September 22, 2005 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting & Hearing
September 22, 2005
Chairman Lincoln called to the meeting to order at 7:05 pm.
Members in Attendance:
Roll Call was taken. Robert Lincoln (BL) Chair, Robert Elliott (BE) Vice Chair, Ed Vien (EV), Susan Muenzinger (SM), Paul Metcalf (PM), and Alternate Jesse Pacheco were present.
Jeremy Lamson, Town Administrator was present.
Hank FitzGerald, Building Inspector/PB and ZBA Administrator was present.
Anne Taylor, PB/ZBA secretary was absent. Donna Keeley, Selectwoman was present
**discussion of incorrect date on posting for Hitchcock variance.
Item 3. Approval of minutes of the August 11, 2005 meeting
**Susan motioned, Ed 2nd, move this to the end. All in favor.
Item 4. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Use Variance for an apartment in the Light Industrial/Commercial Zone filed by Walter Jensen of P.O. Box 2645 Concord, NH 03302 for 12 Broadway (Map U-2 Lot 1).
Chair, BL introduced the applicant and request.
Walter Jenson, owner explained purchase of building 2 years ago. Lots of problem with the property, robbery, vandalism etc. Made reports to police on all occasions. Spoke with Hank F and HF recommended lighting, security wires, steel bars, special locks, ADT stickers. Pettingale Woodworking and Hooters race team did occupy space but are gone now. No one there all night now. Thinks having someone in the building will help situation. Spoke with HF and asked if someone could stay there at night. HF said yes, temp basis only. Person was there all winter and no problems. Person related to one of the businesses will rent not regular public. Would like a perm tenant by way of Use variance. $17k in loss the first robbery, tools.
Chair, BL – Any questions?
SM – Will you be charging rent?
Applicant – No, already paying me for other space, so this will be part of that payment. I pay all utilities.
EV – what other type of equipment is in the building?
ZBA 9/22/05 1
Applicant – trucks, tools. I use a 70 by 70 space in this building where my items are stored. Outside items are what are getting vandalized.
SM – your use is the only use that has been vandalized?
Applicant – Until recently, I was the only one there.
SM – have other area businesses had trouble?
Applicant – Jacks Pizza had trouble, installed lights etc.
EV – there is an existing apartment there?
Applicant – yes, 3 empty rooms and a bathroom.
PM – any other changes, just the apartment? Had Hooters race team there. J and R there now. Same usage.
SM – according to your application – explain your proposal fully “move existing auto repair from one area to another…and make apartment in that space….I confused?
Applicant – changed interior configurations, HF has been there to advise. Hooters race team was on the South end and J and R was on the North, swapped them. Former Hooters location
Chair BL – anyone to speak in favor?
Dan Schroth – does not sound like an unreasonable request to me, needs additional security. If you can approve it within the law you should approve it.
Chair BL – anyone to speak against?
Effie Topouzoglou – what if apartment is rented to a family?
Applicant – that will not happen?
Effie T – don’t say that, I have seen it happen. Won’t this set a precedent etc?
Chair BL – Understand what you are saying and we need to look at each case.
Effie T – if he is being vandalized so much, we should do something in that neighborhood.
Applicant – reason so much trouble, I am gone. Others in neighborhood who have not had trouble are home all day.
Chair BL – what does it cost to have windows replaced in bulldozer?
ZBA 9/22/05 2
Applicant – vandals put sand in gas tank, which was more costly.
John Lenaerts – put stipulation as “watchmen’s” apartment.
Tom Hitchcock – kind of sad that we have vandalism here, I am from Brooklyn folks – it is nice to fix this, I am all for it but we need to get to the root of the problem.
SM – would this application go for site review because of change of use, going from business space to apartment?
Jeremy L – I would think it would.
SM – even for watchmen’s apartment?
Jeremy L – enough to trigger site review, change of use.
Chair BL – isn’t that a block building?
Larry Konopka – should have fire dept sign off.
Fred Hast – should have fire walls.
Applicant – met with HF several times when I first moved in. He had me do a lot of things, moved and locked up propane, implosion vents, oil tanks outside. 6 separate walls with fireproof sheetrock on both sides up to roof. To protect and secure tenants and building.
SM – do you know of anyone in the zone you are in that has a watchmen’s apartment?
Applicant – no
PM – would it be a one bedroom apartment?
Applicant – yes
Effie T – does it have entrance and one exit?
Applicant – yes, 4 doors.
Fred Hast – he just said he has 4 doors, but he said that he has metal bars, he will need crash bars.
Applicant – these bars are in the back of the building, not entrances and exits.
PM – would that be a reasonable one bedroom apartment?
HF – have not looked at it yet.
ZBA 9/22/05 3
EV – would you agree, apartment only as long as you own it?
Applicant – yes
Chair BL – closed to the public. Explained process to applicant.
Criteria 1. No diminution of value? Chair BL read applicant’s response. SM stated that the surrounding properties probably would not notice the apartment was there. 5-0 vote passes criteria.
Criteria 2. Not contrary to public interest? Chair BL read applicant’s answer. Board agreed with the answer. 5-0 vote that it passes criteria.
Criteria 3. Reasonable use considering the property in its unique setting? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
SM – initially I disagreed with this, considering the unique setting. I don’t think there is anything unique, however I think that it is not unreasonable to ask for variance to protect property and uses therein. Given his demonstration that he had tried to secure it by other means. If we put restrictions, etc. I think we might be able to grant the Variance.
Chair BL – I rented space on right hand side and stored furniture before. A lot of bushes, it is a tight area, and there is a fence but the fence has ways of getting through it. There is no way to see from road and light up the area. I think some unique setting.
5-0 vote that it passes criteria.
Criteria 4. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning?
SM – since he is not asking for a regular apartment, he is asking for a watchman’s apartment, we could argue he has met this criteria.
5-0 vote that it passes criteria
Criteria 5. Not injurious to public? Chair BL read applicant’s answer. The Board agreed that there was plenty of parking on the lot for the apartment. 5-0 vote that it passes criteria
Criteria 6. Substantial justice? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
Chair BL – would allow him to protect his property and I think we should allow him to protect his property. He could legally hire a night watchman so this is really the same thing.
5-0 Vote that it passes criteria
ZBA 9/22/05 4
Criteria 7. Contrary to the spirit of the ordinance? Chair BL read applicant’s answer. The Board agreed. 5-0 vote that it passes criteria
Chair BL – need a motion
Applicant – would this include if I leave the property to my son?
Chair BL – would assume we could put a condition, if it sold to someone other than a family member…..
BE – issue is change of use of the apartment, we should tie it to whether it stays as watchmen apartment or not. If new owner does the same thing, do we really care? Should not sale of building, should be use of property. Condition to use instead.
EV – motion to allow a one-bedroom watchman’s apartment with variance to be null and void upon change in use of the apartment. If changed to non-watchman status and rented, a new variance will be required. BE – 2nd.
All in favor, – 5-0
Chair BL – explained that there is a 30 day appeal period.
Item 5. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance for an In-Law Apartment in the Suburban Zone filed by Thomas and Elizabeth Hitchcock of 27 South Main Street Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U-2 Lot 59) for that lot.
Tom Hitchcock – presented drawings
Chair BL – Open Public Hearing and explained variance request and asked applicant to explain.
Hitchcock – 3 story barn and we would like to make it an in-law apartment for our father in law. Will not be modernized, stay historic. Whole structure will be lifted and straightened, foundation, footings, whole 9 yards, solid structure on first floor.
Chair BL – Anyone in favor
Dan Schroth – I have been in that barn, barn needs work, win, win.
Chair BL – Anyone against, No, hearing closed.
Paul Metcalf – sounds like major project.
Chair BL – single family house?
Applicant – yes
Chair BL – Criteria 1. No diminution of value? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
ZBA 9/22/05 5
SM, may not increase value due to In-law apartment but renovation of barn will. Vote 5-0 that it passes criteria
Criteria 2. Granting would not be contrary to public interest? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
PM – must be a lot of rooms in that house.
Applicant – redone a lot of the house, used to be a hospital.
PM – looks big because it is up on the hill.
Board agreed with applicant’s answer. Vote 5-0, passes criteria
Criteria 3. Interferes with reasonable use? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
SM, I think the zoning does interfere with reasonable use with him providing a place for his elderly relatives.
Vote 5-0, passes criteria
Criteria 4. No Fair and substantial relationship exists? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
SM, we have granted these in the past and it used to be in the ordinance.
Vote 5-0, passes criteria
Criteria 5. Would not interfere with the rights of others? Chair BL read applicant’s answer. Vote 5-0, passes criteria
Criteria 6. Substantial justice? Chair BL read applicant’s answer. EV, taking care of family benefits the community. Vote 5-0, passes criteria
Criteria 7. Not contrary to spirit of ordinance? Chair BL read applicant’s answer. Vote 5-0, passes criteria
Chair BL – entertain a motion?
SM – Move to approve In-law apartment at 27 South Main St, Hitchcock residence with the condition that if it is no longer needed as an In-law apartment, it will not be rented to the public without a new variance.
Paul 2nd, all in favor, 5-0
8pm, board takes break
Item 6a. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Area Variance for a shed in the Residential Zone filed by George and Barbara Emery of 240 Catamount Road (Tax Map R-22 Lot 9A)
ZBA 9/22/05 6
Chair BL – explained request. Asked applicant to explain request.
Applicant – had shed that was rotted and torn down and came to HF for application to rebuild, 14 feet from property line. Building is to store stuff on ground, possibly for car in winter.
Jeremy Lamson – showed board tax map with project.
Applicant – there was a drawing showing all buildings etc. Applicant and board reviewed map.
Barbara Lee – abutter, looked at map with applicant and board.
Chair BL – anyone for the project?
Barbara Lee – abutter, no problem, improving property
Dan Schroth – sometimes the 25’ setback requirement really becomes difficult. What he is asking for is reasonable. Go along with it.
Chair BL – anyone against?
Jesse Pacheco – JJP and Sons, I abut both sides of this property. This property is going to be a cluster, cars being parked in turn around, which is right of way. Showed pictures. A lot of out buildings were before zoning and setbacks. 6-8 cars parked here now.
SM – who owns right of way on this parcel?
Jesse Pacheco – I do.
BE – your right of way is not on his property?
Jesse Pacheco – no but right up to it. Seems as though he is asking for more.
BE – so you are asking for him to move the shed over?
Jesse Pacheco – yes
SM – any reason you cannot do that?
Applicant – no but parking is the problem. All we are here for is the shed. Problem is, we know where the fence is, it has nothing to do affecting his property.
SM – when where these pictures taken?
Jesse P – today, this morning.
SM – reviewed pictures with Mr. Emery and how to move shed forward.
Jesse P – discussed where parking moved from.
ZBA 9/22/05 7
Applicant – we are only here about the shed.
SM – is this the only location? Do you need the variance for 14’. Or can you move shed forward to meet 25’.
EV – discussed footage on map. Corner of this shed to the closet corner of the Pacheco property.
Applicant – 40’
Jesse Pacheco – no, 15-20’.
Other options discussion.
Applicant not willing to change proposal? Other issues.
Jesse P – eyesore
BE – still will be a cluster, why not allow it.
Jesse P – my concerns are what he will be doing beyond this.
Applicant – building to be used to store car parts, 12×21, storage only.
EV – what will this go on? Foundation?
Applicant – tar base or on ground.
Kelly Nilson – against it, lots of kids around, and there are a lot of buildings are already here on property. Vehicles already drive fast, worry about kids and animals.
Applicant – talking about cluster, cluster starts on the other side of the fence. I have animals of my own. Have them fenced in. Have letter as to where I take all my materials to. Have antique classic cars.
Kelly Nilson – not saying there is, but there is always a chance.
PM – might be cause for site review due to so many buildings in close proximity. Could do a site review to visit the property.
Applicant – property not a mess.
Jesse P – it is not a mess right now. He was told to clean it up by Hank Fitzgerald – it was a disaster area, there were motors and everything everywhere.
Applicant – motor went to junkyard. I do not make a mess and leave it a mess.
ZBA 9/22/05 8
Chair BL – have every done any work for Northwood Power there, yes?
Applicant – yes, I am entitled to work, did not work for long.
Chair BL – but did you do this work at your property?
Applicant – yes.
Public Hearing Closed.
Criteria 1. No diminution of value of the surrounding properties?
SM – difficult to see, there are surrounding houses, you can’t see it from street.
Chair BL – who owns the house as you come into the property?
Jesse P – I do, rental.
SM – in terms of the area variance, do you feel that placing it so close to the property line, that it will not diminish values of surrounding properties?
BE – are there other ways to achieve?
Chair BL – a lot of places he can put the shed on property.
SM – but we are dealing with criteria. So do we think that the location of the shed so close to the side property line will decrease value of surrounding properties?
Chair BL – we would have to look at this, whether it will affect sale and property value.
Abutter – cannot see property from her house, which is why it is ok with me.
BE – no diminution, whether it is 14 or 25’?
SM – I agree.
PM – close to property line, if he could move shed forward.
Chair BL – will it diminish value of surrounding properties. Not sure if it has anything to do with it.
EV – other property has steep slope.
BE – set back is more for congested area.
Vote 5-0 there is no diminution of value.
Criteria 2. Not contrary to public interest? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
ZBA 9/22/05 9
Vote 5-0 not contrary to public interest.
Criteria 3. Special conditions exist with property? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
SM – The answer is not correct, not to do with the lift.
Applicant – was filled out in error by Hank.
SM – did you fill out this application?
Applicant – no Hank and I did.
The Board felt that the applicant had failed to show there were any special conditions.
Vote 5-0, no special conditions exist with this property
Criteria 4. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because:
SM – area variance has not been completed.
Jeremy – yes, I just found out about it this week.
Chair BL – maybe we ought to table.
BE –no, SM, no, PM, maybe we should
Chair BL – Benefit cannot be achieved by other method?
Applicant – 40 years diabetic, Hank wrote it out for me because I have a hard time spelling and writing. Entrance to garage is accessible to me and has power.
SM – not sure I understand this answer.
BE – implication is to push the shed over will block something.
SM – yes, I cannot see that.
BE – if you were to push the shed over, would it block anything?
Applicant – no, it would just be closer to fence. The building would go up whether the variance is granted or not.
BE – can I suggest something to the board, maybe we should wait for Hank.
SM – we have gotten fairly far into this application to table, legally I don’t think we can do that.
ZBA 9/22/05 10
Jeremy – from talking with Hank, I don’t know that he did any more than complete the application.
PM – yes, BL, no, EV, no, BE, no, SM, no (don’t think he needs variance to get the shed put up).
Criteria 5. Substantial justice? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
SM – don’t think that granting the variance has any bearing on his ability to do his hobby, it can be anywhere. We are talking about area not use.
Vote 5-0 No, substantial justice will not be done if this variance is granted.
Criteria 6. Proposed use not contrary to spirit of ordinance? Chair BL read applicant’s answer.
PM – I don’t think it is contrary because this man has been doing work on cars for a long time.
SM – The shed can be placed elsewhere on the property so granting the variance is contrary spirit of ordinance.
BE – I agree.
Chair BL – So are you saying it is contrary?
BE – I think there is an alternative place to put the shed, there is another way to solve the problem without getting an area variance.
Vote 5-0, it is contrary to the spirit of the ordinance.
SM – I move that the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to qualify for this area variance. BE 2nd? All in favor, 5-0 to not grant variance.
Break 9pm
Item 6B. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Use Variance filed by George and Barbara Emery to install an auto lift in a Residential Zone located at 240 Catamount Road (Tax Map R-22 Lot 9A)
BE – is there any reason as to why the applicant needs a variance to install a lift?
SM – I wondered about that to.
Jeremy – Hank is not here and he is the one to ask.
BE – when did you plan on putting in the lift?
Applicant – Next summer.
BE – we have enough time to check.
ZBA 9/22/05 11
Chair BL – maybe we should ask Town Attorney?
SM – I think we should ask Hank and then interpret the Zoning Ordinance ourselves as a board.
Applicant – called the state, no state requirements. Hank did not know if I needed one.
SM – lets here from Hank.
SM – I move that we postpone this application until October 13th until we have a chance to review this with Hank Fitzgerald. PM – 2nd. Motion passed 5-0
Item 7. AHG Discussion
Jeremy Lamson – you have all seen copy of court decision, order “following a hearing and review…insufficient evidence within the record….that substantial justice not met. Remanded back to ZBA for clarification. Should have also received a copy of letter from Town Council Tim Bates, two main approaches, if same ZB exists, should hold meeting and discuss that point, substantial justice and what they mean’s and why they voted such, 2nd to meet as current board and discuss the one criteria only.
BE – disagrees with town council, agrees with council Atty. Sullivan, FHS attorney that ZB cannot redeliberate, can only clarify why they voted a certain way.
Chair BL – Mr. Sullivan who represents AHG is going to do what is best for his clients. I am not taking advice of opposing attorney vs. town council. I read this letter as threatening. I think we need to discuss it.
Jeremy – I think that BE is misreading things. I think that Atty. Sullivan is saying that option 1 of Tim Bates letter is what he is asking for.
BE – tried to understand what we should be doing here. We should be doing whatever the court wants us to do.
Chair BL – we as the board represent the public; we do have to consider the public. We represent the whole town of Pittsfield. I do want to consider that the public should have say.
BE – from a purely philosophic perspective, not opposed to another public hearing. 4 of us on the 5 sat on this case.
EV – as I read the court order, barring the letter from the attorneys, I think we have 4 of the 5 members. Court just wants you to go back to them with clearer why you voted the way you do. If not good enough, you’d have to go with hearing.
Chair BL – Susan, what do you think?
SM – I don’t think it is necessary to have a public hearing. I think the board should go back to the record as to what was said, listen to the tape and the make a decision and give it to the court.
ZBA 9/22/05 12
PM – we probably don’t need a public hearing, most of the public does not know what is going on.
Chair BL – my question would be, other than letting the public have their say, is that going to be of any help to us.
EV – anything new could have a different effect on how you voted.
SM – we are not rehearing it, we already got the info. This is about what we were thinking at the time we voted.
BE – that is what I understand
SM – is that what you think Jeremy?
Jeremy – yes, refresh your memory and decide what the vote meant.
Could be public meeting, open to public.
BE – figure out reasons for vote and report back to court.
SM – and if reasons are not spelled out?
BE – have to go back to tape.
Chair BL – would like to read letter from Atty. Gordon Blakeney asking BE to recuse himself.
BE – thinks this is inappropriate, not recusing myself.
Chair BL – feel I have to bring it up.
SM and others reading it.
Chair BL – as I understand it, we do not have the power to have BE step down.
Jeremy – you can ask, not sure how much of a difference this will make if public hearing is not held.
Chair BL – asks Jeremy if mail comes in like this the same week of the meeting, and members have already picked up their mail, please call the members.
SM – cannot figure out why BE should be disqualified.
Chair BL – motion?
EV – do we need one?
ZBA 9/22/05 13
SM – it has been given to us as an actual motion.
Chair BL – that is why I brought it up.
Jeremy – Attorney Blakeney reminded me that there were three things in their motion: one that Ed and Bob recuse, one was for retroactive and the third was asking to submit a transcript.
Chair BL – My understanding is that the Prichards taped the meeting and made a word for word transcript. Is this correct? Apologized to both parties.
BE – Point of order that Blakeney whispered in Jeremy’s ear when closed to public.
Chair BL – This document is something I was handed by the Town Administrator, and I need to deal with it.
BE – motion is in order
Chair BL – do we need 3 motions?
SM – should postpone till next meeting and have a chance to read the document.
BE – we should read through Attorney Sullivan’s also.
BE – do we want to wait to address the court order then too. They are all tied together.
SM – that puts the decision off till November.
BE – do we want to take 10 min break and read documents?
SM – don’t know why those two items cannot be dealt with at the same time at the October 13th meeting. No conflict.
BE – for right now, what I hear you suggesting, we answer the courts order in October at the same time we address the letters and motion request.
SM – we have a public hearing on the 13th.
SM – motion that following our public hearing on Oct 13th, the first item on the agenda be the motions from Mr. Blakeney, 2nd item be courts request for AHG, pubic meeting.
EV – 2nd
PM – so you are doing this without a public hearing?
BE – I am not sure that Blakeney’s motion is not just a waste of our time, I am not recusing myself.
ZBA 9/22/05 14
Chair BL – another motion in that letter.
SM – withdraw motion.
EV – where does the town stand on this? Could there be an issue?
Jeremy – could be a big help if actual transcript.
EV – not accept as legal minutes.
BE – suggestion to board – Mr. Prichard can submit tape, however form it is in, he can do that as a citizen, we can review between now and the 13th. My motion is that the first two motions are denied and the 3rd item, transcript gets submitted to Town Admin and then the board can review the document and discuss on Oct 13th. We will have town tape to review, written minutes, and if we so choose we can review the documentation that Atty. Blakeney submits. What this is all about is us, as a board, addressing the court order.
Chair BL – I personally would like to have the info.
BE – I agree, let them submit.
Chair BL – so you, BE have no problem with us reviewing the transcript and possibly using it to make decision.
PM – town attorney says to have Public Hearing.
Chair BL – but didn’t Attorney Sullivan object to this?
Jeremy reviewed Attorney Sullivan’s letter. Objecting to two motions, not transcripts.
EV – if they are accurate, they could help.
BE – if there are things submitted, I would want the actual tape not just transcripts.
Chair BL – between now and the 13th, if any more letters filed, please let the ZBA know.
Jeremy – may tell people that they cannot submit any more documents.
SM – Jeremy, is there a question as to whether we can accept the transcript? Is it worth going to town counsel?
Jeremy – I can check on the transcript. On the other motions, no need to check with counsel. If the people are not going to recuse themselves, it is their decision.
Original motion you were going to make is how to proceed.
ZBA 9/22/05 15
SM – so we will not address the other two motions?
Jeremy – You have dealt with it, the two asked to recuse, said no.
Chair BL – we don’t need more time? I would like more time to review it.
Jeremy – you can read the motions at the next meeting and discuss again. The motions that you need to make a decisions on tonight are whether to hold a public meeting or a public hearing and/or how to address the court’s request.
SM – Motion to address the motions by Attorney Blakeney at next meeting.
PM – 2nd
EV, yes, BE, no, SM, yes, PM yes, BL, yes
SM – Move that we have a public meeting on Oct 13th to answer the court request regarding the AHG decision, EV, 2nd. SM, yes, PM, no, EV, yes, BE, yes, BL, yes.
Item 3. Minutes, August 11, 2005
SM – attached change. Page 3 bottom, (SM) strike first sentence, replace with “questioned the application for variances”… add to end of sentence “as on application form because the applicants are not filling the applications out correctly”…
EV – motion to accept with changes, PM, 2nd, all in favor
Item 8. Members Concerns
Chair BL – getting a lot of applications, not filled out correctly, there has got to be some way to make this work better. Maybe we need to review the applications ahead of time. Got to come up with system, where these things are not going to happen. Conceptual came in, map was old, half the items were not completed?
SM – Is anyone else reviewing these applications before they are submitted?
Jeremy – When I was accepting them, I reviewed them. I did not review these because I was not the one who accepted them.
Chair BL – Too many hands in the pie?
Jeremy – We will have to sit down and look at it – Hank and me.
Larry Konopka – What I do is make sure that the application is complete before the meeting or we do not accept it.
SM – What is our deadline for ZBA applications?
ZBA 9/22/05 16
Jeremy – 5 days, so if you have 10 days that would be sufficient.
SM – What happens if you find something that is not fully completed?
Larry Konopka – you send it back and not have the public hearing?
Chair BL – shouldn’t the building inspector be reviewing these?
Jeremy – Hank helps with the application, and then I could review the applications.
SM – that sounds good.
Chair BL – should the building inspector be completing applications for applicants?
Jeremy – I asked Hank about it and applicant told him what to write rather than Hank telling the applicant what to put in.
Chair BL – my fear is that if he is telling person how to fill it out, if he is just helping, that is his job.
SM – this is not our normal meeting night, why?
Jeremy – mistake, PB had a meeting, was continued and there was a conflict with that meeting and the next ZBA meeting, some errors made with meeting posting and dates.
SM – normally when the regular meeting night is not being used, the board is called to be informed.
Jeremy – dates for ZB meetings were 2nd and 4th, so no contact made.
SM – have not had two meetings in one month in a long time.
Jeremy – You had three meetings in September of last year.
Chair BL – There is a letter of resignation by Judy Burrows.
Jeremy – The SB has requested letters of interest by 10/4 to fill the position.
Chair BL – Can we ask new applicants to attend each meeting even though they are an alternate?
Jeremy – yes the board will do that during interviews.
PM – used to be that way.
SM – not only expected to be at each meeting, they should be calling if they cannot attend.
ZBA 9/22/05 17
Jeremy – copy of proposal of zoning amendments to all ZBA members. PB will be discussing next week. Address comment to PB next week. PB would like to have a joint meeting end of next month to discuss zoning amendments.
Larry Konopka – please come next week if you can and to the classes also.
General discussion about zoning changes and ideas.
Item 9. Public Input.
John Lenaerts – something going on with Attorney Blakeney, Attorney Blakeney came in and he was given status last November by Tim Bates when Tim Bates deferred to Attorney Blakeny for his comments. One of the interesting points is that Attorney Blakeney in his brief said that the case should be remanded back to the ZB, so interesting that it was. Mr. Elliott started out by saying that he liked Mr. Sullivan’s letter to the board. I would remind you Bob, that Mr. Sullivan is the Attorney for AHG in the case vs. Pittsfield. And when Attorney Blakeney conferred with Jeremy you [BE] made a fuss about it. BE, all I was referring to Attorney Sullivan was his point about how to he wanted the case to be handled. John said you should have listened to Tim not Sullivan. Tim is our attorney.
Dan Schroth – should take advice as you see fit.
John Lenaerts – you were promoting your adversary’s point of view over town attorneys’ point of view.
Fred Hast – In the variance for the apartment, you approved for 1 bedroom, there will be two people. The person will have a companion. On In-law apartments, people will pass on, and town won’t know if apartment is used as rentals.
SM – The Town could check on them periodically.
BE – we have caught that, when properties listed as rental.
SM – Motion to adjourn, seconded by EV. Motion passed 5 – 0. Adjourned at 11PM.
Respectfully Submitted by Donna Keeley, Acting Board Secretary
Chair____________________________ Date__________________________
ZBA 9/22/05 18