July 22, 2004 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board

Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

July 22, 2004

Chairman Elliott called to the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.

Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Robert Elliott (RE), Chair, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Robert Lincoln (RL), Paul Metcalf (PM), Ed Vien (EV) were present. Alternate, Glenn Porter (GP) was absent.

Public Hearing with respect to an application for special exception filed by Nancy Bates and Anthony ReSavage Jr. to allow a Kennel and Home Occupation in a Rural Zone located at 39 Range Rd., (Tax Map R02-Lot 5) Pittsfield, NH 03263

Chairman Elliott declared the Public Hearing opened at 7:04 pm.

Nancy Bates distributed a handout to the Board outlining responses to the special exception criteria, which provided the basis of her presentation. (See Exhibit A) She explained the project as follows: “I want to have a boarding kennel that is totally indoors. There will be no noise, it will be soundproofed and well insulated. I will also have grooming and training. It will be agricultural so it is already an accepted use in a rural zone. I have a 50×50 vegetable garden. I raise horses llamas and dogs. I presently have seven dogs that I show. I am a member of the American Kennel Club and I have been breeding Samoyeds since 1976. It is an appropriate location because the lot is more than double the 2-acre minimum in a Rural Zone. The hay field across street subdivision approval went through in October of 2001. There are two horse properties on Shaw Road. There are two kennel licenses of five plus dogs – one on Shaw Rd. and one abutting Shaw Rd. property and Lily Pond Estates. There are eighteen total kennel licenses in Pittsfield-sixteen in Rural Zones, one in Suburban Zone, and one in Suburban/Light Industrial Zone. One kennel of thirty plus dogs and twenty puppies is on the corner of Eaton Rd. with indoor/outdoor kennels in view of the street with no screening whatsoever was approved last year.” The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious or offensive to the neighborhood because: We already raise animals, harvest hay, and grow vegetables for our own personal use. The structure will be a barn behind a dense tree buffer that is sixty feet deep and one hundred eighty feet wide, so it will not be visible from the street. The boarding kennels will all be indoors. The hours will be M-F 7:00am to 6pm and Sat. and Sun. 9am to 6pm. Lily Pond has a new community of custom homes abutting Shaw Road starting at over $250,000 that abuts a kennel and the BCEP Recycling plant and that has not been a concern for new home sales. The three properties surrounding the Eaton Road Kennel (R17-03G) sold for more than their appraised values in the last six months, proving property values will not be diminished.

R21-06 –Assessed Value $321,640 Sold $375,000 2/10/04

R17-03E –Assessed Value $74,360 Sold $155,066 3/12/04

R17-05&R20-08D Assessed Value $352,320 Sold $530,000 4/15/04

There will be no undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic because there are two driveways on either side of the proposed structure, there are only two driveways after ours, there is room to park and turn around on our property. Range and Shaw Roads accommodate 200 plus dirt bikes one weekend in June every year and five plus trucks a day during hunting season and more on weekends. Where boarding is typically used during vacation season, the average capacity would be at forty percent ten months of the year.

(RL): Where are you getting these statistics?

N. Bates: Sendashi kennels in Manchester. They have national statistics annually.

(RE): Supporter’s comments?

D. Schroth: I encourage the special exception.

(RL): Have you seen it?

D. Schroth: No, but it sounds appropriate.

J. Pritchard: Neutral- As of June 6, 2004, six lots have sold at Lily Pond.

H. Fitzgerald: Lily has one end user – the remodeled Halloran place. There are nine structures going on presently.

(RE): Any opposing?

Abutter Larry Federhen: This application is different from the first one. We should have a chance to review it. (Referring to the written presentation versus the application form.)

Abutter Mitch Emerson: Concerned she may show something different at the Planning Board.

Don Williams: Concerned about waste and the width of the road to accommodate traffic.

Diane Vincent: Lives at 51 Shaw Rd. Would not have purchased her property if she thought there was a kennel going there. Concerned about the nuisance factor, waste disposal, the impact on the environment, property values, and the exercise of the dogs, as well as the traffic impact. States it belongs in a Commercial Zone.

Abutter J. Poland inquires about Bates having a group license.

N. Bates states that she does.

J. Poland: States he will be selling his property. Inquires if this is a kennel or a home occupation.

(SM): You can have a kennel and a home occupation.

J. Poland: The fence blocks their vision.

(RE): Not the issue here.

J. Poland: I have been to Sendashi Kennel and you should hear those Huskies howl.

(EV): Is it an inside kennel?

J. Poland: It is an indoor/outdoor.

(RE): How long will the dogs that are boarding be there for?

N. Bates: One to two weeks. The runs are 3×12 feet and 3×8 feet-plenty of room.

Adds that Sendashi has 200 plus kennels.

Sam Greenlaw: I was not notified and I am an abutter because I live within 200ft. of the property.

H. Fitzgerald: The rule is touching property not the lake on the other side. That is a Massachusetts law.

(RE): Note for record to check with Atty. Bates regarding this law.

S. Greenlaw: It creates a problem if application has been changed. It says kennel is the home occupation.

(RE) We are addressing both issues the kennel and the home occupation. They are two separate issues. One is the kennel and one is for a farmstand.

N. Bates: I was trying to cover all the bases because farmstands are not specifically covered.

Larry Federhen: The agricultural use is not in dispute.

S. Greenlaw: Some things you can do as home occupations, some things you cannot.

(RE) I read the application as asking for two things: the kennel and the home occupation. I will ask the Board for their thoughts.

(RL) I read the home occupation as the kennel.

(RE) I don’t agree that they are the same.

(SM) I don’t agree that the home occupation and the kennel are the same either. I do not believe that the special exception for a home occupation is necessary for the farmstand. The farmstand would be a permitted accessory use to the principal agricultural use permitted by right in the rural zone.

Larry Federhen- reference to letter Board in file, and specific items in the Town of Pittsfield Zoning Ordinances and Master Plan. (See Exhibit B)

S. Greenlaw talked about looking at the property from the road. He showed pictures from his back porch and an aerial view of the property, which he submitted to the Board for the record. (See Exhibit C) The Town Administrator then clarified that the hearing notice had the kennel and the home occupation as two separate issues.

S. Greenlaw then stated that the applicant wants to maintain breeding in her home which constitutes a home occupation. He read the criteria and the statutes for accessory uses. (RE) asked him to condense his presentation, as this was not relevant since the Board has established that the kennel is not a home occupation.

(RE) Please condense. Would the Board like to continue to hear testimony.

(RL) Let the man talk.

(RE) You are out of order.

(RL) So are you, let’s drop it.

(RE) If things get out of order I will stop the meeting. You are are out of order. Please stop.

(RL) What are you going to do? Censure me?

S. Greenlaw then discussed the Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding lot usage. He stated that what was currently going on at the property was not allowed because dogs are not farm animals. Keeping the dogs entirely inside is inhumane, he said, because they will not have access to fresh air and sunshine. He also asked what would happen to the dog feces, as the waste would run downhill to the pond if placed outside. As to the hazard to pedestrian criteria, he stated that Shaw Road is not wide enough for two cars to pass. Mr. Greenlaw continued that kennels are not allowed in single-family residences and are recognized as not being home occupations. He concluded by saying that the site was not in the best interest of the town for the proposed use.

Alan Bissonette stated that he lived 400 ft. away and presented the ZBA with notarized letter from neighbors against the proposed use. His main concern was noise from dogs barking and increased traffic to the area. He stated that you cannot stop dogs from barking. He was trying to sell a house in another town and lost buyers once they found out it was next to a kennel.

Dave Juvet of 61 Shaw Road in Barnstead spoke that he and his wife had moved to the area because it was quiet. He felt that the application should be denied because the site was at the end of the road because of the increased traffic that would be going by the house. He felt that there was no room for two cars to pass and the traffic to the kennel would make things worse.

Stephanie Lamere stated that contrary to what the applicant stated the road was not widened and the road had not been improved other than having gravel put down.

Peter Lamere asked if the horses and llamas were going to be indoors, how would the structure be soundproofed? He stated that sound would escape when the animals are let outside and disturb the neighbors.

Belinda Nielsen of 51 Shaw Road stated that she left Raymond because of a barking dog and would not have moved here is she had known there would be a kennel nearby (referring to the Townsend kennel).

Tricia Juvet asked what recourse neighbors would have if the applicant failed to follow through on building the structure and operating it as she has proposed. (RE) responded that the ZBA could include that in the conditions of approval.

Leslie Federhen stated the neighbors are not on ten acres lots where a kennel could be conceivable; there was very little buffer between the lots in the area. She then listed dates when she alleged to have heard the applicant’s dogs barking. She also stated that the buffer zone trees lose their leaves in the fall, meaning the structure would be more visible in the winter. Leslie Federhen than discussed the other kennels in Pittsfield and area towns: Eaton Road is not a boarding kennel and the owner received permission only after agreeing to debark the dogs. The other kennels in the area are on larger lots, and major roads, some State highways. She also had concerns about the waste from the animals entering the pond and the sound, stating that the amount of restriction needed would probably make it not worth the applicants while to continue.

Dawn Emerson stated that the number of buildings on the lot already exceeds the density requirements and do not meet the setback requirements.

Larry Federhen spoke about five letters from realtors presented to the Board which all stated that the kennel would drop property values in the area. The letters were from Whynot Realty, Bergeron Realty who had sold lots on Range Road in the past, Gemini Realty, Donna Ward, and Ken Jordan Realtors. (See Exhibit D) He then spoke about traffic safety stating the Superintendent of Public Works, George Bachelder, had said that two vehicles could not pass safely on the road. Larry Federhen brought up an issue regarding a fence on the applicant’s property along the road. He stated that the fence made drivers unable to see oncoming traffic when exiting the applicant’s property. Larry Federhen said that George Bachelder would not support the special exception with the fence along the road. He concluded by stating that the letters proved that the kennel would negatively affect property values.

M. Emerson stated that an environmental study should be done before the ZBA makes a decision on the application.

(EV) asked the applicant if she had ever had a dog complaint. The applicant stated that she had not had a complaint. The Federhens stated that they had complained on several occasions. (SM) asked how large the barn would be and how it would accommodate the animals. N. Bates stated that the barn would be 48’ by 72’ with two floors. Half of the area would be for stables with a solid wall between the kennels and the stables. She showed the ZBA a plan for the barn.

(SM) asked the applicant what the two kennel licenses issued in town were for. N. Bates answered that they were not for boarding kennels. (RE) asked how the feces would be disposed of. N. Bates answered the she would have a runoff to wash the waste into a septic.

A. Bissonette stated that he hears dogs barking for fifteen minutes to half an hour. He also stated that the narrowness of the road created safety issues that should prevent the special exception.

Anton Pritchard stated that it would be helpful if the applicant could describe how a soundproofed kennel worked or provided an example of one in the state.

Leslie Federhen stated that it sounded farfetched that the dogs would not have access to the outside. M. Emerson added that there would be a small area for the structure to be located with the waterfront setbacks.

A short recess was taken from 9:12PM to 9:22PM

(RE) asked the applicant if she had rebuttal. N. Bates stated that people can see when pulling out of her driveway. She had spoken with Paul Colby, the former Building Inspector, and Fred Welch, the former Town Administrator, for guidance and they had felt the project was appropriate. She stated that S. Greenlaw lived next to Barton Lumber, so he already had noise issues there.

Scott Brown stated that the area was no place for a kennel.

(RE) closed the hearing to the public at 9:30PM The ZBA members then discussed the application.

(SM) raised the issue of the handout provided being different than the application.

(PM) felt that property values were the big issue. He wanted to continue the meeting and speak with Atty. Bates.

The Board discussed the impact of the handout being different than the application. They generally felt that the information would have been helpful to have earlier than getting at the meeting, but did not see a problem with it. H. FitzGerald stated that the information was allowed as a supplement to clarify the application.

(PM) asked about the concerns that George Bachelder had. (RL) stated that he had driven the area and the road was very narrow. (SM) and (RE) agreed that there were safety concerns with the road.

(RL) stated that he had a dilemma because he was familiar with kennels and thought that the rural zone was an appropriate location, but he could not ignore the objections of the neighbors.

(SM) stated that she had similar concerns. She felt that the applicant would do a good job running a kennel, but she would not want to live next to one. Her experience with kennels has been that there are always dogs barking in them. The letters from the realtors should be considered as well.

(EV) stated that he lived on a Class VI road and there was more traffic there than he would like. Although he was not sure if there was ever a right place for a kennel, he felt that the noise would be indoors, the roads were only as safe as the people driving them, and the septic was addressed. He had trouble saying no to someone over what they did on their own property.

(RE) A use is granted in the Rural Zone for Kennels, yes it required a Special Exception, but the other zones in town required a variance with a much stricter set of criteria to meet.

(PM) stated that it was good plan, but the wrong location for a kennel.

The ZBA members discussed whether or not they would buy next to a kennel before moving on to discuss the specific criteria.

Criteria #1 – The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or structure.
(SM) This site is not an appropriate location for the proposed use because the area is a small, densely populated, residential neighborhood and a commercial kennel would not fit in with the character.
(BL) and (PM) agreed.

(EV) felt that the site was an appropriate location.

(RE) felt it was an appropriate location and that the activity would not be as great as some people think it will be.

A majority of the Board found it was not met, 3-2.

Criteria #2 – The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious, or offensive to the neighborhood and will not diminish the value of surrounding properties.
(PM) felt that the six letters showed that there would be a loss of property values.

(SM) felt that it would be hard to ignore five letters, she would not buy next to a kennel. She also believed that the proposal would be obnoxious or offensive based on all of the people who spoke against the proposal.

(RL) agreed with (SM).

(EV) stated that anything could be offensive, but that checks and balances could be put in place to control the issue.

(RE) agreed that there were ways to mitigate the offensiveness of the proposal. He did not believe that the applicant had shown that there would be no diminution of surrounding property values based on the evidence of the realtor letters.

A majority of the Board found it was not met, 4-1.

Criteria #3 – There will be no undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian or vehicular traffic, including the location and design of access ways and off-street parking.

(PM) stated that the because of the Road Agent’s objections he votes that the applicant did not meet the criteria.

(RL) stated that it was hard to judge the impact not knowing how much business would occur at the site. The road in question is not meant for a large amount of traffic. He wanted to abstain, but later voted that the applicant did not meet the criteria.

(SM) stated that based on the abutters comments there was no way to state for certain that there would not be an undue hazard created given the nature of the road. She voted that the applicant did not meet the criteria.

(EV) He did not feel that the evidence showed that there would be an undue hazard created by the proposed use and voted that the applicant did meet the criteria.

(RE) He stated that the access and parking would not be a problem, but that there was a greater chance of a problem being created by the increase in traffic. He voted that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria.

A majority of the Board found it was not met, 4-1.

Criteria #4 – Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided to insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.
The Board agreed unanimously that the proposed use had adequate facilities based on the applicant’s presentation.

Criteria #5 – The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of this Ordinance.
(RL) I feel that this is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. I look at this as a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. He votes no.

(SM) The location is not appropriate. She votes no.

(PM) Agrees with (SM) and votes no.

(EV) I think that the proposed use is consistent with the spirit. He votes yes.

(RE) The structure is trying to work with the spirit of the ordinance and is allowed. He votes yes.

A majority of the Board found it was not met, 3-2.

(RL) Made a motion to deny the special exception based on the fact that the applicant did not meet four of the five criteria.

(PM) Seconded.

Motion passed 4 in favor to 1 against.

Review of Minutes:
(SM) Made a motion to table the review of minutes until the next meeting.

(RL) Seconded. Motion passed 3 to 0.

Members Concerns:
(PM) had concerns about the notification of Board members of the hearing and that the notice was not in the Suncook Valley Sun.
The Town Administrator stated that he had used the Concord Monitor so that the deadline could be met. He apologized for the communication problems that occurred, as he had incorrectly believed that the Chairman was to notify members when a hearing is called. After discussion with the Board, he agreed that the Board would be noticed by regular mail when the abutters were sent notices.

Adjournment:
(RL) Made a motion to adjourn the July 22, 2004 ZBA meeting.

(PM) Seconded the motion.

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries

Meeting adjourned at 10:50 pm.

Respectfully submitted by

Anne Taylor, Board Secretary

Jeremiah Lamson, Town Administrator

Chair_____________________________________ Date________________________