Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING February 26, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, February 26, 2013 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci, Chair Jack Currier, Vice Chair Rick Johnson, Clerk J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw 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) Division of Public Works (Applicant) Proposed Broad Street Parkway - beginning at the intersection of Blue Hill Avenue and Broad Street, continuing along the southern side of existing railroad tracks and traversing over the Nashua River with a bridge crossing, terminating into Pine Street at the intersection of Ledge Street and Central Streets – requesting Special Exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland and wetland buffer of the Nashua River and Nashua Canal to construct the Broad Street Parkway - a new 1.8 mile two-lane roadway, along with associated development such as infrastructure, retention ponds, sidewalks, street lighting, retaining walls, Nashua River Canal Outlet Control Structure, replacement of two bridges, new signalized intersections, and demolition of six existing structures. RA, RB, RC, GI, GI/MU and HB Zones, Ward 4. [TABLED FROM 2-12-13 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 2 Rick Johnson Rob Shaw JP Boucher Dave McNamara, Fay, Spofford & Thorndike. Mr. McNamara said that they believe that they thoroughly have addressed the five criteria for a special exception, and were approved by the Conservation Commission last week, and they will abide by all the Conservation Commissions criteria and stipulations for approval. He said their application and plans are very detailed and thorough. Mr. Currier asked about the mitigation offset. Mr. McNamara said the dollar figure, they don’t have the full DES approval for the dredge and fill permit. He said as part of that, the final number will be given. He said the preliminary estimates are about $220,000 - $230,000 for an in-lieu fee. He said that money would go into a pot of money that DES controls, they keep it within watersheds, and dispense specific grants on a competitive basis. He said in this case, they’re trying to keep this money within the City, and at this point, nothing has been finalized. He said the hope is that it is targeted to a City project. Mr. Currier asked about the proposed detention basins, and asked if they will be picking up the runoff from the Parkway only, or if they will be picking up additional runoff. Mr. McNamara said that there are a series of bio-retention basins, as well as larger detention basin that runs along the northern section of the Parkway, they are generally picking up everything from the Parkway. He said that they will pick up some runoff from Broad Street. He said in general, it’s basically the new work limits of the Parkway. Mr. Currier asked if the runoff will be cleaner with these ponds. Mr. McNamara said there will be a slight improvement, because they are reducing the impervious areas. He said everything new north of the river, will be treated, so there will be a net improvement. Mr. Shaw asked about the nine wetland special conditions. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 3 Mr. McNamara went over the nine criteria, to the Board’s satisfaction. He said they were covered in the Conservation Commission’s approval. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the application on behalf of the owner, as advertised. Mr. Currier said that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. Mr. Currier said that the use will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety, actually, it is not applicable for this application for wetlands. Mr. Currier said that the request will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, he said that the testimony was that the drainage will be improved. Mr. Currier said that they went over the special regulations, and all of them are fulfilled. Mr. Currier stated that 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 the residents, which actually doesn’t apply for this application. Mr. Currier said that the applicant agrees by testimony that they will abide by the Conservation Commission stipulations from their February 19, 2013 meeting. He said the minutes will be attached to this record. He said there were four stipulations from the Conservation Commission meeting that will be abided by. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. One Parke Place, LLC & Mine Falls Condominium Association (Owners) Hannaford Bros. Co. (Applicant) 110 & 120-122 Coliseum Avenue (Sheet E Lots 1428 & 1548) requesting special exception to work within the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of the Nashua River to repair and reconstruct an Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 4 existing culvert outfall structure on the bank of the Nashua River. RC Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Cindy Balcius, Stoney Ridge Environmental, Alton, NH. Ms. Balcius introduced herself as a Certified Wetland Scientist. She said they have submitted a very comprehensive application. She said there is an outfall located off of Coliseum Avenue that is part of the Hannaford Bros. drainage system, it runs adjacent to Mine Falls Condominium, and it outlets on the bank of the Nashua River. She said the project will impact about 350 square feet of bank, and the whole system as existing is undermined the wing walls, which have collapsed. She said the result of the damaged pipe is causing sedimentation to flow into the river, and has damaged the environment. Ms. Balcius said the project will replace the pipe, add appropriate fill at the base, and install wing walls 8 foot wide on the sides of the pipe, and to bring in rip-rap, all to be graded into the slope and stabilized. She said that they meet all the special exception criteria, and meet the special nine criteria. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the application on behalf of the applicant, as advertised. Mr. Johnson said that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. Mr. Johnson said that the use will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Johnson said that the request will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, actually, the drainage should be improved. Mr. Johnson said that the special regulations are all fulfilled, it was approved by the Conservation Commission, with a letter dated February 21, 2013, with three stipulations of approval. Mr. Johnson stated that 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 the residents, actually, this request will be an improvement to the situation. Mr. Johnson said the application does thoroughly address the nine wetland special conditions, and they will abide by them. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. John J. Flatley Company (Owner) 100-300 Innovative Way (Sheet A Lots 798, 995 & 503) requesting special exception to work within the critical wetland and wetland buffer to allow for the extension of Innovative Way. PI & RC Zones, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, PA, 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that they meet, and will meet all the conditions from the Conservation Commission, and this request will comply with all the Conservation Commission stipulations. He said the Board already approved a similar area for wetland buffer encroachment, the proposed plan calls for a better design, and have reduced the amount of wetland impacts by about 2,000 square feet, and there is more buffer. He said this request is very similar to the one previously approved by the Board last year. He briefly described the area where the impacts will be. He said that the nine conditions for wetlands are all satisfied. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Shaw asked about the nine special wetland conditions. Atty. Prunier read all the nine conditions, to the Boards satisfaction. Mr. Currier asked about the 45,530 square feet. Atty. Prunier said that is the buffer along the wetlands, and he pointed it out on the plans. Mr. Currier asked if there is any mitigation. Chad Branon, P.E., Fieldstone Land Consultants, Milford, NH. Mr. Branon said the 45,530 square feet of buffer impacts are not all permanent impacts, only a portion of the buffer impacts will be permanent, they are the ones where the pavement will be for Innovative Way. He said the other portions will be side-slopes that will ultimately be re-vegetated. He said there has been some discussion about the mitigation relating to this project as a whole, and at the Conservation Commission meeting, they’ve agreed to perform mitigation at the old Ridge Trail system at Lovewell Pond. He said the design for that is still in process by the City. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve the application on behalf of the applicant, as advertised. Mr. Boucher said that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. Mr. Boucher said that the use will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety, in fact, it will help for a better traffic flow in this area. Mr. Boucher said that the request will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. Mr. Boucher said that the special regulations are all fulfilled, as stated by the applicant, the wetlands special conditions. Mr. Boucher stated that the use will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 7 health, morals or welfare of the residents, actually, this request will help people move around better in the development with the new road. Mr. Boucher said that the special conditions are from the Conservation Commission meeting minutes of January 15, 2013, with six stipulations ofbe an improvement to the situation. Mr. Boucher said the application does thoroughly address the nine wetland special conditions, and they will abide by them. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. John J. Flatley Company (Owner) 104-116 Spitbrook Road (Sheet A Lot 1007) requesting the following: 1) use variance to allow a drive-through lane for proposed coffee shop; and the following variances: 2) to encroach 10 feet into the 30 foot required front yard parking area for parking spaces; 3) to allow a drive through exit less than 60 feet from the center of the pick-up window of the proposed coffee shop; and 4) to allow a turn located 30 feet away from the center of the pick-up window for the proposed bank, 40 feet required. PI Zone, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, PA, 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier passed out some case information to the Board members. He said he is here with the site engineer, Chad Branon. Atty. Prunier described the four individual variances that they are requesting. He said in tab “C”, it shows other Dunkin’ Donuts locations in the City, and it shows the Industrial zones. He said that most, if not all of them, exit out onto the public street, where this drive-through comes out onto an internal drive aisle. He said they believe that there is sufficient back-up, with over forty feet. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 8 Atty. Prunier said as far as the location of the Dunkin’ Donuts, the plan abuts Industrial areas, because that’s where most of the traffic is in the morning. Atty. Prunier said in back of the bank drive-through, there is thirty feet from the pick-up window to the turn, and there is a question whether or not it’s a turn, it’s more like a merge of traffic. He said the Code requires forty feet. He said the bank at Trafalgar Square has only one car length before a turn, and it works fine. Atty. Prunier said for the variance for the parking in the front yard setback, there are some spaces that are encroaching ten feet into the setback. He pointed out the picture that he submitted, and it shows the line is. He said there is a vast area before the public street, and there is a large area for landscaping. Atty. Prunier said that they believe that the proposed use is not going to diminish any of the surrounding properties, and there will be very minimal impact, if any, on property values. He said for the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it is observed because the uses do not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and the uses proposed are all allowed uses, except for the drive-through. Atty. Prunier said the proposal will not be contrary to the public interest, in fact, it will help in that area, because the uses proposed are new. He stated that substantial justice will be done for the property owner, and the benefit to the property owner does not outweigh the public interest. He said that they feel like it is a reasonable use. Mr. Chad Branon, Fieldstone Land Consultants. Mr. Branon said that they believe the area in back of the bank is more of a “merge” than a turn, but submitted the variance request anyways, in case anyone appeals it. He said the previous plan had that was approved by the Planning Board had the same drive-through design. Mr. Johnson said the testimony indicated that there would be no change in traffic, and asked for clarification if that’s traffic in the general area, or in the proposed lot. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 9 Atty. Prunier stated for the drive-through, the traffic coming down the drive-through lane is not similar to a street, where there is continuous traffic. Mr. Currier said the ten foot encroachment into the front yard for the parking is a lot. He said that the building is set far back, and asked why this is coming in now. Atty. Prunier identified the edge of Spitbrook Road, and said there is plenty of room for landscaping and to dress the project up. Mr. Currier said he’s aware of this site, and the Small World School, which he didn’t support. He said all the apartment complexes, the playground, is all appropriately and consistently set back, as well as the Fire Station, Uncle Bob’s. He said the parking lot is a big aberration to that, with the ten foot encroachment. He said that this has been known since Flatley owned the property, and why are they coming in with this now. Mr. Reppucci said when this project came before the Board initially, there wasn’t a plan to look at. Atty. Prunier said that from the edge of the roadway back to the edge of the parking is 64 feet of open area. Mr. Reppucci said that several years from now, when the development at the top of Innovative Way is completed, there will be a huge number of cars driving back and forth. He said past Tara Boulevard, the entrance and exit to the site, and cars turning in from Spitbrook Road to go into the site and taking a left into the drive-through, and there will be cars coming in from the top opposite Tara Boulevard coming down to take a right into the drive-through, so people will be approaching the drive- through from two different directions, and there is a very short back-up, and there will be cars fighting to get into the line. He said he anticipates a huge back-up of cars at this location for the Dunkin’ Donuts. Mr. Branon said that the stacking length for the Dunkin’ Donuts drive-through is 208 feet, as dimensioned on the plan. He said it does meet the Land Use Code. He said the distance from the drive-through lane to Tara Boulevard is 240 feet, before you get onto public property. He said the distance from the drive- through entrance to the Spitbrook Road intersection is 205 feet. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 10 He said that these are substantial stacking lanes, far greater than at most every other Dunkin’ Donuts. Mr. Reppucci asked if they are including the internal drive aisles in the development as stacking space. Mr. Branon said no, they’re only counting the area in back of the building. He said that there is plenty of room, and that he was just giving dimension to the plan and indicate distances to the nearest public streets. Mr. Reppucci asked where the order window is located. Mr. Branon said it’s shown on the plan, it’s “sign #3”, just off the corner. Mr. Reppucci said there’s only three, maybe four car lengths at best, before the order window. Mr. Reppucci said after the pick-up window, cars will be taking a right to go up in the Tara Boulevard area, or a left, either way. Mr. Branon said that they believe the intent of the regulations, more than likely takes into account 90% of how Dunkin’ Donuts currently reside within the City, which is that after the drive- through, someone exiting the property would have to pull out onto a public street, where there would be traffic. He said the proposed plan is all internal traffic, so people exiting the drive-through are not going to have the restriction of exiting onto a public way. He said there will be virtually no traffic on the internal drive aisles. Mr. Reppucci said for the bank drive-through, people may not be able to see how many cars are in line until they’re around the building. He said it looks tight, and when cars leave the pick- up window, if cars are all leaving at the same time, it looks as if they will be crammed in. Mr. Branon said that they believe that the drive-throughs meets the regulations. He said they need 120 feet for the 3 lanes, and there is 126 feet, plus a bypass lane is offered. He said that they believe it will function properly. He said there is adequate space to merge after your transaction is complete, and it’s unlikely that every car at the teller or ATM window would Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 11 be exiting simultaneously, and there is proper room for them to safely merge into the exiting lane. He said it’s virtually the same design that was already approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Reppucci said that on the original plan, the one that was approved by the Planning Board, there is a much larger stacking area behind those bays, than there is on the current plan. He said on the first one, the bays are almost to the west end of the bank, and on the current plan, the bays are much closer to the east side of the first building. Mr. Branon said it meets the stacking requirements in the Code. Mr. Johnson asked if the coffee shop was part of the prior approval. Mr. Branon said it was not. Mr. Currier said that the original approval that the Board saw before, had one building, a proposed bank, at the eastern portion of the property, and there was no encroachment into the front yard setback for the parking spaces. He said that the current plan shows two buildings, with one of them being substantially larger, with the drive-through behind it, and now room is needed in the front, hence, the incursion into the front yard setback. Mr. Currier said that they had an approved plan, and the current plan is essentially a bigger build-out plan to accommodate a bigger build-out, there’s the 10 foot incursion into the front yard setback, which is 10 feet by 250 feet long, this is a large stretch of asphalt that will be sticking out, and said that it will be out of character with the balance of the buildings in this area. Mr. Branon said that there is quite an elevation change from Spitbrook Road to Tara Boulevard. He said the site is currently under construction, and the current proposal is consistent with the original approval. He said that the distance from the edge of the pavement to Spitbrook Road is 64 feet, which is a substantial difference and space. He said that no one will notice the 10 foot distance of the parking spaces being closer, given the substantial distance in green space between the parking spaces and Spitbrook Road. He said the area will be Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 12 landscaped too, so there will be some vertical elements in the area to buffer the parking area. Mr. Boucher asked if there will be any roadway improvements outside of this development. Mr. Branon said they received an updated traffic study from VHB today, and they ran the calculations with the coffee shop and the additional retail space that is proposed, and there will be no change in the level of service at the adjacent intersections as a result of this proposal. Mr. Creed asked what the methodology is of the traffic study. He stated that to build this space, where none exists, for that to have no, or no appreciable impact on the traffic flow is ludicrous, there would have to be an impact on the traffic flow. He said the development is designed to bring people there, where nothing exists there now. He stated that the encroachment into the front yard setback of 10 feet, he said the distance is correct, but the City owns a good portion of that 64 feet, with the reason that if they need to widen the road, they would be able to. He said a few years down the road, the 64 foot distance could be significantly less. Mr. Branon said he disagrees. He stated that the results of the traffic study indicate that there is no need to widen the road, because there is no change to the level of service of the area, and the traffic study will be given to the traffic department for their review. He said that he was not saying that the site would have no impacts to the traffic in the area, he’s saying that it would not change the level of service at the adjacent intersections, and it won’t make them function any differently than it currently does now. He said that the proposal before the Zoning Board adds about 4,500 square feet of building, above what was already approved. He stated that this is really a 4,500 square foot addition to the site plan. He said the previous plan was already approved, and the site is already under construction. He said that an additional 4,500 square feet is not a substantial change to the site, which is why it won’t make a change to the level of service in the area. Mr. Reppucci asked if the traffic study took into account all the planned development at the top of Innovative Way, so when that’s all built out, he asked if the traffic study indicated Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 13 that there’s no impact, or no impact based upon this one development. Mr. Branon said it took into account the Phase 1 development that is currently under construction for Tara Heights, and it took into account the Phase 2 construction for Tara Heights, it did not take into account everything. Mr. Reppucci asked how many people are projected are going to occupy the buildings, how many square feet of building are projected to be up there. Mr. Branon said that they haven’t done a master plan. He said every one of these developments will be before the City, and will require a site plan approval, and will be evaluated for traffic as they come in. Atty. Prunier said that this development will not be one that attracts people from all over the City and the region, it will capture traffic and people that already are on the roadway system. Mr. Reppucci asked if east-bound traffic is contemplated crossing the west-bound lane of Spitbrook Road to get into the development. Atty. Prunier said he is sure that was taken care of in the traffic study. He said that the Planning Board hasn’t asked us to do anything in that area. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Public Hearing closed. Mr. Currier said he is struggling with the application. They had a perfectly good plan approved by the Board, and now they are adding 4,500 square feet of building, and it ends up with a lot of incursions, especially the 10 foot encroachment into the front yard setback. He said there is a wide area of green area, Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 14 but that’s the character of the neighborhood, everything is wide, and this will be sticking out. He said they’d also be allowing overage for the drive-throughs, and is struggling with that as well. He said he doesn’t believe what they are requesting meets the hardship criteria. Mr. Shaw said he’s generally favorable to the request, and said that for the Dunkin’ Donut drive-through, other than the exiting of that, believes the Code was written with the idea of going out on a public way, and going into this type of a parking area is much less significant for traffic, as it’s internal to a parking lot. He said he understands the concerns about the merging coming out of the bank, but typically, all three cars won’t all be exiting simultaneously, there’s usually a single teller. He said because the site has so much frontage, and it’s part of the City right-of-way for the road, and a lot of that goes all the way back to the Circumferential Highway and the work that was anticipated thirty or forty years ago. He said that it’s conceivable to approve the request and deny the parking in the front, as they have more spaces than are required. He said they are proposing 181 parking spaces, and the minimum required is 121, with a maximum of 243. He said if these spaces are removed, they’d still meet the Code, but there would be less parking nearby. Mr. Reppucci said he cannot support the drive-through for the Dunkin’ Donuts. He said he looks at all the other Dunkin’ Donuts locations, and they need at least twice as much as what they have to be safe. He said that this place will be the busiest Dunkin’ Donuts in New Hampshire. He said the back-up here will occur from the order window, not the pick-up window. He said the bank drive-through won’t be so bad, because they don’t have the volume. He said they only have about a quarter of the stacking space that they’ll really need for the Dunkin’ Donuts. Mr. Shaw said that there are two requests associated with this, one is to allow the drive-through in the PI zone, and the other has to do with the exit distance from the pick-up window. He said he’s heard concerns about a high volume of traffic for this Dunkin’ Donuts. He said the stacking meets the dimensional requirements. He said in responding to Mr. Reppucci’s argument, he didn’t hear about why it shouldn’t be allowed in a PI zone, or about the exit from the pick-up. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 15 Mr. Reppucci said that as presented, he can’t support the variances. Mr. Shaw said he’s not hearing an argument that seems to be about it being in a PI zone, and why it shouldn’t be allowed in that zone. Mr. Reppucci said he’s looking at it as if the area can accommodate it safely, or if it’s safe for the community. Mr. Currier said that Mr. Reppucci’s point goes to the request in the PI zone. He said they wouldn’t be here if it were in an HB zone. He said that it’s going to be a very busy drive- through, because the entranceway is at a massive PI zone, and its good planning practice to not have a drive-through in a PI zone for that very reason. He said that he believes Mr. Reppucci’s argument does speak to that. He said that he didn’t believe that their request meets the standards for being in the PI zone. Mr. Creed said he wants to see the whole traffic study, and wants to see the whole picture, including Tara Heights and all the new development, and all the people there. He said the traffic is going to be horrendous in this area, and they’re going to have to widen Spitbrook Road. He said its tough driving up there now. He said that the traffic is a bigger issue that what we’re being led to believe. He said that the City is going to need to see the traffic data, and isn’t so sure that the Board can decide on this without knowing all the traffic information. Mr. Shaw asked if this will be going back to the Planning Board if it’s approved. Mr. Falk said it would. Mr. Currier said if this is denied, the Board wouldn’t be taking away anyone’s right to develop the property. He said they already have a working, approved site plan. He said their original plan was pretty much maxed out, so it’s not like they’re not getting full use of their land. Mr. Johnson said he’s in favor of the request. He said the parking and traffic has his attention, but the encroachment is already an established intersection, and it is at the end. He Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 16 said he didn’t think the parking incursion is significant. He said the drive-through exits go out onto a parking area, not a public street. He said he’s not convinced that this is not a reasonable request. Mr. Boucher said he has no issue with the parking. He said he doesn’t have any issue with the bank drive-through area, there are several other locations that are similar. He said there will be a lot of new development up on Innovative Way, and the roads were built to handle the traffic. He said the parking incursion of ten feet, on the face of it he said he understands the concerns about it, and agreed that it is probably in the least invasive place on Spitbrook Road for this to happen. He said for the Dunkin’ Donuts drive-through, he’d be in favor of it. He said more of the impact will be to the property owners, not to the main public roadway. He said as a consumer, if he were to go there and the traffic and stacking were too much, he wouldn’t go there anymore. He said he’s in favor of the drive- through. He said as far as it being in the PI zone, in looking at the site and what and who it’s serving, in this instance, he said he didn’t have a problem with this use at this location. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the use variance request (#1 as advertised) on behalf of the owner. He said the request will allow provision of services for the workers in the PI zone, as well as the nearby residents of this area, and will allow the owner to use the property to provide those services. Mr. Shaw said that the request will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there’s no indication that it will negatively affect property values, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Reppucci said that if the Planning Board makes a change to the plan, if the change that they’re making has impact on the variances we approve, and if it does affect the variances, then the new conditions laid out by the Planning Board would have to come back to the Zoning Board. He asked, if in the Motion, if Mr. Shaw agrees that if we approve the drive-through as it’s presented to us tonight, and if there are changes brought forward by the Planning Board, that affect the drive-through in any way, we will expect the request to come back to the Zoning Board. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 17 Mr. Shaw said the only part of that that he could see not having that stipulation is if the Planning Board requires something less impactful, or more beneficial to the implementation, like if it’s reconfigured to allow for greater stacking or changing the placement of that sign. AMENDED MOTION by Mr. Shaw, stating that he’s supportive of the amendment suggested by Mr. Reppucci, stating that in the Planning Board approval, if there are any substantial changes to the allowance of the drive-through, and the flow of traffic through the drive-through, then it would necessitate a return to the Zoning Board. AMENDED MOTION SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED 3-2 (Mr. Reppucci and Mr. Currier). MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the second listed variance on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Shaw stated that the setback of the property line from the roadway versus the actual property line, there is a significant buffer zone there, and they’d have a 64 foot setback, which is quite significant, and there’s also a difference in elevation, and per testimony, there would be some vegetation and plantings and vertical break-up of the space. He said that by eliminating these parking spaces in this area while not necessarily negatively impacting the required parking for the entire space is a safety concern about potentially having the need for the real usage of parking would be more towards Building “C”, and having pedestrian traffic back and forth across one of the primary entrances/egresses of this site. He said from that regard, that is the special conditions of the property. Mr. Shaw stated that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there will be no property value affect, and the public interest is served, and substantial justice is met. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Reppucci said if the Planning Board reduces the sizes of the buildings by more than 10%, then it has to come back before the Board. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 18 Mr. Shaw said he’d prefer a larger figure, as a 10% reduction is too low for the parking. He said he’d support a 25% building reduction. AMENDED MOTION by Mr. Shaw to note that if there is a Planning Board directive that the net square footage of the proposed building “D and E” is reduced by greater than 25%, that this would need to be revisited by the Board. SECONDED AS AMENDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (Mr. Currier). MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve variance #3 as advertised on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Shaw stated that per testimony and discussion, the applicant, that the major intent of that dimensional requirement is in the context of a public right-of- way, a much more heavily traveled roadway, than an internal driveway to this site, and there would still be enough queuing distance to allow for two cars from the window, but the very limited traffic that would be going by within the parking area should allow this condition to be sufficient. Mr. Shaw said the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, no property values will be negatively impacted, it’s in the public interest, and substantial justice will be served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED 3-2 (Mr. Reppucci and Mr. Currier). MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve variance #4 as advertised on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Shaw said that the limited traffic associated with the drive-up set of windows and the staggered exiting from the lanes, and the overall very limited amount of traffic within the usage of the bank drive-up, should readily allow for the merging of traffic at this turn, and should more than readily accommodate the usage within this fashion. Mr. Shaw said it’s a reasonable use as proposed, it will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, no property values will be negatively affected, and public interest and substantial justice are met. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 26, 2013 Page 19 MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (Mr. Currier). MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: Mr. Falk said that the Agenda has a typographical error, it lists one case for 225 Amherst Street, and it should be 225 Daniel Webster Highway. He said that they will send out an amended agenda. The Board did not see any cases that have Regional Impact. REHEARING REQUESTS: None. MINUTES: None. Mr. Reppucci asked if the other members would like to discuss how they should address Alternate members. Mr. Shaw said that the Board should be reviewing the By-Laws for any amendments. After a brief discussion, the Board members decided to keep doing things the way they have been doing them, with Alternates participating in the discussions right up until the time of a motion. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 10:10 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing