Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
January 26, 2006
Chairman Lincoln called to the meeting to order at 7:08 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Robert Lincoln (RL) Chair, Robert Elliott (RE) Vice Chair, Ed Vien (EV),
Susan Muenzinger (SM), Alternate Jesse Pacheco (JP), and Alternate Carole Dodge (CD), were
present.
Paul Metcalf (PM), was absent.
Charley Mewkill III, Planning and Zoning Administrator was present
Jeremy Lamson, Town Administrator was absent.
Anne Taylor, PB/ZBA secretary was present.
1. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Use Variance
filed by Con-Lin-Ty, LLC of P.O. Box 10483 Bedford, NH 03110 for a
multi-family building (55 and older housing) for property owned by
Pittsfield Weaving Co., Inc. in the Light Industrial/Commercial Zone
located at 1 Fayette Street (Tax Map U-4 Lots 25 and 26).
2. Public Hearing with respect to an application for an Area Variance
filed by Con-Lin-Ty, LLC of P.O. Box 10483 Bedford, NH 03110 for a
variance regarding the parking requirements in Article 2 Table 3 for
property owned by Pittsfield Weaving Co., Inc. in the Light
Industrial/Commercial Zone on Bridge Street (Tax Map U-3 Lots 25
and 26) relative to the property owned at 1 Fayette Street (Tax Map
U-4 Lots 25 and 26).
Alternate Carole Dodge steps up for Paul Metcalf.
Ed Vien works for the owner of the property and recused himself.
Alternate Jesse Pacheco steps up.
Philip Hastings, Attorney for the applicant: I sent a letter in regards to changes in
the proposal and the plans (Ex. A). I also have some plans that I e-mailed (Ex. B: A-
1 First Floor Plan, A-2 Second Floor Plan, A-3 Unit Plans). In addition, I have some
proposed conditions the applicant would agree to. The proposal meets all of the legal
requirements.
2
Robert Sullivan, owner of Con-Lin-Ty: (Describing proposed changes: We took the
office in the storefront out of the proposal. The plan does not show any of the
parking across the street. We have 40 units shown on the plan. We have 19 units on
the first floor, storage, a meeting room, a common area, office space, and restrooms.
On the second floor, we want to have 21 additional units. There has been a change
to the second floor. There was 4-5 ft. in height added to the right side (shows on
plan), which is at units 20, 21, and 22. The area on the left side of the common
hallway will have the same height added as well. It is a slightly different layout.
(CM) Where is the elevator?
R. Sullivan: That is a PB issue, however, the architect is still looking into it. We are
working within the framework of the building.
(JP) Are they all 1-bedroom units?
R. Sullivan: There are a few 2 bedrooms, there are studios; Unit 12 is. Unit 26 is a 2
bedroom or one large 1 bedroom. We are looking more at the square footage and see
what works. The second floor plan shows a unit broken down with bath and kitchen.
There is a breakdown on the first floor of Units 2, 12, 15, and 17.
(SM) Unit 37 is 1010 sq. ft.
R. Sullivan: It could end up being a large 1 bedroom. We could make variations
between 100 and 200 ft.
(SM) How many 2-bedroom units?
R. Sullivan: Possibly 3 or 4 units.
(JP) Unit 12 is shown in two places.
R. Sullivan: It is shown as a studio and a 1 bedroom. There would be four 2-bedroom
units maximum. We are working within the framework of an existing structure; you
may have bigger kitchens or bathrooms. The market will set our units for disabled
or handicap accessible. (Gives examples of his Bedford property).
(JP) You have six units under 620 sq. ft.
R. Sullivan: Those are 1 bedroom that is not handicap accessible.
(CM) How many units are handicap accessible?
3
R. Sullivan: Code calls for three, but we will probably have 15 handicap accessible
units. The doorways will be at least 36 in. I can do anything with configuration of
units with the square footage of the building.
(JP) As far as handicap accessible, you are putting in three to four units?
R. Sullivan: Potentially the whole first floor could be switched that easily. The
doorways, kitchens, outlets, and cabinets will be at the proper height.
(JP) How many handicapped clients do you anticipate? You need space for them.
R. Sullivan: We do service many of those residents. Approximately 50 % of them do
not have vehicles. They usually take vans that are specifically handicap accessible.
(RL) Where are those parking spaces?
R. Sullivan: There are still spots against the building.
(CD) If you had someone who was handicapped and needed 24-hour assistance, if
they were under 55, how would you deal with that?
Philip Hastings, Attorney: The 55 and older restriction would apply and we would
not be able to rent to them. There is no federal or state obligation to rent in that
situation.
Reuben Hull, Civil Design Engineer: Reiterating criteria from the last meeting, the
majority of the existing parking is within regulations. Some spaces may not have as
much depth. They would need modification. Five spaces may only turn out to be
three. This is not taking into account the parking in front of the building where the
handicap spots would be. Two spaces per unit is unreasonable for this proposal.
With the last meeting’s data and real world examples, it would require .5 to .75 of a
parking spot per unit. R. Sullivan is only asking for one per unit. Not everyone will
have a car. This is not the market for that.
(RL) Are you willing to restrict the lease to one car per unit?
R. Sullivan: Yes. (passes out pictures of 24 unit facility in Bedford, showing parking
layout. Ex. E & F) These spaces are all numbered. As you can see, these are cottage
style units.
(Passes out pictures of his other facilities Ex. G, H, I) I visited Rolling Green. There
are 40 units and I only counted 29 legal parking spots. I did not see a 1 for 1 ratio
on that property.
(JP) How many of your properties have 1 to 1?
4
R. Sullivan: Most are 1 to 1, or close to it.
(JP) Do you allow boats or RV’s?
R. Sullivan: Absolutely not. It would have to be a non-commercial vehicle.
Discussion on proximity to public transportation at R. Sullivan’s other facilities.
(CD) What is the age of your Deerfield clients?
R. Sullivan: 62 and older, however, there is an allowance that the manager be over
55 years old and not have live in children. It is in the lease.
(SM) So you are saying the lot across the street has 40 or 45 legal parking spots?
R. Hull: Some spaces do not conform to site plan. We could extend the pavement or
reconfigure the striping.
(SM) According to the plan, there are 6 spaces in front?
R. Sullivan: There are two handicapped spaces and 4 additional spaces.
(RL) What about staff parking?
R. Sullivan: There is only one manager.
(RL) Maintenance?
We would subcontract for someone to come in and clean for a few hours a few days a
week. Also, the office will not be open 24/7.
(CD) Don’t you need a spot specifically designated for handicapped vans?
R. Sullivan: More than the two spots are not necessary.
(RL) Open to public. I would like to hear people that are for the project speak first.
Lester Firstenberger: I like the idea it is a good use for downtown. It is good for the
tax base and good to fix up the building than leave it empty.
Mike Cyr: Agrees. It is a great location. It is right where it needs to be, close to
services.
5
(RL) Anyone against?
Linda Small: Is this Section 8, PBA?
R. Sullivan: No you can have a roaming voucher.
Linda Small: This is not good for Pittsfield. We have a problem with affordable
housing here. It is a poor community. It is not Bedford or Deerfield, that is why it
would not be of benefit to public interest. The Gelinas test has a set of criteria that
must be met in order to grant a variance.
In 1995 CNHPRC assessed Pittsfield as having 53% of having low-income
households conclusion being that Pittsfield has more than the share of affordable
housing. An update in 2000 showed a slight increase in household income.
References tax burden on residents, the impracticality of consideration to the
limited restriction interfering with the reasonable use of the property because of the
current zoning of the area allowing multiple uses with the exception of residential.
Linda Small outlines the intent in the LI/ Commercial zone and references the MP
several times. (Full document insert in recorded minutes (Exhibit K).
J. Lenaerts: I am neutral. The age requirement should go with the land, if it is sold,
would we have to through a big fight?
Gil Bleckmann: I have invested in Pittsfield for years. Ms. Small runs a similar
establishment and maybe she feels there is competition. You do not have people in
the downtown. We need people to use the services. I have watched committees
destroy my neighborhood. We need the people. The use brings in 40 people to use
the services close by. The Board won’t let me do what I want to do. I cannot create
more acreage. There is nothing there now that will increase the use of services in
town. There is no one left in the center of town. This would be useful to people who
cannot drive.
Attorney Hastings: Reemphasizes the opportunity for this property to be a
productive use. The site could be used for a number of uses. Zoning was built
around this use. The law allows for variance when there are anachronisms. The MP
recognizes that an industrial use would cause problems such as noise, light, and
parking. The variance would apply to the land, not the owner. It would not be
reasonable to restrict the land in perpetuity. There would be no flexibility in the
future.
Dave Simpson: I like the idea; it should be pure tax base. However, indirectly we
could have a problem. I have concerns about impact on the welfare department.
6
R. Sullivan: We discussed 55 and older AND handicapped. We took off the “ and
handicapped” on the proposal. This proposal has a lot of amenities. Competition is
good. These units are reasonably priced. Residents would offer services as well as
utilize them by having jobs in the community as well as volunteer work.
Gil Bleckmann: Reference to many substandard properties in town.
Lester Firstenberger: it is a benefit to the public interest. The demographics of New
Hampshire’s 55 and older housing is less than 1 % in Pittsfield. There will be a need
within the community.
J. Lenaerts: Urges Board to seek opinion from someone whose total interest lies
within the Town.
Linda Small. This has nothing to do with competition. You are comparing apples to
oranges. I have a ten-bed “Assisted Living” facility; it is totally different than your
proposal. We need to back to the MP and get something beneficial to all in that
building.
(CM) Have you thought about removing the Depot St. building for more parking?
R. Sullivan: We thought of that, but that would mean the backside of the metal
building is exposed. That is a beautiful storefront and we want the storefront
character maintained.
Susan Bleckmann: That area is zoned industrial because the building was there
before zoning. We had 3 or 4 other proposals for the building. This is the most viable
proposal I have seen.
(RL) Closed to public.
(CM) The Fire Chief had some concerns on parking.
(RL) The Department heads should have come in to express themselves.
(CD) The road agent thinks the 1 to 1 ratio is not a good idea. He is concerned about
overflow parking into the street. The Road Agent and the Police Chief had concerns
about visitor parking as well. Then there is Drake’s Field and school events.
Gil Bleckmann: That is because I have always provided FREE parking!
(RL) You are out of order; it is closed to the public. Summarizes memo on concerns
from the Police Chief (Ex. I) Five minute break at 9:02 pm. Meeting back open at
9:10pm. Is the Board ready to go through the criteria?
7
Use Criteria:
A: No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
Applicant feels that the project will improve an existing unoccupied and/or
underutilized property, will be compatible with and comparative to other uses in the
area and will not alter the character of the neighborhood, will not be a nuisance or
hazard, and will not threaten the public health safety or welfare in any way.
(SM) I feel it will improve the value as well. It is comparable to uses in the area and
it won’t be vacant anymore.
Board agrees, passes 5-0
B: Granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest:
Applicant supplies the same answer from Criteria A
(SM) I do not think it is contrary to public interest because it will provide a use that
has been identified statewide as a need. It will improve unoccupied and
underutilized property. It will not alter the character of the neighborhood. It will
not be a hazard or a nuisance. It is in close proximity to a lot of services in town.
(RL), (RE), and (JP) agree.
(CD) Some of the input from the road Agent concerns me. I feel it is contrary to
public interest. Disagrees.
Passes 5-0
C: Zoning restriction as it applies to the property interfering with the reasonable use of the
property:
Applicant feels the Zoning restriction interferes with the reasonable use of the property because
the surrounding land uses are predominantly commercial and multifamily residential. The
proposed use is more compatible with the surrounding area than the previous industrial use. Size,
location, existing conditions and utilities make the site well suited for the proposed use.
(SM) It is in a unique setting surrounded by residences.
(RL) It doesn’t change the character of the neighborhood.
(SM) It would not have proper parking for a use such as a sports club or a hotel/motel. The
manufacturing market is not as viable as when the plant was in operation.
8
(RL) There is no manufacturing anymore. If that use were in front of us, it would be fought. I
think the current proposal is a reasonable use.
(RE) The zoning restriction does interfere with the reasonable use of the property.
(JP) Agrees.
Passes 5-0
D: No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning
ordinance and the specific restriction of the property:
The applicant feels that the general purpose of the ordinance is to promote the health, safety, and
welfare of the community, including ensuring appropriate land uses of different areas and
protecting the value of the property. Restricting the multi-family use of the specific type
proposed will not advance these objectives, as the surrounding land uses are predominantly
commercial and multi-family residential. Granting the variance will enable positive
redevelopment of the property.
(SM) It was a fair and substantial relationship at one time, however, it is not the case today. The
Town has had problems with an excess of apartments. At some point, the Boards need to decide
if the re-use of older buildings would be advantageous to the downtown. In this case, it is an
appropriate use.
(RL) Mr. Bleckmann mentioned it would bring people to use services in town. I have no problem
with it.
(RE) These seem like decent apartments. We have a tendency to discourage apartments because
they become quickly rundown.
(RL) It will be beneficial.
(RE) I think it passes criteria.
(JP) Agrees
Passes 5-0
E: The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others:
Applicant gives the same response as in Criteria A
(CD) You stated 30-40% of these apartments would be subsidized. That means 12 to 16 of your
proposed units will be subsidized. I think that injures the rights of others.
R. Sullivan: That would be subsidized by outside vouchers from a federal agency. It may be
10%, I cannot predict.
9
(CD) That is what you gave for statistics last week.
R. Sullivan: As far as Town welfare goes, it is utilized primarily by those of a lower age bracket.
The outside vouchers do not burden the community. There are no tax dollars spent from the
towns where my other facilities are located in Bedford and Deerfield.
(CD) Concerned with burden on Town welfare.
R. Sullivan: The clientele will have no or minimal burden on the Town.
Discussion on screening applicants.
Passes 5-0
F: Granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done:
Applicant gives same response as Criteria A
(RL) I feel it will result in substantial justice. There are not many uses available for that building.
(SM) Agrees. The Town, the people, and the applicant win.
(RE) Agrees. The property will assess higher than if it was an empty building.
(JP) and (CD) agree.
Passes 5-0
G: The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance:
Applicant gives same response as Criteria A
Board agrees
Passes 5-0
(SM) What conditions do you want to impose?
(RE) It will need to go to site plan review.
(SM) I would like to see in the lease that there will not be any subleasing. I do not know if I am
comfortable with the one car per unit in the lease.
(RL) If we restrict to one car, there will be open spaces.
10
(JP) If we do not restrict it, and he fills up with 2 cars per unit, where will the overflow go?
(CD) On the street.
(RE) Then he would be violating the ordinance.
(CD) We are talking about the use, not the parking. I would like to see a covenant for thirty years
stating that it remain 55 and older.
(RE) and (SM) disagree.
(SM) If it goes belly up, someone else may come in with something beneficial.
(RE) The variance stays with the land.
Discussion on covenants.
(RE) Motion to approve the use variance with the proposed conditions from the applicant (Ex. C)
No second
(RE) Motion withdrawn.
(SM) On the applicant’s proposed conditions, #3 should state “both of the residents be 55 or
older”. #4, change covenants to conditions and I would like a “no subleasing” clause added. #5,
take out “at the Town’s request”.
(CD) Motion to approve the use variance for Con-Lin-Ty at 1 Fayette St. with the conditions on
the proposal submitted by the applicant (Ex. C) and amended by (SM).
(RE) Seconds motion.
Motion carries 5-0
(RL) Five minute break at 10:25pm. Meeting open at 10:30pm.
Area Criteria:
A: No diminuation in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
The applicant feels that the proposed number of parking spaces in connection with the project
will be adequate to serve the intended use and will not result in undue traffic congestion, nor any
nuisance or hazard or any other unsafe condition.
(SM) I looked into some Planning standards on elderly housing in regards to parking and the
range was large in terms of variation. In North Carolina it was .5 spaces per bedroom. In
11
Vermont it was .2 per unit. We are not sure what the standard is based on. The same report states
that elderly housing has a lower parking need. It is a lot closer to one space than two. The Fire
Chief wants open access around the building.
(CM) He wants no parking at all on the backside of the building.
(RL) The Police Chief had some concerns as well.
(RL) (SM)’s comments helped.
(RE) Certain types of apartments, two spaces are reasonable, but not in this case.
(SM) It has a parking lot, so it won’t impact the surrounding properties.
(RE) The traffic flow will be lighter that when the weaving company was open.
(CD) Disagrees. There will be undue traffic flow on the street.
Passes 4 in favor-1 against
B: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
Applicant submits response from Criteria A
(RL) How much traffic was there when the factory was in operation?
Gil Bleckmann: There were 110 employees with 68 parking spaces maximum. The problem with
traffic only arose at shift changes.
(RL) This better than a vacant building without traffic than a utilized building with some traffic.
(RE) Agrees. With the traffic research, it does not seem to be a problem.
(JP) I feel it could be a nuisance.
(CD) Agrees with (JP).
Passes 3 in favor- 2 against (CD) and (JP)
C: An area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given
the special conditions of the property because:
The applicant feels that the existing building on the property and the size of the adjacent parking
lot limit the amount of parking spaces available. Strictly conforming to the parking requirements
for the proposed use would require the applicant to demolish some or all of the buildings on site,
therefore reducing the number of proposed units in the project. This would adversely affect the
12
economic viability of the project and as a practical matter would substantially limit the ability to
adaptively re-use the Pittsfield Weaving property as intended.
(SM) Agrees. There is no way to provide two parking spaces per unit.
(RE) Agrees. There is no reasonable alternative.
(RL) and (JP) agree as well.
(CD) Disagrees.
Passes 4 in favor – 1 against (CD)
D: 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 because:
Applicant states that the Pittsfield Weaving Co. has limited parking capacity as currently
configured and the alternatives for strictly complying with the zoning requirement are not
economically or practically consistent with the goal of adaptively re-using the property.
(SM), (RL), (RE), and (JP) agree.
(CD) disagrees
Passes 4 in favor -1 against (CD)
Criteria E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done because:
(RE) Agrees, it will substantially increase revenues.
(RL), (SM), and (JP) agree.
(CD) Disagrees. I feel that there will be undue traffic congestion, which will be a nuisance.
Passes 4 in favor -1 against (CD)
Criteria F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
(CD) I disagree. I am not against 55 and older facilities, but people that age still drive and still
work. If there are two people in the unit, and they work in two different places, they may want
two cars.
(RE) I agree based on the parking data.
(SM), (RL), and (JP) agree.
13
Passes 4 in favor -1 against (CD)
(RE) Motion to approve the area variance as requested by the applicant based on the criteria for a
minimum of forty spaces with the condition that the Planning Board, after reviewing the
applicant’s data, may require more than forty.
(JP) Seconds motion.
Motion Carries 4 in favor- 1 against (CD)
Item Six on agenda: Public Input
(TM) Addressing (RL) Have you given your resignation in writing?
(RL) No.
(TM) Then you have not resigned.
(RL) Do not look for me at the next meeting.
Item Seven: Member’s Concerns
(SM) The Town Administrator received an e-mail in regards to the Tan Road/Sonny Sells court
case. March 6, 2006, there is a pre-trial conference and it is requested that (RL), the Town
Administrator, and myself attend. Also, I would like to say I am sorry that (RL) is leaving us. He
has done a good job.
Review of meeting minutes January 16, 2006
(RL) On the first page, (EV) is employed by the owner currently.
(CD) Page five, halfway down, add emergency elevator after “keyed and secure”
(CD) Motion to accept minutes of January 16, 2006 as amended.
(RE) Seconds motion.
Motion Carries 5-0
Adjournment:
(RL) Motion to adjourn.
(RE) Seconds motion
Motion Carries 5-0
14
Meeting adjourned at 11:30pm
Respectfully Submitted by Anne Taylor, Board Secretary
Chair____________________________ Date__________________________