ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWN HALL, 85 MAIN STREET
PITTSFIELD, NH 03263
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING

DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 11, 2013

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:02 P.M. by Carole Dodge, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Carole Dodge (CD), Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), John (Pat) Heffernan (PH), Romeo Dubreuil (RD), and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Paul Sherwood (PS) and Christopher Smith (CS), Alternate

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of June 13, 2013

(PM) Motion to approve Minutes of June 13, 2013. (PH) Second.
Carried 3-0 (RD) Abstain.

ITEM 4. Public Hearing to consider an application for a Certificate of
Approval governing the designed area of use of the junkyard
business pursuant to RSA 236:114 filed by Bruce and Pat
Clattenburg, 28 Eaton Road, d/b/a: Pittsfield Salvage, 28 Eaton
Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R20, Lot 7-2). The
property is owned and business operated by Bruce and Pat
Clattenburg on a portion of the property at 28 Eaton Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263 in the RURAL Zone.

(PM) Motion to open hearing on Certificate of Approval for Bruce and Pat Clattenburg. (PH) Second. Carried 4-0.
Rick Belanger was present: You will probably remember I was here about a month ago for a similar situation. This business was started before the State issued the licensing requirements. (RSA 260:125). If you started your business before 1965, you do not need to apply for Certificate of Approval. (CD) We are here because this is a “housekeeping” matter that needs to be followed up with in order to comply with the RSA’s. We are aware that this business is “grandfathered” but we would just like to get this accomplished so that everything is in order for his license. Rick Belanger: In a case like this, we can appeal it. This is very straight forward.

(PH) Why not do what we did for Roy Richardson – we got him squared away and we can do the same thing here. Let’s just take the short road approve it and return his check.

(PH) Motion to approve Certificate of Approval for Bruce and Pat Clattenburg and refund the application fees. (PM) Second.
Carried 3-1 (RD).

ITEM 5. Public Hearing to consider an application for Appeal of
Administrative Decision filed by Paul Rogers, P.O. Box 54,
Pittsfield, NH 03263 regarding property located at 44 Main
Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U03, Lot 86) noting
violation of International Building Codes 2009, Chapter 1,
Section 107.1 and Chapter 32, Section 3202.3 1 and 3202.3.2.

(CD) This pertains to the administrative appeal and we are not here for any zoning issues. We will hear the applicant and make a judgment.

(RD) Was the decision made in error? (CD) Paul Rogers will give us the facts and we will hear from the Building Inspector. (RD) We cannot change any building codes. According to RSA 155-A:2.X:

No state agency, authority, board or commission shall vary, modify, or waive the requirements of the state building code or state fire code, unless approved by the state building code review board pursuant to RSA 155-A relative to the state building code or the state fire marshal pursuant to RSA 153:8-a, I (c) for the state fire code.

Paul Rogers: I am here because I was unaware before putting up the new sign that this would be a violation. It is the same size sign as was at the previous location and on the same pole that was there for the previous business. The only thing added was the small piece at the bottom that depicts “Bakery. I have been informed that it cannot stick out so far. This same sign was up for 6-7 years. I had talked to the Building Inspector and he was going to get back to me and then I just got the notice. I did not make the sign larger and it is the same pole that was used for the video store sign. It was replaced in kind. The sign hangs 8 ft. 11 ½ inches from the sidewalk. The sign is the same except it is a little lower because of the bakery addition. It extends out 8 ft. 6 in. (RD) 8 ft. 6 in. into the road? (PR) Yes, into the parking space. (CD) Signs are allowed in the Light Industrial/Commercial Zone. Jesse Pacheco, Building Inspector: Boards cannot waive the Building Codes; the same thing would apply to electrical and/or plumbing codes. (CD) We do not have a Sign Ordinance in Town; signs are allowed as long as they are not intrusive, noisy or are in a right-of-way.

Article 9 – Signs

Signs of whatever size and material shall be a permitted accessory use in the Commercial and Light Industrial/Commercial districts of the Town and on the premises of businesses or permitted industry in other districts, provided that any such signs do not constitute a nuisance, in the opinion of the Zoning Board of Adjustment, by emitting an unreasonable amount of light or noise and are compatible with the surrounding area.

Jesse Pacheco, Building Inspector: There are two violations involved – load capacity and he will have to present the load bearing figures to me. The other concerns the sign. Paul’s sign is in the public right-of-way by hanging over a parking area. Under IBC Codes,

3202.3.1:……Awnings, canopies, marquees and signs with less than 15 ft. clearance above the sidewalk shall not extend into or occupy more than two-thirds the width of the sidewalk measured from the building. Stanchions or columns that support awnings, canopies, marquees and signs shall be located not less than 2 feet in from the curb line.

You are telling us that we do not have a sign codes and that is an existing pole, but changing from Moo-Veez Galore to Jitters Café is really changing everything. I have been working with Paul on this in bits and pieces. Code tells me we cannot have it there. George will have issues in snow removal.

Paul Rogers: This letter was sent to me by Eric Nilsson, Deputy Building Inspector. Jesse Pacheco: On advice from counsel, I am not sure if this is an Appeal of Administrative Decision or Building Code issue. It has to do with the codes as to how you make a decision.

(CD) It is an Appeal of Administrative Decision on the Building Inspector. We are basically acting like a court in this matter. (PM) I would like to hear from Paul Rogers.

Paul Rogers: I could try and slide it back 7 inches but it would be difficult to do because of the way the pole is erected on the building. This is the same pole that was there when it was Barney’s Clothing Store. (PM) If it is over cars in the street, move it back. Paul Rogers: This pole is no different than the one on the Chinese Restaurant which is hanging next door.

Paul Rogers: This has been going on for a while. The Planning Board waived the Site Plan Review and did not mention signage. (CD) The Planning Board did not say anything to you about this? Paul Rogers: No.

(RD) I have some concerns on the sign. One is the height and the way it hangs into the street and the metal brackets. Is there any way you could lift up the sign. Various suggestions were made as to how to change the location, position and height of the sign and how the codes could be enforced.

Jesse Pacheco: I think we should table this to allow the Board to look into it a little bit more. (CD) Eric Nilsson signed this letter pertaining to the violations. His name is on the bottom of the letter. The Board of Selectmen passed this unto the Zoning Board because they cannot hear an Appeal for Administrative Decision. I have talked to Larry Konopka, Chair, Board of Selectmen and Town Administrator Paul Skowron about this. Because Eric Nilsson sits on the Board of Selectmen, they have done the right thing by handing it over to the Zoning Board. We do appeals for the Board of Selectmen because of this.

Jesse Pacheco: We cannot go below the Building Codes requirements. I have discussed this with State Fire Marshall. Are you an Administrative Appeal Board or a Building Board? (CD) We are here to handle the violation as presented to Paul Rogers. Jesse Pacheco: There are two violations. The other violation is load bearing issues and I do not think you can deal with this. If it collapses, the Town will have a problem. (CD) Proper documentation should have been given to us. Jesse Pacheco: It is up to him to show me.

Paul Rogers: In this case, I had a bad contractor and we are working on the getting the right load bearing wall and I am still waiting for that to be delivered. It was ordered but has not come yet. The beam was put in incorrectly. (CD) So, really the administrative appeal concerns the sign not the load bearing beam? The sign is what the administrative appeal is for only. Paul Rogers: Correct. I would be glad to have someone look at it and see if we can come up with some ideas on how to change it. The last three businesses in that locale had the same sign. I am waiting for approval from the State of New Hampshire on the fire suppression system and the plumbing.

(PH) I would like to see sign moved and maybe set on top of the roof parallel with the building. It may not be as visible but might be a solution. I am not sure we can waive this. We cannot tell the State to do what we want. We need clarification. I think we are on a real slippery slope here. We can look at this a little more and maybe discuss with LGC. (RD) I already spoke to them. We have to abide by the Building Codes. (PH) I do not want to put the Town in jeopardy.

(RD) I know that Jesse is working really hard. (PH) I looked at it and he could set sign on roof instead of on pole. (RD) I do not know how this will impact Mr. Rogers. I can work with him and see if we can come up with a better solution. (PM) I am not afraid of the State. Do we want businesses to stay in Town? (CD) State codes go for signs as well as the grandfather issues.

(PH) Motion to table this matter to next month. Motion dies because of lack of Second.

(PM) Town should be moving forward and provide a good relationship with businesses. (PH) If sign falls and hits a car or someone, then….
Paul Rogers: My insurance would cover it.

(PM) Motion to approve Appeal for Administrative Decision to allow existing sign to remain intact as displayed. (PH) Second. Carried 3-0. (RD) Abstain.

(CD) Appeal is “approved” for your sign. Paul Rogers: I will still meet with Romeo Dubreuil to see if we can do something better.

(CD) The thirty day appeal process will still apply. Jesse will look into the load bearing beam issue.

ITEM 6. Members Concerns

(RD) I believe the decision that was just made sets a precedent and we could wind up in Court on this. (CD) We will have to see what happens.

ITEM 7. Public Input

None.

ITEM 8. Adjournment

(PH) Motion to adjourn. (PM) Second. Carried 4-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:15 P.M.

Approved: September 12, 2013

__________________________ ____________________
Carole Dodge, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me on July 11, 2013, transcribed and publicly posted on July 23, 2013.

__________________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

I Tape
Attachment