Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 8, 2010 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, June 8, 2010 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Jack Currier, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Jack Currier, Chair Gerry Reppucci Ryan Williams Carter Falk, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning 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. 1. Bruce M. Hanson (Owner) 52 West Glenwood Street (Sheet 128 Lot 97) requesting variance to encroach 3.5 feet into the 10 foot required left side yard setback to construct an attached 26’x31’ addition. RA Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Ryan Williams Bruce Hanson, 5 Trombley Terrace, Nashua, NH. Mr. Hanson said he bought the property in question, and based upon the deed, thought he had enough area to build the addition. He said that somewhere along the way, he said he’s lost twelve feet over the past forty years, and no one seems to know where it has gone. He said he got the property surveyed, a copy has been given to the Board. Mr. Hanson submitted a proposed rendering of what the property will look like with the addition. He said the front page is the existing home, the second page will be what it is proposed to ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 8, 2010 Page 2 look like, also, there are side and rear elevations as well. He said his initial intent was to tear down the house, and split the lot into two lots, however, there was not enough area for two individual homes. He said his son is getting married, they are going to renovate the house for him. He said his son, if all goes well, will be moving into the house on Labor Day. Mr. Hanson said the side setback is against an easement, not a structure, so it will not be up against anyone else’s residence. He said it is an easement to get to the condominium property in back of his property. He said as best as he could find out, it was a right-of-way for water. Mr. Hanson went over all the relevant variance points of law. Mr. Hanson said he, as well as City Hall, knows where the discrepancy has taken place with regards to the property line. Mr. Reppucci said it appears as if the owner thinks he owns more land than he actually does. Mr. Hanson said he still thinks that he does. He said that according to the City’s GIS website, it says that he only owns 137 feet. He said the deed says that it should be 150 feet. Mr. Williams asked what the chain of title looks like. Mr. Hanson said it always looks the same, for as far back as you can go. Mr. Williams asked if the abutter has a deed that shows if the boundary line encroaches upon the property line, to show where the dispute may be. Mr. Hanson said it is the easement, and what the City shows on their map, which shows a smaller lot, and therefore, the setback encroachment which prevents the building permit. Mr. Falk said the GIS map shows the proposed addition at 6.5 feet away from the side property line, but, the deed and the corrected survey, indicate that it has the same point on West Glenwood Street, but it is 12.28 feet closer to the west. Mr. Williams said the deed information should go into the GIS maps, and asked if the title for the abutting parcel has been looked at. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 8, 2010 Page 3 Mr. Falk said all the deeds are looked at to be put into the GIS System. He said he’s not sure how this discrepancy has come about. Mr. Currier said Jeffrey Land Survey has submitted a survey that shows the accurate boundary lines. Mr. Hanson said the City Assessors office didn’t find anything, so they suggested that my surveyor submit a certified plot plan showing the property lines, and any evidence that may show that the twelve feet went somewhere. Mr. Reppucci said the surveyor has a stamped drawing that shows what the Planning Department is saying, 137. He asked why it is that way. Mr. Williams stated that he delineates per deed, and per plan. He’s acknowledging the confusion. Mr. Hanson said that the surveyor shows both property lines in good faith, one that he owns and paid for, and the other one that the City shows on the GIS based upon a subdivision plan from the late 1980’s. He said somewhere along the way, someone must have taken up a stake and moved it twelve feet away on the ground. He said since time is of the essence, and wanting to move in by Labor Day, he said he decided to apply for the variance. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Martin Genest, 24 West Glenwood Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Genest said he’d like to see the house revamped into something that is presentable. He said it is bringing down the overall aesthetics of the neighborhood. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variance request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reppucci stated that it’s an RA zone, and the reference is 190-16, Table 16-3, in the Code. He said it is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, and the benefit ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 8, 2010 Page 4 sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely impact property values of surrounding parcels, there was no testimony on that, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be done. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 2. Vasilios P. & Tasia Zacharopoulos (Owners) 37 Sherri-Ann 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. [REHEARING] [POSTPONED FROM THE MAY 25, 2010 MEETING] Voting on this Case: Jack Currier Ryan Williams Gerry Reppucci – RECUSED ONLY TWO PEOPLE VOTING ON THE CASE – CASE TABLED TO THE 6-22-10 MEETING MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: 1. Robert Kerouac (Club Social), 6 Denton Street. Mr. Reppucci said he didn’t see how this is a rehearing request, but there is nothing presented to consider for us. Mr. Currier asked Mr. Falk if there is anything else for the Board to review, and if he’s talked to the applicant. Mr. Falk stated that it was mentioned to the applicant about the information that must be submitted, as there are only certain ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 8, 2010 Page 5 issues that must be raised before the Board in order to grant a rehearing. Mr. Currier said in a rehearing request, the applicant must state that, and give specific reasons why it should be reheard. Mr. Reppucci said the request was submitted within the required 30 days, and asked if we have to act upon it. Mr. Currier said the Board has to act upon it within 30 days. Mr. Reppucci said if the Board opens the case and tables it, that is action. He said he is interested in hearing what the people have to say, but what was submitted leaves us with nothing to discuss. He said the Board should table it, so that they can come up with something for the Board to consider. Mr. Currier said a rehearing request is one which there is no public testimony, with reasons why it should be re-heard, there are criteria to evaluate, which aren’t mentioned in their letter. He said he’s inclined to hear what they have to say, in two weeks. Mr. Williams said that he concurred with the previous statements about a rehearing. MOTION by Mr. Currier to table the rehearing request until the June 22, 2010 meeting to allow the folks that have requested the rehearing to present their evidence, in writing only. SECONDED by Mr. Williams. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. Mr. Falk stated that the information must be in our office by noon next Tuesday, before the package gets sent out. He said there are only a few issues that the Board will look at. The first is a procedural error, such as an abutter not getting notified. He said the second one is that there may be new information submitted that the Board did not have to consider at the first public hearing, such as a traffic study or a change in the application, such as changing hours. He said another point is that if the Board did not consider any of the points of law for a variance, there’s five points of law that the Board must discuss. He said the fourth point is that the decision cannot ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 8, 2010 Page 6 be an illegal or immoral decision. He said these are the only points that the Board can consider in a rehearing request, it can’t just be because you don’t like their decision. Mr. Currier reiterated that the deadline is next Tuesday, so this information can get put in the package. MINUTES: April 27, 2010 and May 11, 2010: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve both sets of Minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases of Regional Impact. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 7:22 p.m. Robert Shaw, clerk – absent (Mr. Currier and Mr. Falk co- wrote the case summaries) CF Taped Hearing