May 8, 2008 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, May 8, 2008

ITEM I. Call to Order at 7:04 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),
Larry Federhen (LF), Alternate, and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Jesse Pacheco (JP) and David Rushford (DR), Alternate

(EV) Thank you all for coming. This is the largest group we have ever seen at a Zoning Board meeting. We have a large Agenda tonight and we will try to get through it as quickly as possible. Please note that all questions will be directed to the Board with no discussion between individuals. Please state your name at the onset of your comments. All individuals are entitled to their opinions whether pro or con and will be heard on a timely basis.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of April 10, 2008

(PM) Motion to approve Minutes of April 10, 2008. (LF) Second. Carried 4-0. (CD) Abstain.

ITEM 4. Public Hearing with respect to an application for an Area Variance filed by Lighthouse Church of God, 43 Watson Street, (P.O. Box 282), Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U-05, Lot 34) for placement of a proposed wood sign (4 ½ ft. x 5 ½ ft) on the River Road side of the property. The Church is represented by Robert Gates and Pastor Elmer Elliott. The property is located in the URBAN Zone.

Mr. Gates explained the area where the church is located is a secluded area. The church used to be a house and is difficult to discern as a church by individuals passing by the area. He noted that he and his wife have cleared out the proposed area for the sign placement and have landscaped it. The Church would like to put up a sign so people will attend. The sign would be constructed of pine boards, painted white with black lettering and have an area where messages could be changed. This would offer more exposure. The sign would be placed perpendicular to River Road rather than parallel to allow it to be viewed by passing cars. The sign would be approximately one foot off the ground to allow for mowing underneath.

Open Public Input on Item 4:

Dan Schroth indicated that signs are important, as they are the best tools to let others know you are there. If well designed, they only compliment your “business.”

Francine Emerson, neighbor, complimented the Church on doing a lot of work to make the area look nice. “However, if this sign generates additional members of the Church, where are they going to park?” She noted that there are a lot of small children in the neighborhood.

(SM) questioned the number of current members. Mr. Gates noted that there are approximately 14-16 members, but not all of them have vehicles. He related that Ms. Emerson is correct that Watson Street is very tight, but it is also not a major traveled road. Church members park on one side of the road and also utilize a driveway across the street with property owner permission. (SM) questioned the capacity of the church. Past Elliott related that it could accommodate up to 120 people legally. Mr. Gates related that the church as been there for over 20 years (26 years per Pastor Elliott). (LF) questioned whether the services at the church down the street coincide with their services and if it would be possible to utilize their parking facilities? Mr. Gates indicated that services do not coincide but they also park on the street.

Close Public Input on Item 4.

CRITERIA:

Board members agreed that this is more a Use Variance as opposed to an Area Variance and applicant was encouraged to apply for Variance because of interpretation by Building Inspector of Article 9 (Page 18) of the Zoning Ordinances. (SM) noted that the Building Inspector was interpreting it one way and Board another considering it is a “business” which is a permitted use and would not need a Variance. It sounds like the sign will not be a “nuisance.”

Board and Mr. Gates further discussed whether church would be considered as a business.

(EV) noted that applicant has completed an Area Variance when it should really be a Use Variance. The issue is interpretation and can be seen both ways. Five of us see it in a different way. Therefore, Board will continue with public hearing noting that criteria would be in reference to Use Variance.

A. No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered and in granting the Variance, it would not be contrary to public interest because:

Mr. Gates related it is just a church sign, not an advertisement. We have improved the property and it looks much better and we have received many compliments on it. (LF) questioned if they intend to light the sign? Mr. Gates related not at the present time, maybe in the future.

ALL AGREE 5-0.

B. The Zoning restrictions as applied to the property interferes with the reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment because:

(EV) Without the sign, people do not realize that the church is there. Mr. Gates related that he is correct; people would not know it is there.

ALL AGREE 5-0.

C. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the Zoning Ordinances and the specific restriction on the property because:

Mr. Gates noted that in order to “advertise”, signs are a big way to make it known that you are there. We also advertise in the Sun.

ALL AGREE 5-0.

D. The variance would not injure the public or private rights of others because:

Mr. Gates related that the sign would be placed on the Church property and would not be a huge sign with no bright lights. We realize we are in a neighborhood with others and will only have a plain and simple sign. Pastor Elliott noted that it would be a sign that looks nice.

ALL AGREE 5-0.

E. Granting the variance would permit substantial justice to be done because:

Mr. Gates: It would let the world know we are there.

ALL AGREE 5-0.

F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the Ordinance because:

Mr. Gates noted, “We are trying to keep it small and simple and not be an eyesore.

ALL AGREE 5-0.

(SM) Motion to approve Use Variance for Lighthouse Church of God, Tax Map U-05, Lot 34 for proposed sign. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0.

(EV) advised applicant of 30-day appeal process. He also suggested discussing with George Bachelder regarding placement in conjunction with winter road activities and to also keep in mind the parking issues.
ITEM 5. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special Exception for a Home Occupation filed by Edward A. Rich, III, 480 Loudon Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-37, Lot 11B) of a proposed mechanical repair facility for vehicles at 480 Loudon Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263. This facility would be in addition to the current mobile repair service performed at this address. This property is located in the RURAL Zone.

Mr. Rich noted that when his family bought the property about three years ago, the then Building Inspector, Hank Fitzgerald, told him that he did not have to come before the Board concerning the business because we would go to them to do repairs and only about 20% of the business would be accomplished in-house. The business has grown and we are now restoring tractors, old trucks, and etc. and I purchased my sister’s business about 1 ½ years ago and that would now be at this location. We are not looking to have a huge service staff, with just a 46 x 40 ft. bay, and working 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. However, during snowplow season, the need for immediate repairs might cause us to work later into the night. It will be a small two-man operation, part there and part on the road. So far, we have had no complaints from the neighbors.

(PM) noted that there are a lot of cars around the property and it is a nice looking garage. Mr. Rich (Skip) explained that why there were so many cars on the property were that some are antiques and his personal property and some belong to visiting relatives.

Open Public Input on Item 5:

(EV) noted that a letter had been received from Alfred M. Joyce,
450 Loudon Road noting that he approved of the mechanical repair facility. (Letter was read into the Minutes.)

Sarah Baumgratz, 490 Loudon Road noted that she was opposed to the idea. She related that tractor-trailer trucks, campers and different cars drive up/down the driveway and are quite noisy. She presented pictures of the trucks on the driveway and noted that they are quite noisy and recently saw the same dump truck drive up and down the driveway four times in one day at different times. It is not quiet and I hear power tools all the time. It is a Rural Zone and my home is not on a commercial lot and I think it would impact my property values. His garage and my house are in alignment.

An employee of Mr. Rich, who did not state his name, indicated that a lot of the vehicles there do not belong to the business.

Close Public Input on Item 5

(SM) questioned what was done with used motor and transmission oil? Skip noted that he has one 55-gallon drum which is inside and when full is used by one of three different individuals. This is done about every couple of weeks to once a month. (PM) questioned whether this required EDC approval. Skip related that he is mandated to have a drum within a drum to cover spills. He noted that there is no antifreeze to collect as it is put back into the vehicle after repair. He noted that there would be no tow trucks unless a vehicle is towed in.

Mr. Rich apologized to Sarah Baumgratz and noted he would try to minimize the noise effect and had he known, he would have tried to rectify it. He noted that he currently had no plans for a sign, but maybe in the future might include a State Inspection sign. He related that he has a small clientele and business is by appointment. He explained some of his future plans in regard to garage door placement, fencing, and noise issues. He explained that it is necessary due to ill parents residing with him, that he spends less time out on the road, which will also increase his quality of life.

Board discussed further whether this is really a home occupation as opposed to a home accessory. (SM) “My question is do we think it is a auto repair shop rather than a home occupation and does he need a variance for this?” Board decided 4-1 that it should not be noted as a home occupation. All agreed that is an auto repair shop. Therefore, Board reviewed Criteria for Special Exception for Repair Shop in Rural Zone.

CRITERIA:

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

Mr. Rich noted that it is off the road, non-visible on three sides, quiet, and would not be a detriment to the area.

(PM) It is an appropriate location – back out of the way and secluded.
(LF) I agree. (SM) It is permitted per the Ordinance and is back from the road.

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 because:

Mr. Rich indicated that it would far enough off the road, traffic will be no more than it has been on the State road, no huge billboard out front and will not impact the area. I will make changes to quiet things down.

(SM) I think it fits the property. It can’t be seen and there would be no or little additional traffic. If there were a sign, it would not be obtrusive.

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.

Mr. Rich indicated that is way off the street.

(PM) “The location handles that.”

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:

Mr. Rich noted that just for us, we may someday put in bathroom facilities, but that is way down the road.

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:

Mr. Rich indicated it is a rural zone not residential. We could put it back to farmland, though we have no intent to do that. (EV) noted that consistent with the spirit of the Town, we are trying to keep everybody happy and the way the community wants it to be. The Zoning Board is here to help get the best results for all involved.

ALL AGREE 5-0.

(LF) Motion to approve application for Special Exception for auto repair shop for Edward A. Rich, III, Tax Map R-37, Lot 11B. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0.

(EV) explained the appeal process to applicant.

ITEM 6. Continued Public Hearing James Snedeker, 629 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-07, Lot 4B) to designate an area of the property at 629 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH for storage of junk metal and the issue of a “grandfathered” business at this site. The property is owned by James Snedeker and is in the RURAL Zone.

Mrs. Snedeker thanked Board for granting them an extension of time to gather the necessary information. She presented a packet of 13 signed statements by various individuals noting that they had bought scrap metal from John Snedeker, Sr. and continued to do so with James Snedeker until the present time indicating their name and the period of time involved, some dating from 1963 to present. (EV) noted that he wanted to share with Board an undated business card from the business, which he found among some old papers.

Mrs. Snedeker continued that they also had an undated (because newspaper does not indicate the dates) newspaper advertisement for the “scrap metal business,” a testament from Lamberts Auto & Truck, Rochester, NH that they take his salvage vehicles (notarized) as well as some pictures of some of the area, which cannot be seen from the road. Mr. Snedeker noted that there were various pieces of cars and parts that have been on the property since the 1960’s and even some car parts from the 1940’s. (LF) questioned whether there was an intent to clean up the property? The Snedekers related that they would be doing this. She related that they have worked to improve their property over the years. “The property in the back is beautiful and we really should excavate it.” Mr. Snedeker related that it is an ongoing process as a homeowner. He related that it had been discussed that he would also be cleaning up his Mom’s property, installing a proper gate and getting rid of a lot of metal parts. (PM) noted that it looks a lot better. Mrs. Snedeker noted that they have painted, added more bins and will be adding the gate so nothing is visible from any side.

Open Public Input on Item 6.

Carol Richardson noted she was asking her original question: “What piece of property are we talking about? What are we talking about?” (EV) noted Board was talking about one piece of property. Mr. Snedeker noted that he was talking about “his lot,” and not talking about his mother’s lot. Mrs. Richardson questioned why cars were being parked on the lot next to her property. (EV) noted that there are three separate lots up there. Mr. Richardson noted that this has occurred since the last hearing. (EV) This might have to be looked at and might be a code violation, which is not related to this application. We are discussing the grandfathering of the business on Lot 4B. Mrs. Richardson noted that she was also talking about this. He did clean up the lot next to me. At this point, I am very confused by this whole thing. (EV) explained that the Zoning Ordinances have been in effect since 1988 and as I stated earlier, he would have to prove that this was in existence before this time. Mrs. Richardson noted that Lot 4B is not the lot that they are “doing their junk on.”

Paul Richardson noted that he has lived up there for 37 years, 33 of which were with John Snedeker as neighbor. He said he was saving copper and sheet metal. I can remember when he built on. After that, there were a lot more cars and stuffed vans loaded with stuff for years. There was never a working “junkyard” there. The property is right next to mine and there is a stream that runs back there that could easily be contaminated. The problem would be with the drinking water; it is all down river. It is the environmental services that I have a problem with. This needs to be considered. It is not really a working junkyard. He mentioned the junkyard on Route 107, which did a lot of testing and got an award for environmental cleanliness. I do not believe there is enough evidence to classify this as a junkyard.

Mr. Snedeker indicated, “For the record, these two complain all the time.” (EV) explained that this would be a friendly meeting, and that every property owner had a right to his opinion. The issue on the other two lots goes to code enforcement. We are trying to see if Mr. Snedeker is grandfathered.

Mrs. Richardson noted, “We are not talking about the same piece of property. I understand the grandfather issue totally.” Mr. Snedeker indicated that if one would come onto his lot, his Dad used the whole stretch from the stonewall to the house. After my Dad stopped, I have been doing it since then.

A neighbor indicated that he worked out of his home and that he lives outside in the summertime. There is nothing but junk cars going up/down – I see no scrap metal coming or going.

Mrs. Snedeker urged Board to look at the pictures. All the junk is behind the fence. She explained that the cars Mrs. Richardson is talking about were all hauled away by her husband, and he even bought a bigger truck to accommodate them. She explained that Jim’s mother’s property is not used for junk storage as they have other plans for her property.

Chester Smith noted, “I have brought “stuff” to Jimmy’s place. I go by every day and see him taking stuff out and getting rid of it. What do you consider as a junkyard? I see him moving cars every day and keeping the area clean. That is his business and he is doing the best he can. He can’t keep everyone happy. He has tried to make everyone happy.”

Robert Legg noted that he had looked at the RSA’s on the Website and noted that if you desire to be grandfathered, you have to notify the State that you are in existence. Did he do this? (EV) noted that he did not know. Mr. Legg noted that junk goes beyond cars. A junkyard cannot be less than
60 ft. from a Class III road. Mr. Snedeker noted that there is 500 ft. from stonewall to his fence. He noted that he was told his fence was legal if road was widened.

Mrs. Snedeker reminded Board that they were not trying to put in a junkyard. This is just for scrap metal. We are not keeping cars behind the fence. Jim picks up cars and in the next couple of days gets rid of them. There is no license for what we are trying to do. We do not want an actual junkyard. He will be bringing in the scrap and then right out. We are trying hard to make everyone happy. There is no scrap metal permit. We will be keeping the lot size the same, not leaving anything there more than a week, and will not be storing cars there. We do not fall into any category.

Eva Goss noted that she was concerned about the possibility of toxic chemicals passing into ground. This could contaminate anyone’s well. A lot of the land there holds water. If any of the toxic chemicals get into the water, where would the liability fall?

Mrs. Snedeker indicated that everything is kept in containers. We have wetlands on our property and we both drink the water, as does our son. There are no contaminants. If this is grandfathered, keep in mind that it is only valid for one year. It can be revoked if we do not comply.

Mrs. Belliveau noted that she was concerned about what is behind the fence such as tires. Mrs. Snedeker indicated tires behind the fence get taken to the dump regularly. Mr. Snedeker indicated that he had taken over 100 tires to the dump just this past week. The Town asked us to put up the fence, and now they are complaining because they cannot see behind the fence. This is a no win situation. Mrs. Belliveau questioned, “What is junk metal – old heaters?”

It was noted that neighbor (name unknown) indicated that her only complaint was his driving. “He drives way too fast and he is up on your tailgate when following you. We should all be good neighbors.”

Mrs. Goss related that she was confused about junk vs. junkyard. Am I correct, if owner has to sell junk, he needs a license? If he has no license, then it is a dump.

(EV) explained that once the license is in place, he has to follow all the rules. The license for a junkyard is obtained through the Board of Selectman and is only good for one year. When it comes before the Board of Selectman, they can put restrictions on it. There is so much information under one heading in the RSA’s that would be the only way to take it apart.

Mrs. Goss questioned what kind of license does Mr. Snedeker have? (EV) None. She noted, “So we are talking about a license that he has never had?”

Mrs. Snedeker noted that they were trying to do things the right way. “We have done all you have asked of us. One thing bothers me, I actually noticed Mr. & Mrs. Richardson going neighbor to neighbor about this.” Mr. Richardson noted that they had received a notice and when we got notice about the business being grandfathered, we contacted some of our neighbors. “It is great that so many people are here tonight as there are two sides to the issue.” My question is how can you grandfather something that has never been one before? (CD) explained that in 1965 the Licensing Board came into effect.

Eileen Legg questioned when/if he is grandfathered, is existing fence legal? Town fence differs from a junkyard fence. What class road is Tilton Hill Road? (EV) I think it is a Class V. Mr. Legg noted that the lot was not deep enough. He noted that this is a rural zone and residents “pay high taxes and junkyard materials are not acceptable.”

Dan Schroth noted that you are talking about the road, and not about how fast he is going. Roads are there for commerce. The low rent district residents have trucks. This land used to be all farmland. Mr. Snedeker questioned what speed has to do with it noting that he has not had a ticket in ten years.

Questions were asked about who would be giving him a license? (EV) noted that this would be through the Board of Selectman. He either meets the criteria for grandfathering or he does not. We do not grant licenses. We do not have that power.

Close Public Input on Item 6.

(CD) noted that Board was trying to determine according to the evidence he presented, if he is grandfathered.

Mrs. Snedeker again noted there is nothing to cover what Jim does. There is no license to cover what we need.

(EV) read into Minutes, the E-Mail received from LGC noting that once it is licensed, it has to meet the requirements. It cannot be expanded or changed in size or scope without a hearing. It becomes locked in, which is important. ZB makes a judgment call on this as to whether it is grandfathered.

He noted that there would be a hearing and once licensed, the footprint is in place and it is enforceable.

(PM) I think it is grandfathered. I have used his services myself and he has proved that it has been a continuous operation. The main concern would be the cars stored there. (CD) noted that she felt that he had met the burden of proof. (LF) Yes, I think so, too. (SM) Just for the record, there are 13 letters regarding the purchase of scrap from 1963 to the present. We also had a resident, George Bachelder, stipulate that he has transacted business in the past and recently with Mr. Snedeker. Mr. Snedeker has provided statements, pictures, and has tried hard to conform to Town’s requests. The burden of proof has been met and I believe he is grandfathered. (EV) I agree with the rest of the Board members. For the most part, the scrap metal has been moved from one side to his property and it is now all in one location.

(CD) Motion to confirm that James Snedeker, 629 Tilton Hill Road, Tax Map R-07, Lot 4B, meets all the criteria for being grandfathered for a junk yard at that location. The request for junkyard status will be forwarded to the Board of Selectman for certification. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0.

(PM) There will still be a lot of discussion with the Board of Selectman. The hearing will be publicized so that people can attend.

(SM) “I appreciate the neighbors’ interest and many brought up important points. The Snedekers would like to be good neighbors and if there are any problems with this, then it needs to be voiced to Town officials. This is the first step for them and there will be other steps that they will have to follow.”

Mrs. Richardson noted that Board had still not answered her question. Can the other lots be grandfathered? (EV) noted that there was a comment that 50% of the farmland could be grandfathered for junkyards. It is done on a case-by-case basis. (CD) He has come forward asking for one lot to be used and transferring business from his father to him. He attested that this is for one lot and the other two lots cannot be grandfathered. Mrs. Snedeker confirmed that they wanted to confine it in one area. My father-in-law did not do that. (EV) Once licensed, you will have to keep it confined in that area.

ITEM 7. Continued Hearing with respect to proposed signage configuration for Pittsfield Self Storage located on High Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R-15, Lot 30). The property is located in the COMMERCIAL/LIGHT INDUSTRIAL Zone.

Mr. McGrath questioned whether Board found the markers?

(EV) noted that several members of the Board went out looking for the stakes but could not find them. The Town Administrator and I went out again and we still could not find the stakes and no one was there to represent you guys. We finally found your stakes and they are nowhere near as shown on the Site Plan. We measured 30 ft. from ground and it would put you just even with the tops of the trees. With the trees in bloom, you would not see the sign.

Mr. Tully, The Sign Gallery, noted after excavation, they could not put it at the site plan location because of the terrain. Mr. McGrath noted that they did not want sign to look “crazy tall.” When the leaves fill in, we want to be able to see the sign.

Board, Mr. McGrath and Mr. Tully discussed several scenarios as to sign placement, dimensions, height and visibility.

Scott Ward suggested Town allow them to cut down additional trees within setback and place sign there. It was noted that this would be State property and they would not allow trees to be cut down for this purpose.

(EV) wanted to advise Mr. McGrath that a 30 ft. sign would really not work once the leaves come out. (SM) indicated that a 30 ft. to the ground height and 5 x 10 ft. sign would probably be agreeable. Mr. McGrath indicated that they would try to find a suitable spot and contact Board again and provide them with a site map as to exact location.

ITEM 8. New Business
Elections

(PM) I nominate Ed Vien for Chairman. (SM) Second. Carried 4-0. (EV) Abstain.

(CD) I nominate Susan Muenzinger for Vice Chairman. (LF) Second. Carried 4-0. (SM) Abstain.

ITEM 9. Members Concerns

(PM) noted that at every meeting, applicants have been misinformed as to what they should apply for. The Building Inspector is telling them one thing and we are interpreting it as another. (SM) noted that she had a similar concern. We need to come up with some procedure.

(EV) What I would like to do is with any application coming in is run it by Town Administrator. If he has an issue, he can contact me. I asked Mike McLaughlin regarding the sign, and he explained it to me. If I had agreed, it would have been a Use Variance not an Area Variance. Board further discussed the pet crematorium that was approved as a Home Occupation several months ago, which also should have been done in a different way.

ITEM 10. Public Input

None.

ITEM 11. Adjournment

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

Meeting adjourned at 10:30 P.M.

Approved: June 12, 2008

___________________________ _________________________
Ed Vien, Chairman Date