February 12, 2004 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board

Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

February 12, 2004

Chairman Robert Elliott called the meeting to order at 7:10 pm.

Members in Attendance:

Roll Call was taken: Robert Elliott (RE) Chair, Robert Lincoln (RL), Susan Muenzinger (SM), Christine Westerberg (CW) were present. Glenn Porter (GP) sat in for Paul Metcalf (PM) who will be absent until April.

Review of minutes
Review of the minutes was tabled until after the Public Hearings.

Public Hearing, 60 Main Street, Jessica and Randy Genest:

To consider a Variance Application to allow creating three (3) condominium units in a Commercial zone.

Chairman Elliott opened the Public Hearing at 7:13 pm by reading the Public Notice to all present. The abutters have been duly notified by Certified Mail and copies were posted as required. Jessica Genest spoke on her own behalf. She sought this Variance in order to cut overhead and improve the quality of services offered. The applicant argued that she was facing considerable hardship, stating that the trends in her industry have been changing faster than expected and that the cost of maintaining this property and tax payments have put the property at risk of foreclosure. The applicant promises all proposed changes (which are still being developed) would maintain the integral nature of the building. The only exterior change proposed is to add handicap access ramps into the property. The building being Gov. Tuttle’s former Victorian Mansion is the last of its kind in the town.

The proposal is to split the home into three (3) condominium units. The first (a.k.a “Mansion”) unit will remain as is with the Funeral Gallery on the first floor with the Genest Residence on the second and third floors. The second (a.k.a “Ell”) unit will be partitioned off from the Mansion unit and sold as a residential condo. They have a potential buyer already in mind. The third (a.k.a “Barn”) unit will be partitioned from the Ell unit. The lower floors of this section are currently being used to conduct business operation. The upper floors will be modified to contain another residential condo unit and will be sold. A new breezeway of sorts will be built to allow for movement from the Barn to the Mansion Gallery that will bypass the Ell unit. The Applicant was made to understand that if this Variance is granted that the next step would be to approach the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review that would deal with parking and structural review if the building.

Abutters present generally supported this proposal in the hope to preserve this building and keep it from becoming an apartment complex. Alan Perkins was present and supported Mrs. Genest stating she was a great Funeral Director. He expressed strong sentimental attachment to both the home and business, which has been in his family since 1911. He stated that time was of the essence. There were no arguments in opposition but the Public and Board members posed questions. There was an overall concern regarding the number of bedrooms per unit expected. The plans are still being formulated. The Mansion Residence currently has seven (7) bedrooms. The Applicant agrees to create no more then 2 bedrooms in the Ell and 2 in the Barn units. She is also open to selling the units as business condos if the situation arose and will carefully screen any interested parties considering the nature of the business. The Applicant will have a Condominium Document drawn up after the financing can be secured.

The Board maintains that the Combined dwelling /Business use in the Commercial zone is pre-existing and not non-conforming. (RE) closed the hearing to public comment at 7:55 pm.

(SM) made a motion to table the discussion until after the remaining two hearings could be conducted.

(RL) Seconded the motion.

5-0 vote in favor. Motion carries.

Public Hearing, 160 Shaw Road, Lawrence and Norma Konopka:

To consider a Special Exception Application to allow a Home Occupation in the Rural zone.

(RE) opened the Public Hearing at 8:03 PM by reading the Public Notice to all present. The abutters were all duly notified by Certified Mail and copies were posted as required. The Board maintains that the residence already exists so the discussion would be to allow the Home Occupation. Lawrence Konopka spoke on his own behalf. He has a showroom on Rt. 28 where he keeps 4 commercial vehicles. Overnight burglaries have forced him to keep the vans at his home to prevent further damage. They also wish to downsize a bit. Two (2) personal cars would be parked on the property during the day with two (2) to three (3) vans overnight. He also sought permission to occasionally store wood flooring and supplies on site. 95% of all business operation would still occur off site with his crews coming in to pick up vans and schedules for the day only returning at the end to return vans and documentation. The Applicant agrees to shield the vans and other business storage from public view. No signage is expected. Occasionally a customer will visit. He wanted to make sure the town acknowledged this process officially.

(RE) requested comments for or against the proposal. Comments made were for the proposal but there was a concern as to if there would be addition traffic on Shaw Road, which is already heavily traveled, and in poor condition. The Applicant stated that no excessive travel is expected. The proposal was supported overall. (RE) closed the hearing to public comment at 8:15 pm. There was no further Board discussion. The Board addressed the Special Exception Criteria.

The Board maintained that the location was appropriate for the proposed use. There was more then enough acreage to safely conceal the Commercial property.
The Board maintained that the proposed use would not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious or offensive and diminish property value, as the vehicles and storage would not be seen from the road.
The Board maintained that there would be no undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic including location and design of access ways and parking because more then sufficient acreage exists to accommodate the use.
The Board maintained that there would be adequate facilities/utilities on site to insure proper operation of the business. No new structures are planned and no actually construction would occur on site.
The Board maintained that since the Zoning Ordinance allow for a Special Exception Home Occupation in the zone, the proposed use works within the Spirit of the Ordinance and intent of the Master plan.

(SM) made a motion to grant the Special Exception to Mr. & Mrs. Konopka to allow a Home Occupation for their Floor Sanding business, which allows them to store vehicles, wood and supplies on site with proper screening for their neighbor’s protection.

(GP) Seconded the motion.

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

Public Hearing, 10 Berry Avenue, Linda Small:

To consider a Special Exception to allow creating an Elderly Group/Assisted Home in the Suburban zone.

(RE) opened the Public Hearing at 8:22 pm by reading the Public Notice to all present. The Abutters were duly noticed by Certified Mail and copies were posted as required. Marilyn Roberts was present to speak for Linda Small who attended a Town Budget Committee meeting and was detained. Ms. Roberts and Ms. Small own the property and want to keep the existing house and underlying property as is with minor modification to allow the proposed operation. This would be a privately run operation. Resident age would be restricted to 62+. They do not expect to add to the tax burden in the town. They do not plan to subdivide the property. The property has 200-300ft of frontage on Berry Avenue and around 700ft of frontage on Tilton Hill Road.

Ms. Roberts has nursing degrees and Ms. Small has a Finance background. They will run this operation together. The Applicant will file with the State Health and Human Services Agency for licensure to provide assisted living for residential care after ZBA approval is granted. The Applicant was made to understand that a Site Plan Review would be required from the Planning Board to address parking.

Public comment for and against was requested. The proposal received no opposition from the public. Art Morse, representing the School District, which abuts the property, asked if there were any foreseen conflicts between the school children and the residents of the home. The Applicants foresaw no problem. The School District officials agree. Transportation will be provided by the organization for residents so no unreasonable traffic will be expected. Residents would not be severely handicapped so the level of care required would be at a minimum. There will be between 8-10 residents living on the premises including Residential Staff. They will share one kitchen and a communal area. Single bathrooms will be provided. The owners do not currently expect to live on site. Most residents will be ambulatory and not be driving. They will have mental and physical attributes that require care and/or attention. Basic accessibility would be provided. The property is located near the Downtown area and is connected to Town Sewer. (RE) closed the hearing to public comment at 8:40 pm.

The Board discussed the Zoning Ordinance (ZO) definitions. (SM) stated that there is no definition for an Assisted Living/Group Home sited in the current ZO. The closest definition present covers Rest/Convalescent Homes, defined in the 2000 Zoning Ordinance as: “A private establishment for the care of persons of all ages, or a place of rest for those suffering bodily disorders but not including facilities of the treatment of sickness or injuries of for surgical care.”

There was an administrative oversight when the current document was typed. The above definition was inadvertently omitted from the document but is an approved definition. A copy of the 2000 ZO was not accessible at the time of the hearing but was referenced then presented post hearing. The Board moved on to discuss the Special Exception criteria.

A. The Board maintained that since the property is located within walking distance to the Downtown area, that the proposed use is appropriate for the location.

B. The Board maintained that keeping the property as is (not subdivided) maintains the value of the surrounding properties and the Abutters would be happier. The proposed purpose would not be to any detriment of the surrounding property value.

C. The Board maintained that the property has more then enough room for additional parking with ample potential access from two roads with adequate frontage on existing town roads. Transportation would be provided for the residents. No undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian and vehicular traffic is expected including access ways and off-street parking.

D. The Board maintained that adequate facilities and utilities will be added or currently exist to insure proper operation of the proposed use. The property is connected to Town Water and Sewer. The operation will also be State Regulated.

E. The Board maintained that the ZO provides for exceptions for a certain level of elderly need. There is no expected burden to the Town. The Applicant will seek State Health and Human Services approvals for licensure. So the proposed purpose is consistent with the Spirit of the Ordinance and intent of the Master plan. The Board agrees that both Level 4 (minimal care) and Level 3 (slightly higher care) should be addressed to allow for a certain level of flexibility for the Applicant. The Board offered to lower the age limit but the Applicant refused the offer, citing it was in the best interest of the organization to keep the 62 minimum age requirements.

(SM) made a motion to approve the Special Exception for an Assisted Living Facility for elderly, aged 62 or more, at a level consistent with the State of New Hampshire Health and Human Services requirements for level 3 & 4 residential care facilities with a maximum of ten (10) people. The Board finds that this meets the criteria for a Special Exception and the proposal would be beneficial to the town.

(RL) Seconded the motion.

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

After a 10 minute break, (RE) called the meeting back to order at 9:12 pm and re-opened the Genest Variance Public Hearing. The Board further discussed the case. They discussed the potential of State or Federal funding for an historical building. The Applicant was unaware of any opportunities. The Board discussed the fact that the proposal needs further development. The combined use of the building will not be changed but two residences will be added. The Applicant is trying to maintain building exterior as is and is willing to consider selling the condos as Business Condominiums. There are not very many Business Condominiums in the Downtown area and most of the storefronts are empty implying that space available is not being used. The Board notified the Applicant that she has the right to withdraw the application without prejudice. The Board discussed the criteria.

A. The Board maintained that there would be no diminuation of surrounding property values suffered since the use is not changing and the abutting properties are the Church, Bank buildings and Police department.

B. The majority of the Board members maintained that granting this Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because it would be attempting to save the last of the mansions in town. If it were to be foreclosed upon, the Town would have to take possession of it to collect on the tax liens. They agree that in the interest of not adding more apartments to the area that if granted it would be sold as Condominiums not apartments.

C. The Board maintains that 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 the property was originally built to be someone’s home. It is a unique piece of property. The proposal is reasonable. A Commercial use would better suit but may not sell as a residential property would in the area.

D. The majority of the Board members maintained that no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because a business already exists and will remain. The potential for other business prospect exists.

E. The Board maintained that the Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. The use has been the same for many years.

F. The Board maintained that granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done because it would keep business in the town and help keep a beautiful building in tact. Acting at this point provides a better chance to keep the building as is then not to.

G. The Board maintained that the proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because it would do more good then harm. Certain conditions will be attached to acceptance.

(SM) made a motion to approve the Variance to have three (3) condo units at tax map U3-Lot 19 in conjunction with the business use of the property provided the two new residential condos have no more than two bedrooms each and that all residential units be maintained as condominium units rather than rental units. Once the Condominium Document is drawn it shall be submitted to Town Counsel for review and approval as a condition of this Variance.

(RL) Seconded the motion.

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

Approval of Minutes:

(CW) made a motion to approve the January 29, 2004 minutes as written.

(RL) Seconded the motion

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

The Board agreed that due to the time, they would table the Building Inspector report and Members Concerns agenda items until the next meeting.

(CW) made a motion to adjourn the February 12, 2004 meeting.

(RL) Seconded the motion.

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.

Respectfully Submitted by

Dina S. Condodemetraky, Secretary