August 14, 2014 Minutes

These minutes were posted by the Zoning.



ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:08 P.M. by Carole Dodge, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Carole Dodge (CD), Chairman, John (Pat) Heffernan (PH), Vice-Chairman, (Arrival at 7:08 P.M.) Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM),Denis Beaudoin (DB), Scott Aubertin (SA), Albert Douglas (AD), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:


ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of June 28, 2014

(PM) Motion to approve the Minutes of June 28, 2014 with Corrections. (PH) Second. Carried 5-0.


Pages 2-7 Name change from Mrs. Swain to Ms. Galvin.
Page 7, Paragraph 2 (PH) Motion, last line should read: (DB) Second. Carried 3-2 (AD) and (PM).

ITEM 4. Motion for Rehearing filed by Robert Hetu in regard to an
application for a Special Exception filed by Jeffrey D. Swain
(Tax Map R14, Lot 53), 299 Tilton Hill Rod, Pittsfield, NH

(CD) read into the Minutes the Proposal for Request for Rehearing submitted by Robert Hetu.

She noted that she was specifically mentioned in the application noting “Carole Dodge is the former wife of one of the immediate abutters to the property in question.” (CD) I was once married about 23 years ago but none of the names of the abutters are familiar to me. She read to the public the names of each abutter and noted that she had not been married to any of these individuals. The names of the abutters are listed as named according to the Deed.

(CD) Another issued noted is failure to follow State published procedure for running a public hearing. The Board went through each Criteria listed and applicant (Jeffrey Swain) made some additional comments. We heard from the public – pro and con – as we have done in the past. The applicant was nervous which was understandable. We followed procedure as we always do.

(CD) We do have a favorable report from the Animal Control Officer
concerning the animals and the property.

(PM) Motion to deny the Motion for Rehearing filed by Robert Hetu regarding Special Exception for Jeffrey Swain, 299 Tilton Hill Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 after considering every allegation of error and because no new information has been submitted to warrant a rehearing. The Board made no error in granting approval. (PH) Second. Carried 5-0.

ITEM 5. Public Hearing with respect to an application for Appeal of
Administrative Decision filed by Brian and Daryl Klitz, 57 Center
Road, Chichester, NH 03258 to appeal the decision of the
Planning Board for Site Plan approval dated June 5, 2014 for
property located at 31 Barnstead Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263
owned by EBE Leasing, d/b/a: Rustic Crust – American
Flatbread, P.O. Box 56, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U01, Lot
01.) The property is located in the Light Industrial/Commercial

(CD) We have received a Motion to Recuse Steve Aubertin from the hearing on the Administrative Appeal. The Motion states Steve Aubertin but he is not on the Board. We do have a Scott Aubertin.

Daryl Klitz: That was a misprint on my part.

(CD) Also, it should be noted that Daryl Klitz is not listed on the Deed.

(CD) The next issue to address is whether or not Rustic Crust is a bakery.

(PH) The Klitz’s came before the Planning Board claiming Rustic Crust was a bakery and would require a Special Exception before the Zoning Board. In my opinion, it is not a bakery. They have been doing the same thing since they were in Town. Their complaint is that a bakery is not allowed in the Light Industrial/Commercial Zone. He does make baked goods but does not bake them. The Planning Board discussed this and determined they are not a bakery. (He gave several examples as to the rationale as to why they are not considered a bakery.) They make pizza crusts. That was it was all about.

Scott Aubertin recused himself from the appeal hearing. (7:23 P.M.)

(PH) There is also a Motion to recuse me from the hearing. I do not understand why. I sit on both boards but think I can make up my own mind. However, I will recuse myself. I did not want to do this but to keep the peace and perceptions fair, I will recuse myself.

Pat Heffernan recused himself from the appeal hearing. (7:25 P.M.)

Al Douglas (AD) Alternate was seated on the Board.

(DB) Motion to open the Appeal for Administrative Decision for discussion. (PM) Second. Carried 4-0.


Brian Klitz: I am listed on the Deed and I authorize Daryl Klitz to represent me for this hearing.

(CD) Daryl Klitz will speak for Brian Klitz. Mr. Klitz if you will go through the application and then we will open it up to the public.

Daryl Klitz went through the Criteria noting that Rustic Crust should submit for a Special Exception to follow the Zoning Ordinances. He also submitted a dissertation regarding the appeal. (See Attached.) He noted that he had submitted the advertisement which denotes on the Rustic Crust Website: Rustic Crust is a New Hampshire based bakery….. This case is about one subject as to whether Rustic Crust is a bakery. It is not grandfathered because the new building will expand beyond the footprint of their old building. Again, it has been stressful because of my building being damaged, having to find new insurance because my previous insurance company dropped our policy, and for the safety issues.

I feel bad for Brad and I do not want him to leave the area but two feet from my property is too close. The property cannot be maintained. It is too close. I bought the garage to have a business and I feel they are encroaching on my property. This whole thing should not have gotten this far. No one has listened to me about this and the issue is that it is too close to my property. I do not want to stop the building because I know the tax revenue will be high but there has to be a compromise. The Judge at the hearing gave us seven days to come up with a compromise. I am a small business and should not be forced to move out of Town. I think it is wrong. Put yourself in my shoes.

This is a business with eight ovens. Their sprinkler system relies on the water supply and our water supply supports seven towns. I hope you reverse your decision. This should be built on the same footprint as before. There was 37 feet from the side of my building. It looks like their building is going to stay the same, but it is not. I am asking for a compromise. Look at it from my point of view. I did not buy this garage to have a building two feet from my property line.

(7:40 P.M.)

Robert Geitel, Esq, representing EBE Leasing.

The site issue is simple here. The question is if it is a light commercial industry. They do a full range of manufacturing. Their freezers are greater than their ovens. The Planning Board properly characterized their use. The way that Rustic Crust markets itself has no bearing on what it is. The Zoning Board should affirm the Planning Board’s decision.

(PM) Somehow these people should get together on this to get this solved. There is quite a bit of space on the northern side of the property. Land is valuable and you both should come to an agreement.

(CD) We are here to decide if Planning Board mistakenly termed this as a bakery. We are here to determine if Planning Board made an error. (PM) These are two good businesses and would like to keep them both. (CD) As I read the RSA’s, they are not coming forward to ask for a change of use or expand the business. Rustic Crust is still here; they are not gone. They are asking for the building not for change of use. The use remains the same. The Board needs to decide if Planning Board made a mistake. In my opinion, Rustic Crust is not a bakery whether it uses that term to market itself or not. All the work is piecemeal, someone else puts the pieces together. It is wholesale not retail.

(DB) I agree. The Planning Board made the right decision. This is not completely black or white but rather fairly gray and they came up with the right decision. (AD) The advertisement about Rustic Crust on the Website, how old is that ad? Brad Sterl: Probably from about 2006. (AD) Mr. Klitz, you mentioned some damage previously. Had you brought that up at the hearing? (CD) We have no affidavits or correspondence from their insurance company. Daryl Klitz: There was damage to the side of my building. (AD) I do not remember you stating that. Brad, do you make pizzas? Brad Sterl: We make the pizza dough and some toppings. (AD) Are there any violations that the Planning Board missed? (PH) Not that I am aware of. (AD) Two feet from the side of the property is not a violation. (CD) No, they were granted a Variance to do so.

(DB) Motion to deny the Appeal for Administration Decision of Planning Board dated June 5, 2014 concerning the Rustic Crust after allegation of error was reviewed and no new evidence to substantiate the allegations were presented. (PM) Second. Carried 4-0. (CD), (DB), (PM) and (AD).

Break: 7:52 Resume: 7:57 P.M.

Scott Aubertin and Pat Heffernan were seated on the Board.

ITEM 6. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special
Exception filed by Dimitrios Daukopulos, 27 Carroll Street,
Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U03, Lot 04) to allow a
combined dwelling/business in an existing structure at 27 Carroll
Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263. The business is currently housed in
the structure. The property is owned by Dimitrios Dukopulos
and is located in the Light Industrial/Commercial Zone.

Dimitrios Daukopulos was present.

Board and applicant went through each of the Criteria.

Public Input

?: You talked about an apartment in back of the building.- is it to be owner occupied? Mr. Daukopulos: Yes, with one bedroom.

Close Public Input

(PH) How long have you lived there? Mr. Daukopulos: About four years. I need a minimum amount of space and want to stay there as long as I can. I cannot afford to make it into more apartments. (CD) So, it would be owner occupied. (PH) It makes sense to allow you to live there. If you move out, you would have to revert it back to a store. Mr. Daukopulos: If I want to think about renting, I will come back to Board. (PH) I do not want to see another apartment. We could put restrictions on the apartment. (CD) Make it an owner occupied only apartment. Mr. Daukopulos: That would be okay with me. (PM) What is upstairs – storage? Mr. Dukopulos: It is empty. I do not need it. I have enough space. (PM) Was there a business upstairs before? Mr. Daukopulos: I do not know. I am old and do not want to have stairs for myself to use.

(PH) Motion to approve Special Exception filed by Dimitrios Dukopulos. Tax Map U03, Lot 04 to allow a combined dwelling/business in existing structure contingent upon dwelling be owner occupied. (PM) Second. Carried 5-0.

(CD) advised applicant of thirty (30) day appeal process.

ITEM 7. Old Business

a. Variance Application of Pauline and Joseph Cortese, 51 Dowboro Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263

(CD) We have received an update from Atty. Hodgdon regarding the Variance application for the Corteses’ which states they are making progress in relocating their newly purchased location. “However, bringing some of the buildings systems up to code has proved more costly and time consuming than expected. Barring some unforeseen event, completing the move to the new location is expected no later than the end of September.” The Board scheduled the next hearing on September 11th, at which time they can withdraw their application if they wish to. A reminder notice will be sent to the applicant to please be present at that meeting. Board agreed to respond to the letter and note the next scheduled hearing date.

ITEM 8. Members Concerns

ITEM 9. Public Input

Jim Pritchard: I have some homework for the Board, review RSA 676:14.

James Hetu: I have been present at a few of the Zoning meetings and I have some observations I would like to relate to the Board.

First, the way that the hearings are being handled on different matters. The Board is supposed to be impartial in making decisions pertaining to the Zoning Ordinances. The applicants are handled differently according to how the Board feels about the applicant and that is disrespectful. The way Mr. Klitz was handled gives the appearance of not being impartial.

The second thing I would like to address is if there is any further appeal which can be heard regarding the Swain decision?

Jim Pritchard: No, he has to go directly to Supreme Court and has thirty days to do it.

James Hetu: Also, I understand that the decision needs to be made in the legal names of the applicant but the Board bounces back and forth. The Board is bouncing all over the place and impartially is not there. (He noted offense was taken to the way (PH) expressed himself earlier during the hearing.)

Pat Heffernan: I am sorry that my grammar offends you. We are not lawyers but volunteers. As far as impartiality is concerned, we are making the best judgment we can for the people involved. It is hard to run a meeting when people are speaking “out of turn.” (Someone from the audience at this time expressed an idea.) (PH) See what I mean. If my words were offensive, I am sorry that it was taken in that context.

(CD) Pat uses his own vocabulary and speech patterns no matter who is speaking with; it is his normal speech patterns. It does not matter who they are, it is the same for anyone he addresses. As far as impartiality, the Board normally has the applicant read the Criteria and comment accordingly, but as a courtesy tonight to the applicant, I read it for him and allowed him to make comments.

We are looking for an Alternate to serve on the Zoning Board and if anyone is interested, please submit your application. The Zoning Board is now an appointed Board but hopefully in the future will be an elected Board.

Louis Houle: I have sat in on a few of these meetings and other meetings as well. The Board has to address friends, acquaintances, enemies and unknown individuals which can be difficult. The Board made some difficult decisions tonight and I commend them for their efforts. No one speaks up until it is a problem.

Jim Pritchard: I fully support what Mr. Hetu was saying about impartiality. You always get the last word and what the Board votes can be a big deal. You made a big deal out of Mr. Klitz’s Motion mentioning Steve instead of Scott. Carole made a big deal in the difference of names – Scott or Steve. The Motion for Recusal was about a Board member being disqualified. There was no need to make fun of the fact. There is a difference in the way some people are treated.

Close Public Input

ITEM 10. Adjournment

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

Meeting adjourned at 8:30 P.M.

Approved: September 11, 2014

______________________________ ____________________
Carole Dodge, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me on August 14, 2014, transcribed and public posted on August 21, 2014.

Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

Olympus 1:18:33