Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting & Hearing
July 14, 2005
Chairman Lincoln called to the meeting to order at 7:07 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Members Present- Robert Lincoln (RL), Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Ed Vien (EV), and Susan Muenzinger (SM). Absent – Robert Elliott (BE), Vice Chairman, Jesse Pacheco, Alternate, and Judith Burrows (JB), Alternate.
Hank FitzGerald (HF) the Building Inspector was also present.
Item 3: Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance for an In-Law Apartment in the Rural Zone filed by Edward Lang of 645 Tilton Hill Road (Map R-07 Lot 4A) Pittsfield, NH 03263 for that lot.
Chairman Lincoln opened the public hearing for the Lang Variance Application. He offered Ed Lang the opportunity to table the application, as a full Board was not present. Mr. Lang chose to proceed.
Mr. Lang stated that he had a 14’ x 70’ trailer that he wanted to move to his property and use to take care of his mother-in-law. She is 77 years old and the trailer would be removed upon her inability to occupy it. They would sell her current house.
(RL) Where on the property would it be located?
Mr. Lang: It will be about 25’ behind my house.
(HF) stated that he had reviewed the property and that the septic was adequate. His only issue was with some junk vehicles that needed to be addressed.
(EV) asked if the trailer would just be for his mother-in-law.
Mr. Lang stated that it would only be used for his mother-in-law and not any other family members.
(RL) Opened to public input at 7:10
(SM) asked how old the trailer was.
Mr. Lang did not know.
1
(HF) stated that the mobile home had HUD certificate. It would have to have a concrete pad under it.
Donna Keeley asked if the house could be seen from the road.
Mr. Lang stated that it barely could be seen from the road.
The Board discussed which house was the property in question as there was some confusion among the Board about this point.
Donna Keeley asked how they were going to provide electricity to the mobile home.
Mr. Lang stated that would hire an electrician to handle hooking it up. His meter was at the road.
Carole Richardson thought the proposal was a great idea, but she wanted to know what would happen with the old property.
Mr. Lang stated that it would be sold and the existing house would probably be demolished.
(EV) asked if the electricity ran underground to the house.
Mr. Lang stated yes.
(EV) asked if a new line would have to be run underground from the road to get power to the mobile home.
Mr. Lang stated that he would probably have to run conduit, depending on what the electrician tells him. He could not run power to the mobile home from the existing meter.
(EV) asked what the age of the septic system was.
Mr. Lang stated it was about nine years old.
(RL) Closed to public input at 7:19
Criteria:
A: No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
(PM) felt that there would not be because was not visible to the surrounding properties.
(RL) It would improve the area by removing the trailer from its current location on the mother-in-law’s property by the road.
All in favor application meeting the criteria.
B: Granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest:
(RL) stated that taking care of family was the public interest.
(SM) stated that the Board had always felt that taking care of family was in the public interest. She stated that they had tried to amend the ordinance to re-insert the In-Law section because of this. All in favor application meeting the criteria.
2
C: Zoning restriction as it applies to the property interfering with the reasonable use of the property:
(RL) read the applicant’s response that it “is extremely rural and many surrounding properties have multiple buildings on them.”
(RL) asked what the size of the property was.
Mr. Lang said it was five acres.
(RL) asked how much frontage.
Mr. Lang stated he had 395 feet.
(SM) felt that the Zoning Ordinance did interfere, but she was not sure that the unique setting was that surrounding properties had multiple buildings on them. She stated that normally In-law apartments are attached to the building, not separate buildings. (SM) had asked the Town Administrator to research the issue in past decisions because she thought the Board had addressed this issue before. He found two cases that were similar situations where the Board had addressed this and granted variances.
(RL) felt that with five acres, Mr. Lang should have the room to put the trailer to take care of his mother-in-law.
Carole Richardson stated that she felt the notice should have included that the variance would allow a mobile home to be added to the property.
(SM) stated that she felt the variance was more properly from the requirement of having only one single residential structure per lot. She felt the variance should be allowed under that context.
(HF) thought that that would be a bad precedent to use the lot limit method.
(SM) stated that there already was precedent from decisions in 1989 and 1990.
The Board discussed whether or not the notice was properly done. The Board decided that the notice should be more accurate in the future and proceeded after (HF) stated he would send copies of the decision to the abutters.
The Board was polled on the criteria.
All in favor application meeting the criteria.
D: No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction of the property:
(PM) stated he would support it because it was family.
(SM) stated that there used to be something in the ordinance for In-Law Apartments and they had attempted to put something back in to avoid these types of situations. That and past history, she felt showed that there was no fair and substantial relationship.
(RL) felt that it would be easier to remove by being separate.
All in favor application meeting the criteria.
3
E: The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others:
(SM) stated that the lot was large enough.
(EV) stated it would set far enough back to be out of view. All in favor application meeting the criteria.
F: Granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done:
(RL) read the applicant’s response.
Board was polled. All in favor application meeting the criteria.
G: The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance:
Board was polled.
All in favor application meeting the criteria.
(SM) stated that the Board, before it voted, should decide if it was granting an In-Law Apartment or a variance for two residential buildings on one lot to be used by a family member.
(RL) stated it should be for two residences.
(EV) asked that the conditions specify the family member and that it be removed after.
(SM) read what had been done in the previous decisions.
(SM) made a motion to grant Edward Lang a variance for a second residential structure, in the form of a mobile home, on the property as an In-Law Apartment on the condition that the mobile home is only to be occupied by the applicant’s mother-in-law, Phyllis Snedeker and that, within 120 days of her inability to occupy, the mobile home shall be removed. If an extension of time is needed by Edward Lang, an application must be made to the Pittsfield Board of Selectmen.
(EV) seconded. Motion carried 4 to 0. (RL) explained that there was a 30 day appeal period and notice of decision to be posted within three working days. A building permit can be issued after the 30 day appeal period. Mr. Lang stated thank you. Item #4 – Review of Minutes: May 12, 2005 (EV) motioned to approve, (PM) 2nd All in favor. April 14, 2005 minutes (SM) motioned to approve, (EV) 2nd
Motion passed 1 to 0 with 3 abstentions as (EV) was only member present at the April 14th meeting. 4
Item #4 – Members Concerns: (RL) brought up John Lenaerts letter to the Zoning Board and stated that he did not want to discuss it because the Board of Selectmen was handling the matter. After discussion, the Zoning Board decided to ignore the letter. (SM) reiterated Carole Richardson’s concern about the notice and stated that she felt that it should have been more explicit. She suggested how it could have run.
(RL) stated that there would be a huge difference in how people perceived the notice if it had been worded differently. He felt that if an abutter had a problem with the decision, they might use the notice as grounds for an appeal.
(SM) stated that it was not the first time that there had been problems with the notice not having enough information on the notice.
(SM) made a motion to adjourn.
(PM) seconded.
(EV) asked how the Town tracks the In-Law Apartments in Town.
(HF) stated he kept track along with the Town’s Assessors.
Motion to adjourn passed with all in favor.
Adjourned 7:59 pm Respectfully submitted by Jeremiah Lamson, Town Administrator.
5