February 12, 2015 Minutes


	<div id="primary" class="site-content">
		<div id="content" role="main">
<button onclick="history.go(-1);">Go Back to Pittsfield Town Minutes </button>
			<p id="print-link"><a href="#Print" onclick="window.print(); return false;" title="Click to print.">Click to print.</a></p>
			
				
	<article id="post-2152" class="post-2152 post type-post status-publish format-standard hentry category-zb">
				<header class="entry-header">
									<h1 class="entry-title">February 12, 2015 Minutes</h1>
								</header><!-- .entry-header -->

			<footer class="entry-meta">
					These minutes were posted by the <a href="https://mypittsfield.com/category/zb/" rel="category tag">Zoning</a>.												</footer><!-- .entry-meta -->
		
								<div class="entry-content">
					<p>			ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT<br />
			TOWN HALL, 85 MAIN STREET<br />
			PITTSFIELD, NH  03263<br />
			MINUTES OF PUBLIC HEARING</p>
<p>DATE: THURSDAY FEBRUARY 12, 2015</p>
<p>ITEM 1.	Call to Order at 7:13 p.m. by Carole Dodge, Chairman</p>
<p>ITEM 2.	Roll Call</p>
<p>Members present:</p>
<p>Carole Dodge (CD), Chairman, John (Pat) Heffernan (PH), Vice-Chairman,<br />
Denis Beaudoin (DB), Scott Aubertin (SA), Jeffrey Swain (JS), Alternate, Ammy Ramsey, Recording Secretary, Albert Douglas (AD) checked in but had to leave.</p>
<p>Members Absent:</p>
<p>Paul Metcalf Sr. (PM)</p>
<p>Jeffrey Swain (JS), Alternate was seated on the Board.</p>
<p>ITEM 3.	Approval of Minutes of January 22, 2015</p>
<p>(DM) Motion to approve Minutes of January 22, 2015.<br />
(PH) Second. Carried 4-0.  (SA) Abstains.</p>
<p>ITEM 4.	Work Session</p>
<p>(CD)  Before going into zoning district lines there is one thing I would like to do first and that is to send a Memo to the Building Inspector concerning signs in Town.  Everything that the Board worked on that night went up in flames at the Planning Board meeting except for the junk yards.  Planning Board refused to accept anything so we are still faced with people having to come to the Zoning Board for approval to put up, change or move a sign.  Because of the phrase “must be approved by the Zoning Board”.  </p>
<p>(SA) Asked if we could get rid of the ordinance?  (CD) Stated we could but not this year.  She noted she had checked with Mike and he stated the Board could give the Building Inspector the authorization to handle the approval of any sign requests unless there is a major issue.</p>
<p>(PH) Motion to give the Building Inspector authorization to handle the approval of any SIGN requests unless there is a major issue.  (SA) Seconded the motion.  Carried 5-0.</p>
<p>(PH) brought forward questions on two letters he received. The first one is from Ammy Ramsey, Housing Standards Administrator about Zoning approval for multi-unit buildings and single family homes that are currently rental properties and new rental properties that come to our attention.  Ammy Ramsey:  Stated she did speak with Mike Williams and Jesse Pacheco and they all came to the conclusion that if a single family property stays a single family rental it would not need Zoning approval.  If a new multi-unit building becomes a rental property it will need to have approval from the Zoning Board and HSA will direct the property owner to get the proper Zoning authorization.  She is also going to make sure that the current multi-unit rental properties have the proper Zoning authorization in the Zoning files.  She is going to request authorization to look at the Zoning files and learn what to look for.  (PH) also had a letter from Upton and Hatfield letter, and questioned if someone needed to go to court?  (CD) stated that it was just a Supreme Court notice stating that is was accepted and going to mediation.  </p>
<p>	A. Zoning District Lines</p>
<p>(PH) met with Tim V., Engineer that is working on the Pittsfield Aqueduct.  Tim is working with Utility Partners who is currently running the Sewer Treatment Plant.<br />
(PH) spoke with him about getting some overlays made so that Board can have both maps on the same scale so that Board we can know where lines start and stop.  Tim is going to provide us with the overlay.  After we have the overlay and we know were the lines go, we will know the maps are correct because they will be stamped.  The only problem that may arise is around Norris Rd.  When the State put Rt. 28 in they dropped a drain pipe into our sewer line and never said anything.  The Town does not want to take ownership of that line.  Right now it’s not a big deal, but it is to Mr. Nickerson.  (CD) Once we get the official maps we could figure out where it is.  (PH) We are waiting for those maps.</p>
<p>(CD) Al Douglas provided a list of sewer hook-ups by map and lot.  (CD) noticed there are numbers on Tilton Hill and Barnstead Rd. so we might be able to look at the road and see how far the lines go.  </p>
<p>(CD) I would like to go over the definitions of Suburban and Rural.  (CD) handed out a paperwork for everyone to review with the current and new definitions for consideration.  She would like the Board to look at them and if they think we should adjust her suggestions than the board can do so. (CD) While coming up with the new definitions, she noted she did not want to lose sight of what this community and State is about. And a big part of our community and State is a farming and agriculture. </p>
<p>Suburban: A residential area with mixed uses, either existing as part of the city or urban area, or as a separate residential area within commuting distance of the city.  This district will be serviced by public sewer and water.  (PH) Asked if Mike has had a chance to look at them.  (CD) stated she wanted to get this Board’s thoughts and a definition picked out before taking them to Mike to get his opinion.  (DB), (JF), and (SA) all stated they liked this one.  (CD) stated she would bring this definition to Mike for his review.</p>
<p>(CD) For the Rural definition she noted she had added farming and agriculture use, but  was not sure about the low intensity uses statement.  (PH) asked if she wanted to add livestock to this definition.  (CD) thought that was part of farming and agriculture.<br />
 (PH) noted he wanted to make sure there would not be a question later should someone want cows or if they were allowed to have cows.  (CD) suggested putting animals in the definition as well.  (PH) Would we want to scratch the low intensity use?  (JS) and (DB) agreed with that.  (CD) so the definition will be: </p>
<p>Rural: This district consists of mainly open space, farming/agriculture and animal uses. This district will consist of residential uses that fit within a rural environment.  This district will not be serviced by public sewer or water.  (PH) stated it may not be necessary to do so because if they would add to the public sewer and water lines it would change the zoning.  (JS), (DB), (PH) and (SA) agreed.  </p>
<p>(CD) stated that if all the definitions go through, they should fix the Table across the entire Town noting that in order to have large livestock the property must have a<br />
minimum of two acres.  Because there are many non-conforming lots across Town,<br />
(CD) will bring this to Mike Williams because it will be more of a Town ordinance<br />
and should state: “in order to house large livestock the property must have more than two acres.”  (PH) asked if Board wanted to add the type of animal in the wording.  (CD) suggested citing examples.  (SA) asked if the State already had something for exotic animals so we would not have to worry about them.  (CD) suggested breaking it down to equine, bovine, swine, and ruminants.  (JS) asked if we could do non-domestic.<br />
(CD) said that that would include chickens, ducks, geese etc. and we are doing this one for large animals.  </p>
<p>(CD) asked if there was anything else anyone would like to work on.  She believes we are getting a good start to getting things accomplished.  (PH) agreed and feels if we work with Mike Williams as well it would be a big help.</p>
<p>ITEM 5.	Members Concerns</p>
<p>(PH) Had questions about the Notice of Decision and the language about a building needing to be removed within a one-year timeframe.  This is referring to the lot line adjustment he applied for to be able to sell this property.  The Zoning Board granted the lot line variance.  (PH) was going to go to the Planning Board to do the adjustment.  The Chairman of the Planning Board refused to bring this matter to their next meeting because the building has not been taken down yet.  (CD) stated she is not sure why this would matter because the lot line does not go through the building so it should not matter to the Planning Board.  Also the State RSA states the person has “two years to remove the building.” (CD) believes it was the Zoning Board’s mistake to put the time- frame of one year on the variance.  Since the Variance was granted by the Zoning Board, the Planning Board should be able to do the lot line adjustment without any problem.  The Planning Board is not doing it because of the timeframe.  (PH) was okay with scratching the wording of the timeframe to match the State RSA’s.  When the time comes to address it he will apply for an extension.  (DB) Doesn’t believe the Zoning Board is able to give a timeframe but rather the State Statute does that.  If the person states a timeframe that exceeds the State Statute we should not grant the variance.<br />
(SA) stated he feels that if the line doesn’t pertain to the building then it should not be our concern because the line is our concern not what is on the property.  (CD) noted that putting stipulations on variances becomes cumbersome.  (PH) would like to table this matter until the next meeting so he can get all his paperwork together.  </p>
<p>(CD) The next meeting is on February 26, 2015.  Does that work for everyone?<br />
(PH), (SA), (JS) and (DB) agreed.</p>
<p>(CD) Dee put in everyone’s folder about the spring conferences.  Registration is<br />
March 2, 2015 and if you are interested in going, please let Mike Williams know.<br />
(DB) What is this conference about?  (CD) It is an opportunity to learn more about Zoning.  You can check out the website.</p>
<p>(PH) Asked if (CD) knew how long he has been on this Board? (CD) stated she believes three years.  (PH) Would like to put something in the paper about his term in response to his opponent’s article in the paper.  </p>
<p>(DB) Wanted clarification on the subject of his running for selectman.  He has done his research and there was nothing he found that there would be a conflict of interest with him being elected to the Select board and maintaining his seat on the Zoning Board.  If the situation becomes an issue with the community with him serving on both boards, he would rather have (AD) stay on the Zoning Board.  He does not want to step down but would like to inform the Board of his thoughts and intentions.  (CD) stated the only board that has stipulations is the Planning Board.  (PH) stated that (AD) is the Alternate and he will only be sitting on the board if (DB) is not there.  (DB)  He believes that they are both able to sit on the board at the same time, and has not found anything in the Statutes stating otherwise.  (JS) agrees.  (CD) There is no Statute stating any stipulations that more than one selectman can sit on the board along with another.  </p>
<p>ITEM 6.	Public Input</p>
<p>None</p>
<p>ITEM 7.	Adjournment</p>
<p>(PH) Motion to adjourn.  (JS) Second.  Carried 5-0</p>
<p>Meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m.</p>
<p>Approved: February 26, 2015</p>
<p>______________________________				_______________________<br />
Carole Dodge, Chairman								Date</p>
<p>I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me on February 12, 2015, transcribed and publicly posted on February 19, 2015.</p>
<p>________________________________________________<br />
Ammy Ramsey, Recording Secretary</p>
					</div><!-- .entry-content -->
		
	
	</article><!-- #post -->

				

			
		</div><!-- #content -->
	</div><!-- #primary -->