September 13, 2012 Minutes

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWN HALL, 85 MAIN STREET
PITTSFIELD, NH 03263
MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING

DATE: THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2012

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:01 P.M. by Carole Dodge, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Carole Dodge (CD), Chairman, Paul Sherwood (PS), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM),John (Pat) Heffernan (PH), Romeo Dubreuil (RD), and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Christopher Smith (CS), Alternate

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of August 9, 2012

(PS) Motion to approve Minutes of August 9, 2012. (PM) Second.
Carried 5-0.

Addendum: 8:05 P.M.: (PH) noted that since he was not present at the meeting he would like to change his vote for approval and Abstain instead. (RD) also noted that he would like to Abstain from approval of the Minutes since he also was not present. Board agreed. Therefore, Motion:
Carried 3-0. (PH) and (RD) Abstain.

ITEM 4. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance
filed by Charles E. Eccleston, P.O. Box 504, Epsom, NH 03234 (18 Bailey Drive, Pittsfield, NH 03263) to allow construction of a two-family house located at a site on Bailey Drive, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R03, Lot 7-4). The property is owned by Old Farmer’s Associates LLS, Charles Eccleston, P.O. Box 504, Epsom, NH 03234 and is located in the RURAL Zone.

(PS) My understanding is that is an application for subdivision was granted when applicant went before the Zoning Board and Planning Board. Are there any restrictions as to the types of house/footprints that can be put in place?

Mr. Eccleston: The reason why I am asking for the Variance is that my brother and sister have come across hard times and are losing their jobs and homes. I am in a position to help them in this way. Board can be assured this is not a rental but for my family when they lose their homes.

(CD) When the subdivision was granted, it came before the Zoning Board and it was granted with certain housing and parameters. Mr. Eccleston, would you please review the Criteria supporting granting of this Variance.

Mr. Eccleston reviewed the application noting it would not impact traffic, is a State maintained road already, and no school age children would be involved. It would be a single building (divided); taxes would be on a two- family home and would improve the property with vinyl siding, metal roof or shingles, full basement and be a one-story home. The land is already owned by me, and the taxes are paid promptly every year. It would increase the value of the development and property. It is for a hardship within my family.

(RD) In reviewing this, the responses do not relate to the questions; such as question No. 2: If the Variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because….. (RD) It would still be a two family and never be rented. Mr. Eccleston: Not as long as I am alive. (RD) The Board is also looking at it for the future and the Board needs to consider that and what the “spirit” was originally intended for.

(PM) Can we put in the decision that it could not be rented? (CD) No. (RD) It is still a two family. (PM) What happens when one family moves out, then what? (RD) No matter how you flip it, it is a two family.

Jesse Pacheco, Building Inspector: The Zoning Board approved a cluster development with a 1,008 sq. ft. maximum footprint. Also, the Open Space should be defined which it has not. The Planning Board is looking into that. It is divided into sixteen (16) lots ranging from .79 to one acre lots.
Mr. Eccleston: I have 2.56 acres. Jesse Pacheco: It is within the cluster development.

(PS) The Variance was granted and the maximum square footage has been set already. Jesse Pacheco: The cluster development has been laid out though I cannot find a plat on this. (CD) It is supposed to be for single family dwellings. (PH) The maximum footprint has been set. Jesse Pacheco: The structure is not to exceed 1,008 sq. ft. (PH) That is a problem. What you are proposing (1960 sq. ft.) is over already. What happens when these people move out when they get back on their feet and someone other than the family occupies the house. Mr. Eccleston: “Not as long as I am alive.” What do you people want me to do?

(RD) Given the situation, we as a society have strayed away from living in a family unit. However, you could build a single home and have the family reside within these confines. The two-family request is tying our hands. Mr. Eccleston: I thought family came first here in Town. What do you want me to do? (RD) Our hands are tied. We are here to help you. Far be it from me to tell you what to do; I am not an architect, but instead of building a two family – build a one family house. Mr. Eccleston: We are talking about 2.6 acres. (RD) The restrictions are already in place. (CD) The property can never be subdivided again. Mr. Eccleston: If I asked to subdivide it, the Town would say “No.” This has already been done.

(PM) As a suggestion, why not allow a two-family and when one family moves out, it would revert to a one-family? (CD) A two family home cannot be designed on that property. (RD) That would involve a bond being set up for insurance purposes and it would have to be written into the Deed. (PM) What about constructing a one-family and have the two families live in it? (PS) The issue is the maximum footprint which is already in place (1,080 sq. ft.) and some other restrictions – two- story house but a single family dwelling. If two families can live there and get along – fine. We can allow only a single family dwelling.

(CD) Look into our Zoning Ordinances for an in-law apartment for family relations. The biggest specification is that there is no remuneration.
Mr. Eccleston: I thought the Town stood behind you with family problems. (CD) You have already been through Zoning and now should look into the in-law apartment. Mr. Eccleston: Is there someone to help us through this. (CD) Yes, Jesse Pacheco, Building Inspector. You have been through the Zoning previously and he can help you with specifics. Jesse Pacheco: Some of the lots are small.

(CD) Mr. Eccleston, you can withdraw your application for a Variance without prejudice tonight or it will be a year before you can re-apply.

Mr. Eccleston: I withdraw my application for a Variance without prejudice. All Board members accepted the withdrawal of the application (5-0).

(PS) All he has to do is build a house within the right footprints. Jesse Pacheco: Right now, all Building Permits are on hold per the Planning Board until the Open Space matter has been settled. (PS) Actually, a lot of it is wetlands. Jesse Pacheco: There are currently three homes in there. (PS) When nothing is holding you back, you can come in for a Building Permit – pay fees – build the house and decide on the in-law apartment which deals with family members. Is there a time line which has been approved by Planning Board that a certain amount of construction must take place or is it in perpetuity? Jesse Pacheco: There are three houses in there and no covenants. The Planning Board needs to get the matter concerning the Open Space taken care of.

Mr. Eccleston left meeting at 7:30 P.M.

ITEM 8. (Added Item): New Business

1. Certificate of Approval – Junkyards

(CD) I have two letters from Town Administrator that two of the junkyards in Town require a Certificate of Approval for operation. Mr. Snedeker has already gone before the Zoning Board and has a Certificate of Approval. (PM) Who have the other two junkyards? (CD) Mr. Clattenburg and Mr. Richardson. Jesse Pacheco: One of them is “Green” and one is thinking of going “Green” which is documented by DES.

Board agreed a reminder letter should be sent to the property owners that this should be applied for prior to the renewal of their license in 2013. The sooner they apply the better.

ITEM 5. Members Concerns

None.

ITEM 6. Public Input

Cindy Perkins: I would like to keep four to six chickens and I have been advised that a Variance would be required which is quite expensive. I reside next door to the Town Hall and would like to keep these chickens as pets. (RD) Will you also have a rooster? Ms. Perkins: No.

(CD) Unfortunately, conceptuals are not something that the Zoning Board can do. We can answer any questions you might have or perhaps, point you in the right direction, but we are a YES or NO Board. (PS) It is only when you submit the application and pay the fees that we say YEA or NAY.

Cindy Perkins: Is there a way that it can be done? (RD) I would never own a rooster because they are too loud.

Cindy Perkins: Thanks for your input on this. I, actually, will be proposing an ordinance that would allow anyone to have chickens. I will have it in early so that it can go on the ballot.

Ms. Perkins left meeting at 7:45 P.M.

ITEM 8 (Continued):

2. Agriculture Definition – Zoning Ordinances

(PS) The last sentence of the Agriculture definition states “Home faming is allowed.” I contacted the Farm Bureau President and he was unable to give me a definition of home farming. It was noted that any farm allowed in New Hampshire can make up to $2,500 and would not be considered a commercial farmer. There is no definition of home farming and this could be a “problem.” I think we should come up with a definition of home farming whether it includes gardens, a few chickens, etc.

Jesse Pacheco: You have to understand that each of these things, such as having chickens, can result in causing other problems bringing in foxes or other animals coming close to the populated area. We, as a Town, have to protect the people who live here. I am the Code Enforcement Officer and would have to resolve the issue. You, as a Board, have to make the decisions.

(PS) I do not like to see the regulations be so black and white, but home farming is so broad. (PM) How many problems with this have we had so far? There used to be quite a bit of farming everywhere in town. Jesse Pacheco: There have been over five different animal calls that I have dealt with and we have to be able to regulate them and this is what the Board is for.

(PS) You have a definition that requires a definition. A definition of home farming has to be decided upon. What is Home Farming? We would have to figure exactly what the definition is. (RD) We could outline that briefly now. (CD) explained what the definition pertaining to home farming where it is allowed to make up to $2,500 does carries certain conditions with it. Jesse Pacheco: It is very hard to find some information on these things. (PS) We can say this is what Home Farming means….. (PM) I would hate to see things like this so tied down. (CD) This would not be a regulation but rather a definition. (PM) It would seem that you are picking on the farmers. (PS) No, I am not against farming. I was raised in Indiana and we have plenty of farming there. As a member of the Zoning Board, we need to follow the language as noted.

Break: 8:00 P.M. Resume: 8:05 P.M.

(PS) I would suggest amending the definition for Agriculture by merely omitting the last sentence completely – Home farming is allowed. (CD) Is home farming mentioned elsewhere in the Ordinances? Jesse Pacheco: You would have to look through the Zoning Ordinances completely. I believe it is mentioned in two different places. (PS) offered to research this and will advise Board accordingly.

(CD) We can make this part of the next Zoning meeting as a work session.

8:05 P.M.: Please see Addendum to Item 3: Approval of the Minutes of August 9, 2012.

ITEM 7. Adjournment

(PM) Motion to Adjourn. (PH) Second. Carried 5-0.

Meeting adjourned at 8:10 P.M.

Approved: October 25, 2012

_____________________________ ____________________
Carole Dodge, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded on August 13, 2012, transcribed and public posted on September 19, 2012.

___________________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

Posted: September 19, 2012

I Tape