Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
June 14, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to Order
Meeting of the Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment called to order at
7:01 P.M. by Ed Vien, Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Ed Vien (EV), Chairman, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Vice-
Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Jesse Pacheco (JP), Carol Dodge (CD),
Larry Federhen (LF).
Members Absent: Dave Simpson (DS), Alternate.
ITEM 3. A Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance
filed by George E. and Roselyn Brackett, Clough Road, Pittsfield, NH
03263 (Tax Map R-11, Lot 7). This property is owned by George E. and
Roselyn Brackett, 192 Rochester Street, Northwood, NH 03261. This
property is located in the RURAL Zone.
(EV) No one was present for this hearing. Due to the extenuating
circumstances, it is being continued once again to a date certain of July 12,
2007. Secretary will contact Mrs. Brackett via letter and telephone, if
necessary, to determine her intentions in regard to this application
ITEM 7. (Taken out of sequence) A Public Hearing with respect to an
application for a Variance filed by Sarah Baumgratz of 490 Loudon Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263 for a two lot subdivision located at 490 Loudon Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-37, Lot 11). The property is owned by
Sarah Baumgratz and located in the RURAL Zone.
2
Ms. Baumgratz related that there is 14.5 acres of land. She noted that she
would like to subdivide the property into a two acre lot, which would
include the house, and a second one of 12.5 acres. She would like to sell the
two acres with the house situated on it, as it is currently difficult for her to
keep due to the taxes. On the 12.5 acres she would like to build a house.
(EV) noted then that she is seeking a Variance due to the frontage
requirement. What is the frontage? Ms. Baumgratz noted that there is
300 ft. of frontage. (SM) noted that the property is wider in the back. She
noted that this is located in the RURAL Zone and requires 225 ft. frontage
and the way that you have drawn the line there would not be sufficient
frontage on either lot. Ms. Baumgratz noted that she would be willing to do
it whatever way you want to do it. (EV) noted that, in actuality, there would
be two non-conforming lots. (SM) noted that this property has already been
subdivided before you purchased it. In essence, this would be the second
subdivision on this property. (EV) questioned whether there was any other
access to the property? Ms. Baumgratz noted that there was not. (EV) noted
that the acreage was not a problem, just the road frontage. (PM) noted that
even if divided in the middle it would still be missing quite a bit of frontage.
(SM) questioned Ms. Baumgratz regarding her plans for the house and two
acres. Ms. Baumgratz noted that her plans were to sell the house and two
acres and build on the other portion.
(EV) Public Input
None.
Close Public Input
CRITERIA
A. No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
(EV) related that he thought that some of the houses were close and it will
not look like a rural setting and therefore could diminish values. (SM)
related that she did not agree with this, as the house is set back 300 ft. (PM)
suggested that a road could be constructed if they wanted to build further
back. (CD) related that 75 ft. is a short distance and would diminish itself.
(JP) related that it would take it out of a rural setting and diminish properties
around it would suffer from this. (SM) related that it would diminish the
value of “that” lot not necessarily the surrounding lots.
3
All Oppose 0-5.
B. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
(EV) related that he could disagree with that statement as long as the house
was put back far enough. (PM) noted he did not feel it was good for public
interest.
All Oppose 0-5.
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.
(SM) noted that this has already been subdivided. Although it is not Ms.
Baumgratz’s fault, nevertheless there is not enough frontage to subdivide the
property. (PM) noted that she could feasibly sell the whole piece, as it is a
desirable lot.
All Oppose 0-5.
D. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the specific restriction on
the property.
(JP) related that he could understand wanting to split it up but it comes down
to we, as a Board, keeping it as a rural area. (EV) this is a true statement,
but it doesn’t mean it has to be approved unless property is sold as a whole.
(PM), (CD), and (SM) agree with this finding but it is not a reason for
granting Variance.
All Agree 5-0.
E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done.
All Oppose 0-5.
F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
4
(SM) Use, which would be a house, is not contrary. (EV) related that there
would be sufficient acreage but not enough frontage in rural setting. (CD)
related that she was “borderline” on this issue as the house is not contrary
but the frontage would be.
All Agree 5-0.
(JP) Motion to not give Variance to Sarah Baumgratz, Tax Map R-37, Lot
11 because it does not meet the necessary criteria. (PM) Second.
Unanimous 5-0.
(EV) Ms. Baumgratz your application is denied. There is a 30 day appeal
process. It was difficult for us to make this decision but we have to look at it
for the complete Town and sometimes have to do things that are not
pleasurable.
ITEM 4. A Public Hearing for application for Appeal of Administrative
Decision filed by Mary H. Pritchard, Trust/Trustee, 52 Needham Street,
P.O. Box 17, Norfolk, MA 02056 to appeal the decision of the Planning
Board for sub-division approval dated April 19, 2007 for property on
Thompson Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-44, Lot 1). The
property is owned by AHG Properties, Inc., 46 Strawberry Hill Road,
Bedford, NH 03110. This property is located in the RURAL Zone.
Atty. Blakeney distributed a list of “Claims of Error”(See attached) and
related that he would like to elaborate on certain aspects of the Planning
Board’s approval noting that they had violated the Zoning Board Ordinances
and that these were different arguments than those related before in the
cluster deliberations.
A. Any use not allowed by special exception and not allowed by
Variance is prohibited, which is the starting point for these claims.
He related that the septic system and community well are not
contained in a dwelling and non-residential use is not allowed by
special exception and should not have been granted. Planning Board
erroneously construed what Zoning Board had granted.
B. If they are accessory use for buildings, they do not meet the
definition.
5
C. Planning Board erroneously misconstrued this.
D. Application allows multiple dwellings on a single lot. Parcel
containing dwelling construed as single lot with 12 dwellings, and is
not allowed by Zoning Ordinance.
E. This is required in Zoning Ordinance. Lots do not have specific
dimensions. Planning Board requires adequate space between
dwellings and there is not in this case.
F. There are multiple family dwellings on single lot.
G. It does not meet definition of multiple family dwellings, as it is not in
a single building.
Atty. Sullivan related in condominium conveyance it is allowed. Plans show
delineation. It is subdivided according to your Zoning Ordinance. Condo is
unit and the limited common area is the yard. Then there is the detention
pond, utilities, well and septic and then restricted open space. Owner gets
condo and exclusive rights to limited common area.
(Board and Attys. Sullivan and Blakeney reviewed map of proposed
subdivision.)
(SM) related, “You are simply saying that it is not permitted use under
Zoning Ordinance. How would you have Planning Board allow this to have
this done.” The Zoning Board said community well. How would you have
the Planning Board allow them to have that kind of service? Atty. Blakeney
related that it is not a use per Zoning Ordinances. (SM) Are you saying all
community wells and community septic systems are not allowed under any
circumstances? How would community septic system be allowed? Atty.
Blakeney noted there was no real allowance on private basis. (SM) related
that every residential unit or multiple dwelling building requires water and
sewer. “Isn’t that a standard accessory use?” Atty. Blakeney related it has
to be described and categorized and referred to as accessory of inherent use
or part of use as a whole. Accessory use has to meet the definition of the
Zoning Ordinance and it is not designed to accommodate the scheme. (CD)
related a true condo is one building. The only way is to have one common
septic system.
6
(SM) referred to Atty. Blakeney’s narrative noting, “I am not sure why you
think it is incompatible. There are small pipes for structure, and most of the
facility is underground, why is it incompatible with open land?” Atty.
Blakeney noted not really, it has a structure on it and does not meet
definition. Though you could plant on top of septic system, it is that these
kinds of uses are not as described in the Zoning Ordinance.
Atty. Blakeney noted multiple single families are on one lot, not in several
dwellings. It is one entity divided into several units. The Zoning Ordinance
does not foresee development like this and zero lot lines is a theoretical
concept.
(SM) noting Item 43 on your full narrative. “Board construed…prohibited
by Zoning Ordinance.” (SM) noted that Zoning Ordinance did that by
allowing cluster with zero lot lines. Atty. Blakeney related that so called
dimensional requirements approved by Planning Board have raised a civil
issue. There is non-compliance of this by special exception. Planning
Board applies same argument, it is not allowed by Zoning Board.
Atty. Sullivan related that he would like to respond to Item 4. I believe the
Zoning Board gave it to them. Mr. Pritchard related that Article 8 is pretty
clear on this. Dimensional requirements are waived by special exception.
Atty. Sullivan related that he disagreed with that totally. Article 8 waived
dimensional requirements. He noted that there are twelve residential sites
that fit into Town’s definition and State definition. For health and safety
reasons, septic, well and driveway though not specifically stated are allowed
by Zoning Board and subdivision requires it. It is necessary and this is
ludicrous. There are twelve residences and each one acts as main building
and remaining land is not everything that is not house. It is standard cluster
use. The community well is accessory to each of the buildings. He related
that each building is designed for one family and that these are not duplexes.
He related that everything was okay when Planning Board looked at this.
Community septic and well is allowable and every unit is served by the
community septic and well. This appeal should be denied.
Atty. Blakeney related that there are unarticulated dimensions; there are no
lots here. Cluster subdivision is division into lots. There are no provisions
for driveways. Remaining land is everything not in the clustered lot area.
7
Roads are part of lots, everything else is remaining land. Subdivision is not
relevant here. Atty. Sullivan related a lot is a parcel of land and different
sections are used for different purposes. Mike MacLaughlin related that if
you would go exactly by Zoning Ordinance every house lot would not have
water or sewage. Mr. Pritchard related that this is not true. Well is on the
lot. Conventional residential setting have well and house on same lot.
Discussion
(PM) related, “I think a lot of thought went into the cluster subdivision. I
think we should deny appeal.” (SM) noted that a lot of thought went into the
appeal as well. “I cannot agree with all of it but sure agree with several of
the items in the appeal. Some interesting questions have been raised.
Planning Board did not do anything incorrectly. Zoning Board Ordinances
are not all orderly, but I still believe Planning Board did not do anything
incorrectly.” (JP) noted that he could see both sides of this situation, but felt
that the Planning Board did not do anything wrong. (CD) noted that she
could not lay blame but questions still arise. She noted that she is used to
seeing condos with town water and sewer. These are defined as 12 units on
12 lots, each one independent of itself. The rural area brings to mind that
they should be independent of itself. I do not like the idea they are not each
supporting themselves. I do not agree with the septic system portion. (EV)
related that he had not heard anything to make him think that the Planning
Board made a wrong decision. The State controls that and says it is okay
and I do not think we should overturn the Planning Board decision.
(SM) Motion to deny Appeal of the Administrative Decision of the Planning
Board filed by Mary Pritchard for the subdivision as approved on April 19,
2007 on Thompson Road by the Planning Board. (JP) Second. Carried 4-1
(CD).
Break at 8:35 P.M. Resumed at 8:40 P.M.
ITEM 5. A Public Hearing with respect to an application for area
Variance for property located at 80 Eaton Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax
Map R-20, Lot 7). The property is owned by Stewart Rodes LLC, 194 N.
Main Street, Concord, NH 03301. The applicant is Kevin P. Sheehan,
7 Main Street, Allenstown, NH 03275. This property is located in the
RURAL Zone.
8
Mr. Sheehan related that there is an old tractor barn on land and there is a
well on the property. He related that he is asking for an area variance
because of the existing structure, as it does not meet setback requirements –
23 ft. instead of 50 ft. A previous subdivision (Lot 7E) is about 17 feet from
edge of building. Mr. Sheehan related that there was an agricultural
business on property, a pig farm where pigs were raised, he believed, for
heart valves. He related that the financial expense to move building would
be too much. Mike MacLaughlin asked if this would be a single-family
home. Mr. Sheehan related that it would be. He related that there are three
garage bays and that there is a structure on 7E also. Tractor barn sits on
foundation and there are pig stalls. The separate remaining building would
stay connected. It is a sound building and I may do something with it at a
later date.
Board discussed with Mr. Sheehan power source, retaining wall, future
development of the lot, any further subdivision of the lot, future roadwork
on Eaton Road, access through another road and lot driveway and other
driveways in area.
Open Public Input
None.
Close Public Input
Criteria
A. No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
(JP) It would improve the property.
All Agreed 5-0.
B. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the pubic interest.
(PM) It would improve the property. (SM) It is not contrary.
All Agreed 5-0.
9
C. An area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use
of the property given the special conditions of the property.
All Agreed 5-0.
D. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some
other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other
than an area variance.
All Agreed 5-0.
E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done.
All Agreed 5-0.
F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance.
All Agreed 5-0.
(CD) Motion to approve application for Kevin Sheehan, property located on
80 Eaton Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-2-, Lot 7) in the RURAL
Zone of 55.8 acres for Area Variance for 23 ft. frontage and 17 feet from
side property line, with proviso that Mr. Sheehan, through Michael
MacLaughlin, Building Inspector, check with the Planning Board for further
clarification on their decision dated October 6, 2005 regarding any future
division of Lot #7. (SM) Second. Carried 5-0.
(EV) notified Mr. Sheehan of the 30 day appeal process.
ITEM 6. A Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special
Exception filed by Mitchell and Dawn Emerson, 50 Range Road, Pittsfield,
NH 03263 (Tax Map R-2, Lot 6B) for a detached three-car garage with a
one bedroom wheelchair accessible in-law apartment above the garages.
The property is owned by Mitchell and Dawn Emerson, 50 Range Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263. This property is located in the RURAL Zone.
Mr. Mitchell related that they have a country style cape and would like to
build a three car detached garage with a one bedroom apartment so that his
mother could live there. He related that the third bay in the garage would be
utilized for the wheelchair accessibility to the apartment. Mr. Mitchell
10
explained the septic use of this structure. He related that his property meets
the setback requirements 900 ft, 150 ft from side, 128 from road. The well
is not a problem. (MM) agreed.
Open Public Input
Mrs. Federhen related that she has seen the architectural rending of the
project and it enhances the area. She would have no problems with it.
Nancy Bates asked several questions regarding Mr. Emerson’s auto detailing
business. Mr. Mitchell related he is on 100% disability and does not work.
He related that he currently owns five vehicles.
Close Public Input
Criteria
A. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or
structure.
All Agreed 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.
All Agreed 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.
All Agreed 5-0.
D. Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided to
insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.
All Agreed 5-0.
11
E. The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of the
Town’s Zoning Ordinance and the intent of the Town’s Master
Plan.
All Agreed 5-0.
(PM) noted that the condition should be that it is used as an in-law
apartment.
(PM) Motion to approve Special Exception application for one bedroom,
wheelchair accessible, in-law apartment for Mitchell and Dawn Emerson, 50
Range Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-2, Lot 6B) on condition that
it be used as an in-law apartment. (SM) Second. Carried 5-0.
(EV) informed applicants of 30-day appeal process.
ITEM 8. A Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special
Exception filed by David Ossoff, 5 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax
Map U-6, Lot 1) for an indoor paintball field. The property is owned by
David Ossoff, 5 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263. This property is located
in the LIGHT COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL Zone.
(EV) noted that a letter had been received from Mr. Ossoff denoting that Mr.
Jim Steinbeck would be speaking on his behalf this evening.
Mr. Steinbeck related that he is applying for a special exception for an
indoor paintball field. He related there would be a pro shop, vending
machines, and food area, though food would not be prepared on premises.
There would be 28 parking spaces, which would be sufficient, but also that
there is an area across from the building owned by the State which they are
negotiating with for additional parking. He explained the positioning and
duration of the lights on Joy Street, a proposed illuminated sign, which
would be shut off at night and the hours and league information. The hours
would be Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday-Sunday, Noon to 9:00 P.M. Friday
and Saturday, Noon to 10:00 P.M. He related that this would fit in with the
Zoning Ordinance and would not be detrimental but rather benefit other
business. He was questioned whether this would be a club, but related it
would be open to the public though there might be leagues. He related that
this is the first indoor paintball field in New Hampshire and explained the
advantages as to having it indoors. (EV) questioned whether there could
12
possibly be accidental shootings outside. Mr. Steinbeck related that the
average ages for participation is usually 18-30. (CD) related if it has
leagues, how does it fit into amusement. It is the Zoning Board’s discretion
as to whether to call it a sport or an amusement. It is a matter of
interpretation. Questions were asked in regard to the pro shop, disposal of
paintballs, drainage, arcade games and the definition of what paintball game
entails. All questions were answered by Mr. Steinbeck and his partner, Will,
and how the game is actually played was related to Board. Mr. Steinbeck
related that entrance fee would $25.00 for all day and after renting
“markers” and purchasing paintballs, cost would be about $50.00
The location in the building of the actual area that would be utilized was
discussed as well as employees, alarm doors, restrooms, stairwells, and
reservations.
Public Input
None.
Close Public Input
Criteria
A. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or
structure.
All Agreed 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.
All Agreed 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.
All Agreed 5-0.
13
D. Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided to
insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.
All Agreed 5-0.
E. The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of the
Town’s Zoning Ordinance and the intent of the Town’s Master
Plan.
All Agreed 5-0.
(CD) Motion to approve application for Special Exception filed by David
Ossoff, 5 Main Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U-6, Lot 1) for an
indoor paintball field in the LIGHT COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL Zone.
(JP) Second. Carried 5-0.
(EV) notified Mr. Steinbeck of the 30 day appeal process.
ITEM 9. Public Input
None.
ITEM 10. Members Concerns
(PM) noted that it was his wish that Town could give Veterans some
preference for those who have been to Iraq. They deserve something. (EV)
related that he, too, feels bad for these individuals. (CD) related that is
unknown if she has exhausted all other possible avenues for relief, such as
abatement.
(JP) questioned when in-law apartments are granted, is there some way of
checking on these. (EV) related that (MM) will be coming up with an
application to cover this. (MM) related that application would be for one
year and after one year, it would be re-inspected.
ITEM 11. Minutes
(SM) Motion to accept Minutes of May 10, 2007 with corrections. (CD)
Second. Carried 5-0.
14
ITEM 12. Adjournment
(PM) Motion to Adjourn. (CD) Second. Carried 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 P.M.
Approved: August 13, 2007
_____________________________ _________________________
Edward Vien, Chairman Date