Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting FEBRUARY 8, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to Order
Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment called to order at 7:02 P.M. by
Robert Elliott, Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Robert Elliott (BE), Chairman, Ed Vien (EV), Jesse
Pacheco (JP), Carol Dodge (CD), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording
Secretary.
Members Absent: Larry Konopka (LK), Susan Muenzinger (SM), Vice
Chairman, and Larry Federhen (LF), Alternate.
Carol Dodge (CD) is seated on Board.
ITEM 3. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Use Variance
for a lot line revision filed by Daniel J. and James F. Kerivan of 10 and 12
Chestnut Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U-5, Lot 24 and Lot 25).
The property is owned by Daniel J. and James F. Kerivan. The property is
in the Urban Zone.
James Kerivan explained the circumstances in regard to the purchase of the
duplex plus an additional house on the property on which he is trying to
acquire the lot line revision. He explained that because of the way the
duplex and the house is situated (1/2 of one of the duplex is located on one
lot and 1 ½ on the other side of the duplex, plus the additional house is
located on the other lot) that he has had difficulty acquiring insurance as
well as electrical supply. Daniel Kerivan related that at the current time the
electrical supply for the entire duplex comes in through the back of his side
of the duplex. He related that there is a barn on his side of the property,
which will probably be removed once renovation on the house has been
-1-
completed. James Kerivan related that the “L” would eventually be
removed. He explained that eventually he would like to have a condo
agreement combining 10 and 12 Chestnut Street, with an easement for the
driveway. The house at 14 Chestnut Street, which is currently part of his
side of the duplex, would be dealt with at a future date. Daniel Kerivan
related that his side of the duplex is livable, but his Dad’s side is completely
gutted. (EV) related that he had an opportunity to see the property and
related that the front has 10 ft., side 10 ft., rear 10 ft. and a 50 ft. frontage.
This would clean up the look of the property a lot.
James Kerivan was asked if he had applied to the Planning Board yet, and
advised Zoning Board that he had and they encouraged him to first apply to
this Board.
James and Daniel Kerivan were advised that they were entitled to a full
Board, and questioned whether they would like to continue to proceed. Both
applicants assented to proceeding with the hearing.
Public Input was opened, though no one was in attendance at meeting other
then applicants. Public Input closed.
Criteria:
A. No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
(BE) All changes and renovations would only be an improvement.
All Agree 4-0.
B. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
(EV) They are serving the public’s interest by reconditioning this property.
All Agree 4-0.
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.
-2-
(BE) related “Yes.”(CD) related that the way it exists now, it is very
confusing. (JP) It makes better sense the proposed way. (EV) moving the
lot line makes sense.
All Agree 4-0.
D. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific restriction on the
property.
(BE) These two parts of the duplex together create a normal condo situation.
(EV) wanted to know what would prevent one owner from selling and the
other side continue to be owned. James Kerivan related that the condo
association would own land and that there is no common land in this
situation.
All Agree 4-0.
E. The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.
All Agree 4-0.
F. Granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done.
(BE) It makes more sense to have the two units together. (JP) wanted to
now if it was designated as a condo now. Daniel Kerivan related that it has
two separate owners but is not a condo now.
All Agree 4-0.
G. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
(BE) This is currently residential, and will stay residential.
All Agree 4-0.
-3-
(BE) related that the Planning Board has to approve the lot line revision
under Article 2, Section 2. and that this Board is approving the application
on condition Planning Board grants a lot line adjustment; otherwise this
Variance would not make any sense.
A discussion ensued in regard to the property. (CD) related that the
Planning Board has to allow two buildings to become one as one owner has
1 ½ of the structure on his lot and other owner has only ½ of his building on
his lot. Though this problem exists with the lot division there are still two
deeds. (BE) related that the if the Planning Board allows lot line revision the
Deeds will have to be rewritten. The approved plans from the Planning
Board will be accepted by the Registry of Deeds. We are granting a
variance on something that actually does not exist. (EV) related that the
once this duplex lot problem is corrected, the Zoning Board could take other
part of the problem into consideration. He related that it will “clean up” the
look of the neighborhood.
(CD) Motion to accept application for Use Variance. (JP) Second.
Unanimous 4-0.
(BE) related that this is conditioned upon Planning Board granting a lot line
adjustment.
(EV) related that he thought presentation was a “wonderful job.”
(BE) explained thirty-day (30) appeal process to applicants.
ITEM 4. Public Input
None. No one was present at hearing.
ITEM 5. Approval of Minutes of January 25, 2007.
Tabled till next meeting when (SM) and (LF) will be present.
-4-
ITEM 6. Members Concerns
(EV) questioned whether another Work Session would be scheduled. (BE)
related that “Yes, this will be done when regular Board members are
present.”
ITEM 7. Adjournment
(EV) Motion to Adjourn. (CD) Seconded. Unanimous.
Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.
Approved: April 26, 2007
______________________________ _________________________
Susan Muenzinger, Vice-Chairman Date