Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING September 11, 2012 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, September 11, 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 Jack Currier, Clerk Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher 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. Boston & Maine Corp (Owner) City of Nashua (Applicant) “L” Crown Street (Sheet 12 Lot 4) requesting special exception to work within the prime wetland buffer of the Merrimack River to install an underground storage tank with related interconnecting pipeline, which will be used to store combined sewer overflow during storm events. GI Zone, Ward 7. POSTPONED TO THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2012 MEETING 2. Thelma Wigfield, Trustee of the Thelma R. Wigfield Rev. Trust (Owner) 4 Resurrection Circle (Sheet F Lot 811) requesting variance to encroach 16 feet into the 40 foot required rear yard setback to enclose a portion of an existing deck to construct a three-season porch. R18 Zone, Ward 1. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 11, 2012 Page 2 Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Edward Wigfield, 4 Resurrection Circle, Nashua, NH. Mr. Wigfield said they’d like to construct a three-season porch where the existing deck is, it will be in the same footprint. He said the difference will be that it will be enclosed. He said there isn’t another feasible location to put it, due to the slope of the land, and the orientation of the house. He said they have six abutters, and some conservation land, and all indicated via signature that they are in favor. He said it will enhance the value of the property, and the property is very wooded, and in the summer months the area is barely visible. Mr. Shaw confirmed that it will be a single-story addition. 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 owners. 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 request will observe 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 September 11, 2012 Page 3 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Philip & Karen Wood (Owners) 17 Dinsmore Street (Sheet 64 Lot 225) requesting variance to encroach 11 feet into the 20-foot required front yard setback (on Gordon Street) to construct a 10’x12’ shed. RA Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson David Creed Philip Wood, 17 Dinsmore Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Wood said that after they moved in, they realized the setbacks in the side and rear are six feet, but twenty feet on the front. He said the only reasonable place to put the shed is the proposed location. He said if the shed were to meet the setback in the area, it would be sitting on top of a storm drain. Mr. Creed asked if the location of the shed would be basically in the sight line of the back door neighbor’s rear yard. Mr. Wood said that he spoke with the neighbor, and they are fine with the request. Mr. Currier referred to the plot plan from HSI. He asked to confirm and orient the submitted photos to the plan. He said the shed right in the front yard would look like an aberration being right in the front yard. Mr. Wood said the shed will look nice, it’ll have landscaping around it. Mr. Boucher asked if Mr. Wood had considered the shed on the side of the house by the garage. Mr. Wood said they’d have to do some excavation there, and it will kill some tree roots, and some trees would have to be taken down. Mr. Reppucci asked why the shed couldn’t go in the back by the Zoning Board of Adjustment September 11, 2012 Page 4 air conditioning compressor. Mr. Wood said they’d have to do some excavation, and remove some trees. He said with two front yards, both with twenty foot setbacks, a variance would be required on either side. He said he didn’t want to do any excavation or remove any trees. Mr. Reppucci asked how much excavation would be needed. Mr. Wood said about a foot or so. Mr. Reppucci said the shed would take away from the look of the house, and wanted to see other options to place the shed that doesn’t distract from the neighborhood. Mr. Currier said he’s struggling with the location. Mr. Creed said the shed would look like, and be designed to look like a miniature house, or cottage. He said it wouldn’t look like a regular storage shed. He said it’s the homeowners right to place the shed where they see fit, and they’d have to get a variance either way, if it’s in the front setback area. He said that he’s applying for the specific location in the application, as his choice. He said the shed is designed to look nice, like a little cottage, and will look nice in the neighborhood. Mr. Wood said there is a sunroom on the back of the house, and if the shed were there, it would block all views, and also for security reasons. He also said that the neighbor with the white house is intending to put up a fence sometime in the future. He said the shed will be landscaped. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Creed said the shed will look like a small cottage, it’s his choice to ask where they want the shed, and on either side of the property, they’d need to apply for a variance. He said the homeowner has thought about this thoroughly, and said he’s in support of the request. Zoning Board of Adjustment September 11, 2012 Page 5 Mr. Reppucci said the Board should consider the aesthetics of the neighborhood. He stated that if the shed could be placed somewhere else on the property where it would be less distracting, that would be the best solution. Mr. Shaw said this area has a lot of corner lots, and different house orientations and driveways. He said looking on Gordon Street, they have their driveways on Dinsmore Street, so there is a mix of front façade, side façade, and it’s not consistent. He said it would be much different if each house on Gordon Street had an obvious front door and entrance to the front. He said the proposed location is about the best solution that the owner could come up with. Mr. Johnson said given the applicants choice of location, he’s citing it as the most optimal location. He said the home is a ranch, and the justice for the owner is appropriate, he’s gone to where it’s an upscale looking shed, and it will comply with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Shaw said a good thing is that the owner is not in the six- foot side yard setback, so it’s less of an impact to the back door neighbor. He said while technically, it’s nine feet from the property line, there is a fifteen foot distance from the property line to the curb, so it’s about 24 feet away from the curb. He said it’s highly unlikely that the street would need to be widened in the future. Mr. Currier said he can’t get around the fact that it’s a shed in a front yard. Mr. Boucher said the applicant valued the view from his sunporch more than the side. MOTION by Mr. Creed to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner. Mr. Creed stated that he believes that the case is a reasonable and feasible method of using the property, it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, because the distance to the street is such that they’d have over a twenty foot distance to the street because of the additional right-of- way area. Mr. Creed stated that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, he said the shed may improve the Zoning Board of Adjustment September 11, 2012 Page 6 property values. He said it won’t be contrary to the public interest, because the abutters have all been notified, and have not objected, this is an unusually designed area, so the presence of another shed may not cause much concern. Mr. Creed stated that the owner had to choose between two front yard areas for a variance, and he chose this one, so we’re allowing him reasonable use by creating the shed. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED 3-2 (Mr. Reppucci and Mr. Currier). MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board didn’t see any cases of regional impact. Mr. Falk asked the Board members to bring their case information for the Special Exception off of Crown Street to the next meeting. MINUTES: August 14, 2012: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Shaw called the meeting closed at 7:26 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Currier, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing