November 3, 2011 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, November 3, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Public Hearing Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell (TM) called the meeting to order at 7:02 P.M.

TM said that, because only one member of the public, Bill Miskoe, of 61 Thompson Road, is present, TM would delay the start of the hearings on the zoning amendments for another five minutes to allow for members of the public who might arrive late.

GL offered to give a selectman’s report. Last Tuesday, the board of selectmen finalized the budget. The budget will have a zero increase on the tax rate, which will be $30.66 per $1000. The breakdown of the tax rate is as follows:

Town tax: $9.49 / $1000 (this year) will go to $8.97 / $1000 (next year)
School tax: $15.79 / $1000 (this year) will go to $16.72 / $1000 (next year)
State ed: $2.65 / $1000 (this year) will go to $2.40 / $1000 (next year)
County tax: $2.73 / $1000 (this year) will go to $2.61 / $1000 (next year)

The only increase in the tax rate is the school tax.

TM asked whether the budget numbers include the layoffs of one fireman, one police officer, and one highway department person.

GL said yes. The selectmen will do warrant articles to rehire the three people, but the selectmen cannot assume that those articles will pass.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

TM called attendance:

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).

Peter Dow (PD, alternate) and Ray Conner (RC, alternate) were absent at the time of the roll call, but they arrived at 7:10 P.M.

Members absent: Fred Hast (FH, selectmen’s ex officio alternate).

RESUME SELECTMAN’S REPORT

Bill Miskoe asked about the budget process. The town will eliminate three positions: one fireman, one police officer, and one public works. Does the decision to eliminate those positions go to the town meeting?

GL said no. The positions have been eliminated. The warrant articles propose to restore the three positions.

Bill Miskoe asked whether there would be three separate warrant articles and whether they would specify the impact on the tax rate?

GL said that each position will have its own warrant article. GL was not sure that the warrant articles would specify the impact on the tax rate, but he will raise this matter at the selectmen’s meeting to make sure that the articles do specify the impact on the tax rate.

Hank Fitzgerald, of 161 Shaw Road, arrived at 7:07 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Approval of Minutes of October 20, 2011

CW asked to defer the approval of the minutes to the next meeting. CW spent a lot of time preparing for the hearings on the zoning amendments and was not able to review the draft minutes.

The board agreed to defer the approval of the minutes of the October 20, 2011, meeting to the next meeting.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Public Hearing – Zoning Amendments

TM started the public hearing on Zoning Amendment No. 1 at 7:08 P.M.

TM explained the format of the hearing. Each hearing will have a specific time as per the notice. The board will summarize the proposal. Then the board will take public input. Then the board will deliberate. Then the board will take more public input if necessary.

CW added that the board will continue the hearings after all are done if the continuances are necessary.

TM summarized Amendment No. 1. Last year, the voters approved parking regulations that included provisions for businesses in the downtown area to get relief from parking requirements. In studying how to implement the regulations, the board found that there is no way to implement the regulations that is fair to all applicants in that there are no consistent criteria on which the relief decision is to be based. The board also felt that the conditional use permit process would limit public input and that a special exception process would be better because it would allow more public input. The board found that the provisions violated state law RSA 674:20 because the provisions were not uniform throughout each district where they applied. The board limited the relief provisions to the Commercial District because that was the only practical way to satisfy RSA 674:20.

CW explained that the board had decided to do a mock drill on each of the issues that passed. The process of debugging took a long time. The board should use mock implementations in the future to debug proposed regulations. The board discovered the violation of RSA 674:20 during this process. The board’s intent was to implement the wishes of the town in a fair way. A very important problem that the board had to confront was that the ordinance had authorized the planning board to give on-street-parking credit without defining on-street-parking credit or giving any guidelines for giving the credit. The board only gets to give on-street-parking credit rarely, and, if the board makes a mistake, then the mistake affects other businesses and is difficult to correct later. The board counted parking spaces and used tax cards to define and count usable area to define the on-street-parking credit to make it fair. Another, smaller issue was the conditional use permit (RSA 674:21, II), which, as the ordinance was passed, was under the planning board’s sole control. The board decided that it wanted the more traditional special exception to ensure thorough opportunity for public input. Another problem was that the requirements were not defined when multiple uses were on one lot. The board corrected that problem, which is important because the Commercial District has many multiple-use lots. The board tried to tailor the parking requirements of the Commercial District to the Commercial District. The town gets into trouble when it copies regulations from another town without tailoring the regulations to Pittsfield.

TM said that many problems came from having copied the Pittsfield zoning ordinance from other towns without tailoring it to Pittsfield. The board is trying to tailor the ordinance to Pittsfield and to take the time necessary to do the job properly. For example, the parking-space dimensions were deleted and not replaced in any other part of the ordinance. Those dimensions had to be restored. The board changed the name from “Parking Requirements” to “Parking Regulations,” which is more encompassing of what the regulations are.

GL explained that the board had defined and used usable area, not unusable area, so that businesses would get an appropriate on-street-parking credit. Areas with low ceilings are not counted for credit because they are not practically usable.

CW explained that the board had tried to follow the usable area as defined on the tax cards.

TM opened the hearing to public input.

Hank Fitzgerald, of 161 Shaw Road, asked for clarification of a public parking space that was given to an individual business. Hank said that he supported what the board was doing, but he wanted to understand this case.

TM explained that the case was only as an example. No space had actually been given.

TM, CW, and JP referred to page 5 of Amendment No. 1, which says that the on-street-parking credit does not, by itself, let any business use an on-street parking space.

Hank Fitzgerald repeated that he supported the parking regulations.

CW repeated that it was important to give on-street-parking credit fairly.

Hank Fitzgerald said that each district could be divided as an A and a B.

CW said that the town gave the board the authority to give credit for on-street parking but had not defined a way to give it.

Hank Fitzgerald repeated that the board had done a good job with the parking.

Bill Miskoe, of 61 Thompson Road, said that Amendment No. 1 is a 10-page solution to a problem that the town does not have. Bill Miskoe said that “Pittsfield downtown does not have a parking problem.” The town should be proactive and have regulations on the books in advance of a problem becoming serious. This proposed amendment is complicated, inflexible, and expensive to implement. It conflicts with what the economic development group is doing, which is to bring new uses to town. If Bill Miskoe were coming to town, and if he saw this document, then he would go somewhere else. Bill Miskoe said that the on-street-parking credit of one parking space per “806.5 square feet” would require a surveyor to measure the property to .1 square feet because the on-street-parking credit is calculated to the nearest .1 square foot, which means that all measurements must be to the nearest .1 square foot. Bill Miskoe objects to the amendment because it is a complex, inflexible, and expensive solution to a problem that the town does not have. If the amendment that the town adopted is inadequate, then the board must do something, but this amendment is not it. The voters will reject it because it does not address the problem that the town has and because it is too inflexible.

JP said that the reason that there is no parking problem is because businesses are under-using their space. On-street parking is insufficient to serve the needs of the existing space as the Table of Parking Requirements defines those needs.

JP and Bill Miskoe disputed whether this mismatch between the available on-street parking and the amount of parking required by the Table of Parking Requirements constituted an actual “problem.”

JP also disputed that the place to which the on-street-parking credit was calculated specified the precision to which all survey measurements must be made.

Bill Miskoe asserted that, as an engineer, he was qualified to make this interpretation. The parking regulations are overwritten, and they will get in the way of the economic development group. Throttling economic development is not the way to solve a parking problem.

TM asked what affect would removing the decimal have?

Bill Miskoe said that it would say that the board is not nitpicking.

Hank Fitzgerald said that it would specify a tolerance of +/- one square foot. Hank Fitzgerald suggested using 800 square feet. This would solve the problem. The only parking problem in downtown is residential.

TM said that the zoning ordinance should anticipate problems that are likely. TM has no problem removing the decimal point.

JP suggested that, if the board’s intent is to specify a tolerance, then it should specify a tolerance as such, for example +/- so many square feet.

Bill Miskoe said that the zoning ordinance should not use the term “approximately” 101 parking spaces if the board counted exactly 101 parking spaces. Bill Miskoe also complained that the means of estimating the floor area in the specified neighborhood, that is, from the tax cards, was inaccurate. Will the board allow applicants to use tax cards?

JP said that Bill Miskoe should not be complaining about the exactness of the on-street-parking credit number on the one hand and then saying that the board should have gathered information that was consistent with that level of accuracy. JP asked Bill Miskoe how Bill Miskoe thought that on-street-parking credit should be allocated to businesses?

Bill Miskoe said that he had no idea, but he does not like the method that the board has chosen.

JP explained that the current ordinance authorizes the planning board to give on-street-parking credit but has absolutely no guidelines on how to give that credit. So which is better? To grant the credit according to guidelines or to grant the credit arbitrarily because no guidelines exist? Should the regulations be arbitrary?

Bill Miskoe said no. The board should have rules in place prior to a situation becoming a problem. But the amendment that the board has proposed is not the regulation that the town needs. The regulation is too inflexible. The numbers are too approximate. Will the planning board allow the applicant to use tax cards?

JP explained that the board’s best way to estimate the total usable floor area of the district was to tally the area from tax cards. The standard of legality is whether this method is rationally related to the actual area, and what the board did clearly meets that standard. The way that the board used to tally the area of the neighborhood is not necessarily what an applicant is going to use. The land use board, as the finder of fact, has the authority to decide what passes muster for an accurate measurement. If the board decides that the tax cards are accurate, then the applicant can use them.

Bill Miskoe asked, if the on-street-parking-credit standard is defined from estimated data, then will applicants be allowed to give imprecise information to show that he meets that standard? The zoning ordinance should say that it relieves applicants of any requirement for an accurate site-plan survey.

TM asked the board whether the zoning ordinance could specify that tax cards could be used to prove the area being used to calculate the credit for a particular use?

JP said that he was not sure that the zoning ordinance could legally do that. JP said that the tolerance that the board was considering adopting should specify the precision of the area measurements.

Bill Miskoe said that the tolerance would not solve the problem because someone would actually have to take a measurement. The applicant would not have to do any measurement at all if he could use the tax card.

Matt St. George, of 101 True Road, said that the zoning ordinance should specify that the measured area of a site plan can come from a tax card.

Hank Fitzgerald said that tax cards are notoriously inaccurate. The zoning board of adjustment administers the zoning ordinance. As a developer’s architect for 32 years, Hank Fitzgerald decided whether to deal with a town on the basis of how physically heavy the zoning ordinance document was. Many municipalities do not give private businesses any credit for on-street parking. Do not create a problem that does not exist. The existing problem is strictly residential.

PD asked whether the amendment under consideration was responding to the town meeting vote?

JP said that the provision for on-street-parking credit was very old. The board had been approving site plans that had inadequate parking as defined by the Table of Parking Requirements, but the board did not like to approve plans that were not zoning compliant. So the planning board gave itself the power to waive parking requirements.

TM noted that the time is 7:47, which is the time to move to Amendment No. 2, but TM would like to stay with Amendment No. 1.

Bill Miskoe asked to stay with Amendment No. 1.

JP said that there had been a parking problem to which the planning board responded with the on-street-parking credit. Perhaps circumstances have changed so that this problem is currently no longer “functional.” But as far as the existing floor area satisfying the table, the circumstances remain as they were when the on-street-parking credit first originated. No one has proposed a better method of allocating on-street parking spaces than floor area. The tax cards are rationally related to the floor area, so they are legal. Bill Miskoe and Hank Fitzgerald are complaining that the estimate is poor, so, if they have a better way of estimating that floor area, the board is listening.

Bill Miskoe proposed that the board survey all of the properties in the neighborhood.

JP said that such a survey is not possible because, if for no other reason, the Fourth Amendment would not allow it.

Bill Miskoe said that the “806.5 square feet” made the ordinance sound as if the numbers were very accurate.

JP asked whether the discussion were still about the tolerance?

Bill Miskoe said that, if the board were going to define the credit on the basis of tax cards, then it should allow applicants to give their usable area from the tax cards.

JP asked Bill Miskoe what did he think that the tolerance should be?

Bill Miskoe said that tolerance should be the same as the tax cards.

Matt St. George said that an applicant should be able to establish the area of his use from his tax card.

PD said that the tax cards may give a reasonably accurate tally of the whole neighborhood, consisting of many properties, because many errors will tend to cancel each other in their sum. The tax card method of estimating the floor area of the neighborhood is legitimate. If a single property is at issue, then tax cards should not be used because there is no analogous cancellation of errors.

JP said that PD had explained the problem perfectly. The tolerance under discussion related to the tolerance of a reasonable site plan, not the tolerance of the tax card.

Hank Fitzgerald said that Matt St. George was correct.

TM asked whether the zoning ordinance could say that the on-street-parking credit was “approximately” something.

JP said that the board was not listening to PD as carefully as it should. PD identified two quantities: (1) the credit defined from the neighborhood as a whole and (2) measuring a certain particular property. The tolerances on these two quantities do not relate to each other. You do a reasonable site plan, and then you either meet the standard, or you do not meet it. PD’s reasoning suggests that the board should not specify a tolerance, because the area from the site plan is either above the standard or below the standard. The tolerance is not in the on-street-parking-credit standard. The tolerance is in the site plan survey. The tolerance of the survey has nothing to do with the amendment under consideration. The amendment simply defines the on-street parking credit. A site plan is either above the standard or below the standard. The situation is analogous to the frontage standard. The frontage standard is 225 feet. Where did 225 feet come from? It came from a similar process. Lots either meet this standard or they do not. The frontage standard is specified to the nearest foot, but the tolerance is not +/- one foot.

TM said that the board has to assume that there is a problem if Bill Miskoe, who is an engineer, says that there is a problem.

Hank Fitzgerald said that the parking regulations should be simplified. He cited that, in Boston, Massachusetts, businesses are not allowed to get credit for on-street parking spaces. Every business must satisfy its parking requirements with off-street parking spaces.

Bill Miskoe asked what problem is Amendment No. 1 trying to solve?

JP said that the current zoning allows on-street-parking credit to be given but does not say how to give it. Consequently the grant of on-street-parking credit is arbitrary. The problem that Amendment No. 1 is trying to solve is arbitrary approvals.

Hank Fitzgerald suggested that the planning board delete the provision to give any credit for on-street-parking spaces.

JP said that, if the planning board removes the provision to give credit for on-street-parking spaces, then the town will be back in the problem that made the on-street-parking credit necessary in the first place. The planning board will have to approve businesses that do not satisfy the Table of Parking Requirements.

Bill Miskoe said that the planning board should propose to delete all parking regulations because Pittsfield has no parking problem.

JP asked for confirmation that Bill Miskoe was proposing to repeal the parking regulations altogether?

Bill Miskoe said yes. The town should wait for five years and see whether a parking problem develops. If it does, then the town should write some regulations at that time.

TM asked about the possibility of having parking regulations for only residential uses?

Hank Fitzgerald said that a commercial developer, such as the Family Dollar, is going to make sure that he has enough parking. Hank Fitzgerald repeated his suggestion to eliminate the provision for giving credit for on-street parking.

TM said that the provision for giving credit for on-street-parking is intended to help businesses.

Bill Miskoe said that he had lived in Concord before moving to Pittsfield. The businesses on Main Street in Concord do not have to provide any off-street parking. Bill Miskoe would like Pittsfield’s Main Street to be like Concord’s Main Street. Repeal the parking regulations. Pittsfield does not have a parking problem.

TM asked about keeping parking regulations for residential uses?

Bill Miskoe suggested leaving residential as it is, and just remove parking regulations for businesses.

Hank Fitzgerald suggested that parking regulations should apply only to new businesses.

Bill Miskoe disagreed. Repeal all parking regulations on businesses.

JP summarized the issues that the board had heard, and he said that the board had discussed these issues earlier in the year. If the board were going to retain the parking relief, then it would have to have standards. If it could not define standards, then it would have to propose repealing the parking regulations altogether. The board agreed that repealing the parking regulations was not a good idea. Therefore, the board had to define standards for parking relief. Because use of floor area to define on-street-parking credit is not common, JP consulted the Local-Government Center (LGC) to get their opinion. The LGC said that giving credit for on-street parking is common but that most municipalities do not do it well. The LGC said that the floor-area approach appeared to be one of the best ones that they had heard. The board has the same decision to make that it made before: Does the board retain the parking regulations with the floor-area standard, or does the board decide to repeal the parking regulations altogether. The audience has not proposed anything better than the floor-area standard. The only objection that the audience has raised to the floor-area standard is the tolerance on 806.5 square feet.

CW said that the board was working with what the town meeting adopted. The board found that it could not implement the regulations. The town meeting did not say to repeal the parking regulations. Round the 806.5 to 807, and that rounding eliminates of the problem. Then leave the rest of the document as it is.

JP agreed. If the audience is all worked up about a decimal point, then they can have the decimal point. Why not make it 810?

CW said that the purpose of the standard was to assure businesses that they would indeed get the credit. No one said anything about repealing the parking regulations. If the town meeting had eliminated the requirement, then the board would not be having this discussion.

Bill Miskoe said that the reason that the parking regulations passed last year was because they were not very specific. What the board is proposing is doomed because it is too specific.

CW read the current condition to give on-street-parking credit: “When applicable, the Planning Board may consider available on-street parking near the premisise when making its decision.” (Spelling error in original.) CW asked Bill Miskoe whether this condition were not the most ludicrous thing imaginable?

Hank Fitzgerald said that the condition was very arbitrary. He repeated his suggestion to eliminate the provision to give on-street-parking credit.

JP said that the town meeting had not said to get rid of parking requirements.

Hank Fitzgerald agreed. He does not want to get rid of parking requirements.

JP said that the town meeting had also not said to get rid of parking relief. The argument is a quibble over a decimal point in 806.5. Let’s make it 810.

TM closed the hearing on Amendment No. 1 at 8:30 P.M. and opened the hearing on Amendment No. 2.

TM explained that Amendment No. 2 brings the zoning ordinance into compliance with state law RSA 674:33 as amended in 2009. TM opened the hearing to public input.

JP said that he had made a clerical error on page 5. “set forth in paragraph (e)” should be “set forth in subparagraph (e)”.

The audience had no objections or concerns with Amendment No. 2.

TM closed the hearing on Amendment No. 2 at 8:35 P.M. and called a short recess.

TM called the meeting back to order at 8:39 P.M. and opened the hearing on Amendment No. 3. TM explained that Amendment No. 3 defines “frontage” as class V or better highway frontage. The amendment requires developers to improve class VI highways before they may subdivide land on them, thus avoiding expense to taxpayers later. It is necessary for public safety and also for the safety of police, fire, and ambulance services, which must be able to respond to emergencies. TM opened the hearing to public input.

Hank Fitzgerald said that defining “frontage” had been a problem for the planning board for years. The proposed definition will make land on class VI highways worthless in taxes. The definition will diminish the values of land on class VI highways. The definition will make class VI highways more attractive to big developers because that land will be cheaper. The definition will therefore hurt small property owners who want to subdivide off a lot every year or two in order to pay taxes. A person who wants to build on a class VI highway has to sign a waiver of liability relating to road maintenance. This definition will not save the taxpayers money. If 75% of the people on a tarred road dedicated to public use petition the town to maintain the highway, then the town MUST assume that responsibility. The town has no such obligation for class VI highways, because everyone who builds on the class VI highways has to sign a waiver of liability relating to road maintenance. The board of selectmen has issued only three building permits on class VI highways in the past 12 years that Hank Fitzgerald has been in town. Two subdivisions on class VI highways will have to be constructed to town standards. Class VI highway development has never been a problem. The class V highway frontage requirement for new lots should be in the subdivision regulations, not the zoning ordinance.

Matt St. George, of 101 True Road, objected to leaving class VI highways out of the frontage definition. Matt St. George owns land on and lives on a class VI highway. He would like to subdivide and give lots to his children on that class VI highway. He said that this definition will take away his property rights. He has paid taxes for years and now will not be able to build. He knows about maintaining a class VI highway. He says that he is contributing more tax money than class V highway owners. He asked whether the board had considered this tax aspect.

JP said that the board had considered this aspect. Tax revenues from properties on class VI highways are depressed because the property values are depressed because they do not get town services. The lack of road maintenance does not compensate the depressed tax revenue because the town’s economy of scale in road maintenance is greater than an individual property owner’s economy of scale in road maintenance.

Matt St. George said that the ordinance would further depress the property values because it would render them unbuildable.

JP disagreed. Existing lots will not be unbuildable. Existing lots will be grandfathered.

Matt St. George said that he had two lots for his children, now ages 7 and 11.

Hank Fitzgerald said that the planning board was not eliminating building on class VI highways. The planning board was requiring that the subdivider improve the road as a condition of subdivision.

Matt St. George said that he dreams of giving lots to his children. If he has to pay to improve the road, then he will not be able to subdivide.

JP asked for clarification that Matt St. George would like to be able to subdivide without having to pay to improve the road.

Matt St. George asked rhetorically whether he had talked about subdivision.

JP said that this discussion is about subdivision, not building. Existing lots will be grandfathered.

CW and TM repeated that existing lots will be grandfathered.

Hank Fitzgerald agreed that the frontage requirement relates only to subdivision.

JP asked whether Matt St. George was talking about subdivision or not.

Matt St. George agreed that he was talking about subdivision.

JP asked for clarification that Matt St. George would like to be able to subdivide without having to pay to improve the road? Is that the bottom line?

Matt St. George said yes.

JP said that every developer wants to subdivide without having to pay for road improvements. The Bicknells are on a class V road, but they will have to pay for road improvements when they have sold five lots. JP said that Hank Fitzgerald mentioned the Alice Goldstein development. Supposedly they will have to pay for road improvements. A few years ago when the class V issue was up, the planning board objected for the same reasons that Hank Fitzgerald and Matt St. George are objecting now. The board said that it needed the flexibility to accommodate the small developer, and no one needed to worry about big developments, because the planning board would never approve a big development on a class VI highway. Once the election was over, the planning board did what it had said that it would never do: it approved a 12-lot subdivision on a class VI highway. Nobody wants to pay for road improvements. The town has subdivision regulations. Perhaps people would like the town to get rid of its subdivision regulations, just as some people want to get rid of parking regulations. The town has given no mandate to get rid of the parking regulations or the subdivision regulations. The subdivision regulations assume that subdivision is happening on class V highways, and the regulations mean nothing on class VI highways because those highways do not give proper access. Compliance with subdivision regulations costs money, and nobody wants to do it, but subdivision is a profit-making activity. The developers do not want to bear the expense, but the taxpayers do not want to bear the expense, either. Which is fairer, for the developer to bear the expense, or for the taxpayer to bear the expense?

Matt St. George asked for clarification of the town’s expense.

JP said that the town’s first burden relates to the emergency services that are supposed to respond to emergencies. If the roads are not passable, then these services cannot do their job, and there is a public need, or so-called occasion for a maintained road. The liability release in RSA 674:41 does not relate to an occasion for a maintained road. The definition of an occasion for a maintained road has been the law since at least 1832. The occasion depends on three factors: (1) the public convenience, (2) the public burden, and (3) the rights of the property owner whose land will be taken. For an existing class VI highway, no land will be taken, so only the first two factors apply. How does the municipality claim that it should not bear the burden of road maintenance when it affirmatively created the problem by allowing development that state law explicitly allows municipalities to prohibit? When the class VI highway gets built out, the residents have the right to petition for a class V layout, and, if an occasion for a class V layout exists, then the selectmen MUST grant it as a matter of law.

TM explained that if a class VI highway gets developed because the town allowed that development, the selectmen cannot deny a class V highway. Because the town created the problem, the town cannot ignore the problem.

Matt St. George objected that the class V highway layout will increase the taxes on those properties because their values will increase. He suggested that the board study this matter. He said that the town had voted down a class V highway frontage definition multiple times.

JP said that the same thing had happened to class VI frontage definitions.

CW clarified that both the class V-only and the class VI-also frontage definitions had both failed. The planning board cannot protect the town without this class V highway frontage standard. The town had to accept Bailey Road, and the subdivision is not approved even now. The board cannot address subdivisions without a frontage definition. The board cannot differentiate between a family subdividing and someone else subdividing.

RC asked for clarification of subdivision as a profit-making activity. Commercial subdivision seemed very different from subdivision for a family member.

CW said that the frontage requirement exists to limit subdivision. Without a frontage definition, the board cannot meaningfully limit subdivision.

JP said that commercial subdivision and family subdivision were the same as the following example shows. A parent subdivides for his three children, and, in so doing, he uses the hypothetical for-children subdivision exemption. Then the children immediately sell those lots, which they can do because they own them.

Matt St. George said that such subdivision should be allowed anyway because it benefits the child.

JP asked whether Matt St. George were proposing that subdivision should be based on area alone and not on frontage at all?

Matt St. George said yes.

JP asked Matt St. George to confirm that safe access should be of no concern to the planning board.

JP said that the subdivision regulations are geared to safety, not lot size. Nowhere in the subdivision regulations is there anything about lot size.

PH asked how could residents petition for a class V layout after having signed a waiver of liability related to road maintenance. PH also felt that, if a person wanted to sacrifice his own safety, his child’s safety, or his parent’s safety, then he should be able to do so.

TM and CW said that the law is at issue. The law is that people can petition for a class V layout, and they have a right to it if an occasion exists. A parent’s intent to sell to his children 30 years ago has no bearing on current conditions.

TM said that, with the proposed definition, at least the road construction is going to be on the developer’s dime, because, in either case, the town has to do the maintenance.

PH cited Bailey Road as an example that the board could make mistakes anyway.

JP and CW explained that this definition would at least make such mistakes less likely. Bailey Road shows the pressure that residents on a road put on the town to assume responsibility for the road. The board needs this definition to do its job. There is no RIGHT under state law to build on a class VI highway.

TM repeated that there is no right under state law to build on a class VI highway.

JP asked to close public input so that the board could deliberate.

TM closed the public input on Amendment No. 3 at 9:24 P.M.

CW said that he thought that Bill Miskoe and Hank Fitzgerald were portraying the parking matter much more complicated than it is. The problem is just over a decimal point.

JP said that he would like to make the problem go away by changing 806.5 square feet to 810 square feet.

CW said that 810 would be fine with him.

JP asked for clarification that the board would change 806.5 to 810.

The board agreed.

PD asked whether the board would take more public input.

JP suggested reopening to public input.

PD asked whether a person could use crude measurements for the zoning board of adjustment’s (ZBA’s) evaluation.

GL said yes, but, if the person did use crude measurements, and if he then came to the planning board with a planning-board site plan and an area measurement that did not match the ZBA plan, then he would have to adjust the on-street-parking credit allowed.

JP said that the special exception process was actually much easier than the conditional use permit process because an applicant can go to the zoning board of adjustment with essentially a hand sketch. Once the applicant knows that his use will be permitted, he can commit to the accurate site plan and know that his money on a survey will not be wasted.

CW asked about Hank Fitzgerald’s proposal to put the frontage definition in the subdivision regulations. Would putting the definition there be easier for the townspeople to understand and for the frontage definition to pass?

JP and GL said that a serious regulation must be in the zoning ordinance, not the subdivision regulations, because the zoning ordinance has teeth. The town does not vote on the subdivision regulations.

RC said that it was important for the board to stress that subdivision is a profit-making activity and that there is no actual right to build on a class VI highway.

JP asked to make the motions on the final forms of Amendments Nos. 1, 2, and 3:

JP moved as follows: I move that the final form of Amendment No. 1 shall be the same as the currently proposed Amendment No. 1, dated October 6, 2011, except with the following changes:

1. Change “806.5” to “810” everywhere it appears in the amendment.
2. On page 1, the proposal date shall be changed from October 6, 2011, to November 3, 2011.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

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.

JP moved as follows: I move that the final form of Amendment No. 2 shall be the same as the currently proposed Amendment No. 2, dated October 6, 2011, except with the following changes:

1. On page 5, “set forth in paragraph (e)” shall be changed to “set forth in subparagraph (e)”.
2. On page 1, the proposal date shall be changed from October 6, 2011, to November 3, 2011.

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

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. 2 is adopted.

JP moved as follows: I move that the final form of Amendment No. 3 shall be the same as the currently proposed Amendment No. 3, dated October 6, 2011:

CW seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote: carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: PH. Abstaining: none.) JP’s motion on the final form of Amendment No. 3 is adopted.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Adjournment

CW moved to adjourn the meeting.

PH seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of November 3, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of November 3, 2011, is adjourned at 9:55 PM.

Minutes approved: December 1, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on November 6, 2011, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on November 6, 2011, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on November 4, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

2 Town tapes.