October 6, 2011 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Planning.

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

DATE: Thursday, October 6, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:11 P.M.

AGENDA ITEM 2: 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).

AGENDA ITEM 3: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of September 15, 2011

CW moved to approve the minutes of September 15, 2011, as written in draft.

PH seconded the motion.

Discussion:

PH asked for the following change:
Agenda Item 5, b (page 8): change “PH said that a person could still build a house on a class VI highway if all of the boards approved.” to “PH said that a person could still build a house on a class VI highway if all of the boards approved?”

No other board members had realized that PH had been asking a question.

CW asked for the following change:
Agenda Item 5, c (page 12): change “TM cited an e-mail that JP had sent to JP on the subject.” to “TM cited an e-mail that JP had sent to TM on the subject.”

TM called for a vote on the minutes with the changes that PH and CW requested.

Vote to approve the minutes of September 15, 2011, with the changes that PH and CW requested: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The minutes of September 15, 2011, are approved with the changes that PH and CW requested.

AGENDA ITEM 5: New Business
a. Article 4 Zoning Ordinance
b. Ballot Articles
c. Rules of Procedure
d. Future Zoning Changes

AGENDA ITEM 5, a: Article 4 Zoning Ordinance

TM asked JP to discuss the problem in Zoning Ordinance Article 4, Section 1, (c), as that part of the zoning ordinance relates to the proposed “frontage” definition defining “frontage” as class V or better highway frontage.

JP said that Article 4, Section 1, (c), requires any buildable nonconforming lot to meet “the area and frontage requirements of the zoning ordinance applicable at the time” when the lot was created. Because of decisions of the planning board and zoning board of adjustment in the last decade, there is presently no requirement that new lots have class V or better highway frontage. Consequently, if “frontage” in Article 4, Section 1, (c), changes to mean only class V or better highway frontage, then the current requirement that nonconforming lots conform to the (not necessarily class V highway) frontage requirements that were in effect when the lot was created will disappear. Only the requirement relating to area will remain.

JP said that Article 4, Section 1, (c), would retain its current meaning if Article 4, Section 1, (c), used the term “street frontage” instead of just “frontage” and if “street frontage” were locally defined as frontage on any road. “Locally defined” means that “street frontage” is defined in Article 4, Section 1, (c), but not elsewhere.

The board recognized the problem that JP described in Article 4, Section 1, (c). The board agreed that it did not want to change the meaning of Article 4, Section 1, (c), and that the local definition of “street frontage” that JP proposed would preserve the current meaning.

JP said that he had reworded the main “frontage” definition (to go in Article 3) to distinguish clearly between local definitions (definitions that apply to a particular part of the zoning ordinance) and global definitions (definitions that apply throughout the zoning ordinance). “Class V or better highway frontage” is used and defined in and only in the main “frontage” definition.

GL said that distinguishing local definitions was important.

AGENDA ITEM 5, b: Ballot Articles

JP had distributed to members a package consisting of the revised draft zoning amendments and a draft zoning-ordinance document. The draft zoning-ordinance document uses strikethrough text or underlined text to show what the amendments would delete from or add to the zoning ordinance.

JP listed the following changes to the draft zoning amendments made since September 15, 2011, in addition to the change that JP described for the “frontage” definition:

1. Change the title of Article 6, Section 1, from “Special Exceptions-General” to “Board of Adjustment Has Authority to Approve Special Exceptions.” The title is more descriptive and makes the ballot question work better.

2. Change the title of Article 7, Section 1, from “Variances-General” to “Board of Adjustment Has Authority to Approve Variances.”

3. Correct a grammatical error in the first sentence of Article 6, Section 2.

4. Add a note to the Table of Parking Requirements clarifying that, for purposes of the Table of Parking Requirements, the area that a use occupies excludes the area that the use uses for parking.

JP referred to the draft notice of public hearing. JP condensed the references to the name changes for Article 16 and Article 5, Section 3. These changes delete a line item in each of the descriptions of Amendment Nos. 1 and 2. JP added a line item in the description of Amendment No. 3 to include the change to Article 4, Section 1, (c). The amendment description in the ballot question is identical to the description in the notice of public hearing.

JP referred to the draft zoning ordinance document showing proposed deletions with strikethrough text and proposed additions with underlined text. To save paper and avoid confusion, JP included only those pages of the zoning ordinance proposal document where changes are proposed, but JP will make a complete copy for public inspection. For mass distribution, the copies will have only the pages where changes are proposed.

The board agreed to make the copies as JP suggested. The electronic copy to go on the planning board’s web site will be complete like the official copy for public inspection at the town hall.

JP referred to the legislative history of the zoning ordinance. JP said that the description that Matt Monahan had written of last March’s amendment was inadequate. The amendment does not meaningfully explain the amendment; it does not even cite the numbers of the articles changed. Consequently, JP rewrote the description and underlined it because he had changed it. Despite the fact that the description is new, JP thought that the section should not be underlined for the public-display copy. The underlining would confuse the voters and make them think that the board was changing something that the board was not changing.

CW said that he had just been working with Dee Fritz, the board’s administrative secretary, to try to clarify the confusion with article numbering. (As a result of the March 2011 amendments, the zoning ordinance now has two Articles 23.) CW said that the board should replace the current description with JP’s description.

JP agreed and said that the proposal-document copy could then eliminate the underlining for the March 2011 amendment description.

TM and CW agreed.

CW suggesting having Dee Fritz make the necessary changes.

JP said that he could make the changes more easily because Dee had already sent him the current zoning ordinance document in Microsoft Word format.

CW said that there must be one and only one document for the current zoning ordinance. Currently there are several. The situation is very confusing. The board must correct this confusion before making the proposal official. The board cannot have people grabbing an old document.

JP said that the legislative history is not part of the zoning ordinance and that the description of the March 2011 amendment should not be underlined. The board does not want the public to think that the March 2011 amendment is part of the board’s current proposal.

CW said that the current description of the March 2011 description gives no detail and does not even cite the amendment numbers. The form is completely different from the previous history descriptions.

JP said that he would like to correct the description of the March 2002 amendment, which refers to “Article 2, Special Exceptions.” The correct reference is “Article 6, Special Exceptions.”

CW said that he wants to have the same document at the town hall office and on the web site. It must accurately reflect the current zoning ordinance.

The board authorized JP to replace the legislative history with the history that JP had written for the zoning-ordinance proposal document.

JP said that he had reformatted the legislative history section to even its margins and tabulations. JP also added some page breaks to the body of the zoning ordinance proposal document to make it easier to read.

JP asked for confirmation that the notice of public hearing was acceptable.

The board agreed.

JP asked whether TM would handle buying the advertisement from the newspaper.

TM said that Dee Fritz would handle the actual purchase. TM said that JP should e-mail the electronic version of the notice to Dee Fritz and TM.

CW asked for a copy to be sent to him, too, for the web site.

JP said that he will send the notice of public hearing to Dee Fritz and to the rest of the board members at the beginning of the week.

PH asked whether the board should have the hearing at the town hall or the high school?

The board agreed that it would hold the public hearing at the town hall.

JP asked whether the times that he had put in the notice of public hearing were appropriate. JP scheduled 7:00 PM to 7:45 PM for Amendment No. 1, 7:45 PM to 8:15 PM for Amendment No. 2, and the rest of the evening for Amendment No. 3.

TM said that Amendment No. 3 would probably have the most questions.

The board agreed that this schedule was the best guess.

CW asked PH whether PH were happy holding the hearing at the town hall?

PH said that he was concerned that the hearing might have an overflow crowd. Amendment No. 3 might be a big draw. But holding the meeting at the high school would be embarrassing if only four people attended.

CW said that the town hall meeting room can fit a lot of people.

AGENDA ITEM 5, c: Rules of Procedure

TM asked whether members had any comments on the draft rules of procedure, which have not changed since the board’s meeting on September 15, 2011.

JP said that he had noticed two points of confusion during the board discussion at the September 15, 2011 meeting. First, there was confusion about the difference between a petitioned amendment and an amendment proposed by the planning board. (Section VIII, Rules 7 through 11.) JP suggested that replacing “petition” with “citizen petition” would make the difference very clear.

TM, GL, and CW said that “citizen petition” would help to reduce confusion.

JP said that the second point of confusion was about whether the prohibition on contacting the town attorney included a prohibition on contacting the Local-Government Center. (Section XVI, Communications.) JP suggested clarifying that the term “town attorney” does not include the Local-Government Center (LGC).

TM said that contacting the LGC does not result in a bill to the town.

PH asked whether the cost were the only reason to prohibit contact with the town attorney. PH was concerned that the board should not prevent itself from using the town attorney. The attorney fee should not be the only reason for the prohibition.

TM said that contacting the town attorney was different from contacting the Local-Government Center because contacting the town attorney is official business. Therefore, contacting the town attorney must be an act of either the board or the chair speaking on behalf of the board.

JP said that the board must speak to the town attorney with one voice, not multiple voices, and that that one voice must be the chair.

CW said that the board should not be speaking to the town attorney unless the board agrees to do so.

PH said that the board should not prevent itself from using the town attorney. The board might need the town attorney’s advice.
JP said that the chair can talk to the town attorney.

TM said that he would at least notify the board members by e-mail, even in an emergency, before he would speak to the town attorney.

PH acknowledged that an individual member could create a $300 bill inappropriately and that such things had happened.

JP said that the only time when any board member other than the chair needed to talk to the town attorney was when the town attorney was present with the board as a whole and was advising the board as a whole.

TM said that the purpose of the Local-Government Center is to help board members with individual research. Therefore, board members do not need the town attorney for that purpose. The board as a whole can go to the town attorney on the basis of individual research from the Local-Government Center if the board as a whole thinks that such follow up is necessary.

CW said that TM’s initial assessment explained the situation. Going to the town attorney is an official act. Nothing in Section XVI, Communications, stops the board from using the town attorney. The prohibition just means that individual members cannot act individually.

JP asked whether the board agreed to clarifying that “town attorney” does not include the Local-Government Center.

TM said yes.

CW asked why the board was retaining Section X, Instructions to Applicants. CW said that he did not know what Section X means. (Section X says, “The planning board shall provide written instructions to any person who may inquire about filing an application for any land use control under the jurisdiction of the board.”)

TM said that he did not know what it means either.

JP said that he was reluctant to tamper with Section X because, first, it was getting close to Matt Monahan’s amendment and because, second, JP also did not know what it means. JP was reluctant to tamper with something that he did not understand. Perhaps the board should correct Section X later.

CW said that Section X was not part of Matt Monahan’s amendment and should not be in the rules if there are no written instructions and if no one knows what Section X means. What would the board do if someone asked for the written instructions?

JP asked whether there are any written instructions.

TM said that he would ask Dee Fritz, the board’s administrative secretary.

GL said that the board added Section X when the town had bouncing building inspectors, and none of them knew how to advise applicants.

Tentatively, the board agreed to retain Section X if written instructions exist and to delete Section X if no written instructions exist.

CW asked for confirmation that the board would consider adopting the rules of procedure at the first-Thursday meeting in December.

TM said yes.

CW confirmed (1) that the rules would be changed to read “citizen petition” instead of just “petition,” (2) that the term “town attorney” would be clarified to exclude the Local-Government Center, and (3) that the board would investigate the written-instructions matter.

JP said that he would like to change “during the absence of the chairperson” to the simpler “when the chairperson is absent.” (Section III, Rules 7 and 8.)

JP asked whether he should create a new rules-of-procedure document for the next board meeting.

CW said that a new document would not be necessary.

AGENDA ITEM 5, d: Future Zoning Changes

TM asked the board for feedback on what the course of future zoning changes should be.

The board agreed that, for now, it would concentrate on getting its current proposals adopted.

TM said that the board should have a meeting on October 20 to rehearse the November hearing.

CW said that he wanted to be sure that people knew what their roles would be, and, especially, who would take the lead.

The board discussed that TM, as chair, would be primarily responsible for running the meeting, that CW, as vice-chair, would handle a good part of the substantive presentation, and that the other board members would have supporting roles to fill in details where necessary.

CW said that having an explanation of why the board was doing what it was doing was going to be just as important as what the board was doing.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Gerard LeDuc, Selectman Ex Officio Report

GL said that the board of selectmen is working on the budget. The selectmen may lay off personnel. The budget committee is considering recommending laying off three town employees. If the budget committee recommends laying off three town employees, then the selectmen will submit three warrant articles to the town meeting to rehire those three people. The three people are one person from the fire department, one person from the police department, and one person from the highway department.

TM said that the townspeople should be able to vote on whether to keep these people in their positions.

GL said that the selectmen and the budget committee are looking at departmental bottom lines. The highway department is asking for no increase; the police department is asking for a $50,000 increase; and the fire department is asking for a $40,000 increase. Some of the increases result from union contracts. In addition, the state legislature requires the town to pay more into retirement plans for all government workers. The selectmen took that money from the highway department.

PH asked about the status of hiring a new building inspector.

GL said that the selectmen had done a background check on the person that they wanted to hire. As a result of the background check, the selectmen need some clarification. Kyle Parker is still the acting building inspector.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Building Inspector Report

GL covered building inspector matters in the selectmen’s report.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members Concerns

Members concern 1: TM’s concern with the Local-Government Center conference.

TM said that the annual conference of the Local-Government Center will be on November 16 and 17, 2011. The conference will be at the Radisson Hotel in Manchester. The fees will be as follows: $80 for two days with money submitted by November 6, $105 for two days with money submitted after November 6, $40 for one day with money submitted by November 6, and $65 for one day with money submitted after November 6.

Members concern 2: TM’s concern with TAC.

TM discussed TAC. TAC has a draft 10-year proposal for Department of Transportation projects. The document is called Department of Transportation Recommendations 10-year Transportation Improvement. The 10-year improvement plan consists of replacing Kelly Bridge on Shaw Road in 2014.

Members concern 3: JP’s concern with processing the zoning ordinance documents.

JP asked whether the zoning ordinance amendment documents should have a watermark and, if they should, whether the watermark should say “PROPOSED”.

The board agreed that the amendment documents should have a watermark because the town has not actually adopted the amendments. But the watermark will not be “DRAFT” because the documents to be presented at the November 3, 2011, hearing are official, not draft. Therefore, the watermark will be “PROPOSED”.

Members concern 4: TM’s concern with his letter to the Suncook Valley Sun.

TM asked for feedback on his letter to the Suncook Valley Sun. In brief, the letter discusses the board’s progress on changing the rules of procedure and wording the March ballot articles.

JP suggested saying that the board will hear public input on the new rules of procedure at the board’s meeting in December to adopt the rules. JP suggested deleting “changes” from “Rules of Procedure changes on our Website.”

Members concern 5: JP’s concern with processing the zoning ordinance documents.

JP asked for confirmation that the current zoning ordinance document (effective March 2011) must be corrected before any of the proposal documents are copied for mass distribution or are put on the planning board’s web site.

CW said yes.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

PH moved to adjourn the meeting.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of October 6, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of October 6, 2011, is adjourned at 8:28 PM.

Minutes approved: October 20, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on October 8, 2011, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on October 6, 2011, and from a copy of the one Town tape that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on October 7, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

1 Town tape.