1
PITTSFIELD ZONING BORD OF ADJUSTMENT
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
DATE: JANUARY 10, 2008
ITEM I. Call to Order at 7:05 P.M. by Ed Vien, Chairman
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Ed Vien (EV) Chairman, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Vice
Chairman, Carole Dodge (CD), Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Jesse Pacheco (JP),
Larry Federhen (LF), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent:
None.
ITEM 3. Approval of the Minutes of November 8, 2007
(CD) Motion to approve the Minutes of November 8, 2007. (PM) Second.
Carried 3-0 (SM) and (JP) Abstain.
ITEM 4. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Use
Variance filed by Gene and Tina Marcotte, 92 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH
03263 (Tax Map U2, Lot 10) for a Home Occupation of Used Cars Lot, not
to exceed two vehicles, and subsequent office at 92 Main Street, Pittsfield,
NH 03263. This property is owned by Gene and Tina Marcotte, 92 Main
Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263. This property is located in the
COMMERCIAL Zone.
Mr. Marcotte related that in a nutshell he wants to buy and re -sell used cars
purchased at the auction but in order to be State licensed, it is required that
he gets the approval from the Town to sell cars. He indicated h is plan is to
have about two cars at a time at his home displayed in the driveway. He
2
noted that he has two driveways and did not think that it would be noticed
that much. There will be no banners and flashing lights.
(EV) indicated that he had stopped and looked at the property. There are
two driveways, which already exist. A Variance for Home Occupation is
being requested because of the home office, which will be housed in the
residence, correct? Mr. Marcotte indicated that this is correct.
Board requested information from Mr. Marcotte in reference to where the
cars would be parked, which he indicted would be in one of the driveways –
one is paved and the other is dirt. (SM) How would they be parked,
sideways, facing forward? Mr. Marcotte noted they would be perpendicular
to the road. The driveways existed when we bought the house.
Public Input
No one was present to offer public input for or against.
Close Public Input
(JP) All abutters have been notified? (Affirmative). (SM) related that she
was unsure why applicant was requesting a Variance for Home Occupation
since he is located in the Commercial Zone. (EV) noted that the office
would be in his home. Mr. Marcotte noted that the reason he requested this
was because no one would/would not give him the authority to allow him to
do this. (SM) So, you are getting Use Variance to be allowed to have auto
sales? Mr. Marcotte indicated that he was. (SM) noted that since he is in
the Commercial Zone, it is not necessary to get the Variance for the office
part. (CD) noted that the majority of commerce is located on Carroll and
Main Streets. Mr. Marcotte was questioned as to the size of the lot, which
he related was a large lot with an attached barn in the rear at the end of the
driveway. (JP) noted that if you have a used car lot, cars cannot be parked in
the unpaved driveway due to environmental issues. Mr. Marcotte noted that
he would have to deal with the State regarding certain issues and they would
probably address this. He indicated that his goal is to, perhaps, have one or
two cars for sale at this locale but more to be able to purchase cars at auction
and turn them around in a speedy manner, sometimes the same day. There
may be times when there will be one or two cars parked there, an d at other
times there may be none. (EV) noted that if the Variance is approved, all
3
State laws must be complied with. Mr. Marcotte noted that he was aware of
this and wanted to comply with the State laws and regulations.
(CD) questioned Mr. Marcotte, “What if we stick with the fact that you can
have no more than two cars?” Mr. Marcotte indicated he would not have a
problem with this.
Board and Mr. Marcotte discussed the fact that he would not have dealer
plates as he noted that it would require 12,000 sq. ft. and would have to be
indoors. They also discussed that only so many unregistered cars are
allowable per property.
CRITERIA
A. No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
(PM) noted that he agreed and that he was impressed that this would be a
small operation and no neighbors were opposed.
All Agree 5-0.
B. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
(CD) noted that business would be transacted on a more personal basis.
(PM) indicated that if someone in Town needed a car, it would be in close
proximity to Town. Mr. Marcotte noted that he would not be charging more
than a couple thousand for the car, depending on the car. (PM) “As is?”
Mr. Marcotte stated, “Yes, as is.” (JP) questioned applicant a s to how cars
would get to locale since they would not be registered? Applicant noted that
he would have to have someone deliver them. Mr. Marcotte noted that the
car carrier could back into his driveway. After purchase, buyers could get a
20-day plate and then come and pick it up. (SM) indicated that she was not
sure that this would be in the public interest.
All Agree 5-0.
4
C. The zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the
reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the
property in its environment.
(SM) noted that she was not sure what is unique about the setting.
(CD) related that the lot itself is a large lot. There are two driveways.
(EV) noted that there are no zoning restrictions. There would only be
minimal use. (SM) related that zoning restrictions do not interfere with the
use. (JP) noted that there would only be a couple of cars there and we could
put in a stipulation that there would be no banners. “If he decides to go
bigger, he would have to go before the Board again.” (CD) reiterated that
Mr. Marcotte wants to get his dealer license and needs to be approved by
Town. He wants to legalize this so he can get his dealership license to
purchase/sell vehicles. (EV) “He needs this to procee d further down the
line. (JP), (PM), (EV), (CD) Agree. (SM) “I do not agree.”
Agreed 4-1 (SM)
D. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific restriction on the
property.
(JP) noted that applicant mentioned that boat sales and body shops are
allowable according to Ordinances, and this could be looked at two ways. If
we allow him to have the two cars, he could still open a body shop, too.
(EV) we could note as a restriction that there would be no body shop. (CD)
noted that she would like it noted that if he would sell his house down the
road, that the Variance would be null and void and non-transferable. (SM)
noted that the Variance runs with the land.
All Agree 5-0.
E. The Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
All Agree 5-0.
F. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done.
(SM) “I agree with the reasoning that an auto body shop or marine shop
would be okay, but I do not agree regarding a dealership.”
5
All Agree 5-0.
G. The proposed use is not contrary to the Spirit of the ordinance.
(EV) Why are you only having two cars? Is that the State minimum? Mr.
Marcotte noted that State only requires one. I will probably have two but no
more.
All Agree 5-0.
(EV) noted that there was only one objection so Variance is approved.
(SM) questioned applicant in regard to signage. Mr. Marcotte noted that he
was required by the State to have one business sign with at least ten -inch
letters indicating the name and a phone number, which would have to be
visible from the road. I do not intend to put any sign on the house. The sign
would probably just note Marcotte Motors and the phone number.
Board members further discussed with applicant size and positioning of sign,
the necessity of this and that the use and accessory use be in compliance
with all Town Ordinances and State Regulations.
(CD) After reviewing Variance application and applicant meeting Variance
Criteria, Motion to approve a Variance for a small used car lot, maximum of
two cars, for Gene and Tina Marcotte, 92 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263
(Tax Map U-2, Lot 10). The Variance is to expire on the sale of premises.
Use and/or accessory use must meet and conform to all State Regulations
and meet and comply with all Town Ordinances. (SM) Second.
Carried 4-1 (SM).
Mr. Marcotte questioned why the Variance was worded this way. (CD)
noted, “In case the Zoning Ordinances change, you will be covered.”
(EV) advised Mr. Marcotte that the Variance had been approved and that
there was a 30-day appeal process and explained this to applicant.
ITEM 5. Review of Proposed Zoning Board Forms
6
(EV) Before we discuss the proposed zoning forms, you all have received a
copy of the proposed Zoning Ordinance changes. (CD) noted that the author
will be at the Planning Board meeting scheduled for January 21st. (SM),
(JP), (CD), and (EV) indicated that they will all probably be at this meeting.
(LF) was unsure that he would be available and (PM) will be out of town.
(EV) noted, “Something this size scares me a little bit.” (CD) “I seriously
think it will be in everyone’s best interest to keep an open mind as to what it
is and not where it comes from. You should not bias yourself against the
author. These are not really changes but clarifications.”
(PM) noted that he thought this was too advanced for Pittsfield and is drafted
more towards big cities. (SM) “This will go before the Planning Board?” It
was noted that the Planning Board will be meeting on Monday, January 21st
at 7:00 P.M. to review these changes and the Zoning Board members are all
invited to attend. (CD) related that Board should all read through this and
can discuss at that meeting. (EV) noted that it would have been easier if the
additions/deletions/changes from the original had been highlighted. (LF)
related that he noted several things while filing through the proposal that he
would not be amenable to. Some of the things as noted in the Table of Uses
are not in the best interests of the Town. For one thing, Light Industrial
should be on Route 28. I had a hard time with the Variance that was just
granted. I, personally, do not feel it belongs in downtown Pittsfield. (PM)
again related that he was amazed that none of the neighbors appeared.
(EV) Regarding the new proposed Use Variance, Area Variance, Special
Exception forms,
(SM) Motion to approve use of the new forms for Use Variance, Area
Variance and Special Exception. (JP) Second. Carried 5-0.
It is noted that the application for Appeal of Administrative Decision and the
application for Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements have not
been revised.
ITEM 6. Public Input
None.
ITEM 7. Members Concerns
None.
7
ITEM 8. Adjournment
(CD) Motion to adjourn. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0. Meeting adjourned at
8:35 P.M.
Approved: April 10, 2008
________________________ ____________________
Ed Vien, Chairman Date