May 5, 2011 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, May 5, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Members present:

Jim Pritchard (JP, associate member), Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex-officio), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), Ted Mitchell (TM, chair), Peter Dow (PD, alternate), Michelle Conner (MC, alternate), and Gerard Leduc (GL, selectmen’s ex-officio alternate).

Members absent: Pat Heffernan (PH, associate member) excused absence.

TM asked MC to sit in place of PH.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Conceptual: Brenda and Alfred Courchene. Construction of addition to an existing property located at 1094 Upper City Road (Tax Map R16, Lot 12.)

TM chose to do Agenda Item 4 before Agenda Item 3, Approval of Minutes of April 21, 2011, so that the applicants would not have to wait.

CW wanted to disclose that Mrs. Brenda Courchene had called CW on last Tuesday after she had talked to the building inspector. CW saw a lot of this application as being land use issues, so he recommended that she come to the board today for this conceptual consultation.

Mrs. Courchene described the project. Her father-in-law, Alfred, owns the property. Brenda and her husband, Michael, currently have a business as custom meat cutting and a smokehouse. They want to make an addition onto the garage where the shop currently is. The purpose of the addition is to expand the business and grow so that they can sell meat. The Courchenes do not currently sell. They want to put in a meat case and deli case to sell meat. They also want to sell vegetables that they grow and farm-fresh eggs that they collect. They are considering a deer registration station for hunters.

TM asked for clarification that the addition is on the back of the garage and separate from the house.

Mrs. Courchene said yes.

JP said that the Courchenes had received a special exception about four years ago from the zoning board of adjustment (“ZBA”) for their business as a home occupation. Because the Courchenes propose to change the use somewhat and to expand, they may have to go back to the ZBA for a new special exception. JP said that the description of the project sounded as if the Courchenes might be proposing retail sales. Retail sales are prohibited in the Rural District. The ZBA would decide whether the Courchenes were proposing prohibited retail sales. JP saw no significant planning issues, and JP had looked to see whether this project could be exempt from site plan review. JP thought that the site plan review regulations for exemption were ambiguous in relation to a project like this one. JP said that the board should try to give an exemption on such a small addition if possible.

CW agreed with JP on the zoning and planning issues. CW did not understand why the building inspector was concerned about planning issues. Zoning issues are more important. This project must go before the zoning board of adjustment before it goes before the planning board.

Mrs. Courchene said that the building inspector had sent her to the planning board to decide whether she needed to go to the zoning board of adjustment. Otherwise, the building inspector would deny the project.

JP asked why the building inspector would deny the project? Was that because the Courchenes needed a special exception?

FH and TM said yes.

CW wondered why the building inspector would send the applicants to the planning board first?

The board discussed whether the applicants had to appear before the planning board before they sought a special exception from the zoning board of adjustment. The planning board did not agree on this question, but the planning board did agree that conceptual consultation does not hurt.

FH asked about the layout of the addition on the garage.

CW explained that the addition is on the back of the garage. CW described the layout of the buildings.

FH asked if the building stands alone?

Mrs. Courchene said yes.

FH said that the applicant needed to get a variance.

JP clarified that FH meant a special exception.

MC asked for clarification of the “farmers market” stated in the Courchene’s application.

Mrs. Courchene explained that the Courchenes would just be selling their own produce.

MC explained that just selling one’s own produce is not a farmers market by statute. “Farmers market” means two or more vendors.

Mrs. Courchene asked about the procedure to apply to the zoning board of adjustment.

TM and CW explained the procedure.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes of April 21, 2011

JP left the board because he preferred not to participate in approving the minutes of the discussion of the letter from Andrew Sullivan, Esquire. Mr. Sullivan represents AHG Properties, Inc., and his letter asked questions about a development project that JP had opposed in litigation.

TM asked for the following change:
Agenda Item 4, c (page 3): change “Nicholas Coates” to “Matt Monahan” in the sentence starting “TM received…”

CW moved to approve the minutes with the change that TM requested.

MC seconded the motion.

Discussion:

MC asked about the meaning of “STIP” and “TIP.” “TIP” means Transportation Improvement Program, but MC did not understand “STIP.”

TM explained that he is trying to get this information.

TM asked PD to sit in place of JP.

FH referred to Agenda Item 4, e (page 4), the discussion of Andrew Sullivan’s letter. The board needs to find out from the town attorney what AHG intends to do. AHG’s four-year period was up in April, and Andrew Sullivan was asking if he could extend that period.

TM said that that was not how Andrew Sullivan worded his questions.

JP, speaking from the audience as the board’s recorder, said that he did not understand what FH was saying.

TM clarified, “What needs to be changed?”

FH said, “When a developer comes into town and applies for development, which the zoning board gave him, and if he got a building permit, he has one year to do substantial building. That building permit lapses, and he has to reapply. But his whole project has four years to continue. And, as it was, the recession kind of held him back.”

CW said that, first, Andrew Sullivan’s letter was clear, and, second, the board has no authority to extend a state statute.

TM said that the board had already discussed Andrew Sullivan’s letter and that the board is currently addressing the accuracy of the minutes.

The board continued discussing Andrew Sullivan’s letter.

TM again reminded the board that it is discussing the accuracy of the minutes and nothing else.

FH said that he will not attend the Manchester Conference. This disclosure is off topic, but FH was afraid that he might forget later.

CW said that the minutes were accurate.

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

Vote to approve the minutes of April 21, 2011,with the change that TM requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PD, MC, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The minutes of April 21, 2011, are approved with the preceding change.

AGENDA ITEM 5: New Business

AGENDA ITEM 5, a: Letter to The Sun

PD left the board, and JP returned.

CW said that less detail on the web log (“blog”) is appropriate at this time. The blog is not ready to go.

TM said that he would keep the first two sentences:

“A blog for Pittsfield residents is being set up.”
“It will allow you to blog your concerns, questions and comments to the Planning Board.”

TM will delete the remaining three sentences:

“Only blogs relevant to zoning issues will be addressed.”
“Non-relevant or abusive blogs will be removed.”
“The Planning Board’s Chair and Vice-Chair will have their E-mail addresses posted.”

FH asked about section 3 of the letter, which is about Senior Housing. FH discussed the letter’s discussion of RSA 354-A:15. FH noted that the town had approved the article.

TM said that, if there is an illegality, then the board must remedy it. The board will submit the corrected article to the voters next March.

CW said that the board needs to analyze the amendments before an applicant comes in so that the board knows what it is doing. The letter is great.

TM said that the letter gives the town insight into the board’s inner workings.

MC said that she likes the note stated in the letter:

“NOTE: It is a constant challenge for the Board to be totally correct in all aspects of zoning law. The Board strives to ensure errors are addressed as soon as they become aware of them.”

AGENDA ITEM 5, b: Website Blog

CW said that the web log (“blog”) is up and running. CW put the blog in a page on the town web site. The problem now is that the blog has no information. CW has some recommendations. CW wants to get the blog running quickly. The website is

http://www.pittsfield-nh.com/pbtest

CW suggested that the board should allow TM and CW to get together to decide the initial content.

MC asked if the blog is going to be a roll page, or if there will be links?

CW said that there will be topics and comments under each topic.

JP asked for clarification of the discussion between MC and CW.

MC explained that she was trying to understand the format. MC thinks that information on what the planning board does is important for people to know.

JP suggested approving TM and CW to get together to initiate the blog.

CW discussed details of getting started.

The board agreed that TM and CW will get together to initiate the blog.

AGENDA ITEM 5, c: Master Plan Committee Members

TM introduced Ralph Odell, chair of the previous master plan committee.

Ralph Odell said that he came to the planning board last December. The board discussed continuing the master plan committee for a new master plan. Ralph Odell wanted to know if now is a good time to start. If so, then the Ralph Odell would advertise for volunteers.

JP asked Ralph Odell if he would be willing to chair the master plan committee?

Ralph Odell said yes.

JP thought that starting now was a good idea.

CW was concerned that the planning board was too distant from the previous master plan creation. The board should involve itself more.

TM said that the board should invite Ralph Odell to present more often.

Ralph Odell thought that the master plan could be better with more communication with the planning board.

TM said that the planning board could every so often dedicate a work session to the master plan.

CW wondered if committee members should have terms to define a member’s commitment. CW asked Ralph Odell to consider this question.

TM said that planning board members should know clearly who is on the master plan committee.

CW said that the board should authorize Ralph Odell to advertise his project and for volunteer members.

TM agreed.

AGENDA ITEM 5, d: Handbook: The Planning Board in NH

CW complimented the planning board’s administrative secretary, Dee Fritz, for copying this book of 186 pages for all of the board members. The book is a very good reference.

The board appreciates the large copying job that Dee Fritz did, and the board thanks her for it.

AGENDA ITEM 5, e: Main Street Site

The planning board has received a copy of a letter from the board of selectmen to Frank Volpe Revocable Trust, care of Gary Volpe, in relation to an open cellar hole at 34 Main Street. Attached to the letter is an order for correction of hazardous excavation pursuant to RSA 155-B.

CW asked what the letters for Agenda Items 5, e and f, were about.

JP explained that the letters were about hazardous open cellars.

FH explained that the board of selectmen talked to Gary Volpe. Gary Volpe was reluctant to correct the open cellar, and Gary Volpe cited the open cellars on Depot Street, which have been open much longer. The board of selectmen has the right to cancel the permit and require removal of the foundations. The selectmen do not want to do that, but those foundations have been there for five years, and nothing has happened.

TM explained that FH was jumping from Gary Volpe, on Main Street, to Steven Aubertin, on Depot Street.

FH said that Gary Volpe is preparing to do something on his lot.

TM said that Gary Volpe is going to build an apartment on Elm Street before he builds on Main Street.

FH said that the apartment on Elm Street is illegal because it did not have enough land for the two deeded parking spaces that the zoning board of adjustment had required.

AGENDA ITEM 5, f: Depot Street Site

The planning board has received a copy of an order for correction of hazardous excavation pursuant to RSA 155-B at 14 Depot Street. The order was issued to Steven E. Aubertin, 78 Old Rochester Road, Barnstead, NH, 03225.

TM recommends that the board of selectmen get an engineer to test the foundations.

FH said that there is a statute that gives a developer four years to show progress. Steven Aubertin has shown no progress. His four years are long expired. So it is up to the planning board to make him build or tear it out.

CW said that that process was not the planning board’s responsibility.

FH said that the planning board can revoke approval on its own motion.

JP agreed with FH and cited RSA 676:4-a, I, (c).

CW said that, while the planning board can revoke on its own motion, he thinks that the board should respond to a petition. The planning board is not the town’s code enforcement.

JP agreed. There is a difference between what you can do and what is smart to do. There is a separation of powers that is important. The board of selectmen should be responsible for code enforcement.

TM said that complaints should go to the selectmen. The selectmen can send a letter to the planning board if they want.

CW cited the Planning Board in New Hampshire, page IV-23, which lists the planning board’s post-approval enforcement options. CW said that the board needs to understand what is the best way to initiate enforcement.

TM said that the cellar holes are a serious public image problem in addition to the public safety hazard.

FH said that board of selectmen had had difficulty in getting the property owners to erect the fences.

The planning board continued discussing enforcement matters.

CW suggested defining an enforcement process. A defined process consistently followed would give the selectmen more control in facing opposing lawyers.

AGENDA ITEM 5, g: OEP Conference

PH, JP, MC, and PD will go to the Manchester Conference. The remaining members have conflicts. FH has registered but must now cancel.

AGENDA ITEM 5, h: Commission Representative – CNHRPC

TM said that this matter was for the STIP. TM said that he “stepped” into it. TM got a forwarded e-mail from town administrator Paul Skowron. TM accepted for TAC by mistake, but the board of selectmen confirmed him.

MC explained that “TAC” means Transportation Advisory Committee.

Board members still do not know what “STIP” means or what the duties of the TAC representative are.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Work Session

AGENDA ITEM 6, a: E-Mail – Matt Monahan

JP said that Matt Monahan’s e-mail was not helpful. The board knew that Matt would cite RSA 674:21, but that citation does not help without an explanation of how the conditions for parking relief are innovative. JP did not understand Matt’s advice to return to the town attorney when Matt says at the same time that the town attorney already looked at everything. JP did not understand whether Matt is saying that the “downtown” is an overlay district. JP did not understand Matt’s discussion of RSA 354-A. JP said that RSA 354-A:10 prohibits age discrimination in housing other than housing for older persons as defined by RSA 354-A:15. The zoning ordinance cannot permit what state law prohibits.

CW said that going back to the same people who advised the board before makes little sense. The board should look at what the town approved and find a way to make it work, or correct it at the next town meeting. RSA 674:21 may be very broad. The board needs to work through these matters. In matters of discrimination, the board needs to be very careful. The board should rely on statutes that the board clearly understands. The overlay-district concept adds only confusion.

TM suggested that the board use simple solutions. The board should limit parking relief to the Commercial District and eliminate the provision for parking relief in the other areas that are only parts of districts. For senior housing, change the definition to conform to state law and merge the senior housing ordinance with Article 8.

JP liked the idea of limiting parking relief to one, whole district. JP suggested defining numerical standards for parking relief. The first condition in Section 17.3, b—“The applicant can prove that the proposed use can be adequately served by fewer parking spaces than are required by this Ordinance”—may need board review, but the second and third conditions—“establishing parking in the street” and “or on a nearby lot” can be numerically defined. JP said that the board had a policy decision to make: to eliminate parking regulations or not.

FH discussed an example of a parking problem on Main Street.

JP and TM discussed whether the planning board should propose eliminating the zoning parking regulation in the Commercial District. They questioned whether the zoning parking regulations are enforceable.

The discussion between JP and TM led to a lengthy discussion among board members about the problem of parking in downtown Pittsfield, and about the problems in newly adopted Section 17.3 of the zoning ordinance. The board discussed the following questions:
Are parking regulations by zoning enforceable?
Should the board propose eliminating the zoning requirements for parking in the Commercial District?
Would enforcement of the existing parking-time limit ease the parking problem?
To what extent is residential parking making the commercial parking problem worse?
Are the second and third conditions of Section 17.3, b, unworkably vague?
If those conditions are unworkably vague, then does the board have authority to adopt interim, internal-to-the-planning-board guidelines for applying Section 17.3, b?

The board did not resolve any of these questions.

JP said that the condition allowing parking on a nearby lot is easy to correct; the board simply defines a distance. The bigger problem is figuring out how to apportion parking on the street. To answer the questions that the board has been discussing, the board needs an inventory of uses and parking spaces in downtown Pittsfield.

The board continued discussing the questions listed above.

FH said that he would do the inventory of commercial applications and parking spaces on Main Street.

MC said that the inventory should include residential needs.

JP agreed.

CW disagreed. Residential use will have no parking relief.

JP asked for clarification of what uses may get parking relief. Will parking relief be available to nonresidential uses but not to residential? JP explained that the base parking requirement of Table 17.1 is for on-site parking, and that Section 17.3, b, defines three forms of relief:
(1) the applicant can prove that the proposed use does not need as much parking as Table 17.1 specifies;
(2) the applicant can meet the number of spaces that Table 17.1 specifies, “by establishing parking in the street”; and
(3) the applicant can meet the number of spaces that Table 17.1 specifies, “by establishing parking on a nearby lot.”

TM said that the zoning ordinance will stay as it is in relation to residential uses. The three means of relief will be available only to nonresidential uses. Residential uses must provide on-site parking that satisfies the table.

CW and JP discussed the meaning of Section 17.3, b. JP explained that the base requirement, without relief, is for a certain number of parking spaces on the lot, not on the street.

CW asked if that were for businesses too?

JP and FH said yes.

JP gave examples from the table. These spaces have to be on the lot, not on the street.

TM said that the table did not say “on the lot.”

JP acknowledged the omission but said that “on the lot” is the intent.

FH said yes, that is the intent.

JP explained that the relief is in not having to have the required number of parking spaces on the lot and off the street. For relief, the parking spaces can be reduced in number, moved to a nearby lot, or moved to the street.

FH asked to stop the discussion of parking until the next meeting. By the next meeting, FH will have the inventory of parking spaces and uses.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Building Inspector Report

FH said that the Family Dollar will be built on the site of the former P&M Market. The shell will be up by July 1, and the store will open on September 1.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Selectmen’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

FH said that the board of selectmen is working on tax deeds. FH asked GL to fill in the details.

GL said that board of selectmen has tax-deeded 24 properties. The owners communicated poorly with the town. The selectmen gave everyone an extra year because of the bad economy. GL does not like to tax-deed properties, but, when the property owners do not communicate, GL has to think about the other taxpayers too.

FH said that he would like to have a conceptual consultation come before the planning board at the next meeting. The consultation is tentative.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Members Concerns

Members concern 1: FH’s concern that TM and CW sign the appointment form for PD and MC.

FH said that TM and CW must sign an appointment form for PD and MC. TM and CW signed that form earlier tonight, and town clerk Elizabeth Hast will swear PD and MC when Elizabeth Hast gets the form on Monday.

Members concern 2: GL’s concern that the economic development committee is setting up a Facebook page.

GL explained that the economic development committee (“EDC”) is setting up a Facebook page. The EDC may want to discuss the page with the planning board.

Members concern 3: TM’s concern that members not act officially without the chair’s permission.

TM reminded board members that they must not act officially—whether it be asking advice from the town attorney, or whatever it may be—unless they have permission from the chair or the board.

JP asked whether TM’s reminder includes questions to the Local-Government Center.

TM said no. Questions to the Local-Government Center are personal research.

Members concern 4: JP’s concern about whether Matt Monahan’s e-mail cc to town attorney Laura Spector would generate a bill to the town.

JP asked whether Matt Monahan’s e-mail cc to town attorney Laura Spector would generate a bill to the Town.

TM said no. Matt Monahan is not part of the town.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

MC seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of May 5, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, MC, FH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of April 21, 2011, is adjourned at 9:03 PM.

Minutes approved: May 19, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on May 7, 2011, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on May 5, 2011, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on May 6, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

2 Town tapes