Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING July 9, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, July 9, 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 (left at 7:40 p.m.) J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson 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. Marie B. Dionne (Owner) Crimson Properties, LLC (Applicant) 63 King Street (Sheet 13 Lot 16) requesting the following variances: Lot 16: 1) minimum lot width, 60 feet required, 50 feet proposed, 2) minimum lot area, 6,000 square feet required, 5,912 square feet proposed; Lot 18: 3) minimum lot width, 60 feet required, 50 feet proposed, and 4) confirmation that Lot 16 and Lot 18 are not merged. RB Zone, Ward 7. [TABLED FROM 6-11-13 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson JP Boucher Attorney Brad Westgate, Winer & Bennett, 111 Concord Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Westgate put up the old Plan #144 from the Hillsborough County Register of Deeds from 1892, and a GIS drawing up on the board, with colored dots representing the number of units. He stated that the deferral from the June 11, 2013 meeting focused on the storm water issue, but left the whole case open as well. He said the record from the last meeting is incorporated into this meeting. He gave a brief Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9, 2013 Page 2 description of the site, and history of the property, and zoning district criteria, both current code and the requested variance criteria. He said they previously went over the variance points of law. Atty. Westgate said they’ve investigated the storm water issue very thoroughly. He said that Hayner Swanson, Inc., on a number of occasions, has looked at the property, and got a very good sense of the storm water patterns that were evident. He said that based upon their observations, they analyzed what would make sense to accommodate storm water management in this setting. He said that they’ve come up with three recommendations; the first is that infiltration basins be established around the new home to capture rooftop runoff. He said that the second one is to grade the new driveway and the relocated home driveway so that the grade of the driveways is a bit higher than the street. He said that the third recommendation is that a leaching type catch basin be installed in the general area of where the ponding was that they observed, towards the more central or rear portion of Lot 18. They concluded in the letter that if the recommendations are incorporated in the new house construction, that there will be no adverse downstream drainage impacts to the neighbor. He said they will improve the situation out there. He said they are confident that if their recommendations are implemented, the post development peak runoff rate, based upon the 10-year storm. He said that Mr. Turmel had four test pits drilled, and there are great results relative to drainage capability. Atty. Westgate said that they’ve taken very seriously the concerns raised by the abutters and the Board’s questions from four weeks ago, and have analyzed this in a professional and sensible manner, and the approach being brought forth is a good one. Mr. Reppucci asked if the Board didn’t ask for this extra information on storm water, would it be part of the plan for the new construction. Atty. Westgate said it’s only being done because the Board has asked for it. He said that since the meeting, it’s been found out that the building code only considers a short distance from the foundation. He said in this case, these are historic lots, and the plan is to use Lot 16 as one lot, based upon the old 1892 plan, and use Lot 18 and merge the rear portion into it, Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9, 2013 Page 3 for another lot, therefore, subdivision approval will not be necessary, so no Planning Board action is required. He said that the storm water analysis that the Planning Board would normally look at won’t be necessary. Mr. Johnson said the package had some letters in it for the development of the property, saying it wasn’t out of character with the neighborhood. He asked if the abutters are aware of the letter written relative to the storm water study. Atty. Westgate said the letter was just written yesterday, but they gave a copy of it to Mr. Parent before the meeting. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Gerry Parent, 61 King Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Parent asked if there is a quorum. Mr. Reppucci said there is a quorum. Mr. Parent said nothing was mentioned about the asbestos. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board would ask the applicant about the asbestos. Mr. Parent said he would like to see the lot lines being straight lines, not with dog legs. He said he’s not really opposed to having two single-family homes built, but has a problem with the water. He submitted some pictures to the Board. He said the pictures show the kettle hole area, where the land is lower, and holds water. He said he received the Chapter 4, Foundations Code Section from the Building Department, and all they’re interested in is the water around the foundation. He said he’s interested in all the rest of the property, and what affect it may have on the asbestos. Mr. Reppucci said at the last meeting, it was discussed, and the applicant stated that any remediation that needs to be done would be done according to the requirements of DES. Mr. Parent reiterated that he has concerns about the water. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9, 2013 Page 4 Mr. Currier said that he’s feeling very comfortable with the request, and said that in stipulation #1, the downspouts would go into the ground, so that is less runoff. He said the grading of the new driveway, in stipulation #2 will allow runoff to go into the storm drain, and keep it off the abutting property. He said the third stipulation, to allow for a leaching catch basin, will be a feature that is designed in, and it cannot have a garage, shed or driveway put on top of it, it’s kind of a burden to the landowner, and it’s essentially where the water will go, as opposed to spreading it around. He said these stipulations go a long way in helping the water situation, and improving it. He said the firm doing this, and writing the letter, is very well respected. Mr. Parent said his only concern is the 100-year storm event, and of all the stipulations take care of the runoff. Mr. Currier said that his experience with the asbestos is that it’s going to be left where it is, and will be covered up. Mr. Parent said his concern is not to get any water in his yard. He said if the lot is filled in, and with a house there, the water runoff will be a problem. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Westgate said they’ve done four test pits on the site relative to the asbestos, revealed to a depth of about 18 inches. He said it’s close to King Street on Lot 16, the lot that would accommodate the new house. He said it has to be remediated through whatever the NH DES would mandate. He said that Mr. Turmel has had that experience before. He said that Hayner Swanson has made their recommendations based on their study, and the source of some of the water volume has been taken out. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Parent asked if the firm that will be doing the work will actually have a plan that will take care of the water problem. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance on behalf of the applicant, as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9, 2013 Page 5 property, which is to build a single-family home, and said that the oral and written testimony meets the five criteria. Mr. Currier said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, with the special conditions. He said that the first condition is that prior to the first C/O for a single-family detached dwelling on Lot 16, the applicant shall implement the three stipulations set forth in the 7-8-13 Hayner Swanson letter, and upon issuance of the C/O for a single-family detached dwelling on Lot 16, the only type of dwelling to be constructed and used on 16 and 18 is a single-family detached dwelling, in other words, stipulating that they’re going to be single-family detached dwellings. Mr. Currier said that with these two stipulations, he believes that the criteria are met. He said that the motion and stipulation does not in any way say that there will never be a water problem, what it says is that with these three stipulations, with the professional engineer saying that the post-development runoff will be less, or improved than the pre- development runoff. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Christopher Eckler (Owner) 22 Amory Street (Sheet 38 Lot 43) requesting special exception to expand a non-conforming use by adding a 7’x12’ addition to an existing shed; and a 9’x29’ four-season porch to existing structure. GI Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Jack Currier – Recused from case; left meeting at 7:40 p.m. Mr. Currier said that many years ago he worked with Mr. Eckler and said he was going to step down from the case, also, he had personal business to attend to. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9, 2013 Page 6 Mr. Reppucci said that there are now three voting members, as Mr. Currier had to recuse himself from the case, and left the meeting. Chris Eckler, 22 Amory Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Eckler stated that it was brought to his attention that one of the tenants put up a couple sheds, and converted a bulkhead into a regular door, 10-15 years ago, and it was done without any permits. He said that the house is vacant right now, and is in need of some repair. He said with the improvements, it will be nice. Mr. Reppucci asked if he met all the requirements for a special exception. Mr. Eckler said he believes so. He said he’s agreed to remove the second shed, but hasn’t yet because some of the materials may be used for that for the expansion of the other shed. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the special exception on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Boucher stated that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-119 (A)(4). He stated that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, and it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. Mr. Boucher stated that the special regulations are fulfilled, it will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of residents, in fact, the applicant stated that he will be fixing up the property, and removing a shed, so it will be even more in compliance with the property. Mr. Reppucci asked if removing the shed is part of the motion. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9, 2013 Page 7 Mr. Falk said he already submitted a building permit to demo the shed. AMENDED MOTION by Mr. Boucher that the shed labeled “demo” will be removed, and that some of the materials in that shed may be used for the new construction, to be done prior to final inspection. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board stated that for the case on Hills Ferry Road, to contact the property municipalities nearby, Merrimack, and either Hudson and/or Litchfield across the river. MINUTES: April 9, 2013, May 28, 2013 and June 11, 2013: Mr. Falk said that staff has Mr. Currier’s correction for the typo on Page 8 for the April 9th meeting. Mr. Johnson said on Page 1 of the June 11 minutes, he said his name was omitted from the list of voting members, and was at the meeting. Mr. Falk said all the changes will be made. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the three sets of minutes with the changes mentioned, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. Ordinance O-13-41: Mr. Falk briefly told the Board what the Ordinance proposes. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 9, 2013 Page 8 The Board said they are grateful for having received this proposed Ordinance to provide input on, and said they’d be happy to provide feedback before Thursday’s Planning Board meeting. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing