Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
JANUARY 25, 2007
Item 1. Call to Order
Call to Order at 7:00 P.M.
Item 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Robert Elliott (BE), Chairman, Susan Muenzinger (SM),
Vice-Chairman, Jesse Pacheo (JP), Larry Federhen (LF), Alternate, Carol
Dodge (CD), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
Members Absent: Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Ed Vien (EV).
Others Present: Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr., Esq., Andrew H. Sullivan, Esq.,
James Pritchard, Jennifer McCourt, Fred Hast, and Bill Miskoe.
Carol Dodge recused herself from this hearing. Larry Federhen was seated.
Item 3. Public Hearing with respect to an appeal of a Zoning Board
decision for a Special Exception of Article 2 filed by AHG Properties, Inc.
of 46 Strawberry Hill 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 R-44, Lot 1).
(BE) addressed the Board as to whether to discuss the Motion or to take
testimony at this time. (SM) suggested that since all parties were present,
they could make their presentation. (BE) asked if all members were familiar
with the contents of the Motion, all assented. He requested Atty. Blakeney
present his case making the points clearer and perhaps, simplifying it
somewhat. (SM) seconded this request and requested Atty. Sullivan respond
-1-
since applicant (Atty. Blakeney) is requesting this hearing for appeal.
Atty. Blakeney related that the motion should accomplish two different
things. One, whether the Board will accept the request for a rehearing and
two, if they choose to have the hearing, hopefully grant the motion and
change their decision. He related that the grounds for the Motion are
outlined therein.
(BE) What is the basis of your request for a rehearing? Atty. Blakeney
related that the merits are raised in the Motion, but the Board should decide
whether to grant a re-hearing first before he spoke on the Motion itself. He
related that there are a lot of legal questions involved and that they are not
meant to attack the Board but the underlying validity of the Zoning
Ordinances and the legality of the special exception. He felt that the Board
tried to follow the Ordinances. He related that there are twelve grounds
noted in the Motion, which are meritorious and sub grounds relating to the
cluster special exception. If the Ordinance had been more specific, it would
have avoided this problem. One of the conditions for special exception has
not been met. Board has not gotten assistance of counsel and this will
probably go to Superior Court and we will deal with it that way regarding
the invalidities in the Ordinance.
Atty. Sullivan related that he had mentioned this to the Planning Board.
This matter is going to Court one way or another but perhaps, we could
narrow down some of the issues first. He related that he felt that the purpose
of the rehearing appeal would be for the Zoning Board to address issues that
have been overlooked or misconstrued, not to receive new information that
was not submitted. Your decision today would be whether or not it raises
issues in your minds that you did misconstrue or misapply facts. If we really
are going over the same things as in the original hearing then you should not
grant rehearing. Look at all the various interpretations. You interpreted the
law at that time and if no new facts have been presented, then you should
deny the request for a rehearing and we can move onto Court. Nothing new
has been presented to give you pause that you have misinterpreted the
statutes, law or the facts. I do not think you misconstrued anything. It is
pretty straightforward.
(BE) requested the Board’s pleasure. (SM) had no comments to make as did
(JP).
-2-
(LF) asked Atty. Sullivan, “Do I understand this correctly that since the
original hearing you have obtained an easement?” Atty. Sullivan related that
they do. If it is needed, it is available. We may not have to use it.
(LF) related that he felt that the Board’s original decision with the conditions
applied to the approval were adequate. (JP) related that I don’t see anything
different since December and I believe that the decision stands. (SM)
related that she is always willing to give the applicant the benefit of doubt
and look at the facts again. Nothing is different. I do not think there is a
basis for a rehearing request that is new except for the realtor’s letter, which
could have been at the original hearing. I believe our decision was correct
and I would not vote for a rehearing.
(BE) related that lots of material has been presented, but he still feels the
same way and that though there are some subtle points that may be different,
he would not alter his opinion. Perhaps, it would be better to have legal
minds try to evaluate the significance of these. I do not feel the case should
be reheard and I am of the same opinion as my colleagues.
(JP) Motion not to accept request for a rehearing. (LF) Second. Unanimous
4-0 not to grant rehearing.
Item 4. Approval of Minutes of January 11, 2007 and Work Session
Minutes of January 11, 2007.
(SM) Motion to accept Minutes of January 11, 2007, Seconded (LF).
Unanimous 4-0.
Some corrections were noted on the Work Session Minutes, namely on Page
2 regarding Combined Dwelling and Business. “This use will be deleted
from Table I, Rural and Suburban Zone.
A discussion ensued as to how corrections of minutes will be handled. It
was agreed that any clerical changes would be done and Chairman would
then sign minutes. Any significant major changes will be reviewed and then
Chairman will sign.
-3-
Item 5. Public Input
None.
Item 6. Members Concerns
(LF) related that he would not be present at the next meeting on
February 8, 2007. (SM) related that she may/may not be present on that
date.
(SM) suggested at the next Work Session the Board could review Rules of
the Zoning Board Appendix.
Item 7. Adjournment
(JP) Motion to adjourn, (SM) seconded. Unanimous
Approved: April 26, 2007
___________________________ _______________________
Susan Muenzinger, Vice-Chairman Date
APPROVED:_________________
Date
-4-