Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING December 11, 2012 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, December 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 J.P. Boucher David Creed 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. EB Rich, LLC (Owner) Edward Richards (Applicant) 63 Temple Street (Sheet 34 Lot 18) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 3,422 square feet existing, 6,969 square feet required - to convert the building from office space into a two-family residential structure. RC Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Attorney Ed Richards, Range Road, Windham, NH. Atty. Richards said that he bought the building in 1982, and it was a two- family building at the time. He said he went through the whole permitting process, and converted it into commercial office space. He said the building was completely gutted, and said Zoning Board of Adjustment December 11, 2012 Page 2 that he moved into it in 1982 and had his law practice there for about ten years, and the practice grew, and bought the building next door at 67 Temple Street, and renovated that building also. He said he occupies that building now with the law practice. Atty. Richards stated that he owned the building from 1982 to 2006, and there were periods of time when it wasn’t occupied at all. He said he sold it to a non-profit that ran a mortgage company, until they had problems with federal funding, and they stopped running their agency in the fall of 2010, and he bought the building back in February, 2012. Atty. Richards said they listed the property, and had no action on it, and kept dropping the price, and then decided to turn the property back into a two-family building. He said that he thought that the building could just go back to that use, but after talking with City staff, it was determined that Zoning Board action was required. He said the building was built in early 1900’s, and was built as a two-family, and was used as a two-family until 1982, then, it was a commercial office space. Atty. Richards said the lot is an inner-city lot, in the RC zone. He said the neighborhood is predominantly residential, and there is a need for housing in this area. He said that each apartment would be about 1,200 square feet each. He went over the relevant variance points of law. Mr. Reppucci said in the testimony, it was his understanding that it couldn’t revert back to the previous use, because there was a lapse in time. He asked Atty. Richards if he still felt as if this is the case, or if he believed that going for the variance was the easier route. Atty. Richards said that the variance is the easier route, and that to his knowledge, when you grant a variance or special exception, if it’s not used for a year that the use is abandoned. He said the building had been gutted, and reconfigured inside, so it couldn’t readily be used as a two- family building. He didn’t realize he needed a variance, and said he had no problem coming before the Board. Mr. Currier asked about the available parking. Atty. Richards said there is room for six cars, they would be stacked three on each side. He said each tenant could have up Zoning Board of Adjustment December 11, 2012 Page 3 to three cars. He said they’d have to shuffle, since they’re stacked. He said the alleyway next to his building is wide enough, about twenty feet, to have six cars there. Mr. Falk explained the nonconforming situation with respect to the use, how it had been used as a conforming use, and changed to another use, but hadn’t been used as a two-family for a few years, and since it was over a year, the two-family use cannot be re-established since it didn’t meet the minimum lot size requirement. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to grant the request on behalf of the owner. Mr. Johnson 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 the area variance. He said the applicant tried to acquire other properties to aid in this, but had no other alternative. Mr. Johnson stated that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, as a majority of the neighborhood is mainly multi-family uses, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is met, as the home was originally built as a two-family structure. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. Zoning Board of Adjustment December 11, 2012 Page 4 REGIONAL IMPACT: Mr. Falk stated that the application deadline is still open, therefore, the Agenda is not ready yet. MINUTES: 11/13/27: Mr. Johnson said for Page 14, there appeared to be a duplicate comment that he made about contacting the City Attorney’s Office, and suggested removing the second one. 11/27/12: Mr. Currier suggested a change to Page 7 near the top, a comment he made, about the sign isn’t allowed. He said it should read that the sign with graphics isn’t needed. He said the sign is clearly allowed. Mr. Falk said that Staff will make the changes. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve both sets of minutes with the noted corrections, waive the reading, and place them in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Shaw called the meeting closed at 7:12 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Currier, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing