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

DATE: Thursday, November 11, 2011

Call to Order:

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.

Roll Call:

Members present: Jim Pritchard (JP, associate member), Pat Heffernan (PH, associate member), Gerard Leduc (GL, selectmen’s ex officio), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), and Ted Mitchell (TM, chair).

Members absent: Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex officio alternate), Peter Dow (PD, alternate), and Ray Conner (RC, alternate).

Public Input:

No members of the public are present.

Discussion of Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 1:

JP presented the board with a draft of changes that he proposed to make to Amendment No. 1. The changes were divided between two subjects: (1) the 806.5 square-foot area of a unit on-street-parking credit, which occupied an hour and a half of the hearing on November 3, and (2) the fractional nature of numbers that the Table of Parking Requirements generates.

JP said that changing “806.5” to “800” would eliminate all of the objections that the public raised at the last meeting. The areas in the Table of Parking Requirements are typically expressed to the nearest hundred. Therefore, if the area of the unit on-street-parking credit is also expressed to the nearest hundred, then the on-street-parking credit cannot possibly impose any greater requirements on the site plan accuracy than the Table of Parking Requirements, which is in the zoning ordinance now, already imposes.

JP said that the calculations with the number that the Table of Parking Requirements generates should be clearer about what happens to the fractional part when the table generates a number with a fractional part. For example, if a furniture or large-appliance store has 1200 square feet, then the table generates a “minimum number of parking spaces” equal to 2.4. In Article 16, Section 4, (a), (no parking relief), a fractional number from the table gets rounded up to the next whole number. (2.4 rounds to 3.) But in Article 16, Section 5, (d), (parking relief), the number from the table retains its fractional part, and the on-street-parking credit, which also has a fractional part (1200/800 = 1.5), gets subtracted, and then the result (2.4 – 1.5 = .9) gets rounded up (.9 rounds up to one). All rounding happens at the end of calculations. Fractional parts get carried through the calculations until the end. Consequently, if, as in the example, the fractional part of the on-street-parking credit is greater than or equal to the fractional part of the number from the table, then the number of parking spaces ultimately required will be one less than if the number from the table were rounded up before subtracting the on-street-parking credit.

JP read a motion on the final form of Amendment No. 1:

I move that the final form of Amendment No. 1 shall be the same as the Amendment No. 1 dated October 6, 2011, and proposed for public hearing on November 3, 2011, except with the following changes:

1. On page 5, Article 16, Section 5, (c), “one on-STREET parking space per 806.5 square feet equals 101 on-STREET parking spaces per 81,458 square feet” shall be changed to “one on-STREET parking space per 800 square feet approximately equals 101 on-STREET parking spaces per 81,458 square feet”.

2. On page 5, Article 16, Section 5, (c), “806.5” shall be changed to “800” in the four other places where “806.5” appears.

3. On page 3, Article 16, Section 4, (a), “If the Table of Parking Requirements specifies a number with a fractional part” shall be changed to “For the purposes of this paragraph, if the Table of Parking Requirements specifies a number with a fractional part”.

4. On page 6, Article 16, Section 5, (d), (3) and (4), (2 places) “shall have a number” shall be changed to “shall have a whole number”.

5. On page 6, Article 16, Section 5, (d), “Any use that is of a type listed in Article 16, Section 4, (c), Table of Parking Requirements, and that has fewer off-STREET, on-LOT parking spaces than the minimum number of parking spaces that the Table of Parking Requirements specifies” shall be changed to “Any use that is of a type listed in Article 16, Section 4, (c), Table of Parking Requirements, and that has fewer off-STREET, on-LOT parking spaces than Article 16, Section 4, (a), requires”.

6. On page 1, the proposal date shall be changed from October 6, 2011, to November 11, 2011.

JP offered copies of the motion to the board.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW said that 806.5 should be changed to 800. The change eliminates all of the objections to the on-street-parking credit. The language used for fractional calculations should be consistent.

TM said that he had suggested 800 at the hearing on November 3, 2011.

TM called for a vote on JP’s motion.

Vote: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) JP’s motion on the final form of Amendment No. 1 is adopted.

Other discussion:

CW said that the board should be clear in explaining Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 3. Subdivision for a family member on a class VI highway is a sympathetic issue, but the board cannot in any way restrict people from selling their land. Therefore, the board cannot distinguish between subdivision for family members and subdivision for sale. Voters need to understand that the board is not proposing to take away anyone’s rights. Under state law, the right to subdivide on a class VI highway does not exist. Because no right to subdivide exists, the town can only grant subdivision as a favor.

TM suggested adjourning.

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

JP seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of November 11, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of November 11, 2011, is adjourned at 7:30 PM.

Minutes approved: December 1, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on November 11, 2011, from notes and tape that I made during the planning board meeting on November 11, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

1 Town tape.