June 12, 2008 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment

Town Hall, 85 Main Street

Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

DATE: June 12, 2008

ITEM I. Call to Order at 7:02 P.M. by Ed Vien, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present: Ed Vien (EV) Chairman, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Vice Chairman, Carole Dodge (CD), Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Jesse Pacheco (JP), Larry Federhen (LF), Alternate, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

David Rushford (DR), Alternate.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of May 8, 2008

(CD) Motion to approve Minutes of May 8, 2008. (LF) Second.

Carried 5-0. (JP – Abstain).

ITEM 4. Motion for Rehearing with respect to appeal filed by Paul and Carol Richardson, 595 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 regarding Zoning Board of Adjustment resolution on May 8, 2008 to approve a request recognizing the “grandfathered” status of the specific use and site on the property for storage of junk metal pertaining to property owned by James Snedeker, 629 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R07, Lot 4B), located in the RURAL Zone.

(EV) Since (LF) was present at original hearing, he will be seated on the Board. (JP) to step down. Board agreed.

(EV) In the files, you all have two different letters regarding statements and concerns as to why it is felt that we made some mistakes and what they were.

DISCUSSION:

(SM) related that she had read through the letters carefully and would agree that some points are valid and others, which I have no answers to. My biggest concerns are the addendums but not being an attorney and knowing what I know, the questions regarding law on Page 2, Paragraph 4, and

Page 3 are valid questions regarding being grandfathered and licensing.

(LF) “I would say that the Richardsons brought up some interesting points, but question whether they apply to the “grandfathering” hearing.” The hearing itself was in regard to the grandfathering and not the appropriateness of his operation up there. I believe these are legitimate concerns.

(SM) noted that the letter mentions that legal counsel was part of the opinion though not the Town’s counsel, but still counsel. (EV) related Town counsel is Mitchell and Bates but Town is also is a member of the Local Government Center and Town uses them quite extensively. It is common practice to use them for legal opinions.

(SM) related Mrs. Richardson was correct regarding the business card and the newspaper article (undated) pertaining to Snedeker junk collections and the 13 letters are not notarized correctly. I am concerned about the addendums she proposed and I do not have the answers. Her questions raised some interesting points. For me, I would like our official Town counsel to answer these questions.

(PM) indicated that after the hearing, Board agreed that Snedekers had proved their points. The rest should be taken up by the Board of Selectman. The Zoning Board just determined grandfathering. I knew Jim Snedeker did have junk up there. The rest of the questions should be brought up before the BOS. The property has been subdivided three times. We are just looking into the grandfather part of this. (CD) related that the issue at hand is the grandfather issue and this was decided. “His business was in effect before any State law was in effect in 1988. Licensed or unlicensed, lawful or not, he was in business and the issue of grandfathering complies and applies. I would prefer not to answer questions 1-10. The second letter is more concise and should go to Town counsel. I personally feel the second letter is to the point. I honestly felt that he met the grandfather criteria. I looked it up on the computer and he has met this criteria.”

(EV) noted that he agreed that he thought Mr. Snedeker met the criteria but also agree with (SM) in regard to the letters. (CD) The second letter is cut and dried and should go to Town counsel and we should let them know how we got there. The main questions deal with the second letter and the letter to Town counsel should indicate how we made the decision we made.

(SM) noted that the whole thing is germane to those issues.

(SM) Motion to request Town counsel to review May 23, 2008 letter from Paul and Carol Richardson with regard to non-conforming uses in Zoning Ordinances and interpretation of 236:114/115 and 236:93. Referral to Town counsel will be under cover letter as prepared by Zoning Board.

(LF) Second. Carried 5-0.

Mrs. Richardson, “What about the third letter?” I am confused.

(EV) suggested Board continue with next item on Agenda while the “third letter” can be located and distributed to Board members.

ITEM 5. Public hearing with respect to an application for a Special Exception for a Home Occupation filed by Donna M. Keeley, 256 True Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-06, Lot 16) for a proposed office for a painting business at said location. This property is located in the RURAL Zone.

(JP) was seated on the Board and (LF) was seated in the audience.

Atty. Elizabeth McCormack, Cleveland, Waters and Bates, introduced herself and related that she was representing the Keeleys in this matter. (PM) Has this been changed to Combined Dwelling/Business? Ms. McCormack related that she was notified that it was to be changed from Home Occupation to Combined Dwelling/Business, but criteria is the same. Our interpretation of the Ordinance would be a Home Occupation.

Ms. McCormack explained that Keeleys would like to construct a barn as seen on the plan behind their home in the field. They had presented before the Planning Board to make the lot a conforming lot. The barn would be surrounded by the applicant’s land. She proceeded to discuss all the criteria in relation to the application including meeting setbacks, residential accessory use and character, impact on neighbors, compliance with other structures in the vicinity, rural environment, and absence of any “painting” equipment. She continued by explaining lack of need of additional driveway/parking area, traffic and not altering the character of the neighborhood. Applicant has been approved for a new septic system.

Applicant noted that the garage main floor would house any farming and personal vehicles and the painting business office would be on second floor. The barn itself would be set into the hill and one could walk into the top floor from the driveway. There would be several workers including applicant. Mr. Keeley noted that he presently has his business in Manchester and that is where his paint and trucks are stored. (SM) Will you still maintain this place in Manchester? Mr. Keeley replied affirmatively. He further related that there would be a shower in this part of the office along with an employee kitchen facility. (EV) questioned whether they would turn it into a rental? Keeleys agreed that they had no intention of doing this. (SM) “There would be no storage of chemical or paints there?” Mr. Keeley noted that there would not.

(JP) questioned why the barn is to be so large? Mr. Keeley related that by the time you park a tractor and their other vehicles in there, it is really not that large.

PUBLIC INPUT

A neighbor (name unknown) related that he has known the Keeleys for quite some time and he works out of his home also. He noted that he had no issues with this and that there were no reasons for concern.

Robert Legg, 550 Tilton Hill Road, indicated that no one even sees their house from Tilton Hill Road.

Carole Richardson noted that she thought it was a wonderful idea. They are good neighbors and they do things right.

No one voiced any opposing remarks.

Close PUBLIC INPUT

(PM) This is a great location and meets the Master Plan by putting in this barn. (EV) Is this a Home Occupation or a Combined Dwelling/Business?

(SM) read the definition of Combined Dwelling/Business. (EV) related that according to the Zoning Ordinances, a “Home Occupation is a use to be carried on strictly within a primary single-family residential dwelling or accessory buildings by the owner or tenant that meets all the criteria.”

(SM) noted that as long as no trucks or paints are stored/used there, and it is only office space, it seems it fits the criteria for a Home Occupation.

(CD) Motion: We as the Zoning Board of Adjustment after discussion and reading definitions of Home Occupation agree that the Keeley application is supportive of a Home Occupation. (JP) Second. Carried 5-0.

CRITERIA:

A. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or structure.

All Agree 5-0.

B. The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious, or offensive to the neighborhood and will not diminish the value of surrounding properties.

(SM) Based on the character of the property and the nature of use, I believe that it will not diminish the value of properties.

All Agree 5-0.

C. 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) I agree. It will not cause any problems for anybody. (SM) I agree, there will be no increase in getting into or out of the property.

All Agree 5-0.

D. Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided to insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.

(SM) There will be a new septic system and adequate facilities.

All Agree 5-0.

E. The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of the Town’s Zoning Ordinances and the intent of the Town’s Master Plan.

(EV) What I can see, it will be nice looking in the rural area. (SM) I agree with the criteria as submitted by Atty. McCormack. We have not yet adopted the new Master Plan as it is in the process of being revised, but I agree.

All agree 5-0.

(EV) noted that the criteria has been met. (SM) questioned whether any conditions should be noted should the business change or not exist or if they no longer own this property. (EV) It should be noted should there be any changes in the proposed use, permits would need to be re-applied for.

(CD) Motion to approve Special Exception for Donna M. Keeley, 256 True Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-06, Lot 16) for a Home Occupation to conduct the clerical portion of Keeley Painting. The conditions are as stipulated in the application for Special Exception. (JP) Second.

Carried 5-0.

(EV) The application has been approved. The 30-day appeal process was explained to the applicant.

Break at 8:06 P.M. Resume at 8:15 P.M.

ITEM 4.: Continued

(LF) resumed seat on Board. (JP) was seated in the audience.

(SM) Motion to refer letter of June 6, 2008 to Zoning Board Chair from Paul and Carole Richardson on procedural matters to Town counsel for decision on interpretation of procedure. (LF) Second. Carried 5-0.

(CD) Previous Motion amended to note that third letter dated June 6, 2008 was “Hand Delivered” to Zoning Board on June 12, 2008. (LF) Second. Carried 5-0.

(EV) When we hear from counsel we will let you know what is going on.

Mrs. Richardson questioned whether the hearing scheduled on July 10th would be going forward. (EV) related that at the next meeting, hopefully, we will have answers from counsel and if it is shown that there is an error, you will get your money back.

ITEM 6. New Business

Representative – CNHRPC

(SM) noted the two representatives from Pittsfield get one vote and that she had been a representative since she was on the Planning Board. I do not wish to serve as it is the on the same night as the Zoning Board hearings and I would have to miss about four meetings. I never thought Zoning Board representative should be on the CNHRPC because the policies have more to do with the Planning Board than the Zoning Board. If someone else would like to it, it is not a problem. The meetings are the second Thursday of the month and I feel my first obligation is to the Zoning Board.

I would recommend that Pittsfield have two people from the Planning Board or perhaps, one member of the Board of Selectman.

(CD) Motion that ZBA send letter to Planning Board noting that it would be better if an additional member of Planning Board would be represented at the CNHRP meetings. These meetings also conflict with Zoning Board meetings. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0.

ITEM 7. Public Input

Jim Pritchard noted, “I believe Board has to decide 30 days from date of filing of Motion. If you wait until the next meeting, it will beyond the 30 days.”

(EV) noted that Board could hold a special meeting. Donna Keeley suggested contacting Town counsel and make them aware of the time constraints. (EV) “We have somewhat made a decision.” Mr. Pritchard related that it has to be within thirty days.

(CD) related that procedure may/may not be correct but we are within the timeframe from May 30, 2008 so we have a little leeway. Mrs. Richardson noted that the “whole procedure is flawed.” Mr. Pritchard noted that there is another snag in that if Board does not decide within thirty days of filing date, they will not get to decide on it. Therefore, what date this was filed on matters.

(SM) We will have to rehear this on July 10th. Mrs. Richardson questioned, “We will be starting over as to the grandfathering of the junkyard?”

(SM) Motion for hearing on July 10, 2008 at 7:00 P.M. regarding James Snedeker’s “grandfather” status of junkyard. (CD) Second.

Carried 4-1 (PM).

ITEM 8. Members Concerns

(SM) related she had some concerns regarding the Building Inspector’s memo (Home Occupation to Combined Dwelling/Business). It should be put in writing and sent to Board of Selectman that all applications will be reviewed by Town Administrator prior to being sent out. (PM) noted that it puts the Board in a bad light. Donna Keeley related, “That’s what happened to us. We got a phone call telling us the Building Inspector changed the Home Occupation to Combined Dwelling/Business.” Mr. Pritchard related that this is really unfair to the applicant and the abutters. (EV) related a letter would be sent to Town Administrator and Board of Selectman.

(SM) A letter should be sent to Mr. Snedeker regarding the rehearing.

(EV) It should have been a Motion for Rehearing and not an application for Appeal of Administrative Decision. We will send notices out again to all abutters at Town expense. The Richardsons will be refunded their application fee.

ITEM 9. Adjournment

(PM) Motion to Adjourn. (SM) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:50 P.M.

Approved: July 10, 2008

_________________________ ____________________________

Ed Vien, Chairman Date