Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting & Hearing
May 11, 2006
Chairman Elliott called to the meeting to order at 7:02 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Chair, Robert Elliott (RE), Ed Vien (EV), Vice-Chair Susan Muenzinger
(SM), Paul Metcalf (PM), Jesse Pacheco (JP), Alternate Larry Federhen and Alternate Carole
Dodge (CD), were present.
Jeremy Lamson, Deputy Zoning Administrator and acting Secretary was present
Item three on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for an
Area Variance filed by Charles E. Morrell V of 154 Dowboro Road ( Tax
map R50 Lot 1 ) for a variance regarding the placing a Shed within the
setbacks in Article 2 Table 2 for that property.
(RE) Present your proposal and all comments should be directed through the
Chairman.
Mr. Morrell stated that he wanted to build a shed on the old foundation from the
house that burned down to preserve the foundation. There was a house that sat on
the foundation for two hundred years. He needed a variance to build within the
setbacks.
There were no comments from the public.
(PM) How far is the foundation set back from the road?
Mr. Morrell: 22 ft.
(SM) Are there any plans for the concrete slab, which complies with the setbacks?
Mr. Morrell: The slab is not level whereas the foundation is.
(EV) stated that he would not use the foundation because the clearance on the cellar
hole not even six feet.
Mr. Morrell stated that he would not use the cellar hole because it floods out every
year.
2
(EV) Are there three parts to the cellar hole?
Mr. Morrell: Yes, I was only going to use the cellar hole, but I decided to use the
whole foundation when I saw the application fee.
(SM) What would you do with the existing foundation if you cannot build on it?
Mr. Morrell: The Town would make me fill it in.
(EV) When was the fire that destroyed the house?
Mr. Morrell: There were two: one was in April of 1995 and the other was in May of
1998.
(JP) Did you say that something fell in on the foundation?
Mr. Morrell: No, the floor over the cellar hole fell in so I removed it.
(JP) How do you plan to attach the floor to an uneven foundation?
Mr. Morrell: I have a friend who is a carpenter who will help me with that.
(EV) stated he would have to weigh the value of preserving the foundation versus
compliance with the setbacks.
Area Criteria:
A: No diminuation in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
The Board members agreed that the placement of the shed would not affect the
surrounding property values.
Passes 5-0
B: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
(EV) It would still have to go through the building permit process to comply with
the codes.
Board agrees- Passes 5- 0
C: An area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given
the special conditions of the property because:
3
(SM) I am not sure what the special condition would be other than that there is an
existing foundation that he wants to use.
(RE) The foundation existed before the building codes.
There was discussion about what would be needed to build on the foundation.
(EV) felt the applicant met the criteria if he used the existing foundation as part of
the shed. The special condition was the cellar hole being located within the
setbacks.
The other members agreed that the foundation was the special condition.
Board agrees criteria has been met- Passes 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 because:
(SM) Felt that the shed could be put on the other slab or in another place that
complied with the setbacks.
(JP) He needs a foundation given the size of the shed.
(SM) How big is the slab?
Mr. Morrell: 25’ by 40’ with another section. It is 52’ from the road.
(SM) I vote no, there is a reasonable alternative to the old foundation.
(PM) Would it be a great hardship to move it back to the slab?
Mr. Morrell: It would require center trusses for support and it would be more
expensive.
(EV) I agree with (SM).
(PM) asks about the expense.
Mr. Morrell: It would be 2/3 more expensive.
(EV) stated that he thought the building permit would require the foundation to be
brought up to code. He felt that building on the slab would be cheaper than building
on the foundation.
(RE) Is there any other reason for wanting to use the foundation?
4
Mr. Morrell: Just sentimental reasons.
(RE) So you want to preserve the old foundation?
Mr. Morrell: Yes, but if I have to bring it up to code then it might not be worth it.
(JP) stated that he agreed with (SM).
(PM) agreed with (SM) and stated that he felt that building the shed right off the
road was not the best place for the shed.
(RE) felt that if Mr. Morrell was trying to preserve the foundation then there was no
other way for him to proceed. If the shed was not used, then he would have to get
rid of the foundation.
Fails 4-1
Criteria E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done because:
(EV) stated that he did not feel granting the variance would permit substantial
justice to be done because the foundation would have to meet the code requirements
and there was an opportunity to have compliance with the setback regulations.
(PM) and (SM) agreed with (EV) that it would not be substantial justice.
(EV) appreciated the desire to save the old foundation.
(JP) felt that using the slab would be better than using the foundation.
Mr. Morrell asked if there would be any size restrictions on using the slab?
(EV) No.
Mr. Morrell stated that he would use the slab then.
(RE) felt that substantial justice would be done by preserving the old foundation.
Fails 4-1
Criteria F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
(EV) The use is allowed in that zone so it is not contrary to the spirit of the
ordinance.
5
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
(EV) Motion to deny the area variance for Charles E. Morrell V of 154 Dowboro
Road ( Tax map R50 Lot 1 ) for a variance regarding the placing a Shed within the
setbacks in Article 2 Table 2 for that property because there are reasonably feasible
alternatives and it would not be substantial justice to grant the variance.
(JP) Seconds motion.
(RE) All in favor?
Motion carries 4-1 w/(RE) opposed.
(RE) Explains the thirty-day appeal process.
Item four on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for a
Special Exception filed by Todd and Claire Drew of 25 Wildwood Drive
(Tax map R14 Lot 50) for a special exception for a home occupation in the
Suburban Zone.
(RE) Present your proposal and all comments should be directed through the
Chairman.
Todd Drew stated that he wanted to operate a truck repair business from his house,
that there were three or four other businesses in the area, and that he was not
expecting to have a traffic impact on the neighborhood because 90% of his work
would be done off-site and 10% would be done is his garage.
Bob Hetu stated that he had no problem with the proposed business.
There were no comments against the proposed business.
(EV) asked what the size of the garage would be.
Mr. Drew stated that it would 30’ by 30’ and 20’ in height. He said that he had
spoken with the road agent and the road agent did not have a problem with the
proposed business.
(EV) There will be no stockpiling of vehicles?
Mr. Drew stated that it would not be a junkyard.
(SM) What are the other businesses in the area?
6
Mr. Drew stated that Mr. Hetu had a business, there was Volpe landscaping, a
trucking company that was an owner/driver, and an office building at a place that
also had a bed and breakfast.
(JP) Do any of them work at home?
Mr. Drew stated that he did not know.
(JP) stated that he did not see the businesses when he drove through the area.
Claire Drew stated that the old Witham place has a business running out of the
property.
(PM) Where would the garage be?
Mr. Drew: Out behind the house, which would be 72’ from the road.
(EV) It looks like the property has wetlands.
Mr. Drew stated that the wetlands are only on one side and they were not near
where the garage would be. The garage would sit where the house was originally
supposed to be.
(SM) Would there be any other employees?
Mr. Drew stated that it would just be him and his wife.
Criteria:
A. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or
structure because:
(PM) Yes, because the garage would be behind the house and less visible.
(SM) stated that she did not think it was an appropriate location. She read the list
of uses referenced in the definition for a home occupation in the Zoning Ordinance
and stated that the garage would be different than those uses. (SM) stated that
people would be coming to Mr. Drew instead of him going to them like most of the
other businesses in the area. She was also not sure if the other businesses in the
area were legal.
(JP) felt that the Board could grant the Special Exception with conditions because
Mr. Drew did most of his work on the road.
7
(EV) agreed with (PM) because it met the points for a home occupation.
(RE) agreed that it was an appropriate location.
Passes 4-1
B. The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious, or offensive to the
neighborhood and will not diminish the value of surrounding properties because:
(EV) If done right, it would not impact the neighbors.
(PM) If the ZBA put restrictions on it, the use would match the neighborhood.
Mr. Drew stated that he was looking for a place to make the ten percent of repairs that he could
not do on the road.
(SM) felt that the use could be obnoxious, but hoped it would not be. She agreed that it met the
criteria.
(RE) and (JP) agreed.
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 offstreet
parking because:
(SM) felt that the issue did not apply to the proposed use.
(EV) asked if Mr. Drew was planning to be an inspection station.
Mr. Drew stated that he was not planning to have a state inspection station.
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 because:
(SM) The facilities would be monitored by the building inspector for compliance.
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 because:
8
(EV) felt that the use was consistent with the spirit.
(SM) disagreed that the use was consistent.
(PM), (JP), and (RE) agreed with (EV).
Passes 4-1
The Board discussed placing conditions on the application.
(JP) Motion to approve the Special Exception for Todd and Claire Drew of 25
Wildwood Drive (Tax map R14 Lot 50) for a home occupation at that property
conditioned upon there are no vehicles to be visible from the street, the home
occupation must get site plan approval, and there is to be no sign advertising the
use of the property on the property.
(PM) Seconds motion.
(RE) All in favor?
Motion carries 4-1 with (SM) opposed.
(RE) Explains the thirty-day appeal process.
Board took a short recess at 8:30PM. (EV) stepped down and was replaced by (CD)
for the next hearing. Board returned at 8:37PM.
Item five on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an application for an
Area Variance filed by Con-Lin-Ty, LLC of P.O. Box 10483 Bedford, NH
03110 for an Area Variance to allow a lot line adjustment with a waiver of
the setback regulations in Article 2 Table 2 for a lot in the Light
Industrial/Commercial Zone.
Copies of the plan proposed by Con-Lin-Ty were distributed to Board members.
Phil Hastings, attorney for Con-Lin-Ty, spoke for the applicant to explain what was
being proposed. He went over the fact that there were two lots currently with one
building on both lots along with a smaller building on one lot. The applicant was
proposing to tear down one building and split the other building into two buildings
that would be on separate lots. The new lots would not comply with the dimensional
regulations, but they would be more compliant than the existing configuration.
9
Robert Sullivan, Con-Lin-Ty, stated that the new plan would remove fifteen
residential units from the original plan and the metal structure part of the existing
building would be split off and turned into commercial space.
Attorney Hastings stated that most of the existing nonconformities would be
reduced or eliminated in the new plan. He went over the Variance criteria by
reading the responses in the application. Attorney Hastings stated that granting
the variance would allow the applicant to redevelop the property, tear down a
deteriorating building, make the two lots more conforming than they currently
were, and allow for better emergency access to the lots.
Gil Bleckmann, owner and abutter, stated that this was basically a lot line
adjustment that would bring the buildings into a reasonable configuration.
(SM) Why not make it one lot?
Attorney Hastings: He could, but the practical expense of converting the metal end
of the building into housing would be expensive and difficult to do.
Rueben Hull, applicant’s engineer stated that the application has been designed; as
two separate parcels and Mr. Sullivan would probably not own the metal building.
Mr. Sullivan stated that he had placed 20’ between the buildings at the request of
the Fire Chief.
(CD) stated that the new plan was much better than the earlier plan.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the front lot would be commercial like many of the other
lots on Depot Street while the back would be residential like the lots on Fayette
Street.
(SM) How would you access the parking lot?
Mr. Sullivan stated that there would be two curb cuts and explained where they
would be and how they would allow better access to the dumpster for the residential
building.
Attorney Hastings stated that there would be three more steps for the applicant if
the Variance were granted. The applicant would have to file for a lot line
adjustment and Site Plan Review for each of the two lots.
Area Criteria:
A: No diminution in the value of surrounding properties will be suffered:
10
(SM) agreed with the applicant’s reasons and felt that the new arrangement would
be better for the properties.
(PM) felt it would improve the area.
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
B: Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest because:
(SM) felt that the granting the Variance would improve emergency access to the
property.
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
C: An area Variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given
the special conditions of the property because:
(SM) stated that the Variance would reduce the nonconformity of the properties.
Board agrees- Passes 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 because:
(CD) agreed with the applicant’s reasons.
(SM) agreed that the Variance was needed and cited the applicant’s argument that
the property was currently nonconforming.
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
Criteria E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done because:
(CD) agreed it would permit substantial justice.
(PM) agreed.
(SM) read from the applicant’s response “furthermore, granting the variance will
allow the applicant to redevelop the property, demolish a deteriorating building,
create additional parking and open areas on the property, allow better access for
emergency vehicles and equipment, and, in general, restore the former Pittsfield
Weaving facility to a productive and attractive use, all of which are consistent with
the concept of substantial justice.
11
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
Criteria F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because:
(PM) agreed it was not contrary.
(SM) agreed because the granting the Variance would reduce the nonconformity of
the property.
Board agrees- Passes 5-0
(SM) Motion to approve the area variance for Con-Lin-Ty, LLC of P.O. Box 10483
Bedford, NH 0311 for a lot line adjustment with a waiver of the setback regulations
in Article 2 Table 2 for property at 1 Fayette Street (Tax Map U-4 Lots 25 and 26)
based on the applicant meeting all of the criteria.
(PM) Seconds motion.
(RE) All in favor?
Motion carries 5-0
(RE) Explains the thirty-day appeal process.
(EV) returns to Board.
Item six on agenda: Request for Rehearing from Robert McKechnie
Mr. McKechnie was not present. The Board discussed making sure that he gave the
Board a letter citing the specific criteria that were being appealed.
Item seven on agenda: Bruce Fistel Letter
The Board reviewed the letter. (SM) stated that the ZBA could not do conceptual
plans and the ZBA should not be discussing this. The other Board members agreed
and Mr. Fistel was directed to speak with the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Item eight on agenda: Public Input
None.
Item nine on agenda: Member’s concerns
The Board discussed that they should have received the maps for Con-Lin-Ty with
their copies of the application packets.
12
Item ten on agenda: Approval of minutes from the April 13, 2006.
(SM) Motion to approve the minutes of April 13, 2006 as amended.
(PM) Seconds motion
(RE) All in favor?
Motion carries – All 5 in favor
Election of Officers
A motion was made to appoint Robert Elliot as Chairman of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment by (EV), seconded by (JP).
A motion was made to appoint Susan Muenzinger as Vice-Chairman of the Zoning
Board of Adjustment by (PM), seconded by (EV).
Slate of candidates was approved 5 to 0.
(SM) asked (EV) if he could make sure that members of the Board received notices
of the hearing in the mail.
Adjournment
(PM) Motion to adjourn
(JP) Seconds motion
Motion carries 5 – 0
Adjourned at 9:42 PM.
Respectfully Submitted by Jeremy Lamson, Acting Board Secretary
Chair____________________________ Date__________________________