Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting & Hearing
August 11, 2005
Chairman Lincoln called to the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Robert Lincoln (RL) Chair, Robert Elliott (RE) Vice Chair, Ed Vien (EV), and Susan Muenzinger (SM) were present. Paul Metcalf (PM), Alternate Judith Burrows, and Alternate Jesse Pacheco were absent.
Jeremy Lamson, Town Administrator was present.
Hank FitzGerald, Building Inspector/PB and ZBA Administrator was present.
Anne Taylor, PB/ZBA secretary was present.
Item three on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance for Public Hearing with respect to an application for an Area Variance from the frontage requirement for a two lot subdivision in the Rural Zone filed by Lorraine Welch of 3 New Orchard Road (Map R-53 Lot 21) Pittsfield, NH 03263 for that lot.
(RL) Offers the applicant the choice to continue the hearing until a full Board is present or to move forward.
Applicant chooses to proceed
Jacques Belanger, Agent: The Welch family inherited their mother’s farm. They would like to subdivide 2 parcels of land. One would be 4.23 acres and the other would be 4.32 acres. These lots form a horseshoe shape around the Welch’s’ home on an existing lot of 1.13 acres. The lot on the right is short on frontage 17.7 ft. It has a total of 206.39 ft. Both new lots would have on site septic and the existing lot will have a new well. Any questions?
(SM) So there is no other way to divide the lot without removing the stone wall?
Mrs. Welch: It is a natural boundary that is 200 years old and we do not want to remove it. We want to keep the field with the farm.
(RL) Questions from the Board? Comments from the public?
Helen Schoppmeyer: I am a friend of the Welch family. It would be poor planning to remove a 200-year-old stone wall for 17 feet of frontage. It would not serve any purpose.
1
In 1976, when their father gave them that lot, it was before we had zoning. 200 feet was acceptable frontage then.
(RL) Any in favor? Anyone opposed?
No Comments
(RL) Closed to the public
Criteria:
A: No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
The lot with he reduced frontage will not change. This is the area where the property is currently located.
Vote: 4-0 passes.
B: Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
The use and appearance of the house site will not change or detract from the neighborhood.
Vote: 4-0 Passes
C: An area variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property because:
A natural boundary of a stone wall currently exists. Requiring the addition of 18 feet to conform to current zoning would be an unnecessary hardship and would damage the stone wall that has been in existence for 200 years.
Vote: 4-0 Passes
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:
Vote: 4-0 Passes
E: The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others:
The variance will have no impact on any abutting properties.
Vote: 4-0 Passes
F: The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance:
2
The spirit is to keep the rural setting intact. This does not detract from the appearance of the farm.
Vote: 4-0 Passes
Vote: 4-0 Variance granted
Approved-30 day waiting period
Item four on agenda: Review of Minutes: July 14, 2005
Request by (SM) to correct two words on page three, second paragraph. Also compliments Mr. Lamson on his minute taking.
(EV) Motion to approve July 14, 2005 minutes as corrected.
(SM) Seconds motion.
3-0 Motion carries
Item five on agenda: Member Concerns
(SM) Inquires if the alternates were contacted for the meeting.
(RL) States they were notified.
(SM) Concerned that Judith Burrows and Jesse Pacheco have not been attending meetings. (SM) feels that maybe they should not be sitting on the Board because by not attending meetings, they are not learning how the ZBA applies criteria to applications. Suggests calling them to see what the problem is and encourage them to come to meetings.
Discussion follows about how many consecutive meetings a member may miss before they are asked to step down.
(RL) Will telephone (JB) and (JP).
(HF) They should notify us if they are not going to be here, not us trying to track them down. We need to hold people accountable.
(SM) questioned the application for variances. The use and area applications should not be attached as one application form because the applicants are not filling the applications out correctly. Suggests separating them into sets-one for use, and one for area.
3
(RE) and (EV) agree.
J. Lamson: Does not think it will make a difference and feels tonight’s applicants were instructed incorrectly on how to fill out the application.
(RE) Feels that a description of use and area should be on the front page of the application.
(SM) Feels that it is frustrating for the Board to have it figure out, as some criteria for use was used on the application and some criteria for area.
Public Concerns:
J. Lenaerts: Wants to ask a question regarding the Podmore subdivision.
(RL) Asks Board their feelings on discussing this.
(SM) Let him ask the question first and then we can decide if it is appropriate to discuss it.
J. Lenaerts: Addressing (EV): You participated in the effort to change the zoning where the Podmore property is located. You should have informed the Board what (RE) and M. Cyr were involved in. It was unethical. You were on the Joint Committee and participated on the Economic Development Committee…
(RE) Interjects- I object to this.
(SM) Asks Mr. Lenaerts what his question is.
J. Lenaerts: I am asking (EV) to …all I know is that he is in favor of retail on Rt. 28. He has never given any indication that he thought there was anything wrong. Everyone knows there was something wrong. The Selectboard has said there is something wrong with that behavior. I will be bringing it up with the Selectboard…
(RL) Interjects- What is your question?
J. Lenaerts: Are you people going to tell him that in the future that if he or anyone else is aware of something like this, that you would bring it up.
(SM) I appreciate your question, however, I do not feel this is the proper place to ask that question. I believe, from my point of view, that this issue has been somewhat dealt with and I was on the Joint Committee as well.
J. Lenaerts: Did you know about this as well?
(SM) I am not going to comment.
4
J.Lenaerts: If you did, Susan, you are naughty.
(SM) It has been taken care of.
J. Lenaerts: It has not been taken care of.
(RL) IT is my understanding that these things have to be dealt with by the Selectboard and if they feel that (EV) did not do his job, they will deal with it.
J. Lenaerts: I am asking (EV) for his comments.
(RL) I do not think he has to do that.
J. Lenaerts: He is sitting on your Board…
(SM) He was not a member of the Joint Committee, he was a member of Economic Development. As far as I am concerned, he does not have to say anything.
J. Lenaerts: His name was on that “Warfare” flyer…
(RL) John, stop.
J. Lenaerts: Ed, I do not want to blindside you, I will be bringing it up in two weeks…
(RL) John, enough.
Fred Hast: When this property was subdivided, was it ever stated as retail…
(RL) This is not for us to discuss.
(SM) The Podmore subdivision has never even been before this Board.
(SM) Motions to adjourn.
(RL) Seconds motion
4-0 Motion Carries Adjourned 7:45 pm
Respectfully Submitted by Anne Taylor, Board Secretary
Chair____________________________ Date__________________________
5