Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, April 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Jack Currier, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Jack Currier, Chair Sean Duffy Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Marcia Wilkins, Planner I Mr. Currier explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Currier explained how testimony will be given by applicants, those speaking in favor or in opposition to each request, as stated in the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) By-laws. Mr. Currier also explained procedures involving the timing light. MOTION by Mr. Duffy to remove this case from the Table. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 1. Hanzhla, LLC (Owner) George Clark & Ed Corriveau (Applicants) 590 South Main Street (Sheet 129 Lot 1) requesting special exception to expand a nonconforming convenience store by converting existing storage and office space to a pizza kitchen with no indoor seating. RA Zone, Ward 7. [TABLED FROM 3-23-10 MEETING] Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 2 George Clark, 11 Knowlton Lane, Nashua, NH. Mr. Clark stated that he made up some drawings that he passed out to the Board. He said that the owner is present as well. He said that the back area is paved. He said that they are sticking with their original plan, and will clean the site up even more. Mr. Currier asked about the neighbors concern about parking. Mr. Clark said that his concern was parking right on South Main Street right in front of his house. He said that they will move the dumpster to the end of the driveway, and create an entrance right there, also, it will help for the carry-out. Mr. Shaw asked if the East Hobart Street would be an entrance and exit. Mr. Clark said it will be both, an entrance and an exit. Mr. Currier asked if there is a plan to pave into the hill, and if so, asked about the stormwater runoff. Mr. Clark stated that the side is already paved, it is rough, but it will be re-surfaced to make it smoother. He said it will be smoothed over. He said the runoff won’t be any more than what is existing. Mr. Currier asked about some of the equipment in the back that belongs to the shop, and whether it will be cleaned up. Mr. Owner stated they will clean up the site, and the extra cars will be moved too, and the auto shop will be cleaned up too. Mr. Duffy asked if the pizza oven will be one deck, or two decks. Mr. Clark said it will be a double-deck. Mr. Duffy asked about the fire suppression. Mr. Clark stated that there will be a vent system installed, and it will be off the back of the building. Mr. Duffy asked about signage. Mr. Clark said there will not be any signage variances. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Duffy asked if they would be amenable to directional signs. Mr. Clark said they would, to help direct drivers and make it easier. Mr. Reppucci asked if the front parking area is all paved. Mr. Clark said it is. Mr. Reppucci asked about the option 1 and 2 drawings. Mr. Clark pointed out where the deck will be, and where the front parking spaces will be. Mr. Duffy said since cooking food will be involved, there will be Health Dept permits. Mr. Clark said he is aware of what the Codes are. Mr. Reppucci said that none of the drawings are dimensioned, and questioned whether they could get any parallel parking. He said they need 20 feet of depth for a parking space. Mrs. Wilkins said for parallel parking spaces, they need 23 feet. Further discussion ensued about parking spaces. Mr. Clark said the deck could be moved slightly up to the front of the building, to accommodate parking spaces. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Malcolm Brazill, 591 South Main Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Brazill stated that he lives across the street, and shares the concern about parking spaces. He said he is concerned about the fryolaters, with the odor. He said that he is concerned if it will be open later than 10:00 p.m. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 4 Mr. Shaw asked about the parking spaces, and how he thought they would work. Mr. Brazill said to take away a couple spots to create a driveway for another couple spots, it doesn’t make sense. Mr. Brazill said 11:00 p.m. is unreasonable for the neighborhood. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Clark said that the pizza hours will be whatever the store hours will be. He said it would be fair. He said that the pizza use will be 95% delivery, and there will be minimal traffic, it will only be 1 or 2 delivery vehicles. He said you can usually only smell a fryolater if it has dirty oil. He said the oil will be changed every other day. He said they will run a clean shop. Mr. Currier said the hours are 9:00 am – 10:00 pm Monday through Thursday, and 9:00 am – 11:00 pm Friday to Sunday. He asked what the store hours are. Mr. Owner said it opens at 6:00 am, and typically closes at 9:00 pm, and 10:00 pm in the summer on the weekends. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: No One. Mr. Reppucci asked about the parking, and who would have jurisdiction about the parking and drive aisle dimensions, and standards, and said he’d like to have a reference about the design. Mr. Shaw said it seems like there could be a lot of possibilities with the driveway and parking configurations. He said if this is going before the Planning Board, they can get into more details about the parking areas with a site plan. He said if there is going to be a driveway entrance on that side of the building, that it is only an entrance. Mr. Duffy said it should be a one-story building, and the convenience store could have delivery, and said it shouldn’t have a drive-thru, and should have directional signage. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 5 Mr. Currier said the request should meet City requirements for parking and traffic movements, which is a Planning Board issue. He said there should be no indoor seating, with one table out on the deck. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Currier stated that the request is listed in the table of uses, Section 190-120. He said the hours of operation will not exceed 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, and 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on weekends. He said that there will be an entrance created on the right hand side of the store, as you look at it between 590 and 588 South Main Street, as shown on the sketches as provided tonight, and that there will be no indoor seating, and there will be a maximum of one table outside, and that a proposed and clearly articulated and dimensioned parking plan/site plan will be reviewed by the Planning Board as part of the stipulations of approval. Mr. Currier said with the above conditions, it will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, because of the entrance only over the sidewalk. Mr. Currier said there will be no impact to public water, sewer, drainage or other municipal systems, and all the special regulations are fulfilled. Mr. Currier stated that with Planning Board approval of the parking area, it will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, at least not substantially different than it is now to have a pizza kitchen with no indoor seats. He said there will be no drive-thru services provided on the site. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. Mr. Reppucci asked about signage, and if they need any variances for signs. Mrs. Wilkins said they would need to apply separately. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. RL & JW O’Brien Trust (Owner) City Wide Carpentry (Applicant) 6 Briand Drive (Sheet 138 Lot 219) requesting special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this Case: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 6 Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Gary Sinclair, City Wide Carpentry, Merrimack, NH. Mr. Sinclair said as the plans show, they would be removing the 24’x24’ existing garage, and constructing a 24’x36’ addition for the new in-law apartment. He said the new structure will only be 12 feet deeper than the existing garage, and will have minimal impacts to the neighborhood. He said from the street, the new addition will look the same, except the two garage doors won’t be there, it will have a door and a window in the front. He said the parking will be the same. Mr. Shaw asked if the whole foundation would be removed. Mr. Sinclair said yes, they have tried to repair the garage foundation a couple times, and said it needs to be taken out and re-done, so it is sound. He said there will be a full basement underneath it. He said the existing situation is not structurally sound. Mr. Reppucci asked if the garage entrance will be in the back. Mr. Sinclair said they are taking the garage doors down from up top, and they will be put down in the back. Mr. Reppucci asked if there will be a driveway going to the back. Mr. Sinclair said there will not be a driveway going around to the back. However, he could just drive around back there. Mr. Currier said it could be just occasional use, it’s a lawn, maybe once in a while he’d drive back there. Mr. Sinclair said it would be limited storage. Mr. Duffy asked if the applicant is aware of the accessory dwelling special conditions. Mr. Sinclair said the owner is aware. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 7 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Gary O’Brien, 41 Newton Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. O’Brien said it’s his mom’s house, and he’ll be moving in to the residence, and his mom will move into the addition. Mr. Currier asked if he’s talked to any of the neighbors about the driveway on the side. Mr. O’Brien said it’s nice to have the access and the extra space, and said he’s not planning on using it as a garage down there, it’ll be more for storage. Mr. Currier asked what he’d think of a stipulation of no driveway going around there. Mr. O’Brien said he’d abide by whatever the City regulations are. He said they are not planning on paving it, and it’s not set up to do it. Mr. Duffy said in driving around the neighborhood, he didn’t see any other such driveways, and it wouldn’t be in the essential character of the neighborhood. He said the driveway around the side, going to the back, would give it a multi-family type of look. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the special exception on behalf of the owner. Mr. Currier stated that it is with the stipulation that there will not be a driveway, paved or unpaved, on the side yard going around to the back, as the Board finds that to have daily use of a driveway would be impactful to the abutter and the neighborhood, but, occasional use, as testified by the applicant, is reasonable, and it is ok to have the two garage doors in the back. Mr. Currier said that this application is listed in the table of uses, Section 190-32. Mr. Currier said by not having the driveway on the side, it will not create undue traffic or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He said that the driveway is to remain in its current configuration. Mr. Currier said that the in-law apartment will not overload public water, sewer, drainage ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 8 or any other municipal systems, and the special regulations are fulfilled, the six accessory use criteria for an in-law. He said the design will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of the residents. SECONDED by Mr. Duffy. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. Marianne O’Connor (Owner) 26 Williams Street (Sheet 20 Lot 2) requesting special exception to allow an accessory (in- law) dwelling unit. RB Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Marianne O’Connor, 26 Williams Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. O’Connor stated that she bought the home in January, with the pre- existing handicap features, and is seeking approval for an in- law apartment. She went over her application with the Board. Mr. Currier said if you’re on Williams Street looking at the property, you won’t see a change from Williams Street. She said her property is fenced in. She said it will not have a basement, just a foundation, one story addition. She said the design of the addition isn’t finished yet, but it will match the house. Mr. Shaw asked if she was familiar with the deed modifications for the in-law apartment. Mrs. O’Connor said she is. She said she will comply with all the ordinances. Mr. Currier went over all the in-law criteria. Mrs. O’Connor answered them to the Board’s satisfaction. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 9 No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. Mr. Shaw said there was a letter of support in the package. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the special exception on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci stated that the request is listed in the Table of uses, Section 190-32. Mr. Reppucci said it will not create traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety, there is no testimony that it would. He stated that it will not overload public water, sewer, drainage or other municipal systems. Mr. Reppucci stated that all the special regulations are fulfilled, and the use will not be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the public health, safety or morals of the neighborhood. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Robert Kerouac (Owner) Club Social (Applicant) 6 Denton Street (Sheet 26 Lot 31) requesting use variance to allow a private social club in a portion of an existing building. GI Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Karen Bourdon, 141 Chestnut Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Bourdon said they are trying to relocate the club, the building was in a fire. She said there was a Royal Moose Club, which was a private club for over 50 years, and the building is all set up inside for our needs. She provided pictures of what the building looks like inside. She said it’s been empty for quite a while, and there is ample parking, about 13 spaces. She said it’s 5,500 square feet, 4,500 square feet on the first floor, and 1,000 square feet on the top floor, with an office. She said it’s perfect for their use. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 10 Mr. Duffy asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Bourdon said Monday through Friday, 9:00 am to 9:00 or 10:00 pm, depending, and weekends it’s 8:00 am to 1:00 am. She said they don’t sell food, and there is ample fast food restaurants nearby. Mr. Duffy asked about sound systems. Ms. Bourdon said they would have a DJ on Thursday and Friday nights. She said they do bands every other weekend during the winter, not during the summer months. Mr. Currier asked about the entrance, it looks like there are two. Ms. Bourdon said there is one off of Denton Street, the first parking lot going in. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Melissa Hammond, 18 Crown Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Hammond said she has several concerns, and has a petition signed by everyone in the neighborhood. She said it is a one-way street, and people diverting traffic from the train, and there are children in the neighborhood. She said there was a stabbing murder in 1989 from an intoxicated patron of the other club. She said other patrons have urinated on her garage, and it’s had graffiti on it. She said she is concerned with noise, and it’s a small street. Lam Nguyen, 20 Crown Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Nguyen stated that his back yard is going to be a parking lot with drinking. Mr. Currier asked how late the Moose Lodge stayed open. Ms. Hammond said they had weddings, parties, functions, and it was a problem, and the police were there quite a bit, and there was vandalism. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 11 SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Currier asked what goes on in the club. Ms. Bourdon stated that she understands the concerns, she has children as well. She said she makes sure the servers watch out, and they’ll call cabs. She said a lot of times, they have designated drivers, and they don’t want to get in trouble for over-serving someone. Mr. Currier asked to clarify the hours of operation. Ms. Bourdon said normally 9:00 pm during the week, it would close. Mr. Currier asked if they have events that would fill up the parking lot. Ms. Bourdon said they don’t really have any big events, they do have a kids Christmas party, and have had 80 children there at one time with their parents. She said they do have Thanksgiving functions, and Christmas dinners. She said there are 13 parking spaces. Mr. Reppucci asked how long they were in their old location before the fire. Ms. Bourdon said 75 years, and 77 years in business. Mr. Reppucci asked how many times in the past five years have the police been called there. Ms. Bourdon said never. Mr. Duffy asked how many members belong to the Social Club. Ms. Bourdon said about 200. Mr. Currier asked if they would be amenable to talking with the abutters, get some feedback, and tell them what is planned. Ms. Bourdon said they would. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 12 Melissa Hammond, 18 Crown Street. Ms. Hammond said she’s concerned with her property values, she’s lived here for 21 years. She said it’s a very small street, with only 13 parking spaces for 200 members. She said when it’s snowing out, its impossible to navigate that street. She said if they have a sound system, or a band, it is very loud, and it will overtake the neighborhood. Mr. Currier asked if she would be amenable to discussing this proposal with Ms. Bourdon, to go over all the issues, and see if there’s a middle ground. Ms. Hammond said it’s not just her, it’s the whole neighborhood that has issues. She said the noise will slam the back of their houses. Mr. Shaw said it may be better to have the applicant meet with the abutters to go over all the issues, so there is no mis- understandings. He said a lot more may be understood if the applicant meets with the neighbors. Mr. Duffy said he’d like to go back and look at the property more closely. He said he’d like to continue the public hearing, to hear any other testimony. Mr. Reppucci said he didn’t see a solution coming from an abutter meeting, he said there’s no misunderstanding, and the issues raised by the abutters are real, and didn’t see how it could be resolved. Mr. Duffy said it is a GI zone, next to an RC zone. It’s a transitional area, and questioned if the old Moose Lodge is technically grandfathered. Mr. Currier said it’s reasonable as a GI zone. The GI zone generally doesn’t have late night activity, which ties into what the abutters are saying. He said he’s compelled to table it to have the applicant and the abutters go over all the issues. MOTION by Mr. Currier to table this application until the next meeting, to the top of the agenda, the first case, to allow the applicant and the abutters to discuss the situation and see if there can be some common ground. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 13 Mr. Reppucci asked if the testimony is all new, from the meeting of the applicant and the abutter exclusively. Mr. Currier said all the testimony from this meeting should be incorporated, and thought it should be a regular public hearing. He said it would be the normal 15 minute and 5 minute talks. Mr. Duffy suggested they get 5 minutes, not a full 15. Mr. Currier said that they didn’t speak for 15 minutes tonight. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Reppucci). 5. Lisa Crowley-Dee (Owner) 225 Broad Street (Sheet E Lot 359) requesting special exception for a major home occupation for a dog grooming business. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Lisa Dee, 67 Hollis Street, Pepperell, MA. Ms. Dee said they just purchased the property. She said she has a small dog- grooming business in Milford, NH. She said she grooms about two to three dogs per day. She said they would like to remove the trailer on the property, and construct a new home on the lot. Mr. Currier asked if she has been by the site during rush hour traffic. Ms. Dee said she has, and has spoken with some of the abutters. Mr. Currier asked if she keeps dogs overnight. Ms. Dee said she does not intend to do any boarding, only one dog is done at a time, and it wouldn’t be a dog day care either. Mr. Duffy asked if she would be living on the property, too. Ms. Dee said that she will. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 14 Mr. Shaw asked about the hours of operation. Ms. Dee said she’d work any hours that people need to have their dog groomed, generally in the afternoon. Ms. Dee said she would work 9:00 am to 3:00 pm. Mr. Shaw asked about the driveway configuration. Ms. Dee stated that perhaps some sort of a T-shape. She said there is a turnaround now. Mr. Reppucci went over all the major home occupation criteria special regulations. Ms. Dee testified to the Board’s satisfaction. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Doris Pomerleau, 1 Horsepond Road, Nashua, NH. Ms. Pomerleau stated that she is opposed to it, due to the noise issue of dogs, and it’s possible that they could have kennels later, and board dogs. Mr. Currier said should the request be approved, there could be a stipulation that there be no kennel. Ms. Pomerleau said there is a lot of traffic here as well. Mr. Lenny Pomerleau. Mr. Pomerleau asked what the size of the house will be, as it’s a small lot. Mr. Currier said the house must meet the setbacks of the R9 zone, for all dimensional criteria. Bruce O’Connor, 231 Broad Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. O’Connor stated that he was against a rug company that went in across the street from him years ago. He said he would be impacted by the noise and traffic. He said that cars can’t turn around in the driveway, there is no room. He said that this is not a good place for this business. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 15 SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Currier asked to clarify if the business entrance is facing east towards the highway. Ms. Dee said that would be the best situation for everybody, she said she wants to work with the neighbors so they’re happy with the use. Mr. Currier said if the entry was towards the Fish Hatchery, that would be best, and there can be only one curb-cut. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Currier said the applicant is proposing a home that would meet all the dimensional criteria, and the Board may stipulate that the entrance would face the Fish Hatchery, with a turnaround that would meet all approvals, with no outdoor kennels. Mr. Bruce O’Connor, 231 Broad Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. O’Connor stated that everyone has good intentions, but once they get in, things change. He said that he thinks that the proposed house is too big for the lot, and the driveway would be too small. He said any more than three cars, and it’s too much. Mr. Duffy said he wanted to make clear that the applicant will be living in the house. Mr. Reppucci said the applicant is committed to tearing down an old trailer, building a new house that will pay more in taxes, and thought that the applicant was very receptive to the stipulations that were discussed. Mr. Shaw said that the traffic is an issue, but that’s an existing situation, and the proposed use is low-intensity, and it will not have outdoor kennels. Mr. Duffy said he sees this as a very minor use, almost a minor home occupation. Mr. Currier stated that the request is well defined, with no employees, and no outdoor kennels, and if anything changes, it’s an enforcement issue. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 16 MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is listed in the table of uses, Section 190-47 B. He said it will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety, there was a lot of discussion on traffic by the Board, but the consensus is that it is not an undue increase. Mr. Reppucci said it will not overload public water, sewer, drainage or other municipal systems, the structure will comply with the building code and zoning requirements beyond the special exception. Mr. Reppucci said that all the special regulations are fulfilled, and it will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals and welfare of the residents, in fact, it should improve the area with a new structure. Mr. Reppucci said a special condition is that there be no outdoor kennels on the property at any time, and the entrance area for the customers facing east, towards the Fish Hatchery. He said that per testimony, the hours will be 9:00 am to 3:00 pm seven days a week, and the house will comply with the district. He said the space designated for the business is not to exceed 300 square feet. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. Mr. Currier wanted language that there should be a turn-around so that vehicles do not back out onto Broad Street. Mr. Reppucci said he’s not inclined, that’s more of a Planning Board issue. He said the driveway has to be designed so that vehicles don’t have to back out onto Broad Street, there must be a turn-around available so that they can pull straight out. SECONDED by Mr. Duffy for the amendment to the Motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Silano Partners, LLC (Owners) Marcelina Santos (Applicant) 34-36 Palm Street (Sheet 83 Lot 57) requesting use variance to allow a convenience store. RC Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 17 Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Julio Hiraldo, 18 Skyline Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Hiraldo said he is the owner’s son. He stated that their old building burned down, and are looking to relocate it to 34-36 Palm Street. Mr. Duffy asked if the old clothing store has been abandoned for a while. Mr. Hiraldo said he is not sure, it has been empty for quite a while. Mr. Duffy asked about the utilities, and electricity. Mr. Hiraldo said they are looking to get it all up to Code. Mr. Currier asked how people used to come to the other store, if they walked, or where they parked their cars. Mr. Hiraldo said they mainly parked on the Ledge Street side, Pine Street side, and Central Street. Mr. Currier asked where customers will park. Mr. Hiraldo said they will park on the street, there is plenty of space. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Ali Ahmad, 72½ West Hollis Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Ahmad stated that he owns a convenience store at West Hollis Street at Palm Street. He said there are too many convenience stores as it is now in this neighborhood. He said it’s too hard to survive with so many, as four new ones have recently opened. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Currier asked if this business is just replacing the one that recently burned down. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 18 Mr. Hiraldo said yes. Julio Hiraldo. Mr. Hiraldo said they are just replacing what they had, there is no competition, he said that the two businesses do not conflict with one another, they are two different types of stores. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: None. MOTION by Mr. Duffy to grant the use variance on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Duffy stated that the zoning restriction has a unique setting in the property in its environment, and that it is a pre-existing prior use of retail purpose, in a neighborhood of mixed use of RC and commercial, therefore, the relationship between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and it allows the Board to grant such a use variance. He said that it is a grandfathered use, the property had been abandoned for quite some time, this will bring it to more current use and in codes, and it will be more in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Duffy stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance to allow a similar use in the neighborhood to be granted. Mr. Duffy stated that it should not adversely impact the property values of surrounding parcels, even though there was no expert testimony, it is a relocation of a 13-year old business right in the same neighborhood. Mr. Duffy stated that it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served that reasonable redevelopment uses of a business be allowed. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 7. Michael E. & Elizabeth Lemmon (Owners) Interstate Contracting, LLC (Applicant) 21 Brinton Drive (Sheet 49 Lot 258) requesting the following: 1) special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit; and the following variances: 2) to exceed the maximum accessory ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 19 dwelling unit area, 700 sq.ft. allowed - 1,034 sq.ft. requested, 3) to exceed the maximum accessory dwelling unit floor area, 30% allowed – 37.8% requested; and 4) to encroach 3 feet into the 10 foot required side yard setback. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Eric Gould, 16 Tetreau Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Gould stated that they are proposing the addition that is exceeding the square footage, and the parents are moving into the in-law apartment, and the mother is handicapped, so there is a need for additional space for the wheelchair to navigate about. He said that the house is awkwardly placed on the lot, so there is a hardship in where the addition can reasonably go on the lot. He said he has some new plans, and submitted them to the Board. Mr. Gould said that the plans speak for themselves. Mr. Gould said there is a house in the neighborhood with the same sized addition, so it should fit it with the characteristics of the area, and it will add value. He said it is a corner lot. He said there is parking for three spaces. Mr. Currier asked what the front yard setback is in this zone. Ms. Wilkins said it is 25 feet. Mr. Currier said the applicant stated that the addition would be 26 feet from the road, and stated that setbacks are generally not from the road, but the property line, and usually there’s a good 6-10 feet. Ms. Wilkins said that when someone applies, the plot plan is reviewed by Staff. Mr. Gould said that he came to the office today, and they went over the setback, and it looked like everything was within the ordinance. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 20 Mr. Duffy asked if the driveway will be the whole width for the cars to pull up. Mr. Gould said yes. Mr. Duffy asked about the 1,034 square foot size. Mr. Gould said about 300 square feet is set aside for the access, and they need two bedrooms down there, they sleep in separate bedrooms. Mr. Reppucci asked if the two bedrooms is associated with the handicap. Mr. Gould said yes. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Scott Palkens, 25 Brinton Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Palkens said they have no problem with the request and it will add to the neighborhood. Tom McGreevey, 20 Brinton Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. McGreevey said he lives directly opposite from the subject lot, and is in favor, and will add to the character of the neighborhood. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. Mr. Duffy reiterated that the extra space is to accommodate a handicap person, and they need two bedrooms. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the special exception on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is listed in the table of uses, Section 190-32 B, and 190-16. He stated that it will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Reppucci said it will not overload public water, sewer, drainage or other municipal systems. He stated that the special regulations are fulfilled, and it will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of the residents, in fact, there was testimony from abutters who are in favor of it. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 21 SECONDED by Mr. Duffy. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the area variances on behalf of the owner, all taken together. Mr. Reppucci stated that the variances are needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property and the benefit sought by the applicant, by testimony, the variances that require the extra space is needed by a handicapped person who is intending to use the property, and discussion by the Board was that meets the burden of 674:33, where no hardship has to be shown. Mr. Reppucci said the request meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely impact property values of surrounding parcels, there were some abutters who were in favor of it, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be done. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. Mr. Currier said it is per the plans dated 4-12-10. Mr. Reppucci said that is fine, it can be added to the motion. Mr. Duffy said special conditions are that it is a corner lot, with the unique position of the house on the lot are very compelling. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 8. Wendy L. Brown (Owner) Russell Larrivee (Applicant) 2 Baltimore Road (Sheet D Lot 318) requesting variance to encroach 10 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback to construct a 10’x15’ screened-in porch. R9 Cluster Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 22 Russell Larivee, Contractor. Mr. Larivee stated that they are proposing to construct a 10’x15’ screened-in room, which encroaches 10 feet into the front yard setback. He said the property is unique, it is a corner lot on Baltimore Road. Mr. Duffy said there is no plumbing and heating in the room. Mr. Larivee said there will be electricity, for a ceiling fan. He said it will be built off the right side of the house. Mr. Duffy asked if there are other homes in the area with screened-in porches. Mr. Larivee said many of the homes have added on over the years. Mr. Currier asked if this is a condo association. Mr. Larivee said that they own the building, but not the lot. He said the condo association must sign off on the request. Trestle Brook has been notified. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the request on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property given the special conditions of the property and the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than the area variance. Mr. Reppucci said the applicant is building a reasonably sized porch, they have to do the encroachment. Mr. Reppucci said it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, we heard no testimony either way on that matter, and there’s nothing for the Board to believe it would. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 23 Mr. Reppucci stated that it is not contrary to the public interest, and there were no abutters opposing it, and substantial justice would be done. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Duffy) 9. Ballinger Properties LLC & BT Realty Limited Partnership (Owners) CVS Pharmacy (Applicant) 242 Main Street (Sheet 31 Lot 2) requesting the following: 1) a determination whether a material change of circumstances affecting the merits of the application has occurred, or that the application is for a use that materially differs in nature and degree from the prior application for a variance denied by the ZBA on August 26, 2003, and, if so; the following variances: 2) to exceed maximum number of wall signs, 2 permitted, 3 existing from variance granted on October 3, 1990, 5 proposed, 3) to exceed maximum wall sign area, 100 square feet permitted, 144.75 square feet existing, 256.61 square feet proposed, and 4) to exceed maximum wall sign height, 20 feet allowed – 24 and 25 feet proposed for two of the proposed wall signs. D-1/MU Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw Bob Carlson Gerry Reppucci Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs, Hudson, NH. Mr. Sullivan said that the original proposal that was denied in 2003 was for 348.4 square feet, and it also included a pylon sign with an electronic changing message center on it. He said that the message center from that case was a real sticking point with regards to where it was located. Mr. Sullivan said that CVS is upgrading their signs to go from neon to LED illumination. He said they want to upgrade their signage and get some more visibility. He said that the proposal tonight is for 256 square feet, with an additional sign on the side of the building facing the hospital. He said you could argue that they have three frontages. He said they are a 24- ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 24 hour pharmacy, and a lot of their customers are going there for their medication after a hospital stay. Mr. Reppucci asked what the present signage is on the property. Mr. Sullivan said it is 144.75 square feet. Mr. Currier said it is a material change in the request, as it is a smaller number of signage. Mr. Sullivan said correct, and the electronic message center request has been eliminated. Mr. Reppucci said they are asking for significantly less signage than the 2003 request, and the application is different. Mr. Duffy said he didn’t see a change in circumstances with the request. Mr. Reppucci said the application must be substantially different to meet the Fisher vs. Dover criteria. Mr. Currier said the square footage is significantly less, and wouldn’t mind hearing the case again. MOTION by Mr. Currier that the Board finds this application is materially different from the previous one in 2003, and that the Board hear this case. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs, Hudson, NH. Mr. Sullivan said that CVS is going through a signage upgrade with new technology, with an LED-illuminated type of sign, they are trying to make enhancements. He said the visibility from Spring Street/Main Street corner of the property, there is a large parking lot that wraps around the entire building that isn’t theirs, but because it’s a parking lot, they have substantial visibility from that side. He said that a lot of the customers are in a state of distress when they come there, for their medication or from a hospital stay. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 25 Mr. Sullivan said they are asking for signage on that side elevation is 111 square feet, which is the addition of what they have on the property. He said the rear and front signs have been permitted, they are changing the rear sign slightly, moving it to the other end of the building and making it a little higher, that’s where the height variance comes from to gain a little better visibility. Mr. Currier said that he just didn’t see where someone could be approaching the site and not see it, or miss it. Mr. Duffy said it’s not like people don’t know where this site is, it’s a very visible corner. Mr. Sullivan said it’s true that a lot of people know where it is, but there are some people who don’t, and it would be that person who doesn’t know the building is there, that’s the person who would benefit by the signage. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Craig Albers, Manchester, NH. Mr. Albers said he is the store manager. He stated that the new lighting will draw the customers in, and if you’re walking out of the emergency room at SNH Medical, you can’t tell if this building has a CVS in it, all you see is the brick wall. He said that the Walgreens has lights in the front. He said that they want to be there for their customers. Further discussion ensued. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to allow the following with respect to this application. He said that initially, the Board voted to hear the application. Mr. Reppucci said for number two – to exceed the maximum number of wall signs, 2 permitted, 3 existing from variance granted on October 3, 1990, 5 proposed. He said that for number four – to exceed maximum wall sign height, 20 feet allowed – 24 and 25 feet proposed for two of the proposed wall signs, he said that these variances, both taken together, are needed to enable the applicants proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, and the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 26 benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, they testified there is a blind spot where people couldn’t identify the building, and this will allow them to remedy that. Mr. Reppucci said it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, they won’t be increasing the square footage, their total square footage of signage, it’s just increasing it’s visibility. Mr. Reppucci said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, we heard no testimony for or against that, there is no reason to think it would. Mr. Reppucci stated that it is not contrary to the public interest, in fact, the testimony is that by increasing their visibility, it’s a benefit to the public interest, and substantial justice would be done. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. Mr. Currier said that he believes that four signs are adequate, because they’d have one on the front, one on the side facing the hospital, and one on the back, so they’d have one on all four sides, so four is enough. AMENDED MOTION by Mr. Reppucci, who stated that he’ll amend his motion on number two, that only four wall signs are permitted, with the ability to exceed the height on two of those signs. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny to exceed the maximum wall sign area, 100 square feet permitted, 144.75 square feet existing, 256.61 square feet proposed, that is denied. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Duffy). REHEARING REQUEST: 1. Vasilios P. & Tasia Zacharopoulos (Owners) 37 Sherri-Ann ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 27 Avenue (Sheet 137A Lot 107) requesting variance to encroach 1.5 feet into the 10 foot required side yard setback to construct a 21’x25’ foot carport and wood storage structure. RA Zone, Ward 2. Mr. Reppucci said that the applicant wasn’t present at the meeting to present the information about his own case, and that should be reason enough to re-hear the case. Mr. Currier said that Mr. Falk contacted the applicant, and told him face-to-face when the next meeting was going to be, so the applicant was completely aware when the meeting was. He said he was given the opportunity to present his case, he just didn’t show up. Mr. Reppucci said since he’s been on the Board, he’s never seen the Board go forward without the applicant testifying. Mr. Currier said the Board has always denied an application if the applicant is not present, because there are always questions to ask. Mr. Duffy said that number 5 is incorrect, and wasn’t sure about number 6, which has never been tested. Mr. Reppucci said it’s number 4 that he is asking people to consider, because it wasn’t that the Board procedurally denied this application because the applicant wasn’t present, the Board actually heard the case without the applicant present, which is quite a different thing. Mr. Shaw said that the Board discussed the case, and there was a motion to deny, based upon the discussions. He said it wasn’t just procedurally denied, the Board discussed the case. He said we had a public meeting and discussed the case. Mr. Duffy said there was a motion to remove it from the table, not to discuss the case. Mr. Currier said he disagrees with number 4, because the case was discussed, it was on the agenda, and there was a denial. He said that number 7 is wrong, we did the same thing we always do. Mr. Reppucci said the letter that went out to the applicant doesn’t speak to a procedural denial, it speaks to the fact that ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 13, 2010 Page 28 it was heard, and this is why it was denied. MOTION by Mr. Duffy to grant a rehearing request in terms of that there may have been a procedural error, and this Board has had a chance to look back at the information, so that the applicant feels that they’ve had their moment to present an application in full, however, given the applicant’s track record with this Board, he suggested that this Board notify Atty. Prunier, as well as the applicant, that this will be heard at one date-certain meeting, a one-time chance. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MINUTES: MOTION by Mr. Currier to waive the reading and place on file the minutes of March 23, 2010. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0 (Mr. Duffy abstained). REGIONAL IMPACT: Ms. Wilkins stated that for the cell tower case, they have notified all the cities within a 20-mile radius. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 11:54 p.m. Robert Shaw Clerk CF Taped Hearing