do these changes for the upcoming election. (BM) There is no time to meet the Statute requirements. Things were simply left out and you cannot put them back in. (GL) We do not have the time to run with the fifteen-day cycle. We can scrap it or go forward with what we’ve got now.

(DS) Motion to go forward with what we have now. Motion dies because of lack of Second.

(TH) You all worked with this document and I have also. “This is the last time I am doing it. I put in the time. We can’t change what they want changed.” (BM) I say the reason that the Board held the Public Hearing was to gain public input. By not listening to the public, it diminishes their views. (TH) I do not have that attitude. They are not always right. It takes some time to get to the people. Granted, not everything is correct. I do not want to hold the Town back. I have spent time on this and we have gotten nowhere. We are trying to do the best we can. Why are we fighting about it?” Okay, there are a certain amount of changes, but we are not wasting our time.”

(MR) The repair shop is a “typographical error.” We were going to change it but never got around to it. (BM) “What went before the public?” (MR) reads from document.)

(DS) At the first Public Hearing, we did so many changes after that hearing. You are not wrong what you said; we did the best that we could. We are not perfect. If it makes something better, then…….(BM) noted that according to Mr. Pritchard’s letter, last paragraph, the Planning Board has two options. The question is – What is the Board going to do about the two options?

(GL) We should discuss this further when we go into the Work Session. We can then discuss Jim’s letter. (DS) We can resolve this with a vote.

ITEM 4. Work Session

Board discussed in detail the ten items as noted as changed and some that were not noted on the list of changes.

(GL) “Some are not on the cover list of what we presented to the people on January 15th.” (TH) So we can present that one again. (BM) What is going before the public next week? (GL) The last paragraph of Jim’s letter is a good one. We have to either do one or the other. I am not willing to do any changes whatsoever. (TH) Can’t we add something we left out? (BM) You cannot make substantial changes to the document under a continuance. You can bring the same document back to the public. (FH) Can we strike out auto repair? (DS) “That is not a substantive change.” (GL) I would like to avoid having this end up in Superior Court. (TH) We want to have a good document. (BM) It also needs to be a legal document. (GL) I vote to continue this same document to the 29th.

(MR) Not meaning to single out anything, if you want to go forward, do you want the typographical errors fixed? We originally amended the document and throughout the Table of Uses there are things that need to be brought back to the original Ordinances. (FH) If it goes through, we work with that. I do not see any businesses flying into Town. He further elaborated on the cluster definition. A developer would still have to come to this Board. We have to look at each individual cluster separately. (MR) It might be helpful to have a visual when explaining to the public next week. (BM) noted several items within the cluster definition regarding wetlands. (FH) “Yes, but there are very few clusters in this Town. How many clusters do you know of in this Town?” (BM) I am talking about developers who come in. This cluster ordinance invites them to come in and take advantage of the Town. (FH) In the past, developers have discussed the clusters with the Board, and we can also have input on the clusters. (BM) Planning Board argued for underground draining, and that is not noted in the Ordinance. This can be an issue unless it is right in the Ordinances.

(DS) “We have done as much as we can.” (FH) Look at Rite-aid how that was drawn out for nine months. (DS) I still think we should take a vote and take these articles forward. (FH) “Go for it.”

(DS) Motion to take same document with no changes to the next Public Hearing and then put on ballot. (FH) Second. Carried 4-1 (MR).
(BM) Abstain.

ADJOURNMENT
(FH) Motion to Adjourn. (BM) Second. Carried 6-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:20 P.M.

Approved: February 5, 2009

__________________________ ________________________
Gerard Leduc, Acting Chairman Date