Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
DRAFT Minutes of Public Meeting
December 27, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
Robert Elliott, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken. Present were Robert Elliott (RE), Chairman, Susan
Muenzinger (SM), Vice Chairman, Ed Vien (EV), Larry Federhen (LF),
Alternate.
Members not present were, Jesse Pacheco, Paul Metcalf, Jr., and Carole
Dodge, Alternate.
MEETING
A special Public Hearing with regard to the original application for Special
Exception filed by Michael Courchene for a Home Occupation
(smokehouse/meat cutting) located at 1094 Upper City Road, Pittsfield, NH
03263 (Tax Map R-16, Lot 12). Property is owned by Alfred S. Courchene
of 1094 Upper City Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263. This is located in the Rural
Zone.
Alternate Larry Federhen was seated.
Michael Courchene, Brenda Courchene and Albert Courchene were present.
-1-
(RE) noted that the reason for this hearing was that upon review of the
Board’s decision for Michael Courchene, that they had concluded
incorrectly the requirement for a Site Plan Review before the Planning
Board. I reviewed the Regulations, I reviewed the opening paragraph
citing Site Plan Review Regulations, discussed this with Local Government
Center and checked RSA 674:43 regarding “…..for the development or
change or expansion of use of tract for nonresidential uses….” My
interpretation is that we should not require Mr. Courchene to go before the
Planning Board for Site Plan Review. I would like to amend that decision
and in fact, strike that from the decision. A lengthy discussion ensued
between (SM) and (RE) regarding the legalities of requiring a Site Plan
Review for some individuals applying for a Home Occupation. (RE) related
that he believed they were going way beyond their bounds in this respect.
He related that he interprets this as falling under primary authority regarding
nonresidential tracts. (LF) related that Article 6 in the Zoning Ordinance
states “in all instances.” (RE) stated “I believe Ordinances get trumped by
Statutes.” (SM) Home occupations do not apply to Site Plan Review. (RE)
“We cannot trump State Statutes.” (SM) We can be more restrictive but not
less restrictive. I see where you are — home occupation does not apply to
Site Plan Review because of “tract.”
Further discussion ensued regarding the Site Plan Regulation versus the
State Statutes. It was noted that the Site Plan Regulations probably need to
be reviewed and revised. Since this would effect future decisions, it was
agreed that revising the Ordinance might be necessary. (SM) explained how
an applicant can get an exemption from going before the Planning Board for
a Site Plan Review. (RE) related “We should not direct them in that way.”
(SM) What we want to do is have the Planning Board revise the amendment
so that it is clear that it does not apply to home occupations.
(EV) I would like to amend my Motion to exclude Site Plan Review. (SM)
related that he should rescind his request that the applicant should go for Site
Plan Review before the Planning Board as “principal use of tract is
residential and Site Plan authority is related to ‘tracts’ for non-residential
uses…..” EV motioned accordingly, seconded by (LF) Unanimous 4-0. A
discussion ensued regarding the appeal process. However, Mr. Courchene
-2-
related that he would not be doing anything in regard to this for the next
thirty days anyway.
Applicant left at 7:25 P.M.
MEMBER’S CONCERNS
(SM) related that she was on the Planning Board previously and that the
Zoning Ordinance existed before the Site Plan Regulations. Again, the
Town can be more restrictive than the State allows. Notably, more but not
less. Several scenarios were discussed in relation to home occupations and
where a Site Plan Review would be required and in what situations it would
be become commercial as opposed to home occupation. (RE) explained that
applicants are “scared” to become before the Board and in many cases it can
be traumatic for them. He related that it was necessary to differentiate
between principal use of residence and commercial use and that definition
should be changed and in what instances it would go beyond secondary use.
Discussion included the prospect of revising Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the
Zoning Ordinance to read, “In non-residential instances, a site plan of the
proposal shall be presented to the Planning Board for approval and
determination.” (RE) related that either we could strike it out or better
define. When does the commercial become primary and residential become
secondary? This needs to be further clarified and called to Michael
MacLaughlin, Building Inspector, attention. Combined dwelling issues were
discussed further and (SM) related that residential uses are not allowed in
industrial zone.
It was agreed that a Work Session should be scheduled for January 11, 2007
at 6:00 P.M. These issues and the Rules of Procedures could be discussed
and worked on.
-3-
ADJOURNMENT
Motion to Adjourn was made by (EV) and seconded by (LF). Unanimous
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
Respectively submitted by Delores Fritz, Board Secretary.
Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
DRAFT Minutes of Public Meeting
December 14, 2006
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Robert Elliott called the meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken. Present were Robert Elliot (RE), Chairman, Susan
Muenzinger (CM), Vice Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Ed Vien (EV),
Carole Dodge (CD) Alternate, and Larry Federhen (FH), Alternate.
Member Jesse Pacheco (JP) was absent.
ITEM 3 ON AGENDA:
Public hearing with regard to an application for Special Exception filed by
Michael Courchene for a Home Occupation (smokehouse/meat cutting)
located at 1094 Upper City Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-16, Lot
12). Property is owned by Alfred S. Courchene of 1094 Upper City Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263. (Note: Corrected as to owner of property from
original notice.) This is located in the Rural Zone.
(EV) related he knows applicant’s wife, Brenda, and that they work at same
company though at different jobs. (PM) noted that he has had some meat cut
by applicant in the past. Both members remained seated on the Board.
(RE) explained procedure in regard to pro-testimony, con-testimony, and
any rebuttal.
Michael Courchene explained that he already has a meat cutting shop at his
Dad’s property and that he would like to broaden his horizons and go further
by putting in a smokehouse also. Brenda Courchene (BC) related that the
meat would be cut and smoked at the shop rather than cut at the shop, sent
out to be smoked and then returned to the shop for distribution. (SM) at this
location, your father already has a meat cutting business in the garage? Mr.
Courchene related that there is a small meat cutting area in the back section.
The smokehouse eliminates customer coming back and forth. (SM) How do
you do the smoking? Mr. Courchene stated there is a special cooker that you
can purchase. (SM) How much meat is involved. Mr. Courchene related
approximately 12 beef/roughly 40 pigs. (RB) Do you raise pigs? Mr.
Courchene, No, we do not raise animals. (PM) related that it is a very clean
establishment. You are expanding and I wonder if you are grandfathered in
this regard. (EV) explained that this is a different process and would be
done under “one umbrella” and would be according to size of cooler. Mr.
Courchene stated that the most he has at one time is about 4 beef though I
would like to put another cooler in which would be used for the smoked
products. (BC) related that they need separate coolers. (SM) Do you need to
be inspected by State Health Department? Mr. Courchene related that he
had checked and that it has nothing to do with State as long as they do not
sell products, but it is just a service to farmers and hunters. (EV) asked if he
would need a permit for the smoking. Mr. Courchene related that it was
not necessary.
Discussion:
Dan Schroth noted that he had dealt with Mike Courchene before and that it
is a long ride to take this business out of town and that Pittsfield needs a
smokehouse in town.
(SM) My concern is should it be licensed somehow? Mr. Courchene related
he had talked to the State and he was told that as long as he does not sell a
product, he does not need to be licensed. (EV) related that this is a service
that he performs. Mr. Courchene related that every package is labeled
“NOT FOR SALE.” (SM) Is this done on a commercial level? Mr.
Courchene answered “No.”
DISCUSSION:
(RE) Have all abutters been notified. (MM) Yes. Mr. Courchene related
that he had talked to several of them and that they were going to be here, but
apparently could not make it.
Criteria:
The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use of the
structure.
(PM) stated that it is an appropriate site and that it is not noticeable from
the road. There is no one on the other side.
All agree 5-0
The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious, or offensive to
the neighborhood and will not diminish the value of surrounding properties.
(EV) I don’t think there is a ton of smoke coming out. Mr. Courchene
related that it is a very slow smoking process. (RE) is it electric? Mr.
Courchene stated that he does not have one yet, but it will either be electric
or propane. All scraps are dumped daily.
All agree 5-0
There will be no undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian or
vehicular traffic, including the location and design of access ways and offstreet
parking:
(SM) related that it is a very long driveway. (PM) stated that there was
plenty of parking.
All agree 5-0
Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided to insure
the proper operation of the proposed use or structure:
(SM) related that the building codes need to be covered as far as air
circulation, etc. (EV) related that all this was covered. (PM) the present
wiring looks new to me.
All agree 5-0
The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of this Ordinance
and the intent of the Town’s Master Plan:
(PM) related that he thought it was good to encourage small businesses.
(SM) related that it is a farm area (PM) it will keep us rural for a few more
years.
All agree 5-0
(EV) made a motion to approve the application for Special Exception filed
by Michael Courchene for a Home Occupation (smokehouse/meat
cutting) located at 1094 Upper City Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax
MapR-16, Lot 12) in the Rural Zone. (PM) seconded the motion.
Discussion:
(SM) questioned whether a Site Plan Review is necessary. This is a
change of use, expansion of use. It is going from residential to
commercial expansion. (RE) let’s check the Regs to make sure. (PM) it
is not a new building. (SM) I agree. I think he is just adding onto his
present business. (MM) related that Site Plan Regs state that any
expansion of use requires a Site Plan Review and that this should be sent
to the Planning Board. He could file for an exemption of a Site Plan
Review.
(RE) related that we live in a litigative society. (EV) what about site
plan? We did not put Site Plan Review in motion. I would like to amend
my motion to include a Site Plan review through Planning Board. (PM)
seconded this motion.
All agree 5-0
(RE) explained the thirty day appeal process to Mr. and Mrs. Courchene
ITEM 4 ON AGENDA:
Hearing for appeal for a decision for a Special Exception of Article 2
filed by AHG Properties, Inc. of 46 Strawberry Road, Bedford, NH
03110 to allow a 12 unit single-family residential condominium clustered
development in the Rural Zone located on Thomson Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Map R44, Lot 01).
(EV) related that he would like to recuse himself due to a possible conflict.
One of the abutters’ daughter is part of Pittsfield Weaving and I would
prefer to step down. (CD) related that she did not sit on discussion last time
and stepped down. (LF) replaced her on the Board for this hearing. Atty.
Sullivan questioned whether four was a quorum and was informed by (RE)
that three is a quorum. (SM) related that there is a lot of paperwork involved
in this hearing and that she wanted to be sure they were discussing the
correct one. Atty. Blakeney related that they have 30 days after the Zoning
Board’s minutes are approved to file an appeal. Since the minutes have not
yet been approved, they still have time to appeal. (SM) You want us to
approve the minutes before we can proceed. Atty. Sullivan related that to
avoid the inevitable, he would recommend that we postpone this hearing for
another thirty days. Atty Blakeney read the Statutes in regard to this. Atty.
Sullivan related that it would be better to postpone it now than have it come
up for appeal later because all Statutes and interpretations thereof were not
complied with. (SM) motioned to continue for thirty days. Seconded by
(PM). All agree.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve minutes of September 14, 2006 by (EV) Seconded by
(PM) All agree.
Minutes of meeting of October 12, 2006 – (EV) abstained, as he was not
present at that meeting. (PM) motioned to accept minutes. (CD) seconded.
Discussion, none.
PUBLIC INPUT
Fred Hast wanted to know if this meeting was being taped. He related that
Town should spend some money and get a proper PA system. He stated that
some individuals in audience are very soft spoken and cannot be heard
without the proper equipment. (RE) questioned whether there was any legal
requirement to tape meetings. (EV) related that if there is a recording
secretary, taping is not necessary. He also stated that after minutes are
approved, there is no need to keep tapes. Fred Hast related that all tapes
should be kept because of Town policies.
MEMBER’S CONCERNS
A discussion ensued as to when it would be best to hold the next meeting in
regard to Item 4. (SM) motioned that the hearing be held on January 25,
2007 and that be the only case on the agenda. (LF) seconded motion.
(EV) noted that it was not necessary to renotice the abutters in cases such as
this as there would be no public input. (LF) suggested the Board contact
Paul Sanderson about the thirty-day appeal process in this can. (EV) noted
that the Zoning Board can decide if rehearing should be allowed.
(RE) suggested that the Board have a work session on January 25th should
the appeal not go forward. (PM) stated that most issues should be before the
Planning Board.
ADJOURNMENT
(CD) motion to adjourn. (EV) seconded motion. Motion was unanimously
approved.
Meeting adjourned at 8:17 p.m.
Respectively submitted by Delores Fritz, Board Secretary
______________________________
Robert Elliott, Chairman
_______________________________
Dated
/daf
zbmins12-14-2006