Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, January 10, 2012 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Rob Shaw, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw, Chair Gerry Reppucci, Vice Chair Rick Johnson Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Shaw explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Shaw 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. Shaw also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. Litchfield Vantage, LLC (Owner) Jennifer Hunter (Applicant) 4 Bud Way (Sheet E Lot 1349) requesting use variance to allow an animal daycare, boarding and grooming business with accessory retail in a portion of an existing building. AI Zone, Ward 1. [TABLED FROM THE 12-13-11 MEETING] Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to remove the case from the Table. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A. 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier stated that he objects going forward without a full Board, but will do so. He said the case ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 2 was continued from the last meeting so that the applicant can address a few issues. Atty. Prunier said that the Nashua Health Department has jurisdiction over the dog waste, and they said, in an email from Heidi Peek, that they are using acceptable methods. Atty. Prunier stated that the additional notification was made by City Staff along Pine Hill Road. Atty. Prunier showed the Board some pictures of a similar use in Littleton, MA. He asked if Mr. Johnson is able to go forward with the case, as he was absent from the last meeting. Mr. Johnson said he’s read all the case material, and is ready to go forward with the case. Atty. Prunier said they have provided the Board with all the additional information that was requested. Mr. Shaw said there was an additional letter from the Board of Directors for the Vantage Point Condo Association, representing 32 individual condominiums at 28 Charron Avenue, and 3 Bud Way, expressing their concern of the day care. Atty. Prunier said the previous tenant had about 150 employees, and the proposed use will have nowhere near that amount of traffic. He said the use is in the back of the building. He said the intent of the operation is to not let out more than ten dogs at one time in the kennel area. He said the dogs are only out there for ten or fifteen minutes. Mr. Shaw asked what the total time of the day that the dogs would be outside. Atty. Prunier said it would depend upon how many dogs are there. Mr. Johnson asked what hours of the day that the dogs would be outdoors. Atty. Prunier said it would be during normal working hours, 8:00 am to 6:00 p.m. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 3 No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Letter read into the record from Vantage Point Condominiums. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Prunier said the applicants business is on the rear side of the building, away from the other two buildings are located, so the sound will not bother them. Further discussion ensued. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reppucci stated that a zoning restriction as applied interferes with a landowners reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; and the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. 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, although, there was concern from an abutting Association, there was no testimony for or against it, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice would be done. Mr. Reppucci said the Board made the effort to notify additional people who live in the area that were not direct abutters. He said there was concern raised by a Condo Association that directly abuts the property, however, it is the Boards feeling that their concerns didn’t rise to the point that the Board would deny the application. He said that some of the concerns raised by the Board were satisfactory, in the response from the Health Inspector. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 2. Nathanial G. Vinovich (Owner) 12-12½ Fifield Street (Sheet 7 Lot 58) requesting variance to encroach 4 feet into the 6 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 4 foot required left side yard setback to rebuild and expand a nonconforming detached garage from 20’x24’ to 24’x26’. RA Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson Nathanial Vinovich, 4 Lone Star Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Vinovich said that the reason that the structure needs to be rebuilt is that it’s dilapidated and unsafe, and the roof is caving in. He said his insurance company dropped him, because the building is unsafe. Mr. Vinovich said the back yard slopes down to where the garage is. He said a small car could fit in it. He said that the plan is to enlarge it a little bit. He said the neighbors all would like to see it rebuilt. He said that one of the neighbors will be helping to build the structure, he’s a contractor. He said by rebuilding it, it will be a credit to the whole neighborhood. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variances on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci said 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 cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that the request 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 is being done. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 5 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 3. Stephen J. Zeloski (Owner) Suzanne M. Goyette Rev. Living Trust (Applicant) 166 Amherst Street (Sheet 61 Lot 148) requesting the following: 1) use variance to convert an existing single-family home into a professional financial planning practice office; and, 2) variance to encroach 8 feet into the 25 foot required front yard setback (on Milford Street) to allow for parking spaces. RA Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson Attorney James Tamposi, 91 Amherst Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Tamposi stated that if the case is approved, a financial planning office would move into the space. He said the area is very much commercial, and there is a Highway Business zone across the street. He named the commercial uses on both sides of the street. Atty. Tamposi said the City’s Future Land Use identifies this strip of land as Commercial. He said the proposal is to take the existing single family home and convert it into a financial planning office, for Northeast Planning. He said they would employ 3-4 people, and have about twenty visits per week from clients. He said the structure will still look residential in nature. Atty. Tamposi said they need a Use Variance, and an Area Variance for parking spaces. He said it’s a corner lot, at the corner of Amherst Street and Milford Street, so it has two front yards. He said the parking will encroach 8 feet into the 25 foot setback, which will be for only one parking space. He said by comparison, the Board granted a variance for 154 Amherst Street, and that site is similar, in that it’s a corner lot, too, and that encroachment was for 12 feet. Mr. Shaw asked if there will be any residential living in the house. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 6 Atty. Tamposi said there will not be. He said that Hayner Swanson will be doing the site plan, to go to the Planning Board. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Letter read into the record from Pat Clancey’s office. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the requests on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reppucci stated that a zoning restriction as applied interferes with a landowners reasonable use of the property, considering the unique setting of the property in its environment; no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the zoning ordinance and the specific restriction on the property; and the variance would not injure the public or private rights of others. 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, there was no testimony for or against it, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice would be done. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Reppucci stated that both the Use and Area variances are considered collectively in the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 4. Damon W. & Janna D. Miller (Owners) Lorette Gagnon (Applicant) 5, “L” & 13-13¾ Stevens Avenue (Sheet 85, Lots 49, 77 & 47) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 13,644 square feet existing, 10,452 square feet required for three dwelling units – 7,394 square feet proposed, to transfer 6,250 square feet of land to 13-13¾ Stevens Avenue. RC Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 7 Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson Damon Miller, 9B Sunshine Drive, Hudson, NH. Mr. Miller said they have about a 1,000 square foot yard available to the tenants. He said their intent is to sell the back lot to the Gagnons, who use it as a back yard. He said their lot has two houses on it, and they only have about 2,500 square feet of land. He said the lot was a trash dump when they bought it, and the Gagnons have spent a lot of effort in cleaning it up. Mr. Miller said they are requesting the variance so that the Gagnons can actually have a yard, the space is more suited to their property, and it would make their lot more conforming. Mr. Shaw asked to confirm that there will be no additional dwelling units between the properties, and it will have the same density as what exists now, so the net number of units stays the same. Mr. Miller agreed, and said there is no intent to develop the back lot. Mr. Shaw asked about the shed on the back lot, Sheet 85 Lot 77. Mr. Miller said it’s a single unit, with no working utilities, it was started, and construction ceased. Mr. Shaw said that this structure needs to be addressed, it appears as if it may be located in setback areas. He said it can either be removed, relocated, or a variance can be applied for to have it remain in its present location. Mr. Miller said the Gagnons are using it as a shed, and they are being taxed on it. Mr. Falk said after the subject application was submitted, it was brought to Staff’s attention that this shed-type structure was on the lot, and after investigating its history, saw that a building permit was never granted. He said there is a driveway that looks as if it could be access to this lot. Mr. Shaw said that the Board would be looking for a stipulation to have the shed moved to a proper space on the lot, or a variance to have it remain there, via a building permit that is ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 8 approved. He said by all appearances, it looks as if it’s out of compliance right now, and the Board cannot approve the request with a known non-compliance such as this. Mr. Reppucci said the best thing is to potentially go ahead with the land transfer application, with a condition that they bring the shed into compliance with the City, one way or another, by doing it this way, they wouldn’t have to come back to the Board. Mr. Johnson said it may be a burden to move it, and they may come back. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variances on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reppucci said 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 an area variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that the request 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 is being done. Mr. Reppucci said the Board is approving this request that the non-conforming structure on the piece of property that is being transferred be brought into compliance with the City by either having it removed, or having a building permit issued for its existence. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Shaw said that there will be no net change in the amount of overall non-conformance or conformance with the fact that there will be the same number of dwelling units across these properties, there is no net detriment to the City in terms of ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 9 additional density. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 5. Karen Poirier (Owner) 8 Brinton Drive (Sheet 49 Lot 222) requesting special exception to allow an existing 10’x12’ shed to remain in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Pennichuck Brook. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson Karen Poirier, 8 Brinton Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Poirier said that she was told that a permit was granted for the shed, but apparently it never was. She said the house is on the market, and it was brought to her attention that the shed is in the wetland buffer. Ms. Poirier said she received approval by the Conservation Commission, and it was unanimously approved with five stipulations, all of which are agreed upon. She said she is closing on the house next week, and the prospective buyers are aware of the situation, and they’d like to leave the shed where it is. Mr. Shaw stated that all of the wetland special conditions were discussed at the Conservation Commission meeting. 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 stated that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. He stated that it will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He stated that it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 10 Mr. Reppucci stated that all special regulations are fulfilled, with the notation that one of the special regulations is to plant trees within a specific period of time, and per testimony the trees are not planted, but will be, it will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to health, morals or welfare of residents. Mr. Reppucci asked that the minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting be included in our minutes. He said there were five stipulations will be complied with, based upon their December 20, 2011 meeting. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 6. AS-VR Realty, LLC (Owner) 420 Amherst Street (Sheet H Lot 485) requesting the following: 1) Use variance to expand a non-conforming use to permit multiple uses including retail sales of general merchandise, convenience goods, discount and limited price items, items and services commonly found in supermarkets, wholesale clubs, pharmacies and department stores, wholesale and retail construction industry supplies and service, food and entertainment providers commonly found in shopping centers including but not limited to, banks with or without drive-thru, restaurants, travel agencies, financial services providers such as brokerage, insurance, investment and real estate services and cinema, all the foregoing without limitation or restriction to size, subdivision rights or development area; and the following area variances, all within 300 feet of the front lot line: 2) to allow a front setback of 10 feet – 30 feet required, 3) to allow a side yard setback of 7 feet – 30 feet required, 4) to allow a rear yard setback of 20 feet – 50 feet required, 5) to allow a maximum building height of 60 feet – 45 feet allowed, 6) to allow 5 building stories – a maximum of 2 are permitted, 7) to allow a minimum of 10% open space – 20% required – all requests to run concurrent with the Site Plan approval in effect as of the granting, also, 8) to remove a previous ZBA stipulation that the front lots cannot be subdivided from the whole lot; to allow service providers commonly found in retail shopping centers, including but not limited to, banks, pharmacies, financial services, real estate sales and services, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 11 cellular phone sales and services, travel agencies, etc. AI Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson Mr. Reppucci said for the items being requested, as shown in Exhibit A, it doesn’t seem like the Board should hear the first two items, for a lot of reasons. He said the third piece addresses a stipulation that the ZBA made many years ago, he said he didn’t have a problem with the Board addressing that item. He said what is requested in items one and two is really a request to rezone this land, which the Zoning Board cannot do. He said if the Board does hear items one and two, and denies them, it could put a large burden on the applicant if they decide to come back with a more defined application. He said he had no problem hearing the third request. Mr. Johnson said he struggled with this request. He said they’re really asking a lot, and concurred with Mr. Reppucci’s opinion. Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier stated that he objects to going forward with a three-member Board, but will proceed. Atty. Prunier said that no use is being proposed at the present time at this site. He said his client is trying to clarify what can go in there. He said that previous plans didn’t include such uses as a travel agency, or a bank, but the question remains as to whether or not a bank could be put up front, standing alone, with a drive-through window. Atty. Prunier said he’s trying to clarify some of the issues they’ve had, going through the previous hearings, in which the Planning Director issued a statement to the effect that everything we propose, as uses, with the previous application, was valid. Atty. Prunier said this is a variance that was granted in 1988, when Builders Square was going in, to expand a nonconforming use and to allow multiple principal uses, including a retail establishment selling general merchandise, including, but not ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 12 limited to, discount and limited price variety items, with no limitation with respect to floor area, retail establishments selling principally convenience goods and wholesale and retail construction industrial supplies. Atty. Prunier said they are trying to clarify, via this application, specific uses, and all the specific uses are allowed in the General Business zone, and they’re trying to be specific. He said the Airport Industrial zone is a zone to support the airport. He said the properties on the south side of Amherst Street do not help the airport. He said they want to use the General Business zone dimensional criteria for the first 300 feet of the property. He said they’re trying to clarify what was granted in the past. He said most of the uses they want have already been granted. Mr. Reppucci said they’re trying to rezone this land from an AI Zone to a GB Zone. He said the ZBA has very specific rules of what they can and cannot do. He said the State’s restrictions that are put on the ZBA are very specific, and it is a Legislative action to rezone. Atty. Prunier said that the previous variances have already allowed these uses. He said that retail commercial uses have been allowed on this site. Mr. Reppucci asked about Section two, with all the setback variances. Atty. Prunier said they haven’t been addressed by the Board yet. He said the site may not all be developed as one piece. Mr. Reppucci said that Section three, the stipulation, was put on by a previous Board. Atty. Prunier said it goes back to Kealey Farms, they were going to have an agricultural lot, and were going to grow a lot of their vegetables. He said that when the Court approved this use, they said to leave the front portion alone, and Kealey didn’t care. He said his client wants to remove that restriction. Mr. Reppucci asked if that restriction was put on by the Court, or by the Board. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 13 Atty. Prunier said by the Court, because at the trial, Kealey said he didn’t care about the front, it was only going to be agricultural. Atty. Prunier went over the points of law as identified in the ZBA approval letter from 1988, which indicated the stipulation that the front lots must be landscaped and not be subdivided from the whole lot. Mr. Falk said that this is indicated on the site plan, too. Mr. Johnson asked, hypothetically, if someone came to the City and asked what could go here, what would the response be. Atty. Prunier said the answer isn’t that easy. He asked if a travel agency could come in, and locate on the front lot area. Mr. Falk said that they couldn’t, without going before the ZBA for additional approvals, because of that stipulation that the front lots cannot be developed. He said that in the staff report, there is a chronology of the requests that have come before the Board. He said that in 1995, there was a case to expand a nonconforming use to permit multiple uses, including retail selling of general merchandise, convenience goods, discount and limited price items, wholesale and retail construction industry supplies, with no limitation in floor area. He said that was in August, 1995. He said they have come before the Board many times, the last time was for a special exception in 2005 to allow for work in the wetland buffer to construct a 146,000 square foot retail store and associated site improvements. He said that subsequently, the Planning Board denied the request, and they went to Court, and there was a Settlement Agreement, attached in the packages. Mr. Johnson said he’s having trouble in determining if the ZBA is the right body for this application. Atty. Prunier suggested that the Board table items one and two, until they can talk to their client and Planning staff, as to the interpretation of the uses. Mr. Falk said that there have been use variances for quite a few of the uses identified in the application. He said that none of the dimensional variances have been asked for in the past. He said it’s a long and confusing history, going back about thirty ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 14 years. He said that a detailed timeline would be very helpful to review going forward. The Board discussed tabling items one and two to a date certain of February 14, 2012. Mr. Shaw said at this time, the applicant should focus their discussion on item 8 in the agenda, to remove the previous stipulation that the front lots cannot be subdivided. He said that items one through seven will be discussed at the February 14, 2012 meeting of the Zoning Board. Atty. Prunier said the history on item three is scarce, he said they’ve gone back to when Mrs. Cadorette owned the property. He said they’ve talked to the attorney that represented Kealey Farms at the time. He said that during the Court hearings, they’ve been told by the attorney that represented Mr. Kealey, is that they talked about the plantings and what was going to be done, because of the soil conditions and topography and the water conditions on the site. Mr. Shaw asked if this is in relation to the 1982 Court case. Atty. Prunier said yes. He said that he thought that the front lots were not going to be used, he didn’t indicate that there wouldn’t be any subdivision, he just indicated that the front lots would be used for plantings, due to the way Mr. Kealey was going to use his property. Atty. Prunier said then it went to the 1988 decision, and saw it on the site plan, and there is no correlation as to why that was done, there’s no reason why the property can’t be built upon, it’s not a wetland, as long as the proper protections are taken. He said they want to use all of the property. Mr. Reppucci asked about the requirement of staying within the Agreement, that was made in 2009, and asked if there is anything in item 3 that violates the Agreement. Atty. Prunier said not that he’s aware of. He said that a certain user of the premises wouldn’t be allowed, but as to all others, they could. Mr. Reppucci asked if it’s just a restriction that you can’t put a WalMart there. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 15 Atty. Prunier said that that’s a good reading. Mr. Shaw said the Agreement states that they can’t put in a WalMart greater than 90,000 square feet. Mr. Falk said that the Board wouldn’t be giving approval to a subdivision, that is the responsibility of the Planning Board. He said that it is likely that the Conservation Commission, the ZBA and Planning Board will be involved with any development on the front lots. Mr. Reppucci said that there was a stipulation put on thirty years ago that they couldn’t develop the front lots, he said he didn’t have a problem removing that stipulation, and that they’ll have to do whatever the present zoning rules require to subdivide it. He said that three Boards will be involved with this. Mr. Johnson said for substantial justice, there’s really no reason why that stipulation should remain. Atty. Prunier agreed, he said they’d have to follow all the City regulations and go before all appropriate Boards. Mr. Shaw said that item 3 in Exhibit A, after removing the stipulation, it says that to allow service providers commonly found in retail shopping centers, etc., that goes back to what is in Item 1. Atty. Prunier said for Item 3, he said he’s just interested in the subdivision, that’s it, not uses or anything else. Mr. Falk said that anything the Board does, they must make sure it doesn’t affect the Settlement Agreement, he said it’s a legal document. He suggested that it may be a good idea if the applicant submit something in writing that they’re in good standing with the Settlement Agreement. Mr. Johnson asked if there’s any unfairness to the property owner by tabling Item 3, and take the whole thing up later. Mr. Shaw said that by approving Item 3, it’s a pretty narrow item that the Board is addressing. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 16 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Peggy Trivilino, 14 Profile Circle, Nashua, NH. Ms. Trivilino said that with regard to the stipulation for subdividing the front lots, a good portion of this land is taken up by prime and critical wetlands, which directly connect with much larger area of prime wetlands to the east and south. She said the buffers must be respected. She said this lot is a very sensitive area of the Pennichuck Watershed area. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Prunier said if they subdivide, they’ll have to comply with all Boards and all rules and regulations. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Ms. Trivilino said that the Conservation Commission is an advisory Board, she said she’s just here to raise awareness going forward. Mr. Shaw said that the ZBA relies very heavily on the Conservation Commission and follows their recommendations very seriously and very strongly. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to Table Items 1-7 from the advertisement to a date certain of February 14, 2012. He said that for Item 8, the stipulation that the front lots cannot be subdivided from the whole lot, the motion is to remove that stipulation, as it did exist, and provided that by removing that stipulation, that it stays in compliance with the Agreement that restricts development on this property, made March 12, 2010, between AS-VR Realty, LLC., and the City of Nashua, Paul Johnson, and interveners, Suzanne Harvey, Edward Reightman, Margaret McKinnon, Alan McKinnon, Michael Koleski and Nancy Zoltec. Mr. Shaw said the second part of Item 8, which addresses the uses, he said he’d like that being the portion that is being tabled, as the Board is not addressing these uses in tonight’s action. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 17 Mr. Reppucci agreed, and said that the only thing we’re removing out of Item 8 is the stipulation that the land cannot be divided, all other language is tabled. Mr. Johnson agreed with this, too. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. Mr. Shaw said the intent is to re-open the public hearing, on February 14th, so the Board can hear testimony from the applicant and any other concerned parties in favor or against. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: December 13, 2011. The Board did not take any action on the minutes, they are deferred to the next meeting. OTHER BUSINESS: Mr. Johnson asked about the 2012 calendar for ZBA meetings. Mr. Falk said it is on the web, and will email it to the members. He said they’re always on the second and fourth Tuesday’s of each month, except that there is only the first meeting in December. The Board said that Election of Officers should take place in January. ADJOURNMENT: ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING January 10, 2012 Page 18 Mr. Shaw called the meeting closed at 8:44 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Rick Johnson, Acting Clerk. CF Taped Hearing