May 12, 2005 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Zoning.

Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting & Hearing
May 12, 2005
Chairman Elliott called to the meeting to order at 7:01 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Members Present- Robert Lincoln (RL), Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Robert Elliott (BE), Chairman, Ed Vien (EV), Susan Muenzinger (SM), Judith Burrows (JB), Alternate. Absent – Jesse Pacheco, Alternate.
Item 3: Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance for an In-Law Apartment in the Suburban Zone filed by Paul Strickhart of 37 Manchester Street (Map U-01 Lot 46) Pittsfield, NH 03263 for that lot.
Chairman Elliott opened the public hearing for Strickhart, In-Law apartment Mr. Strickhart would like his mother in law to move into their home due to her needing assisted living arrangements. Would like to add an In-Law apartment to accommodate this. (BE) Will the In-Law apartment be part of the main structure?
Mr. Strickhart – Yes. Mr. Strickhart passed around drawings and pictures of proposed addition/apartment. (BE) Would anyone from the public like to speak for or against the application? (BE) Does the board have any questions?
There were no questions.
(BE) Closed to public input at 7:10 (BE) This is a use variance.
Criteria:
A: No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
(EV) will improve value.
(SM) It may not increase the values of surrounding properties, but it will not diminish the values.
(RL),no,(PM),no.
B: Granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest: 1
SM, no, no impact, we have provided for this in the past with stipulation for no rental. (EV), agree, (BE), agree, (PM), agree, (RL), agree.
C: Zoning restriction as it applies to the property interfering with the reasonable use of the property:
(PM) asked if there were any parking issues? Strickhart, NO. All members agree this is a reasonable use.
D: No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction of the property:
All board members yes.
E: The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others:
(SM), no it does not, (EV), (PM), (RL), and (BE) agree.
F: Granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done:
(RL), yes, (PM), yes, all others agree, yes.
G: The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance:
No, all agree. (RL) motion to grant variance with condition that the apt only be used as in law and if property sold, revert back to single family or new owner comes in before ZBA if they wish to keep the apt as an in law.
(SM) second. Motion carries 5 to 0. (BE) 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.Strickart stated thank you. Public hearing closed. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special Exception for a Cluster Subdivision in the Rural Zone filed by Trigger Development LLC of P.O. Box 515 Suncook, NH 03275 (Map R-03 Lot 7) Pittsfield, NH 03263 for that lot. Tal Allen (TA) from True Engineering representing the owner. (TA) presented the ZBA with a map showing a conventional development with 16 lots on the property. He then showed a map with the proposed cluster that had a lot retaining 23 acres of open space, an average of 100’ of frontage per lot, and access between back lots to open space. PSNH power line was where open space began on the plan. All wetlands were marked on the lot, but not necessarily shown on the plan. Cluster will not exceed 16 lots, may be less. 40 acres,
2
28 buildable, without fine tuning for wetlands. (SM) PB has not confirmed lots are adequate? (TA) that’s right (SM) setbacks? (TA) 30′ front 15′ side and rear (SM) why buffer between the proposed house lots and the abutting property? (TA) wetlands and lots (EV) How long is the interior road (TA) maximum allowed, 1200′. Road agent will look at John Muenzinger – asked if the air photos were a year old? dashed line is hydric B soils (TA) yes John Muenzinger – hydric B or poorly drained? (TA) hydric B John Muenzinger – explained what he meant by hydric A and B (TA) flags will show A and B and will be done in the next few weeks. John Muenzinger – how will the well and septic be placed to fit house? (TA) front/back, well and septic will fit, 1/2 acre lots (SM) wetland encroaches on some lots (TA) still room and go into the setbacks John Muenzinger – type of house? (TA) pre-manufactured ranch style John Muenzinger – approximate margin of hydric B goes clear out into pond. (TA) yes, just an approximate line. Full survey and topo to be completed. John Muenzinger, can all proposed lots be approved? (TA) yes John Muenzinger – seems like an exotic proposal, seems like lots, conventional might go into the hydric soils. Based on the rational environmental conditions. (TA) yes, not proposing any more than 16 lots. (JB) – number of build able acres is 28 or so? (TA) when we submit to the PB we will have a definite answer (JB) – but you are locked into 16? (TA) yes (SM) sq footage? (TA) The houses would be 800 square feet with a price of $175 to $185k (SM) How many bedrooms? (TA) Two. (SM) geared towards elderly, middle aged, and 1st time buyers? (TA) yes (PM) Will the houses have garages? (TA) No, but a garage will fit. Owner Ron Dickenson – full concrete foundations, room for garage. Theresa Riel – does Pittsfield have building moratorium? (BE) yes Jeremy Lamson – The building permit limit is not in effect this year, but phasing could be implemented on the project.
3
(BE) we have the ability to limit and phase. Jeremy Lamson – 45 permits were allowed last year, and I think six have been issued this year. Hank F – We are in the ten-permit range right now. Theresa Riel – including Lily Pond? Hank F – yes. Theresa Riel – Hanson Hill, Tilton Hill and Prescott Rd? Hank F – no permits issued yet on Tilton Hill. Theresa Riel – sooner or later you will get children and will we be able to handle them? (PM) concerned with map not being specific. (TA) PB will deal with lot sizes. (BE) we will know maximum of 16, we know what we are approving, agreement is this. I trust the PB will do the right thing. Bill Miskoe – what would happen if ZBA granted spec, exception 16 max, lots and sizes defined? Carole Dodge – no exact on build able acres. (BE) does not matter, max is all set. Jeremy Lamson – Suggested that the applicant explain how the application meets the criteria. Donna Keeley – no matter what you are approving the build able acres will dictate. Bill Miskoe- Every one of the lots has to be approved by state subdivision and septic. It is another level of scrutiny. (TA) part of what we submit is to show well and septic. (JB) – Planning board will adhere to cluster regulations? (BE) If there are more, they won’t be allowed, would need variance. (EV) have all abutters been notified? Jeremy Lamson – yes, I believe I have all the cards (EV) asked if they came up with the setbacks for the abutting property (TA) no, we came up with it? (JB) – lots would not be in the wetlands? (TA) yes, but part of lots will be ok. (JB) – profit is a concern, I realize this, would be nice to be less. (PM) dwelling of 800′ is not very big. Ron Dickenson – 24 x 36 building something people can afford, reasonable size. (PM) If lots were bigger, could build a larger house. Ron Dickenson – not interested in building a bigger house. (JB) – I favor cluster over conventional development, open space and affordable housing, accommodating older and younger people, part and parcel as to how the town grows. (BE) What is the ZBA’s role here tonight? ZBA rules or subdivision? The Planning Board has a job to do after this. (RL) There is not enough information to make a decision, we will need more information on the lots. (TA) We will do more specific data once we get variance. Bill Miskoe – matter of chicken or the egg. The question is whether to allow cluster style with set backs reduced etc. Then the PB will review and confirm. (RL) still concerned. Bill Miskoe – give and take, ZBA members can come to PB meetings. Leap of faith. Hank F – it is not a leap of faith, it is a use variance (SM) no it is not a use variance.
4
(TA) we came to the ZBA first and then the PB for specifics, we would not spend money to get cluster designed before the cluster special exception received approval. (PM) Does the Planning Board approve of this cluster? Bill Miskoe – The Planning Board approves of the cluster “concept”. (TA) goes through the Special Exception Criteria 1. Appropriate use – cluster next door, Lily Pond. Allowed in the rural zone, protecting open space. 2. Detrimental – abutting property is a cluster, design criteria to subdivision regulations. 3. Hazard – lots all from interior road, adequate sight distance on Route 107. Off street parking. 4. Health and safety – Each lot will have own septic and well. Electricity and cable to be brought in. 5. Spirit – adequate space, affordability, open space. Based on this, we meet all 5 criteria. (EV) Would the open space be held through an easement or an association? (TA) will work with the PB. (SM) The applicant meets criteria for special exception for cluster. I am not sure about going from 2 acres down to 1/2 acre per lot. Lily Pond was proposed as 1 acre, this is lower than that. I do believe special exception criteria are valid. If board wants to put that aside and look at Article 8. How far do we want to waive dimensional requirements? (BE) Planning Board will have input. (SM) Not sure if the PB can tell applicant how to size the lots (BE) I don’t think that PB will do opposite. (SM) Do we want to set a minimum? Bill Miskoe – If you keep expanding minimum size, no longer cost effective and road won’t meet town requirements. (TA) If conventional, road gets longer and encroaches into open space. (BE) No longer do cul de sac, possibly conventional loop type road. Bill Miskoe – not sure if loop road would work? (RL) If we decrease too much then what? Bill Miskoe – state will have final say if too small. (PM) Lily Pond had no problems… (RL) not sure what state will do. I want to be sure. I suggest 1 acre. Bill Miskoe – At Lily Pond there were one or two lots that disappeared because of state and Planning Board issues. (PM) they were tight on one acre. Bill Miskoe – I agree, these fellows are deciding what they can build, etc. (TA) built in a factory (BE) one person speak at a time please. (JB) – Lily Pond Ridge, suburban 1.5 to 1 this is rural 2 to .5 acres. 3 lots are 3/4, 1 lot 1 acre, most of the lots are 1/2 acre in size. (BE) what do you think board? (RL) I don’t like precedent. Would like one acre. (PM) .5 is small.
5
Ron Dickenson – The houses on hill could fit on our lots, width not the depth. We are not interested in building 300k houses – buffer would be less. (RL) 1/2 acre too small Ron Dickenson – too small for what? .25 in Webster NH. (RL) not concerned with Webster, concerned with Pittsfield. Jeremy Lamson – whole point of Cluster is lower acres and more open space. (RL) Where do you draw the line? (SM) does not mandate size large or small. (JB) – Winsuvale is .6 acres per lot. (SM) That was done pre-zoning. (BE) as far as lot sizes are concerned, lot go down to 1/4 acres and big houses. (RL) that is why I don’t want rural to become suburbs. (BE) just perspective (BE) what do we want to do? Make a proposal. (EV) If we require them to increase lot sizes, cluster becomes nonproductive – do we lock them in on 16 and let state decide? (PM) I’d like to see one acre as a minimum. (TA) what would different be if lot size was more, house still fits. (PM) maybe it should be conventional. John Muenzinger – trying to hear where issues are – limitation – 1. not to exceed lot count of conventional subdivision, 2. Cluster would be composed of lots to be 1/2 acre or greater – I am trying to get you going with some language. If you state threshold and limitation and state that this is a concept in the approval. (BE) does not have to go through each criteria, applicant already did. (SM) has the applicant demonstrated criteria for cluster has been met?
Yes, from all board members. (SM) article 6 additional conditions can be set by ZBA. In what we know right now, are there any conditions we would place? (PM) lot size. (RL) lot size and put work conceptual because plan is not complete. (BE) so long as we word it so we know what we are doing and that he can do cluster. (SM) Article 8, showing 16 lots, meets; 1. Density – All members feel that this is met. 2. Restrictions on open space – (SM) association will be in charge of land/PB will review. I think ok, reasonable restrictions – can we agree #2 is covered? (TA) we will set covenants to keep open space. Yes from all board members. 3. Adversely affects appearance etc. – (RL) police had concerns with safety and close proximity of homes, Route 107 is a busy road regardless. (BE) consensus? (SM) affect appearance of road more than two acre lots would, perhaps? (BE) The dump is across the street. (SM) Can’t compare dump to this development (BE) Does not hurt appearance. (SM) Rural character may be affected. Bill Miskoe – state will approve each lot size.
6
(BE) Public input now closed. Where is everyone on #3?
Yes from all board members.
4. General Welfare Enhanced by development – (RL) adverse affect on tax base, pressure on schools.
(BE) same size house under conventional.
(SM) why adverse?
(RL) people with kids, I don’t think retaining land will offset school tax issues. (BE) 2 bedroom, has a lot less potential than 4 bedroom (RL) not sure, general welfare is enhanced by this development (BE) are there more negatives? (RL) with tax rate hard to justify but nothing would get approved. (BE) where do we go with #4? (RL) vote (BE) what do you think Susan? (SM) off set with type of units and open space. Pass (EV) pass (BE)pass (RL) pass (PM) pass but might have adverse affect (BE) we are way below in school population and we can add students and not pay any more. BREAK 9:23pm (SM) motion to approve (PM) I’ll second for discussion, PB will decide. Bill Miskoe – can I say something? (BE) would rather you not, public input is closed. (BE) some lots are larger than 1/2 acre. (PM) – if acreage increase will frontage increase? (BE) no (SM) motion withdrawn
(SM) Based on a review of the criteria in article 6 and article 8 and the Board’s agreement that the applicant meets the criteria, I motion to approve a special exception for a conceptual cluster subdivision with a maximum of 16 lots based on an approvable conventional subdivision. Further, I move that the board agrees to waive the dimensional requirements of article 2, table 2 and sets a minimum lot size of 1/2 acre or greater. (PM) 2nd All if favor, 5-0, motion carries.
7
#4 on Agenda – appointment to Master Plan and Zoning Revision Committee’s – 3 planning board members, 2 ZBA members and 2 citizens for each committee. Members had questions as to when groups would meet, what purpose would be etc. Would like more information before committing. (BE) will send letter to PB requesting more info and members concerns. (SM) will the committees have professional assistance? The committee cannot do it alone. I ran PB Master Plan Committee and it can be difficult. I strongly recommend that outside expertise help direct committee. It won’t work otherwise and product won’t get done. I know to know more before I volunteer. (RL) agree with (SM) (EV) good idea to have help. (BE) was on Zoning review and would prefer to remain on committee. (JB) – description of task should be posted by PB for citizens interest. Jeremy Lamson – PB meets next week and will discuss. (BE) will get letter to PB for next week. #5 on Agenda – approval of minutes December 9, 2004 (PM) motioned to approve, (BL) 2nd All in favor. April 14, 2005 minutes were tabled until Jesse Pacheco could be available. #6 Election of officers (PM) Motion for (RL) as Chairman of ZBA. (SM) 2nd (BE) discussion, Bob are you in interested in being Chair? (BL) yes, if they want me I am interested. all in favor, (PM) yes, (SM) yes, (EV) no, (BE) no, (BL) yes motion carries, 3 to 2 (PM) motion for (BE) as Vice Chair (EV) 2nd (BE) abstained, (EV) yes, (SM) yes, (PM) yes, (BL) no motion carries 3-1 with one abstained Jeremy Lamson – Will SM still retain Regional Planning Commission seat? (SM) yes, any reason why I would not? Seat is not up, matter of fact, there are no term limits. Jeremy Lamson – just checking Members Concerns – None Adjourned 9:50 pm Respectfully submitted by Donna Keeley.
8