Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

DATE: THURSDAY, JANUARY 14, 2010

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Ed Vien, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present: Ed Vien (EV) Chairman, Carole Dodge (CD), Vice Chairman, Jesse Pacheco (JP), Larry Federhen (LF), Ted Mitchell (TM), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM)

Ted Mitchell, Alternate seated on the Board.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of September 24, 2009.

(LF) Motion to approve Minutes of September 24, 2009. (CD) Second. Carried 5-0.

ITEM 4. Public Hearing with respect to an application for an Equitable
Waiver of Dimensional Requirements filed by Peter and Janice
Osborne, P.O. Box 217, Pittsfield, NH 03263 regarding a
structure located at 100 Barnstead Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263
(Tax MapR15, Lot 27) due to a misinterpretation of Site Plan
Review approval for construction of a building of forty (40)
feet where zoning maximum is thirty-five (35) feet. Building
was designed, ordered, and erected before inconsistency was
established.

Janice Osborne was present. She noted that they were not aware that they had to ask about this and were just going by the architect and the Building Inspector information and did not know it would be an issue. When the Fire Chief saw the structure he noted some safety issues that would have to be complied with for maximum safety. We want to make sure that everything that needs to be done is accomplished and we will do what we have to.

Gary Johnson, Fire Chief: In essence, I discovered the height exceeded the zoning requirements and told Osbornes that I would not oppose it if they filed a Variance if the suggested ventilation system was installed. He explained the type of roof door that was required and how the system worked. He noted that he had suggested this type of system because the Town does not have a ladder truck and this system is automatic. He noted that there were some other life safety codes that require compliance also. He noted that the Osbornes have been very cooperative relating that this was their first big project and as long as they comply with his suggestions, that he does not oppose the application.

He related that the he would do an inspection prior to their occupancy of the structure and that the building is being done in stages.

(JP) Is a sprinkler system required? Chief Johnson: “No, it is not required.” (JP) What is the building going to be used for? Ms. Osborne: Part of the building is an industrial boiler company, which does the majority of their work off-site and the trucking company which we operate. The building is currently in Phase II which includes offices on the first floor left side and on the first floor right are the bays and second floor storage. (LF) Are you going to tear the old building down? Ms. Osborne: “Yes, but I do not know when. We might facelift it for awhile and make it match the small building in the back.”

(TM) Now that we have CNHRPC working with the Planning Board, will it decrease the likelihood of this happening again? (EV) I would hope so. The more checkpoints you have the easier it will be to find discrepancies right at the beginning of the project rather than “enroute.” (TM) It seems that all the information was not given to these people at the first stage and we cannot blame these people who are novices in completing project. It should have been caught by the engineer.

Chief Johnson noted that there was an incomplete set of plans and they should have to go through the Fire Chief and Building Inspector which can take up to 4-6 weeks. This would not be permission to start the building and they would still need Building Permit and inspections by Building Inspector and Fire Chief.

Board, Fire Chief and applicant discussed how the process should work and how and when deferrals are made to other departments. Chief Johnson noted that sometimes engineers dealing with small towns think that they can get away with different issues because it is a small town. The process is somewhat backwards as to what happens first. (JP) explained that he is a contractor and noted that in other towns and states, engineers are well aware of the standards required and they are responsible for adjusting for these standards.

(LF) At what stage was the problem noted? Chief Johnson noted that he had discovered the issue after the structure was already in construction. Ms. Osborne noted that had they been aware of the problem they would have avoided this conflict but she trusted the engineer to be aware of the requirements.

Board reviewed A, B, C and D of the original application and agreed with applicant’s responses to each question.

Public Input

None. No audience was present at hearing.

Public Input Closed.

Discussion:

Board members agreed with the application as submitted.

(EV) noted that perhaps, a workshop to include ZB, PB, BI, Fire Chief and Matt Monahan might be helpful to make sure that things like this do not happen in the future. (JP) That would clarify what we are trying to do. This matter should not be in front of us. (EV) The rules should have been followed.

(EV) read into the Minutes note from abutter, Susan Bleckman, Windwalker Corporation noting “I am in favor of the application; please grant.”

(LF) noted that “it is a nice looking building.”

(LF) Motion to only grant Waiver of Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements filed by Peter and Janice Osborne, 100 Barnstead Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 to allow for height of structure of 40 feet where zoning maximum is 35 feet provided they are in compliance with the corrections, steps and recommendations as noted by the Fire Chief.
(JP) Second. Carried 5-0.

Applicant was advised of the thirty (30) appeal process.

Chief Johnson noted he would be very interested in working with the ZBA at any time and would be happy to attend work sessions to make the process systematic and not have matters fall through the cracks. (EV) noted Chief Johnson is present tonight by choice and not at the request of this Board. Chief Johnson noted he was happy to work with the Board to provide information to make Pittsfield a safe and progressive community. Chief Johnson explained to the Board a little about structures of single family dwellings, multiple family dwellings, industrial sites and the requirements and supplies involved.

ITEM 5. Information Items
a. 25 Crescent Street

Board agreed that BI can follow up on this. (EV) Supposedly something will be before this Board later in the year.

b. Coordinated Transit & Human Services Transportation Plan

(EV) For Board information.

c. Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program

(EV) For Board information.

ITEM 6. Members Concerns

(EV) One concern I have is the way things are coming before the ZB. That is why I would ask for a workshop.

(JP) We should not have anything much coming before us if procedures are followed. The applicant and the Fire Chief should not have to go through this. Regarding the Osborne property, there are going to be two buildings on the same site. If they put up one building then something else should come down.

(EV) Maybe there needs to be a “takedown date,” within two years to be enforced by BI. Once they get their occupancy notice then the time clock starts. (JP) Two years is a long time. (TM) Six months would be plenty of time. This is something Kyle can check on. (EV) It should be emphasized that height should be a setback.

ITEM 7. Public Input

None.

ITEM 8. Adjournment

(EV) Motion to adjourn. (LF) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:00 P.M.

Approved: June 10, 2010

__________________________ _________________________
Ed Vien, Chairman Date

1 Tape