June 10, 2004 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Zoning.

Pittsfield Zoning Board

Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

June 10, 2004

Chairman Elliott called the meeting to order at 7:04PM

Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken; Robert Elliot (RE), Chair, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Robert Lincoln (RL), Christine Westerberg (CW), Paul Metcalf (PM) and Glenn Porter (GP) Alt. were present.

Public Hearing- Variance on Density – FHS Consulting Services, Inc.-Thompson Rd
(Tax Map R14-4) Chairman Elliott declared the Public Hearing open at 7:06 PM.

Forest Sell spoke on behalf of FHS. He has an option to purchase a 7.3-acre parcel on Tilton Hill Rd. He presented a side-by-side comparison of two potential plans. The first (his preferred) plan would create a seven (7) unit Clustered 55+ Community for which he is seeking the Variance for increased density. The second, alternate plan represented what the current Zoning Ordinance (ZO) would allow without a Variance, a Conventional 4-lot subdivision of 1.5 acres each with separate wells and septic systems. Mr. Sell sited hardships regarding land use, structure location, wetland avoidance and financial infeasibility in creating the conventional 4 houses allowed on the parcel. Each house would be a single-family dwelling with a separate septic tanks and wells. He expressed the feeling that this would not be the best use of the property. The Conventional plan would allow up to 5 people per house.

The Clustered plan would have only a forecasted 7 people total living in the development. He sited that the Clustered plan has certain economic advantages for town and developer. The Proposed plan is for a 55+-aged community. There will be a private road built off of Tilton Hill Road. The Condo Association would responsible for maintenance. The current zoning requires 1.5 acres per unit. He was requesting that the density be increased to match that of the Suburban zoning with municipal water and sewer allowing for 1 unit per acre. (SM) reviewed the application aloud with 7 criteria for the audience. In a nutshell, the applicant feels that granting the variance will allow reasonable use of the property and prevent imposition of a hardship not shared by other premises in the same zoning district.

(RE) opened the floor to clarification questions.

Susan Willoughby – asked for clarification on how density in proposed plan compares to conventional plan. Sewer/Water usage would serve fewer people than with the conventional plan.

Leslie Federhen- had a question on repairs to a leech field if needed. The Association would maintain the leech field.

Donna Keeley- asked if he would consider 4 conventional homes in a cluster? There is an existing house that he states must stay and it would not be financial feasible to remove the home and create a town road. The project would not be as marketable. The setting would be nicer as a Cluster. Conventional plan would make more money but it does not do justice to the project or the town.

Jim Pritchard – cited that the application is almost verbatim to his previous application. He asked if upkeep of the road is the main problem that keeps him from creating the conventional plan?

H. Schoppmeyer- asked if the project would have both sewer and septic. The project would have Community septic and water. Each building would have a separate tank piped down to a larger leech field.

Susan Willoughby – asked for clarification on if this is a Variance application. Should it be an Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirement, which would be to correct a mistake. There was no response available.

Jim Buatti – asked how the parcel would be cut. The 7.31 acres would remain in tact. The 7.31 acres would not be cut into smaller parcels. When city water/sewer comes up to the area, they will attach to it and ultimately meet the ZO for the Suburban zone. This is why he is asking for 7 units at this time.

Speakers for the project:

Mike Sicotte- sees nothing wrong with the project. Sewer and water are his only concerns as they could impact his well. His has a dug well.

Speakers against the project:

Levy Ladd- Polly Dodge’s brother. She owns substantial open land near by. They are concerned about grandkids visiting and disturbing the neighboring open land, which belongs to them. There are wetlands there. They are opposed to the project.

Rebuttals:

Barbara Oliviera – current owner of the lot in question. As a grandmother she has had no experience with their kids disturbing the neighboring areas. She does not see there would be a problem.

Hank FitzGerald- most of the kids will be grown and as they visit any concerns can be taken up with individual owners. John Lenaerts objects to Mr. FitzGerald’s “advocacy” for the project.

Eric Behr- He feels that at least 4 of the 7 criteria have not been meet. He feels that a tax benefit will only occur if the residents come from another town, not from within. In terms of health, safety and welfare, there are a group of drivers over the age of 60 that are more likely to hit pedestrians and more children are likely to be hit. The elementary school is nearby. He does not see the hardship requirement was met, Mr. Sell’s 7 houses on seven acres does not compare to the neighbor’s 7 houses on 100+ acres. He feels his request is unreasonable. Finally in regards to degradation of property, value is more then resale value; there is a quality of life and character of the neighborhood that might be threatened.

H. Schoppmeyer – asked how many feet were available on Tilton Hill? There are 200+\-feet of frontage for one house lot on Tilton Hill, a town road. For a subdivision, the addition of a town road would be needed. One house would have a lower impact on the area, then either project.

Donna Keeley- asked for further clarification as to why he would not want to build 4 conventional homes in a cluster. Mr. Sell replied that the Clustered Development would be nicer since the units can be better placed. He does not want to build 4 conventional homes. He wants to build 55+ communities only. He does not want to burden the town. Each of the 4 conventional lots would take up 1.5-acre lots, which would diminish open space.

Susan Willoughby- asked why he would not buy a piece of property that would fit the number of units he needs? Why change the ZO?

John Lenaerts- stated that Mr. Sell’s applications have been turned down not because they want to reject senior housing but because they contradict the ZO. He is opposed to the project. He cited Article 7 on Variances and accepts that the Zoning restrictions interfere with proposed use. Where is the unique setting?

Susan Willoughby – cited RSA 674:33 cases that support that financial hardship does not warrant just cause for granting a variance.

Dana Elliott & Laurie Elliott- asked if he meets the criteria with 4 units? To put in the road he would have to cross the wetlands in order to but in a town road to access the lots.

(RE) the project will still have to go through the normal processes (PB and State Approvals etc.)

Dana Elliott- asked if 7 are worse then 4? He stated that you might see more 4 wheelers from the four houses then the seven 55+ units.

John Lenaerts- asked if there is any guarantee that Mr. Sell will create the 4-lot conventional project, if this is a hypothetical situation.

Fred Hast- with a 7 lot 55+ cluster, grandchildren may visit for a day or so. Families are not as large as they used to be. There will be stipulations set in the condo docs to restrict who lives there.

Michelle Barrow- stated that people might prefer to have a property with one house on 7 acres abutting them. The 4-lot plan is confusing the issue.

(SM) asked would he consider 4 clustered over 55 units in this development? Mr. Sell responded that the town needs zoning regulations for 55+ in order to keep the developers’ interest. The town needs a 3-1 density to make this project work on a piece of land that fits 7 units. Creating four (4) units is not financially feasible for 55+. He does not want to build 4 conventional lots, give him the cluster w/o the variance and he will sell the property.

(SM) asked where the hardship is. Creating 4 units with 4 septic systems and 4 wells is where the hardship lies.

Mike Sicotte- the 4 units will be done if he does not get the 7-unit cluster. He does not want the 4 conventional lots for neighbors. It would affect his well adversely. The cluster at least would not double the taxes.

Rick Hunsburger- stated that a 4-lot cluster v. a7-lot cluster would force the need for higher condo fees.

(RE) closed the public discussion at 8:27PM.

Board Discussion of Seven Criteria:

A. diminution in value of surrounding properties: The board voted 3-2 stating the project would diminish the value of surrounding areas. The reason being that some people would not want to buy a parcel of land near to a project like this. It might make a difference in resale.

B. Public Interest: The Board voted unanimously 5-0 that granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest because the tax benefit would be helpful and that it would be in public interest to provide for “aging baby boomers” (albeit not through a variance). It would also be in the public interest if it were a well-built project as proposed.

C. Reasonable use of the property in relation to unique setting: The Board voted 3-2 that the project does interfere with the reasonable use of the property because the property is not very unique in the setting. There are wetlands all over the area. Marketability seems to be the issue commanding the project. Rural Character would not be maintained necessarily as argued by the applicant. What is the reasonable use actually? Density is established area wide in that zone so why is it unreasonable for him? Water/sewer may or may not go up to the property. Everyone in that zone has the same requirements to adhere to. (RL) stated that he loves the project but needs to follow the rules.

Prior to the Board completing the review of all criteria, Applicant withdrew his application without prejudice at 8:54PM. Since the Special Exception was being requested for the seven units that were not granted it was rendered moot.

Public Hearing – Variance for a single-family dwelling in Lt. Industrial/Commercial zone- Charles & Eleanor Eccleston- 150 Laconia Road (Tax Map R3 Lot 007)
After a 10-minute break, Eleanor Eccleston spoke on her own behalf. They want to build a single-family ranch on the 2 acres behind her home. There is wetland along her property. Their home and part of the parcel they own is located in the Lt. Industrial/Commercial zone by way of a Variance she received in November 2002. Road is mostly residential currently. There is no commercial use currently on the road currently except for the Dump and the old DelCastro land. She wants to keep it for her family.

There were no additional speakers for or against the project.

Chairman Elliott closed the public comment segment at 9:09pm

Board discussion:

She will go to the Planning Board for the Subdivision if the Variance is granted. She still has to determine her lot lines. In essence she will be dividing the parcel into 3 lots, one will be out of current use (wetlands). There is 742 feel of road frontage. The driveway is 25 ft wide. There would not be any other driveway giving access to the main road allowed by DOT. The PB at the time of the Master Plan recommended that that area be re-zoned to Residential. Had that happened, the applicant would not be here now nor would she have needed the Variance for her current house.

Board Review of Seven Criteria:

A. DIMINUTION IN VALUE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES: The Board voted unanimously 5-0 there would be no diminution citing that the previous variance already killed the Commercial use. This would not change the current use.

B. the Public Interest: The Board voted 5-0 that the granting the variance would not be contrary to public interest because there is nothing in the area it would effect and the public would not be adversely served by the addition of that house.

C. Reasonable use of the property in relation to unique setting: The Board voted 5-0 that the zoning restriction as applied to the property does interfere with the reasonable use of the property, considering the area is mostly residential currently and that the PB entertained the idea of re-zoning the area when they were addressing the Master Plan.

D. FAIR AND SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP: The Board voted 5-0 that no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property because of the character of neighborhood, if there were more commercial uses there, maybe there would be.

E. PUBLIC OR PRIVATE RIGHTS OF OTHERS: The Board voted 5-0 that the Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others for much of the same reasoning as above.

F. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE: The Board voted 5-0 that granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done because had the PB implemented the Master Plan recommendations the applicant would not be here

G. SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE: The Board voted 5-0 that the proposed use is not contrary to the Spirit of Ordinance since the area is not heavily commercial.

(RL) made a motion to grant the Eccleston Variance Application.

(CW) seconded the motion.

5-0 voted in favor. Motion carries. The 30-day appeal period applies.

Review of Minutes:
(SM) Made a motion to accept the May 13th minutes as written and to thank the Secretary for her great work.

(RL) Seconded the motion.

4- 0 voted in favor. 1 abstained (CW) was absent on May 13. Motion carries.

Members Concerns:
· (SM) found a problem with the Public Hearing Notice for this meeting. In response to a discussion the Board had at their last meeting regarding letters from absentee citizens, authenticating authorship and giving the Board members enough time to review them, the Staff in an attempt to rectify the situation, added a request to the notice that all submissions be delivered 7 days prior to the meeting and be notarized. She had a problem seeing it in the paper and on the notice. This would cause trouble for abutters. The notice only needs to be published 5 days before the hearing, so 7 days is not reasonable. The request is a good idea but the timing needs to be addressed. Notarizing the letter only would guarantee the authenticity of who wrote the letter. The Board discussed it further and decided to approach Attorney Bates for his input.

· (SM) also took offense to the fact that the FHS Notices for both the Variance, Special Exception for June 10 and the FHS Subdivision Notice for June 17 were in the same paper. She objected to the assumption that the Variance and Special Exception were a done deal. Jeremiah Lamson clarified that the Planning Board application was put in for the 17th only because it was delivered too late to make it on the June 3 agenda. It was not the staff’s intention to intimidate the Zoning Board. (RE) will also address the situation with Hank FitzGerald individually.

Public Concerns:

Larry Konopka- The purpose of the Raffle ticket sale is to raise money for revisions produced by the Joint committee. After the information is compiled, it will be presented to the PB then go before the Town. Sales are going well.

Jeremiah Lamson – A Law suit will be filed for denial for AHG. Bates received a subpoena on June 10, 2004, for Governor’s Road.

Adjournment:
(CW) Made a motion to adjourn the June 10, 2004 meeting.

(RL) Seconded the motion.

() 0-0 voted in favor. Motion carries.

Meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm

Respectfully Submitted by:

Dina S. Condodemetraky