Pittsfield Planning Board
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting MARCH 15, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to Order
Meeting called to order at 7:02 P.M. by Eric Bahr, Chairman.
ITEM 2. Roll Call
Members Present: Eric Bahr (EB), Chairman, Bill Miskoe (BM), Vice-
Chairman, Donna Keeley (DK), Rich Hunsberger (RH), Daniel Greene
(DG), Peter Newell, Alternate, Larry Konopka (LK), and Delores Fritz,
Recording Secretary.
Members Absent: Paul Metcalf, Jr. (PM), David Simpson (DS) Alternate,
and Ralph Odell (RO).
ITEM 3. Public hearing for reconsideration of revocation for a onebedroom
watchman’s apartment, an auto repair shop, and a box and pallet
shop filed by Walter Jensen, P.O. Box 2645, Concord, NH 03302 for
property located at 12 Broadway, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Map U-2, Lot 1).
This property is located in the Commercial Zone.
(EB) This is a public hearing for reconsideration of revocation and since the
original revocation, a current Building Inspector and Fire Chief report has
been accomplished. (BM) noted that the applicant had appealed this to
Superior Court and the Court remanded it back to this Board. Subsequently,
we requested the Fire Chief and Building Inspector do an inspection and
they reported back to this Planning Board two weeks ago. (EB) According
to the report from the Building Inspector, the electrical issues still exist.
Mike McLaughlin (MM), Building Inspector related that per the applicant,
he has retained an electrical company to do the repairs/updates, but no
Electrical Permit request has been elicited or issued. No actual electrical
work has been done. (RH) Has Electrical Permit been issued? (DK) related
2
that it was her understanding that an electrical company has been retained
but to date, no permit has been issued. (EB) When is the work on the
electrical problems commencing?
Charles Russell, Attorney for Walter Jensen, related that the letter from the
Fire Department indicated that the work should be completed within sixty
(60) days, actually, electrical – 2007, sprinkler system – 2009. Mr. Jensen
has retained R & T Electrical and they are currently backed up and should be
able to complete job within 60-90 days.
(EB) Mike, anything else? (MM) “Not really, the shop looked a lot better.”
(EB) Mike, if electrical difficulties cleared up, are you good with everything
else? (MM) questioned why the electrical work had not been started by
now? (EB) Are you referring back to October? (DK) Nothing has been
done since then; everything in the letter goes back to October. (BM) Any
progress made from October to now? (MM) Everything is cleaned up, but
no electrical progress has been made. (BM) Any life safety issues?
(MM) No, most of the electrical issues are minor but there are a lot of them.
(BM) Do you believe that R & T can correct these issues between now and
the end of May? (MM) R & T is a licensed contractor and the issues would
take less than one week to correct/complete. (BM) So, this date should be
able to be met. (MM) “Yes.”
(EB) It is my understanding that the report from the Fire Chief relates that
the sprinkler system should be up and running within two years. However,
everything else should be accomplished by May 30, 2007. (BM) I have a
question, if the sprinkler system is to be repaired/updated within two years,
two years of which date? Also, until sprinkler system is up and running,
there should be no residential use of the building.
Atty. Russell noted that this was correct and that it is outlined in the Fire
Chief’s report and that the sprinkler system repair/update should be
accomplished by February 28, 2009. Once a person is in there, then there
are safety issues. For everything else, we are looking for May 31, 2007.
(DK) What is the issue with extending it for a month? Mr. Russell noted
that R & T couldn’t get in there right away due to scheduling. Last fall Mr.
Jensen couldn’t get on the schedule. He also talked with Catamount
Electrical Co. and they had discussed it with the Fire Chief then, but this
never worked out. (BM) If Board grants extension, will agreement be
signed? Mr. Russell related, “Yes.” (BM) A binding Agreement.
3
(RH) related he was concerned about the watchman’s apartment and whether
he accomplishes the problems or not, we should not let this ride. His
Variance expires before he comes back. (BM) I agree to extending the
electrical repairs/updates to May 31st, but the watchman’s apartment should
not be allowed until sprinkler system has been done. (RH) I think we should
revoke the watchman’s apartment totally and when he’s done with what he
needs to do, then he can come back. (DK) I think that it would be cleaner
that way. (RH) Yes, revoke the watchman’s apartment and the rest would be
okay. (EB) We have essentially revoked that, and he can do another
Variance for that at the appropriate time. (RH) He signed the report of the
Fire Chief. (MM) On May 31st if we revoke again, then he would have to
apply all over again. (BM) The Court noted a revocation, and it is done. He
will have to re-apply. (DG) Any ongoing issues? (EB) Once that has been
done, enforcement is an issue, but that would have to be done by the proper
agencies.
PUBLIC INPUT
Fred Hast related that he really wanted to say that he has been listening to
these issues for over two years. We now have a new Fire Chief and he has
given an extension of two more years for the sprinkler system to be
updated/repaired. Supposedly he had to have a watchman’s apartment due
to so many break-ins. Now we are going to wait two more years. The
Power Company was to stipulate the amount of pallets stored on the
property. There was to be a big box truck and pallets would be removed
every day. (BM) Yes, to pallet companies in two different locations. Mr.
Hast stated that applicant knew about the sprinkler system then and he has
now asked for another two years. This building still can go up. It does not
take two years for a sprinkler system to be updated/repaired. He is playing
games. (PN) related that the two years is actually from the current Fire
Chief predictions and we all know he is a professional and highly qualified.
Mr. Hast related that “he surprised me about the license thing; he said he
would have to look it up.” Mr. Jensen has been given two years for
something that can be done in two to four months. That leaves a lot of fire
hazards in there. (BM) related that it is not for residential use. The owner is
risking his own property as no one lives there. (MM) related that this is not
necessarily true. “If that building goes up, it will be one h… of a fire.”
Atty. Russell noted that it has not been authorized for residential use.
4
(EB) stated that Deputy Fire Chief Deanne originally had several concerns.
One of them was concerning the residential use and the sprinkler system not
being up to code and that it should be taken out and replaced. Both he and
the current Fire Chief’s concerns are consistent about bringing the sprinkler
system up to standards. (LK) noted that after reading the original
application and report, it was noted that the sprinkler system was not
working then.
Close Public Input
(EB) We should out-and-out revoke the application for the watchman’s
apartment. Applicant needs to bring things up to code and we will not
approve the watchman’s apartment without the sprinkler system being
brought up to this code. We have spent a long time discussing this without
any results. I am a little uncomfortable with allowing the extension of two
months, but I also do not want to see businesses go away. (DK) What is
R & T’s schedule? (BM) related that he did not think that the electrical
contractor was booked up since October 5, 2006.
(RH) related that he felt that this was the last time that the applicant should
be able to pick the completion date. If he does not make it this time, revoke
it. (BM) questioned if we revoke residential part of this, are we saying no
residences until sprinkler system complete? Fred Hast raised a point that
this is for more than residential use. (RH) He has two years to replace it or
bring it up to code. (BM) No guarantees have been given by the applicant.
(MM) related that he has not issued any electrical permits for this as yet.
“R & T is not the only electrical services available in the area. Most
contractors are slow at this time of year.” (EB) related that he felt that May
3lst was an excessive amount of time to allow and that electrical permits
should be requested by April 1st. (RH) stated that Board should add Permit
date to motion. (BM) We should see some evidence of activity before May
31st. (EB) I am not in favor of giving him the benefit of the doubt because
of past track records.
(BM) Motion to revoke residential portion of Site Plan. (DK) Second. Any
discussion? Motion Unanimous.
(BM) Board grants applicant until May 31, 2007 to complete remediation of
all code violations with the exception of the sprinkler system update which
5
was signed by Fire Chief Johnson and demonstrate by April 1, 2007 that
Electrical Permits have been sought and gained. (DK) Second.
Discussing the motion, (BM) related that he has two weeks to get things
going and for something to happen. (DK) If by April 1, 2007 no permits
have been issued, then Planning Board can take this up again. (EB) related
that at that point, extension would no longer be valid. The deal is over if no
permits have been pulled by April 1, 2007.
Motion – Unanimous.
(EB) Mr. Jensen, the Board has revoked the residential use of your Site
Plan, the sprinkler system has to be brought up to date or replaced within
two years to current standards, and you have been given an extension to
May 31, 2007 to correct electrical code deficiencies.
ADJOURNMENT
(DK) Motion to Adjourn, (PN) Second. Unanimous.
Planning Board meeting adjourned at 7:30 P.M.
__________________________ APPROVED: APRIL 5, 2007
Eric Bahr, Chairman Date