Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING March 12, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, March 12, 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 J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw David Creed (left at 7:30 p.m.) 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. Martin Nagle (Owner) 40 Perham Street (Sheet 45 Lot 181) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot area, 4,620 sq.ft existing, 6,969.6 sq.ft required; and, 2) to encroach 3 feet into the 7 foot required right side yard setback – to construct a second story addition on a portion of the rear of the home, and convert existing single-family home into a two-family home. RC Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw JP Boucher David Creed Martin Nagle, 13-A Lock Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Nagle stated that he resides at this location from time to time with his daughter, and wants to finish off the second unit so he can stay there. Mr. Nagle said that there is an existing annex to the house in the rear, and the plan is to make it into a two-story, and Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 2 extend the existing roof line. He passed out some pictures and illustrations to the Board members. He also passed out a report of the neighboring unit types, showing that a two-family is consistent with all the other uses in the neighborhood. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is permitted in the RC Zone, the reason for the variance is for the land area that is required for a two-family structure. He said that the addition, even though it’s on the existing footprint, it won’t expand, and the variance is needed because the existing footprint is located within the setback. Mr. Creed asked if the Board is considering granting a variance for the past work, for the house already in the setback. Mr. Falk said no, the house has been there prior to zoning requirements, and is legally nonconforming, or, grandfathered in. The variance is just for the current construction, for the setback encroachment on the second story. He said that setbacks go from the ground through the sky. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the application on behalf of the owner, as advertised, both requests considered collectively. Mr. Shaw said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, as discussed, the changes in the footprint are non-existent, there is already an encroachment on the first floor that is grandfathered in, and the new incursion is on the second story in the back. Mr. Shaw said that this is a permitted use in the area, and there are many other two-family structures in the neighborhood. Mr. Shaw stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there is no evidence that it will affect property values, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 3 SECONDED by Mr. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. Crimson Properties, LLC (Owner) 83 Dublin Avenue (Sheet 53B Lot 4) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot frontage, 75 feet required, 54.52 feet proposed; and, 2) minimum lot width, 90 feet required, 53.27 feet proposed – to subdivide one lot into two lots. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher David Creed – participating in discussion, but has to leave at 7:30 p.m. Attorney Morgan Hollis, Gottesman & Hollis, P.A., 39 East Pearl Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Hollis stated that the property is located in the R9 zone, and homes must have 75 feet of lot frontage, and 90 feet of lot width. He submitted a package for the Board to follow along with. Atty. Hollis said the first page is a reproduction of the City’s GIS map, it shows the one lot with a single-family home on the lot, and some of the surrounding properties. He said the second page shows the intersection of Dunbarton and Dublin Streets, and where the house is, identifying the characteristic of that lot. He said the third page shows the proposed lot division line, which shows the entire frontage of 150 feet, which is sufficient frontage for two lots, 75 feet each, but there isn’t enough width at the front setback line for the 180 feet required for the two lots. Atty. Hollis said that they could have just divided the frontage area in half, but decided to make one lot conforming. He said they believe the better way to lay out the property is to have two variances. He said the last picture shows the abutting driveway further up Dublin, which is 87 Dublin. He said the final document is a letter about the property valuation. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 4 Atty. Hollis said the frontage is 150 feet, so, two lots could be created there, but the width requirement is at the front yard setback of 20 feet, and at that distance, there is 163 feet of width, it doesn’t taper fast enough for the proper width. Atty. Hollis said the plan is to construct another single-family home. He said it would be sort of like a flag lot, but for topographic reasons and driveway reasons, they are asking for a variance for frontage, to create an unusual configuration. Atty. Hollis said the request will not be contrary to the public interest, the use is to create one nonconforming lot, and it’s a large lot, it just won’t have the frontage and width that is required. He said the proposal will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, the request is a single-family home on a street where there currently is no house, and the existing house sits far back from the street. Atty. Hollis stated that if the variance is granted, it allows the properties to share a driveway. He said if the lot had the adequate frontage and width, there would be another driveway onto Dublin Avenue, so this request will help serve the character of the neighborhood. He said the request will not be, therefore, contrary to the public interest. Atty. Hollis said that the spirit and intent of the ordinance will be satisfied, as the distance and spacing is available for public health and safety. He said the house in the rear would be on a 1.8 acre parcel, centrally located to the rear of the lot. He said there is an existing swale that separates these lots naturally, and that would remain. He said that substantial justice will be done to the owner, as the proposed use is a reasonable use of the two acre piece of land. He said it’s a unique shaped lot, and has fairly large frontage for just one lot in this area. He said the house will be consistent in value to others in the neighborhood, and will be setback a reasonable distance from the road. He said by applying the lot characteristics to the request gives the special conditions of the lot, and makes it worthy of the variances requested. Mr. Shaw said it looks as if 3-5 homes could be put in, with a public street, and asked if that was explored as a possibility. Atty. Hollis said that it was considered, and they even have a plan showing five or six lots, and meeting all the requirements, Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 5 but a public right-of-way would have to be built, and they didn’t feel that it’s the best way to develop the property. It would also entail tearing down the existing house. Mr. Currier said that there’s a swale going right through the center of the proposed lot, and from looking at the topo map, it looks as if it’s the slope going to the edge of the property. Randy Turmel, Farmington Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Turmel said that as you face the lot from the street, on the right hand side, a soil scientist went out and flagged the lot. He said the wetland area is at the bottom of the slope. Mr. Currier asked if there is a buffer associated with the wetland. Mr. Turmel said that there is a natural buffer associated with it. Atty. Hollis said that it’s shown on the plan. He described where it is on the plan. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Douglas Gagne, 1 Dunbarton Avenue, Nashua, NH. He said he is representing his parents. He said their concern is that the new house will affect their views, because the new house will be straight out their rear window. He said they’re not in opposition of subdividing the property in general, but they are concerned with the viewscape. He said they’re also concerned with property values. He said if the variances are granted, he questioned whether the back lot could be further subdivided. He also asked if they could attach a note to the plan, stipulating that the lot cannot be further subdivided. He said if the Board approves this case, he asked if the fence that separates his parents house and the subject lot could be replaced, as it’s in significant disrepair, and asked if some screening can be installed prior to the house being built with some landscaping. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Reppucci said that the Board could stipulate, should the case be approved, that the back lot cannot be further subdivided. Earl Carlson, 87 Dublin Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Carlson said that there is a small pond, with standing water, at the end by his driveway. He said that water comes down the hill in both directions to this area. He said that there is a lot of water there, and it does stand. He said the water comes within a foot of being in his driveway. He said they’ve lost about a foot of soil, as well. Helen Carlson, 87 Dublin Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Carlson said that there have been trees that have been uprooted and have come down in storms, she said the whole area is laden with fallen trees, and more soil is coming down too. She said that they are concerned about the soil washing down into their property. She also said that the City has never addressed the culvert that goes under the road. Carol Wilson, 7 Briley Place, Nashua, NH. Ms. Wilson said that her condominium complex abuts the subject lot in the rear. She said that most of the water that everyone is talking about comes from her neighborhood. She mentioned the recent infill development that has been occurring in the general area, and didn’t understand why every single piece of land has to be developed. Mr. Reppucci said that property owners have the right to ask for whatever approvals they need to develop their property, and come to the Board for relief. Mr. Currier said that the zone is R9, which allows for 9,000 square foot lots. He said the subject property is much larger than that. He said that this lot could legally be subdivided to allow for about six homes, without coming to the Zoning Board. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Hollis stated that the Board already answered some of the questions about the subdivision. He said that his client is agreeable to the stipulations that if the variances are granted, that no subdivision will occur in the future. He said they are agreeable to a condition that the fence along that boundary would be repaired, prior to a Certificate of Occupancy being Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 7 issued, rather than a building permit. He said his client has plans to plant trees for screening, but is willing to discuss the trees with Mr. Gagne, and they are agreeable to the screening, prior to a Certificate of Occupancy. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Gagne said that they’d prefer that the fence be replaced. He said it is an old wooden fence, and it’s rotten in certain sections and they are falling down. He said for when it’s put up, it’s just because of construction. He said the plantings can be put up after. He said it makes sense for them to put up the fence prior to the building permit being issued. Mr. Currier said he’s favorable to approving the request, but with the stipulations of the fence, buffer, and not further subdividing the property. Mr. Shaw said he feels comfortable with the request, and didn’t want to see a more extensive subdivision, and is supportive knowing that they will agree to the stipulations of approval. Mr. Boucher said he is comfortable with the subdivision, and knowing that they got a soil scientist, it made it clearer where the water is coming from. He said he is concerned for the Carlson’s next door, and said if the Board could do anything, if there is any language the Board can use to make it so that the situation does not get any worse. He said it’s probably more of a Planning Board issue than a Zoning Board issue. Mr. Currier said that there is a 12-inch pipe going under the road there, and the City’s been called to that, and it’s probably not a simple as putting in a bigger pipe. He said that there’s a natural flow to everything, and putting in a bigger pipe may create flooding situations down the street. He said he didn’t think that the Carlson’s would be negatively impacted by this request. Mr. Reppucci agreed with what has been said. He said in most cases, a flag lot puts a new house in back of a property, but in this case, the house is already there in the back, and the house to be built will be very conforming to what is already on the street. He said he didn’t hear any objections that are insurmountable or couldn’t be fixed. Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 8 MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the application on behalf of the applicant, as advertised, both requests taken collectively. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property; the Board finds some very special conditions here, in that it’s a much oversized lot than the minimum quarter-acre, it’s about a two acre lot. Mr. Currier said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, because the proposed development in the front is essentially in line with the character that’s on Dublin Avenue. Mr. Currier said the Board finds that it will not impact property values, although there is no professional testimony towards that, and the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be done. Mr. Currier said that the special conditions, as agreed to by the applicant, is that the back lot would not be further subdivided in the future. He said the second stipulation is that there would be a new six foot tall privacy fence built along the western property line, specifically against the Gagne’s property, which is 1 Dunbarton Drive, their back yard to the applicant, and also, per the Gagne’s letter, about the native buffer, as specified in their March 12th letter with all the details SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases that have Regional Impact. REHEARING REQUESTS: None. MINUTES: 2/12/13: Zoning Board of Adjustment March 12, 2013 Page 9 MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the Minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place them in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:25 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Acting Clerk in Mr. Johnson’s absence. CF Taped Hearing