November 10, 2004 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board

Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

November 10, 2004

Chairman Elliott called to the meeting to order at 7:07 pm.

Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Robert Elliott (RE), Chair, Susan Muenzinger (SM), Robert Lincoln (RL), Paul Metcalf (PM), Ed Vien (EV) were present. Alternate, Jesse Pacheco (JP) was present Alternate Judith Burrows was absent.

Item Three a on agenda: Review Minutes from October 14,2004 meeting

Amendments made to pages 2,3,and 4

(SM) Motions to accept minutes as amended.

(RL) Seconds Motion

5-0 Motion Carries

Item Three b on agenda: To consider a motion for rehearing with respect to an application for Appeal of Administrative Decision filed by John Lenaerts of 520 Clough Road, Pittsfield, New Hampshire 03263. Property location is 111 Winant Road Tax Map (R22-Lot 5) Pittsfield, New Hampshire 03263

(RE) Steps down as this is his property.

(SM) Steps in as Chair because of an interchange between (RL) and (RE) and there was a question on (RL’s) ability to be able to run the meeting without prejudice. For the sake of propriety, (RL) decided to let (SM) run the meeting.

(JP) Fills in as alternate

(EV) I want to bring up a point. I do not think we should even accept this application. The reason I am asking that is for the Board to look at the Boards’ Rules and Procedures that were adopted in 1998 and amended in 2001. Explains that appeal process should be made on forms provided by the Board. Mr. Lenaerts submitted his appeal request handwritten on a piece of paper, not a form provided by the Board.

(HF) The form has been in existence for two and a half years.

(SM) This is not an appeal. This is a motion to rehear something. This was posted and if the Board agrees, we should go ahead with it.

(EV) On the front page it says Appeal of Decision and on the back page it says Motion for rehearing.

(SM) If the Board decides that the proper form is necessary then we can decide whether we should be hearing it or not, In the spirit of the process, Mr. Lenaerts did make a request and it was clear what he was trying to do.

(PM) Originally we accepted this last time by tabling it.

(RL) It depends on how close to the letter of the law we want to go. If it is not on a proper form, that means from now on, that is the only way we can accept anything. In the past the Board has been a little lax on some of these technicalities.

J. Lenaerts: The application was formal per regulations and accepted by the Town Administrator, the request for rehearing was stopped because of my standing. Refers to Portsmouth Advocates case. Mr. Bates was unfamiliar with that case. My only issue was my standing and that was the only issue that was debated.

Exhibit A handout by Mr. Lenaerts ref: Portsmouth Advocates case on standing issue. Exhibit B written letter for request for rehearing in record.

(SM) How does the Board feel? Move forward?

(EV) Do we accept every handwritten application?

(SM) No, not necessarily. Do we want to rehear this?

Board agrees to rehear.

(SM) Mr. Lenaerts, do you have anything to say besides your submission as to why we should grant you a rehearing?

J. Lenaerts refers to the handout regarding the Portsmouth Advocate case along with the co-litigant Glazer & Fox and why he has standing. Quotes Attorney Bates as stating “ I know of no case in New Hampshire who grants authority to a group like that to appeal a decision where they do not have a concrete and direct interest in the outcome” (referring to the Portsmouth Advocates case.) He went on to say the Portsmouth case added no enlightenment to the issue they could be landowners. Refers to page one of handout that is a summary of case where the Portsmouth Advocates involved themselves with Zoning in Portsmouth. The Court allows Portsmouth Advocates to intervene. The property is in a historical district. The Court allowed them to intervene, although not abutters, they have demonstrated sufficient interest in the outcome in this case to have standing. Page four on handout- Justice Brock ruled against Portsmouth Advocates. Prior to the hearing on the merits, Mr. Lukas filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of standing. The Superior Court properly denied this motion. Attorney Bates was firm on non-abutters.

Their interest was maintaining the integrity of the historical district of Portsmouth.

(SM) This was a rezoning action.

J.Lenaerts: I am requesting this rehearing to see if you will grant standing.

(SM) Your issue is not zoning, it is a different issue. The circumstances are different in the Portsmouth case.

J.Lenaerts: I have standing as a community advocate and my focus is maintaining the integrity of Pittsfield.

(SM) Do you have any other documents regarding standing?

J.Lenaerts: I attend all Planning, Zoning and Selectman’s meetings. I probably have a better attendance record that most members. I am disturbed in the way the direction enforcement of Zoning has taken in the past year and a half. Ref: July hearing –(RE)’s hearing. That same night Tilton Hill was approved it went through. It completely missed the bonding of the road. It missed placing that as a condition. Same with Lily Pond.

Bill Miskoe: That was a Planning Board meeting, not zoning.

(SM) Member questions?

(RL) He is definitely a community advocate, you cannot deny that.

(SM) Do we think he has standing on this issue?

(RL) Not sure.

J. Lenaerts Ref: advocacy group not being abutters but still having standing. I am not aggrieved materially, but I do have standing as a community advocate.

Town Attorney Mitchell: It was a challenge rather than statutory standing. My understanding is different threshold for standing.

(SM) This is an appeal of a Planning Board decision.

Attorney Mitchell: Same thing.

Town Administrator: Makes a point that the Portsmouth Advocates case is much more closely in line with Randall Cutter vs. The Town of Pittsfield than in this case here. The handouts that the Pritchard’s submitted did not refer to Subdivisions, they all refer to Zoning law.

J.Lenaerts: That was a misapplication of zoning law.

(SM) Questions from the Board?

J. Lamson: The issue is the cases he cited. If he is a community advocate, that could be debated. Based on the handouts, the cases are dissimilar.

J.Lenaerts: At the July 15, 2004 meeting, the Town Administrator dominated the meeting and acted to applicate the decision that came out. I tried to guide this Board.

(SM) I understand your concern, however the Town Administrator is a staff person and here as an advisor. It is admissible to ask him for advisement. The issue here is whether or not you have standing on this case.

(RL) I do not feel we have enough evidence to rule on.

(PM) and (JP) agree.

(EV) Disagrees. The information the attorney gave us is clear.

(RL) I do not feel comfortable with what I know.

(PM) and (JP) agrees.

Attorney Mitchell: This was a challenge to the zoning ordinance itself, which does not have anything to do with proceeding before your Board and who has standing under that. The statute for the ZBA both with regard to who is allowed to speak and if you choose to restrict that and who is allowed to appeal, whether it is an abutter or someone who has suffered a direct financial impact. Not someone who is not affected any more than any other member of the community.

(SM) Should we proceed or delay until we have a more complete answer from the town attorney?

(RL)(Addressing town counsel): Are you confident in what you have said?

Attorney Mitchell: Yes.

J. Lenaerts: Attorney Mitchell says it is not a zoning matter I am not challenging the application of zoning.

(SM) Does that have any bearing on what he has said?

Attorney Mitchell: The Portsmouth Advocates case it was not focused on the issue of standing. Basically it was a challenge to the authority to the Portsmouth City Council. It is a very different situation.

J. Lenaerts: Disagrees, feels Attorney Mitchell is incorrect. Lucas challenged the standing of the Portsmouth Advocates and the Supreme Court ruled they do have standing.

(PM) The applicant is not personally aggrieved.

(SM) We are going to vote. All in favor of proceeding?

4-1 to proceed

(EV) Motions that Mr. Lenaerts does not have standing in this case.

(PM) Seconds motion.

5-0 Motion Carries No standing, no rehearing

(RE) Takes chair back

Item Three b on agenda: Public Hearing with respect to an Rehearing of Special Exception Denial filed by Nancy Bates and Anthony ReSavage Jr. to allow a Kennel in a Rural Zone located at 39 Range Rd., (Tax Map R02-Lot 5) Pittsfield, NH 03263

(RE) AT The last meeting Attorney Gartrell brought up some points about the process of our Board. I asked him to submit a letter to our Board and to our Town Attorney.

Attorney Mitchell: I met with the Board and reviewed the letter and Mr. Gartrell asked that I give him a call. I advised him the Board would be flexible on the rehearing. There were four grounds on which the applicant was denied previously. The Board members are the same tonight. You do not need all the same paperwork again.

(RE) Do we want to review everything or just new information?

(SM) The request for rehearing; there were reasons Ms. Bates put forth why the Board should rehear this and why the Board erred in its decision. Would that be a reasonable way in reviewing the process?

Attorney Mitchell: Where it is the same Board members, I do not see any need to require the applicant or the people in opposition to start from scratch. You have a significant amount of written information and the benefit of hearing earlier testimony. Obviously, if you were not persuaded by the earlier information, the applicant persuaded you to be given the opportunity for further presentation, it makes sense to focus on new information or putting the same info in a different light without restricting the abutters’ way of approaching it. They may feel the need to go back over some things again.

(RE) Everyone agree?

Board agrees.

(RE) Ms. Bates submitted a letter about Mr. Lincoln’s statement that he would not want to live next to a kennel.

(RL) Three Board members made that statement. I do not see any reason to recuse myself. Should the whole Board recuse themselves?

(RE) Applicant shall proceed with new information.

Nancy Bates: I will go down the four points I was denied on.

Appropriate site: The Board said I lived in a densely populated Residential zone. It is a rural zone, not densely populated. Town records show a total of 327.7 acres with frontage on Range Road. There are ten property owners, which equals a total of 32.77 acres per owner. On Shaw Road there is 515.56 acres of frontage with seventeen owners, which equals an average of 18 acres per owner. This is not even close to being densely populated. We have 536 feet of frontage on our five-acre lot and we also own the 19-acre abutting lot with 1000 feet of frontage, so we own 24 plus acres with over 1500 feet of frontage. Our abutters’ distances from our property are:

Emersons- (closest property) 140 feet from the proposed barn.

Hinkleys- 200 feet

Polands-190 feet from the closest property line

Lemeres and the Federhens-400 feet

Bissonettes- 935 feet

We believe it is Rural and Agricultural, there is a kennel on Eaton Road on eleven acres of land that has 35 dogs and 20 pups, which is 55 dogs. Eaton Road is much more narrow, winding, and hilly than both Shaw and Range Road. There is also a kennel that abuts Lily Pond Development and the BCEP dump and there have been homes that have recently closed in that area. We are the last house on the right. The decision that my kennel would diminish property values was based on 6 letters from realtors stating that a kennel would diminish property values are opinions. When realtors do CMA’s they do properties based on homes that have sold in the last six months, homes that are listed, and homes that are pending. They are opinions only. They are not assessors, which gives you the actual assessed value of a home. There are three criteria that assessors use: recent homes sold with comparable amenities and land, cost to replace or build a house, and income potential. The actual value of a house is determined by the assessed value. I gave proof of three properties

that sold very close to the Eaton Road kennel, which is indoor/outdoor that sold quite a bit higher than the assessed value, which proves that the kennel will not diminish the value of surrounding properties. I believe a resident near the kennel filed for an abatement with the town, in which case he was denied because the assessor said that the kennel did not diminish the property. The Boards decision that the kennel would create an undue nuisance or create a traffic hazard, Both Range and Shaw Roads are dirt roads that do allow two cars to pass each other; you may have to go slow, but it is plenty wide enough for two cars to pass. There are three spots where it may be a little narrow- one in Barnstead where there is a tree close to the road, one in Pittsfield where there is a bridge, and there is another where there is a tree close to the road. There is plenty of room, however to see an oncoming vehicle. Eaton Road, however, does not provide enough room for two cars to pass and is extremely curvy and the Board also said we were allowed a farm stand which would bring much more traffic, seeing as the kennel would only be full typically during the summer and school vacations which would be three months or thirteen weeks, approximately five cars a day. In the remaining 39 weeks it would be about fourteen dogs a week, or two cars per day and that is a national average of boarding kennels.

Also there are two driveways for the proposed structure most likely one way.

During hunting season we see cars coming and going all day up and down the street. The summer months there is a dirt bike run during bike week, so the road does see a lot of traffic being a dead end street. It is supposed to be closed at the bridge, but some people knocked the gates down. It would not be a nuisance because of the stockade fence and we planted a row of fir trees up behind it and we are adding more for a buffer. The dogs will be in a soundproof building, so they will not be heard. They will be exercised on leash or they will have a play area where one or two will be taken out at a time. There will be plenty of ventilation. We will also have a septic system with no runoff and no smell. The Eaton Road kennel disposes of fecal matter by burying it and covering it with a lime mixture that was acceptable to the state. We have gone out of our way to make this work and keep everybody happy. We believe it unlawful and unreasonable for any town board to deprive any property owner reasonable use of our land. We are trying to make everyone happy. There are a lot of people against us and we realize that. It has become personal. I take good care of my animals, my yard is always clean, and there is no smell. We are considerate of our neighbors and to deny us this use of our property is unreasonable.

We also have changed the hours of operation from Monday through Friday from 7am-6pm and we will be closed to the public on Saturday and Sunday to cut down on weekend traffic except for emergencies. We may open a half-day on Saturday.

(RE) Could we go over the insulation of your facility? Have you made any commitments or decisions?

Bates: I have not made any commitments yet. There are letters here from both Windy Hill and White’s Farm and kennel. They use a stockade fence. They say that dogs bark because of stimulation, either they see or hear something. If you take away the stimulation, they do not bark. Also cement blocks are a good insulator. The barn will be insulated with cement blocks and I will not have a whole line of kennels. I do not want the neighbors hearing anything and one thing that stresses dogs out at kennels are other dogs barking. If you make the area smaller, there will be cement block (3-5 kennels) rooms in the lower half of the barn. Each area will have cement blocks surrounding them and rather than having all the dogs together, there will only be 3 to 5 together. It will have cement block insulation, less dogs to bark.

(RE) Open to opposing views: state name for record.

Bates requests for names, addresses, and towns.

(RE) Not a problem.

Paul Vince 51 Shaw Road reads letter from Sam Greenlaw, 333 Province Road Barnstead, NH a concerned and impacted abutter in opposition he submitted aerial photos at previous meeting. (Exhibit C in file).

P. Vince: believes that Ms. Bates should not be able to produce info that could have been presented and available at the first meeting according to the law.

Attorney Mitchell: The burden is on the Board that the standards of Special Exception have been met.

John Poland 39 Range Road Pittsfield, NH: I had a purchase and sales agreement on my lot. You say value is an opinion. We had an offer (purchase and sales agreement Exhibit D in file) and refused. These people came back and offered to pay full price. When they heard the dogs barking and talked to the neighbors, they pulled the offer because of decreased desirability because of the kennel. In the P&S agreement it says buyer is aware of pending kennel.

Dave Juvet 61 Shaw Road Barnstead, NH: I believe the applicants’ traffic count info is incorrect. Theory: Four vehicle trips per dog = Fifty-six vehicle trips per week.

Larry Federhen 18 Range Road Pittsfield, NH: (Property map on display) This is the fifth time I have been here in opposition to this kennel. (Letter submitted- Exhibit E in file) At the October 14, 2004 hearing, I was under the impression that after the Board met with the Town Attorney that there would be a notice posted in the Town Hall as well as the Post Office regarding this rehearing and also that out of state abutters would be notified. To my knowledge, none of that happened. I would like to point out that significant owners and abutters are here to show their opposition in an effort to maintain the quality of life that we have so far enjoyed, to maintain our property values and the safety of our neighborhood. This should send a powerful message to the Board that we are very concerned about this application. Some opponents are not here. However, all maintain their opposition and I have submitted to the Board a notarized letter from Alan Bissonette (Exhibit F in file) of 300 Shaw Road, Pittsfield, NH who is also in opposition of the kennel. In a letter to the Chairman of the Board dated August 20, 2004, the applicants’ felt the Board was misled at the July 22, 2004 hearing. The applicant states that this is a rural area, not residential. If you look at the town ordinances, there is not a zoning district that is designated only residential. There are three zoning districts: urban, suburban and rural are all designated as having some kind of residential use. The difference being lot size, frontage, and setback requirements. Refers to packet of tax maps. Believes applicant gave misleading info on lot sizes on Range Road. The road is 1.6 miles long, of this, 1.3 miles is a Class 6 Road and at one point there was a gate at the Kelley Brook bridge (points out on map), this was to eliminate the use of the bridge to eliminate liability. The gate has been taken down, possibly by four-wheelers who want to continue to use it. The signs are still up stating this the bridge is closed. This, in effect, creates a dead end road which means cars have to turn around and go out in the direction they came in. Objection to acreage per abutter. The largest lot is an L shaped lot with 13.6 acres. There are 8 lots on this Class 5 road with an average of 5.5 acres per lot. The nineteen acres owned by the applicant cannot be used for any commercial operation by deed restriction. The physical condition of road is also a concern. The Road agent and his assistant have expressed concern the two vehicles cannot pass each other without one of the vehicles having its wheels in the drainage ditches. I measured. My wife and I have a 1 1/2 ton pickup and an average size SUV. The combined width is fourteen feet. Some sections of the road are between 11-13 ft. of usable road. It is not a good situation. The measurements of Eaton and Norris Road are self-serving and similar to Range and Shaw Roads. The pet taxi service is also misleading, it would still be the same number if trips.

The Road Superintendent also said he would not support any Special Exception on this property as long as the 6ft. stockade fence is located where it is currently. The driveway info is misleading because the applicants’ state they have two, yet the plot plan indicates one only. They have a leveling of road to allow farm equipment on the land. This is not a legal driveway and they would need a permit to make it legal. The prime reason for this hearing was for more sound info. To further soundproof an already soundproofed building is redundant. Area will be exposed to barking with the opening and closing of doors.

The Board needs to decide whether or not the sale of arts, crafts, and homemade items is allowed use under the agricultural RSA 21:34.This has not been addressed. The applicants have not presented anything they have not already presented at the July 22,2004 hearing when Ms. Bates did not satisfy the five criteria then. Reference to Master Plan Chapter 5.

Dawn Emerson 50 Range Rd. Pittsfield, NH: Board advised applicant to talk with the neighbors. She has not made any effort to speak with me or any of the other abutters. She has the same disregard for the Board’s advice as she does for her neighbors. Reference to Ms. Bates being over the town’s ordinance regarding density. In April she stated on her application that she had 3 buildings on her 5-acre property. On Hank Fitzgerald’s memo dated April 15, 2004, states 5 buildings. On her July application she states 7 buildings, not including this proposed kennel, which would be 8, exceeding Pittsfield’s density ratio by 3 buildings. Submits sound info from Google.com. (Exhibit G In file). Opposes kennel

Leslie Federhen 18 Range Road: Opposed to kennel reads a twenty-five minute letter (Exhibit H in file) reiterates other abutters concerns. Ref to Pittsfield Press statement by Selectman Fred Hast in regards to properties selling at higher than assessed values. (Exhibit I in file-photos included taken from the Bates/ReSavage property and 6 realtor letters, and Pittsfield Press photocopy). Mentions concerns for scenic nature of the land, and winter lighting.

Break at 9:10pm Return to Public Hearing 9:16pm.

Peter Lemere 29 Range Road Pittsfield, NH: Opposed to kennel. The fence does not stop the noise.

Darren Nielsen Shaw Road Pittsfield, NH: Reference to kennel at 70 Laconia Road being a puppy mill and that the kennel has never come before the Board nor was it grandfathered. Also references noise from kennel.

B. Pease 353 Province Road Barnstead, NH: Opposed to kennel. There is no way she can stop the noise. Dogs bark. To say the property value will not decrease because of the noise is ludicrous. How can the Board put the well being of one person before the whole neighborhood, which is opposed to this kennel?

D. Ricker 27 Shaw Road Barnstead, NH: There is no way to block sound, you can hear people talking, it is like a big bowl. The pond magnifies sound.

Mark Schuster Norris Road Pittsfield, NH: I am an abutter to the Eaton Road kennel. The Board should consider property value. I strongly believe anyone on the Board thinking of buying property next to a kennel would not. This puts neighbor against neighbor. Where I live, I am the

only abutter left. Everyone else has left.

Paul Vince 51 Shaw Road: The standard for your decision is basically that you made the wrong one. Introduces minutes from July 22, 2004 hearing (Exhibit J in file). The Board should not have granted this rehearing because I do not believe that the application met the standards for rehearing according to the RSA. Ms. Bates presented no new evidence that the Board erred in its decision. The change in her operational hours is unrealistic. Concern about waste, approximately one ton a month. With a combo of urine, water, and disinfectant would be 5000 gallons a month of wastewater, which would be an extraordinary septic system necessary to handle that kind of waste. A 55-year-old (1949) survey of the lake is unimpressive. It would be a commercial business in a residential neighborhood, which the Board decided in July that this would not be an appropriate site. The applicants have not addressed the obnoxious or offensive criteria of the application. I would not have bought my home if I had known there was any chance of this becoming possible. This kennel would not be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance. If you consider this kennel, it should be brought up to zoning codes. The Board should ask yourselves if the applicants have presented anything that is new, which they have not.

(HF) You have another business in the area that deals with dogs. It is not a kennel because they do not stay overnight. Those dogs are worked outside with guns. This was approved last week as a home occupation. I would like to point out that with Mr. Vince’s nice presentation, there was no mention of the letter he has been circulating, accusing people of things that he should not accuse without presence of fact and also that I find very insulting. I have copies if this Board would like to see them.

P. Vince: If I am being accused of circulating false info, I would like to know what it is.

(RE) Let us stop here.

Ms. Bates rebuttal: There is 150ft. of tree buffer between the lake and our property. We have big pine trees, a row of fir trees and will add another row of fir trees. Mr. Poland is asking three times the amount he paid for his land than what he paid for it a few years ago. There will be one trip with the pet taxi only, where all the dogs will be picked up at once. Mr. Bissonnette has a large commercial truck, which has caused a problem in mud season. Mr. Lemere also has a large commercial truck that he brings home every day. I do not believe traffic is an issue. I included both sides of the bridge when I said over 18 acres per owner. We have talked to some of the neighbors; some have come out to our house and are fine with it. In a nutshell, we have been threatened since day one not to go through with this. Our horses have been spooked by knocking on the fence, we have been told by some neighbors they will do whatever it takes to make sure this does not go through, so it is kind of hard to talk to neighbors when they talk like that. We cannot work this out with those that have an attitude like that. As far as density levels, they are not occupied structures, they are for animals. There is not a cap on how many buildings you can have on a property.

The dogs are only out when we are out. If they bark and will not stop, we bring them in. There have been no complaints to the Animal Control Officer about our dogs. If our dogs were barking incessantly as they say, with their attitude, you know they would be on the phone to the dog officer.

Bates (continued): There is a letter from Barton Lumber and they do not have a problem. They abut conservation land. They are a running lumber mill that starts at 5:30am. If the abutters are so concerned about noise pollution, why doesn’t that bother them? In ref to indoor kennels: Best Friends kennel is a totally indoor kennel that is nationwide and they have 300 plus runs per kennel. So for people to say that dogs have to be outdoors, that is simply not true. The dogs that would go out at our kennel would be with us, one or two at a time. It would be up to the owner if they wanted outdoor playtime for their pet.

Reference to property value dimunition; in the real estate book that is used to obtain a real estate license- as far as real estate or appraisal, it says: an appraisal is an estimate or opinion based on supportable evidence and approved methods. An appraiser is an independent person trained to provide an unbiased estimate of value. Appraising is a professional service offered for a fee. CMA’s are not comprehensive or technical appraisals and may be biased by a salesperson’s anticipated agency relationship. This comes from the book used to train real estate agents. Where you live is a personal preference, whether it is downtown, next to a dairy, school, or a park. Everyone has somewhere they would not want to live, that does not mean it would devaluate the property. Some things bother some people that do not bother others.

Offensive or obnoxious was not addressed because it was accepted under the criteria at the first hearing.

Anthony ReSavage: Reference to the agricultural hayfield that is hayed twice a year-July and October. Resents the fact that Mrs. Federhen makes claims about their dogs barking and would like to know how she knows the difference between their dogs and the Lemeres’ dogs, which do bark.

Dawn Emerson: Mr. Poland’s prospective buyers were talking with my husband and I and we showed them this application. It was the application that made them decide not to go forth with the purchase of this property.

J. Poland: I am asking more because property values are escalating. People are willing to pay what something is worth. I had a buyer, now I lost them.

Leslie Federhen. I have never heard the Lemeres’ dogs bark; however Samoyeds’ barks are very distinctive. I also would like to know who is threatening Ms. Bates.

Ralph Johnston 51 Shaw Road Barnstead, NH: I hear the dogs morning, noon, and night.

There are no leaves, therefore, no buffer.

(RE) Closed to Public 10:07pm

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

(SM) I am one of the ones that said this was a densely populated, residential area. I probably used the wrong word by saying densely. I think, however, it is more settled in a more dense area than any of the other kennels in the vicinity. The houses are not back from the road that far. The lots themselves are not all 51 acres, so I think that 18 acres per owner is inaccurate. The Lemere’s tract is only two acres. I believe that this area is residential in character. The applicant has not said anything that would change my view. I vote no.

(RL) I do not believe they have made their case. It is a rural neighborhood made into a residential zone with a subdivision. In my opinion it is residential. I vote no.

(PM) I do not think it is an appropriate location. I vote no.

(EV) I am sticking with my original vote. I believe it is an appropriate location. I vote yes.

(RE) I agree with (EV) In a rural zone, we do permit kennels. I vote yes.

2 vote for, 3 vote against-Criteria A being met

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

(RL) Mr. Poland has evidence that the possible location of this kennel hurt his property sale. I vote against.

(PM) felt that the six letters showed that there would be a loss of property values and votes against

.

(SM) felt that it would be hard to ignore five letters from experienced realtors who are heads of their firms. She also believed that the proposal would be obnoxious or offensive based on all of the people who spoke against the proposal. Votes against.

(EV) The properties on Eaton Road did resell, so someone did buy these properties. I will stick with my original vote, which is for the kennel.

(RE) When we buy property, it is for various reasons. We would like things to stay the same, but life changes. I do not believe zoning’s purpose is to guarantee us that everything stays static when we buy a piece of property. There is a natural tension between property rights and an individual’s right to use in a certain manner. It is not black and white. I think obnoxious and offensive could be dealt with. Ms. Bates is willing to mitigate some of the circumstances that may cause the kennel to be obnoxious or offensive. Therefore, I am going to change my vote. I vote for the kennel.

2 votes for, 3 against-Criteria B being met

Criteria 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.

(RL) stated that it was hard to judge the impact not knowing how much business would occur at the site, which is a Class five road and a dead end. The road in question is not meant for a large amount of traffic, who knows how big the business may get, which could present a problem. The Boarding times make a difference if there is no pickup on weekends. He voted that the applicant did not meet the criteria.

(PM) Testimony as to the width of the road is a hazard. I vote against.

(SM) There was no way to state for certain that there would not be an undue hazard created given the nature of the road. There was not any new info submitted to make her change her vote. She voted that the applicant did not meet the criteria.

(EV) References conversation with the Road Agent; the road (Class five) needs to be kept up to that to that condition. I did not get a feeling that he was against or for this. I live on a Class five road. He did not feel that the evidence showed that there would be an undue hazard created by the proposed use as the traffic would not be coming in at the same time and voted that the applicant did meet the criteria.

(RE) Stated that the access and parking would be a problem if there were a lot of vehicular traffic, but does not feel there will be that much activity. He voted that the applicant did satisfy the criteria and votes for.

A majority of the Board found it was not met, 3-2.

Criteria D – Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided to insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.
The Board agreed unanimously that the proposed use would have adequate facilities.

Criteria E – The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of this Ordinance.
(RL) I feel that this is not consistent with the zoning ordinance. I look at this as a commercial business in a residential neighborhood. He votes no.

(SM) The location is not appropriate and the intent is not to encourage kennels in this zone. She votes no.

(PM) Agrees with (SM) and votes no.

(EV) I think that the proposed use is consistent with the spirit. He votes yes.

(RE) It is allowed by Special exception. He votes yes.

The Zoning Board voted 3-2 to deny the Special Exception finding that four out of five criteria were not met.

The Public Hearing for a Variance on a frontage requirement for Roger Beaudoin was tabled until a full Board was available, as R. Lincoln had to leave. This hearing was continued until December 9, 2004 at 7pm.

Members Concerns: None

Adjournment:

(PM) Made a motion to adjourn the November 10, 2004 ZBA meeting at 11:15pm.

(SM) Seconded the motion.

4-0 voted in favor. Motion carries

Meeting adjourned at 11:25 pm.

Respectfully submitted by

Anne Taylor, Board Secretary

Chair________________________________