April 10, 2008 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

DATE: Thursday, April 10, 2008

ITEM I. Call to Order at 7:04 P.M. by Ed Vien, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present: Ed Vien (EV) Chairman, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Vice Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Larry Federhen (LF), Alternate, David Rushford (DR), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Carol Dodge (CD), and Jesse Pacheco (JP).

Since two members of the Board are absent, will Larry Federhen and David Rushford, Alternates, please be seated on the Board.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of January 10, March 27, and
April 7, 2008

(PM) Motion to approve the Minutes of January 10, 2008 (SM) Second. Carried 5-0.

(SM) Motion to approve the Minutes of March 27, 2008. (LF) Second. After discussion: Carried 5-0.

(SM) Motion to approve Minutes of Site Walk of April 7, 2008.
(PM) Second. Carried 5-0.

ITEM 4. Continued Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Use Variance filed by James Snedeker, 629 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield,
NH 03263 (Tax Map R-7, Lot 4B) to designate an area of the property
(90 ft. x 130 ft.) for storage of junk metal.

(EV) Mr. Snedeker has requested an extension of time in regard to this hearing. (Mrs. Snedeker submitted a written letter addressing the reasons for the requested extension and a letter of intent, which were read into the Minutes. See attached.) (EV) noted, “You are talking if this goes to the Planning Board for junkyard license.” Mr. Snedeker noted that it was not his intent at all, that he basically would just like to have scrap metals. He related that he did not want to have to get a special exemption from the Planning Board. (EV) noted that a junkyard license includes all this. If you went to the Board of Selectman noting special conditions that no auto salvage was being done there, the Board of Selectman could issue a license and make a stipulation to that effect. For hearing purposes, you are here to prove you are “grandfathered.” Mr. Snedeker related that whatever stipulations were placed on this, he would be willing to do. (LF) “What is the timeframe?” (EV) noted that the next meeting would be May 8th. Mr. Snedeker related that he would need this time to get people who were doing business with his Dad to confirm this. He noted that his Dad was 84 when he passed away and it is difficult to find the individuals who dealt with him. (EV) reminded Mr. Snedeker that they could appear for oral “testimony,” signed letters, or any other form of response in this regard.

(PM) noted that he was in the area today, and reminded Mr. Snedeker that his Dad used to run an ad in the Sun for scrap metal. Maybe you could also get copies of those ads? “To get over any objections, it would be nice for you to clean up that lot.” Mr. Snedeker related that he intends to do this.

(SM) Motion to allow Mr. Snedeker extension of time until May 8th to acquire documentation for grandfathering request. (PM) Second.
Carried 5-0.

Mr. & Mrs. Snedeker thanked Board for granting this extension of time.

Mr. Paul Richardson, an abutter, questioned, “Isn’t it up to the Board of Selectman to make determination whether he is grandfathered?”
(SM) “No, it is up to this Board.”

(EV) Hearing is continued to May 8, 2008 at 7:00 P.M.

(SM) noted that to Mr. Richardson if he would like to read the RSA: 236:114 and RSA 236:120. Mr. Richardson noted that he did have the New Hampshire Planning and Land Use Regulation Edition, and he would read it. “I did get a call from “Dee” noting that the hearing would probably be continued to May 8th.” (EV) explained that the reason for extension of time was that the first meeting was the end of March and Board usually meets the second Tuesday of the month, which did not allow him sufficient time to acquire the necessary documentation. (Abutters will be contacted via regular mail as to the continued date of hearing.)

ITEM 5. New Business

Pittsfield Self Storage Sign Placement

(EV) noted that Board had done a Site Walk regarding placement of the sign for Pittsfield Self Storage on High Street. “One of my concerns is that where they have staked the area for the sign and where it is shown on the map differs.” (LF) “Why the change?” (EV) noted that any change should go back to the Planning Board. (SM) This is not a structure so it can be in the setbacks. (LF) noted that he read and interpreted definition of setbacks differently. Setbacks are supposed to be clear to the sky and sign is occupying space. Mr. Pritchard noted from the audience, “So is a mailbox.” (EV) reminded him that this was not open to public input. (SM) read definition of structure and then fence. (EV) noted, “What we can do because of our concerns, is have them go back to the Planning Board.” (LF) “I would think that the original position would apply.” (EV) “It would not be in the original position, so they should go back to the Planning Board.” The proposed location is the best spot and they need approval from the Planning Board. The 30 ft. height is the same as the tree height. (LF) “They are going to need more than 30 ft. for people to be able to see it.” (SM) noted that a letter should be sent noting that Board went out to review sign location, observed where sign according to the Site Plan was going to be placed which is not the appropriate location as it is not visible from Route 28 and are in the setbacks. The sign really should be uphill and to left of stake. (EV) At first, we had a hard time finding the stake.

(PM) questioned the sign for the front of the building. (EV) noted that it is located where it is supposed to be. (LF) So, that sign is not a problem.

(SM) “Maybe they should talk to abutters about putting it on the abutters property.” (DR) questioned whether the sign was lighted? (LF) Yes, it is. (SM) noted that it would not be able to be seen if one is going South. We should just send them a letter for them to come in and discuss placement. (EV) agreed and noted that they should contact us in regard at their earliest convenience. (LF) “Should we notify abutters since it so close to the property line?”

ITEM 6. Members Concerns

(PM) “Are we meeting with the Planning Board on April 17th?”
(SM) There is a Work Session at 7:00 P.M.

Board members noted that they had some concerns:

a. Signage Issues
b. Condo/Rentals
c. Cluster
d. Site Plan
e. Frontage
f. Setbacks
g. Use Table

Member of Board noted that often condos are a way to get around rental unit inspections. Regardless, it is still a rental but not being inspected. It was noted that something should be put in ordinances to cover this.

(SM) noted that Board should address the Site Plan issue, which came up in March, and also the frontage and setback issue in reference to fences, signs, etc. I also have concerns with the Uses Tables regarding overlapping zones between Suburban and Light Industrial. The Light Industrial Zone is in the downtown area and Route 28 is the same zone.

ITEM 7. Public Input

Mr. Pritchard noted that last January 21st, Planning Board considered the amendments to the Zoning Ordinances and explained the circumstances of how the Citizen Petition Amendments to the Zoning Ordinances became a Board of Selectmen Petition. “On January 21st, Board asked Zoning Board members to go to the meeting. You each said that you had specific objections to those amendments and I would like you to make available for public inspection exactly what your objections were.”

(EV) noted that he would not do this. It was eventually pulled “from the table” and did not go forward as a Citizen Petition or Board of Selectman Petition. I was there for a long time and at that time; no one asked what my objections were. “I am not going to respond to your request.” Mr. Pritchard, “So your answer is just no.” The Petition did not go forward due to any fault of mine and you should not be blaming me. (PM) “Do you represent the Planning Board?” Mr. Pritchard noted, “No.” He again explained the scenario as to why it was no longer a citizen petition. He noted that you did say that you had specific objections to the proposals but not what they were. (EV) “It is a moot issue; it has been withdrawn.” Mr. Pritchard related, “You said you had specific objections and it might be helpful to someone to use those.”

(SM) “For me, since we have a new Planning Board and it is within the abilities of the Planning Board to work on zoning changes, I would be willing to give them an opportunity to do their job. I would hesitate to comment on this moot or dead issue in terms of the Planning Board. The Planning Board has invited us to one of the Work Sessions to discuss our concerns, and I would rather go through that process than come up with some new language revising the Zoning Ordinances rather than discuss those that are no longer in the forefront.”

Mr. Pritchard assured her that he was not suggesting a long dissertation but suggested she could make available some of the notes she had written in the margins of her copy. (SM) “I am not going to do that. I did not do it then and I am not going to do it now.”

Close Public Input

ITEM 8. Adjournment

(LF) Motion to Adjourn. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting Adjourned at 7:47 P.M.

Approved: May 8, 2008

____________________________ _________________________
Ed Vien, Chairman Date