Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting & Hearing
April 13, 2006
Acting Chairman Elliott called to the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Acting Chair, Robert Elliott (RE), Ed Vien (EV), Susan Muenzinger (SM),
Paul Metcalf (PM), Jesse Pacheco (JP), and Alternate Carole Dodge (CD), were present.
Charley Mewkill III, Planning and Zoning Administrator was present
Anne Taylor, PB/ZBA secretary was present.
Item three on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for an
Area Variance filed by Robert McKechnie of 561 Suncook Valley Highway
Epsom, NH 03234 for a waiver of the dimensional regulations in Article 2
Table 2 to subdivide property at 29 Manchester Street (Tax Map U-1 Lot
47).
(RE) Present your proposal and all comments should be directed through the
Chairman.
Mr. McKechnie: I own 29 Manchester St. My proposal is to subdivide the field next
to the building and put a single-family home there. It will help me improve my
existing building next to it. I have put a considerable amount of money in to the
building at 29 Manchester St. I have cleaned it up quite a bit. I have the
measurements on the lot size because of the pins that are in place on the abutting
properties. (Refers to plan and diagram) The lot is 90 feet deep and 80 feet wide. It
would not be out of the norm from the other homes in a 3 or 4 block area.
(EV) Points out error on application that states Lot size is110x66 feet, instead of
110×99 feet.
Mr. McKechnie: Mistake, I will correct it on the application.
(EV) It also says on the application if there are any existing variances or special
exceptions on the property, and you answered no. We granted you a special
exception for owner occupied for 29 Manchester St. in September 2004. That should
have been noted on the application.
2
(RE) It is not owner occupied?
Mr. McKechnie: No. The previous owner never told us and that is why we came for
the special exception.
(SM) How many parking spaces for the 4 units currently at 29 Manchester Street?
Mr. McKechnie: 2 per unit (explains locations). I want to pave that area and do
some nice plantings. I have some pictures of different ideas for homes that could fit.
They are not overbearing homes. I would like to go with a modular. (Shows pictures
to Board)
(EV) Will this be a rental?
Mr. McKechnie: No, I would sell it.
(SM) Do you meet the setbacks?
Mr. McKechnie: Yes. With the house plans, you can see the footprint is more than
adequate.
(EV) Where would you move the large propane tank to?
Mr. McKechnie: There are gas lines all over the place on the property. It will cost
me $3,500 for new gas lines and I would move the tank to the back of the building
and the meters to the side.
(EV) Have you checked into the codes to see if there is room back there?
Mr. McKechnie: No.
(EV) There are codes.
(PM) Are there homes in the rear of the existing building?
Mr. McKechnie: Yes, 2 on Catamount Road. It is 90 feet between my property and
the other homes.
(EV) Basically, you have your frontage, you have your setbacks, you are just missing
2000 sq. feet in area.
Mr. McKechnie: That is why I came up with those footprints for the house plans.
3
(SM) There are at least 5 oversized lots in the area, all with homes on them. What is
unique about your property versus the other properties?
Mr. McKechnie: I think the way we can set up a house to make it look nice. It is
close to the school. It will be in the range of $225,000-$250,000 to make it more
affordable. It will have 3 bedrooms.
(EV) Will it have a garage?
Mr. McKechnie: It would depend on getting the building permit. I would like to see
a garage on the home if I could.
(EV) Where is the driveway?
Mr. McKechnie: On the left hand side, facing the property.
(EV) So you would need a driveway permit. There is a big dumpster there as well.
Where is that going?
Mr. McKechnie: That will be gone next month. I will have large trash barrels for the
tenants in the barn, which will be picked up by Shaver Disposal.
(RE) You can go over your answers to the criteria.
Area Criteria:
A: No diminuation in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
Mr. McKechnie: The size of the new lot will be consistent with the existing lots in
the neighbor hood and the single-family use is also consistent with the character of
the residential district. The value of surrounding properties will benefit from the
construction of a new residential structure.
B: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
Mr. McKechnie: The new lot’s proposed use is for single-family use, which is
consistent with the uses in the neighborhood. Approval of the variance will serve
the public interest by permitting reasonable use of the property and will allow for a
new lot that will be similar in size to that of other lots in the neighborhood. (Gives
examples). The new lot will be connected to municipal water and sewer, and have
sufficient acreage to maintain single family use with off street parking in
compliance with zoning criteria.
C: An area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given
the special conditions of the property because:
4
Mr. McKechnie: The existing structure is situated along the northerly property
boundary, allowing for the larger conforming lot to maintain the existing 4 unit
building and allow for the subdivision of the second lot to be consistent in size with
the surrounding neighborhood lots. Given the special conditions and the unique
setting of the surrounding single family and multi-family dwellings, the proposed
subdivision would be consistent to the existing lot sizes for similar residential uses.
(Reference to other similar lots) Approving the variance will provide reasonable use
of the property consistent with the unique setting of the property within the
surrounding neighborhood and the permitted zoning uses.
D: The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method
reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area Variance because:
Mr. McKechnie: I cannot achieve the same benefit by any other reasonable method
that would not impose an undue financial burden, such as purchasing of additional
property. The denial of the variance with the loss of being able to develop a single
family, permitted use on a lot similar in size to the numerous neighboring
properties would result in unnecessary hardship on the owner.
Criteria E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done because:
Mr. McKechnie: The proposed use remains consistent with the approved uses within
the zoning district and the limiting area of the new single family residential lot
would remain consistent with the existing lots in the neighborhood.
Criteria F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
Mr. McKechnie: The granting of the variance would permit the development of a
single family dwelling on a lot that is consistent with the uses and size of
surrounding properties with municipal services. No hardship will result to the Town
given the long term, land use experiences of similar size lots in the neighborhood.
Adding an additional single-family lot will not result in a loss of neighborhood
cohesion that exists, nor result in the loss of health, safety, or general welfare of the
community. It will not cause undue impact to the community.
(SM) On Item D, you said that, “ I couldn’t achieve the same benefit by any other
reasonable method that would not impose an undue financial burden, such as
purchasing of additional property. The denial of the variance with the loss of being
able to develop a single family, permitted use on a lot similar in size to the
numerous neighboring properties would result in unnecessary hardship on the
owner.” Where would you purchase property that would give you the amount of area
that you need?
5
Mr. McKechnie: That’s just it, I can’t.
(SM) Item F, you said that there would not be a hardship to the Town given the long
term, land use experiences of similar size lots in the neighborhood. What does that
mean?
Mr. McKechnie: I’m referring to the other lots. They have not cause and hardship,
this won’t either. It will help increase tax revenue.
(RE) Open to public. Is there anyone for the project? Against?
Mickey Rayfield, abutter, 26 Manchester Street: Those other lots he is talking about
are nice lawns. It is a nice neighborhood. There are lots of things with the existing
building that he said he was going to do when he bought it, that he has not done. I
do not see a hardship with 4 rental units. (Shows Board the larger lots on Mr.
McKechnie’s plans that are lawns) We do not need any more homes in the area.
Paul Strickhart, abutter, 37 Manchester Street: You need a ¼ acre to build. Those
other lots are grandfathered. The zoning law is in place to stop pressing houses. We
have a great neighborhood. When he bought the property, he assured us that he
would only have wonderful tenants. How many times have the police been there in
the last two years?
Mr. McKechnie: You can’t substantiate that.
P. Strickhart: There are many times the police have been there. One weekend there
was a drunken underage kid coming from a party there and he was flopping around
on my lawn while I was there with my grandchild.
(SM) That aside, would you want to see a house there?
P. Strickhart: No, we like things the way they are.
M. Rayfield: His lot is less than a ¼ acre. You make one exception, you will have
many more.
Mr. McKechnie: I am working very hard to improve the property. I put a new $5,000
furnace in there, anew floor in the second floor bathroom. I can’t raise the rent. I
also evicted the tenant Mr. Strickhart was talking about. That unit is empty. I have
good tenants in the other three units. I have addressed many of the problems; I am
there 2-3 times a week. We will be painting the exterior Monday. Mr. Strickhart is
putting an in law apartment on his house. How come I was never notified?
6
John Lenaerts: Urges the Board not to grant the variance. It does not meet the
criteria. You will be setting a bad precedent. There is no hardship here.
Theresa Riel, abutter, 30 Manchester Street: We have a corner lot on Manchester
and Maple Street. We have been there since 1954. We bought our second lot to go
with our house. There is not enough room for more cars over there. Look at the lot,
you will see, it will be a jammed in building.
Scott Aubertin, abutter: That is one lot, one deed. Is that accepted in zoning?
(SM) That is why he is here for a variance.
Scott Aubertin: Then it is cut and dried, then.
(RE) The ZBA would not be here if everything is cut and dried. There are gray
areas.
P. Strickhart: There is not enough room for the 1000 gal. gas tank.
(CM) It only needs to be 20 feet from a building.
Mr. McKechnie: I want to put a fence between the buildings.
(CM) How many feet from the building is the property line?
(RE) He says 32 feet.
Mr. McKechnie: 32 feet 6 inches.
(SM) What would be the side setback on the left of the existing building?
(JP) There is 22 feet left over.
(RE) Suggests taking the barn on the existing building down.
(SM) That is an alternative.
(RE) Closed to public. Board?
(JP) A 36-foot wide home would have 44 feet left over. 22 feet each side.
(SM) Does he have a hardship? That is the question.
(RE) Is the Board ready to go through the criteria?
7
Board agrees.
Area Criteria:
A: No diminuation in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
(SM) I do not think a house will diminish the surrounding area. They are mostly
small lots platted before subdivision and zoning regulations. There are many lots
smaller than his own.
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
B: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
(SM) There already is reasonable use of the property. There are 8 oversized lots in
the neighborhood.
(RE) We need to figure out what the public interest is.
(JP) The property is already being used. I do not feel that it is contrary to the public
interest.
(SM), (PM), and (EV) agree.
(RE) It will bring more tax revenue, but we have several neighbors that are not
happy with it. They are the public.
Board agrees- Passes 4-1 abstention (RE)
C: An area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given
the special conditions of the property because:
(SM) I do not think the property has special conditions. There are 8 other lots just
like his. I do not think this criteria has been met.
(RE) It is not a unique situation.
(EV), (JP), and (PM) agree
Board agrees criteria has not been met- Fails 5-0
8
D: The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method
reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area Variance because:
(RE) We discussed taking down the shed; it would still have non-conforming lots.
(JP) Agrees. There is no other way to do it.
(SM), (PM), and (EV) agree.
(SM) Although, I am not sure that property should be subdivided.
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
Criteria E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done because:
(EV) In light of criteria “C”, you would not be able to grant it.
Board agrees criteria has not been met- Fails 5-0
Criteria F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
(SM) There is no undue impact, but he cannot demonstrate hardship.
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
(EV) Motion to deny the area variance for by Robert McKechnie of 561 Suncook
Valley Highway Epsom, NH 03234 for a waiver of the dimensional regulations in
Article 2 Table 2 to subdivide property at 29 Manchester Street (Tax Map U-1 Lot
47) because there are not special conditions or hardship.
(PM) Seconds motion.
(RE) All in favor?
Motion carries 5-0
(RE) Explains the thirty-day appeal process.
Item four on agenda: Public Input
None.
Item five on agenda: Approval of minutes from the January 26, 2006 and the February 23,
2006 meetings.
9
(CD) January 26, 2006, on page 7, Criteria B, I voted yes and on page 8, Criteria E, I voted yes.
(SM) Motion to approve the minutes of January 26, 2006 as amended.
(JP) Seconds motion
(RE) All in favor?
Motion carries-4 in favor 1 abstention (PM)
(EV) Motion to accept February 23, 2006 minutes as written.
(JP) Seconds motion
(RE) All in favor?
Motion carries-3 in favor 2 abstentions (PM) and (SM)
Item six on agenda: Member’s concerns
(RE) There is a conference June 20, 2006
(SM) Too expensive, it is more than $300.00 per person.
Adjournment
(PM) Motion to adjourn
(SM) Seconds motion
Motion carries 5 – 0
Adjourned at 9:00 PM.
Respectfully Submitted by Anne Taylor, Board Secretary
Chair____________________________ Date__________________________