May 19, 2011 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, May 19, 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), Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex-officio), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), Ted Mitchell (TM, chair), Peter Dow (PD, alternate), and Michelle Conner (MC, alternate).

Members absent: Gerard Leduc (GL, selectmen’s ex-officio alternate).

AGENDA ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes of May 5, 2011

CW moved to approve the minutes of May 5, 2011, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

In relation to Agenda Item 5, h, FH asked TM if TM had accepted for STIP. TM clarified that TM had accepted for TAC, not STIP. TM still has no information from Nicholas Coates about the meaning of “STIP.”

FH asked for the following changes:
Agenda Item 6, a (page 11, paragraph 6): Add “zoning” in two places, in front of “parking regulation” and “parking regulations,” to clarify that JP and TM were not discussing the 2-hour parking-time limit.

FH said that the number of tax-deeded properties was less than the 24 that GL had reported on May 5, 2011. FH was not asking to change the minutes; he was reporting an error that GL had made. FH did not know the exact number of tax-deeded properties, but the number is less than 24.

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

Vote to approve the minutes of May 5, 2011,with the changes that FH requested: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: PH.) The minutes of May 5, 2011, are approved with the changes that FH requested.

AGENDA ITEM 4: WORK SESSION

TM resumed the discussion of Zoning Ordinance Article 17, Parking Requirements, from the planning board meeting of May 5, 2011.

FH reported the inventory of parking spaces in the Main Street area. The inventory, which includes on-street parking spaces and private lots, is as follows:

Saint Stephen’s Episcopal Church: 1 handicapped-accessible
In front of Dustin Park: 10
In front of the Opera block (where the Chinese restaurant is): 7
In front of Volpe from the cellar hole to the corner: 6
In front of the Green block (Jitters): 3
In front of the Church: 11
In front of the Union block: 6
Washington House: 5
Old bowling alley: 1
Oak Street: 6
Oak Street town-owned (3 or 4 are currently rented out): 9
Elm Street (parking spaces are not lined): 8 (possibly 12)
Elm Street private parking lot: 14
Carroll Street: 12
Carroll Street private parking lot: 10
From the police station down, on both sides of Main Street: 12
Depot Street: 14

The board tallied the number of on-street parking spaces and businesses in the Main Street area. After discounting the private lots and the one handicapped-accessible parking space from the list, the board counted 100 on-street parking spaces*. There are 12 businesses that need on-street parking spaces, and 2 empty buildings that could house businesses that would need on-street parking spaces. The board agreed that, preliminarily, each business should get credit for approximately 7 on-street parking spaces because 100/14 = 7, approximately.

(*Editorial correction by planning board recorder and member Jim Pritchard: “100” is wrong. The correct number is 101: 10 + 7 + 6 + 3 + 11 + 6 + 5 + 1 + 6 + 8 + 12 + 12 + 14 = 101.)

CW said that the 7 on-street parking spaces per business assumed one business per building and did not account for the possibility of more than one business in one building. This issue is important because businesses could be established on floor area that residential apartments now occupy.

JP agreed with CW. The on-street parking-space allocation must be by floor area to prevent one building from taking credit for too many on-street parking spaces. The board seeks to give credit for a certain number of on-street parking spaces per building, approximately, not per use. Giving on-street parking credit by floor area assures that each building has the right amount of credit regardless of how many uses are in the building.

CW said that a building occupant could erect a wall and establish a second use that way.

JP and CW discussed that, without the floor area correction, that occupant would get credit for 14 on-street parking spaces, not 7.

JP and FH discussed that the board needs the gross floor areas of the
businesses involved to complete the formula for on-street parking-space credit. Otherwise, one building can take much more credit for on-street parking than the board intends.

CW said that giving on-street-parking credit according to floor area is fair.

PH agreed that giving credit for on-street parking spaces according to the floor area of the business involved is the right way to calculate the credit.

TM said that the board would have get the gross floor areas building by building.

CW, PH, and JP said that the tax cards have this information.

TM said that he will talk to Cara Marston next week to get the gross floor areas.

TM asked for any other comments on the parking regulations.

CW said that he had concerns about Zoning Ordinance Article 17 in general, beyond what the voters approved. CW realized only last week that Article 17 does not define on-street parking. The board has now resolved the on-street parking problem. The board had some questions about the conditional use permit, so CW got information from the Local-Government Center in relation to conditional use permits according to RSA 674:21. CW noted that Article 17 refers to the site plan review regulations for dimensional standards that are not in the site plan review regulations.

JP said that the zoning ordinance had had the dimensional standards for parking spaces, but Matt Monahan deleted them. JP said that deleting the dimensional standards was a bad idea because now the board does not even know what a parking space is.

CW said that the board needed to look into the dimensional standards. CW continued that the town attorney suggested the conditional use permit. CW said that maybe the special exception is simpler. It is now time to rewrite the article. After this review that the board has done, the board has the tools to implement Article 17 if the board receives an application. RSA 674:21 is a catchall for conditional uses. Consistency of a conditional use permit with the master plan gives the conditional use permit more legitimacy as an innovative land use control. CW said that, after he considered everything, he thought that a conditional use permit according to RSA 674:21 is not the right way to reduce parking requirements. A special exception is better.

PH asked what would be the handicapped-accessible parking-space requirement for on-street parking spaces if the article permits some parking spaces on the street.

JP explained that the zoning ordinance will not actually be giving permission to park on the street. The zoning ordinance will be reducing the on-lot parking-space requirement by taking into account the fact that people will park on the street.

PH said that he was very concerned about compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

CW distributed the paper from the Local-Government Center discussing conditional use permits according to RSA 674:21. CW explained that Article 17 has to be rewritten and resubmitted to the voters to revise the conditional use permit as a special exception.

JP said that the article also has to be rewritten to include the parking-relief standards.

CW said that it is now time for someone to write a draft and submit it to the board for review and then posting on the blog for public feedback. The board now knows how the article should be applied, and the board has a rough number to reduce parking requirements. The dimensional standards for parking spaces must go back into the article. CW did not understand why they were deleted.

TM agreed that the dimensional standards must go back into the article.

JP said that the article does not explain what Table 17.1 means in the absence of reduced parking requirements. That omission is intolerable.

CW and JP said that the board would be defining, not changing, the current intent of Article 17.

CW suggested that the board ask JP to write a draft for the board to consider. CW thought that the process would take weeks if every member submitted his own proposal.

JP agreed. JP suggested that the board authorize JP and TM to work together on the draft. JP will write a draft and discuss it with TM before the next meeting. The board agreed.

CW asked if TM would get the gross floor areas of the buildings in the downtown area.

TM said yes.

TM opened discussion on Article 23, Senior Housing.

CW said that the board had previously found that Article 23’s density provision conflicts with Article 8, Cluster Development.

TM said that combining Articles 8 and 23 was a good way to solve the density conflict.

JP agreed. JP said further that problems in the senior housing article are different than the problems in the parking article. The parking regulations were vague, and the board’s jurisdiction to grant the conditional use permit was in question. The board has not so far identified vagueness or jurisdictional problems in the senior housing article. Instead, the senior housing article has conflicting provisions. The board discussed that the 25% set aside for non-senior people violates the State’s definition of housing for older persons, but this violation is separable. The article conflicts with Article 8 in relation to density and with the use table in relation to two-family dwellings, but the board has rules to resolve these conflicts. JP did not know what the purpose of the senior housing ordinance is, and JP looked at the web site of the Office of Energy and Planning to try to learn. A developer could have done a senior housing project without Article 23. In 2003, AHG Properties did propose a senior housing project. What is the purpose of the new article? JP wanted to understand senior housing better before proposing repairs to Article 23.

TM explained that the population is aging. The board wants to encourage developers to create low-cost housing for older persons. The increased density relative to a conventional subdivision is an incentive to build low-cost housing for older persons.

PH asked for clarification on how senior housing conflicts with cluster development since senior housing is cluster development.

JP explained that TM was saying that Article 23, Senior Housing, conflicts with Article 8, Cluster Development, not that the concept of senior housing conflicts with the concept of cluster development. Article 8 has a density requirement that is stricter than the density requirement of Article 23.

CW explained that senior housing should be a special case of cluster development. CW said that, as JP had said, this case is unlike parking in that the board does not have to do anything quickly. The board has the tools to use what the town meeting approved for senior housing. The board needs to study RSA 354-A more, perhaps even have someone knowledgeable come in and advise the board.

TM said that the board could just copy the State’s definition of housing for older persons.

JP said that the matter was more complex because there were many ways to comply with the State’s definition. JP had looked at a number of ordinances from other municipalities, and none of them copied the State’s definition. All of them applied stricter standards for age discrimination. The municipalities are making policy decisions about what they want to accomplish. JP understood that low-cost housing for seniors is good. JP was concerned that a senior housing ordinance could have unintended consequences. The Elderly Housing page of the Office of Energy and Planning’s web site has a link to RSA 354-A; evidently the OEP thinks that this law is important in designing senior housing regulations. The Elderly Housing page also links to a newspaper article saying that there can be unintended consequences from senior housing. These reasons are why JP wants to understand senior housing better before correcting the flaws that the board has identified. JP agreed that the flaws, by themselves, should not be difficult to correct. JP wants to understand senior housing policy in order to avoid problems 10 years from now.

CW wanted to get advice from someone truly knowledgeable and interested in promoting the town’s goals. Many of these properties will be rented, not bought. The town could be looking at more subsidized rental apartments if the board is not careful. There must be people who have already confronted these issues and who can help the board. There is no reason to be hasty.

PH said that, given the poor economy, the board has time to study the senior housing issue.

CW said that the board will find many problems when it gets into Article 8.

PH said that there are senior housing examples to study, such as in Canterbury.

TM discussed that the buildings are like apartments or small houses.

FH said that the buildings are manufactured modular houses.

TM said that older people have smaller households. The older people can save money by selling a larger home and buying a smaller one. That being so, greater density is appropriate because the houses are smaller.

CW said that TM was discussing people buying these homes, not renting.

TM said yes, people selling their oversize home and buying a smaller one.

CW urged more research because Article 23 did not necessarily reflect TM’s model.

JP said that the article had been written to allow duplexes without senior residents as 25% of the total dwelling units. Because of the double-density incentive, the 25% was like taking half of the tract and allowing duplexes in the Rural District, where they would not otherwise be allowed. JP understood that RSA 354-A:15 prohibits the 25%, but JP wondered if the voters had really understood the 25% as written.

CW explained that the 25% was intended to be an incentive to developers. CW stressed the need to get someone who had experience with senior housing from the town’s side of the issue. The board has time.

PH cited Beaver Meadow in Concord. It is a development of condominiums. Condominiums are better than rental units.

CW suggested talking to the New Hampshire Office of Energy and Planning for more information. CW recommended proceeding cautiously. When the board gets into cluster development, problems will snowball quickly.

FH said that there will not be many development proposals in the near future. Senior housing developments will have facilities such as a community center, a swimming pool, a golf course, and so forth. The difference between cluster development in general and senior housing is that senior housing has a community center and so forth. FH agreed with CW on getting advice.

CW said that his vision of what Article 23 might produce changed every time that he read the article. CW first envisioned people buying houses. Now CW envisions people renting.

FH said that, in Epsom on Route 28, the dwelling units are houses. The occupant rents a slab and puts a house that he owns on top of the rented slab.

PH said that what FH was describing was like a mobile-home trailer park with mobile homes that did not have wheels.

MC discussed differences between senior housing development and cluster development in general in relation to common areas and in relation to renting versus owning.

FH explained that, in the Epsom development, the developer owns the whole development, and he rents sites.

PH said that he had a contact, Bobby Fisk, the building inspector in Loudon, who could discuss senior housing development.

CW and PH discussed how the board might find knowledgeable people to advise the board. CW suggested seeking information from the Office of Energy and Planning.

JP said that the Office of Energy and Planning has many model ordinances. The OEP has a lot of information. Calling the OEP is a good idea.

PH said that he would investigate the Epsom development.

TM said that he would talk to the Office of Energy and Planning.

JP asked for permission to talk to the Office of Energy and Planning so that he could become knowledgeable himself.

TM said that the Office of Energy and Planning was personal research permitted as a matter of course.

CW asked JP to concentrate on the parking regulations article. CW asked JP when did JP think that he could have a draft ready.

JP said that he would have a draft ready to discuss with TM by the weekend of May 28, 2011.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Building Inspector Report

The building inspector, Dan Kramer, gave the board a letter, dated May 18, 2011, that discussed the building inspector’s duties and activities.

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

FH said that the last selectmen’s meeting had discussed mainly the Mud Bog. Other than the Mud Bog, the selectmen were still working on tax deeds.

PH asked what was happening with the Mud Bog other than that the neighbors are complaining about the noise.

FH explained that Linda Martin was doing this event and had been doing it for eight to 10 years. There has been one meet per year. Last year, they had three meets. This year, they have advertised as one meet per month for the next six months. That is what stirred everybody. There is a new owner up there that just moved in three months ago, and, when he saw that ad, he became concerned. About 800 people attend each meet. But the EPA has checked it out, and the Attorney General has given them a permit to sell up there. There is a town ordinance that says that any hawker has to pay $100, but, on private land, a hawker does not need the permit. Two of them came in upset and talked to FH today. FH told them that making $100 per person was good. By contrast, the town has collected nothing from vendors at the balloon rallies or Old Home Day over the years.

PH said that the town could enforce the hawking ordinance.

FH agreed but said that he had been told that, once the vendor gets his State permit, the vendor does not need a town permit. FH will investigate.

PH said that the town had spent plenty of money on these events; the town should recoup some of its money.

FH said that he and the building inspector had gone to speak to Linda Martin about a complaint. She will do whatever the town wants. She has her State hawker’s permit. She has an EPA-approved pit dug. FH told Linda Martin that she is using land that is current-use assessed, so she will have to remove two or three acres from current-use assessment and put it into outside amusement. Linda Martin will agree to this transfer. She has safety features, including two EMT’s (paramedics) and eight security. There are no medical or police problems. The police and fire chiefs have both said that they do not need to be at the event. Now the problem is the noise.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Members Concerns

Members concern 1: TM’s concern with the open cellars at 14 Depot Street.

TM said that he had attended the selectmen’s last meeting and had talked to the selectmen about the planning board’s May 5 discussion of the open cellars at 14 Depot Street. The selectmen do not want to approach the planning board formally because the planning board has its own revocation authority. TM thinks that the selectmen are reluctant to act also because the owner agreed to the selectmen’s request to erect a fence. The selectmen prefer that the planning board write its own letter asking the owner to have an engineer test the foundation and send the report to the planning board.

PH is against writing this letter. This matter is none of the planning board’s business. The matter is an inspection problem.

TM said that the planning board has authority and should use it. The hole will be there another five years.

PH said that the owner has done everything that the town asked him to do.

TM said that the owner’s time to develop that site is long past. The planning board should notify them that all permits have been revoked.

PH said that the permits are not revoked, they have expired, so the point is moot.

TM said no, the permits have to be revoked.

PH said that TM’s suggestion would invite an expensive fight with the owner. The owner is very determined. He will go to court.

JP said that he had thought about the selectmen’s position that they should not approach the planning board because the planning board has authority. JP disagrees strenuously with the selectmen. JP has thought much about CW’s discussion of this matter at the last planning board meeting. If there is a revocation proceeding, then the planning board will have to hold a hearing. The planning board will have to give notice to interested parties and will have to hear those parties. This process of notice and hearing is judicial, and the planning board must be impartial in any judicial proceeding. If the planning board initiates a revocation proceeding, then the planning board’s appearance of impartiality will be compromised. JP does not say that the planning board should not initiate revocation under any circumstance, but JP thinks that the planning board should perhaps remind the selectmen that they are the town’s code enforcement authority—it says so in the zoning ordinance—and the planning board does not want to initiate revocation proceedings because to do so would compromise the planning board’s appearance of impartiality.

CW said that the planning board has no authority to send a threatening letter. When the planning board sends a letter, the planning board starts the process.

PH asked if he could move the planning board to send the matter back to the selectmen and let them deal with it.

JP said that the planning board could not do that because the selectmen have already taken a position.

TM said that he would write a letter to the selectmen and cite the statute.

FH said not to do anything more; otherwise, “we’ll get slammed.”

PH agreed.

JP read from RSA 676:4-a, II, describing the process of notice and hearing. This process is judicial. The planning board taking the lead on revocation really must be the last resort.

CW agreed with JP.

JP suggested citing RSA 676:4-a, II, to the selectmen and say that this is the planning board’s reason for not wanting to take the lead, because the planning board must be impartial. If someone, including the selectmen, petitions the planning board, then the planning board can act. But the planning board taking initiative invites trouble.

CW repeated that the planning board cannot send a threatening letter. It can only start a process, which, once started, must finish. CW agreed with JP. TM, speaking as chair, should write to the selectmen, cite RSA 676:4-a, II, and say that the planning board initiating the revocation process has to be the last resort.

Members concern 2: TM’s concern with Paul Metcalf’s gravel pit.

TM received a letter from the board of selectmen saying that deciding a permit for gravel extraction operations is the planning board’s obligation.

JP asked if he should step down because JP’s mother abuts the Metcalf gravel pit.

TM said no, because the planning board is not going to take an official action at this time.

The board discussed that it should read RSA 155-E to determine its obligations. TM and CW will confer on this matter.

Members concern 3: TM’s answer to the town attorney’s letter offering to help with the questions that TM had asked Matt Monahan about the parking regulations.

TM wrote to Matt Monahan on April 24, 2011, and asked Matt about aspects of Zoning Ordinance Article 17 that Matt had written for the town meeting. Matt answered TM and copied his response to the town attorney. The planning board discussed Matt’s answer on May 5, 2011. The town attorney wrote to TM in response to Matt and offered to help. On May 6, the day after the planning board’s discussion, TM answered the town attorney, explained that the planning board did not require her help at that time, and thanked her for her offer.

The board agreed that TM’s answer was appropriate.

Members concern 4: TM’s letter to the Suncook Valley Sun.

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

CW and TM explained that the blog address is http://www.mypittsfield.com/planning

JP asked TM to change “They will need a special exception to be granted from the Zoning Board of Adjustment” to “They will need an approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment.” JP does not want to anticipate what the ZBA will require from the Courchenes.

The board agreed that TM’s letter is good.

Members concern 5: TM’s repeated e-mails to Nicholas Coates asking the meaning of “STIP.”

TM will try to call Nicholas Coates because Nicholas Coates has not answered TM’s e-mails.

Members concern 6: TM’s request that members read the minutes before the meeting.

TM asked members please to read the minutes before the meeting so that members are prepared. Reading the minutes during the meeting wastes time.

Members concern 7: CW’s concern with the web log.

CW said that he combined the information that the board has now with the whole page. It is much cleaner. CW also created an e-mail pass-through account named planning@mypittsfield.com. Everything that goes there goes to TM and CW.

Members concern 8: FH’s concern that the master plan-2000 defined the “downtown” in the same way that Matt Monahan defined it in Zoning Ordinance Article 17, Section 17.3.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Adjournment

PH moved to adjourn the meeting.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of May 19, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of May 19, 2011, is adjourned at 8:57 PM.

Minutes approved: June 2, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on May 21, 2011, from notes and tape that I made during the planning board meeting of May 19, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

2 Town tapes