January 31, 2011 Minutes


	<div id="primary" class="site-content">
		<div id="content" role="main">
<button onclick="history.go(-1);">Go Back to Pittsfield Town Minutes </button>
			<p id="print-link"><a href="#Print" onclick="window.print(); return false;" title="Click to print.">Click to print.</a></p>
			
				
	<article id="post-1024" class="post-1024 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-planning">
				<header class="entry-header">
									<h1 class="entry-title">January 31, 2011 Minutes</h1>
								</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<footer class="entry-meta">
					These minutes were posted by the <a href="https://mypittsfield.com/category/planning/" rel="category tag">Planning</a>.												</footer><!-- .entry-meta -->
		
								<div class="entry-content">
					<p> 	Pittsfield Planning Board<br />
	Town Hall, 85 Main Street<br />
	Pittsfield, NH 03263<br />
	 MINUTES of PUBLIC MEETING	</p>
<p> DATE:  MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2011</p>
<p>Public Hearing called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Chairman.</p>
<p>Members Present:  </p>
<p>Bill Miskoe (BM), Chairman, Ted Mitchell (TM), Vice-Chairman, Fred Hast (FH), Selectman Ex Officio, Pat Heffernan (PH), Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary. </p>
<p>Members Absent:</p>
<p>Daniel Greene (DG), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Dan Schroth (DS),</p>
<p>Bill Miskoe:  On the 6th of January we had a Public Hearing at which time the Board heard questions and comments from quite a number of people on the proposed Warrant Articles partially revising the Zoning Ordinances.</p>
<p>On January 13th, the Board met and made some revisions on what was heard at the Public Hearing.  Matt Monahan has completed a proposed ballot which has been reviewed by Town Counsel and it is agreed that we are in compliance.</p>
<p>Tonight the final product is being presented and though we cannot make any subject changes, we would like to hear what the public has to say.</p>
<p>Matt Monahan read through the completed handout (See Attachment A) and the meeting was opened up to the public for comment.  He noted that the process was started with a long list which has been scaled down with revisions to administration and enforcement, downtown parking, home occupation and senior housing ordinances.</p>
<p>Matt Monahan reviewed:</p>
<p>1. (Article 2) which defines various administration processes such as building permit, certificate of occupancy, the means by which they are obtained and who issues them.</p>
<p>2.  (Article 3) which brings certain portions of the ordinance into line with current state law and improves the document’s user friendliness.</p>
<p>3.  (Article 4) which concerns definition changes to include compatibility with state law, ease of use, eliminating conflicts and ensuring better clarity.  Some previous definitions had the effect of regulating as a definition which has been eliminated.</p>
<p>4.  (Article 5) which changes home occupations in various parts of Town and requires ZBA and PB approval with criteria.</p>
<p>5.  (Article 6) which gives the PB the ability to relax parking standards for business proposals in the downtown including process for granting this relief, combines all parking regulations in one location, and moves the construction standards to the Site Plan Regulations.</p>
<p>6.  (Article 7) which concerns the updated Shoreland Protection Ordinance.</p>
<p>7.  (Article 8) which establishes the opportunity for mixed use senior housing allowing housing, recreation, medical, etc. to be part of the development and includes density incentives.</p>
<p>Larry Konopka:  What is the density for senior housing?</p>
<p>Bill Miskoe:  One unit per one acre of land but shall not exceed a maximum of 35 units in a single development proposal.  Total units shall not exceed more than 1% of Pittsfield’s total housing stock at the time of application.</p>
<p>Larry Konopka:  What about open space?  Matt Monahan explained the open space concept to the public.  Jim Pritchard:  That is one unit per acre including open space of total parcel?  Matt Monahan again explained the open space concept.  </p>
<p>Bill Miskoe: Please address your questions to the Board.<br />
Art Morse:  Regarding he conditional use for parking, there is no definition for commercial/residential building if business downstairs and apartments upstairs.  Matt Monahan explained that the business could have conditional parking while the apartments would have different requirements since “people sleep there.”  Bill Miskoe:  Overnight parking can be banned.  We would like to open up daytime parking not create night parking problems.  Ted Mitchell:  The ordinance states the number of parking place required for apartments and this is still in place.  Matt Monahan:  Commercial and residential uses in the downtown area are different.  </p>
<p>Larry Konopka:  Home Occupation has been allowed everywhere.<br />
Bill Miskoe:  The people wanted more control by requiring a Special Exception and the Site Plan Review requirement was added.  Ted Mitchell:  The Site Plan Review would offer sufficient control by putting conditions on it.  Bill Miskoe:  We would like to free up home occupation but do not want “bad things to happen.”   Art Morse:  With Home Occupations you did away with “E”, now would it all slide over as a Site Plan Review?  Bill Miskoe:  Granting special exception will not be injurious to neighborhood.</p>
<p>Matt Monahan read into Minutes the criteria for Home Occupation and the special exception criteria, to which no revisions have been made.<br />
Bill Miskoe:  Also, after special exception application, they still have to come in for a Site Plan Review so there are a number of controls on the home occupation.  These changes were voted on at the meeting of January 13th.  Ted Mitchell:  We made some good changes to the home occupation.  This issue is not dead; we can revisit next year.</p>
<p>Art Morse:  So looking at the Website, what is it going to say?  Matt Monahan once again read into the Minutes the Home Occupation definition.  Art Morse:  As it is noted on the ballot questions, is that how it is going to appear on the ballot?  Matt Monahan explained the ballot question and the wording.</p>
<p>Art Morse:  What plans does this Board have to explain these ballot questions to those not present tonight?  Will the ballot questions include the paragraph on the handout that notes What It Does?  Matt Monahan explained that this probably would not be on the ballot.  Clayton Wood:  As soon as the ballot is formalized, it will be on the Website.  Bill Miskoe:  The Board will be meeting on Thursday, February 3rd, and will decide on a letter from the Planning Board and hopefully published in The Sun urging the people to try and get familiar with this.  Art Morse:  It needs to be clarified.</p>
<p>Jim Pritchard:  The What It Does paragraph, will it be on the ballot as well?<br />
It is an additional condition that Building Inspector approves it?  That is not part of the Site Plan Review.  Matt Monahan explained the Building Inspector’s part in the Site Plan Review.</p>
<p>Eileen Legg:  You have all done a great job with these revisions, but I am concerned when all is said and done that the language used is not familiar to the public.  You have to be very careful as a lot of people do not understand the terminology.  It all should be in simple terms that can be understood by the layman.  If they do not understand it, they will not vote for it.<br />
Bill Miskoe:  We have to use certain language.  We could try and use the paper and the Website to help people interpret this.  Matt Monahan:  That is a good point.  Does the What It Does paragraph help you understand?  Eileen Legg:  It helps me, but others not familiar with terms and because it is long will shut down and not read.  Art Morse:  Perhaps, you could put out some type of pamphlet explaining it.  Matt Monahan:  I know that in Dunbarton, voters were sent a post card briefly explaining what is on ballot.</p>
<p>Eileen Legg:  Is there any way to use the public school system to educate them about the information.  There are a lot of families involved with the public schools.  Matt Monahan:  I will check with the LGC attorneys.  Eileen Legg:  It cannot pertain to a voting preference but can be informative.</p>
<p>Jim Pritchard:  I am not sure that you have answered my question in regard to the What It Does paragraph?   Matt Monahan:  I would be a little leery to do that.  Jim Pritchard:  Do you not know?  Matt Monahan:  I will check with the attorneys.  Jim Pritchard:  If you ask the Town Attorney and they say yes, will it go on the ballot?”  Matt Monahan:  It is questionable as to whether it is permitted.  Bill Miskoe:  We have a draft of the proposed questions and it does not appear on the draft ballot and it probably will not change.  The ballot is quite large.  Ted Mitchell:  It has never been done before and it probably will not be allowed.  Bill Miskoe:  What It Does will not be on the ballot.  Ted Mitchell:  I would be in favor of doing this, but it is not legal.  It would be someone’s interpretation.</p>
<p>Larry Konopka:  What is the definition of Frontage?  Matt Monahan read from the Zoning Ordinances the definition of frontage.  Jim Pritchard:  Isn’t frontage length of lot not width.  Matt Monahan:  It is noted as parallel from the street.  On corner lots you either have x amount of frontage on side street or x amount of frontage on other street.  Bill Miskoe:  It does not prohibit wrap around frontage if by subdivision.  Jim Pritchard:  The Planning Board has that power, do they?  Matt Monahan:  You would have to qualify with the frontage requirements.  Jim Pritchard:  Frontage has to be on one street. Bill Miskoe:  It says a public street, one street.  Dan Kramer, Building Inspector:  The issue becomes the setbacks and explained this to the public.  </p>
<p>Larry Konopka:  What about Route 28 development?  Is there anything going on there?  Matt Monahan:  We put that off for now and concentrated on the Table of Uses.  We will probably do that next year.  The Planning Board will revisit it at that time.  State law requires that we hold two Public Hearings which we have done.  The Planning Board has put in a lot of hard work on this.  </p>
<p>Bill Miskoe:  No further input.  I will close the Public Hearing.  </p>
<p>Public Hearing closed at 7:55 P.M.</p>
<p>Recess 7:56 P.M.  Resume at 8:04 P.M.</p>
<p>_____________________________________________________________</p>
<p>PLANNING BOARD HEARING ON THE BALLOT QUESTIONS</p>
<p>(BM)  The Board now has to decide as to whether to RECOMMEND/NOT RECOMMEND the articles as noted on the ballot.</p>
<p>Each ballot question was read individually (See Attachment B):</p>
<p>(BM) read Article 2:</p>
<p>(TM)  Motion to approve Article 2 as read.  (PH)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion Planning Board RECOMMEND Article 2 as read.<br />
(TM)  Second.  Carried 5-0.<br />
(BM) read Article 3:</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion to approve Article 3 as read.   (TM)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion Planning Board RECOMMEND Article 3 as read.<br />
(TM)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(BM)  read Article 4:</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion to approve Article 4 as read.  (TM)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion Planning Board RECOMMEND Article 4 as read.<br />
(TM)  Second.  Carried 4-1 (CW).</p>
<p>(BM) read Article 5:</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion to approve Article 5 as read.  (TM)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(TM)  Motion to RECOMMEND Article 5 as read.  (FH)  Second.<br />
Vote:  0-4.  (BM)  Abstain.</p>
<p>Board did NOT RECOMMEND Article 5 as vote to RECOMMEND did not pass.  This Article will be deleted from ballot.</p>
<p>(BM) read Article 6:</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion to approve Article 6 as read.  (TM)  Second.  Carried 4-1 (FH).</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion that Planning Board RECOMMEND Article 6 as read.<br />
(CW)  Second.  Carried 4-1 (FH).</p>
<p>(BM) read Article 7:</p>
<p>(CW)  Motion to approve Article 7 as read.  (PH)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion Planning Board RECOMMEND Article 7 as read.<br />
(CW)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(BM) read Article 8:</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion to approve Article 8 as read.  (TM) Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(TM)  Motion Planning Board RECOMMEND Article 8 as read.<br />
(TM) Second.  Carried 4-1 (FH).</p>
<p>Adjournment:</p>
<p>(PH)  Motion to adjourn.  (CW)  Second.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>Public Hearing was closed at 8:43 P.M.</p>
<p>Approved:  February 17, 2011</p>
<p>______________________________		_____________________<br />
John W. (Bill) Miskoe, Chairman			Date</p>
<p>I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me on January 31, 2011, transcribed and public posted on February 9, 2011.</p>
<p>__________________________________________<br />
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary</p>
<p>II Tapes</p>
					</div><!-- .entry-content -->
		
	
	</article><!-- #post -->

				

			
		</div><!-- #content -->
	</div><!-- #primary -->