November 16, 2006 Minutes

Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
DRAFT Minutes of Public Meeting
NOVEMBER 16, 2006
Present: Board members Chair Dave Simpson (DS), Vice-Chair Bill Miskoe (BM), Rich
Hunsberger (RH), Eric Bahr (EB), Ralph Odell (RO), Paul Metcalf (PM), Alternate
Member Dan Greene (DG), Alternate Member Peter Newell (PN), Building Inspector
Mike McLaughlin (MM), Recording Secretary Delores Fritz (DF).
Board member Selectman’s Ex Officio DonnaKeeley (DK) was absent. Alternate Board
Member – Larry Knopka (LK) appeared later during the meeting.
Also present were Paul Rogers, J. Brandon Guida, Jennifer McCourt, Gordon R.
Blakeney, Jr., Esq., Andrew H. Sullivan, Esq., Forrest Sell (FS), Fred Hast.
Chair Simpson called the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Item 3 – Approval of the Minutes
DS) move that the minutes of October 26, 2006 be approved later in the meeting.
Item 4 – Introduction of Planning/Zoning Board secretary, Delores Fritz.
Welcome. Delores Fritz has a background of jury trial clerk and we welcome her.
Item 5 – Paul Rogers – Moo-Veez Galore LL – Site Plan Review, 44 Main Street, for
a storefront hair salon (Map U03 – Lot 86).
(DS) the only concern I see on his application is that not all department heads have
signed off on it. I don’t feel we should continue holding him up. I think we should
consider his application with the exception that the department heads sign off on the
project. (BM) question about that, the applicant is Paul Rogers, but who is actually
going to be operating the business?
Paul Rogers (PR) stepped forward and stated that he would be operating the business.
(BM) Both of them? (PR) Yes. (BM) No problem, question answered. (DS) Any
thoughts on the application. (BM) I move that we approve the application as complete.
2
(DS) Motion made, seconded by Ralph Odell. Discussion, no discussion. All in favor.
Unanimous.
(DS) You want to come up.
Paul Rogers (PR) stepped forward and stated: As you can see, I bought half the building
in January, obviously I am going to pull out some of the big picture windows and make it
a stationary window/door and have the firewall in between the two. Probably about 35-
40 years ago it was two storefronts. (PR) offered information in regard to the wall and
where wall is currently? Somewhere along the lines, they separated it and I am going to
build the exact same wall exactly as I did it on the plans. It goes 21 ft. in from the right
side of the building, storefront of almost 40 ft. So it will be 19 ft., 8 in. in the front where
the two picture windows are already existing and then the wall will be right on the right
hand side of those windows. (DS) inquired as to the video store and (PR) explained the
location store will be here and the display window, and on the right what I am scheduled
to build right about there is a big header that goes across and sinks down about 14 in. and
continues making the wall. (DS) And your beauty salon currently sits? (PR) Right
here. (DS) Are you closing that and moving into here? (PR) Yes, I find it will be a lot
more beneficial for myself then to have to pay somebody else.
(BM) So you are changing use on one-half of the building from video rentals to hair
salon. (PR) Yes, the only thing I have to do is have the wall put up, the electricity will
be separated. (BM) That is a building permit issue and for the building inspector, not for
us as far as change of use it is going from video rental to hair salon. (PR) Just taking out
a picture window and putting in a door.
(BM) Again, I think that is a building code; we are just dealing with uses. . (MM) are
you going to have a door through the firewall? (PR) What I want to do is for fire reasons.
Obviously I am going to make it wheelchair accessible, and the door for the bathroom so
the toilet will be right there. There will be a door because there is no other fire escape
except the one down in the basement. There will be a door for fire escape on the other
side of the bathroom to go out to the back. (DS) asked about adverse parking. (PR)
instead of parking in front of the building, an average of three cars park in front of the
park itself in the middle of the day, so actually the clientele will be able to park more in
front of the park instead of parking in front of the other three storefronts and taking up
the parking which they usually do especially on a Friday or Saturday morning. So the
parking to me would be better in front of the park. The Chinese restaurant is more
takeout than eating in. (DS) Is there any handicapped parking on that strip at all? (PR)
No handicapped parking at all. It is very seldom that I see anybody pull in with a
handicapped sticker, whatever in that area. (BM) your confusing municipal parking, I do
not think we can designate whether it is handicap or not, that is up to the city. (DS) No,
you’re right. (EB) are you expanding the size of the salon at all, is it going to be the
same? (PR) actually, it is going to be smaller. It is going to have four stations, but it has
only been myself and one other girl for the last 13 years. At this time, I am inquiring
about someone joining us, because we are only open four days a week, but we are still
closed Sunday and Monday obviously like any other salon. (EB) so you are not adding
any stations? (PR) no, I have four stations in my salon, the way it has been set up for the
last 8-9 years and that is the way I am happy with it. (EB) so the footprints are smaller.
(BM) have you talked with the Mike, Building Inspector? Are there any difficulties with
3
making this conversion in returning it into that hair salon? (PR) I am going to have 2-3
outlets installed, have plumbing installed for the 3 sinks, so three sinks, plumbing, and
electrical and the bathroom facilities. (MM)I have been over there; I don’t see much of
an issue.
(DS) are there any tenants on the second floor? (PR) on the second floor, at this time, I
have two apartments that I have remodeled, but I haven’t done anything since I bought
the building in January. (DS) Are you aware of the requirements per HSA? You have to
secure a license to rent apartments in town. (PR) Yeah, the building inspector had to
come by and gone through the inspection and will be coming back.
(MM) what is the status of the safe? (PR) The safe, my intention is that I have not found
anybody at this time to haul it away. I am going to take the mechanism out of the door so
that it does not lock. (MM) it is an old bank. (PR) There is a door right here that is
actually going to be a storage place for beauty supplies but only for the employees only
because it also goes to my basement. There is a door there. That is all I have.
(DS) No further questions, OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, QUESTIONS/CONCERNS:
Closed to the public. I do not see a problem going forward. (BM) I move that we
approve this application conditional on the department heads sign-off. Second Ralph
Odell.
(DS) Discussion. (EB) My only concern is that we have a firewall concern. I would
feel better if the fire chief looked at this first rather than accept it contingent on
department heads sign-off because there is a whole range of things that can happen. (RH)
I think it is a building permit issue. (BM) it really is a change of use issue from a video
rental to a hair salon. (RH) it really is an expanded use. (BM) part of it is a change of
use, and the code/safety issues involved; there are better people than us to be addressing
that.
(DS) I am feeling pretty confident to move forward, the department heads, I think,
are still going to have a few things to say. Do we really need to get involved in that?
(BM) No. He still has to get a building permit and meet all the code requirements
and getting all the department heads to be happy with what he is doing, otherwise he
will not get a building permit.
(RH) Let’s call the vote.
DS) all in favor. Opposed. Unanimous. (DS) You have a 30-day appeal on it and
you are all set. (7:20 p.m.) (DS) Before we move forward, I have one question, are
you representing Mr. Elliott before the Ethics Committee? I am going to step down
from this hearing as I have been called as a witness before the Ethics Committee on
the 29th of this month so therefore, to make sure there is no conflict, I’ll step down
and hand it over to Bill Miskoe and he call up an alternate.
(BM) Dan Greene would you be seated as an alternate.
ITEM 6. J. Brandon and Katrina E. Guida- Site Plan Review, 187 Barnstead Road for
Modular Home/Sales Office (Map R4, Lot 9).
4
(BM) At this point, I would like to have the board members determine if application is
complete. (EB) I move that we accept application as complete. Seconded: Ralph Odell.
(BM) Discussion of the application, whether everything has been checked.
(EB) I’ve got questions, merits of the project aside, we have no autograph from the Fire
Department and we have nothing on the checklist. (BM) The Fire Department is blank.
Do you have a checklist? (MM) no. (EB) It is not complete. (RH) Whose obligation
is it to do the checklist? (BM) It says this application is to be completed by applicant.
The reason for this is to make sure that this Board gets everything that we are asking for
and if it is checked off, the applicant is making a statement that it has been provided. I’m
saying if we don’t have any checklist we have to go through items 1-28 to determine
whether we have the required information and I am not sure I want to take the Board’s
time right now to go through that when it could have been done differently.
Brandon Guida (BG) stepped forward requesting permission to speak.
(Guida) One of the reasons I didn’t complete this because I had the same questions as to
whether I should be checking off what it is asking for or not because this is a unique
situation. I can go through these in about two minutes but farther on it says this is for a
permanent building and this is simply not. (BM) Before we vote on the completeness of
this application, would you like to go through items 1-13 and tell us your answers?
(BG) The completed application is almost complete. The site plan has been submitted,
fee has been submitted, and site sketch and plan of all buildings as to size and location
have been submitted. That’s on the surveyor’s plan. The elevation you refer to I did not
submit, layout of off-street parking, I did. Ingress/egress – yes. Location of signs, the
sign is going to be right where the aluminum pole is so that is all marked. We are not
going to have any outside lighting. That is N/A. Water supply and sewage facilities that
is N/A. Essentially it is going to be a model home that may be temporarily based there
and with electricity only. (BM) The checklist is done. Application of submission is
made. Is there any discussion? (RH) I was just thinking that the photo is the important
issue because it is a record of what is there. I think that is your record of what’s there
especially since there is not going to be other things constructed. That is your record of
your landscape and that is your record of everything you see.
(BM) Fine, everything is supplied with the exception of a photo. We are now in
discussion as to whether or not to accept this application as complete. (EB) I think it is
at least worth talking about whether or not we can stop at No. 13. I understand that these
are not forever but by the same token they are going to be buildings that are going to be
powered and have sewer connections. I don’t know where you draw the line between a
building and a building that can be disconnected and moved. (BG) No sewers, no water.
The question still remains is it a building or a big trailer with windows and lights.
(BM) My impression is that it is no different than a used car place. It happens to be a
house; if he were selling a tractor or a dump truck it would simply be an item on display.
(EB) What is to stop this from being sold and someone coming and asking for a permit
to hook up water and sewer and all of a sudden you have a house there. (BM) You would
need a building permit and occupancy permit. (MM) There is no permanent foundation.
(BM) I see what you are saying. (EB) What is a building and what isn’t? I want to make
5
sure we are not in conflict. (BM) Okay, it is a building, but it is not a permanent
building. (Guida) It will not be taxed by the town as a building. (BM) It is not taxable
as real estate property. If it is not taxed as a building, then it isn’t a building until it
becomes so. Any further discussion on the application. All those in favor of accepting
this application as complete knowing that the Fire Department has not yet signed off, I’d
like your vote. All those in favor. All in favor. (PM) opposed. (EB) Actually we
require Fire Department signature.
(BM) In order to attach that condition, Eric would have to withdraw his motion and
rephrase it. We require a conditional approval. The Fire Chief is very unavailable and
we are having a very hard time getting him to sign off on these things. (BM) I don’t
think the applicant is lacking this approval. (EB) The question is, is this application
complete? (BM) If the Board chooses to accept as complete conditional upon Fire Chief
sign-off, then it is complete.
(EB) I withdraw my motion and I move that the application is complete contingent upon
getting sign-off from Fire Chief. (PM) Seconded.
(BM) Any further discussion. No. All those in favor of accepting the application as
complete conditional upon receiving the Fire Chief sign-off. Unanimous, motion carried
as complete. Our next move is to debate and vote on whether to approve the application.
Can I please have a motion to approve the application? (EB) I move to approve the site
application. Seconded –(DG). (BM) Motion to approve has been made and seconded
and is now open for discussion.
(EB) I think one of the things useful would be to see if the applicant would like to add
anything to this map. (BG) Well, for one thing we are not going to have any septic or
water hook-ups. What I am going to do is grade it out, put the footings in for the house
and landscape and fencing around it. The fence does come out beyond where the house
is going to go. We have never had any problem. There is a retail restaurant there, but we
have never had any problems with people parking on the highway, but the fence will go
beyond it anyway. We re going to grade it out, put the footings in, and hopefully next
spring when it dries out, put in some topsoil around it and skirting around it so it looks
nice and that’s it. Traffic is very light on these model homes. In Ossipee, there is a very
high traffic area. I think the most we have gotten in an entire day is maybe five cars.
People do not shop often for this. I have many days when I have 0-1. Someone will be
in it and it will have electricity only. (BM) This area is probably zoned light
industrial/commercial use. (Guida) My request is only for a building on residential lot.
(BM) There is one lot here. There is residential use on lot and also commercial use on
that lot and it is really a duel use or a mixed-use property. I have been through the
Zoning Ordinance and I cannot find any reference that allows dual or mixed use. From
my knowledge, this exempts him as it is zoned commercially. (BM) I still say it makes it
a mixed use. He has already been granted the variance, Bill.
(Guida) I already got a variance. It is going to be part residential and part commercial.
(BM) Unfortunately, we deal with a whole lot. I cannot find mixed/dual use.
6
(Guida) The Court has approved it; the Court approved a commercial lot and a
residential building. (BM) I have not seen the Court’s decision. I really think this
should be continued while we allow the Town’s attorney to review this. That’s my
personal opinion. (Guida) If I were to rebut, I would say that it would not make any
sense at all for a Court to approve a residential use for a building. It makes zero sense.
(BM) So does that mean that the Court is creating dual use lot? (RH) in our Zoning
Regs it is a combined dwelling/business. (BM) In your case, the dwelling and the
business are related. In this case, it is not. I have not read the Court decision and in fact,
if the Court did establish that a dual use or multiple use, I am surprised and I do not want
to set precedence. (Guida) The decision was given to this Board by me. The Court did
have a chance to review it.
(BM) I am not a lawyer. Let’s take a short recess so I can read this.
Recess at 7:46 p.m. Resume at 7:50.
(BM) We are reopening this meeting at 7:50 p.m. Some of the Board has reviewed the
Court decision. Eric, would you like to explain your analysis of it.
(EB) The way I look at it, this is a multi-use building. The Court’s exception to the
Zoning Board’s denying additional apartments was that because the building was
partially residential already, which is the only thing that has ever succeeded there, that
substantial justice wasn’t done by allowing him the ability to convert to residential.
There is nothing in there that talks about continuing commercial use of the building or the
property. As I would understand our ordinance, if it hasn’t been commercial for the last
four years, we would be introducing it and not a continuation. (Guida) I would say that
is a misinterpretation of the decision. We asked for a variance on the building and the
Court’s decision is only discussing the building. That doesn’t extinguish the commercial
use on the rest of the lot. It took one portion of the lot and said even though it is
residential; commercial has not worked only in the building. (RH) Are you taxed
commercially on your lot?
(Guida) It doesn’t say that because the variance is for the building only and it does say
that. The building itself, and it does not include the lot. You cannot extinguish the
commercial use of the lot when the variance is for the building only. What you are
saying because this is now residential, you cannot use the remainder of the three acres.
Not true. The remainder of the three acres is still going commercial, only that building is
still in residential and that is the only thing that the Court addressed. (EB) Bill, in my
opinion, I certainly think we have adequate grounds for counsel interpretation. (BM) I
believe this Board needs legal advice and I am going to continue consideration of this
application to December 14, 2006. The reason for that is I have discovered that the
December 7, 2006 is already booked and we are trying to avoid the 21st which would be a
few days before Christmas. We’ll continue it to December 14, 2006 while the Board
seeks legal advice.
(EB) I move to continue this matter to December 14, 2006. Seconded: (DG)
7
(BM) Discussion on the motion to continue. No further discussion. The motion was
unanimously approved.
(DS) Resumed as Chairman of meeting.
ITEM 7.
AHG Properties, Inc., cluster sub-division, Thompson Road (Map R44, Lot l)
(RH) I am going to recluse myself at this time from the meeting on this matter.
(DS) Peter Newell, Alternate. Will you please be seated?
(EH) Mr. Chairman, before we consider this, I want to make the Board aware of the fact
that I do abut a current property of Mr. Sell’s, not this property. I have no pecuniary
interest in this hearing. I do not abut this property and if there is a problem, I would be
happy to entertain stepping down. (Forrest Sell) I do not have a problem with that.
(DS) Application is complete, in fact the three years I have been on the Board, and it is
the most complete application I have ever seen.
(EB) The Zoning Board is holding a hearing on variance and that hearing is set for
December 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m., we just want to make sure that everyone is aware and
should the ZBA reverse itself on that, we would need to completely do this over.
(BM) I know there is a conflict on the 14th, but we’ll be having one small hearing in the
other room. (DS) We’ll be all right. One of us will have to take minutes and we do not
have record the meeting, as it is not required by RSA. (BM) The only thing we’ll be
doing that night is Guida, I believe. (MM) There is a conflict; I cannot be in two places
at one time. (DS) We cannot continue because we would have to renotice it.
(EB) Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that we accept the application for the cluster
sub-division on Thompson Road. (BM) Seconded ((DS) Discussion – None.
Unanimous.
(DS) Public Hearing for an application for a 12 lot single-family residential
condominium cluster subdivision. The property is located at Map 44, Lot 1, Thompson
Road, Pittsfield, NH. The property is owned by AHG Properties, Inc. of 46 Strawberry
Hill Road, Bedford, NH 03ll0.
Jennifer McCourt (JM), McCourt Engineering Associates, PLLC
(JM) Related location, acreage, wetland information, and various other particulars
regarding the property and related to the maps (props which she had brought with her and
were set up for observation) and explained the sub-draft application in detail. She related
information in regard to house placement, parking areas, septic tanks, wells, useable
common areas once roadway is in, easement from street, power lines (secondary poles,
but essentially underground). She related that they have an easement of 17 feet so that a
8
50 feet right of way can be made through there. (BM) questioned the protective radius of
the well which is possibly existing on Lot 1E.
(DS) Have you received the Fire Department’s concerns? Applicant (Forrest Sell (FS))
related that he had been to the firehouse several times but has been unable to contact Fire
Chief and I’ve talked to Mike about it several times. (DS) related that they had some
concerns in regard to generators, sprinklers, (FS) related that he had a copy of it but he
has had no feedback yet from them. (DS) related that Fire Chief has signed off but he has
several concerns that he wants to have met. The RSA requires that any work,
improvement, or otherwise to a town road, you have to have the Selectman Board
authorization to do it. That is for any upgrade that you want to do to this road. We need
to have a copy of the waiver and present it to the Selectman Board and Road
Maintenance. (BM) related that it is still a Class 6 road, even though they upgrade it and
we need to hear from the Select Board to see if they are going to allow this to happen.
(JM) after looking through these, I feel there would be no problem and it would be
appreciated if you could open the door for us in this regard with the Select Board in
regard to a Class 6 road. (BM) related that in relation to a Class 6 road, the Select Board
and the Planning Board must develop a policy and that policy needs to be applied to this
matter.
(EB) had a couple of questions for (JM) in regard to what was across the street and their
intent to improve the road.
(DS) Questions, open to the public.
Gordon Blakeney, Esq. (GB), representing Mary H. Pritchard, Trustee related that he had
a couple issues overlapping the Zoning Ordinance and the Statutes: 1. 674.41 requiring
Select Board approval. 2. Most towns have a policy to deal with Class 6 roads. 3. Legal
ability to improve Thompson Road, a public road. There is no provision in law
authorizing private improvements to a public Class 6 road, and 4. Upgrading Thompson
Road to legal Class 5 status would impose a duty on the town to maintain it regularly. He
related that this is going to be a challenging upgrade and mentioned several other items in
the motion. There was some discussion as to Class 5 and Class 6 roads and if the town
does not maintain it, it is still a Class 6 road.
(EB) related that there are some issues regarding the road, which are not going to be
solved tonight. He suggested a site walk in conjunction with Conservation Department.
Close discussion to public.
(DS) let’s now cover the Louis Berger monies and a check needs to be drawn and given
to Mike, perhaps tomorrow. (FS) This has not been done.
(DS) Another thing, which we touched on briefly, regarding attorney fees in regard to
legal review of internal covenants. A discussion ensued regarding the viability of passing
on legal fees to the applicant when such issues arise that require legal explanation.
9
Attorney would charge $165 per hour plus travel time to present at a meeting. (MM)
disagreed with this kind of policy and that he has never seen a town pass on legal fees in
regard to an application for what a developer wants to do. (DS) related that to this point
they have not done this, but clearly we can, and should it be put in regulations. (BM)
related that we chose not to do in past and these fees would be for administrative tasks.
(MM) Again, I have never seen a town do this and I would like to go on record that I
disagree. (FS) questioned as to how long something like this continues and when does it
end.
(DS) proposed a site walk, which he had originally done, but it would be beneficial for all
members to participate in a site walk and have the roads, septic sites, and home sites
flagged out so that we would know what we were looking at. It was noted that the
Wetlands Bureau would not be available until some time in the far future, rather than
within the next few weeks. Members of Board agreed that (FS) would assist them in a
site walk. (EB) motioned to do a site walk on Sunday, November 26, 2006 at 9:00 a.m.
(PN) seconded. Unanimous. (EB) suggested that we get on the Select Board agenda to
give them information regarding the town road.
(BM) Motion to continue to December 14, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. (PO) seconded for Guida
session only. Discussion ensued that the date is same as Zoning Board, but it was felt
that the Guida meeting could not be continued and it was decided that it would be done as
scheduled on December 14th. (EB) motioned to continue to December 21, 2006,
seconded by (PN). Opposed (BM). All others assented.
(DS) 9:20 p.m. Break: 5 minutes.
9:25 p.m. Meeting reconvened.
(PN) stepped down and (RH) resumed seat.
(DS) Approval of Minutes. Minutes for October 19 and 26, 2006 as well as today’s
minutes – most members have not reviewed. (BM) motion to continue review of minutes
to next meetings. (EB) seconded. Unanimous.
Item 8. Building Inspector’s Report
(MM) Only one new home on Winnicutt Road. I would like to reiterate that I feel
The attorney fees should not be charged. We are going about it the wrong way. If it
is right for one individual, it should be for all individuals. Discussion ensued about
who and why applicants should/should not be charged attorney fees. It was felt that it
depended on the issue and how complicated it would be. (MM) indicated that
individuals pay an application fee and that is included in that and that what is good
for one is good for all.
10
Item 9. Selectman’s Report
(LK) reported that all is well on Selectman’s Board.
Item 10. Public Input
None.
Item 11. Members Concerns
(PO) there is an initial public open meeting on December 7, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. for
residents of community to express their interests and concerns. It will be held here and
will be for a one-hour time slot.
(DS) Trigger Development Bond is dated October 12, 2005 and should be October 12,
2006. We need to have that changed and confirm that it was not 2005. If it is 2005, then
the bond is not effective.
(DS) Mitchell and Bates relate that Paul Broadway has signed on as our attorney in
Superior Court. I also talked to Laura Spectre today regarding appeal on Jenson property,
12 Broadway.
(LK) New Fire Chief coming on December 14th, Cary Johnson.
(EB) Regarding 12 Broadway, all communications should be channeled through counsel.
(MM) related he is not communicating with him at this time. All agreed that all
communication should be through counsel.
(DS) Reminder that all folders should remain in Town Hall for updating. December 7th
is a work session. We have the Governor Road deal. It should be noted that there are
time limits on some of these items. December 7th should be a useful meeting. Also,
question why there is no site plan regarding the special exception for Brian Coombes and
that needs to be done. George Batchelder regarding the salt shed and perhaps, we could
have a work session to offer recommendations.
Item 12. Old Business
None.
Item 12. Adjournment
(BM) Motion to Adjourn. (EB) Seconded. Unanimous. 9:52 p.m.
_______________________________ _________________________
David Simpson Date
11
12
13