Thank you for visiting the web site of the Citizen Zoning Ordinance Project.
The Pittsfield planning board is proposing a very substantial zoning revision, and I have studied that revision carefully. Below are my analyses and voting recommendations for the revision, which the planning board has proposed as six different ballot articles. The town will vote on these articles on March 8, 2011.
My analyses cite specific parts of the revision so that you can verify my reasons. I have prepared Microsoft Word versions of the proposal, with the parts that I cited highlighted in yellow or in yellow and blue to make finding things easier. You can download all of the relevant documents by clicking the links (1) through (5) below. The proposal documents (documents (1) and (2)) come from the planning board and include revisions for home occupations that the planning board abandoned on January 31, 2011. Unfortunately, the planning board has not revised its proposal documents to reflect this change, but the documents are accurate except relative to home occupations, which will not be on the town meeting agenda.
(1) final_vs._original_for_31_januaryHL.doc: This document is the zoning ordinance showing what the planning board was proposing to delete and what the board was proposing to add as of January 31, 2011. (The planning board has since withdrawn the changes related to home occupations, but that is the only change.) The parts that I cited in my analyses are highlighted.
(2) 31_january_FINAL_copyHL.doc: This document is the zoning ordinance as it would appear if the town meeting adopted all of the changes that the planning board was proposing on January 31, 2011. (The planning board has since withdrawn the changes related to home occupations, but that is the only change.) Again, the parts that I cited in my analyses are highlighted.
(3) PBZoningBallotArticles110308HL.doc: This document is a highlighted transcript of ballot articles 2 through 7 on the town meeting official ballot (March 8, 2011). The document shows how the zoning revisions are divided among ballot articles.
(4) OfficialBallot110308.pdf: This document is an image of the town meeting official ballot (March 8, 2011).
(5) building_permit_fees.pdf: This document is the town’s current building permit regulation.
(6) zoning_ordinance08.pdf: This document is the town’s current zoning ordinance.
Ballot Article 2 recommendation: Vote NO.
Why vote NO: Among other reasons, this article would dramatically expand the town’s building-permit requirement. (Compare proposed zoning ordinance Article 2, Section 2.2.1 with current Building Permit Fee Schedule.)
Currently, the town requires that “All construction shall require a permit other than general maintenance, such as painting, papering, residing, replacement windows, and reroofing, so long as no structural work is to be done as part of the maintenance.” (Building Permit Fee Schedule, emphasis added.) The new article would eliminate the “general maintenance” exception and would require a building permit for any “alteration,” no matter how minor, of any “structure” without exception. (Proposed zoning ordinance Article 2, Section 2.2.1.) The regulation is titled “New Buildings and Structures,” but the regulation plainly applies to existing buildings too because the regulation requires a permit for “reconstruction” and for “renovation.” (Ibid.) The new regulation is unreasonable taxation and unreasonable snooping by government.
In addition, every application for a building permit would have to supply very detailed information about the whole property, no matter how small the “alteration” to the subject “structure.” (Article 2, Section 2.3.) Required information includes anything that the building inspector might feel like requiring. (Article 2, Section 2.3, 5.)
Ballot Article 3 recommendation: Vote NO.
Why vote NO: Among other reasons, this article would authorize the building inspector to approve any private dump that he feels like approving. (Proposed zoning ordinance Article 16.)
Currently, private dumps are not permissible because they require approval from a nonexistent “Board of Health.” (Current zoning ordinance Article 15.) The planning board wants to “correct” this supposed “defect” by authorizing the building inspector to approve dumps. That authorization will make private dumps permissible—and will do so by someone who is unqualified to judge the health impact. In fact, new Article 16 lists no standards whatsoever that dumps must meet for the building inspector’s approval.
The clear intent of this provision is to streamline the creation of dumps. If the intent were to regulate dumps, then the planning board would call for the town to have a board of health.
Ballot Article 4 recommendation: Vote NO.
Why vote NO: Among other reasons, this article includes a definition of “frontage” that would allow subdivision on Class VI highways, which are unmaintained, and on driveways. (Proposed zoning ordinance Article 4, FRONTAGE definition.) The town overwhelmingly rejected functionally identical definitions in 2005 and 2009.
New lots should front on maintained town roads because emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks, police cars, and ambulances, need safe access to the property in an emergency, such as, for example, if someone has a heart attack or a fire and if snow is on the ground.
The definition refers to driveways as “a private road built to town standards as set forth in the subdivision regulations.” (Emphasis added.) These so-called standards are not a zoning requirement because the planning board can waive any of its subdivision regulations. (State law RSA 674:36, II, (n).) If the planning board had wanted construction standards to be a zoning requirement, then the board could have copied them into the zoning ordinance; cutting and pasting is easy to do with Microsoft Word. The board simply wants voters to think that construction standards are a zoning requirement.
Ballot Article 5 recommendation: Vote NO.
Why vote NO: This article would expand the planning board’s power to waive parking-space requirements. (Proposed zoning ordinance Article 17, Section 17.3, paragraph 2.)
The statement of purpose talks about the “downtown,” but the permitting conditions, which presumably govern, are not limited to the “downtown” or to anywhere else in town. (Ibid.) The permitting conditions also allow the planning board to waive parking-space requirements for any rented residential housing. (Ibid., condition a.)
Ballot Article 6 recommendation: Vote YES.
Why vote YES: This article would repeal Pittsfield’s shoreland protection ordinance. (Proposed zoning ordinance Article 20; also see current zoning ordinance Article 19.) The state has a stricter shoreland protection ordinance, which would govern in any case, so the repeal of Pittsfield’s ordinance helps to avoid conflict, confusion, and other legal difficulties.
Ballot Article 7 recommendation: Vote NO.
Why vote NO: This article would let residential housing developers evade the normal lot-area, density, and frontage requirements of the zoning ordinance. (Compare proposed zoning ordinance Article 23, Section 23.7, 2, and Article 23, Section 23.7, 4, with Article 3, Table 2.)
The article would allow duplexes in the Suburban and Rural districts, which are otherwise reserved for single-family dwellings. (Compare Article 23, Section 23.5, 2, with Article 3, Table 1, Senior Housing, Single Family Dwelling, Two Family Dwelling, and Multi-Family Dwelling.)
The article calls itself “Senior Housing Ordinance” and says that its purpose is “to serve the needs of people age fifty-five (55) years and older.” (Article 23, Section 23.2, 1.) But the article never defines those needs and thus does not assure that the housing will meet those needs. In contrast, the article allows children in 25% of the dwelling units (Article 23, Section 23.6) and 3 bedrooms per every dwelling unit (Article 23, Section 23.5, 2), and nothing stops any of the dwelling units from being rented.
Citizen Zoning Ordinance Project 