September 15, 2011 Minutes

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

DATE: Thursday, September 15, 2011

AGENDA ITEM 1: Call to Order

Chair Ted Mitchell called the meeting to order at 7:06 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 alternate), Ted Mitchell (TM, chair), Clayton Wood (CW, vice-chair), and Peter Dow (PD, alternate).

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

AGENDA ITEM 3: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Approval of Minutes of September 1, 2011

CW moved to approve the minutes of September 1, 2011, as written in draft.

JP seconded the motion.

Discussion:

TM asked for the following changes:
Agenda Item 4, b (page 14): change “PD and RC left the meeting at 9:00 PM” to “PD and RC left the meeting at 9:00 PM because of a prior commitment”
Agenda Item 4, b (page 14): change “PH had made a good point” to “JP said that PH had made a good point”

TM called for a vote on the minutes with the changes that he requested.

Vote to approve the minutes of September 1, 2011, with the changes that TM requested: carried 4 – 0 – 1. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: GL.) The minutes of September 1, 2011, are approved with the changes that TM requested.

AGENDA ITEM 5: WORK Session
a. Rules of Procedure
b. Wording of Ballot Articles
c. Dates for Public Hearings of Ballot Articles
d. Letter to The Sun

AGENDA ITEM 5, a: Rules of Procedure

TM asked JP to discuss JP’s latest revisions to the draft rules of procedure.

JP referred to draft Section III, Officers, Rules 3, 5, and 8, regarding the secretary. The board will elect a secretary as an officer, and the secretary will be the acting chair when both the chair and vice-chair are absent.

CW said that having a third person who could serve as acting chair was a good idea.

JP referred to draft Section XV, Issuance of Decision, Rule 3. Only the chair (or acting chair) will sign approved plats. There will be no countersignature.

JP said that the board had left one other matter unresolved, namely, whether the board would hold all hearings on the first Thursday of a month. The current rules say that the first Thursday of the month is for the board’s regular meeting. At the board’s last meeting, JP had not fully understood the meaning of “regular meeting.” JP said that state law requires the board to use regular meetings for some things. For example, the board must use a regular meeting to adopt rules of procedure.

JP said that, in addition, the board must use a regular meeting to set the date of any public hearing on a citizen petition to amend or repeal a zoning ordinance. The board must set that hearing date at the board’s first regular meeting after the petition period, which is “the period between 120 and 90 days prior to the annual town or village district meeting.” (RSA 675:4, I.) Because the town meeting always happens on the second Tuesday in March, the petition period always includes at least the first seven days in December. If the petition period uses its endpoint days, then the petition period always includes at least the first eight days in December. In either case, the board’s regular meeting in December is always during the petition period; consequently, the board must use its regular meeting in January just to set the date of hearings on citizen zoning petitions. That timing means that the actual hearings themselves will ordinarily happen during the fourth week of January.

JP realized that this scheduling leaves no room for any error whatsoever when the board has citizen petitions to hear. The process requires so much lead time that, in the past, by the time the board has realized what it had to do to for zoning hearings, the board was already too late. JP thought that he should work out the schedule and write it into the rules so that the board would know from the rules when the board would need to meet just to prepare.

JP referred to draft Section VIII, Schedule and Notice for Meetings for Subdivision or Site Plan Applications, Proposed Master Plans, Proposed Subdivision or Site Plan Regulations, or Proposed Zoning Regulations. Draft Section VIII is new to the September 15 draft. Draft rule VIII, 1, says when the board will determine whether a submitted application for subdivision or site plan approval is complete. Draft rules VIII, 6 through 10, give the schedule for processing citizen-petitioned zoning amendments. As a practical matter, the board will have to use a special meeting on the third Thursday of December to prepare for its regular meeting in January to consider citizen-petitioned amendments.

GL said that the board should finish processing its own zoning proposals before its begins processing citizen petitions.

JP said that he did not want to codify the board’s scheduling of its own proposals because the board can do them at any time, but JP agreed with GL. The board should not be going past the first Thursday of December in processing the board’s own zoning proposals.

CW asked for confirmation that the planning board can have hearings on its own zoning proposals at any time.

JP said yes.

JP said that the current rules of procedure say that all hearings must happen at regular meetings. That requirement is plainly impossible, for example, for citizen-petitioned amendments. Consequently, JP proposed using regular meetings where statute specifies them, and allowing special meetings for everything else as necessary.

TM said that the hearings for citizen-petitioned amendments could happen at a special meeting on the third Thursday, not at a regular meeting.

JP agreed. The hearings on citizen-petitioned amendments will often have to happen at a special meeting because (1) the board must use a regular meeting just to set the hearing date and because (2) the hearing itself must sometimes come before February. Typically the board will have to use the fourth week in January, not the third week.

TM said that the fourth week would be necessary because of the time needed to buy the advertisement in the Suncook Valley Sun.

CW said that the schedule is very tight even with everything written into the rules.

JP referred to draft rules VIII, 10. The chair must post the notices of public hearings and must buy the newspaper advertisement on the Friday following the board’s regular meeting in January. If the board does not meet that deadline, then the board cannot use the Suncook Valley Sun to advertise citizen-petitioned amendments.

TM discussed timing to buy advertising in the Suncook Valley Sun and whether the board could rely on the Suncook Valley Sun always getting the ad in the following week’s edition.

JP said that TM had raised a good issue. JP had written the rules to say that the town hall and the post office are the two public places where the board will post notice. The Planning Board Handbook from the Office of Energy and Planning (OEP) recommends that the rules identify the two public places. The OEP also recommends that the rules identify the newspaper where the board will advertise. JP agreed with the two-public-places recommendation because the town hall and the post office are government offices. JP disagreed with the newspaper recommendation because the newspaper may not be reliable. The board should have a backup option.

CW agreed that the Suncook Valley Sun’s weekly schedule made the chance of an irrecoverable error too great.

JP said that draft rule VIII, 11, completes the section. Draft rule VIII, 11, addresses proposals relating to historic district ordinances and building codes.

GL said that the town uses the state building code and has made no amendments to it. The town has a historic district. GL did know whether the town had a historic district ordinance.

CW said that the town has no historic district ordinance.

JP said that he had to check citations in Matt Monahan’s amendment because JP created new sections and rearranged material. Matt might have cited some of the material that JP rewrote or rearranged. Draft Section IX, Application for Site Plan or Subdivision Approval, Rule 4, (which is part of Matt’s amendment) refers to “deadlines noted in section VII A of these Rules.” Section VII of the current rules is “Order of Business,” but there is no subsection A, and there are no deadlines. JP did not understand Matt’s reference. Section VII of the draft rules is “Order of Business for a Regular Meeting,” so JP left Matt’s apparently mistaken citation alone.

JP referred to draft Section XI, Rule 4. This rule expands the chair’s explanation that the completeness review of a subdivision application, and the hearing on the merits of the subdivision application are a two-step process.

JP referred to draft Section XIII, Conduct of Other Hearings. JP tried to improve on the wording that he had presented on September 1.

JP referred to draft Section XVI, Communications. JP deleted the town administrator review, as the board had agreed. JP also added an explicit prohibition on contacting the town attorney without the chair’s permission.

TM said that the board should try to resolve matters before going to the town attorney. No single person on the board should determine on his own that the board cannot resolve a problem without the town attorney.

JP said that the current rules should imply that no one other than the chair can speak to the town attorney, because (1) the chair speaks for the board and because (2) members are not supposed to speak for the board without the board’s permission. Nonetheless, members have sometimes not understood, so JP thought that an explicit rule would help.

PH asked for clarification that the town attorney does not include the lawyers at the Local-Government Center (LGC).

TM confirmed that the town attorney does not include the lawyers at the LGC.

GL said that the LGC is a resource for town officials. GL uses the LGC a lot to prepare when he anticipates contact with the town attorney.

The board agreed to the prohibition on contact with the town attorney.

JP referred to draft Section XVII, Amendment. JP revised this section to include the requirements that rules must be adopted at a regular meeting and must be filed with the town clerk.

TM asked if the rules specified the first Thursday of a month as the board’s regular meeting.

JP said yes and referred to draft Section V, Rule 1. JP included “(on the first Thursday)” in Section VIII, Rule 8, to emphasize the exact day.

JP said that the Planning Board Handbook suggests that the board adopt rules of procedure following a hearing in the same manner as for subdivision
regulations. JP asked if the board wanted to do something like that. State law does not require the board to have any hearing at all. If the board wants to have a hearing, then it could do something less elaborate, for example, TM could write in his letter to the Suncook Valley Sun that the board will have a hearing.

CW thought that it was odd that a local land use board can adopt rules of procedure without a hearing.

TM said that the rules are internal running of a meeting. TM suggested adding a notice to his current letter to the Suncook Valley Sun.

JP said that board members might want some time to study the latest draft before the board schedules a meeting to adopt it. JP just finished the draft today, which is why the members just received it today.

TM suggested tentatively scheduling adoption for two regular meetings from today.

AGENDA ITEM 5, b: Wording of Ballot Articles

JP said that, in Amendment No. 1, he would like to insert some numbering in the definition of a special exception use to improve readability. The new definition would read as follows:

“‘SPECIAL EXCEPTION’ means a use permitted upon (1) certain conditions set forth in the zoning ordinance and (2) an approving authority’s decision that the use satisfies those conditions.”

The board agreed to the revision.

JP said that the amendment documents explain how the changes that the board agreed to make integrated those changes into the zoning ordinance.

JP referred to Amendment No. 2 and noticed a mistake. Amendment No. 2 says that it adds a definition of “variance” when the amendment actually replaces an existing definition. Amendment No. 1 has a similar mistake. Amendment No. 1 says that it adds a definition of “special exception” when Amendment No. 1 will replace an existing definition. These errors must be corrected.

PH asked for clarification of the difference between a variance under RSA 674:33, I, (b), and a variance under RSA 674:33, V.

JP explained that a variance under RSA 674:33, I, (b), is a so-called hardship variance. A hardship comes from “special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area.” (RSA 674:33, I, (b), (5), (A).) A hardship variance runs with the land. A variance under RSA 674:33, V, is allowed for disabled persons and does not require a hardship.

The board did not find any errors in Amendment No. 3, which defines “frontage.”

JP was concerned that the board should allocate some time to discuss the substance of the amendments. JP got clarification from the Local-Government Center (LGC) that was opposite information that PH got from the LGC on the question of whether a zoning board of adjustment (ZBA) could grant a variance from the class V highway frontage requirement. Attorney Fillmore told JP that the ZBA could grant such a variance.

CW said that, if the town adopts the class V highway frontage requirement, then the process for developing on class VI highways will be what it was in the 1990s. An applicant will go first to the ZBA, second to the planning board, third to the board of selectmen, and fourth back to the planning board.

PH said that a person could still build a house on a class VI highway if all of the boards approved?

CW emphasized that the board’s concern is subdivision, not building.

JP referred to amendment descriptions in the draft notice of public hearing and the draft ballot questions. The descriptions were longer than what the board may have anticipated.

CW said that the board must maintain the list approach because this list is how the board is going to explain and promote the amendments. Article 16 is going to be complicated because it has many pieces to it, but the pieces have to be there because they are necessary to implement what the town said that it wanted at the last town meeting election. The bottom line is telling the voters how the board tried to allocate credit for on-street parking.

JP asked whether the board had revision suggestions.

PD suggested changing “(see RSA 674:20)” to “as required by RSA 674:20.”

The board agreed that PD’s suggestion was a good idea.

CW said that the board does not want to get bogged down in “RSA talk.” Voters will understand that regulations on one street cannot be different from regulations on another street in the same zoning district.

GL said that the board must stay focused on the essential issues.

JP asked for further corrections or revisions.

CW said that perhaps some of the material in the description of Amendment No. 1 should be deleted. Amendment No. 3 was distilled to its essence, which is perfect.

TM asked about how much information the ballot question has to have?

JP said that, at minimum, the amendment has to be on file, and the ballot question has to identify which changes in the amendment go where, but the ballot question, by itself, does not have to explain what the amendment was doing.

CW suggested condensing part (b) of the description of Amendment No. 1 in a manner similar to the description of Amendment No. 2.

TM, CW, and JP discussed that the main goal of part (b) of Amendment No. 1 was to make the special exception process compatible with the relief from parking requirements.

JP suggested condensing part (b) of the description of Amendment No. 1 as follows: “to clarify general provisions and to make Article 6, Section 2, compatible with new Article 16.”

CW confirmed that part (c) of the description of Amendment No. 1 will stay.

JP asked for corrections or revisions to the descriptions of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

The board had no changes to the descriptions of Amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

JP said that the notice of public hearings will have the same amendment descriptions.

AGENDA ITEM 5, c: Dates for Public Hearings of Ballot Articles

JP asked about scheduling and location of the hearings and whether they would be at the town hall or at the high school.

CW asked if the board should have at least two hearings.

TM said that the board should have at least two hearings. TM thought that the town hall would be big enough. The board should schedule at least the first hearing for the town hall. If the attendance is very large, then the board could move to the high school.

JP asked if the statement at the bottom of the notice of public hearing saying that the amendments will be on the planning board’s web site is acceptable.

TM and CW said yes. This notification will make the amendment documents more accessible to voters.

JP said that he had copied some statutes that board members should know in preparation for the hearings. These statutes include the requirements for describing the amendments and giving notice. JP said that the current version of RSA 675:7, I, unlike RSA 91-A:2, II, does not mention the town’s Internet web site as one of the two public places where the board can post notice. The board should not rely on the Internet posting. The notice must say where the amendment is on file.

TM said that the board should try to have its first hearing at the board’s regular meeting in November.

CW agreed. The board can have as many hearings as it wants, but it needs to start in November. The board should focus October on advertising and making documentation available.

JP said that, in addition to the amendment documents, he would like to create a document that shows the amendments integrated into the zoning ordinance so that voters would see what the amended document would look like. The board has created such documents in the past, and JP thinks that creating one is a good idea.

CW agreed and said that the integrated document should go on the web site.

TM said that the board will need copies of the amendments for the public hearings.

CW said that he would like copies of everything to put on the web site when JP distributes the corrected Amendments Nos. 1 and 2.

JP said that, for the next meeting, he would prepare for each board member a complete package with all three amendments stapled together. JP will separate the amendments with sheets of colored paper. The revised zoning ordinance document will be separate.

TM asked how many copies would be necessary for the public hearing?

CW suggested having some copies for public consumption at the town hall. The board could estimate how many copies to have for the hearings by seeing how many copies the public took from the town hall.

JP said that the documents for public consumption cannot be as elaborate as the package that JP is going to assemble for board members, because the board cannot reasonably expect the town hall staff to insert the colored-paper dividers.

TM suggested stapling the three amendments separately for public consumption.

CW said that the material should be available at the town hall a month in advance.

TM said that the board needed enough copies to have at the hearings, too.

The board agreed that it would not put material out for public consumption until after the next board meeting, on the first Thursday in October, and the board had verified that the package was error free. That timing will make public copies available for a month before the hearing on the first Thursday in November.

TM said that the board should plan to have its advertisement in the Suncook Valley Sun on October 19, 2011. This will put the ad in the paper 13 days before the hearing on November 3, 2011.

CW said that the board should post at the town hall, the post office, and the web site after the next meeting.

TM confirmed that the board will hold its first hearing on November 3, 2011.

JP asked whether the board would discuss some of the issues related to class V or class VI highway frontage.

TM cited an e-mail that JP had sent to TM on the subject. TM will find that e-mail.

CW said that the board should use the second meeting in October to practice the board’s presentation and to address any other concerns.

AGENDA ITEM 5, d: Letter to The Sun

In brief, TM’s letter to the Suncook Valley Sun states the board’s activities on September 1, 2011: (1) the board’s progress on revising its rules of procedure and (2) the three zoning amendments that the board will propose to the town meeting.

CW asked TM to condense the material describing the rules of procedure. The letter should focus on the zoning matters.

TM agreed.

JP asked if board members were satisfied with the rules of procedure as they are.

CW said yes.

JP asked when the board would expect to adopt them.

TM realized that scheduling the adoption for two meetings from now would schedule the adoption for a special meeting. The board had allocated the regular meeting in November to the zoning hearing.

The board agreed that it would use the regular meeting in December to adopt the rules of procedure.

CW suggested removing the “NOTE” from the back of TM’s letter.

TM will say in his letter that the board tentatively plans to adopt the new rules of procedure on the first Thursday in December.

AGENDA ITEM 6: Building Inspector Report

There is no building inspector report because the town still has not hired a new building inspector. The selectmen are interviewing candidates, so GL combined the building inspector report with the selectman’s report of Agenda Item 7.

AGENDA ITEM 7: Selectman’s Report

GL said that the selectmen had interviewed five candidates and have narrowed the field to two. The selectmen will decide between these two candidates at the selectmen’s next meeting. Kyle Parker is still the acting building inspector. Anyone that the town hires must have a police background check.

PH asked if GL could say who the remaining two candidates were.

GL said no. GL cannot reveal the identities of the remaining two candidates because the selectmen had used a nonpublic session to decide the finalists.

AGENDA ITEM 8: Members Concerns

No members’ concerns.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Public Input

No public input.

AGENDA ITEM 9: Selectman’s Report – Fred Hast, Selectman Ex Officio

This item is on the agenda in error.

AGENDA ITEM 10: Adjournment

PH moved to adjourn the meeting.

CW seconded the motion.

Vote to adjourn the planning board meeting of September 15, 2011: carried 5 – 0 – 0. (Voting “yes”: JP, PH, GL, TM, and CW. Voting “no”: none. Abstaining: none.) The planning board meeting of September 15, 2011, is adjourned at 8:54 PM.

Minutes approved: October 6, 2011

______________________________ _____________________
Ted Mitchell, Chairman Date

I transcribed these minutes (not verbatim) on September 17, 2011, from notes that I made during the planning board meeting on September 15, 2011, and from copies of the two Town tapes that Chairman Ted Mitchell made on September 16, 2011.

____________________________________________
Jim Pritchard, planning board recorder and associate member

2 Town tapes.