June 24, 2010 Minutes

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

DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 24, 2010 – WORK SESSION

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:05 P.M. by Bill Miskoe, Chairman.

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

John W. (Bill) Miskoe (BM), Chairman, Ted Mitchell (TM), Vice Chairman, Donald Chase (DC), Selectman Ex Officio, Rich Hunsberger (RH), Dan Schroth (DS), Pat Heffernan (PH), – arrival at 7:20 P.M., and Hank Fitzgerald (HF), Alternate.

Members Absent:

Daniel Greene (DG), (Excused), Clayton Wood (CW), Alternate

Hank Fitzgerald, Alternate seated on the Board.

(BM) This is a Work Session, so let us begin with that.

(DC) Mr. Chairman, may I request that we do Item 6 first as it is related to the Work Session. (BM) Alright, let’s do Selectman’s Report first.

ITEM 6. Selectman’s Report – Donald Chase, Selectmen Ex Officio

(DC) As you may already know, the Building Inspector has resigned for reasons as noted in his resignation letter which was not because of the added hours. His resignation is effective July 2, 2010. At the Board of Selectmen’s request, he has agreed to stay on to assist with any transition.

The other issue in Town deals with regulations as defined under State Law regarding the compact area of Town. What is the compact area of Town? Can anyone on this Board or Matt define it? There is a resident living on High Street who is complaining of a resident residing on Barnstead Road who has a firing range set up in his backyard firing high powered rifles, handguns, etc. and the High Street resident is upset. The law reads this cannot be done in compact area which in this case, ends at High Street. The law reads if you are within 300 ft of any other street.

Matt Monahan (MM) explained what is not the compact area of Town as defined under State Law. He noted that he and the Police Chief had looked at the area. (He demonstrated on map the area in question.) The way it reads, there are no towns in State that have designated areas as compact areas.

(DC) They are not 300 ft. from Pittsfield Weaving and they are not 300 ft. from Joey Darrah’s property. He is 300 ft. from house of complainant but is it from this man’s property line or is it from the house (structure)?

(MM) The Police Chief and I noted that the closest thing within the line is Pittsfield Weaving. We measured it. Joey Darrah has said it is okay from his prospective and he has no problem with this. (BM) But the law says
300 ft. and that holds…..

(RH) From where is he actually shooting? (HF) I would think you would define where he shoots from and use that point as a measurement for the
300 ft. – not from the structure. If there is no structure, you cannot stop him and he would probably win. (BM) What about from Joey Darrah’s building? (HF) That is different. The way I read it, we would enforce the 300 ft. rule because of public safety regardless of what Mr. Darrah does/does not say. He has employees, operates a business and the Town has right to say that. I do not think it is a Planning Board issue but solving it would be real simple. (DC) By defining compact …. (HF) No, stay away from compact. We can define shooting range and we can determine what zone it is allowed in under the Zoning Ordinances. (DC) He would be grandfathered then, wouldn’t he? (DS) That is a commercial enterprise.

(HF) If we are writing the definition, we can define shooting range as area for discharging weapons for other than hunting purposes anywhere in Town. If we say it can only occur in Rural Zone, then guess what? If it is written properly, we can enforce that. (BM) But it would not apply to him because it would be retroactive. (HF) I understand that, but if Police Chief decides he wants to use 300 ft. rule, we do not have an ordinance right now that makes it possible. (BM) We have to work on this but are we going to do anything about it right now? (HF) The Board of Selectmen is asking this and has the authority along with the Police Chief to determine that from this structure to that structure is less than 300 ft. Therefore, this is an illegal shooting range.

(DC) According to Sgt. Kane, the guy has his target mounted on tires and as far as can be determined, it is not going through the target. To the left of his garage is his driveway. When I witnessed it, they were lying in the driveway at the corner of the garage – about 75 ft. from the road – and firing at the target on the back side of the property. There were sandbags set up and they were lying behind the sandbags at the corner of the garage shooting at the target, which could not be more than 75 ft. from the road.

(HF) Then if I wanted to enforce it, I would contact Fish & Game which says you cannot discharge a firearm less than 300 ft. from the right of way and that is a State Highway. Even when hunting, you cannot pull trigger until you are more than 300 ft. off the road, even if prey is standing beside the road. (DC) If he was 300 ft. off the road, he would be in the wetlands behind his property. (BM) The Police Chief needs to go and explain it to him and say, “Sorry fellow, you can’t do it.” (HF) He should also contact State Fish & Game. Board agreed that a “wild round” could hurt someone.

(DS) Can the Police Chief enforce State Law? (BM) Yes. (DC) State Law specifies “compact area.” (RH) He still can’t discharge weapon that close to a road.

(HF) Compact area is defined by density, traffic and public facilities. State does not define it. It was created to prevent people from doing things like this so they came up with this law. Compact area is not specifically defined to my knowledge. (RH) If we were going to define compact in this area, we could just say “bordering the sewer supply.” All water and sewer supplied areas are automatically compact areas. (HF) That would be a good way to nail it. Between Fish & Game law and 300 ft. rule, we can stop it.

ITEM 3. WORK SESSION

(BM) We have a lot of work to do, so let’s start the Work Session. In your folders is an updated version of the Zoning Ordinances which now has some of the changes we talked to (MM) about (See Attached.)

Board reviewed Articles:

Article I: Changed.
Article II: No changes.
Page 6: This is from the Telecommunications RSA
CUP indicates Conditional Use Permit or “Y”
Page 7: No changes
Page 16: These are Legislature changes. There is no longer an Area or Use Variance. This is all in one now and is effective immediately. Three separate laws regarding Variance are now down to one.

(BM) Where does it indicate that ZBA is the appellate level for any Planning Board decision? (MM) The way Zoning Board appeals Planning Board is when there is a question on the Zoning side such as use or density, otherwise this has to go to Superior Court. (BM) Where does it say that a zoning decision of Planning Board is appealable to ZBA? (MM) It does not. I do not think it ever has. (BM) If this Board renders a decision, particularly a negative one, people may appeal to ZBA. That has been standard practice. Shouldn’t that be in there? (MM) You can put that in but I would like to make it clear that it does not hinge upon interpretation by Zoning. (BM) Can we get that in there? (MM) I can put that in there. (HF) RSA 674 clearly states power and authority.

(RH) In Special Exception in our Ordinances, there are no guidelines.
(HF) Are you saying that Zoning Board in granting a special exception should have the same authority that this Board has in adding conditions to that approval? (RH) What I am saying is that we should actually incorporate some conditions. (HF) Zoning Board and Planning Board have the right to make conditions for any approvals. (BM) You are confusing the matter here. If getting a Special Exception granted by ZBA, they still have to come to this Board for a Site Plan Review. I think it is a change of use so this Board has its own chance to add its own conditions. They cannot approve it as a Special Exception and then applicant walks away and does what they want. They still have to come to this Board; it is procedure.

Article 6: Added “current Pittsfield Master Plan.”
Article 7: Variances – added verbatim from RSA’s.
Page 17: Could add: Granting Variance or Special Exception does not guarantee Planning Board approval of application or that a Building Permit will be issued. (RH) This is a statement which should be read every time Zoning Board grants a Variance or Special Exception. We cannot hold up an application because other permits are required. (TM) We should make that clear.

(MM) Suggested noting: Zoning Board of Adjustment action does not guarantee Planning Board approval or negate need for Planning Board approval of either State or local permits.

Also, as we make Legislative changes, we should have Town Attorney look at changes.

Innovative Land Use: (MM) We can shift some of that over to Planning Board so you guys can control density.

Article 9: Read to Board as proposed change. (HF) I do not like it. We need to put together a sign ordinance with guidelines or you get rid of it completely. Individuals can always say it does not meet “aesthetic requirements” and that is a problem. (BM) You should strike the last phrase “doesn’t complement the aesthetics of the surrounding area” because that is just “a bomb.” (HF) It is unenforceable. There are arguments you can create because it is “so loose.” (TM) I think it is loose enough where it will work. (HF) I am of the philosophy that it needs definition. (PH) Are we having any trouble with it? (BM) No, but we should get rid of the phrase “does not constitute a nuisance.”

Article 10: (BM) We require Site Plan approval and then Planning Board can decide what trailer park is going to look like. (HF) We should require that electrical and phone lines be underground. (BM) Let’s leave it at Site Plan approval.

Articles 11, 12, & 13: These are deleted.

Pages 21 through 36: Nothing altered.

Page 22 – Article 17: (TM) Shouldn’t that be updated because of flood insurance? (MM) It already has been.

Page 36 – Article 19: Deleted. Since State regulates it, it is an automatic condition. (HF) Except for one change, I would like to leave it there and put in a single sentence.

Applicant shall meet all State and Department of Environmental Services requirements.

Just so they can’t say “you didn’t mention it in your Ordinance.” (BM) They would have to conform to State requirements. So Article 19 will become one sentence.

Page 46 – Article 20: Growth Management Ordinance deleted. This is no longer on the books. Since it is gone, leave it gone. (MM) It lapsed
March 20, 2010.

Articles 21, 22, 23, & 24: No changes.

(BM) What is next item on menu?

Article 23: (TM) I think we should state specific penalties if purposefully violated. (HF) You cannot. This Board does not have the authority to levy fines, only the Board of Selectmen does. (MM) Suggestion: just print out RSA and attach it. This way they can visually see it. (BM) I do not like the idea of taking RSA 676:17 and attaching it here because if Legislature amends the RSA, then we are going to have Zoning Ordinances that are out of kilter with the State. I think it is just fine the way it is because if the RSA is amended then we will not have to amend our Ordinances. (HF) You could give applicants a copy of it and it would be part of the application package. (TM) That is what I want to insure. There are developers who habitually cause problems. (HF) That is administrative. It is not part of the Ordinance. Ordinance says you can fine them up to $250 a day. Who determines the actual fine? We do not have this authority, only BOS. Board continued to discuss imposition of fines, Site Plan Review, permits required by applicants, duties of Zoning Administrator and Building Inspector (which is usually the same individual), and certificate of zoning compliance.

(BM) I would want these Zoning Ordinances not to be subject to interpretation but give clear directions as to what applicant can and cannot do. This way anyone reading them can understand what is expected and required.

Break 8:30 P.M. Resume at 8:39 P.M.

Table of Uses:

(MM) As I see it, this is about clean up and policy information. Sometimes clean up information becomes policy information.

Adult Business Establishment: Town cannot outlaw this.
Cluster Development: Separate that out by zone.
Combined Dwelling/Business: Differentiate between this and Home Occupation.
Executive & Administrative Office for Business, Govt. or Professional Use: Could strike it out or make it Professional Offices.
Funeral Home: Possible would be in all zones except Rural.
Home Occupation: Keep in mind that the best way to start a business is in your own home. Suggestion: Make it in all zones.

Recorded segment of Work Session ends at this point. According to notes submitted by member of Board:

Work Session ended at 9:05 P.M. at which point, Matt Monahan left meeting.

ITEM 5. Building Inspector Report

None.

ITEM 7. Members Concerns

Board members briefly discussed Bailey Park Covenants. No action was taken and this will be on the Agenda for July 1, 2010.

ITEM 8. Public Input

None.
ITEM 9. Adjournment

(DC) Motion to adjourn. (HF) Second. Carried 7-0.

Meeting adjourned at 9:15 P.M.

Approved: July 1, 2010

______________________________ _____________________
J.W. (Bill) Miskoe, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were transcribed by me on June 30, 2010 and publicly posted on July 1, 2010.

________________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

I Tape