Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting
SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
ITEM 1. Call to order at 7:00 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), Jesse Pacheco (JP),
Larry Federhen (LF), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.
ITEM 3. A meeting to consider the Motion for Rehearing filed by Mary
H. Pritchard, Trustee, P.O. Box 385, Pittsfield, NH 03263, by and through
her counsel, Gordon R. Blakeney, Jr. to reconsider its decision made on June
14, 2007 denying the Appeal of Administrative Decision of the Planning
Board for subdivision approval dated April 19, 2007 for property on
Thompson Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263.
(EV) related to the audience that there would be no public input from either
side on this issue. This matter will be discussed among Zoning Board
members and then a decision will be made.
I will start this discussion by letting everyone know that we have had Town
counsel input in this matter. (EV read to audience Town counsel’s response
to this Motion and questioned whether everyone understood her response –
which they did.) It is clear that we should take up Item No. 2 as noted. It
notes that basically our Notice of Decision was not as clear as it should be,
though it is not necessarily illegal. Members of the Board all agreed that it
could have been a little clearer.
(SM) Motion to suspend the original Notice of Decision. (JP) Second.
Carried 5-0.
2
(EV) noted that a rebuttal was filed by Atty. Sullivan. (All Board members
had an opportunity to review Atty. Sullivan’s response to Motion.)
(EV) noted that at the last Zoning Board meeting (LF) was seated as an
alternate. However, since we did not decide anything at that meeting, he will
not be seated on the Board tonight. We postponed that meeting until tonight.
ZB will discuss whether any new information had been presented and
whether the Board made a wrong decision. Board felt that no new
information was presented and that Board did not make a wrong decision.
However it was felt that a new Notice of Decision should be drafted.
(SM) related that she agreed with this. “I thoroughly went through the
Criteria and I do not think that the Planning Board or Zoning Board made an
error. However, I do think we should adopt a new decision. (PM) and (JP)
were both in agreement.
(SM) Motion to deny the Appeal of the Administrative Decision of the
Planning Board filed by Mary Pritchard of the subdivision as approved on
April 19, 2007 because the Board finds and rules that after considering every
allegation of error raised by Ms. Pritchard in her appeal, the Planning Board
made no error in granting approval of the subdivision. (PM) Second.
Discussion:
(CD) related that she felt that they were trying to congeal several things into
one and it is not being laid out as it should be. I will stick to my original
vote, as I do not feel it should have been denied in the first place. I do agree
wholeheartedly that stating the reasons for denial were not made on first
Motion. It is my understanding that the Motion for Rehearing is a fix not a
suspension. We are skipping steps and I respectfully dis agree. (EV) noted
that Town counsel agreed that Notice of Decision could have been better,
but it was not necessarily wrong. We have a right to fix this. (CD) However,
it is not necessarily right either.
Carried 4-1 (CD) opposed.
(SM) noted, “So now we have to take up the question as to whether we
rehear Motion based on any new evidence or whether we made an error. I
see no new information. I did not find anything new. We suspended the
3
original one and drafted a new one.” (EV) related that he also d id not find
any new information regarding this matter. (SM) I do not believe we made
an error in judgment at the first hearing.
(JP) Motion to deny the request of Mary Pritchard for rehearing because no
new evidence has been presented. (PM) Second. Ca rried 4 – 1 (CD)
opposed. (CD) I respectfully disagree.
(EV) A new Notice of Decision will be adopted stating that on
September 13, 2007, the Pittsfield Zoning Board voted to suspend its
decision of June 14, 2007 denying the Appeal of the Administrative
Decision of the Planning Board filed by Mary Pritchard, as permitted by
RSA 677:3.
(EV) A new Notice of Decision will be adopted to note that the Appeal of
the Administrative Decision of the Planning Board filed by Mary Pritchard
of the subdivision as approved on April 19, 2007 is denied because the
Board finds that after considering every allegation of error raised by Ms.
Pritchard in her appeal that the Planning Board made no error in granting
approval of the subdivision.
The Zoning Board denies the request for rehearing filed by Mary Pritchard
because no new evidence has been presented and the Board finds no error in
its earlier decision.
ITEM 4. A Public Hearing with respect to an application for Area
Variance for paved parking within the setbacks of the road filed by Pittsfield
Youth Baseball Association, P.O. Box 112, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map
R-14, Lots 59 and 60A) by and through its representative, Larry Berkson.
This property is owned by Pittsfield Youth Baseball Association, P.O. Box
112, Pittsfield, NH 03263 and is located in the SUBURBAN Zone.
(EV) Basically, we are going to proceed with the presentation by Mr.
Berkson and then anyone that would like to have input agreeing or
disagreeing will be able to voice their opinions. Before we get started, there
has been some discussion as to the necessity of whether a Variance is
required. I have contacted the Town counsel and it is their opinion that one
is required.
4
(PM) noted that there is quite a bit involved and he felt that a Variance was
not needed. (SM) noted that she disagreed. “According to the Zoning
Ordinance, Page 13, Setback: The minimum distance from the property
lines established by the requirements of this ordinance for each zoning
district. It is a line which runs parallel to the property lines. The areas
between the property line and the minimum setback line shall remain
unoccupied ground fully open to the sky. To me and others have offered a
similar response is that there shall be no pavement, fencing, parking, she d,
lean-to or other manmade structure. The purpose of the setbacks on the
sides, which is 25 feet, is to provide a buffer or shield for the abutter. As
we look at this definition of unoccupied space, it would seem it would
require a Variance. In the past, this has not come up as usually parking is
behind the structure.”
(EV) As I started researching this, it was noted that it says unoccupied
ground open to the sky and not covered by manmade materials. (PM) noted
that we should proceed with the Variance at this point. (JP) noted that he
did not agree that a Variance was required. With every parking lot and
house driveway that is put in, we are asking them to set them back. (SM)
noted that we should check with the Planning Board or Building Inspecto r to
see what they allow. (JP) noted that it would be the same thing for fencing.
(EV) noted that we have to go with what we have for Regulations as quoted.
We cannot fix them here. I agree with (SM). (CD) noted that with
manmade material it is no longer unoccupied ground. I think we should
proceed with the request for Variance. (PM) Let’s proceed with the
Variance and make it legal. (JP) noted that the ZB is setting a precedence.
(SM) noted it is the way one interprets the Ordinance.
Mr. Berkson representing the Pittsfield Youth Baseball Association
introduced several members of the Committee as well as the representative
of Brown Engineering, Cathy Corliss.
As you know, all these people volunteer their time. The PYBA on Tilton
Hill Road has scattered gravel parking areas, which is a hit-or-miss situation.
We see about 300-325 people each year and the playing ages are now about
4 to 12 years. Our object is to construct a major Babe Ruth Field. Our goal
is to have organized parking, as right now it is helter-skelter and can be quite
a mess. The volunteers are handling maintenance of the fields and children
and do not have time to include parking. This is the park’s 25th anniversary
and we would like to beautify the front area and include a paved parking
5
area. There would also be handicapped accessibility and parking. The first
one we are asking for is minor. Currently parking exists there, though it is
dirt. There are no neighbors to be bothered and no interference with the
neighbors exists. The other setback towards the road is larger and there are
no paved parking spaces. There are no buildings close to the road. The
Ordinance does not indicate how many parking spaces are needed. There
would be a 16 ft. buffer from the edge of the road and the paved area, which
would be grassed.
We are concerned with the appearance of the project. The Beautification
Committee is now the “WOW” Committee. “We want people to say “Wow”
when they see the facility and ask how Pittsfield got that kind of facility.”
There will be parking accommodations for 99 cars, as the grassed in area of
the soccer field will be used as overflow parking area, if necessary. On an
average night there is about 25-30 cars and on a night when possibly three
games would be going on at once, about 40-50 cars. There will be no
parking on Tilton Hill Road to avoid any problems. There is no other place
to put parking because of the wetlands. No cars will be allowed to park in
the right-of-way. This is good for the kids and good for the community.
(EV) How many feet will be grassed in? Mr. Berkson noted about 16 -20 ft
with bushes, flowers, and flagpoles. (PM) noted he felt that there would be
no setback problem on the side. (SM) related that she was unfamiliar with
baseball field seating and wanted to know if there were going to be stadium
seats any place and if so, how many? Mr. Berkson noted that had not yet
been determined.
Mr. Berkson noted that many of the individuals utilizing the park will be
walkers, bicyclers, bus riders, drop-offs and we really do not need 99
parking spaces. He noted that he had already discussed with Police
Department and Road Agent the necessity of putting up “NO PARKING”
signs on Tilton Hill Road outside the park. He discussed in further detai l the
paved parking areas and use by tournament attendees and the need for a field
to accommodate 13-16 year olds.
PUBLIC INPUT
Mr. Stephen Davis, Chairman of Committee, noted that one of the things not
discussed yet was the use of the field by the public school system. The
6
school was negotiating an agreement to use on a long-term basis for both
boys and girls teams.
Larry Williams noted that his father was former president and that goes back
about 25 years. I have seen them struggle financially and we can attract
more people and make it a picnic atmosphere up there. Mrs. Freese has
beautiful property up there.
Gary Bedell noted that he had been involved for over twenty years and the
biggest problem is parking. By keeping the parking up front, for safety
issues it would be better and keep the dust down.
CLOSE PUBLIC INPUT
(EV) We will begin review of the Criteria.
CRITERIA:
A. No diminuation in value of surrounding properties will be suffered.
All Agree 5-0.
B. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
(JP) noted that all parking would be off Tilton Hill Road. (CD) Safety first
for the children.
All Agree 5-0.
C. An area Variance is needed to enable the applicants proposed use of
the property given the special conditions of the property.
(SM) noted she agreed. Because of the configuration of the property, a lot
of the land cannot be used for parking. Parking needs to be put where
suggested.
All Agree 5-0.
7
D. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some ot her
method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an
area variance.
(JP) It cannot be done anywhere else, I agree. (CD) I agree. I like the
ingress and egress idea for visibility. (EV) I also like the flow patterns for
getting in and out.
All Agree 5-0.
E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done.
(PM) I think it would be granting justice to be done. This Committee put in
a lot of hard work and thought into this project. (CD) It is good for the
entire Town. (JP) Kids in our Town need a place to go and things to do. It
is a positive for the Town.
All Agree 5-0.
F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
(JP) This is what it is all about, our youths. (SM) I agree. (CD) Excellent
spirit.
All Agree 5-0.
(EV) I trust you all have seen the letters attached from the abutters who all
agree with the project.
(SM) Motion to approve area Variance to have parking in front yard and the
West side of yard setbacks for parking finding that all six Criteria for
Variance has been review and met by applicant’s proposal. (PM) Second.
Carried 5-0.
(EV) related to applicant the 30-day appeal process.
ITEM 5. A Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance
of front setbacks filed by Mary Lawson, 65 Leavitt Road, Unit #1, Pittsfield,
NH 03263 (Tax Map R20, Lot 12-t/01). The mobile home is owned by
James Lawson, 65 Leavitt Road, Unit #1, Pittsfield, NH 03263. The
8
property is owned by Robert Griggs, P.O. Box 1019, Epsom, NH 03234.
This property is located in the SUBURBAN Zone.
Note: This Public Hearing is a Variance for a deck. The mobile home is
owned by Mary and James Lawson.
Mr. Lawson related that he resides on Leavitt Road and would like to build a
10 x 20 ft. deck. He related that he measured and that there is 22 ½ ft. from
the road, where 25 is required. He related that the reason for his building the
deck is that his wife had an accident and is disabled having had neck and
back surgery. He noted that he would like to position it so that you could
walk up onto deck and come up to the front door.
(EV) noted that the picture displayed on the tax card is not a picture of his
dwelling. The assessor has been notified and this will be fixed. He
questioned whether the deck would wraparound? Mr. Lawson explained
that there would be stairs at both ends of the deck. When questioned about
his wife’s ability to use stairs, he noted that over time, there is the possibility
that she could become strong enough to use the stairs or would be assisted
by him. (SM) questioned as to whether his wife is disabled. Mr. Lawson
noted that she has applied for Social Security Disability but has not yet
heard.
David Fossett, an abutter, had some questions in regard to setbacks on
Cameron Road and the position of Mr. Lawson’s trailer now. He noted that
he has had difficulties in the past with Mr. Griggs. It was explained to Mr.
Fossett that the trailer is currently in place on the property and that Mr.
Lawson is requesting a Variance from the setbacks for a deck placement. He
had several concerns and after explanations was assured of how it
would/would not affect his property.
(SM) noted that a letter should be presented from Mr. Griggs noting that he
is aware of the deck being built and his agreement thereof. Mr. Lawson
noted that Mr. Griggs is aware of his proposal and would acquire a letter
from him accordingly.
Board discussed granting Variance on a hardship basis, which would allow
Board to grant Variance without having to comply with Criteria. However,
it was noted that once the property is no longer used by the physically
handicapped, elimination of the deck could be requested. It was agreed that
9
the Board would review the Criteria for a Variance and proceed on that
basis. Board and applicant discussed in detail the position of the deck,
setbacks and size of property.
Criteria:
A. No diminuation in value of surround properties will be suffered.
(EV) noted it is not like the old days. It will not bring values down. It will
be built by specs. (CD) It will improve neighborhood.
All Agreed 5-0.
B. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest.
(SM) I believe it would not be contrary.
All Agreed 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.
(CD) The land is uneven.
All Agree 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.
(SM) There really is no other place.
All Agree 5-0.
E. Granting the Variance would permit substantial justice to be done.
(PM) It is needed. (JP) I agree.
All Agree 5-0.
10
F. The proposed use is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
(CD) I think that is answered in the narrative.
All Agree 5-0.
(JP) Motion to approve Area Variance for Mary and James Lawson at 65
Leavitt Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 to have less than required front setbacks
in order to build a deck the dimensions of which would be 10 x 20 ft. It is
approved on condition that a letter is acquired from Robert Griggs, owner of
the property, granting permission to build this deck. (SM) Second.
Carried 5-0.
(EV) advised applicant of 30-day appeal process.
ITEM 6. Approval of the Minutes of August 13, 2007.
(CD) Motion to approval Minutes of August 13, 2007. (PM) Second.
Several incorrect name spellings were noted. Carried 4-0 (JP) Abstain.
ITEM 7. Public Input
None.
ITEM 8. Members Concerns
(EV) polled Board on whether Board members would prefer to keep
“Confidential” responses from Town counsel. Several members wished to
keep this material and it was reiterated that this is confidential material and
should be kept as such.
(CD) related her concerns with meetings that are continued to another date.
She questioned whether the continued meeting should have the same Board
members sitting, if they are available. (SM) noted that normally she would
agree with this, but if there are no actual hearings at original meeting, the n
continued meeting did not have to have the same members seated. (CD)
Where there is a continued hearing, I think we should have the same Board
members seated as originally seated.
11
(JP) noted that he had read the ordinance on setbacks and understood the
paving part in relation to the setbacks though paving is not a structure. If we
proceed this way, it is going to happen on every driveway. (CD) Noted that
we go on a case-by-case scenario. (JP) related that it is going to become a
problem with fencing, propane tanks, septic tanks, and a lot of other things.
(SM) it relates to unoccupied ground. (JP) noted that fences are usually on
the property line. (SM) Some of it falls within the Building Code. I
understand what you are saying, but we need to appeal to the Planning
Board to exempt certain things and to clarify Ordinance to not include
parking. I checked with Concord on there policy. We need to do more
research and talk to Planning Board about this. We also need to talk to
Building Inspector and see what he is doing in these situations.
ITEM 9. Adjournment
(SM) Motion to Adjourn. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0.
Meeting adjourned at 9:40 P.M.
Approved: November 8,2007
_____________________ _______________________
Ed Vien, Chairman Date