Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, April 24, 2012 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Vice Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci, Vice Chair Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher David Creed 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. 1. City of Nashua (Owner) Nick Caggiano, City of Nashua Parks & Recreation Superintendent (Applicant) Nashua River upstream of Mine Falls dam, Mill Pond, Nashua Canal – requesting special exception to perform annual work in the prime wetland to address aquatic invasive species. PI Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Nick Caggiano, Superintendent, Parks & Recreation Department, City of Nashua. Mr. Caggiano said they are asking permission for annual work in a prime wetland to address aquatic invasive species. He said it’s similar to the project from last year about the water chestnuts. He said there will be two ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 2 harvestings, one in mid-June, and one in late July, also, they will be putting in a new product in Mill Pond and Mine Falls Park, and in the Canal, it is a research project with DES to control other invasive species, it’ll be an aquatic herbicide to help control weeds, and it will help improve water quality and the flow of water. He said they have all their permits from the State, and have seen the Conservation Commission and have their approval. Mr. Reppucci said he’d like to give a continuous approval because it’s the exact same thing. Mr. Caggiano said it’s estimated to be a four to five year process. Mr. Reppucci said they’re looking for an approval that lasts more than one year. Mr. Caggiano said yes. He said the Conservation Commission initially approved it for one year, but Kathy Hersh went back and got a letter to continue. He said all the special conditions have been met. Mr. Reppucci said he’s happy that this will be done over the next several years, so they don’t have to keep coming back. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the special exception request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Johnson said that the request is within the table of uses, Section 190-112. He said the written and oral testimony tonight, indicates that there will not be any undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Johnson said it will not overload public water, drainage, sewer or other municipal systems. He said that the special wetland regulations are met, the nine standards are all ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 3 satisfied, and the plan will be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson said the letter from the Conservation Commission dated February 22nd and the letter from April 12th amends the approval for the expiration of the permit to expire on August 3, 2016, and the Director will appear before the Commission in advance of initiation of work each year. Mr. Reppucci said the Director will appear before the Conservation Commission, not the ZBA. Mr. Johnson agreed. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Reppucci said the intent of our approval is that it is good until the expiration of the permit, until 2016, and that the Board attach the Conservation Commission meeting minutes with the approval as well. Mr. Johnson agreed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 2. City of Nashua (Owner) 44 Broad Street (Sheet 71 Lot 2), and 3 Fifield Lane(Sheet 69 Lot 16), and Boston and Maine Corp (Owner), "L" Front Street (Sheet 69 Lot 20), Stephen Dookran, City of Nashua City Engineer (Applicant) requesting special exception to perform work in a prime wetland to complete test borings for the Broad Street Parkway. GI/MU, HB, RB, & RC Zones, Wards 3 and 4 Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Dave McNamara, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike Engineers, Bedford, NH. Mr. McNamara introduced himself and John Vancor from VHB. Mr. Reppucci said the application is very thorough. He said this request is part of the project, and didn’t want them to keep coming back before the Board, when, inevitably, they must ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 4 do the work. He said they have a positive recommendation from the Conservation Commission, and the Engineers with the City have approved it, he said he didn’t feel like the Board or anyone should be burdened by a lengthy presentation. He stated that he’s inclined to hear that they meet all the requirements and stipulations, that he’s like to move this forward. Mr. Johnson asked if they agree with the Conservation Commission approval, and agree that their stipulations, and have anything different to add. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Reppucci said he is comfortable with the application as presented. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the special exception request on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is within the table of uses, Section 190-112. He said the there will not be any undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Reppucci said it will not overload public water, drainage, sewer or other municipal systems. He said that the special wetland regulations are met, and the plan will be in character with the neighborhood. Mr. Reppucci said the case was reviewed by the Conservation Commission, with a positive recommendation, and per testimony of the applicant, is that all special conditions of the Conservation Commission will be met, also, there is a list of wetlands special conditions, nine items, and by testimony, they will all be met. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 5 3. Timothy J. & Beverly Fontaine (Owners) 35 Bulova Drive (Sheet A Lot 630) requesting variance to encroach 5 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback for one existing shed (off Elgin Street), and to encroach up to 6 feet into the 6 foot required side and rear yard setbacks for another existing shed. RA Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher David Creed Timothy Fontaine, 35 Bulova Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Fontaine said they’ve lived there for 36 years, and they are asking for the variance to allow two sheds that have been built, one is 8’x14’, is on the property line and doesn’t meet the six-foot setback, it’s been there for about 30 years. He said that the second shed is 6’x10’, and it’s on a corner lot, and needs a 20 foot setback, and its 15 feet away. Mr. Fontaine said he was notified by the City that these sheds didn’t get a permit, from some aerial photos. He said the sheds are well established and fit into the neighborhood nicely. He said there are numerous sheds in the neighborhood, and they’re not out of the ordinary. Mr. Johnson asked if both sheds are for storage. Mr. Fontaine said they are. Mr. Johnson asked if they have any power, or water running to them. Mr. Fontaine said they don’t. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 6 MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the request on behalf of the applicant. 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 an area variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance; the use will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, the Board had no testimony to anyone opposing the request and the sheds have been there for many years. Mr. Reppucci said it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Joseph W. DuBois Jr. (Owner) 8 Grenada Circle (Sheet C Lot 1400) requesting the following: 1) special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit within the principal residence; and, 2) variance to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit within an existing accessory structure. R9 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher David Creed Mr. Joseph Dubois, 8 Grenada Circle, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dubois said in 2006, he had a garage constructed, it was originally for an office/storage area, and that changed. He said he got married three years ago, and they have seven children together. He said there’s no changes to the building, except for the use. Mr. Reppucci asked if there’s a kitchen. Mr. Dubois said yes. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 7 Mr. Reppucci asked about the 2007 approval, and if there was any articulation about a kitchen in the second floor of the garage. Mr. Dubois said no. He said it has a handicapped bathroom, with a shower, and a washer and dryer. He said the kitchen was put in a couple years later. Mr. Reppucci said once the kitchen is put in, it becomes a dwelling unit. Mr. Dubois said he put in a pit for an elevator, but the elevator is not put in yet, it’ll be in the future. Mr. Reppucci asked if anyone is living in the apartment. Mr. Dubois said he’s had some family members living there, and had a renter at one time, for about eight months. Mr. Reppucci asked if the people who would live in the apartment have any special needs or handicaps that need to be addressed. Mr. Dubois said he was originally going to have his mother-in- law live there, but she passed away. Mr. Boucher asked what his plans are for this apartment. Mr. Dubois said he wants it for family members, he said he has a total of seven children, so they’d be using it during holidays and other events. He said no one would be living there full time. Mr. Reppucci said in looking at the old minutes, a ZBA member asked what utilities will be in the garage, and the testimony was that there would be a utility room that would heat the driveway, and pump mechanisms, and a wash sink in the garage, and no plumbing upstairs. Another ZBA member asked if there would be a bathroom, and the testimony was no bathroom. He said it was made very clear by the Board of what would be in this structure. He said that the building permit states that it would be office and storage, and it states that there will be no living unit approved, just additional living space. He asked how such a conflict could exist now. Mr. Dubois said the occupancy permit didn’t have any restrictions on it, so he thought it was permissible to add it ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 8 as an in-law apartment. Mr. Johnson asked at the time that the building with the addition was inspected, which would have included the area that had the kitchen, and asked what that area was when the inspector saw it. Mr. Dubois said that the electrical inspector was up there, and saw it, and he asked to change the outlet in the bathroom to accommodate the washer and dryer. Mr. Reppucci said there’s a special exception and a variance requested. He said one is for an in-law in the home, and for one in the garage. Mr. Dubois said they’re only for the garage, not in the home. Mr. Reppucci said the advertisement is for a special exception for an in-law in the home, and a variance for the one above the garage. Mr. Dubois said that this application is only for the garage. Mr. Reppucci said no, there is one for the house and one for the garage. Mr. Falk said above the garage, it’s a request for an accessory dwelling unit, so, a family member will be living there. He said inside the house, there’s another in-law dwelling there. Mr. Dubois said it was approved in the house several years ago, and his son lives down there. Mr. Falk said the only way it could be approved is by the Zoning Board, and there is no record of any approval. He described the 2005 approval. Mr. Reppucci asked if they paid for a variance and a special exception application. Mr. Falk said yes. Mr. Reppucci said the Board has two separate applications. Mr. Falk said there are two applications, one for the house, and ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 9 one for the garage. He said the only way approval could have been given for the one in the house is by the Zoning Board, and a special exception to allow that has never occurred. Mr. Reppucci asked how the City even knows about the in-law apartment inside the house. Mr. Dubois said the prior tenant that lived there complained. Mr. Boucher asked when the garage was built in 2005, if the dwelling unit for his son was in the house already. Mr. Dubois said yes. He said the State paid for all the renovations, because his son is handicapped. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Creed said that if the State had paid for the changes and renovations in the house, they may have thought that the rules may have been pre-empted. Mr. Reppucci said that couldn’t have happened, he thought the State probably assumed they were permitted to do this, and they offered the assistance that they did, they’re not interested in Nashua’s laws, they’re just interested in helping someone who is handicapped. Mr. Reppucci said the special exception for the in-law inside the house for the son is acceptable, and didn’t want to do anything to prohibit anything that they have for their son. He said they do have ability for granting variances for disabled persons under RSA 674:33, and it could be limited to only while the person who has the special need is living there, but once that stops, they can’t rent it out to someone else. He said the apartment over the garage is a totally different scenario. Mr. Johnson said for the special exception application, according to the portion that states what is requested, it states that it is for the garage. He said the application is ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 10 different from the advertisement. Mr. Reppucci said if the application said principal structure, rather than accessory structure. He said they could amend the word in the application and it would be fine. He read what the application would read like to match the advertisement. Discussion amongst the Board members was supportive of the special exception for the in-law apartment in the principal structure, but not over the garage. Mr. Reppucci said that they’re not stopping them from using the space over the garage, people can still sleep up there, they just can’t have a kitchen, so, all the Board is saying is to take out the kitchen, and don’t use it as an apartment. He said the bath is allowed to stay there. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the special exception for the accessory in-law apartment within the principal residence. He stated that it’s listed in the Table of Uses, and it will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Reppucci stated that it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. Mr. Reppucci stated that all special regulations are fulfilled, and the use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of residents, by testimony, the applicant has already developed and used by someone with special needs, and its existing, and will leave it as it is, with no restrictions. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny the variance request, by testimony, the dwelling is already existing, previous approvals by this Board in 2005 articulated that it was not to be used as a living unit. He said by discussion of the Board, it was discussed after it happened, and a building permit was issued, that specified no additional dwelling unit, and the applicant proceeded to develop it as a dwelling, and rented it, and the Board finds that to be contrary to the use of the land. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 11 Mr. Reppucci stated that the applicant presented no hardship to the Board to explain his need to have that apartment beyond when he has multiple visitors, and the Board feels comfortable that that can still be accommodated without a kitchen in there. He said that the only thing that the Board is eliminating/denying, is the use of a stand-alone dwelling, and it will result in the removal of the kitchen. He said the Board is not addressing the use of the property in any other way. Mr. Reppucci said the request is not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it may or may not affect property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and the Board thought that having three dwelling units is contrary to the public interest, and it wouldn’t be substantially just to grant this. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 5. Quadrant Holdings, LLC (Owner) 38 Spalding Street (Sheet 10 Lot 24) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 9,142 sq. ft existing, 12,445 sq. ft required – to convert a single family home into a two-family home. RB Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher David Creed Mark Pustizzi, 38 Spalding Street, also, is an abutter. He said as long as he’s owned the property, it’s been a dumping ground. He said there’s a rotted fence, and bushes overhanging the property. He said the problem with the property is that it’s in dire need of everything, there’s nothing salvageable about the property, there’s been nothing done to it since 1950. Mr. Pustizzi said with the amount of work that the property needs, the only way to make it feasible, is to convert it to a two-family in the current footprint, the only thing that would be added is a dormer. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 12 Mr. Pustizzi said he is short of the land area, but the lot is 9,000 square feet, for two units, and said his lot next door has five units, and it has 6,000 square feet. He said the neighborhood is mostly two-family homes, or more. He said he reviewed twenty nearby properties, and 14 were two-family or more units. Mr. Pustizzi said he’d put on new roof, siding, windows, doors, HVAC, electric, plumbing, kitchens, bathrooms, everything, and all new landscaping. Mr. Reppucci asked about the parking. Mr. Pustizzi said there’s plenty of parking, as shown on the plans. He said the existing garage will be removed and not replaced, and there will be two parking spaces on either side of the house. Mr. Falk said that the maximum allowed driveway width is 24 feet, so there could be two 12 foot driveways, for example. Mr. Pustizzi said per Code, they need 1.5 parking spaces per unit, and there’s plenty of roof for four parking spaces. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve the variance request as 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. Boucher 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 is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 13 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Alfredo Reyes, Eric L. Parent & John H. Spofford (Owners) 125 Chestnut Street, LLC (Applicant) 117, 123, 125 & 129 Chestnut Street & 5 Nevada Street (Sheet 98 Lots 22, 23, 24, 25 & 40) requesting the following variances for lot area: Lot 22: minimum lot area, 3,287 sq. ft existing, 3,097 sq. ft proposed – 6,968 sq. ft required; Lot 24: 4,850 sq. ft existing, 4,612 sq.ft proposed – 6,968 sq.ft required; Lot 25: 10,316 sq.ft existing, 9,678 sq. ft proposed – 10,452 sq.ft required - all requests to correct legal descriptions and lot lines. RC Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher David Creed Pete Weeks, Cuoco & Cormier Engineering, Nashua, NH. Mr. Weeks said the owners of the subject lots wish to correct multiple encroachments and inconsistencies in legal deed restrictions and a recorded plan. He said they have prepared a lot line relocation plan which will ultimately go to the Planning Board in May. He said as a result of the lot line relocation plan, variances are required for lot area for three lots. Mr. Weeks said that based upon a recorded plan from 1969, all the subsequent deeds are based upon that plan, and the Assessors map shows it as well. He said that their proposal will place the lot lines so that they miss buildings, and everyone has agreed to this plan. He said they have an attorney involved as well. Mr. Reppucci asked what the motivating factor for doing this now, since it’s been a mess for many years. Mr. Weeks stated that they uncovered this through a survey, and legally, it has to be corrected for clean titles and deeds, and the lot owners wish to correct the inconsistencies. Mr. Weeks went over the variance points of law, to the Boards satisfaction. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 14 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the variance request as 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 joint applicants to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Johnson 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 would reduce lot line encroachments; it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 7. John J. & Deborah A. Foley (Owners) 25 Broad Street (Sheet 61 Lot 4) requesting the following: 1) use variance to allow a total of three dwelling units, one allowed, two existing; 2) variance to allow two principal structures on one lot – one permitted; and 3) variance for minimum lot area, 19,820 square feet existing – 21,780 square feet required. RA Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher David Creed Deborah Foley, 25 Broad Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Foley said the property is almost 20,000 square feet in area, and 21,780 square feet is required. She said the house is a two-family dwelling. She said they bought the property in 2000, and at the time, an ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 15 auto mechanic was working in the garage, together with a furniture repair business. She said there were three mailboxes, and three separate phone lines. She said they evicted the auto repair use, and made repairs to the house. She said that a portion of the garage, on the Broad Street side, had been used as a dwelling unit, and various other uses, including P.K. Landscaping, an auto repair shop, and an operation for the Nashua Rail Transport Station. Mrs. Foley said her parents were living there, but asked them to leave, as to bring the property into compliance. She said they are applying to make the unit a lawful unit, and were advised by City staff that the variances applied for were needed. Mrs. Foley went over the variance points of law. She said the third unit is small, and there is adequate parking for all units. She said that plumbing and electric exist already. She said there will be no change to the exterior of the building, and the use will remain residential. She said that none of the neighbors have objected to the plan. She said that the property is very unique, and they built a stone wall around the point so people won’t park there. Mr. Reppucci asked when they bought the house, what it was advertised as. Mrs. Foley said it was a two-family, with multi-use. She said they pay taxes as a two-family use. Mr. Boucher said that the garage has separate water and sewer meter for the garage, so, the City has known for quite some time what the usage is of the property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the variance requests, all taken together, as the variances are needed to enable the applicants proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property; and the benefit sought by the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 16 applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue. Mr. Johnson 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, actually it may enhance the public interest since its all residential use, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Johnson stated that a special condition is that in the approval of this request, before occupancy of the building, all appropriate permits and inspections are needed, to the satisfaction of the Building Department prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 8. Wilfrid J. Piekarski (Owner) 10 Marmon Drive (Sheet A Lot 475) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum number of wall signs, 3 permitted, 4 previously approved – an additional 5 wall signs proposed; and, 2) to exceed maximum wall sign area, 150 square feet permitted, 164 square feet previously approved – an additional 95.48 square feet proposed. HB Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher David Creed Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said he’s objecting to proceeding without a full Board, but will proceed. He described the property location in the Auto Village. He said they had two buildings in the past, and they’re under construction to have one large building. Atty. Prunier said they are requesting additional wall signage, due to the size of the building. He said the advertisement indicates that five additional wall signs are requested, but it is now only four new signs, one was eliminated. He said the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 17 building is unique, and is very large, they do sales, service and parts. He described where the proposed new signs will go on the building wall. He said the signs will not be seen from the residences. Mr. Falk asked about the revised square footage of the signs. Atty. Prunier said the sign they removed is 16 square feet, so the total is now 4 additional signs at 79 square feet. Mr. Reppucci asked if the lighting of these signs facing Marmon Drive will be visible from the roads behind. Atty. Prunier said they won’t. He pointed out only one sign, internally lit, that will be on the building. He said that the residences behind MacMulkin Chevrolet or on South Main Street will not be able to see the signs. Mr. Reppucci said the Board wants to be sensitive to the residences, and to be considerate to the residences. Don Reed, Barlo Signs, Hudson, NH. Mr. Reed stated that the only internally lit sign is the one Toyota sign, as pointed out on the plan. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve the variance requests, for an additional four wall signs at 79 square feet, as 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. Boucher stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, as the Board did consider the nearby residences, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 24, 2012 Page 18 and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases that are Regional Impact. MINUTES: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 9:12 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Rick Johnson, Acting Clerk. CF Taped Hearing