December 9, 2004 Minutes


	<div id="primary" class="site-content">
		<div id="content" role="main">
<button onclick="history.go(-1);">Go Back to Pittsfield Town Minutes </button>
			<p id="print-link"><a href="#Print" onclick="window.print(); return false;" title="Click to print.">Click to print.</a></p>
			
				
	<article id="post-357" class="post-357 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-zb">
				<header class="entry-header">
									<h1 class="entry-title">December 9, 2004 Minutes</h1>
								</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<footer class="entry-meta">
					These minutes were posted by the <a href="http://mypittsfield.com/category/zb/" rel="category tag">Zoning</a>.												</footer><!-- .entry-meta -->
		
								<div class="entry-content">
					<p>Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment<br />
Town Hall, 85 Main Street<br />
Pittsfield, NH 03263<br />
Minutes of Public Meeting &#038; Hearing<br />
December 9, 2004<br />
Chairman Elliott called to the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.<br />
Members in Attendance:<br />
Roll Call was taken. Robert Elliott (RE), Chair, Vice Chair Robert Lincoln (RL), Susan Muenzinger (SM), Paul Metcalf (PM), Ed Vien (EV) were present. Alternate, Jesse Pacheco (JP) was present Alternate Judith Burrows was present.<br />
Item Three a on agenda: continued Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance from the frontage requirements in the Rural Zone filed by Roger Beaudoin of 348 Catamount Road (Casey and Hayes Land surveying, LLC, Agent) for a two (2) lot subdivision at 348 Catamount Road Pittsfield, New Hampshire 03263 (Tax Map R-23- Lot 3)<br />
(RE) Instructs applicant how to proceed.<br />
R. Beaudoin: My wife and I are getting up in age and are having a hard time keeping up with the property. My agent, Casey Hayes, should be here. He broke the bones in his hand, that is why the application is so hard to read. Our kids always wanted a home on a big lot. We proposed to give them this land, they can build a house and we can move in with them. We travel often, so we would not always be there. We want two lots, the Zoning won’t change, it will be one house, one building, and one lot. We will be selling the smaller lot. There will be a 12.7-acre remainder parcel, if we are allowed to subdivide and that is where the new house will go. We have not opposed anything that has come up, for example, the Pittsfield Aqueduct Company. We will have frontage if we subdivide the back parcel, we do not want to do that. Basically, we want to create two lots with frontage on Rt. 107. The existing house is to have 225 ft. of frontage and 2 acres minimum. The proposed back lot of 12.7 acres would have 54 ft. of frontage and that is what we are asking for a Variance for. There are two houses there now; we live in the one on the 2.3-acre parcel and my son in law and daughter live in lot 4 which would both be sold to build the new home.<br />
(SM) So you want to put in a long driveway with one house for all in the back?<br />
R. Beaudoin: The 52 acre Brown property was sold to a developer. I wish I bought it. I do not want to sell to a developer or go that route at all.<br />
(SM) You want one lot with 225 ft. of frontage, which would be the smaller lot. The new house lot would have 54 ft. of frontage?<br />
R. Beaudoin: Yes.<br />
1<br />
(SM) The topography done is kind of rough.<br />
R. Beaudoin: The driveway has a slope. The house was moved back from the road thirty years ago. We still have to deal with DES.<br />
(RL) Are there wetlands?<br />
R. Beaudoin: There is a brook. It was natural when the Pittsfield Aqueduct Company (P.A.C.) came into play. They have the water rights. If we had animals, we could ask for a certain flow per minute, but we do not have animals and have to obtain a wetlands crossing permit. The natural brook now is just an overflow.<br />
(PM) It doesn’t have anything to do with the P.A.C. now; it tapers down toward the rear of the property. Do they have water rights?<br />
R. Beaudoin: Not on our property, no.<br />
Agent Casey Hayes: There is 14.7 acres existing. We want to create a rural lot of 12.4 acres in back with 2.3 acres remaining with the existing house on it. We have not been to the Planning Board with a final submission because we do not have enough frontage. We are hoping to obtain a Variance for the frontage requirement and create a lot of greater size and fit into the rural atmosphere. There is existing 279 ft. of road frontage, the remaining 54 feet is for the proposed lot. If we get the Variance, we would go to the Planning Board. The driveway cuts are to be determined by NH DOT and the 2-acre lot would be subject to New Hampshire DES subdivision rules, requiring a topo of the lot. The 12.7-acre lot is not subject to DES because it is over five acres. It is also subject to the Town of Pittsfield’s zoning regulations.<br />
Mr. Hayes goes over the criteria.<br />
A: No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered because:<br />
C. Hayes: The 12.7-acre lot will still provide a rural atmosphere.<br />
B: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:<br />
C. Hayes: There is property potential for six new lots. The proposal is only for one lot.<br />
C: The Zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment because:<br />
C. Hayes: The proposal is for one lot of 12.7 acres. The zoning requires maximizing the potential of the property to create road frontage. One lot of 12.7 acres is a reasonable use of the property. We would rather create one big lot rather than detract from the rural atmosphere.<br />
2<br />
D: No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction of the property because:<br />
C. Hayes: The zoning would require maximizing the subdivision potential of the property to allow the creation of even one additional lot.<br />
E: The Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others because:<br />
C. Hayes: The only relief we are seeking is frontage. All other requirements are to be consistent with the Town of Pittsfield’s zoning requirements and NH DOT and DES.<br />
F: Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done because:<br />
C. Hayes: The creation of one oversized lot of 12.7 acres would ensure the rural atmosphere.<br />
G: The proposed use is not contrary with the spirit of the ordinance because:<br />
C. Hayes: An oversized lot is consistent with the rural zone and the spirit and intent of the ordinance.<br />
(RE) Is there anyone here for or against this proposal?<br />
J. Lenaerts: I caution the Board about setting a precedent if a Variance is granted. I do not know of any other case where Zoning has been changed like this. We have a 2-acre zone and 225 ft. of frontage. This would change that. It sets a precedent. The Master Plan calls for the town to remain rural. One house on a 14-acre lot is better than two houses on a 14-acre lot. Zoning was set up to permit one house on that property. If you do away with frontage limits, look for an explosion of back lots being developed.<br />
J. Lamson: Clarification: If you are using Area Variance, as opposed to Use Criteria, ask the applicant to respond to that.<br />
C. Hayes: It is a matter of planning policy. Many towns are looking into creation of back lot criteria. There is a potential for a six-lot subdivision, again, we are only asking for one lot, keeping the property rural in character. The hardship is the frontage.<br />
J.Lenaerts: Mr. Hayes raised the point that many towns are dealing with this. If this town has a Zoning Ordinance, they should adhere to it unless there is a true hardship. In this case, if they think the ordinance is unjust or too restrictful, then a warrant article should be put in. The Board should not change Pittsfield’s Zoning by granting this.<br />
C. Hayes: The same could be said for any number of ordinances. If I were to go for a ten-foot setback Variance, that does not mean everyone will be coming in for a ten-foot setback Variance. If I go for a height Variance, not everyone will be going for a height Variance. Every Variance is dealt with on a case-by-case situation on a per property situation. I am asking the Board to look at this as a per property situation. There is potential for someone else to do something with this property in the future.<br />
3<br />
J. Lenaerts: I do not think this type of Variance has ever been granted in thirteen years.<br />
C. Hayes: The town has control of what they want to see their lots look like in the town. I have had many Variances granted for similar situations.<br />
(RE) Any questions from the Board?<br />
Closed to public comment.<br />
(SM) We should apply the area variance criteria.<br />
J. Lamson: If you are using the area criteria, you should ask the applicant to respond to those points because he did not address them in his presentation.<br />
Under the Boccia Area Variance Criteria:<br />
What are the special conditions of the property that require the area variance that is needed so the applicant can accomplish the proposed use of the property?<br />
C. Hayes: The special conditions are that the property has the P.A.C. across the street, one driveway cut that goes to the existing house. There is no doubt, we will develop this property. Right now, we only want to create one lot. The alternative is we could put a road in to create the frontage. In doing so, we will possibly create lots that are not as desirable to the rural character. The hardship is in the layout of the land and the existing subdivisions around it. They are two-acre lots with minimum frontage, so it does not allow us to take any frontage from either of the abutting lots. We want to create one lot. We do not have the required frontage, we do not have any area around us that we could purchase, and it just doesn’t exist. So the hardship of the property is the steepness of the road, the existing wetlands, and the irregular shape of the lot. The Planning Board sent us here first.<br />
(RE) Any questions?<br />
C. Hayes: I just want to state that allowing this variance would really make this lot exist in the rural atmosphere. It would be in harmony with the intent of the spirit of the ordinance.<br />
All Board members agree that this variance is needed because of the layout of the land and that he does not have enough frontage.<br />
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<br />
4<br />
C. Hayes: We went over that with the potential for six lots. He wants one lot so the rural atmosphere remains intact.<br />
(RL) Can you guarantee there would not be any further development of the lot?<br />
Applicant, R. Beaudoin: I will sign a paper right now if you wish (stating no further subdivision)<br />
(RL) That would eliminate my fears about setting a precedent.<br />
(SM) He needs a variance regardless of six lots or not. The 54 ft. on the mother lot needs the variance and it is not legal without this variance.<br />
C. Hayes: We could put in a road and create lots with frontage on the road. The mother lot would have frontage on the new road.<br />
(RL) Does the existing house have a landlocked road?<br />
(SM) In order to develop it you need a variance.<br />
(RE) He is trying to achieve one house on one lot.<br />
All Board members agree that 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.<br />
The variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance<br />
(PM) It is in the Rural Zone and he is trying to keep it that way. By granting this variance, I think we also are keeping it that way.<br />
All Board members agree that the variance is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance by keeping the area rural.<br />
Substantial justice is done by granting the variance<br />
(RL) I think justice is done. He has lived there for thirty years and allowing him to build a house on this piece of land that he has owned for thirty years would be justice. They have also paid taxes on it for thirty years, so I would have to say yes.<br />
All Board members agree that substantial justice will have been done by granting this variance.<br />
The value of surrounding properties will not be diminished<br />
All Board members agree that the value of surrounding properties will not be diminished.<br />
5<br />
(RL) Motions to grant the variance with the stipulation that there is not any future development of the property.<br />
(PM) Seconds motion<br />
5-0 Motion Carries<br />
(RE) Explains the thirty-day appeal process.<br />
Item Three b on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance for a Multi-family dwelling in the Suburban Zone filed by Christina Henfling of 39 Winant Road (Tax Map R22 – Lot 1-5) Pittsfield, New Hampshire 03263<br />
The applicant’s proposal was for an in-law apartment over an existing garage for their son.<br />
Judith Burrows, President of Winsunvale homeowner’s association states there are restrictive covenants in Winsunvale that were recorded at the Merrimack County Registry of Deeds in 1988 that are in effect until 2018 (thirty years). According to the covenants, there is only one residence allowed per lot. The Board does not have the authority to overrule these covenants.<br />
Mr. Henfling withdraws his application without prejudice.<br />
(SM) Inquires how they got this far into the process.<br />
(HF) The applicants were unaware of these covenants. We did not get a copy of these covenants until last week. If I had been aware of this covenant, it would not have come to this Board.<br />
J. Burrows: Only the court could overturn the covenants. The ZBA does not have the authority to rule on this.<br />
Item Four on agenda: Revisions of Zoning Ordinances<br />
J. Lamson: Kerrie Diers from Central New Hampshire Regional Planning Commission will have a report available for review for proposed changes to ordinances that will be available on Monday. She will be in for a presentation December 16, 2004 at 7 pm.<br />
Item Five on agenda: Review and approval of November 10, 2004 minutes<br />
Amendments are made to pages 6,8, and 9.<br />
(SM) Motions to approve the minutes of November 10, 2004, as amended.<br />
(EV) Seconds motion<br />
5-0 Motion carries<br />
6<br />
Item 6 on agenda: Member’s Concerns:<br />
(SM) The Beaudoin application was so illegible we could not study it before the meeting. We had asked that it be resubmitted or retyped and it was not done.<br />
(RL) Probably could not read it to do it.<br />
(SM) It was very difficult to read and if we are to be prepared for these meetings, they need to be legible.<br />
(HF) I will make sure that it is taken care of from now on.<br />
J. Pacheco: I did not get the Beaudoin file. I want to know if there is any way to get the agenda ahead of time.<br />
Discussion regarding forms and files in Member’s folders<br />
(SM) Motions that Public Hearing Notices and Agendas to be sent to Board members on the Friday before the meeting.<br />
(RL) Seconds the motion<br />
5-0 Motion carries<br />
Item Seven on agenda: Adjournment<br />
(SM) Motions to adjourn<br />
(RL) Seconds motion<br />
5-0 Motion carries<br />
Meeting Adjourned at 8:30 pm<br />
Respectfully submitted,<br />
Anne Taylor, Board Secretary<br />
Chair_____________________________________ Date________________________<br />
7</p>
					</div><!-- .entry-content -->
		
	
	</article><!-- #post -->

				

			
		</div><!-- #content -->
	</div><!-- #primary -->