Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting & Hearing
April 14, 2005
Chairman Elliott called to the meeting to order at 7:25 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Robert Elliott (RE), Chair, Ed Vien (EV), and Alternate Jesse Pacheco were present. Robert Lincoln (RL), Vice chair, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Paul Metcalf (PM), and Judith Burrows, Alternate, were absent.
Item three a on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance for an In-Law Apartment in the Rural Zone filed by Matthew Wolfe of 592 Tilton Hill Road (Map R-07 Lot 1B) Pittsfield, NH 03263 for that lot.
(RE) Offers the applicant the choice to continue the hearing until a full Board is present or to move forward.
Applicant chooses to proceed
Paulette Wolfe: We would like to convert the attached garage into an in-law apartment for my mother. We would add a new septic system it would have a kitchen and a full bathroom.
(EV) What happens to the new septic system if the apartment is removed?
Matthew Wolfe: It would be a third bathroom. The septic would remain. The apartment would be converted back to an addition on our house.
(JP) Is the leach field being expanded?
M. Wolfe: No, this is the existing leach field and the new one (points on sketch plan) is here. It is just a different style leach field. It was cheaper to have a separate system.
There will be virtually no change, instead of garage doors, there will be windows. We did not want to change the footprint of our home. My mother-in-law is selling her house because it is too big for her and we are taking her in.
(RE) Any public input?
None
(EV) Would there be access to the house and the outside? 1
M. Wolfe shows the entrance to both on the map.
(EV) So there would be no changes to the outside of the house?
M. Wolfe: We would only be replacing the garage doors with windows and a wall.
(RE) Closed to public.
Criteria:
A: No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
(RE) It still looks like a single family; I do not see any diminuation in surrounding properties.
B: Granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest:
(RE) It still has a rural nature; I do not see any damage to the public’s interest.
C: Zoning restriction as it applies to the property interfering with the reasonable use of the property:
(RE) I think it is a reasonable use; it is still a single-family house.
D: No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction of the property:
(RE) In this particular case, there is no fair and substantial relationship that exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction of the property. It is still a single family home.
E: The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others:
Board agrees there would be no interference.
F: Granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done:
(EV) It allows family to help each other.
G: The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance:
Board agrees the use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance
(EV) Motion to grant Variance with condition that the apartment not be a rental unit and be reverted to single-family use when the in-law apartment is no longer in use.
2
(JP) Seconds motion.
Vote: 3-0 Variance granted
Approved-30 day waiting period
Item three b on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Use Variance for a Multi-Family Dwelling (Duplex) and an Area Variance for Non-Conforming Lot in the Suburban Zone filed by John P. Heffernan of 20 Chestnut Street Pittsfield, NH 03263 for 30 Watson Street (Map U-05 Lot 63).
(RE) Offers applicant the opportunity to have the hearing continued until there is a full Board or to move forward.
Applicant chooses to move forward.
Pat Heffernan: The house that is currently there is not the most attractive. He explained situation with the question of lot lines with his abutter. I would like to flatten the house and put in a new building, a duplex.
(RE) Have you considered putting the house further over?
P. Heffernan: No, it would affect access to my garage. He shows on plan. He shows that surrounding lots were smaller than the one he was proposing to create.
(RE) Mentions letters of support from abutters Nick St. Germaine and Ruth Cram.
The Board discussed frontage of the proposed lots.
Mr. Heffernan stated there were two water and sewer traps for the property.
(RE) Open to public
Jonathan and Michelle Montgomery, abutters, 23 Lyford Hill Rd. asked to see the plan.
P. Heffernan explained the proposal.
They discussed where the house would be on the lot. Mr. Heffernan explained he may put another house on the other lot in the future, but the duplex would be on U5-63.
J. Lenaerts: Asks the Board to reflect on the history of multi-family units and stated this would set a bad precedent.
John Kidder, abutter, 34 Watson St.: States that the Zoning Ordinance had done injustice to the properties in the Suburban zone on Watson Street and he felt that the Urban zone was where people did not want any more multi-family units. He felt there were other 3
multi-family buildings that had hurt property values in that area. The proposed duplex would help improve property values in that area. The use was already in place in the area, so there would not be a bad precedent set. Mr. Kidder showed where multi-family uses were in the neighborhood and also showed where a neighbor had been granted a Variance for a non- conforming lot.
(RE) Inquires if the multi-family units were in the Urban zone.
J. Kidder said yes, but also cites nearby multi-family units in the Suburban zone.
(RE) Explains the difference to (JP)
J. Lenaerts stated that approving a single-family use would be just as acceptable. He stated that none of the surrounding multi-family units got a Variance from the ZBA. He was supportive of the Area Variance, not the Use Variance.
M. Montgomery: Inquires if Mr. Heffernan was required to come back for the other lot.
(RE) Only if it was not a single family.
P. Heffernan: Explains why it would not make sense to put a multi-family on the other lot. He stated it was easier not to deal with kids.
(EV) Asks the Montgomery family if they were supportive or opposed of the application.
Mrs. Montgomery states she is not opposed.
Leslie Federhen is curious that Mr. Heffernan spoke about not renting to families with children. She wanted to know how that would impact his application.
Mr. Heffernan explained his views and felt it was not illegal and that it was also irrelevant.
Mrs. Montgomery inquired about port-o-potties on site.
John Kidder stated it is the law.
(RE) Closed to the public
(EV) Inquires if Mr. Heffernan had a footprint of the building that he wanted to build.
Mr. Heffernan replied that he had an idea of how the building would fit, but did not have any plans because he wanted to know about the Variances first. He stated it would probably be two bedrooms, but he was not sure.
(RE) Read the letters of support to the public.
4
(EV) States that from reviewing the property, there was a natural separation on the lot from the runoff.
(RE) Decides to do the Area Variance criteria
Criteria:
A: No diminuation in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
(RE) Felt that tearing down the old building would improve the area.
B: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
(EV) Felt that the two lots would be good for the area.
(RE) Felt that the lots in the area are small and non-standard. He felt that by just looking at area, it would be fine.
C: An area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because:
(EV) Looked at the layout of the lot and felt it was necessary.
(RE) Questions the special conditions.
(EV) Felt that because of the shape of the lot, the building could not be moved, as there were wet areas.
(RE) Stated it could be in back.
(EV) States it would block the garage.
(RE) States a building could be built in back. He did not see a special condition.
(EV) Felt that the shape of the jutting lot and the wet area were the special condition.
(JP) Stated to build on both pieces, it needed the Variance; otherwise the full use of the land would not happen.
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:
(EV) Asked what other options Mr. Heffernan had. He stated there was not an alternative because Mr. Heffernan had enough frontage.
5
(RE) Stated there were other non-conforming lots in the area.
Mr. Heffernan stated that from a monetary standpoint, he needed to put a duplex or he could not make the improvement.
(JP) Did not see the special condition.
The Board decided to move on to the Use Variance Criteria
Criteria:
A: No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
(RE) Felt it would improve the surrounding area.
B: Granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest:
(RE) States if the Board only granted the Use Variance the cleanup would still happen.
Discussion of going to the Planning Board for a Lot Line Adjustment
C: Zoning restriction as it applies to the property interfering with the reasonable use of the property:
(RE) Inquires if the only way to make the property better was to put in a duplex. He asks Mr. Heffernan about putting in a single family.
John Kidder and the Montgomerys’ listed some in the area.
(RE) Stated that the dividing line of the zoning districts on the street was a special characteristic. If the lot were on the other side, it would only be a Special Exception.
Others agree.
D: No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction of the property:
(RE) Felt that the area had urban characteristics.
E: The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others:
(RE) Felt it would enhance the area.
F: Granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done:
(JP) Felt it would upgrade the area.
(RE) Felt it would help improve the area.
6
G: The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance:
(RE) Felt that with other multi-family homes in the neighborhood, this would fit in. He stated that abutters supported the application. He felt that John Lenaerts had valid concerns, however, this case was different. He also spoke about the difference between ownership and rental.
Mr. Heffernan wanted to sell the duplex and the small lot to his son.
The ZBA agreed it was not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
(EV) Motion to grant a Use Variance to John Heffernan for a duplex.
(JP) Seconds motion
(RE) Wants a condition added that the existing structure be torn down and replaced.
(EV) Amended motion to include condition.
Motion carries 3-0
Return to Area Variance
Mr. Heffernan asked if the fact that he wanted to sell the building to his son and he wanted to keep the garage had anything to do with the special condition of the lot.
(RE) Stated there were other options.
(EV) Felt that other than the frontage, the runoff, and the shape of the lot, there were not any special conditions.
(RE) Agrees
(JP) Motions to deny the Area Variance on the basis that criteria C and D were not met.
(EV) Seconds motion
Motion carries 3-0
(RE) Stated that the Use Variance was granted, but the Area Variance was denied.
The Town Administrator advised on the appeal process.
Conceptual Zoning Request
7
George Brackett wanted to speak to the Board about what he would need to do for a Variance for his lot.
(RE) Stated that he would need an area Variance and explained the process for filing the Variance and about filling out the form completely.
Mr. Brackett asked if a duplex was allowed in the Rural zone.
(RE) Stated it would need a Variance and suggested hiring a surveyor to advise him.
General discussion about septic systems.
NH Motors Letter
The Town Administrator stated that Selectwoman Keeley had met with NH Motors and the abutters and felt the issue was resolved.
Review of Minutes: December 9, 2004
Board tabled this matter until a full Board was present.
Member Concerns:
None
Adjournment:
(EV) Motions to adjourn.
(JP) Seconds motion
3-0 Motion Carries Adjourned 9:48 pm
Respectfully Submitted by Anne Taylor, Board Secretary
Chair____________________________ Date__________________________
8