November 6, 2014 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Planning.

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

DATE: Thursday, November 6, 2014

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Clayton Wood called the meeting to order at 7:07 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Roll Call

Planning board members present:
Clayton Wood (CW), planning board member and chair;
Pat Heffernan (PH), planning board member and vice-chair;
Jim Pritchard (JP), planning board member and secretary;
Bill Miskoe (BM), planning board member;
Larry Konopka (LK), selectmen’s ex officio planning board member; and
Roland Carter (RC), alternate planning board member.

Planning board members absent:
Gerard LeDuc (GL), alternate for the selectmen’s ex officio planning board member.

Other town officials present: Carole Dodge, chair of the zoning board of adjustment; Mike Williams, town administrator; and Jesse Pacheco, building inspector.

Members of the public appearing before the planning board: Paul Zuzgo, agent for Keath and Patricia Wood, 275 Shaw Road, Pittsfield, NH.

“Members of the public appearing before the planning board” includes only members of the public who spoke to the board. It does not include members of the public who were present but who did not speak to the board.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Agenda Review

CW said that he wanted to do the Wood application as the board’s first order of business.

AGENDA ITEM 5: Application by Keath & Patricia Wood, 275 Shaw Road, Pittsfield NH 03263 for a Major Subdivision on the same parcel of land (Tax Map R3, Lot 5-5) to create three (3) Residential Lots in a RURAL Zone.
1. Review for completeness and acceptance by the board – continued from September 4, 2014 meeting.
2. Public hearing if the application is accepted by the board
3. Application review based on merit

CW said that the board had deferred review of the Wood application from the board’s meeting of October 2, 2014, because the Wood application had been incomplete at that time.

CW read the notice of hearing on the Wood subdivision application.

CW opened the review to public input at 7:11 PM.

Paul Zuzgo said that he wanted the board to review and approve the Wood application.

There was no other public input at this time.

Determination of regional impact:

JP moved the board to find that the Wood application is not a development of regional impact.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote that the Wood application is not a development of regional impact: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

Determination of completeness:

Paul Zuzgo discussed the requested waivers and their reasons stated in the written waiver request (typographical errors are copied from the original):

Checklist item 11: “11 – Drainage report – we request a waiver for a drainage report. We request that the board except the DES wetland Application and design package and driveway cross section for driveway construction. Also we request a waiver on the PE stamp on the.”

Checklist item 13: “13 – Wetlands – we request to only show wetlands on the two small lots. There is an existing residence on the remaining land and it would be very expensive to have it done. Any further subdivision will need to have the wetlands delineated anyway.”

Checklist item 21: “21 – North Arrow – We show that the plan is oriented to previous surveys.

Checklist item 22: “22 – Monuments – we request a waiver from placing monuments on the division line between the proposed lot, instead placing monuments along the driveway easement in order to prevent damage to the monuments being in the driveway.”

Checklist item 26: “26 – Topographic survey – we request to only show topography on the two small lots. There is an existing residence on the remaining land and it would be very expensive to have it done. Any further subdivision will need to have the topography done anyway.”

Checklist item 32: “32 – USGS and State Plane System – We request a waiver from tieing into state plane system. This requires expensive GPS equipment to get any accuracies. Towns that requires this provide control points through out the town.”

Checklist item 34: “34 – Road Cross Section – This is a driveway and the provided cross section comes from another towns driveway section.”

CW moved to grant the requested waiver on checklist item 11.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

CW referred to the road-design report from KV Partners LLC, P. O. Box 432, New Boston, NH 03070, and suggested that the board consider the report in relation to the requested waiver on checklist item 34.

JP asked that “except” be changed to “accept.”

Vote to grant the waiver on checklist item 11: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

BM moved to grant the requested waiver on checklist item 13.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the waiver on checklist item 13: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

BM moved to grant the requested waiver on checklist item 21.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the waiver on checklist item 21: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

BM moved to grant the requested waiver on checklist item 22.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the waiver on checklist item 22: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

BM moved to grant the requested waiver on checklist item 26.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the waiver on checklist item 26: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

BM moved to grant the requested waiver on checklist item 32.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to grant the waiver on checklist item 32: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

In relation to the requested waiver on checklist item 34, CW referred to the road-design report of KV Partners. In brief, the report says (1) that the Wood shared-driveway design should show greater detail at the Shaw Road access point and (2) that the design is inadequate because, among other reasons, the design “will create a low point near the gravel surface where water can collect or flow and could cause erosion or create wet conditions on the roadway (particular concern in the spring thaw) making the driveway difficult to pass by large emergency vehicles.” CW suggested that the Wood subdivision application be revised according to the recommendations of KV Partners.

CW’s recommendation prompted substantial discussion among board members. CW and JP held that the shared driveway in the Wood subdivision is subject to the board’s subdivision regulations because the road is a shared road. BM, LK, and PH held that the shared driveway in the Wood subdivision is not subject to the board’s subdivision regulations because the road is a driveway.

BM moved the board to accept the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services wetlands-crossing approval, a standard cross section, and approval of the superintendent of public works as being sufficient to approve the shared driveway.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote to accept the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services wetlands-crossing approval, a standard cross section, and approval of the superintendent of public works as being sufficient to approve the shared driveway: carried 3 – 2 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: JP and CW. Abstaining: none.)

The board’s vote to accept the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services wetlands-crossing approval, a standard cross section, and approval of the superintendent of public works as being sufficient to approve the shared driveway rendered the request for a waiver on checklist item 34 moot.

CW asked whether there were any other board discussion. CW noted that the reports of the department heads had provided no feedback on this subdivision application.

BM moved to accept the Wood application as complete.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion: None.

Vote to accept the Wood application as complete: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

CW called a brief recess from 7:49 PM to 7:52 PM.

Hearing on the merits:

CW opened the hearing to public input.

There was no public input.

CW closed the hearing to public input.

Paul Zuzgo discussed how the boundaries would be monumented.

CW asked that a note citing the driveway easement be added to the plan.

JP asked how fire trucks would turn around.

Paul Zuzgo said that the driveway will branch at the end to serve the two lots and that fire trucks would be able to turn around in the branching.

JP said that the plan shows no such branching and that the plan shows only a blind dead end. JP said that he had gone to Epsom and looked at their application with a long, shared driveway, as Matt Monahan (of Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission) had recommended. JP said that he had read the minutes of the Epsom Planning Board and the concerns of the Epsom Fire Department. Without slope profiles, the Pittsfield Planning Board cannot know whether a fire truck could navigate the shared driveway.

CW said that he had discussed these same issues with the Pittsfield fire chief.

PH suggested that Paul Zuzgo add a hammerhead turnaround area for emergency vehicles. PH said that fire trucks do not need to be able to travel down the (800 foot) shared driveway because the firemen can drag a hose that far by hand.

BM thought that a turnaround for fire trucks was “a self-correcting problem” because the residents living on the two lots would need to be able to turn their cars around.

JP pointed out that a hammerhead turnaround as a condition of approval would be discretionary and that the board has agreed not to grant conditional approval upon discretionary conditions.

PH withdrew his suggestion to add a hammerhead turnaround area for emergency vehicles.

LK moved the board to approve the Wood subdivision application upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant will get a driveway permit for the shared driveway’s access to Shaw Road.
2. The applicant will get state subdivision approval for the proposed lot 5-7.
3. The applicant will set monuments.
4. The applicant will record a deed for the shared-driveway easement.
5. The applicant will add to the plan a note citing the deed to be recorded for the shared-driveway easement.

BM seconded the motion.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote to approve the Wood subdivision application upon the following conditions:
1. The applicant will get a driveway permit for the shared driveway’s access to Shaw Road.
2. The applicant will get state subdivision approval for the proposed lot 5-7.
3. The applicant will set monuments.
4. The applicant will record a deed for the shared-driveway easement.
5. The applicant will add to the plan a note citing the deed to be recorded for the shared-driveway easement.
carried 4 – 1 – 0. (Voting “yes”: PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: JP. Abstaining: none.)

Paul Zuzgo asked when the minutes from tonight’s meeting would be available.

CW said that the minutes would be available within five business days. (RSA 91-A:2, II.)

BM said that November 11, 2014, is a holiday (Veterans’ Day).

CW advised Paul Zuzgo that there is a 30-day appeal period for the board’s decision. (RSA 677:15.)

The board’s notice of decision conditionally approving the subdivision is appended at the end of this minutes document. (See RSA 676:3, II.)

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of the Minutes of the October 16, 2014 Meeting

BM moved to approve the minutes of October 16, 2014, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

No board member saw any problems in the draft minutes.

Vote to approve the minutes of October 16, 2014, as written in draft: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, and BM. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: LK.)

AGENDA ITEM 6: Review – Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment New Definitions Proposed for Article 3, Definitions

CW said that the board has a joint meeting planned with the zoning board of adjustment on November 20, 2014. The building inspector is invited to that meeting. On December 4, 2014, the planning board will plan the actual amendments. On December 18, 2014, the planning board will finalize the actual amendments. The first hearing will be in January 2015. This schedule will leave time for a second hearing if necessary.

CW said that he had created a new copy of the definitions project dated October 24, 2014, that is more black-and-white printer friendly. The draft of October 24, 2014, has a few corrections of the draft of September 3, 2014.

CW said that he wanted to create a list of concerns that the board could address in creating the final amendments. So far, the board’s concerns are (1) the use of “detached” in “accessory structure” and (2) case law citations.

JP referred to a memorandum that town administrator Mike Williams distributed to the board at the beginning of the meeting. The memorandum cites Handley v. Hooksett, 147 N.H. 184, 785 A.2d 399 (2001), for the one-subject rule, which Handley v. Hooksett states as follows:

“a proposed amendment that includes changes to multiple sections of an ordinance is proper so long as the sections sought to be changed are reasonably germane to the subject of the amendment. … This rule should be construed liberally, allowing municipalities to include in one ballot question all matters that are naturally and logically connected to the single subject presented by the amendments.”

The memorandum states Mike Williams’s personal opinion that “[t]he proposed changes to the entire definition section of the Zoning Ordinance cannot be construed as a single subject simply because they share status as definitions.” The memorandum further states Mike Williams’s personal opinion that the definitions project includes at least “59 separate and distinct subjects.” The memorandum concludes that the board should “Abandon the proposal to rewrite the definitions section. Choose the subject you wish to amend and amend that chosen subject throughout the zoning ordinance.”

JP said that the board should consider whether Mike Williams’s reasoning is valid, because the board does not want to waste time working on an amendment that the board has to abandon.

BM moved to abandon the definitions project.

BM’s motion prompted passionate and extended discussion of what the board should do going forward with the definitions project. JP said that he was familiar with Handley v. Hooksett, that the board’s proposal would not violate the single-subject rule, and that Mike Williams’s memorandum was premature because it considered in isolation only part of what the board would propose. During the board’s discussion, PH suggested that building inspector Jesse Pacheco put together a proposal, and Jesse Pacheco agreed. At the end of the board’s discussion, PH seconded BM’s motion to abandon the definitions project.

Discussion: No further discussion.

Vote to abandon the definitions project: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.)

AGENDA ITEM 7: Selectman’s Report – Larry Konopka, Selectman Ex Officio – Gerard LeDuc, Alternate

LK said that the town has a new highway truck and that the town is contracting for wastewater treatment plant services. Departments have submitted budget proposals, and the board of selectmen is working on them.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members’ Concerns

CW explained that he had engaged KV Partners because the town’s former expert engineer, Louis Berger Group, was totally occupied with a state project and would not have been able to service the Wood application. CW said that finding a replacement quickly was necessary to avoid delaying the application any more. KV Partners was able to respond quickly and effectively.

CW’s explanation prompted discussion of whether CW should have sought BM’s opinion because, BM said, BM has expert credentials. Board members did not agree on this question because of the circumstances in which CW had had to act.

JP said that he had come in seeing Dee Fritz struggling with the skirts on the tables. JP said that he had told Dee Fritz that he would suggest to the selectmen’s representative, LK, that the town should stop putting the skirts on the tables.

JP said that he was not impressed with people who attend all-boards meetings and then come in to a planning board meeting and obstruct a project that the all-boards meeting has prioritized.

JP said that, on October 7, 2014, he had asked the board of selectmen to consider stopping the unlawful practice of appointing two selectmen to the planning board. The board of selectmen chose not to heed that suggestion. JP said that he is not suggesting that either GL or LK leave the planning board now. JP hoped that, come next March, the board of selectmen will reconsider its unlawful practice of appointing two selectmen to the planning board.

LK said that the practice is not unlawful. LK referred to a suggestion by New Hampshire Municipal Association attorney Buckley that the planning board adopt a procedural rule to prevent both the selectmen’s regular member and the alternate for the selectmen’s regular member from sitting on the planning board at the same time. (See RSA 673:11.)

CW referred to the appointment to the zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) a year ago of a regular member of the planning board and the alternate for the selectmen’s regular member. CW pointed out that the law (RSA 673:7, I, and RSA 673:6, IV) is that two planning board members cannot serve together on the board of selectmen, not specifically that two selectmen cannot serve on the planning board. The problem is the board of selectmen’s meetings, not the planning board’s meetings. The board of selectmen’s meetings are like the ZBA’s meetings a year ago. There are two planning board members sitting at every board of selectmen meeting, just as there were at the meetings of the ZBA a year ago.

LK asked CW to work with town administrator Mike Williams.

CW asked LK to meet with the department heads to discuss needed definitions for the zoning ordinance.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

PH moved to adjourn the meeting.

BM seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of November 6, 2014: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, CW, BM, and LK. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of November 6, 2014, is adjourned at 9:39 P.M.

Minutes approved: February 5, 2015

______________________________ _____________________
Clayton Wood, Chairman Date

I wrote these minutes on January 6, 2015, as a condensation of minutes that I transcribed (not verbatim) on November 8, 2014, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on November 6, 2014, and from a copy that Chairman Clayton Wood made on November 7, 2014, of the town’s digital recording of the meeting. See planning board minutes of January 1, 2015, members’ concerns.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and secretary