July 21, 2011 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Planning.

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

DATE: Thursday, July 21, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:06 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 alternate), Ted Mitchell (TM, chair), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), Peter Dow (PD, alternate), and Ray Conner (RC, alternate). (Previous minutes have identified Ray Conner as Michelle Conner.)

Members absent: Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex-officio) excused absence.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of July 7, 2011

CW moved to approve the minutes of July 7, 2011, as written in draft.

JP seconded the motion.

Discussion:

TM asked for the following change:
Agenda Item 4 (page 10): change “is dead end” to “is a dead end”

TM called for a vote on the minutes with the change that he requested.

Vote to approve the minutes of July 7, 2011,with the change that TM requested: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: GL.) The minutes of July 7, 2011, are approved with the change that TM requested.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Parking Definitions
– Gross Floor Area
– Street
– Two-Family Dwelling

Definition of “gross floor area”:

JP said that, at the planning board meeting of July 7, 2011, JP proposed definitions of “gross floor area” and “street.” The building inspector, Dan Kramer, had two objections to the definition of “gross floor area.” Dan’s first objection was that the use of “gross” in “gross floor area” as defined is contrary to the dictionary meaning of “gross” because “gross floor area” as defined excludes some area. In particular, the “gross floor area” definition excludes “the area of the floor of any space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet.” Dan’s second objection was that the defined area might be indeterminate if the space had a pitched ceiling with part of the ceiling at a height greater than 6 feet and part of the ceiling at a height less than 6 feet.

JP said that he agreed with Dan’s first objection but not with Dan’s second objection.

JP said that the floor areas that the board was using came from tax cards and were supposed to be approximately the useful floor areas of the buildings. (See planning board minutes of June 2, 2011.) Because the board was getting floor areas from the tax cards, the definition of qualifying floor area should correspond to the useful floor areas listed on the tax cards. The tax cards show areas, such as open porches, attics, and basements, that probably would not be used in the ways for which the zoning ordinance was requiring parking spaces.

JP said that he had talked to the town’s appraiser, Jeff Earls, of Cross Country Appraisal Group. In addition, JP acquired the appraisal-software user’s manual, familiarized himself with how the software worked, and studied the tax cards. Mr. Earls suggested that the proper floor area to use for giving credit for on-street parking spaces is the so-called effective area. Effective area is the true area of a so-called sub-area adjusted for the relative value of the sub-area. A finished floor sub-area has an adjustment factor of one, which makes the effective area equal to the true area. A different sub-area that is equal in extent but that has 1/10 the value has an adjustment factor of 1/10. For the lesser-value floor area, the effective area equals (1/10) times the true area. JP said that, after analyzing tax-cards, he thought that Mr. Earls’ suggestion had merit. Accordingly, JP suggested that the board use the term “principal floor area” instead of “gross floor area” to specify a building’s useful area. The definition of “principal floor area” cannot be related to appraisal value per se, but the definition can be related to physical structure in such a way as to have a similar result.

CW said that, when Dan raised his objections, CW thought that, because the board was using information from the tax cards, the board should be using a definition that matched the area taken from the tax cards.

The new definition that JP proposed on the basis of tax-card analysis is as follows:

FLOOR AREA, PRINCIPAL: “PRINCIPAL FLOOR AREA” means the sum of the areas of all floors of a BUILDING, as measured from the exterior faces of the walls or from the centerline of a wall separating two BUILDINGS, except that “PRINCIPAL FLOOR AREA” excludes the areas of
(a) basements,
(b) housing for parking automotive vehicles, including automobiles and trucks,
(c) areas unenclosed by walls,
(d) attics,
(e) crawl spaces, and
(f) the floor of any space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet.

PRINCIPAL FLOOR AREA: See FLOOR AREA, PRINCIPAL.

JP listed the area exclusions with their justifications as follows:

Exclusion (a):
Map U3, Lots 69, 5, 82, 70, 67, 66, 112, 109, 98, 86, and 84, all have basements, and each of the adjustments for a basement is .15.

Exclusion (b):
Housing for parking automobiles is not part of the principal use; this area goes to satisfying the parking requirements.

Exclusion (c):
Map U3, Lots 4, 69, 85, 82, 70, 66, 112, 110, 98, and 86, all have areas unenclosed by walls, and each of the adjustments for an unenclosed area is either .25 or .15.

Exclusion (d):
Map U3, Lots 67 and 66, mention attics in the notes and explain that the attics are not counted in the floor area.

Exclusion (e):
Map U3, Lot 110, has a crawl space, and the adjustment for the crawl space is .05.

Exclusion (f):
Map U3, Lot 4, has a 1/2 story finished, and its adjustment is .50.
Map U3, Lot 69, has a 3/4 story finished, and its adjustment is .75.

JP analyzed other sub-areas listed on tax cards as follows:

“Enclosed porches,” which each has an adjustment of .7, are excluded on the theory that they have low ceilings.

Unfinished floors will be included at 100% on the theory that they could be finished.

Application of the “principal floor area” definition to the tax cards gave the following area tallies:

Map U3, Lot 4: 1164 + 3327 + 3292 = 7783

Map U3, Lot 69: 743 + 1641 + 300 = 2684

Map U3, Lot 85: 3120 + 2426 + 1175 = 6721

Map U3, Lot 82: 1579 + 1579 = 3158

Map U3, Lot 70: 5610 + 3220 = 8830

Map U3, Lot 67: 2688 + 1344 = 4032

Map U3, Lot 66: 5850 + 2925 = 8775

Map U3, Lot 112: 2474 + 2538 = 5012

Map U3, Lot 110: 2792 + 2846 = 5638

Map U3, Lot 109: 8568 + 2484 = 11052

Map U3, Lot 98: 3920 + 1932 = 5852

Map U3, Lot 86: 2583 + 2520 = 5103

Map U3, Lot 84: 435

Map U3, Lot 83 (old Volpe apartment before burning down): 2000 + 1325 = 3325

Map U3, Lot 118 (old Aubertin apartments before burning down): 3058

7783 + 2684 + 6721 + 3158 + 8830 + 4032 + 8775 + 5012 + 5638 + 11052 + 5852 + 5103 + 435 + 3325 + 3058 = 81458

On May 19, 2011, the board tallied 101 on-street parking spaces in the neighborhood in question. (See planning board minutes of May 19, 2011.)

101 on-street parking spaces / 81458 square feet = one on-street parking space per 806.5 square feet. (On June 2, 2011, the board had calculated one on-street parking space per 1115.6 square feet.)

PH said that the area counted for parking purposes should be usable.

JP said that he looked at the tax cards and tried to make intelligent guesses about which sub-areas would be useful and which sub-areas would not be useful.

PH asked if the term “principal floor area” had come from the tax cards.

JP said no. JP sought a term that did not use the word “gross” and that indicated a building’s useful area. JP chose “principal floor area.” The terms “usable area” and “livable area,” which building inspector Dan Kramer had suggested as alternatives to “gross floor area,” were also contrary to their dictionary meanings. The floor areas that the board is using came from tax cards, which appear to measure from the exterior faces of the walls. Thus, the floor areas on the tax cards include area that is neither usable nor livable.

CW asked for confirmation that the area tally was of areas that are itemized on the tax cards and that appear to be useful.

JP said yes.

TM said that the term “principal floor area” is a good term to describe the area that the board wanted to count as useful.

JP said that, when GL was planning board chair, in 2009, the board had agreed that members of the public who attended planning board work sessions could participate in the discussion. JP said that the board had not made this policy clear to the alternates, that is, that they can participate in the discussion just as anyone else can.

TM explained the policy to PD and RC and invited them to participate.

PD asked if JP had used the effective floor area as adjusted, or if JP had just excluded everything that had low adjustment factors.

JP said that he had not used effective floor area as adjusted. JP either counted a whole sub-area without adjustment, or JP excluded the whole sub-area. For example, an unfinished floor has a small adjustment factor, 0.6, but JP counted the unfinished floor area in whole because the floor could be finished. JP excluded open porches, which have small adjustment factors.

PD said that a restaurant might use the open porch area.

JP agreed with PD. The tally of area has a lot of subjective guesswork.

PD and GL discussed how a parking problem could develop in the Commercial District if commercial activity increased.

The board discussed the area exclusions (a) through (f) of the “principal floor area” definition. These exclusions come from a subjective analysis of the sub-areas listed on the tax cards and the value-adjustment factors for the sub-areas.

TM asked about whether crawl spaces should be on the list of exclusions.

JP said that crawl spaces were on the tax cards. The controlling issue is whether to keep the exclusion of floor area where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet. JP said that the building inspector, Dan Kramer, had suggested that areas excluded because of low-ceiling height should have floor-to-ceiling heights of less than 5 feet. The definition that JP proposed on July 7, 2011, had specified less than 6 feet. The board should decide whether to keep the low-ceiling-height exclusion, and, if it did, then the board should choose between 5 and 6 feet and should delete the crawl-space exclusion because crawl spaces come under the low-ceiling-height exclusion.

PH wanted to keep the specific exclusion of crawl spaces because crawl space is a type of sub-area specifically listed on the tax cards. PH also wanted to keep the low-ceiling-height exclusion and to set it at 6 feet.

GL said that a person 6 feet tall is no longer considered tall, so 6 feet seemed more appropriate than 5 feet.

TM agreed.

JP suggested deleting crawl spaces. Even though “crawl space” is on the tax cards, “crawl spaces” is redundant to “space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet.”

TM suggested including crawl spaces in space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet.

JP suggested writing the exclusion as “crawl spaces and any other space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet.”

The board agreed that the area exclusions were appropriate.

The definition on which the board agreed is as follows:

FLOOR AREA, PRINCIPAL: “PRINCIPAL FLOOR AREA” means the sum of the areas of all floors of a BUILDING, as measured from the exterior faces of the walls or from the centerline of a wall separating two BUILDINGS, except that “PRINCIPAL FLOOR AREA” excludes the floor areas of
(a) basements,
(b) housing for parking automotive vehicles, including automobiles and trucks,
(c) areas unenclosed by walls,
(d) attics, and
(e) crawl spaces and any other space where the floor-to-ceiling height is less than 6 feet.

PRINCIPAL FLOOR AREA: See FLOOR AREA, PRINCIPAL.

TM and CW asked JP to revise draft Article 16 according to the new floor area tally, and to send the revised document to TM, CW, and Dee Fritz.

Definition of “street”:

The definition of “street” that JP proposed is as follows:

STREET: “STREET” means either
(a) a highway as defined in RSA 229:1, or
(b) a road dedicated to the public use but not accepted by the city or town in which the road is located.
(See Polizzo v. Hampton, 126 N.H. 398, 494 A.2d 254 (1985) (“An offer of dedication of a street may be made in several ways, among them by the filing of a subdivision plan with a planning board.”); State v. Atherton, 16 N.H. 203 (1844); Holbrook v. Dow, 116 N.H. 701, 366 A.2d 476 (1976) (“We are of the opinion that in their usual meaning the words ‘the Northerly sideline of said Route 107’ refer to the northerly sideline of the highway layout or right of way and not to the edge of the pavement.”).)

JP said that “street” was defined so as to include any public road, whether or not the road was a public highway.

GL agreed that “street” should include roads dedicated to public use, even if the municipality has not accepted the road. GL cited a section of Airport Road in Concord; the section is dedicated but not accepted.

RC asked what “accepted” means.

TM explained that “accepted” means that the municipality has taken responsibility for the road.

RC asked for clarification of what a highway is. The word “highway” suggests a major road.

JP said that a highway is an easement held in trust by government for use by the public. Highways are funny because usually the municipality does not own the land of the road. Abutters usually own to the center of the road. Travel-related uses of a highway are in the public domain. A highway is an easement.

TM asked why Article 16 needs “street” to be defined?

JP explained that Article 16 requires off-street parking. The town is trying to keep people from parking in the roads defined as “streets.”

PD and JP discussed that the idea was to keep people from parking on “streets,” but “street” should exclude private roads because the town is not trying to keep people from parking in their driveways.

TM asked whether the “street” definition needed dedicated but not accepted roads. The board decided to keep dedicated but not accepted roads.

PH asked for clarification of town ownership. He noted that RSA 229:1 refers to town-owned land.

JP said that a public road over town-owned land was one of four ways to create a public highway.

PH asked about the difference between highways laid out and highways dedicated and accepted.

JP said that highway layout is an eminent-domain process under the authority of the selectmen.

Definition of “two-family dwelling”:

JP suggested deferring the definition of “two-family dwelling” because, although Article 16 uses “two-family dwelling,” a definition is not immediately urgent for Article 16 and because all of the dwelling-related definitions have problems. Article 16 applies the parking lot design standards to multi-family dwellings but not to two-family dwellings. Multi-family dwellings are defined as having “more than two (2) families.” (Zoning Ordinance Article 3.) Consequently, a specific definition of “two-family dwelling” is not immediately urgent for Article 16 because no two-family dwelling could reasonably be called a multi-family dwelling and because no multi-family dwelling could reasonably be called a two-family dwelling.

AGENDA ITEM 6: RSA 673:6V Alternates Participating in Board Meeting.

TM said that the board would not discuss at today’s meeting the extent to which alternates should participate in board meetings, but TM wants board members to prepare to discuss the matter at the next board meeting.

GL asked JP to make a copy of RSA 673:6, V, and RSA 676:1.

PD and RC asked for a copy of the planning board’s rules of procedure.

TM and CW said to go the town’s web site or speak to Dee Fritz.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Next Priorities in Zoning Ordinance Changes.

TM explained that board members have an outline that he and JP made showing how the board can proceed with zoning ordinance changes. The board has covered the issues that it planned to cover in preparing for the next town meeting. The board will not propose a revised senior housing article for the next March election. The outline lists some substantive things and some easy things. The board should set its priorities and do easy things first.

CW said that he wanted to do a definition of “frontage.”

TM said that a definition of “frontage” might not go on the ballot for next year.

CW said that the board could decide whether to put a definition of “frontage” on next year’s ballot after the board had a definition.

TM said that planning to propose a “frontage” definition, a new Article 1, and a new cluster/senior-housing article in 2013 would be appropriate.

JP said that the board should define the frontage requirement now. Defining the frontage requirement is the immediate problem before the board because many other parts of the zoning ordinance that must be fixed depend on how the frontage requirement is defined. The frontage requirement must be resolved before the board can work on cluster development.

GL said that the board should not put too much on the ballot. If the board puts too much on the ballot, then voters will not be able to understand all of it.

JP said that adding a proposal to define “frontage” is not excessive.

TM said that a frontage proposal must be a separate ballot question. The board could put a frontage proposal on the 2012 ballot.

PH agreed with JP that frontage must be defined to fix other parts of the zoning ordinance.

PD said that defining “frontage” was both difficult and important because the way the town defines “frontage” will determine the course of development in the town.

The board had a brief discussion of frontage as frontage relates to size of lots and to access to lots.

TM asked board members to be prepared to discuss frontage after the board discussed alternates participating in board meetings.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Building Inspector Report

TM said that Dan Kramer has resigned. Dan will have the permit for the Family Dollar store done tomorrow. The retaining wall is the only delay.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Selectmen’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

Fred Hast (FH) is absent today, so GL reported.

GH said that the selectmen will have their first budget meeting next week.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Members Concerns

Members concern 1: TM’s letter to the Suncook Valley Sun.

TM asked for feedback on his letter to the Suncook Valley Sun. In brief, the letter discusses the planning board’s approval of the Mud Run, the planning board’s approval of the Hetu in-law apartment (accessory dwelling unit), and the state legislature’s revision of RSA 673:6 relating to alternate participation in land-use-board meetings.

JP asked TM to change “All Boards are autonomous. No other board has the authority to undo a decision made by another board” to “The planning board does not have authority reverse a decision of the zoning board.” The zoning board of adjustment can reverse the planning board.

The board briefly discussed including RSA citations in the letter.

Members concern 2: PH’s concern with Thompson Firearm’s interest in the Pittsfield Weaving building on Fayette Street.

PH asked about Thompson Firearm’s interest in the Pittsfield Weaving building on Fayette Street.

TM and GL said that nothing had changed.

Members concern 3: TM’s concern with the open cellars at 14 Depot Street.

TM said that the planning board should follow up on its letter to the board of selectmen in relation to the open cellars at 14 Depot Street. (See planning board minutes of June 2, 2011, Agenda Item 7, Members’ Concerns, and June 16, 2011, Agenda Item 7, Selectmen’s Report.)

JP said that the minutes of the board of selectmen said that the selectmen had received feedback from the town attorney.

GL said that the board of selectmen will follow up on the letter.

Members concern 4: CW’s concern with accepting an application and considering its merits at the same planning board meeting.

CW cited the Planning Board in New Hampshire, a Handbook for Local Officials, Chapter 4, and said that consideration of an application’s completeness, and consideration of the application’s merits could and perhaps should happen at separate planning board meetings. The Handbook seems to say that the acceptance is done before the board does notice.

JP said that the board might want to consider allowing public input when the board considers the completeness and waivers. CW is not discussing whether to allow public input on these matters, but JP thought that allowing public input was related to CW’s issue.

CW discussed the problem of abutters coming to a meeting for acceptance, where abutters ordinarily cannot to speak, and then going home if the board does not accept the application as complete. The Handbook seems to say that the planning board does not have to give notice to abutters of a meeting to accept an application as complete. The planning board has to give notice to abutters of a hearing on the merits.

PH said that the process that CW was describing would do nothing worse than delay a project for at most two weeks. Having separate meetings makes sense.

TM asked board members to study the CW’s issue and to be prepared to discuss it at the next planning board meeting. The issue is the public’s occasional inconvenience if the board does not accept an application, as opposed to an applicant’s inconvenience of stretching the process by three weeks.

GL and TM discussed that Matt Monahan is doing preliminary review of completeness.

AGENDA ITEM 11: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 12: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of July 21, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of July 21, 2011, is adjourned at 8:48 PM.

Minutes approved: August 4, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on July 23, 2011, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on July 21, 2011, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on July 22, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

2 Town tapes.