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

DATE: THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2012

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Carole Dodge, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Carole Dodge (CD), Chairman, Paul Sherwood (PS), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), John “Pat” Heffernan (PH), Romeo Dubreuil (RD) and Christopher Smith (CS), Alternate.

Christopher Smith (CS), Alternate was present and agreed to take Minutes for the meeting.

Members Absent:

None.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of June 14, 2012

(PM) Motion to approve Minutes of June 14, 2012. (PM) Second.
Carried 5-0.

ITEM 4. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance (Area Change of Use due to unnecessary hardship) filed by Wayne and Mary Summerford, 790 Catamount Road, Pittsfield, NH 03261 (Tax Map R29, Lot 6). The property is owned by Mary Summerford, 790 Catamount Road, Pittsfield, NH 03261 and is located in the RURAL Zone.

Wayne Summerford was present. He related that a commercial business has
been located on the property since 2003. Because it is the Rural Zone, the
bank views this as a non-conforming property. He noted he is trying to
subdivide to apply for two mortgages – one residential and one commercial.
The commercial property is completely independent. The setbacks are the
issue though the buildings are 25 feet apart (Zoning Ordinances require
50 ft.) . He is looking to refinance but is unable to do so under the current
arrangement. He explained that if the two were independent the value
would be much higher. He related that the previous owner of the property
had the same issue. He noted that he felt there was precedent for the
property to be “grandfathered” because it was pre-Zoning.

Discussion:

Board questioned as to the potential driveway – is it under consideration?
Mr. Summerford: Yes. Board: Has it been surveyed yet? Mr.Summerford:
Not yet. The commercial line will run all the way through the property.
Board: The bank will not make a loan on the whole property?
Mr.Summerford: Yes, they will, but this will severely devalue the
commercial building. Board: Will it be a shared driveway?
Mr. Summerford: Yes, but if necessary we can apply for another driveway
though it does not need one. Board: There may not always be the same
property owner and having the split property with only one driveway might
be an issue. Board: You are trying for two separate loans?
Mr. Summerford: Yes – one commercial and one residential. Board: What
is contained in the building? Mr. Summerford: We manufacture gift bags
and packaging. This is a family business with three employees. Board:
What about the garage? Mr. Summerford: There is one in the back and it is
for the residence.

Public Input:

Sharon Matras: I am a neighbor across the street and have been there since
1978. I am concerned if he leaves the neighborhood that we would be left
with two commercial properties. Board explained that everything is
currently residential and he wants to subdivide the property and only one
would be commercial.

Bill Miskoe: If there were any changes in the future, the property owner
would have to go before the Planning Board to ask for change of use. I am
in favor of granting the Variance. The land will still be non-conforming but
not severely. This property is a good candidate for a Variance. The
property owner had an issue with the property that he did not create but is
suffering with.

Close Public Input

Board motioned to discuss further. Second: Carried 5-0.

Discussion:

(PM) For clarification of different activities, he would have to go to the
Planning Board to change the business use. (PH) The proposed use is not
contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance and he is already operating as being
subdivided. This should be a no-brainer. (PS) There are two issues – the
setbacks and the division.

Bill Miskoe: It would not change zoning it will only change the use via
Variance. It is non-conforming but there is a reason. So, use would be
commercial but zoning is still residential. Any future use changes would
need to go before the Planning Board.

(RD) Can provisions be placed on Variance, i.e. that certain things be done
before action noted? Board noted this would be determined after review of
Criteria.

Wayne Summerford reviewed Criteria with Board.

(PM) Motion to accept Variance for change of use and setbacks for Wayne
and Mary Summerford, 790 Catamount Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263,
Tax Map R29, Lot 6. (PH) Second. After Discussion: Carried 5-0.

Discussion:

(RD) I would like a requirement to have a survey because of two non-
conforming lots. I also would like to see a driveway put in within a certain
timeframe. Would an Equitable Waiver on Dimensional Requirements be
better as opposed to lot lines? It is already a commercial entity and we
would just be recognizing it as such.

Bill Miskoe: The applicant would have to come to Planning Board for
subdivision. I would be careful not to put conditions on Variance that would
conflict with Planning Board.

(RD) Does it have its own well? Mr. Summerford: Yes.
(PH) I agree with Bill about not doing conditions because with it being on a
State road, it will take a very long time.

Board voted to allow Variance (5-0) and applicant was advised of the thirty
(30) day appeal period. It was noted to applicant that the next step would be
the Planning Board and Building Inspector.

ITEM 5. Members Concerns

None.

ITEM 6. Public Input

None.

ITEM 7. Adjournment

Board voted 5-0 to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 7:59 P.M.

Approved: August 9, 2012

____________________________ ____________________
Carole Dodge, Chairman Date

/daf – 1 Tape
No Attachments
Posted: July 18, 2012