Kingston Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes. August 15, 2017

Transcription

1 Kingston Planning Board Public Hearing Minutes August 15, 2017 The Chairman called the meeting to order at 6:45 PM. There were no challenges to the legality of the meeting. Members in attendance: Glenn Coppelman, Chair Peter Coffin, V. Chair Lynne Merrill Ellen Faulconer, alternate/admin. assist. Carol Croteau Peter Bakie Chris Bashaw Robert Pellegrino, alternate Members absent: Mark Heitz, BoS rep., Ernie Landry, alternate Also in Attendance: Glenn Greenwood, Circuit Rider Planner; Dennis Quintal, Town Engineer Robert Pellegrino LeFevre Drive Kingston, NH Tax Map R6-13, R6-14-2, R Mr. Coppelman announced that this was an application for a lot line adjustment and subdivision. Mr. Pellegrino recused himself and removed himself from the Board to make his presentation. Mr. Coppelman asked if Mr. Joe Fortin was in the room; no one replied in the affirmative. Mr. Coppelman explained that one of the notices was returned; there was a Post Office box address whereas the Town s records note a specific street address and no PO Box attached. Mr. Greenwood added that the notice didn t get to Mr. Fortin as the mailing list provided by the applicant had the wrong address; if he was here the Board could ask him to waive proper notification but without that, the hearing couldn t be held as there was not proper notification of an abutter. Ms. Faulconer said that the address the Town has is 6 Lefevre Drive. Mr. Greenwood suggested the Board could continue the hearing and complete the abutter notification process by noticing the one abutter. Mr. Coppelman suggested the applicant get the comments from Mr. Greenwood and Mr. Quintal to try to address them. Mr. Greenwood clarified that updated complete plans that were supposed to be received prior to this hearing had not been received yet. An audience member who stated they were an abutter asked if there was any way to hear a summary of the proposal at this time. Mr. Coppelman explained that it couldn t be done this evening due to not having proper notification. He added that this was the public s notice of the continued hearing; only the abutter not properly notified would be getting a notice sent about the hearing. There was discussion regarding the deadline for receipt of the updated/completed plan. 1

2 MM&S (Motion made and seconded) to continue the hearing to Sept. 19 th at 6:45 with the instruction that any revised plans should be submitted into the office by September 7 th ; the reason that the hearing is being continued is to fulfill requirements of the abutter notification statutes. (Motion by Mr. Bashaw, second by Mr. Bakie) PUNA (Passed unanimously) Mr. Coppelman re-iterated that this was the notice of continuation of the hearing and there would be no further notice to the other abutters. Board Business: Critical Correspondence: Invoice from RCCD approved to pay. Letter regarding Business Occupancy Permit (BoP); Vitreo moved from 2 Marshall Road to 31 Church Street; no further Planning Board review is required for this by Board consensus. Request for Auto Inspection approval for Durham School Services; Mr. St. Hilaire explained that the business generally just do fleet inspections but also do cruisers in town and other local municipal vehicles; he confirmed that this is the continuation of what has been done in the past. Mr. Coffin asked about signage; Mr. Bashaw stated that he believed there were State requirements that they would need to comply with; the Board agreed to forward with a recommendation to the Board of Selectmen (BoS) and send a letter to the applicant that the approval was based on the understanding that the inspections would be primarily for their fleet and municipal vehicles on the site. ACTION ITEM: Ms. Faulconer will send the letter as noted. The Board received the CIP request packet; the Board discussed adding the audiovisual equipment as proposed by Ms. Merrill. Mr. Coffin stated the Mr. Korn is the BoS rep. to the CIP committee. ACTION ITEM: Mr. Greenwood will prepare the CIP documentation to present to the BoS with the request for the BoS to put in the warrant article in 2018 as the equipment will be utilized by many committees and groups. Wetlands Permit notification or 23 Hooke Ave. BoS signed amendment to the original agreement for All-American Asst. Living. from Mr. Coffin regarding PB projects which will be reviewed later in the meeting The Board reviewed the July 18 th minutes. Ms. Merrill suggested clarification on p. 2, second paragraph from the bottom, to change needing 12 pages to 12 copies. Mr. Pellegrino wanted to make sure it applied to everyone and not just him. Mr. Coppelman and Ms. Merrill confirmed that it would apply to everyone. MM&S to accept the July 18 th minutes as amended. (Motion by Mr. Coffin, second by Ms. Merrill) Motion carries with Mr. Bashaw abstaining. Board Projects 2

3 Mr. Coppelman reviewed past Board discussion regarding some projects that the Board members wanted to be working on: Procedures for electing officers (Mr. Coffin) Signs re: court decision (Mr. Coffin) Rural Residential Issue clarification (Ms. Faulconer and Mr. Greenwood) Definitions (Mr. Bashaw) Other uses (Ms. Merrill) Agriculture (Ms. Croteau and Mr. Coppelman) Mr. Coppelman said the upcoming agendas will have a section to review/update the projects. There may be wording changes for warrant articles or regulations. Ms. Merrill asked about the format; Mr. Coppelman suggested that it is easier to have the original and the proposed changes for the Board to review. Proposals from Mr. Coffin had been sent out to Board members. He explained the procedures for the election of officers; he said that the Board had decided to take all nominations first; the current by-laws are similar to other Towns but there are not procedures addressed in the statutes. He suggested adding to accept nominations and then take the vote; if there is no single winner then the nominees who are tied are re-voted with those with lesser votes being out of it at that point. He added that there is no parliamentary procedure if there is a 3-3 tie vote for the Chair. Scenarios were offered; it was suggested that the vote could be continued until the next meeting with 7 members present by asking the Selectboard to make sure their representative attends the meeting. There was discussion about asking the BoS to provide an alternate representative when the BoS cannot attend a meeting. Ms. Merrill suggested this might be an easier option next year with the 5-member board. Mr. Bashaw suggested going forward with the ideas Mr. Coffin has proposed; Mr. Coffin will put something together for the Board to review. Mr. Coffin reviewed the sign ordinance as it complied with Ree vs. Gilbert and with advice from Rockingham Planning Commission (RPC) and Mr. Greenwood. He stated that the Town s ordinance appears to be all set with the possible exception of real estate signs; our ordinance currently clarifies that real estate signs are not considered signs and no permits are required. He reviewed the current language regarding sign size in residential zones and commercial zones. There was Board discussion regarding content, real estate signage, sign language, further regulations, alternative language for real estate signs and language for exceptions; sign signage. Election sign requirements were briefly reviewed; Mr. Coffin noted that state law states that election signs are not allowed on public property. Mr. Coffin added that the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) recommends not aligning with the State statute as it is not enforceable at this point. Mr. Coffin suggested that the Board could leave the Sign Ordinance as it is as there is a severability clause so there is little risk to the Town; the severability clause was highly recommended to be in the Ordinance and Mr. Coffin confirmed that it exists already. There was further discussion of political signs, on both sides, that are still up long past the election. Mr. Coffin re-iterated that the most important part of the ordinance is having a severability clause and the Town has that. The Board agreed, by consensus, to leave the ordinance as it is for the time being. 3

4 Mr. Bashaw said that he will have the conflicting definitions proposal put together and then provide it to the Board members for their review. Mr. Coppelman and Ms. Croteau met on August 1 st to review Agriculture; they used the book from the law lecture series on the subject that they both had attended as reference. Issues regarding agriculture, regulations, permitted and non-permitted uses within zones were reviewed. Ms. Croteau stated that a use had to be noted as prohibited or it was permitted; Mr. Coffin noted that if the use is not listed as prohibited nor as permitted, it is still permitted. Ms. Croteau referenced the State s definitions which she had distributed; she said that Mr. Coppelman thought it was too long but she thought it covered all the bases. Ms. Croteau re-iterated that if not clarified as permitted or prohibited then it is permitted. Mr. Coppelman explained that he sees this as a multiple step process. He stated that the Town doesn t have a definition of agriculture but the State does already have one. He added that the SFR-Ag zone does have a list of allowable uses that is a shortened version of the one the State has. Mr. Coppelman said that then there is the question on how to deal with it. Ms. Croteau stated that she was struck with the clarity in the State s wording and would like that clarity and awareness of permitted uses for the Town; she would like the transparency. Mr. Coppelman said that this was as far as they got concluding that it is a really good idea to have a public meeting to gather thoughts and ideas with a written survey as a possibility. Ms. Merrill said the proposal was a very comprehensive statement/definition; she liked the idea of keeping the Town s the same as the State s and agrees with having a hearing to hear what people need to say. Mr. Greenwood suggested the Board members take a half hour to really read the hand-out and the section to deal with agritourism ; he said to accept the definition without additional guidance allows a farm to become a bed and breakfast or a bistro and doesn t call out any review from the Town. He added that this would impact the concept of zoning where properties are dealt with equally; this would be granting to agriculture rights that other property owners in the zone wouldn t get. Mr. Greenwood continued that as a planner he recognizes land use conflict; he office thinks that everyone should adopt the State s definition but not without thinking about the impact to the Town. Mr. Coppelman said that it would allow the Town to use review requirements that they have. Mr. Greenwood said it would be okay to adopt the definitions; but also would need to add in site plan review requirements that made allowances for farm use; it is necessary to guide so as not to subject residents to situations that are not fair. Mr. Quintal referenced the farm stand in Kensington that didn t have a review; Mr. Greenwood said that it caused quite a controversy that it wasn t reviewed. The Board reviewed procedures for adoption of ordinances and regulations. Mr. Bashaw raised the possibilities of people skirting the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Greenwood stated that for agritourism, the farm has to be primary. Mr. Coppelman noted that there is currently one zone that regulates the types of activities but not the others. Mr. Coppelman asked Mr. Greenwood to be added to the group with himself and Ms. Croteau. Mr. Greenwood agreed with the idea of a forum of some type. Mr. Coppelman said the agriculture group will talk about ideas for a public forum. Ms. Merrill said she will put her project together but it will be clearer if she includes the warrant articles and the proposed changes; for example, she noted that adult businesses are prohibited in C-III but not in C-I and C-II; the Board may want to think about those types of things. She noted parking garage in the Industrial Zone suggested the need for clarification to explain what 4

5 it is/the intent. She stated that the Board may want to broaden definitions such as multi-family dwelling and clarify others; Ms. Merrill continued that some uses may seem too restrictive and could be broader; manufacturing plant was one example. Budget: Ms. Faulconer reviewed the proposed budget. Any changes based on updated information can be adjusted during the Budget Committee review process. MM&S to present the proposed budget to the BoS. (Motion by Ms. Merrill, second by Ms. Croteau) PUNA Board Procedures and Protocol: Mr. Coppelman reviewed procedure issues and how the Board functions. He reminded the Board to notify Ms. Faulconer if they weren t able to attend a meeting just to make sure there was no problem with making a quorum. He also reminded the Board if supplying information to the Board to get it to Ms. Faulconer and if replying to something don t reply all as due to the Right-to-Know Law it complicates record keeping. Mr. Bashaw suggested Ms. Faulconer send information by blind copy to prevent an accidental reply all. Ms. Merrill asked the procedure about a Board member arriving late after an alternate member was seated as a replacement. Mr. Coppelman clarified that the alternate fills the spot unless the Board member arrives. Mr. Greenwood added that while it is up to the Chair, it is okay to switch from the alternate to the regular member who is the elected official right up to the vote. Mr. Bashaw added that if the regular member had not heard the discussion then they should probably let the alternate vote. Ms. Croteau asked about being able to contact someone in case of an emergency. Mr. Coppelman provided his cell phone number to the Board members for that situation. Procedures and Regulations/Treating staff with respect: Ms. Faulconer stated that for this discussion she would note for the record that she was not getting paid as she did not want any comments from the discussion coming back on her as an employee so as not to impact any future employee review. <Board note: The following is a transcript of this portion of the meeting per Planning Board instruction.> Ms. Faulconer (EF): I got some s that I thought were disrespectful and borderline actionable based on some of the comments about one of the Board members having a problem with me and me and Glenn mysteriously coming up with new regulations all of a sudden; with the subdivision so far in the history of Kingston being the first to dig two test pits and please show all the other subdivisions that you have had dug two test pits and then further s back and forth about these kind of issues. Um, this kind of thing borders on a hostile work environment and I want to bring to the Board that I am assuming that the Board will not encourage anyone to continue with these kind of s to the office staff. Because it is totally inappropriate and completely inaccurate. So I just didn t know if the person who sent them had any further comments or if I can assume that these will stop. Mr. Pellegrino (RP): Well, I thought that was a conversation cause you had asked me a question but I was rebutting because nobody in the history of Kingston has ever done two test pits. 5

6 EF: Really? RP: That is correct. EF: Okay. RP: If you can tell me who has. EF: I have a subdivision plan that we had this year that has two test pits. The Bartlett subdivision which was the last one in, had two test pits and every other subdivision in between the two of them had two test pits. RP: Really, well, considering that I, uh, had called Peter Broderick, cause he is the one that witnessed the test pit, a test pit, for that one subdivision we had, I called him and asked him if he witnessed two test pits, he said no, one test pit ; he thought that.. EF: Well, RP: Hold on, let me finish. EF: Okay RP: He thought that was the most ridiculous thing he has ever heard that we ve had to do two test pits right next to each other. EF: Your discussions with Mr. Broderick.. RP: I was just talking, okay. EF: are not with me. RP: Okay, so any way, when we had this conversation out in the field with Mike Cuomo, I asked Mike Cuomo how many two test pits that he has witnessed in Kingston and there was none so I don t know what you are getting from from that but there is zero EF: You can view this if you like. (Showing a copy of a plan) RP: I am just telling you what the guy told me. EF: This was by Planning Board review RP: Okay EF: and each one has two test pits on it. The Bartlett one RP: Peter Broderick told me that there was one test pit so that was what I was repeating EF: You should look for yourself before you accuse somebody of RP: What was the ? Can you read the ? EF: Sure. (Reads sent by Mr. Pellegrino) After our meeting I said that I would dig six more test pits and have them witnessed. What I have a problem with is you, Glenn and others said that how it has always been done. RP: That s correct. EF: (continuing reading from ) I specifically asked the Board about the two lot subdivision we just approved for a reason. I knew Peter only witnessed one test pit as usual. That is incorrect. (Continued reading) So when the guys told me this was how it was always been done, you were wrong. I m not the guys and I m not the one that told you. RP: who told me was Peter. EF: Excuse me (continued reading): It is funny how you and Glenn mysteriously came up with this new regulation all of a sudden RP: Hmm EF: (Continue reading the ) just my subdivision so far in the history of Kingston will be the first to dig two test pits. I enjoy being a trendsetter; I will be sure to bring this up at our next meeting. Please feel free to show me all the other subdivisions that you say have dug two test pits; remember you said this has been the process all along. 6

7 RP: That s right, you guys all told me that last week, last meeting. And I asked you about that and I asked Peter, how many test pits did you witness and he said one; I asked Mike Cuomo who witnesses every single subdivision for Rockingham County; he apologized to me for not telling us that we had to do two when we did it; he also apologized to me and told me that Kingston has never in the history of Kingston s history has done this now that changed, which is the funny, cause I really want to discuss this while we are at the meeting because there is a November 17, 2015 date that is pretty specific and the reason why I brought that up is because on that date, it happened to be somebody else in the building and it wasn t Elvis, it was me. So, right after I left, you guys changed that ordinance or the regulations specifically because of me and I can, that s just how it is. So when I go and I have to do two test pits, that cost me three thousand dollars to do that, now I have no problem doing it, none whatsoever EF: But I RP: But if I m the only one that has to do two test pits in Town EF: But you are not, I ve just told you that you are not. RP: Excuse me, it was two years, I asked Mike Cuomo if there was anybody else. EF: Would you like to review this subdivision plan to prove RP: I ve heard you, Ellen, plenty of times; I just heard you. EF: Do you think that I am lying to you with RP: You guys told me that this has been going on the whole time; now I brought up 2008 when I had my subdivision, I said listen, I didn t do two test pits then, oh, this is how it s always been, that s how we do it, okay. A matter of fact, when I asked about the two test pits for Mr. Broderick, Carol said, yeah, I believe, she leaned over to me and said yeah, I believe he did two. EF: Who s Carol? RP: Carol (pointing to Ms. Croteau) EF: Oh RP: We were in the meet; and I said okay, at that point, I said listen, I m not part of the goodold-boy system; if two test pits are two test pits than I will do that and that is what I agreed to at that meeting, in public. EF: Did you, then why do you think that Glenn and I mysteriously came up. RP: Because of our history, the way things have gone on, it took me five years to get an approval from 2008 til 2013 for Solar Hills Estates; we were, had to do a Historical Archeological studies, you know, one delay after another delay after another delay and I have the paperwork from the Town asking for the Historical Archeological study so I have it; someone wrote that to whoever had to do it; so there s a lot of things that have gone on; same thing with the 8 new homes versus 8 homes; when you guys thought you had me when I brought in my subdivision, we had 8 homes originally but because we couldn t use a hammerhead turnaround, we had to put a cul-de-sac in, not, not noticing that we still have an 8 lot subdivision when we continue the road; you guys tried to shut me down and say it has to service 8 new, 8 homes so I came in and I said well no, it has 8 homes, it doesn t say 8 new homes, so after we did that, you changed to 8 new homes. EF: When you say. RP: Hold on, let me finish, let me finish. When you say that we all have to do two test pits and I hear from Mike Cuomo that nobody has done two test pits and when I ask Mr. Broderick how many test pits did you witness and he says one and then he later goes on to tell me why I asked that, I said that I m not looking for a waiver, I will do the, the six test pits and I will make, 7

8 absolutely, no problem but you guys changed that ordinance or that regulation on the night I was here and I would like to know why you changed it, I would like to know why you changed the 20 foot offset, line, uh, offset, that restricts the 60,000 sq. ft. even more which only, probably would at that time, hurt me cause of the 15% slope which is not a scientific thing, the Town has been taken to court about this 15% slope, they lost and the Board has pretty much ignored them. EF: The Town, the Town didn t lose that RP: Oh, really, okay, I heard they did. EF: No Glenn Greenwood (GG): Montana Realty lost that; they lost. EF: The Town. RP: So what was the scientific, well the judge had said, what was the scientific reasoning for 15% slope that you guys have no reasoning. EF: No, it was answered. RP: What was the reasoning. EF: If you would like to review the court RP: I m just curious because. EF: files, feel free RP: this is what I hear; EF: Excuse me RP: I heard the, uh, well, the EF: We are not talking about that. RP: Well, this is the examples I am bringing up. Now, we also brought up EF: Why? RP: the four lot subdivision on Exeter Road which is pretty much all 15% slope and you guys approved that. Now that only. EF: Excuse me RP: I, I only, I, I wanted to have a common driveway with my parents at 76 Hunt Road, you guys told me you cannot do a common driveway, you have to build a road, so what do you do at Exeter, you give them a common driveway that services 4 homes on a 15% slope, the whole hill is 15%; now mine only had 15% of inclusions so, there, it was inclusions so it s not straight 15% and I believe that s what that 15% slope is for; mine goes like this and down and like this and down, a little hole and little pockets, 15% slope, that s what my problem was. EF: But. RP: Now, you guys changed that regulation, I want to know why you changed the regulation the night I left. EF: Are you talking about the Demers subdivision? RP: I m, I don t, I never even heard of the Demers subdivision. EF: It is the Exeter Road one. RP: Is that Demers? EF: Yes, the one with the two test pits on each property. RP: Yeah, is that EF: Would you like to look at it to see the two test pits? RP: Can I see that, sure. Is that the only one? EF: No, I just told you the other ones; the Bartlett one has two test pits RP: Okay 8

9 EF: There is paperwork that not only shows the two test pits but it is on the plan. RP: Okay, well, do you understand that when I come in and I hear EF: No, I don t RP: the Town Selectman tell me there is one, do you have a letter from him. EF: Your issue is to talk with him and not to assume that Glenn and I are mysteriously.. RP: What was the before that? What was the that made me give you that ; what was that. EF: (Reading the ) I was out of the office yesterday but apparently there was some type of continuing discussion regarding the test pit requirement. The Health Officer asked me about the requirements. He and the Town Engineer were in a meeting reviewing something else and discussed the question. Upon review, I was given information from the Health Officer that references rules that became in effect on October 1, 2016; he highlighted a section of State rules ENV.WQ Test Pits that requires no less than test pits for each lot in a subdivision. Hope the Board finds this information useful for future discussions. You were not mentioned in that RP: Okay. EF: Cause you had.. RP: I had already talked with Peter. Peter had discussed with me and went off on me that he couldn t believe that we had to do two test pits, okay, that, that s the most ridiculous thing he s ever heard; he has never witnessed or ever heard of anybody doing a test pit next to a test pit, now that s fine if the regulation was changed two years ago but my point is why was it changed and the State regulation has it that if you hit ledge within four feet of the surface you are to required to do two test pits so this is just a regular, my point is, you are just making us do more work which costs us more money and that is part of what Kingston is known for. EF: What RP: You know the one thing that everybody, well, that the new members have in common here, okay, Mr..Peter, Chris, Lynn and myself is that we have all been scorned by this Board and that is why we have run and why we have positions on this Board now. So, the, you, you act like the history of this Board is, is so like virgin, it s not because I ve dealt with it. EF: Mr. Pellegrino. RP: and this whole thing with the, with the, with the, with the two pits, that s fine but you never change back, now I brought in last year, I brought in a plan and you guys told me that, you know, Glenn you said you made a mistake adding that 20 foot offset all the way around cause you cannot have a buildable lot; the buildable lots by that regulation, you can t have a buildable lot, if you ve got a 400 by 200 area, that is 80,000 square feet; if you take 20 feet all the way around it, it comes out to 57,600 square feet of upland, you don t even make 60,000 of contiguous upland, you guys said you were gonna change that; now I was just curious why was that changed on the night that I had just left telling the Board that I was going to be submitting my second phase plan, now all of a sudden, now there is an election coming up that year and, these two are coming in, I just find it awfully, you know everybody says it s a conspiracy thing, it s not a real conspiracy thing, it s a fact EF: Mr. Pellegrino. RP: you guys changed the regulation, now, why did you change the regulation? EF: Mr. Pellegrino, I am discussing the that I received. 9

10 RP: Let s get back to that, I apologize for that , I was upset, it won t happen again, but I would like to know why you guys changed that regulation? EF: And I think that you should feel free to come into the office and see that all of the current subdivisions all have two test pits; we looked, Bartlett, Demers, there was one in between GG: Pernokas EF: What was it? GG: Pernokas EF: That one has paperwork that shows 8 test pits for four lots. RP: Then why would Mike Cuomo tell me that he has only witnessed one test pit per subdivision. EF: I cannot explain. RP: he actually apologized to me. EF: why Mike Cuomo has an issue with his memory. I cannot answer that; I can just show you RP: Well, you see where I m coming from, right; I m hearing it from the horse s mouth. EF: Not, I don t.. RP: I heard it from Peter, I asked him at a meeting EF: the horse s mouth is to come in, where you said please show me all the other subdivisions that you say have dug two test pits, you never. RP: Okay, and you did. EF: Tonight. RP: Just now, yeah. EF: But in the meantime, I am being accused of mysteriously coming up with new regulations. RP: With your history, Ellen, yes, I have a problem with you. EF: That did it, that s on the tape; thank you. RP: Yeah, that s fine. You have a history of that. EF: What is my history? RP: It is the history of this Planning Board; this Board has a history EF: I help on this Planning Board. RP: Oh, my goodness; well, I m not going to argue with you. EF: Well, you better; because you have just accused me of something publicly that is on tape so you better back that up. RP: Historical Archeological Studies, uh, you know, not having, instead of calling me like for Mr. Fortin, you could have told me that he didn t get his, that you called have called us as the applicant. EF: I got it today and saw it, you can ask downstairs. RP: That s funny, nothing happens like that. EF: It s not funny, I was on vacation. RP: It is what it is; I m not going to argue the point. EF: So, it s my fault that you were incompetent when you made up the RP: Not at all, but you could have been a little more egregious, I guess, or helped out a little bit, instead of, this isn t the first time this has happened, Ellen, you act like this has never happened before. 10

11 EF: Any you need to tell me when because I have been nothing but helpful to you; you didn t have the completed application when you came in with your paperwork or your abutters notices and list.. RP: em hem EF: and what you were missing, I wrote up for you. RP: em hem EF: So I have been nothing but helpful for you. RP: You were helpful, yes. EF: So I. RP: So when I come into a meeting and I find out that, you know, I get called out EF: Public information is RP: on a two test pit, that s fine; I had no problem with that EF: I had nothing to do with that. RP: No, Glenn brought that up EF: Then yell at him. RP: I wasn t yelling at you I think you are getting awfully sensitive over this.. EF: You have accused me, RP: em hem EF: twice now, of coming up and making up stuff specifically against you and I am asking you. RP: Maybe it was worded improperly; I would just say that it; I m going to leave it at that; I m going, that it was worded improperly; I said, I misspoke; so I will leave it at that. EF: you talk about decisions, I don t make decisions on you so I would like an instance where you can back up that statement. RP: I m going to refrain from that. EF: Because you can t. RP: That is your opinion. I m not going to rehash our history, Ellen.. EF: We don t have a history. I don t know what history you think we have. RP: Not you and me, I m talking about the old Planning Board; it s not this Planning Board; this Planning Board is completely different from what I went through, okay, and I m, unfortunately, you guys were part of the old Planning Board. So I have a history and a reason why I ran for, for, for Planning Board this year was because of that. EF: I work for the Planning Board. RP: Obviously, I have an issue EF: I m not the Planning Board. RP: I have an issue, I have an issue with that whole test pit thing because it was changed specifically because of me and so was that, that, that 20 foot, you guys changed it the night I was in. (Board note: tape ended, had to be switched to other side, Mr. Pellegrino continued talking rather than wait for tape to be turned over so some of his comments weren t caught on the tape for the transcription; he alluded to the Board adopting regulations without proper notice and posting). RP:..it is surprising, as well. Glenn Coppelman (GC): That s bulls**t; we don t do stuff here without posting it. RP: You are going to swear now, huh, okay. 11

12 GC: You know EF: That s the part you are most surprised about. GC: You know, Robert, clearly you feel, uh, aggrieved here, uh, you feel you have been singled out. RP: You don t call it, why would change a regulation the night that I came in? EF: Coincidence? RP: Oh, some coincidence; EF: It would have been posted. RP: Some coincidence; coincidence, that s unbelievable, EF: It would have to be posted ahead of time. RP: Uh-huh; the only one that really would, would affect is, is my subdivision. EF: It seems to have affected everybody else s; anyone else who came it had to do it. I know you don t like to think so. RP: That s why I was questioning because I didn t hear and with Mike Cuomo telling me he has never witnessed two test pits in Kingston s history. GC: Alright, we re not going to go over this anymore RP: That s what he told me. So, I would, I would, I would like for you guys to answer my question; why you changed that regulation, what was, why was it. EF: You are aware of the night that you came in, the minutes will reflect why it was changed. RP: It was, it was, I read it. The only thing that Mr. Pope asked was can the, can the, can the Board waive it afterwards and you guys said yes; well Glenn you said yes; it can be waived, it s a regulation. My point is, why was that changed that night; for what reason and you don t have an answer. EF: You keep asking, I don t know why you are asking me? RP: I answered, my, what I know is what I know and what you guys did is basically, it s sneaky, it s dishonest and, uh, it s pretty disrespectful. EF: I don t know what you are talking about. RP: To be honest with you. Absolutely, you changed, you changed the new house law, don t tell me you haven t changed things because of me; you have, I know you have. It has been done. EF: Well, I m not. GC: There is nothing sneaky or dishonest going on here, I don t care what you think. RP: That s fine. See, I don t have to, I m, I m telling you what I see. EF: That may be something you have to prove. RP: Okay EF: So, I hope you can. GC: I think when you look at the record you will find that this Board has followed its procedures; it does change regulations from time to time when things are pointed out, in fact you pointed out something to use that caused us to go back and make a change. RP: What was that? GC: The 80,000 sq. ft. RP: It wasn t changed; you never changed it. GC: Yes it was; would you please get your facts RP: It says it was amended on 11/17/2015 so where is the new amendment changing it back. Dennis Quintal (DQ): We changed it to reflect the change that you brought up. 12

13 RP: Because I brought it up, you changed it so you didn t notify the public, you just changed it between meetings you had and now. EF: No, no, what are you talking about. In order for the Board to change their regulations, they meet, they find out what they want to change it to, it is posted publicly, it is outside, it s on the website, it s all posted and then at the meeting the Board looks at it and votes to approve it. RP: So, mine, it was just a coincidence that I came in that night and it was changed. EF: I don t know what night it is you are talking about when you came in and it was changed. RP: November 17, EF: I don t know, but it would have been posted already and that doesn t mean that part of it wasn t changed because the Board did find there was an error in language and if an application comes in that the Board thinks you need to have 8 houses, oh, it doesn t say new, and that was the Board s intent than, yes, they may say you need to post a hearing to put what we really need to have. But that doesn t mean that it is because of you; it might mean that they found out that, he s right, the language is misinterpretive; it s not clear, let s make it clear what the Board wants; the Board votes it and then they post it and then they post it and then they change it after the appropriate legal time of the posting and the hearing. I m not saying that something wasn t changed because of something that came up in a previous review of yours, it could have been a previous review of somebody else but it doesn t mean that they are going after your personally. Your engineer brought up, you may think the language says this but this is what it says and its oh, he s right, we better change it to be what we want it to say. But that isn t being sneaky, that s just correcting an error RP: That s fine, but where is the change? EF: I don t know why you keep asking me, I m not the one who votes on these things. RP: You re the Planning Board. EF: I m not the Planning Board. GG: May I say something? GC: Please. GG: The Board specifically pays me to make sure that this Board, when it makes decisions or votes on things, follows State law and Town regulations. We have never adopted a change to regulations that did not meet State law and Town regulations. We have never changed subdivision or site plan review regulations since I have been here without the proper publicly noticed meeting and then a vote by the Board. And I don t care who wants to review the record of those proceedings, they ll find that that s true. My comments on his most recent plan and having the need for two test pits, I said at that hearing that it surprised me because I had forgotten that that change had taken place. I work with a ton of different towns, Kingston happens to be one of the few that was ever a one test pit town and when that, when that change was made, every subdivision that has come through here since has two test pits associated with it. He asked me at that meeting if I could tell him this, and I couldn t because I don t have total recall but I did go back and look at those subdivisions and they do have two test pits; it has been a short time that we have required two test pits, it is not an unusual requirement in communities in Rockingham County to require two test pits for each 4000 square foot area. It is offensive to be told that what I do, I do illegally. I do not do things illegally. RP: I did not mean it illegally. It just seems like GG: You said illegally; you are not new to the English language, Robert and you are not new to how you make your arguments. 13

14 RP: Okay GG: So, don t tell me now you didn t tell me I was acting illegally when that is just what you said fifteen minutes ago. RP: That is not what I meant; I didn t mean that; I didn t mean illegally. It just seemed like when you GG: You said illegally, Robert. RP: look at the minutes, it says that we have discussed, Mr. Wilson said that we have discussed this in the past and you guys changed it that night, if I m not mistaken. I read the minutes, I m pretty sure of that, it didn t say anything about public notice but, obviously, I m wrong. But, it just seems to me, when I come in and all of a sudden I have to be the only one that does two pits and, at the time, I was, I thought that was the truth. So, I am wrong, apparently. According to Mr. Broderick, he only saw one test pit and you guys are telling me there was two; he s telling me there was one, he was on site; that tells me there was one but I m not going to argue the point. EF: You need to re-talk with Mr. Broderick because Mr. Broderick.. RP: I talked to him three times. EF: No, you haven t talked to him since I brought the paperwork down that shows that he said that he witnessed two test pits, but it was in December and he said. RP: So, he, he doesn t remember witnessing two test pits until you brought the paperwork down to show him that he witnessed two test pits and then he says, oh, yeah, I witnessed two test pits. EF: He said oh, thank goodness, because I forgot because it was back in December. GG: You know what, I would like to say, that as far as Mr. Broderick goes, he is not the test pitwitnesser for subdivisions. Now, remarkably, for my perspective, he didn t know that, he didn t know that he wasn t the Town agent for looking at test pits; that is an issue for the Selectmen and the Health agent to deal with, not for us to deal with; I don t know how many test pits he has to look at for an individual septic system, not for a building lot. Peter Bakie (PB): That would be none; he just happened to be there that day and he.. GG: And he shouldn t have and he didn t know what the rules were; but yet you keep going back to him. RP: He told me that he had never heard of such a thing, that is the most ridiculous thing he has ever, now this is me on the other end of the phone, going What?. Now, I have never had to do two test pits, I ve never heard of such a thing and then I brought up the State regulation about there being ledge within 4 feet of the surface, he said yes, that s a State regulation and then he had no idea that the Town had changed the ordinance and then he called maybe fifteen, twenty minutes later telling me that I didn t realize that they changed the ordinance and you are supposed to have two test pits but he only witnessed one test pit; that s what he told me so now here I am thinking later on, I only, why am I the only one that has to do two test pits when nobody else, in two years has had to do that; now you can see where I m coming from and with the history that I feel how I have been treated with the previous old Boards, I have a problem with that. So, obviously I was wrong, I just apologized because if you have to tell me you did two test pits on, on a bunch of different subdivisions but my question still is why would that regulation change the night I was in there, knowing that I was coming in for a lot line change. Chris Bashaw (CB): I d like to give a point of order, it s just, I think we are at a point here where we re not, nothing productive is going to come from the rest of this conversation. I think we are at a point where everyone is all over the place, emotions are too high and as somebody 14

15 who speaks very emotionally at times, that is saying something. I would just like to say, and I think it is probably important for this to be on the minutes for the public who may read this cause I m sure people will be hearing about it. Um, as somebody who felt he was singled out or, I will say a lot of these feelings probably derive from the public s lack of consistent and constant participation in these boards and not really knowing what is going on all the time and a lot of people feel that just because something did affect them, I would like to say I gained a bit of knowledge over the past couple of years and it has opened my eyes a lot. But, I obviously came in with a chip on my shoulder but I, I think I ve seen the reason why a lot of things are done and I can say that, a lot of it has to do, potentially with the personalities of the people that are elected, you know, cause we are only human and of course, you are going to advocate for things that you believe in but, I can say in the time that I ve sat on this board, I ve never seen any of the members intentionally do anything maliciously and I ve even apologized for some of my own mistakes and misconceptions in the past. But, I really think we should stop this now; this isn t going to help anyone or anything and I don t think this is going to do anything productive at this point. PB: I concur. EF: I do want the Board to know that at this point, Mr. Pellegrino is speaking as a Board member and that impacts the rest of the Board for any future comments he may say. I m just saying that unless condemned by the Board and the Board members; he is speaking as a Board member. I am not putting up with this any longer; we will end this this evening and start with a clean slate but it better not happen again because I m not going to have something in writing sent to me that is maligning my character and let it slide. I just want everyone to know that for me, we start fresh and start new but I m not taking it a second time. Not this. Someone wants to have a concern about the work product and bring it to my attention or bring it to the Board s attention and needs something done differently, that s fine but I m not going to be accused of making up stuff again and sit on it. We ll start over and hopefully this will be the end of it; that s all I have to say. GC: And hopefully when folks communicate with other Board members or members of the staff, they do it respectfully and in a way that is professional. And according to the office we hold here as elected Board members. So, I m assuming there is no other business or if there is, now is the time. <Board note: This is the end of the transcript portion of the meeting.> Mr. Coffin reviewed the ZBA action from their last hearing; one was for the hot dog stand which will be coming before the Board. Ms. Merrill stated that it won t be coming before the Board as the property was sold to someone else. The other was permitting up to 3 apartments for the property on Page Road which will also need to come to the Planning Board. Mr. Bashaw asked if the Planning Board will receive anything explaining their decision. Mr. Coffin was unsure about the wording in the Notice of Decision. Ms. Faulconer commented that at this point, the Planning Board just needed to know that a 3 apartment dwelling was able to be permitted. Mr. Bakie asked about a similar issue on a property on Rte There was a brief discussion regarding incorrect information on tax cards and taxation. Ms. Merrill suggested conflicts occur as there hasn t been a town-wide assessment to get the information to correct the cards. Continued explanation regarding the ZBA decision occurred. Mr. Coppelman said that the 15

16 assessors don t check for approvals or zoning, they just put down what is on the site; Ms. Merrill noted they don t check for permits either. Ms. Faulconer asked about how detailed the Board wanted the minutes of the discussion ; Ms. Faulconer was willing to make it generic to not try to embarrass or diminish anyone or throw anyone under the bus; Mr. Bashaw suggested it be complete; Mr. Greenwood wanted his comments reflected as things were said about him and he preferred to have on the record what his response was; Mr. Pellegrino suggested putting the whole thing on. Mr. Bashaw suggested preserving the tape in case it wasn t done word for word. Ms. Faulconer said that since she was a party to it, she wanted to find out what depth the Board wanted so as not to be accused of something one way or the other. Ms. Faulconer asked if the Board wanted a transcript; for the record she also announced that she would be making a copy of the tape for herself. Mr. Bashaw thought it was important to preserve the tape and put in things people asked for regarding specific language. Mr. Pellegrino asked if he had a say; he would like the whole thing put on the tape, word for word. MM&S to preserve the tape of tonight s meeting. (Motion by Mr. Bashaw, second by Ms. Croteau) Discussion: Mr. Coppelman explained that this was being done by motion because the Board s policy is that once the Board has accepted the minutes a month or so from now, the tape would then be destroyed. Vote on the motion: PUNA Ms. Faulconer stated that if the Board agrees, she would prefer to give it to the Town Clerk to hold. Board consensus was that was a good idea. Mr. Coppelman stated that it seemed by Board consensus, a transcript of the minutes was a good idea. Mr. Coffin suggested a word for word transcript was unnecessary as much of the discussion was repetitive but was not opposed to a transcript if that was the Board pleasure. Mr. Bashaw stated that he felt it was serious enough that if any one person wanted a transcript that it should be done; unfortunately it is cumbersome, time-consuming and be reflected in the hours in the budget but that is why it is there. The Board consensus was to do a transcript, word for word, of just that section when the subject was brought up and not a full transcript of the entire meeting. MM&S to adjourn at 9:35 PM. (Motion by Ms. Merrill, second by Mr. Bashaw) PUNA 16