January 6, 2014 Minutes Public Hearings: Proposed Zoning Amendments

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

DATE: Monday, January 6, 2014

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.

This meeting is the second of two meetings that the planning board is having tonight. The first meeting convened at 6:36 PM and was the board’s regular meeting of January 2014 rescheduled from January 2. The chair rescheduled the regular meeting from January 2 because a snowstorm and extreme cold on January 2 made the roads dangerous to travel. This second meeting is a special meeting for hearings on the board’s six proposed zoning amendments.

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: Ralph Odell, chair of the master plan committee; and Jesse Pacheco, building inspector.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board:
Owen David, 12 Watson Street, Pittsfield, NH;
Valerie David, 12 Watson Street, Pittsfield, NH;
Lance Houle, 46 South Main Street, Pittsfield, NH;
Peter Marston, 139 Webster Mills Road, Pittsfield, NH;
Dan Schroth, 295 Clough Road, Pittsfield, NH.

“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: Hearings on the Planning Board’s Six Proposed Zoning Amendments

CW read the notice of public hearings on the planning board’s six proposed zoning amendments.

CW said that he would describe each amendment according to the board’s description document and then would open the hearing to public input on that amendment. After the public speaks, CW will let board members respond. If the amendment generates much discussion, then CW will open the hearing to more public input. After public input has finished, the board will vote on the final form of the amendment and then proceed to the next amendment.

Hearing on amendment no. 1, a replacement of the current definition of “agriculture”:

CW discussed the reason and purpose of the amendment as stated in the board’s description document. The description document explains as follows:

“The zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) asked the planning board to propose a zoning amendment replacing the current definition of ‘agriculture’ because the current definition is vague in allowing ‘home farming’ without saying what home farming is or where it is allowed. In addition, the definition is problematic because it defines ‘agriculture’ as certain farming activities ‘on any parcel of at least 2 acres in size.’ Thus farming activities on parcels less than two acres are excluded from the meaning of ‘agriculture.’ Thus, what these activities are is also vague.

“The planning board will propose the state’s definition of ‘agriculture’ in RSA 21:34-a, II, and has the ZBA’s approval for this definition. The ZBA noted that this definition is well defined and comprehensive.”

The proposed ballot question is as follows:

“Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 1 as proposed by the planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows: replace the current definition of ‘agriculture’ with the state’s definition of ‘agriculture’ in RSA 21:34-a, II? The purpose of this amendment is to eliminate vagueness in the current definition.”

CW added that the planning board had decided on the state’s definition during a joint meeting with the ZBA.

CW opened the hearing to public input.

Dan Schroth recognized BM as the member of the planning board with the most time as a board member.

Dan Schroth said that he preferred the town’s current definition of “agriculture” to the state’s definition because the current definition does not mention the state law requiring “best management practices” in certain cases. (RSA 674:32-a: “In accordance with RSA 672:1, III-d, whenever agricultural activities are not explicitly addressed with respect to any zoning district or location, they shall be deemed to be permitted there, as either a primary or accessory use, so long as conducted in accordance with best management practices adopted by the commissioner of agriculture, markets, and food and with federal and state laws, regulations, and rules.”) Dan Schroth does not want the town to tell him to comply with this state law.

Lance Houle said that he had been the applicant that had raised the question of what “home farming” means. Lance Houle said that he had sought an “exemption.” Lance Houle said that the planning board, in removing the term “home farming” from the definition of “agriculture,” is trying to dictate how people are going to live. New Hampshire and the whole country were built on home farming. Eliminating the term “home farming” is wrong. The term “home farming” should remain in the definition of “agriculture” because taxes are high. People should be able to “do our own thing on our own property.” People should not have to ask. Lance Houle does not like where the town and the country are headed. People should be able to have a home farm. People should be able to keep livestock.

Dan Schroth said that New Hampshire grows only 5% of its own food. The town should encourage home farms. Dan Schroth said that he had had a problem with his septic system years ago and that the town health inspectors had said that the town did not care about his septic system if the state did not learn of the problem. 25 years ago, business start-ups went into decline. The town should add no new regulations because new regulations impede start-ups.

Peter Marston asked what limitations and benefits would result from moving from one definition to the other.

CW closed the hearing to public input and invited board members to respond to the public input.

JP referred to Dan Schroth’s complaint about “best management practices.” The board is just proposing the state’s definition in RSA 21:34-a, II. The text in the definition entry following the citation of RSA 21:34-a, II, just tells the reader that the state has imposed limits on what the town can regulate. JP said that he hoped that this explanation would help Lance Houle’s concerns. JP read the last sentence, citing RSA 674:32-c, I: “The tilling of soil and the growing and harvesting of crops and horticultural commodities, as a primary or accessory use, shall not be prohibited in any district.” JP said that he thought that this provision of state law answered the question of what “home farming” means. JP said that the board had included this sentence from state law so that everyone would know that such agricultural activities must be allowed. Previously, the ZBA had not known what “home farming” means.

Lance Houle said, “it’s pretty simple.”

JP said that the meaning may seem simple, but what is home farming? The meaning of “The tilling of soil and the growing and harvesting of crops and horticultural commodities” is certainly clear. Is home farming something else? JP said that the intent of the definition entry is to clarify that the tilling of soil and the growing and harvesting of crops and horticultural commodities must be allowed in all districts. And the “best management practices” requirement is simply a state law. JP referred to Peter Marston’s question of what limitations the new definition would create. JP said that he did not think that the new definition would create any new limitations but would have the benefit of clearly defining “agriculture.”

Lance Houle said that he had been against zoning when it was being proposed, that he is against it now, and that he will always be against it. Lance Houle said that the planning board may not be proposing a new restriction now, but Lance Houle thinks that the board will propose new restrictions in the future.

BM referred to Dan Schroth’s complaint about “best management practices” and said that the town cannot lessen what the state requires. The proposed definition of “agriculture” simply quotes the state law, which applies to everyone in the state. The town is simply saying that it will obey state law.

Dan Schroth said that the town could agree to obey state law but that the town should not agree that he, Dan Schroth, will obey state law.

PH said that the state’s “best management practices” requirement is an existing state law whether people in Pittsfield like it or not. Adopting the proposed definition of “agriculture” will tell the land use boards what “agriculture” is. PH thought that the commonsense meaning of “home farming” is a backyard garden, but this meaning is not written anywhere. The town has to have the meaning of “agriculture” clearly written somewhere. The proposed definition will neither add to nor subtract from any rights that anyone has now.

CW said that the proposed definition is not more restrictive than the existing definition and that he could not state the meaning of “home farming.” 10 different people will have 10 different definitions. The proposed definition states what agricultural activities must be allowed in all districts.

CW reopened the hearing to public input.

Dan Schroth said that “home farming” includes keeping chickens.

Peter Marston said that cultivating soil is not necessary for “home farming.” Keeping livestock can be “home farming.”

Lance Houle said that the concept of “home farming” had been part of the zoning ordinance since the town adopted the zoning ordinance. The question of what “home farming” means had never been a problem until his application.

PH said that nothing is ever a problem when no one is addressing it.

Ralph Odell said that other municipalities face the problem of what “agriculture” means and what home-based agricultural activities are allowed in certain areas. Some people keep chickens in residential areas and claim the chickens as pets. Similar activities happen with goats and beehives. The matter of “best management practices” relates to matters such as the amount of space that a horse needs or what is necessary to prevent soil erosion or water pollution.

Dan Schroth said that the proposed definition should mention animals.

BM said that the definition does mention animals. BM read the definition entry: “‘AGRICULTURE’ means agriculture as defined in RSA 21:34-a, II.” BM said that the definition in RSA 21:34-a, II, is a page and a half long and includes raising many species of livestock, including some very unusual species of livestock.

JP said that BM had a good point and that BM should read the state’s definition of “agriculture” in whole.

BM read the state’s definition in whole.

CW said that the problem was that the meaning of “home farming” is unclear. When the zoning ordinance is unclear, boards do not treat all applicants and abutters the same. The planning board is trying to eliminate such inconsistent treatment.

CW moved that the final form of amendment no. 1 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 1, dated December 19, 2013.

BM seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote that the final form of amendment no. 1 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 1, dated December 19, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Hearing on amendment no. 2, a revision of current article 10, Manufactured Housing:

CW discussed the reason and purpose of the amendment as stated in the board’s description document. The description document explains as follows:

“Article 10 contains building codes, which, as building codes, should not be in the zoning ordinance, and which are superseded by the NH state building code (RSA 155-A). Removing the building codes reveals certain cases when mobile manufactured housing may be used or kept. Article 10 also states permitting conditions for manufactured housing parks, which article 10 should not do because the use table in article 2 prohibits manufactured housing parks in all zoning districts.

“The revision proposal for article 10 is (1) to remove the building codes, (2) to remove the permitting conditions for currently prohibited manufactured housing parks, and (3) to set forth clearly the current cases and conditions for using or keeping mobile manufactured housing.”

The proposed ballot question is as follows:

“Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 2 as proposed by the planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows: revise article 10, Manufactured Housing & Manufactured Housing Parks, as follows: (1) eliminate building codes superseded by state law RSA 155-A, (2) eliminate specifications for currently prohibited manufactured housing parks, and (3) change the title of the article to just ‘Manufactured Housing’?”

CW explained that amendment no. 2 originated as a request from the building inspector, Jesse Pacheco, to correct references to building codes, which the state law RSA 155-A supersedes. The board realized that the zoning ordinance should not contain any building codes and should not contain permitting conditions for manufactured housing parks because manufactured housing parks are prohibited.

CW said that a goal of the revision was to change no existing valid regulations. Unfortunately, CW and JP discovered that, during the revision, they had changed something by accident. (Multi-unit displays of manufactured housing are currently prohibited because they meet the current definition of “manufactured housing park.” In the December 19, 2013, version of amendment no. 2, multi-unit displays of manufactured housing are not necessarily prohibited because they do not meet the proposed definition of “manufactured housing park.”) CW distributed a copy of the corrected amendment no. 2, dated January 6, 2014, and watermarked “DRAFT Jan. 6, 2014”. CW said that the board would have to have another hearing on amendment no. 2 because the correction is a substantive change.

CW explained that the state building code, RSA 155-A, applies statewide and that no town can apply a building code less strict than the state building code. Having obsolete building codes in the zoning ordinance is confusing. Having permitting conditions for manufactured housing parks, which article 2, table 1, prohibits, is likewise confusing.

CW explained that, when the planning board proposed replacing the town’s definition of “manufactured housing park” with the state’s definition of “manufactured housing park,” the board accidentally opened the possibility of permitting multi-unit displays of manufactured housing.

JP explained that the possibility of permitting multi-unit displays of manufactured housing is because the state’s definition of “manufactured housing park” has the sentence “Nothing herein shall be construed to apply to premises used solely for storage or display of MANUFACTURED HOUSING.” whereas the town’s current definition of “manufactured housing park” does not have this sentence. Amendment no. 2 defines the term “multi-unit manufactured housing display,” adds this term into the use table, and shows such displays as prohibited in all districts, just as manufactured housing parks are prohibited in all districts.

CW repeated that this change defining and prohibiting multi-unit manufactured housing displays is to preserve the existing regulatory prohibition on multi-unit manufactured housing displays. The board is trying not to change any existing regulation on manufactured housing.

CW opened the hearing to public input.

No member of the public had any comment.

CW closed the hearing to public input.

JP moved that the final form of amendment no. 2 shall be the same as the draft version amendment no. 2, dated January 6, 2014, except that (1) the definition entry for “manufactured housing display, multi-unit” shall have the definition for the term “multi-unit manufactured housing display” and (2) the definition entry for “multi-unit manufactured housing display” shall say, “See MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISPLAY, MULTI-UNIT.”

BM seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW said that the change that JP made in his motion will group all definitions related to manufactured housing together in the definitions list of zoning ordinance article 3.

CW referred to the revised article 2, table 1, use table. The entry for “multi-unit manufactured housing display” will preserve the existing prohibition on such displays (which currently meet the definition of a manufactured housing park). CW said that the board will have to schedule and give notice of a new hearing on amendment no. 2 because of the addition of the term “multi-unit manufactured housing display” and because of the prohibition against such displays.

EN asked for confirmation that the use table will prohibit multi-unit manufactured housing displays in all districts.

CW and JP said yes.

Vote that the final form of amendment no. 2 shall be the same as the draft version amendment no. 2, dated January 6, 2014, except that (1) the definition entry for “manufactured housing display, multi-unit” shall have the definition for the term “multi-unit manufactured housing display” and (2) the definition entry for “multi-unit manufactured housing display” shall say, “See MANUFACTURED HOUSING DISPLAY, MULTI-UNIT.”: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Hearing on amendment no. 3, a revision of article 5 to convert the ZBA to an elected board:

CW discussed the reason and purpose of the amendment as stated in the board’s description document. The description document explains as follows:

“The ZBA formally requested that the planning board propose converting the ZBA from a board appointed by the selectmen to a board elected by the town voters.”

The proposed ballot question is as follows:

“Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 3 as proposed by the planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows: convert the zoning board of adjustment from a board appointed by the selectmen to a board elected by the town voters?”

CW opened the hearing to public input.

Dan Schroth said that electing the ZBA members would be better than having the selectmen appoint them. Dan Schroth said that the planning board’s proposing this amendment instead of a citizen’s proposing it was strange.

CW closed the hearing to public input.

CW agreed with Dan Schroth’s comment that the planning board’s proposing the elected ZBA instead of a citizen’s proposing it was strange. CW explained that all zoning amendments must pass through the planning board. (RSA 675:3, II.) Zoning amendments can originate in the planning board or the board of selectmen (RSA 675:3, I), citizens can petition them (RSA 675:4), and anyone, including another town board, can request them. In this case, the planning board had a joint meeting with the ZBA at the ZBA’s request (on December 5, 2013), and the ZBA proposed an elected ZBA at the joint meeting.

EN said that he is biased because he is a selectman. EN said that the ZBA’s vote on the question of an elected ZBA was 2 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: Carole Dodge and Pat Heffernan. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: Al Douglas.) The ZBA did not vote on this issue with all five ZBA members present. If the town voters continue to relieve the board of selectmen of its powers, then the selectmen will have nothing to do except to sign checks.

JP said that the ZBA had tried three times to muster a full board for a decisive vote. But ZBA members did not come to the meetings. On the third time, the ZBA voted because they felt that they had to decide the question. The abstaining ZBA member (Al Douglas) said that he abstained because he is a selectman. The ZBA had a quorum, it did formally vote, and the planning board has no place telling the ZBA how to vote.

PH (who is also a member of the ZBA) said that the board of selectmen has lots of business other than appointing committee members. Electing ZBA members will ensure the ZBA’s independence. PH confirmed that the ZBA had repeatedly tried to muster a full board to vote on the question of an elected ZBA. The ZBA members who did not attend “voted with their feet by not showing up.”

EN said that the ZBA could have waited until a meeting of the full board.

BM said that converting the ZBA to an elected board will not diminish the board of selectmen’s power and that the conversion is reversible if the elected ZBA does not work.

CW said that he supported the elected ZBA and that he had experience both as an appointed alternate member of the planning board and as an elected regular member of the planning board. If the town does not like what the elected board does, then the town should vote its members out. If the town does like what the elected board does, then the town should vote its members back in. If no candidate runs in some election, then the elected board itself will appoint someone to that position. Membership on a land use board entails a lot of work. The electoral process encourages passionate people who will say and do what they believe. CW said that his largest concern is not whether the town should or should not have zoning; his largest concern is that the town government should treat everyone the same.

CW moved that the final form of amendment no. 3 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 3, dated December 19, 2013.

BM seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote that the final form of amendment no. 3 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 3, dated December 19, 2013: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: EN. Abstaining: none.)

Hearing on amendment no. 4, a revision of current articles 5, 6, and 7 to agree with state law:

CW discussed the reason and purpose of the amendment as stated in the board’s description document. The description document explains as follows:

“Articles 5, 6, and 7 deal with matters that do not, by themselves, regulate land use. These matters deal with establishing a zoning board of adjustment, the powers of the zoning board of adjustment, and the procedures that the zoning board of adjustment must follow in exercising its powers. Many of the provisions of these articles are erroneous. For example:

“Article 5 lists out-of-date powers of the ZBA and has a sketchy statement of the appeal process. The article has just one citation–to “Chapter 673, New Hampshire Revised Statues Annotated as amended (NHRSA)”–and this citation, broad as it is, is incorrect. At very least, article 5 should contain specific and correct citations for the establishment of the ZBA, for the powers of the ZBA, and for a complete appeal process.

“Article 6 does not conform to the recently enacted state law (RSA 674:33, IV (2013)) on abandonment of special exceptions.

“Article 7 reflects the variance law under Boccia v. Portsmouth, 151 N.H. 85, 855 A.2d 516 (2004), which the state legislature overruled in 2009.”

The proposed ballot question is as follows:

“Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 4 as proposed by the planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows: revise administrative articles 5, 6, and 7 to agree with current state law?”

CW explained that zoning ordinance article 5 is essential because article 5 establishes the ZBA. CW said that the ZBA complimented the planning board on the planning board’s revision of article 5.

CW explained that many towns change their zoning ordinances every year in part because the state changes the state land-use laws.

CW opened the hearing to public input.

No member of the public had any comment.

CW closed the hearing to public input.

EN explained that amendments nos. 4 and 5 had previously been one amendment and that the board had divided them to make the changes easier to understand.

CW moved that the final form of amendment no. 4 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 4, dated December 19, 2013.

BM seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote that the final form of amendment no. 4 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 4, dated December 19, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Hearing on amendment no. 5, a revision of current articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), 24:

CW discussed the reason and purpose of the amendment as stated in the board’s description document. The description document explains as follows:

“Like articles 5, 6, and 7, articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), 24 deal with matters that do not, by themselves, regulate land use. These matters deal with enabling authority to adopt a zoning ordinance, mandatory purposes of a zoning ordinance, and administration of the zoning ordinance. Many of the provisions of these articles are erroneous. For example:

“Article 1 omits many of the required purposes of zoning ordinances and is confusing because it cites the whole of RSA title 64, Planning and Zoning, as the town’s authority to adopt the zoning ordinance. Years ago, former town attorney Tim Bates warned of these problems and said that article 1 should be revised.

“Article 22 mistakenly says that the board of selectmen has authority to determine penalties in accordance with RSA 676:17. RSA 676:17 itself states the penalties for violations, which are severe, and gives the board of selectmen no discretion to determine penalties.

“Article 23 (administration and enforcement) is not erroneous, but it is logically combined with article 22.

“Article 24 refers to an ‘official map,’ presumably authorized under RSA 674:10, which A Hard Road to Travel warns is probably an unconstitutional statute. (A Hard Road to Travel, 2004 edition, The Official Map Statute, page 129.) In addition, the reference to an official map is confusing because Pittsfield has created no official map under RSA 674:10.”

The proposed ballot question is as follows:

“Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 5 as proposed by the planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows: (1) revise administrative articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24 to agree with current state law, and (2) combine articles 1, 22, 23 (administration and enforcement), and 24 as one article stating general administrative provisions?”

CW added that the zoning ordinance has two articles 23, which is confusing.

CW opened the hearing to public input.

No member of the public had any comment.

CW closed the hearing to public input.

CW moved that the final form of amendment no. 5 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 5, dated December 19, 2013.

EN seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote that the final form of amendment no. 5 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 5, dated December 19, 2013: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Hearing on amendment no. 6, a revision of current article 16, Parking Regulations:

CW discussed the reason and purpose of the amendment as stated in the board’s description document. The description document explains as follows:

“A survey of the Commercial District shows a great scarcity of off-street parking spaces anywhere in the district. Therefore, the permission that article 2, table 1, purports to grant to nonresidential uses in the Commercial District is an illusion unless the off-street parking requirements of article 16 are essentially waived for nonresidential uses in the district. On the other hand, the waiver design should take care not to increase the scarcity of off-street parking spaces in the district.

“In light of the preceding considerations, the planning board proposes to waive off-street parking requirements for nonresidential uses that do not expand their current floor areas and that do not develop off-street parking areas for other uses.”

The proposed ballot question is as follows:

“Are you in favor of the adoption of Amendment No. 6 as proposed by the planning board for the town zoning ordinance as follows: revise article 16, Parking Regulations, as follows: (1) eliminate parking requirements for existing commercial buildings in the Commercial District, (2) eliminate the on-street-parking credit now used to reduce parking requirements for commercial buildings in the Commercial District, and (3) clarify that the table of parking requirements, when applicable, applies both to uses explicitly listed and to similar uses not explicitly listed? The purposes of this amendment are (1) to avoid having to grant a large number of variances that the planning board has historically found will be necessary, and (2) to avoid vagueness about whether the table of parking requirements applies to a particular use.”

CW added that the planning board was trying with this amendment to implement some of the vision that the all-boards meeting of October 12, 2013, had expressed.

CW explained that a change from one business use to another is different from a change of one residential tenant to another residential tenant. A change of business use triggers a site plan review and a requirement for a variance from the current parking regulations. A change of residential tenants triggers no such process or requirement for a variance.

EN said that the amendment affects only nonresidential buildings.

CW opened the hearing to public input.

Owen and Valerie David, of 12 Watson Street, said that they were having problems with people parking on the street and blocking their driveway. They have asked the police for help, but the police have said that the police can do nothing because people have the right to park on the street. The Davids said that they have no comment on amendment no. 6 per se but that they would like to know whether the planning board can help them with the problem of people blocking their driveway.

CW apologized to the Davids and said that the purpose of this hearing is not to address such problems and that the planning board has no enforcement authority.

BM suggested that the Davids ask the board of selectmen for help.

JP said that amendment no. 6 brings state law into play. The Commercial District has very few places where people can park off street. If the zoning ordinance requires off-street parking spaces in order to establish a use, then the zoning ordinance will severely devalue properties in the Commercial District. The state law does not allow towns to devalue properties severely. Consequently, Pittsfield has to define a parking-requirements waiver in the Commercial District. The problem of the Commercial District is not in the parking regulations; the problem is in the fact that the Commercial District has very little area for off-street parking. The board of selectmen has all of the regulatory authority over local highways; the planning board has no such regulatory authority.

Jesse Pacheco thanked the planning board for the time and effort that the board had spent on the zoning amendments.

Dan Schroth said that the board had put a lot of work into amendment no. 6.

EN said that the board of selectmen was working on the Davids’ problem. EN said that he would bring the Davids’ problem up to the board of selectmen at the selectmen’s meeting of January 7, 2014.

CW closed the hearing to public input.

BM said that he supported the waiver that amendment no. 6 gives to nonresidential uses, but BM said that the amendment should extend the waiver to all uses, including residential uses. BM said that the town should let the free market decide what use, either nonresidential or residential, will “work” at a particular property in the Commercial District.

JP said that BM’s letter of December 30, 2013, to the planning board had talked about the parking-requirements waiver as relieving grandfather restrictions. JP said that extending the parking-requirements waiver to residential uses will typically not relieve grandfather restrictions because article 2, table 1, the use table of the zoning ordinance, would continue to prohibit these uses. JP said that the parking-requirements problem is much bigger for nonresidential uses because, as CW had said, every change of a nonresidential use triggers a site plan review and a requirement for a variance from parking regulations whereas a change of residential tenants triggers no such process or requirement for a variance. JP said that the board is trying to solve that specific problem. JP did not object to discussing BM’s concerns, but JP said that BM’s proposal goes far beyond parking regulations because it would require a change to the use table. JP said that parking-requirements relief originated in 2001 and has always been limited to nonresidential uses.

CW repeated much of JP’s discussion.

BM said that some developer may know that a particular residential development plan will not need two cars per dwelling unit.

CW said that variances are intended to address such special situations.

BM said that the developer should not have to seek a variance.

JP said that the developer should have to seek a variance because the scenario that BM is discussing will be very rare. JP agreed with CW: variances are intended to address just such special situations as BM is describing.

BM asked what was the problem with trying a parking-requirements waiver for residential uses.

JP said that the problem with trying such a waiver is that the board has done no research into what would happen. The theme of the six amendments is clean-up without making major policy changes. JP does not want to make major policy and regulatory changes when the land use boards do not understand clearly what the existing zoning ordinance means.

EN said that residential parking needs differ fundamentally from nonresidential parking needs. Residences require access to parking spaces 24 hours per day. Nonresidential parking needs are more sporadic.

BM repeated that the free market should solve the scarcity of parking spaces in the Commercial District.

CW said that BM’s proposal to encourage residential uses in the Commercial District goes far beyond parking regulations and that the planning board cannot proceed with BM’s proposal without further study. CW said that he is not comfortable granting a parking-requirements waiver to a use that the use table prohibits.

CW asked whether building inspector Jesse Pacheco had any comment.

Jesse Pacheco said no.

CW moved that the final form of amendment no. 6 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 6, dated December 19, 2013.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote that the final form of amendment no. 6 shall be the same as the currently proposed amendment no. 6, dated December 19, 2013: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, and CW. Voting “no”: BM. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 4: Adjournment

JP moved to adjourn the meeting.

BM seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board’s second meeting of January 6, 2014: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW remembered that the board had not scheduled a hearing on the revised amendment no. 2. CW asked the board to rescind its vote on adjournment in order to schedule the hearing. The only member of the public present at the prior vote to adjourn, Jesse Pacheco, was still present.

JP withdrew his motion to adjourn.

BM withdrew his second.

Vote to rescind the adjournment: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

BM moved the board to hold a public hearing on amendment no. 2 on Monday, January 27, 2014, at 7:00 PM.

JP seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to hold a public hearing on amendment no. 2 on Monday, January 27, 2014, at 7:00 PM: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

JP moved to adjourn the meeting.

BM seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board’s second meeting of January 6, 2014: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, EN, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board’s second meeting of January 6, 2014, is adjourned at 8:48 P.M.

Minutes approved: February 6, 2014

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

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

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary