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

DATE: THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2015

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:10 P.M. by Carole Dodge, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Carole Dodge (CD), Chairman, John (Pat) Heffernan (PH), Vice-Chairman,, Denis Beaudoin (DB), Scott Aubertin (SA), Alternate, Jeffrey Swain (JS), Alternate and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Albert Douglas (AD), Alternate and Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM)

Jeffrey Swain (JS), Alternate was seated on the Board.

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of February 12, 2015

(PH) Motion to approve Minutes of February 12, 2015.
(DB) Second. Carried 5-0.

ITEM 5. Variance Notice of Decision Amendment – John “Pat”
Heffernan

Pat Heffernan recused himself from discussion. (7:19 P.M.)

(CD) A couple of weeks ago, we briefly discussed the Notice of Decision dated September 12, 2013 for Pat Heffernan on Watson Street property. The fact of the matter is that it went to Planning Board to address the lot line adjustment, but PB refused to hear it because applicant did not “demolish (the building) within one year of the granting of the Variance” as noted in the Notice of Decision. I am not sure that the demolition of the building had anything to do with the lot line adjustment but the Zoning Board has the ability to fix this because of the two-year limitation by Statute to begin this process, notably October 11, 2015. In order for Planning Board to hear this, this Board needs to amend the Notice of Decision to allow applicant to get everything done by October rather than reapply. Planning Board related that he did not comply with Notice of Decision though Statute indicates two years, and I do not feel this is any way to treat our citizens.

(DB) When was this before ZBA? (CD) September 12, 2013, plus the thirty-day appeal process period and a two-year limit would be in effect bringing the date to October 11, 2015. Anything Zoning grants would allow for a two-year limit to start the process. Though it was noted that the demo of the building could have occurred in one year (per Peter Pszonowsky), it is not necessarily a condition. It is noted on the Notice of Decision “within one year” but everything Board does has a two-year expiration, so technically we “overstepped our bounds.”

(SA) We need to fix it. (CD) It was an error by the Board thinking that we were doing the right thing, but actually we did overstep our bounds.
(SA) This Board can make the decision to amend the Notice of Decision.

(CD) In light of this being brought to our attention, it is noted that the Board indicated a stricter condition over and above what the State Statutes allow and Pat should be allowed to finish his project within the two-year Statute limitation. (DB) By doing this, will the Planning Board accept our actions? (CD) It is up to the Planning Board. If the Planning Board says “no,” applicant can appeal and the Zoning Board will make the decision.

(PH) This has been dragging along but now that the matter is cleared up, I am in a position to complete it. (CD) This will be easier if you have “all your ducks in a row.”

(DB) Motion to approve amending Notice of Decision for Variance dated September 12, 2013 for John “Pat” Heffernan, 136 Shaw Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 for lot line adjustment for properties located at 30 and 34 Watson Street, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map U05, Lot 63 & 64-1) to reflect State Statute expiration date of two years including demolition of building prior to October 11, 2015. (SA) Second. Carried 4-0.

Pat Heffernan returned to Board (7:30 P.M.)

ITEM 4. Work Session

a. Zoning District Lines

(CD) noted “Pat and I met with Matt Monahan, CNHRPC yesterday regarding the proposed zoning district lines.”

(PH) produced a map of the current zoning district lines with an overlay of current water and sewer lines for Board review.

(CD) EDC is paying attention to what ZBA is doing as this is what they are talking about. While discussing this with Matt Monahan, it was suggested that we align the zones as:

Rural District I
Rural District II
Light Industrial/Commercial I
Light Industrial/Commercial II
Suburban
Urban

Matt also suggested Board look at the Table of Uses as they currently do not make sense; what is noted as by exception and what is by right. We need to re-work the Table of Uses.

(CD) The sewer is pretty much at its capacity. (PH) It is pretty much maxed out. The Suburban Zone with water and sewer is fine.

Rural l (old Suburban) exists pretty much without the advancement of water and sewer. We are adding districts, not adding zoning. There are huge parcels of land which are agricultural in the Suburban Zone and belong in the Rural Zone.

(PH) We can fix the whole downtown zone. The Commercial Zone is “crazy.”

Board was able to review the maps and make suggestions pertaining to the various zones and proposed changes.

(SA) What is the difference between Rural 1 and Rural 2? (CD) The lot sizes.

(CD) Suburban I: Water/Sewer with 1 Acre Minimum.

Suburban II: Private Well/Septic with a Minimum
of 2 Acres.

Light Commercial/Industrial I: Downtown Area with Water/Sewer
and small lots (1 Acre Lots). (CD) It was suggested that the
downtown area properties not have setbacks.

Light Industrial/Commercial II: This would be up on Route 28, with
1 Acre or more and may/may not have Water and Sewer.

Board discussed the possibility of eliminating the Commercial Zone completely. Question was posed: By Statute, does there need to be a Commercial Zone? (PH) to check.

ITEM 6. Members Concerns

None.

ITEM 7. Public Input

None.

ITEM 8. Adjournment

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

Meeting adjourned at 8:45 P.M.

Approved: February 12, 2015

_____________________________ ____________________
Carole Dodge, Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me on February 26, 2015, transcribed and publicly posted on
March 4, 2015.

___________________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

No attachments.
Olympus 1:34:22