Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, October 25, 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 Rick Johnson Bob Carlson 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. Falk stated that there was a misspelling for the Celino’s case, however, a corrected agenda was sent out with the corrected name. 1. Paul J. Pennell (Owner) 70 Farmington Road (Sheet A Lot 531) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot frontage, 75 feet required – 40.57 feet requested, and 2) minimum lot width, 90 feet required – 52 feet requested – both requests to subdivide one lot into two lots. R9 Zone, Ward 7.[TABLED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 27, 2011 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Bob Carlson Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier stated that at the last ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 2 hearing, they were supposed to do some engineering, which has been done and submitted to Mr. Hearn, the abutter. Mr. Hearn has had his engineer review the information, and there are some questions and issues that still need to be answered, and both parties are requesting to table the case to the next hearing. Mr. Reppucci said that the City has an ordinance that mandates that they hear the case. Atty. Prunier said it doesn’t matter if there are three, four or five members present, he said that both parties still need to meet to go over the engineering reports. The Board agreed that the parties should meet and review the engineering report. Atty. Prunier said that they’d like to come to the next meeting as a unifying front, with a resolution. Mr. Currier said that there are a few people in the audience, and they should have an opportunity to make their comments known, and the Public Hearing should be opened. Mr. Carlson agreed. Mr. Johnson agreed as well. Atty. Prunier said that there already was a public hearing on this case, and it was closed, and that anyone with concerns could have already spoken. He said that this issue was the sole purpose of tabling the case, so that the parties can discuss the engineering report relative to the water. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Mike Hearn, 21 Eastbrook Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Hearn stated that he received a report from Atty. Prunier, and the company that prepared the report. He said he forwarded it to his engineer, and just got the report back today, and forwarded it back to Atty. Prunier. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 3 Mr. Reppucci said it looks as if everything is going as planned and presented with the engineering report, but there still needs to be a little more time to go over it. Mr. Hearn said he is in favor of tabling the request again. Ellen Curelop, 64 Farmington Road, Nashua, NH. Ms. Curelop said that the land is very wet. She said that her objection was identified in a letter that was sent to the Board. She said it has to do with the frontage, the actual lot that will be proposed is 25 feet, 15 feet of it goes into the driveway. She said that the driveways would be contiguous. She said that the character of the neighborhood is changing a lot. She said it would be a better plan if there was one shared driveway. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to Table the request on behalf of the owner, to the November 9, 2011 meeting, which is Wednesday, since Tuesday is the election night. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Marilou Bucciano (Owner) 8 Algonquin Lane (Sheet E Lot 864) requesting special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Bob Carlson Marilou Bucciano, 8 Algonquin Lane, Nashua, NH. Ms. Bucciano said she’d like to build an in-law apartment in her basement for her father. She said it would have a kitchen, bathroom and bedroom downstairs. Mr. Currier asked if the outside of the structure would stay the same. Ms. Bucciano said that is correct. Mr. Reppucci asked if the Planning Department went over all the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 4 special conditions for an accessory dwelling unit when she applied. Ms. Bucciano said they did, and all the criteria are met. Mr. Reppucci went over the special conditions, all met per testimony of the owner. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the special exception on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci said that it is listed in the Table of Uses, it will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. Mr. Reppucci said that the special regulations are all fulfilled per testimony, and the request will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to health, morals or welfare of the residents. SECONDED by Mr. Carlson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. Robert D. & Julie F. Chasseur (Owners) 33 Thornton Road (Sheet H Lot 522) requesting variance to encroach up to 5 feet into the 20 foot front yard setback (on Bradford Street) to construct an attached 14’x24’ carport. R18 Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Bob Carlson Bob Chasseur, 33 Thornton Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Chasseur stated ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 5 that they are looking to install a carport on the Bradford Street side, which would be 14’x24’. He showed the Board some pictures of his driveway and front yard area, along with drawings of the proposed carport. He laid a 2”x4” across the driveway where the end of the carport would be located. Mr. Currier asked how the carport would be anchored into the ground. Mr. Chasseur said with rebar, about three feet long, and they weld a 2” washer on the top, and drive it through the driveway at three locations on each side. Mr. Currier asked about the wind loads. Mr. Chasseur said he has one of these at another location, and has had it for eight years, and it’s the best thing he’s ever owned. Mr. Currier asked if it would have electricity or lights. Mr. Chasseur said it will not have electricity or lights, it is purely a carport. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variance on behalf of the applicant. He stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicants 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 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 done. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 6 SECONDED by Mr. Carlson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Edward R. & Ann V. Celino (Owners) 25 Upstone Drive Sheet 138 Lot 348) requesting variance to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 72% existing - 82% proposed - to remove a 10’x16’ shed and construct a 14’x20’ garage addition. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Bob Carlson Mike McGee, Contractor for the owner. Mr. McGee stated that there’s an existing shed at the back of the garage, it actually sits closer than what is shown on the plot plan, but it’s in pretty bad shape and needs to come down. He said it would look a lot nicer if it’s streamlined, and built attached to the garage, it would be much less cluttered. Mr. McGee said the variance is for the 40% accessory use area requirement. He said the side and rear setbacks would all be met, as well as the height. He said the owner spoke with the abutters, and no one had any concerns. Mr. Currier asked about the setbacks, but there is a carport right on the fence. Mr. McGee said that the carport and the existing shed would be going away; he said they’d be adding a total of 120 square feet of space, and everything would be streamlined. He said it would be built to match the garage. Mr. Currier said that this is a good proposal, but would like to see the carport removed too. Mr. McGee said that’s what the intention is, to clean the yard up, and so that there would only be the two structures on the property, and they’ll have easier access in the wintertime. He said that the concrete slab that the shed is sitting on is very low to the ground, and it’s not the greatest situation. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 7 Mr. Currier said that the application contains three sheets, an existing condition sheet, a proposed demo sheet, and a proposed addition sheet. He asked for clarification on what will be added. Mr. McGee identified where the addition would be, and how it would meet the setbacks. Mr. Currier said in 1977, the owners requested a 22’x24’ garage that was denied. Mr. Falk said that it was proposed to encroach 5 feet into the setback; they built it to meet the side yard setback instead. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said he’d be amenable to granting the request if the carport is removed. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the request on behalf of the applicant, with the stipulation that the carport is removed, the carport is currently located on the left side of the property as you look from the street, and also gone, and not moved to some other spot on the property, and that the 10’x16’ shed is also removed. He stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicants proposed use of the property, as the property would look less busy, and although 82% is a rather high amount of use area, it actually look better than it does now, and less busy. Mr. Currier stated that with the stipulations, it 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 done. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 8 5. SAT Sr. Limited Partnership (Owner) 313 Amherst Street (Sheet G Lot 52) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum wall height in a residential zone, 6 feet allowed – 22 foot high retaining wall proposed; and, 2) to encroach 7 feet into the 7 foot side yard setbacks for said retaining wall. GB/RC Zones, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Bob Carlson Robert Duval, TF Moran, Bedford, NH. Mr. Duval stated that they are seeking variances for a retaining wall. He described the location, and a 6,800 square foot retail store is proposed for Auto Zone, which would be located in the back of the lot. Mr. Duval said they are requesting a variance for a retaining wall above the 6 foot high limit in a residential zone, and for a variance for a retaining wall in a setback. He said the retaining wall is necessary for developing this lot. He said the property is roughly 200 feet deep, and the zone line is the reason for the request. He said if the lot was entirely zoned Commercial, it would be permitted without a variance. Mr. Duval went over the application, and the points of law. He said for drainage, safety and security, the wall is being proposed as per the submitted plan, which is located on the zone line. He said there are no negative impacts for the wall to any of the abutting properties. He said it’s a very steep slope, and will provide safety to the property. He said the property is vacant, and is falling into disrepair, the site will be substantially improved with the new Auto Zone store. He said there’s no reasonable issue why this request shouldn’t be supported. Mr. Currier asked about water, and on-site drainage, and water coming off the hill. Mr. Duval said if this request is granted, it will still require Planning Board approval, and the wall will be fully engineered, and it will address drainage as well as construction stability ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 9 and safety. He pointed out that a swale is proposed at the top of the wall, in back of it, and the water will be controlled and infiltrated, and disposed of properly. He said the wall will be very carefully designed by a structural engineer, and it will be a good, solid attractive wall. Mr. Currier said if the wall has a 6-ft high chain link fence on the top of it, it would look like a prison wall. He said the Board isn’t an architectural review Board, and asked about the applicant considering the aesthetics, and doesn’t want it to look like an eyesore. Mr. Duval said they have every intention of doing this right, it’s possible that the fence could be pushed back somewhat, and put some plantings in front of it, or use the black vinyl slats, which tend to blend in and disappear. 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 applicant. He stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicants 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 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 done, with the application as submitted to the Board. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Carla L. & Paul J. Reardon (Owners) Jeff Howe (Applicant) 25 Ducas Avenue (Sheet F Lot 132) requesting special ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 10 exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Bob Carlson Jeff Howe, Contractor. Mr. Howe said the owners wish to add an addition to the rear of the house for their mother-in-law. He stated that the accessory dwelling will not exceed the 700 square foot maximum size, it will be attached to the rear of the house, so it won’t be easily seen from the street, and won’t affect the neighborhood, or the look of the neighborhood. Mr. Howe said the addition will be attached and accessible from the main house. He said the request meets the spirit of the ordinance, and it will not detract from the neighborhood, or any city services. Mr. Reppucci said the Board has a letter from an abutter, and it had some questions and concerns. He read the letter into the record, which stated that there are water problems coming from a pump that pumps water from the subject property that goes into the street, and allegedly affects the homeowner across the street. Mr. Carlson said the letter brings up separate issues, and shouldn’t be considered, it has nothing to do with the request. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Reppucci asked about the addition, and if it will be added to the basement. Mr. Howe said it will have a 4 foot frost wall, the basement will not be added to. He said the present circumstance with the water will not be altered to, it won’t be better or worse. Mr. Carlson said the Board should not discuss this letter, it has nothing to do with the request. Mr. Currier said the letter brings up a fair concern, and there ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 11 is a water problem in the street. He said he didn’t think the letter should be just stricken from the record. Mr. Carlson said by doing that, we’d be asking the applicant to address something that has nothing to do with their request. Mr. Currier said that he’d like to ask the applicant about the issue. Mr. Currier said it sounds like the problem has been there for years, possibly decades, and asked if the applicant installed the pump. Mr. Reardon said that the person who wrote the letter has never approached them about it directly. He said when they bought the home, there was water in the basement, and installed the pump. He said the proposed addition is on the other side of the house. He said that sometimes in heavy rains, or winter thaws, the water runs off into the street. He said the neighbor put in a curb a couple years ago, and now the water runs down the length of the street and not her driveway. He said they put their system in about five or six years ago, it doesn’t pump out all the water, but it’s much more manageable. He said the pump is on the side of the house, about sixty to seventy feet away from the street, and it’s on the opposite side from the proposed addition. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No One. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Letter read into the record from abutter across the street, and discussed by the applicant and the Board. Mr. Currier went over the accessory dwelling unit criteria with the owner, which were all satisfied. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the special exception as submitted by the applicant. Mr. Reppucci stated that the request is listed in the table of uses, Section 190-32, it will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 25, 2011 Page 12 Mr. Reppucci said that the special regulations are all fulfilled per testimony, and the request will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to health, morals or welfare of the residents. SECONDED by Mr. Carlson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases for Regional Impact. MINUTES: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:32 p.m. Mr. Jack Currier, Clerk CF Taped Hearing