June 2, 2011 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, June 2, 2011

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), Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex-officio), Ted Mitchell (TM, chair), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), and Pat Heffernan (PH, associate member).

Members absent: Peter Dow (PD, alternate) excused absence because of illness, Michelle Conner (MC, alternate) excused absence because of illness, and Gerard Leduc (GL, selectmen’s ex-officio alternate).

AGENDA ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes of May 19, 2011

CW moved to approve the minutes of May 19, 2011, as written in draft.

FH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

FH asked for the following change:
Agenda Item 6 (page 11): change “EMT’s” to “EMT’s (paramedics)”

JP asked for the following change:
Agenda Item 4 (page 2): change “Stevens” to “Stephen’s”

TM called for a vote on the minutes with the changes that FH and JP requested.

Vote to approve the minutes of May 19, 2011,with the changes that FH and JP requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The minutes of May 19, 2011, are approved with the changes that FH and JP requested.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Public Input

CW asked TM to recognize Romeo Dubreuil, a member of the public. CW did not want Mr. Dubreuil to have to wait until the end of the meeting to express his concerns.

Mr. Dubreuil said that he was attending to familiarize himself with the planning board and who sat on it. Mr. Dubreuil lives at 59 Johnson Road and had complained about the proposed Mud Bog in his neighborhood. He had not realized that the board would discuss the Mud Bog at the board’s last meeting.

TM explained to Mr. Dubreuil that the board had had only preliminary talk that an application might be pending.

Mr. Dubreuil asked if there had been no discussion of the Mud Bog.

TM said that Matt Monahan had asked TM if Matt were still reviewing applications for site plan approval, and TM told Matt that Matt would still be doing that.

CW said that he had said at the board’s first meeting (on April 7, 2011) that he wanted to discuss Matt’s involvement in site plan and subdivision approval, but CW did not think that the board had discussed that at the last meeting. The board had no official discussion of the Mud Bog in particular.

Mr. Dubreuil asked for clarification of FH’s discussion of EMT’s at the Mud Bog.

TM explained that, at the last meeting, FH had given the selectmen’s report to the planning board.

JP referred Mr. Dubreuil to page 10 of the May 19 minutes, “AGENDA ITEM 6 – Selectmen’s Report.” JP explained that the agenda for every planning board meeting has an entry for the selectmen’s report. In that report, the selectmen’s representative tells the planning board what happened at the latest selectmen’s meeting. The planning board did not discuss the Mud Bog at all. JP did not think that the planning board would discuss the Mud Bog at all until after the zoning board of adjustment decided the application and until after the planning board had an application, which the planning board does not now have.

CW said that the planning board uses the selectmen’s report to stay informed.

Mr. Dubreuil said that he had heard that the planning board had discussed the Mud Bog, so he had wanted clarification.

CW suggested that the board should have a public input session at the beginning of each meeting in addition to the public input session at the end of the meeting. The earlier session would let members of the public express their concerns or ask questions without having to wait through two hours of a meeting that may not interest them.

TM agreed and said that he would ask the board secretary, Dee Fritz, to make public input standard at agenda item 3.

AGENDA ITEM 4: WORK SESSION

TM asked JP to discuss the draft of Article 16, Parking Regulations, that JP had prepared for the board’s consideration.

JP explained that he tried to follow what the board had discussed. The article begins with a citation of statutory enabling authority followed by statements of purpose with corresponding statutory citations. Then the article explains what the Table of Parking Requirements means in the absence of parking relief. Each use has to have the number of off-street, on-lot parking spaces that the table specifies. If there are multiple uses on one lot, then the total number of off-street, on-lot parking spaces has to be the sum of the numbers of parking spaces that the table specifies for all of the individual uses. In other words, if there are multiple uses on one lot, then each use must satisfy its parking requirements separately from other uses on the same lot.

CW said that the zoning ordinance currently does not address the possibility of multiple uses.

JP agreed. The board had not discussed the possibility of multiple uses, so the board should evaluate how JP handled them.

The board agreed that requiring each use to satisfy its parking requirements separately from other uses on the same lot was how the town had consistently applied the Table of Parking Requirements in the past.

CW said that page 2 had only a clear breakdown of off-street parking and clear guidelines for multiple uses. It clarifies what the zoning ordinance does not have now but what the town has been doing. CW liked the statutory citations on page 1. The board frequently has to find statutes in its land-use-law book, and the citations being right there in the document makes that research easy. Citing statutes should be standard procedure.

CW asked if the Table of Parking Requirements was the same as before.

JP explained that he had replaced the term “gross floor area” with area “that the use occupies.” JP made this change because gross floor area is the area of the whole building and because the use might not occupy the whole building. In addition, specifying the parking requirements of a use according to the gross floor area does not account for the possibility of multiple uses in the same building.

The board agreed that entries of the table should be changed from “gross floor area” to area “that the use occupies” to allow for multiples uses in the same building.

JP explained that he had included in Section 5, Reduction of Parking Requirements, the sum of the parking spaces that FH had reported on May 19, 2011 (101 on-street public parking spaces) and the sum of the floor areas that TM had counted on May 20, 2011 (112,676 square feet).

The purpose of including the parking-space and floor-area sums in the zoning ordinance is to justify the parking-relief formulas in Section 5. The formulas count on-street parking spaces toward the number of parking spaces otherwise required, and the number of on-street parking spaces allowed depends on (1) the number of on-street public parking spaces in the Commercial District and (2) the floor area that the use occupies as a fraction of all of the floor area in the Commercial District.

The floor area inventory that TM made is as follows:

Tax Map/Lots: Business: Square Footage:

U3/86 Salon/Video/Apts 8,074

U3/85 Chinese Restaurant/Apts 10,772

U3/84 Shack 480

U3/83 Volpe Old Apts. (now open cellar) 4,805

U3/82 Volpe Office/Apts 4,877

U3/70 Jitters/Thrift/Apts 12,655

U3/69 Vacant 4,685

U3/67 K-2 5,376

U3/66 Union 11,745

U3/112 Ayla’s/Apts 7,820

U3/110 Vacant (next to theater) 8,721

U3/109 Toy Box (includes thrift store) 14,742

U3/98 Village Pizza 7,924

U3/5 Town Pizza 10,000+

Town Pizza note: Nothing in file except tax assessment, No pictures of building, no description of building. Owner states square footage a bit over 10,000.

TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE: 112,676

CW asked for clarification that TM’s inventory was gross floor areas.

TM said yes.

JP said that the formula for counting on-street parking spaces toward otherwise required parking is as follows: one on-street public parking space per each 1115.6 square feet of floor area that one use occupies without sharing with any other use. This formula comes from 101 on-street public parking spaces per 112,676 square feet in the whole district: one parking space per 1115.6 square feet equals 101 parking spaces per 112,676 square feet.

JP said that the derivation of the credit for on-street parking suggests that parking relief should be restricted to floor area that exists now. If the zoning ordinance does not have such a restriction, then the formula will become inaccurate over time. JP had included such a restriction as a condition of getting parking relief.

CW said that restricting parking relief to existing floor area was not necessary because the Commercial District is mostly built out and thus has little room for expansion.

The board agreed to delete the provision to restrict parking relief to existing floor area because the Commercial District has little room for expansion.

JP discussed the formulas for granting parking relief. A nonresidential use in the Commercial District can get parking relief if the use can show that fewer parking spaces than the Table of Parking Requirements specifies will serve that use adequately. The credit for on-street parking spaces as a function of the floor area that the use occupies gives the use additional relief. The credit for on-street parking spaces is as follows:

(the floor area that the subject use occupies without sharing with any other use) divided by (1115.6 square feet)

Thus, the total number of off-street parking spaces required for a use that does not need as many parking spaces as the Table of Parking Requirements specifies is as follows:

(the number of parking spaces necessary to serve the subject use adequately) minus ((the floor area that the subject use occupies without sharing with any other use) divided by (1115.6 square feet))

If the use cannot show that fewer parking spaces than the Table of Parking Requirements specifies will serve the use adequately, then the use still gets the credit for on-street parking spaces. The total number of off-street parking spaces required for a use that does need as many parking spaces as the Table of Parking Requirements specifies is as follows:

(the minimum number of parking spaces that the Table of Parking Requirements specifies) minus ((the floor area that the subject use occupies without sharing with any other use) divided by (1115.6 square feet))

The board agreed that these formulas reflected the board’s desire to allow credit for on-street parking spaces depending on the floor area that the use occupies.

JP explained that the off-street parking spaces that the formulas specify could be either on the same lot with the use or on another lot. This off-lot allowance is consistent with the newly adopted parking-regulations article, which allows parking spaces to be on a “nearby lot.”

JP explained that multiple uses can share off-street parking spaces if and only if the parking needs of the uses do not interfere with one another.

JP explained that any use using off-street, off-lot parking spaces must have permission recorded at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds. This recording requirement is in the newly adopted parking-regulations article.

JP explained that the off-street, off-lot parking spaces had to be within 500 feet of the main entrance of use that the parking spaces would serve. The board had agreed that it should define a distance, but it had not defined that distance. JP found 500 feet in the zoning ordinances of Manchester and Concord.

CW said that 500 feet sounded reasonable.

PH said that Wal-Mart parking lots are very large and that employees have to park at the farthest distance from the building entrance. PH was concerned that 500 feet might prevent some store from opening.

The board discussed whether 500 feet was appropriate.

JP said that 500 feet is 1/10 of a mile and is a long walk. The 500 feet of Manchester and Concord is the farthest distance that JP could find. The zoning ordinance of Nashua requires that off-lot parking spaces be no more than 300 feet from the use that they serve. Franklin is 400 feet. If the zoning ordinance allows a distance farther than 500 feet, then it may as well not require parking spaces at all.

The board agreed that 500 feet was a long walk and that off-lot parking spaces should be no farther than 500 feet from the use that they serve.

JP explained that the last parking-relief permitting condition referred to Article 6, Section 3, Conditions for All Special Exceptions. JP explained that this section of Article 6 did not currently exist. The board will have to revise Article 6 to make the new parking regulations work properly. Article 6 as written applies general-purpose conditions to all special exceptions. Those general-purpose conditions should not apply to parking relief.

CW said that Article 6 applies to the special exceptions in Article 2, Table 1.

JP said yes, and Article 6 should say that.

JP said Matt Monahan had proposed making special exception permits expire, but Matt’s proposal was going to be in the new Article 2, which the voters did not approve. The expiration idea was good, but the expiration provision for special exceptions should be in Article 6, not Article 2.

JP continued that the last condition for parking relief would refer to two special exception conditions: first, a statutory condition in RSA 674:33, IV, and, second, a condition that unused special exception permits expire after two years.

CW asked if the zoning ordinance, as currently written, did not provide for unused special exceptions to expire.

JP said yes, the zoning ordinance does not provide for special exceptions to expire. There is common law providing for abandonment, but defining expiration in the zoning ordinance is better.

CW asked what is the ordinary expiration period? Two years? Four years?

JP said that the normal expiration period is one year, but JP preferred two years.

JP said that the zoning ordinance is not consistent as to when special exceptions, variances, and nonconforming uses expire. Special exceptions never expire except by common-law considerations. Variances expire after two years of discontinuance, and nonconforming uses are abandoned after one year of discontinuance.

JP and CW said that the expiration periods for special exceptions, variances, and nonconforming uses should be the same. Matt Monahan was going to make everything one year, which is the norm, but JP and CW thought that two years is more appropriate.

The board agreed that unused special exception permits should expire. The board agreed that the expiration time should be the same for special exceptions, variances, and nonconforming uses. The board discussed what is the appropriate expiration period. The board agreed that one year is unreasonably short and that two years is appropriate.

TM asked JP how could the board assure that the town would adopt the changes to Article 6 along with the new Article 16?

JP said that linking the two articles in one amendment would be nice, but JP did not know what was the best way to solve this problem. An answer might be more apparent after the board knew how Article 6 would be changed.

JP returned to the draft parking-regulations article and discussed Sections 6, 7, and 8. These sections are design and dimensional standards that JP copied from the old (2010) zoning ordinance.

CW said that the newly adopted parking-regulations article refers to design and dimensional standards in the site plan review regulations that are not in the site plan review regulations.

TM understood what Matt was trying to do, but doing it complicated things. Having the standards in the zoning ordinance is simplest.

CW said that the standards should be somewhere. They are nowhere now.

JP said that the old design standards did not differentiate between parking areas for either single-family dwellings or two-family dwellings, and other parking lots. JP exempted these residential parking areas from the design standards.

The board agreed that parking areas for single-family dwellings or two-family dwellings do not need to be paved or otherwise meet the design standards in the previous zoning ordinance.

JP said that he had eliminated the requirement for actual pavement and had replaced it with “durable, dustless surface.” The town’s only concern is that parking lots should not develop ruts and should not raise dust. How the builder satisfies those standards is not the town’s concern.

JP said that parking spaces laid out side by side needed a one-foot separation. The old (2010) ordinance talked about such separations for parking spaces used for retail sales. The use for retail sales is irrelevant; the extra foot comes from the side-by-side arrangement.

JP said that some terms in the draft Article 16 may need to be defined.

CW asked whether the on-street-parking credit could be granted as a matter of right, without using the special exception process.

JP said that what CW was proposing was possible but would be logically complicated. CW was proposing two different types of parking relief permitted two different ways.

TM preferred to keep just one permitting path.

CW and JP discussed the problem of linking Articles 6 and 16 on the town meeting ballot, and the problem of describing each article to the voters. Article 16 will be longer than Article 6.

CW said that the defense of Article 16’s length is that Article 16 gives the town standards to apportion on-street parking spaces fairly. The apportionment is arbitrary now.

JP said that one of the properties in TM’s list of floor areas was too small to get any on-street-parking credit from the formulas as written. JP thought that such properties should get credit for one on-street parking space.

The board agreed. JP had drafted an approach to giving this credit to a small floor area, and he made copies and distributed them to the board.

While JP was making copies, the board discussed that the zoning proposals had to be complete and well organized for public inspection long before the hearings in advance of the town meeting.

The board liked the idea of giving one on-street parking space to a small property, because small properties pay taxes too, but the board had difficulty understanding the draft that JP wrote. The board asked JP to work on writing this provision in a simpler way.

JP said that the problem was complicated and difficult, but he will try.

The board agreed that, if JP cannot find a better way to present relief for very small properties, then the board will propose the formula as is, that is, the on-street-parking credit will be the floor area that the use occupies divided by 1115.6 square feet.

In respects other than (1) the on-street-parking credit for small properties and (2) the restriction of parking relief to existing floor areas, which the board agreed to delete, the board was happy with the Article 16 draft that JP presented.

JP explained that the draft parking-regulations article was numbered 16, not 17, because the renumbering provision was in ballot article 2, which did not pass. The zoning ordinance has two Articles 22 and two Articles 23. One of the Articles 23, Administration and Enforcement, is missing from the town’s current copy of the zoning ordinance.

TM and CW discussed that the board’s administrative secretary, Dee Fritz, will compile a correct copy of the zoning ordinance.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Building Inspector Report

The building inspector, Dan Kramer, gave the board a letter, dated June 2, 2011, that discussed the building inspector’s “highlights of the past 6 days.”

TM said that building inspector seemed to think that the board is asking him to account for his hours. TM wants to know about projects coming up and what the building inspector has worked on, not how he spends his hours.

FH said that the building inspector wants the board to know how much work he is doing.

CW and TM discussed that TM would check to see whether the building inspector had some information that was important for the board to know.

PH discussed highlight number 5 on the building inspector’s letter: “Spent several hours assisting in preparing applications to the ZBA and Planning Board. I would like the opportunity to develop a plan with you on ways to expedite the process of dealing with the ZBA and the Planning Board.”

TM said that the board had done that last year.

PH agreed.

FH said that the building inspector sends applicants to the planning board for conceptual consultation. The board tells an applicant what to do next, and, after doing it, the applicant returns to the planning board. The process could be quicker.

JP said that the process is not supposed to work that way. The building inspector/code enforcement officer is not supposed to send applicants to the planning board for conceptual consultation. He is supposed to vet applications, including for compliance with the state building code, and give applicants guidance.

TM agreed and said that Matt Monahan helps in vetting applications.

The board discussed the necessity or advisability of conceptual consultation, and what the board can and cannot do in a conceptual consultation.

TM said that he would talk to the building inspector.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Selectmen’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

FH said that the selectmen are still working on tax deeds. Other than that, the selectmen are not doing much. The tax bills will go out this weekend.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Members Concerns

Members concern 1: TM’s concern with TAC and STIP.

TM said that he had been “roped” into TAC, but he will have to resign. Participation in TAC is every first Friday of every month. TM cannot do this schedule. Among other things, on those Friday mornings, TM has to make tapes for JP to transcribe for the planning board’s minutes.

TM explained that TAC is people from different communities getting together and discussing transportation projects for the Department of Transportation. Proposals for those projects then go to STIP, which is the supervising body. STIP decides which projects go to the Department of Transportation. STIP has quarterly meetings. TM wanted to volunteer for STIP and wants someone else for TAC. TM will ask Susan Muenzinger to volunteer for TAC. Susan Muenzinger was on TAC before.

Members concern 2: TM’s concern with the open cellars at 14 Depot Street.

TM explained that he and JP had collaborated on a letter to the board of selectmen relating to the code-enforcement responsibilities of the planning board and the board of selectmen at 14 Depot Street. TM read the letter to the board.

In brief, the letter says that the planning board cannot revoke the site plan approval because that approval related to ownership, not use. The project had not required site plan approval relative to use because it was a grandfathered nonconforming use (multi-family dwelling in the Commercial District). The lengthy period of inactivity in reconstruction may have divested the project of its grandfathered status. This question of divestiture is an application of Zoning Ordinance Article 4, Sections 3 and 4, and, as such, is a question for the selectmen or their appointee, not for the planning board. See Zoning Ordinance Article 23, Administration and Enforcement.

CW asked for clarification of the difference between site plan review issues and zoning issues.

JP explained the difference. The site plan review was relative to ownership, and no problems with ownership have arisen since that approval. No site plan approval was required for the use at the time because the use was grandfathered. Laura Spector’s e-mail was clear on that point. The grandfathering came from Zoning Ordinance Article 4, Sections 3 and 4. The selectmen have to decide whether 14 Depot Street is still grandfathered. The planning board has no jurisdiction there.

FH asked for clarification on the change of ownership issue.

JP explained that the building was going to change from rental to condominiums. Site plan approval can be required for such a change, but the approval cannot be denied.

FH said that 14 Depot Street is no longer grandfathered relative to use.

CW said that 14 Depot Street is not the planning board’s jurisdiction.

Members concern 3: TM’s letter to the Suncook Valley Sun.

TM asked for feedback on his letter to the Suncook Valley Sun.

JP said that he did not understand 10 parking spaces in the Main Street area.

TM said that “10” was a mistake. It should have been “101.”

The board agreed that TM’s letter is good.

Members concern 4: TM’s concern with the Mud Run and whether Matt Monahan was still reviewing site plans.

TM said that Matt Monahan had asked TM if Matt were still reviewing applications for site plan approval, and TM told Matt that Matt would still be doing that.

CW said that this process should be reviewed, but the board has to stay with the process for now because the board is very busy. CW said that he had said that he would review the Larry Konopka application. (See planning board minutes of April 7, 2011.) CW has still not done this, but he will try to make some time before the next planning board meeting.

Members concern 5: TM’s concern with a volunteer to represent the Pittsfield Planning Board on the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission, on June 9, 2011, at 7:00 PM.

TM asked if anyone were interested in serving as representative to the Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission.

JP said that he had some interest. JP had written to Nicholas Coates to learn what the position entailed. Nicholas Coates had not answered. JP said that he will not volunteer for this position without knowing what it entails.

Members concern 6: PH’s concern that his registration fee may be wasted on the Manchester Conference.

PH has an opportunity to visit a family member in Idaho, and this visit will conflict with the Manchester Conference on June 11, 2011. PH already registered, and the town has paid his registration fee, so PH wants to know whether PD or MC might take his place. PD and MC registered on line, but the Manchester Conference did not confirm their registration.

CW said that he would check with PD and MC to see whether they were in fact going to go.

JP advised PH to cancel if PH is not going to go. JP said that he thought that there was still time to cancel and get a refund.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Public Input

No public input.

FH asked TM if TM would send his letter regarding 14 Depot Street to the board of selectmen.

TM said yes.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of June 2, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of June 2, 2011, is adjourned at 9:00 PM.

Minutes approved: June 16, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on June 4, 5, and 7, 2011, from notes and tape that I made during the planning board meeting of June 2, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

0 Town tapes. The Town’s microphone system was accidentally disconnected during this meeting. JP provided the Town a copy of his tape, which copied to two 90-minute, standard-size cassettes.