June 9, 2011 Minutes

Pittsfield Zoning Board of Adjustment
Town Hall, 85 Main Street
Pittsfield, NH 03263
Minutes of Public Meeting

DATE: THURSDAY, JUNE 9, 2011

ITEM 1. Call to Order at 7:02 P.M. by Ed Vien, Chairman

ITEM 2. Roll Call

Members Present:

Ed Vien (EV), Chairman, Carole Dodge (CD), Vice-Chairman, Paul Metcalf, Sr. (PM), Larry Federhen (LF), and Delores Fritz, Recording Secretary.

Members Absent:

Jesse Pacheco (JP), Ted Mitchell (TM), Alternate, (Excused), Christopher Smith, Alternate

ITEM 3. Approval of Minutes of April 14, 2011

(CD) Motion to approve Minutes of April 14, 2011. (PM) Second.
Carried 4-0.

ITEM 4. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance filed
by Robert Hetu, 17 Wildwood Drive, Pittsfield, NH 03263 to
allow construction of an in-law apartment within the existing
structure at 17 Wildwood Drive, Pittsfield, NH 03263
(Tax Map R14, Lot 51.) The property is owned by Robert and
Stephanie Hetu and is located in the SUBURBAN Zone.

(EV) It is noted that this was filed as a Variance and should be a Special except so it is on the wrong form. We will proceed as a Special Exception as it is not his fault. It should be noted also that we do not have a full Board and would require three votes to pass. It is your option as to whether you wish to proceed or reschedule. Mr. Hetu indicated that he would like to proceed.

Mr. Hetu: I would just like to finish off my basement into an in-law apartment. My mother-in-law currently lives in Florida and has been diagnosed with congestive heart failure and at some point it will be necessary for her to live with us, though in her own living quarters. I have spoken to my neighbors and they are all receptive to it. There would be no structural change, just finishing off the basement. If she would not be able to live with us, it would be a hardship as she would have to go into state housing. We just want to be prepared for the future.

(LF) Is the septic system adequate? Mr. Hetu: It is the largest tank we could have and there is no problem with that. (LF) So it is sized properly? Mr. Hetu: Yes. (PM) It will not ever be used as a rental unit? Mr. Hetu: No.

Open Public Input

None, either pro or con.

Close Public Input

CRITERIA:

A. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or structure.

All Agree 4-0.

B. The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious, or offensive to the neighborhood and will not diminish the value of surrounding properties.

All Agree 4-0.

C. There will be no undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian
or vehicular traffic, including the location and design of access ways and off-street parking.

All Agree 4-0.

D. Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided
to insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.

All Agree 4-0.

E. The proposed use or structure is consistent with the Spirit of the
Town’s Zoning Ordinances and the intent of the Town’s Master Plan.

(EV) The application passes. You will need to get an in-law apartment permit renewed each year it is in effect. You will also need to apply to the Planning Board for a Site Plan Review. (Article 6 of the Zoning Ordinances was read into the Minutes by (EV).

It was noted that Mr. Hetu was to complete and file the correct application form (Special Exception) which Building Inspector will assist him with prior to his departure tonight.

(CD) Motion to approve Special Exception filed by Robert Hetu,
17 Wildwood Drive, Pittsfield, NH 03263 to allow construction of an
in-law apartment within the existing structure at 17 Wildwood Drive, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R14, Lot 51.) (LF) Second. Carried 4-0.

(EV) There is a thirty day appeal process that applies to this also (which was explained to applicant.)

All Agree 4-0.

ITEM 5. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special
Exception filed by Michael and Brenda Courchene, P.O. Box
176, Center Barnstead, NH 03225 to construct an addition
(18 ft. x 24 ft.) to an existing garage at 1094 Upper City Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R16, Lot 12) for use as a sales facility for produce, meat and other products. The property is owned by Alfred and Elaine Courchene, 1094 Upper City Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 and is located in the RURAL Zone.

Mr. & Mrs. Michael Courchene were present and explained that they would like to have a sales facility for custom meat cutting and for the sale of USDA inspected meat to sell as well as produce. We would like to add on to the back side of the garage which is currently used for smoking and cutting.

Open Public Input

Dan Greene: It is an excellent idea.

Dana Martin: It is carrying on an old tradition in Pittsfield. It is a clean facility and has been done since years ago.

Bill Miskoe: It is a fine idea except why is the property owner not applying for this? (CD) It is an existing business that is being run through the home. (EV) We have a letter of approval from the property owner. Jim Pritchard: It is not necessary for the owners to be here if they are acting as their agents.

Larry Konopka: It is an excellent project.

Mike T.: It is a great idea.

(LF) If it is a retail operation, it is not allowed in the Rural Zone. (EV) If it is for retail sales in the Rural Zone, it means a Variance has to be applied for.

Fred Hast: It will be used as a sales facility.

Close Public Input

(LF) What they are doing now is a service but if they intend to buy meat and do cutting and sell it, it becomes a retail facility.

Mrs. Courchene: What about the apple orchard up the road?

(EV) They are grandfathered. Let’s make sure that are using the correct paperwork. What about filling out an application for a Variance? (PM) We have received mis-information. (CD) I do not see a big problem swapping them and applying for a Variance instead of a Special Exception.

Bill Miskoe: Does the Zoning Board have the authority to do this? It is a procedural problem and the abutters should be notified correctly. (EV) If any of the abutters were interested, they would be here tonight. Bill Miskoe: You cannot make that assumption. It is a procedural problem. I do not think you should do this.

Mr. & Mrs. Courchene left meeting room to complete a Variance application. They were assured that as soon as they returned, the Board would continue with the hearing.

ITEM 6. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special
Exception filed by Ann Crowley, 272 Clough Road, Pittsfield,
NH 03263 to maintain a kennel on the existing property
(Tax Map R10, Lot 8-2) for the purpose of purchasing and selling dogs. The property is owned by Ann and Mary Crowley, 272 Clough Rod, Pittsfield, NH 03263 and is located in the RURAL Zone.

Bill Miskoe: It is the same problem here. It needs to be a Variance. (EV) In the Zoning Ordinances, the only thing listed in the Rural Zone is Special Exception. If in Commercial, it would require a Variance.

Ann Crowley: I have been doing this for about three years. The State was out recently and approved it. I have recently installed air conditioning for the facility. The dogs are not outside. It is light in there. I usually have the puppies from one breeder. (LF) How long do you keep the puppies for? Ms. Crowley: Usually about six weeks. I work for a vet and the puppies are checked quite frequently. I have been doing this for three years and have not had one complaint. (LF) What brought the State out? Ms. Crowley: You never know when they are going to appear. This is the first year that they suggested I apply to the Town.

Open Public Input:

Next Door Neighbors (Name Unknown): My wife and I lived next door and there is no problem at all. It is close to our lot and you would not know there are dogs in there. There is very little traffic.

Dan Schroth: I am a neighbor up on the hill and we are all trying to make a living. This is another example of trying to make a living.

Mike St. George: I agree with Dan. They are running a business and you would not even realize there are dogs up there.

(EV) I was surprised that the dogs even have air conditioning.

Close Public Input

(EV) Before we continue with the Criteria, I must advise you that we do not have a full Board and you can have this continued until a future date when a full Board is present. Ms. Crowley preferred to continue tonight. (EV) I also saw the State License displayed on the wall at the site. Ms. Crowley related that the puppies are usually either Yorkies or Yorkie Poos.

CRITERIA:

A. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or structure.

All Agree 4-0.

B. The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious, or
offensive to the neighborhood and will not diminish the value of surrounding properties.

All Agree 4-0.

C. There will be no undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian or
vehicular traffic, including the location and design of access ways and off-street parking.

All Agree 4-0.

D. Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided
to insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.

All Agree 4-0.
E. The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of the
Town’s Zoning Ordinances and the intent of the Town’s Master Plan.

All Agree 4-0.

(CD) Motion to approve application for a Special Exception filed by Ann Crowley, 272 Clough Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 to maintain a kennel on the existing property (Tax Map R10, Lot 8-1) for the purpose of purchasing and selling puppies. If at such time there is a need for expansion, applicant will have to come back to the Zoning Board to revisit the issue.
(LF) Second. Carried 4-0.

(LF) This is not going to grow into a boarding kennel? Ms. Crowley: No, it is not.

(EV) related to the applicant that it will be necessary to apply for a Site Plan Review with the Planning Board. He explained to the applicant the thirty day appeal process.

ITEM 5. Continued

(EV) Mr. & Mrs. Courchene, I apologize for the snafu.

CRITERIA:

Section A:

1. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest.

All Agree 4-0.

2. If the Variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be
observed.

(EV) This is not a farmers’ market because not more than one person will be selling their products.

All Agree 4-0.

3. Granting the Variance would do substantial justice.

All Agree 4-0.

4. If the Variance were granted, the values of the surrounding
properties would not be diminished.

All Agree 4-0.

5. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it
from other properties in the area, denial of the Variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property.

Mrs. Courchene: We do the entire process.

All Agree 4-0.

ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one.

All Agree 4-0.

Section B. If the criteria in subparagraph (A) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it.

All Agree 4-0.

(EV) noted that the Variance is approved and discussed with the Courchenes the thirty day appeal process.

(CD) Motion to approve an application for a Variance filed by Michael and Brenda Courchene, P.O. Box 176, Center Barnstead, NH 03225 to construct an addition (18 ft. x 24 ft.) to an existing garage at 1094 Upper City Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R16, Lot 12) for use as a retail sales facility for produce, meat and other products. (LF) Second. Carried 4-0.

ITEM 7. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Variance filed
by Arthur Houle, 60 School Street, Allenstown, NH 03275
(Tax Map R20, Lot 7-5) to construct an addition (14 ft. x 50 ft.) to an existing barn within the frontage setbacks located at 76 Easton Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263. Property is owned by Arthur and Lorette Houle and located in the RURAL Zone.

Arthur and Lorette Houle were present and noted that they were agreeable with a four person board and chose not to continue hearing to future date.

Mr. Houle: I would like to add on to the existing building which was built in the 1970’s. It is needed for extra storage area. The building is twenty (20) feet off the road. You used to be able to put your building anywhere you wanted it. We have updated the barn so that it now can be used for storage.

Open Public Input

None, either Pro or Con.

Close Public Input

Mr. Houle: I have talked to several of the neighbors and there is really no problem. (LF) Do you own the building to the right of it? Mr. Houle: No, I do not. This was a large parcel of land that was divided, I believe, around 2005, and I purchased it about two years ago.

CRITERIA:

1. Granting the Variance would not be contrary to the public interest.

(CD) It would have no impact.

All Agree 4-0.
2. If the Variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be
observed.

All Agree 4-0.

3. Granting the Variance would do substantial justice.

All Agree 4-0.

4. If the Variance were granted, the values of the surrounding
properties would not be diminished.

(CD) It would add to the values.

All Agree 4-0.

5A. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the Variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:

i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general
public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property.

Agree 3-1 (EV).

ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one.

All Agree 4-0.

B. If the criteria in subparagraph (A) are not established, an unnecessary
hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a Variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it.

All Agree 4-0.

(EV) This meets all the Criteria and read Article 4, 4B to the audience.
He explained the thirty (30) day appeal process.

(CD) Motion to approve application for a Variance filed by Arthur Houle, 60 School Street, Allenstown, NH 03275 (Tax Map R20, Lot 7-5) to construct an addition (14 ft. x 50 ft.) to an existing barn within the frontage setbacks located at 76 Easton Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263. (PM) Second.
Carried 4-0.

Recess: 8:01 P.M. Resume 8:12 P.M.

ITEM 8. Public Hearing with respect to an application for a Special
Exception filed by Linda Martin, 145 Thompson Road, Pittsfield,
NH 03263 (Tax Map R25, Lot 1) to conduct outdoor amusements
in a Rural Zone on property located at 145 Thompson Road,
Pittsfield, NH 03263. The property is owned by Linda Martin,
145 Thompson Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 and is located in the
RURAL Zone.

(EV) noted that the ground rules during the meeting are that individuals will address the Board and not each other nice and politely and we will get through it. All will have an opportunity to speak. Please give your name so that it can be included in the Minutes.

Ms. Martin requested that her two children accompany her to address Board which was agreeable with the Board.

Ms. Martin: I would like you, Ed Vien, to recuse yourself. I have been before the Board of Selectman twice regarding a Peddlers and Hawkers Permit request. (PM) You will have to have a majority vote. (CD) You will have to have an affirmative vote of all three members of the Board.

(EV) Ms. Martin, do you understand that? Ms. Martin: You act like it is a free for all. (EV) I really did not have much to do with your request for the Peddlers and Hawkers Permit. I will recuse myself at this time, but I personally do not think it is necessary. I think I am fair and impartial in this matter.

Ed Vien recused himself from the Board and was seated in the audience.

(CD) You now have a three member Board as opposed to a five member Board. The same rules as stated previously will apply. All comments are to be directed to the Board only.

Doris Carney read into the Minutes the explanation of the history and current status of the Mud Run (See attached.)

(LF) You call this a donation; if they do not pay the $12 do you let them in anyway? Ms. Carney: Yes. Dana Martin: The donations pay for trophies and prize monies. He explained further the history of the Mud Run. (LF) How long has this been going on? Ms. Carney: It started slowly but became a big event about six years ago. (LF) Why are you coming before the Zoning Board now? Ms. Martin: It came to the attention of the Board of Selectmen and they noted it should be addressed by the Zoning Board.
Ms. Carney: Up till now, there has nothing that has gone wrong and there have been no issues.

Ms. Carney: This is something that is now nation-wide and explained the origination of the mud runs. It is like going to tractor pulls; people have been doing it for years. People put a lot of money into it. It originated on rural farms and has grown. There are mud runs all over the state including fairgrounds. (LF) How many vehicles compete? Dana Martin: There are about fifty vehicles and perhaps, about seventy who register. (CD) How long of an event is it? Ms. Carney: Registration starts at 7:00 A.M., then a vehicle safety check, drivers meeting and around 11:00 A.M. is the first run. We are done by 6:30 – 7:00 P.M. There are no lights on the pit and this is a safety hazard. Mr. Martin: It is now more organized. In the years that we have had it, there has only been one individual I had to talk to and ultimately left. It is a family oriented event and people bring their kids.

(LF) The DES has been up there? Ms. Carney: Yes, they were up inspecting about two days ago and spent about three hours. Gregory Kerrigan, DES, and this has been his second visit in the past three years. His visit was very informative and he found nothing wrong. He checked EPA spill kit and no regulations have been violated. Ms. Carney read into Minutes an E-Mail from DES. (LF) Do you have police presence at the events? Ms. Carney: No, just staff and there have been no issues.

(LF) What about EMTs? Mr. Martin: These are all volunteers. Two police officers did appear and found nothing wrong.

(LF) How close are you to the nearest abutter? Mr. Martin: Approximately ten feet. John and Sue Hanlon are about 500 ft. away.

(CD) The pit is way down back and cordoned off and very well maintained. I have been up to look at it.

Ms. Carney: We have some letters from various small business owners and from all the abutters but one. (See attached.)

(PM) It sounds like a pretty decent operation. I should go up sometime.

Open Public Input – Con:

(LF) read into Minutes attached letter from Amy Dickens and C. Hayden, who were not present tonight.

Romeo Dubrevil: He presented printed information (See attached.) referring to the site having an inappropriate entrance on Johnson Road. There is no other entrance/exit. The event starts on Friday and they are still leaving on Wednesday – vendors, campers. Some do leave early Sunday morning and the neighborhood is affected for four days. I moved in for privacy on this dead end road. It is not their fault but the Town’s fault. I would ask that Mr. Metcalf recuse himself as he did mention attending the event in the future and is biased. The noise is not pleasant to hear all long. DOT did road measurements and noted that DOT noted that there would be no way that they would sign off on it being a safe entrance. Site distance should be 400 ft. in each direction. (CD) That makes the whole road illegal.

Mr. Dubrevil: There is the liability aspect. “I cannot afford to lose the investment on my property.” Every item in the Noise Ordinance speaks to this event. There are some other issues that I could address but will not at this point because I am nervous about them. This is not why I moved to Pittsfield. I would like to be left alone. The event unfortunately is a “slam dunk” in reference to Zoning. I have sought legal counsel myself and my recommendation is that the Board speaks to counsel first before making a decision.

Denise Morin: I am an abutter of the Martins. I think it is a great function but it has outgrown its environment. It started off small but as time goes on it has increased. Spectators can be around 1,000 people. These people pass my house on a dirt road and the house and my garden is affected. To have six events in a season equals 12,000 people which is encroaching on my privacy. The noise factor of 1,000 people six times a year is increased. They have added a PA system which is very loud. I have attended the event once and can see it from my property line. I think a solution would be to have it two times a year as six times is too much. I have to leave my house for peace and quiet.

Carole, by going to the property you have made a pre-judgment. (CD) I meant that the property was well maintained.

Ms. Morin: Noise occurring only during the day is not any less obnoxious. It starts on Friday with eighteen wheelers going by transporting trucks and some stay over Saturday and leave Sunday. There is a fair amount of traffic. I am not sure, but I believe it is decreasing my property values. I have asked Tim Northcott, Appraiser how it would affect the land. (Ms. Morin read into the Minutes what his thoughts about the property values could be.) Values of homes have gone down. Some say it is revenue for Town, but I am unsure of that. I would not be so upset had I not lived there for a long time and have put a lot of money into the property. Maybe something could be done about the noise.

After the event I go up and down the road to collect rubbish and the majority of what I find is beer cans. I know they do a great job, but if something happens do they have enough staff to handle a major problem. There is exhaust fumes in the area.

Mr. McManus: I work at night and need to sleep during the day. The speakers that were set up make it as loud in the house as being at the event. I have heard that the number of events is increasing. When is it enough? If I wanted to move next to a fair I would move to Hopkinton. Current use is being used there and money is being collected. There are a lot of alternatives that need to be looked at before it should be allowed to continue.

Jim Theodore: I really do not mind it a couple times a year, but it is getting to be too big for a rural area. It is hurting the value of the property and is inconvenient during the summer. Two events would probably be okay.
(CD) We would have to look at what is in current use. Ms. Martin: There are four acres out of current use.

Patricia McManus: The pit is 900 ft. down. We have horses. Some come in the back way which I cannot believe is legal. I hope none go through the fence.

Denise Morin: I am not negatively opposed; my only negative is that it is not regulated.

Public Input – Pro

Bill Smith: He explained that he is the head of the Northwood Ice Racing Club and that their club activities are grandfathered. The vehicles that go past my house go slower than the residents. The traffic that goes in and out uses Route 107, which is dangerous but has to be used, no other choice. There has only been one problem in all the time it has been going on and Dana took care of it. He related that he used to live on Shingle Mill Brook Road and related that the cars racing on that road left extensive damage to the road. This is well maintained, never saw anyone drinking on property, trash is cleaned up. It is a great thing for kids.

Diana (?): Yes, I have a truck and there is some noise. When the car races go on at Northwood Lake, I hear the noise a lot. Everything here is extremely controlled, no drinking and a very family oriented environment.

Bill Miskoe: I am not an abutter. I did not move to Pittsfield to hear the Mud Run, but it is not ruining my life. I am aware of it. My feeling in support of it is that it brings people to Pittsfield and perhaps, it will eventually help lower property taxes.

Dan Schroth: Property taxes are a joke. Mr. Dubrevil is not the only one who bought a house in Pittsfield and pays high tax rate. Values have gone down 40-50%. Mr. Dubrevil bought ten acres and thinks he owns the Town. They can come to my place and have the mud run there. I have no complaints. I have heard them in the distance but have never attended.

Hank Fitzgerald: Everyone is affected one way or another. To have the mud run six days out of 365 is not a lot. The Balloon Rally, Skimobile Club and Bicycle Club all should need special permits for their events as they involve public participation. The Mud run does not involve public participation… All these should not be allowed without a Variance. This operation does not require a Hawkers and Peddlers Permit. The State controls this on private property. Everyone’s property has been devalued in the past ten years. With four acres in current use, they do have sufficient space.

Mike St. George: I have lived here for 43 years. My Dad raced. The Martin Mud Run is a good event. No injuries and is good for businesses. There are 12 businesses that benefit from the Mud Run. The sport is growing. You can attend one every weekend if you want. At the ball field there is traffic, the shooting range noise, Balloon Rally about 25,000 people. The Martins have animals there too. There is no law as to how many vehicles can drive on a road.

John Hanlon: I own a forty acre parcel up there. The Mud Run causes noise less than 2% of the time and as a neighbor, I can live with that. I moved there for peace and quiet too, but I have no objection to their use of the property. How much land do you need to do what you want? I live in the country and I do not have any objection to the Mud Run.

Mrs. Hanlon: I am more offended by the gunshots early Sunday mornings which is more disturbing than this event ever has been. It is fun for the kids. The Martins are respectful and clean up. It is a lot cleaner at the Mud Run than other places. They take this seriously and it is too bad it has ended up in this forum. They have been there a long time and they respect our privacy.

Don Hackett: I do not hear any noise. I own a mud bog and have not used it since the Martins started.

Theodore Angelakis: I came up here eleven years ago. I asked Chief of Police can I make a lot of noise and he said no problem. The Martins can come down and use my place. I support this.

Dana Martin: We bought about $500 worth of speakers and we can point them in another direction to control noise. We would like to run this event and will work with our neighbors. If there is an issue about turning onto Route 107 we can get someone to direct traffic. There are about 1,000 people that attend, but not all at once but rather throughout the day. About half the people that come bring their kids. It took longer to move vehicles last time because of all the rains. We are willing to work with our neighbors about their concerns. When people come, we always refer them to Town businesses.

Mary C: Linda Martin is my sister-in-law and I have attended all the Mud Runs. It cannot be compared to a speed run. I wish Mr. Dubrevil had stayed. There has been no gross negligence, no accidents up there. People are making an issue as nothing has happened. I am a vendor there and I know Linda goes out of her way to make it safe. She would be willing to do whatever it takes to satisfy her neighbors. This is not a rowdy event. It is a fund day. It is truly an asset to Pittsfield and I am 100% in favor of it.

Leslie Sherman: Everything that I would like to say has already been said. Linda cleans up the road, there are no issues with the noise, people are respectful and they do a great job.

Denise Morin: No one is saying that Linda has not done a respectful job. How much is this event going to grow? It has not been an issue with two events a year but now it is the number of times a year.

Bill Smith: The trash in the field after the event is minimal. There is no drinking. She would be picking up all the trash afterwards.

Bill Miskoe: I am in favor of this Board granting this. I would put some conditions on it as to number of times a year it can be held. You do not have to give a blanket approval tonight.

(LF) What I am hearing here is that the only serious problem is the number of events a year. It sounds like one or two events are not a problem but the increased number of events is.

Jim Theodore: The noise ordinance was voted on by the people for one or fifty people. Zoning Ordinances were made to protect people in the rural area. General tolerance should be a factor.

Doris Carney: We are willing to work with these people as much as we can. We can’t regulate truck noises but most of this is workable. I have a bunch of letters from people who could not be here who are in support of this. She read into Minutes letters from Joel Chagnon, Michael & Amy Eastman, Robert and Christine Foss, Cammy Guest, Eric Perry, Dottie Maheu, Mr. & Mrs. Ray St. Pierre, Edie Troughton, and Terrie and James Azotea. Letters from John & Susan Hanlon and Leslie and Herbert Sherman were also presented. (See Attached.) She noted supportive letters from Bell Brothers and Dave’s Towing.

Mike St. George: I think the speaker issues and traffic controls have been resolved.

Denise Morin: I have no issues with the Mud Run; I am saying that six times a year is a lot and am concerned that that number could grow even more

Close Public Input

Board Discussion:

(LF) I would like to see it happen but with a limited number of events. (PM) I know that if they say they will do it, they will do it. On Route 107, you could have an officer there and it would solve that problem. (CD) we need a reasonable number.

Doris Carney: We coincide with the Balloon Rally and people interchange coming here when it is quiet at the Balloon Rally and then go back for particular events. If six is a problem, we’ll go back to doing less. They are a lot of work to put together. Our major concern is that it should be fair for all.

(PM) You know you cannot make everyone happy.

Ms. Martin: We will have to go before the Planning Board and will be missing June. I would go with four.

Doris Carney suggested three events per year.

(CD) These are only one day events. (LF) I suggest we not go through the Criteria as I have some concerns with it and would have to vote against some of the things. Board decided to proceed with the Criteria.
\

CRITERIA:

A. The specific site is an appropriate location for the proposed use or
structure.

All Agree 3-0.

B. The proposal will not be detrimental, injurious, obnoxious, or
offense to the neighborhood and will not diminish the value of surround properties.

(CD) The application says six but it should be three times a year. (LF) I think it will.

Agree 2-1 (LF).

C. There will be no undue nuisance or serious hazard to pedestrian or
vehicular traffic, including the location and design of access ways and off-street parking.

Agree 2-1 (LF).

D. Adequate and appropriate facilities and utilities will be provided
to insure the proper operation of the proposed use or structure.

All Agree 3-0.

E. The proposed use or structure is consistent with the spirit of the
Town’s Zoning Ordinances and the intent of the Town’s Master Plan.

All agree 3-0.

(LF) Motion to approve application for a Special Exception filed by Linda Martin, 145 Thompson Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 (Tax Map R25, Lot 1) to conduct Mud Runs in a Rural Zone on property located at 145 Thompson Road, Pittsfield, NH 03263 with a maximum of three (3) one-day events per year. (PM) Second. Carried 3-0.

Applicant was advised of the thirty (30) day appeal process. It was also noted that a Site Plan Review should be filed with the Planning Board.

(EV) returned and was seated on the Board (10:13 P.M.)

ITEM 9. Members Concerns

Board questioned why some members and alternates were not present. (EV) According to the rules, they are supposed to call when they are not able to appear.

(EV) I am happy with the way this meeting was conducted. You all did a great job and I am proud of you all.

ITEM 10. Public Input

John Hanlon: I am upset that the original complainant threatened the Board and then failed to stay for the entire meeting. In my opinion, he is just out for himself

Jim Theodore: You guys do a great job. Thank you.

Doris Carney: How does the appeal process work? (EV) explained the appeal process to the family and how it would proceed.

Dan Kramer: It should be noted that they now have to go to the Planning Board and that another thirty (30) day appeal process would be involved. If you choose to go forward and the Planning Board turns you down, you would be going forward at your own risk. The Planning Board can put conditions on what you are doing.

Doris Carney: We are trying to plan for future events which need prior announcements. (EV) explained to her that they would have to follow the procedures.

Dan Kramer: Realistically, you are probably looking at well into August.

Jim Pritchard: The issue the Martins should understand is that if someone appeals your order, it will stay your order.

(EV) The appeal cannot be something that was known and not presented. It has to be something new.

Linda Martin: I just wish that this had come to me years ago and it would all be over with.

Close Public Input

ITEM 11. Adjournment

(CD) Motion to adjourn. (PM) Second. Carried 4-0.

Meeting adjourned at 10:45 P.M.

Approved: June 14, 2012

____________________________ __________________
Carole Dodge, Vice- Chairman Date

I hereby certify that these Minutes were recorded by me on June 9, 2011, transcribed and posted on June 16, 2011.

_______________________________________
Delores A. Fritz, Recording Secretary

III Tapes