June 10, 2010 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

DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 2010

ITEM I. Call to Order at 7:00 P.M. by Ed Vien, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present: Ed Vien (EV) Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Jesse Pacheco (JP), Larry Federhen (LF), Ted Mitchell (TM), Alternateand Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Carole Dodge (CD), Vice-Chairman

(TM) as Alternate seated on the Board.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of January 14, 2010

(LF) Motion to approve Minutes of January 14, 2010. (TM) Second. Carried 4-0-1 (PM Abstain)

ITEM 4. Election of Chairman and Vice-Chairman

(PM) Motion to approve Ed Vien, Chairman and Carol Dodge, Vice-Chairman. (LF) Second. Carried 4-0-1 (EV Abstain).

(EV) explained to the applicants and audience the procedure that would be followed pertaining to each Public Hearing.

ITEM 5. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance filed by Frank Volpe Revocable Trust, 34 Main Street/18 Elm Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 to convert storefront (18 Elm Street corner lot) into an apartment (Tax Map U03, Lot 82). The property is owned by Frank Volpe Revocable Trust, 34 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263. This property is located in the COMMERCIAL Zone.

Gary Volpe: What I would like to do is convert the storefront at 18 Elm
Street (corner lot) into a two-bedroom apartment. I would like to rebuild
36 Main Street as a two-apartment structure. The bottom line is that it
would only improve the neighborhood. The storefront is currently vacant
and everyone knows how difficult it is to rent a storefront in Town. I am
working to improve the apartments I have in Town and I need income.
Every abutter in that area is an apartment building. The Town is better
served by me doing this.

(EV) We are dealing with the Variance request and cannot make it part of
the rebuilding of Main Street apartments. (LF) Are there other apartments
in the same building? Mr. Volpe: Yes. (LF) How many? Mr. Volpe:
About 5. I have been restoring my apartments and there are all apartments
in the neighborhood. (JP) How big would the apartment be? Mr. Volpe:
About 1,200 ft. It is the basement and is at street level. The grade of the
road goes downhill. (TM) That was where the thrift store was. Mr.
Volpe: Yes. (LF) Are you going to come back to this Board for the burned
building? Mr. Volpe: I have no permit and it is dependent upon what is
going on with this. I am trying to offer the Town the big picture.

(JP) You are not going to build a four-family there? You could do that.
Mr. Volpe: I would put it in writing that I would not do that for a guarantee.
My intent is to build a two-family unit and to do that, I need to have
income to do it. Storefronts are not rentable. (PM) I would go with Gary’s
word and the Building Inspector. (LF) Are you going to take out the
windows and close it in? Mr. Volpe: I have not thought that far ahead yet.
I would have to address the egress problem. (JP) If that becomes another
apartment, what about parking? Building Inspector (BI): I have not gotten
that far. Mr. Volpe: I would rent from Elm Street parking. (JP) But you
cannot guarantee parking forever. Mr. Volpe explained that his parking lot
had been taken by the Town by eminent domain for the Pittsfield Workshop.
(PM) You will be renting from 18 Elm Street? The Building Inspector
would have to make sure that you have two parking spaces for each
apartment. Mr. Volpe: No, I have not rented ten parking spaces for vacant
apartments. It was a four-unit building. (JP) We have to go by the code. If
you put in four apartments, you will need eight spaces. Mr. Volpe: I
would not like to put four in.

(LF) How many other renters use those parking spaces? Mr. Volpe: I do
not know. There are 16-18 spaces in the lot. I also have some parking
behind 36 Main Street (burned building) and you can put 3-4 cars there.

Public Input (Favor of Variance)

The Building Inspector can also address any questions.

None.

Public Input (Against the Variance)

Chris Smith: In my opinion there are more apartments in Town than we
need. This is the last thing the Town needs. It would be bad for the Town.
We need fewer apartments and more businesses.

Sabrina Smith: I work at the High School and I am concerned with the
apartments going up. It takes away from my children’s education and
education for all children.

Fred Hast: We do not need more apartments. Storefronts are hard to rent
and someday I hope that will not be a problem. I can’t speak to the parking
spaces but I would like to ask what is the rent for the parking spaces.
Mr. Volpe: What is the relevancy of that? (EV) agreed that this is not
relevant.

Close Public Input

Mr. Volpe: The bottom line is that by approving this, it will be one less
apartment in the Town of Pittsfield. (LF) If this is not approved, what then?
Mr. Volpe: You will have more apartments. The storefronts are hard to
rent. (JP) What was in the building when your Dad was using it? Was it
always an office. Mr. Volpe: His office used to be upstairs. It was noted
that there was a jewelry store there before. Mr. Volpe: Next door there
were two apartments. (TM) I do not recall any ground level apartments
there. (LF) There are five apartments there now which means there should
be ten parking spaces. Mr. Volpe: There are not; the apartments are not
full. (LF) You need ten parking spaces. Mr. Volpe: That is the first that I
have heard of this. How many parking spaces are needed if it is a store?

(JP) There is a ROW behind the building. Is it in the Deed? Mr. Volpe: I
am not certain. Dumpsters are parked there and some vehicles. I do own
the area behind the building.

(EV) noted the parking requirements (reading from the Zoning Ordinances.)
Mr. Volpe noted once again that the Town took his parking area away from
him by eminent domain, kept it for a couple months and then sold it. (TM)
noted that this Board could not be responsible for the decisions of other
Boards. Mr. Volpe: Lots of places do not have two parking spaces in Town.

(TM) We are trying to look at the long term picture. There is a lot of work
going on to develop this Town. The Charrette has all sorts of projects to
help bring people in. I realize time is money with property. Someone with
a viable business would find that area would be the last place to want to rent
being concerned with street level apartment.

(PM) I would like to say that we do not need any more apartments in Town.
Mr. Volpe: I am doing what I can but I need income to make buildings
better. (EV) I would like the BI’s input on this. BI: If the burned out
building was reconstructed, I would put in four units. This way we are
losing one unit. (LF) What was the Fire Chief’s reaction to this? (BI): The
Fire Chief is working out the best solution for Mr. Volpe. Mr. Volpe: The
bottom one is there will be one less apartment which is what everybody
wants.

The Board and Mr. Volpe further discussed meeting 2009 safety codes,
parking spaces per apartment, and the give and take situation regarding one
less apartment, Master Plan, number of legal apartments in Town (673) and
parking spaces required, and the time limits involved. Mr. Volpe noted that
he has gotten an extension for rebuilding the burned building.

Building Inspector noted that by rebuilding, Mr. Volpe cannot make it non-
conforming but rather make it less non-conforming. Board discussed tying
the two matters together – rebuilding and converting storefront to an
apartment, but noted that no restrictions can be put on the 36 Main Street
property. Board agreed they would review with Town Counsel and continue
meeting to next Zoning Meeting.

(PM) Motion to continue this hearing to July 8, 2010 at 7:00 P.M.
(JP) Second. Carried 5-0.

8:00 P.M. Break – Resume at 8:05 P.M.

ITEM 6. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance filed by JLC & WJJ, LLC, P.O. Box 1645, Concord, NH 03301 to convert one family dwelling into a two-family dwelling at 25 Crescent Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U06, Lot 23). The property is owned by JLC & WJJ, LLC, Walter Jensen, Agent, P.O. Box 1645, Concord, NH 03301. This property is located in the SUBURBAN Zone.

Mr. James Culbertson was present representing JLC & WJJ, LLC. He noted
that he is a real estate agent and owns one-half of 25 Crescent Street. He
noted that the purpose of purchase was to fix it up and resell. I believe at
one time it was a two-family dwelling. He noted there were two kitchens,
two bathrooms, separate basements and PSNH meters. It was owned at one
time by the catholic church and housed nuns. We have put $100,000 of
renovations into the house and I think anyone who sees it would agree that a
nice job has been done remodeling it. I put it on the Multiple Listings as a
two family, which I regret and which was a mistake by me. It is now under
contract for potential sale. The purchaser would like it as a two family to
reside in one side and rent the other. “I did make a mistake, for which I am
liable.” Mr. Richard Jennings is here tonight who is the potential purchaser.

(JP) The unit is completely renovated and all done? Mr. Culbertson: “Yes.” (JP) What kind of permit was pulled for this? BI: A renovation permit was issued for a single family residence. (JP) You are before this Board because you were sent a letter noting that it was necessary for Zoning Board to approve? Mr. Culbertson: Kyle has been over the building along with me and we have not yet discussed Certificate of Occupancy. (LF) The permit was for a single family. Mr. Culbertson: We did not convert it to a two family. (JP) The signature on the Building Permit is Mr. Jensen’s? He knew what he was doing. (LF) Mr. Jensen has appeared before this Board previously. (EV) It is on tape regarding another matter, where same situation came up when the work was done and then a Variance was requested. This Board explained to his attorney at that time who advised he would advise Mr. Jensen accordingly.

(BI) noted that research had been done and it was never noted that it was a two family dwelling. It has always been a single family residence. Board noted that there was a parking situation there also which the State has intervened in on and it had to be removed. Mr. Culbertson related that Mr. Jennings deserves to have the house. He immediately loved it when he first saw it and wanted it at that time.

Mr. Frank Didonato was present representing Mr. Jennings. (EV) noted that several letters had been forwarded to Zoning Board from Mrs. Jennings regarding her desire to own and reside in the house as soon as possible.

(BI) noted that he had previously gone up to the house to complete a rough electrical inspection. He noted that it was apparent at that time that it was being constructed as a two family dwelling. He confirmed with builder that he would conduct no further inspections until approval from the Zoning Board was obtained. That was the last “inspection” he performed. Board explained that there were multiple issues concerning this Variance including parking, conversion to two-family dwelling, and the fact that it has never been inspected during the course of the construction.

Public Input – Pro:

Richard Jennings: He explained his living situation and advised that of June 15th his wife will be homeless as she had anticipated moving into this house before then. “I want to move to Pittsfield.” He explained that he is a 13 year Navy veteran, and would be here at least six years. He noted that he could easily rent the other side of the dwelling with someone from the VA Center.

Mr. Didonato noted that the house is beautiful inside and that they have turned it into a better place. This is a step in the right direction. You should want people to renovate building for people coming in.

Bill Elkins noted that within 150 feet of this property there are five buildings with twenty renters. This is just for your information.

Public Input – Con:

Sabrina Smith: Again, the school situation. I have two in school and one on the way. Taxes are high now and it is taking away from my children’s education. We cannot afford more kids in the school. Maybe there wouldn’t be children now, but what about in the future.

Chris Smith: Again, I feel badly for these people but rules were not followed and I just do not think it should happen. It will be setting a precedent.

Fred Okrent: I sympathize with Mr. Jennings. The Building Permit was issued for a one family and the owner renovated it as a two family. If Zoning Board approves it now, it would condone an illegal act. It would be found invalid in a court of law. I am concerned that the inspections were not done before the walls were closed. If CO issued now, what liability can result against Town. A wrongful death suit would result in tens of thousands of dollars. People do what you inspect, not what you expect.

Fred Hast: They did not get a driveway permit. If parking on the left side, it would be hard pressed to get four cars in there and they would have to be nose to nose. No one could get out without moving another car. Mr. Jensen had an idea to go on with it as a duplex. He is old enough to know better. There was no final inspection.

Mr. Didonato: I understand everyone’s concerns. No one has been able to find proof that it was a two family dwelling at one time? He related that the BI had sent him an E-Mail relating that it was a two family home at one time. (BI) I thought I said it was not a two family home at any time. Mr. Didonato presented a copy of the E-Mail with notation by BI that it was a two family home.

Break 7:43 P.M. Resume at 7:48 P.M.

(EV) For the record, Mr. Jensen does intend to petition the Atty. General about the driveway. He also noted that there were two letters received from Mrs. Jennings concerning the property.

Fred Hast: I have known it to be a one family for at least 62 years.

Close Public Input

(JP) questioned whether the Cease and Desist Order was in writing; the BI answered affirmatively.

(EV) explained the process in reference to Criteria explaining that Board would go through the entire list, but if one did not pass, that the Variance would be denied.

CRITERIA:

A. No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered.

All Board members agreed that it would not since the house is totally renovated.

All Agree 5-0.

B. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest.

(TM) I disagree, adding another apartment in Town is contrary to public interest and the larger picture indicates it is a flagrant violation and not in the public interest.

All Agree 0-5. (Did not pass.)

C. The Zoning restriction as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment.

(EV) I do not think it is a unique setting other than being a large building.

All Agree 0-5. (Did not pass.)

D. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific restriction on the property.

(PM) There are too many apartments in Town.

All Agree 0-5. (Did not pass.)

E. The Variance would not injure the public or private rights of others.

(JP) It would impact others because of the parking issue. (EV) Traffic in and out of the area would be impacted.

All Agree 0-5. (Did not pass.)

F. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done.

(EV) Going back at least 60 years, it was always a one family dwelling.

All Agree 0-5. (Did not pass.)

G. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.

(EV) I do not believe it is in the spirit of the Ordinance.

All Agree 0-5. (Did not pass.)

(EV) As you see, it did not pass.

(EV) Motion to deny Variance because it would be contrary to public interest and is a violation of public interest, with too many apartments already existing in Town, it would impact the public and private rights of others, substantial justice would not be done and it is contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0 to deny Variance.

The thirty (30) day appeal process was explained to applicant noting that a rehearing would require some new pertinent information have to be submitted.

Thank you all for being courteous and professional during the hearing. This Board is trying to be consistent with what we rule on. Are there any questions? (None.)

ITEM 7. Members Concerns

(JP) People are turning houses into two family dwellings on their own. My concern is that real estate agents are listing them the way they want. (EV) suggested putting a commentary in The Sun prepared by BI that one family homes cannot be converted into two family homes without going before the Zoning Board for approval. Board agreed that a roundtable committee could be formed to research this and then report back to Board. (TM) –Planning Board, (JP) – Zoning Board, (KP) – Building Inspector, (Fred Okrent) – Housing Standards Administrator all agreed to be part of this committee.

Fred Okrent: I will forward a copy of the RSA that notes “willingly making a false statement to a governing body is a criminal liability.”

(JP) We had also discussed having a Work Session after the elections, is that still going to happen? I was specifically thinking of the setbacks and height restrictions. (EV) I have held off on that because of Planning Board trying to go forward with changes to the Zoning Ordinances in their Work Sessions. (BI) All of this is going to be revised. (JP) noted that people and especially engineers know the building requirements and should be abiding by them.

ITEM 8. Public Input

Sabrina Smith: In order to get into school, you have to have a physical address in Town. Do we have any cross referencing of children in regard to housing and apartments in particular? (EV) noted that he was not aware of any but this is something that could be addressed by School Board.

Fred Hast: Mr. Volpe should check the Zoning Ordinances. Also, behind his property is a right of way – how much is it used and what about parking? In-law apartments can be approved but not turned into a regular apartments. (EV) They should be renewing every year. Kyle has the info on in-law apartments and this can be addressed at their committee meeting.

Fred Okrent: We have been trying to for a long time.

ITEM 9. Adjournment

(PM) Motion to adjourn. (LF) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 9:25 P.M.

Approved: July 8, 2010

____________________________ ____________________
Ed Vien, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded on June 10, 2010, transcribed and publicly posted on
June 16, 2010.

___________________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

II Tapes