Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING August 23, 2011 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2011 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Vice Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci, Vice Chair Jack Currier, Clerk Ryan Williams Rick Johnson Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Reppucci explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Reppucci 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. Reppucci also explained procedures involving the timing light. Mr. Reppucci stated that the Board has a letter of withdrawal from 45 Broad Street. He stated that their case was tabled on January 25, 2011. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to remove the case from the Table, stating that it is withdrawn. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 1. White Duck Realty, LLC (Owner) 168 Daniel Webster Highway (Sheet A Lot 786) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum ground sign area, 150 sq.ft permitted, 220.5 sq.ft proposed; and, 2) to exceed maximum ground sign height, 40 feet permitted, 42 feet proposed – both requests to remove a 71.5 sq.ft portion of the existing sign, and replace it with a new 142.5 sq.ft sign. HB & GI Zones, Ward 8. [TABLED FROM THE 8-9-11 MEETING] ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING August 23, 2011 Page 2 Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Ryan Williams Rick Johnson Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A, 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier stated that since the sign has been revised, the variance for the sign height is no longer required. He also stated that the sign has been reduced by two- thirds, the variance is now only for an additional 26 square feet. Atty. Prunier said in the previous letter of opposition from the adjacent property owner, the issue was the overall size of the proposed sign, and it would make their sign look very small. He said the signs are now about the same size. Mr. Currier asked about the new portion of the sign, an electronic changing sign. Mr. Falk said that it is allowed, as long as it meets Section 190-97 (B), which it does, also, the applicant will need to fill out and sign the affidavit stating that they will adhere to this Code Section. He said that these signs are only allowed in the GB and HB zones. Atty. Prunier said that the electronic sign will allow the store to advertise what is being sold at the furniture store, and it will get the public involved. Mr. Williams asked if the sign on the bottom is being moved further down on the pole. Atty. Prunier said the sign on the bottom is staying where it is, it will not be moved. Mr. Reppucci asked if there was any discussion with the adjacent property owner since the last meeting. Atty. Prunier said they did not, but the letter was sent to him, the same one that went to Mr. Falk and the Board. He said the sign they previously requested was significantly larger, and it would dwarf their sign, and the new sign is virtually the same ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING August 23, 2011 Page 3 size. He said that the proportionality between the size of the two signs has been addressed. He said the new sign will accomplish the applicant’s objectives, and the sign will be more proportional in size. Mr. Reppucci said the trees block the bottom portion of the sign, the bottom panels are hard to read. Atty. Prunier said that the tree is on the adjacent owner’s property. Further discussion ensued about the sign. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. Mr. Johnson asked if one of the other tenants wanted to have a message on the sign, if it is permitted. Mr. Falk said the sign ordinance is content neutral, per Section 190-92 (B). He said that each message must stay static, non- changing, on the sign for a minimum of five seconds. He said that if some other business had a message on it, it wouldn’t be enforced upon, due to the ordinance. He said that these signs are very expensive, and most likely, the applicant will want to utilize the sign for their own benefit. Mr. Reppucci stated that the Board cannot put limitations, or direction, on what goes on the sign. Mr. Williams said the Board shouldn’t get involved with this issue. Mr. Currier said that every business on the east side of Daniel Webster Highway, from Rivier College to the border, goes down to the river. He said he didn’t see the hardship as unique to this property. He said that this property has great visibility from Exit 2, as well. Mr. Williams said it’s a minor encroachment into the maximum ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING August 23, 2011 Page 4 allowed signage. Mr. Reppucci said if this sign were put up next to a 150 square foot sign, the difference wouldn’t even be noticeable. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the request on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci stated that the only request is for the ground sign area, 150 square feet permitted, 176 square feet proposed. 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 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 an area variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Currier). 2. City of Nashua (Owner) Nashua Dog Owners Group, Inc. (Applicant) 73 Groton Road (Sheet D Lot 25A) requesting variance to exceed maximum fence height, 6 feet permitted – 8 feet chain-link fence proposed. R40 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Ryan Williams Rick Johnson Attorney Thomas J. Leonard, Welts, White and Fontaine, 29 Factory Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Leonard said that they’ve gone before the Planning Board already, also, the Conservation Commission and the Parks Department. He said the area is a small portion of Yudicky Farm, about 2.7 acres. He said the land was chosen by the Parks Department, and approved by the Board of Aldermen. He said the idea is to have a fenced-in ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING August 23, 2011 Page 5 park, to walk dogs without leashes. He said the proposal is for an 8-foot chain-link fence around the perimeter of the land, where the ordinance allows a 6-foot high fence. He said the site is between a fire road and a bike trail. He said for purposes of security for the dog park owners, and for safety for other users of the park, the extra height of the fence is necessary, and, for the dogs to stay in the park. He said sometimes there may be a build-up of snow, and the extra height will help to keep the dogs in the park. Atty. Leonard went over the variance points of law, to the Board’s satisfaction. He said the fence will not create a visual barrier, as it is chain-link, and a public park, and no residential uses adjacent, so there will not be any visual barriers in the multi-use park. He said there will be a rail on both the top and bottom of the fence. He said it will be black, so it will blend in well. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Williams to grant the variance on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Williams stated that granting of the variance is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and granting the variance will do substantial justice, and owing to the unique circumstances of the property, considering the reasons mentioned in the public hearing and meeting, not granting the variance would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: Mr. Falk said that the agenda is not prepared yet, as there is ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING August 23, 2011 Page 6 still time to write it up. He said he didn’t see any cases that were Regional Impact. MINUTES: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 7:25 p.m. Mr. Jack Currier, Clerk CF Taped Hearing