Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 8, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, October 8, 2013 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci, Chair J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson 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. Rodgers Mobile Home Park, Inc. (Owner) 21 Brenda Street (Sheet D Lot 107) requesting special exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of the Nashua River to demolish a fire-damaged manufactured home, and replace with a new manufactured home. R9 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson JP Boucher David Creed Applicant not present to discuss case – will be moved to end of meeting. 2. 24 Granite Realty, LLC (Owner) 24 Granite Street (Sheet 44 Lot 7) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot area, 4,219 sq.ft existing, 6,969 sq.ft required; and 2) minimum open space, 35% required, 33% existing – 31% proposed – to convert a single family dwelling into a two- family dwelling, and add additional paving to an existing walkway. RC Zone, Ward 3. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 2 Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher Rob Crowley, 3 Hibiscus Way, Nashua, NH. Mr. Crowley said that they bought the property as a two-family, as it’s all set up that way inside for two units. He said they’re not doing anything outside, other than the driveway. He said they’re doing this to make it a legal two-family. Mr. Crowley said on the left side of the property, there is a fairly wide walkway that they want to add asphalt to, to make it a one-car parking spot. At this point, Mr. Crowley said he’d like to let his application stand for itself. Mr. Reppucci asked when they purchased the property. Mr. Crowley said in mid-August of this year, and it’s already set up with two full kitchens. He said it was listed as a single-family, though. He said the previous owner had lived there for thirty-five to forty years. Mr. Reppucci asked about the utilities to the building. Mr. Crowley said there is one electrical system, and the intent is to change it and split it out. He said it’s all inside work that needs to be done. Mr. Johnson asked what the maximum parking capacity will be for the property. Mr. Crowley said on the right side, at least three cars can fit, and a space on the left side for one car. Mr. Crowley said he got a real estate appraisers report, and it stated that the highest and best use is for a two-family structure. Mr. Reppucci asked what the width is for the existing curb-cut on the right side of the driveway. Mr. Crowley said it’s about ten feet wide. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 3 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Ted LaPointe, 23 Granite Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. LaPointe said he’s in favor of the request. He said that there’s a utility pole dead center across the street, so people will have to watch when they pull out. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance on behalf of the applicant as advertised, both requests taken collectively. Mr. Boucher stated that the variances are 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. Mr. Boucher said that the case is within 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. Mr. Reppucci wanted to discuss the language in the advertisement, about adding additional pavement to the walkway, he said it doesn’t say what the applicant is actually looking for, which is to turn the walkway into a parking space. He said he didn’t want anyone to get confused about what they are asking to do with the walkway. Mr. Boucher and Mr. Johnson agreed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. Ronald & Karen Brassard (Owners) 2 Caitlyn Circle (Sheet D Lot 37) requesting variance to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet allowed and existing - an additional 21 feet requested onto existing driveway leading to garage. R30 Zone, Ward 5. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 4 Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher Ron Brassard, 2 Caitlyn Circle, Nashua, NH. Mr. Brassard passed out some photos of the driveway area to the Board members. He said the request is to expand the driveway for better ease of use. He said he and his wife have recently incurred physical injuries, and it’s harder to get around on a regular basis. Mr. Brassard said they don’t want to have so much pavement that it’s an eyesore, or it overtakes the lot. He said that they have nearly one acre of land, with 348 feet of road frontage, so the driveway, after improvements, would only be 12% of the road frontage. He said many properties in the neighborhood, and in the City have 33% or more of driveway compared to their lot frontage. He said the proposal will not cause any problems. He said they’ll work with the Street Department to ensure that all proper permits are obtained. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Karen Brassard, 2 Caitlyn Circle. Mrs. Brassard said they have two adult children, one is in college, and the other one has Aspergers Syndrome, and it will be easier parking for the children as well. Dave Theriault, Theriault Paving Contractors. Mr. Theriault said that they will be working with DPW, and stated that what the owners are asking for is reasonable. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Boucher 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 Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 5 applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue. Mr. Boucher said that the case is within 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. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Northhamptonboys1, LLC (Owner) Barlo Signs (Applicant) 341 & 345 Amherst Street (Sheet G Lots 28 & 30) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum number of ground signs, 2 permitted – 3 proposed; 2) to encroach into minimum setback from intersection, 25 feet required – 20 feet proposed (Sign “B”); and 3) to encroach 10 feet into the 20 foot minimum front yard setback (Sign “C”). GB Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs, Hudson, NH. Mr. Sullivan said they are requesting three variances as advertised. He described the property’s location. He said that they presently have a free- standing sign at the site. He said that the property is two distinct lots, one at 341 Amherst and the other at 345 Amherst, but are owned by one entity. He said that since they are a corner lot, they’re seeking a variance to allow a third free-standing pylon sign at the corner by the jughandle corner. He pointed out its proposed location. Mr. Sullivan said that the other two variances that they are seeking is for the setback of ten feet where twenty feet is required, for the northernmost pylon sign, it is required for visibility as drivers go around the jughandle. He said the other variance they are seeking is the setback to an intersection for the pylon sign at the corner, it is supposed to Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 6 be 25 feet, where twenty feet is proposed. He said the corner sign will be slightly raised up, so visibility will not be an issue with the traffic. Mr. Sullivan said that the second sign is necessary, because if someone misses the turn, the second sign will be there, and a driver could come in the back way. He said with the rate of traffic on Amherst Street, they’re trying to make it safe so that people don’t miss the property. Mr. Reppucci said for discussion purposes, the top sign will be Sign 1, the middle sign as Sign 2, and the sign on the right as Sign 3. He asked if all the advertising on Sign 2 would be the same as on Sign 3. Mr. Sullivan said yes. Mr. Reppucci asked what flow of traffic that would approach Sign 2, that doesn’t approach or pass Sign 3. Mr. Sullivan said it’s basically the same traffic. He said the concern is that this entrance comes up quickly, especially with the construction that is going on. He said that they’re concerned that a lot of vehicles pass the site. Mr. Reppucci said as drivers come to the intersection, it is a redundant sign, it’s very intuitive to look and know where you need to go to get into the property. He said he’s struggling with the same sign and the same traffic getting to the site. He said that having the extra sign will only work to hinder visibility to that area. Mr. Falk said that the property, even though it has two lots, was submitted as a single entity, one site plan. He said its one premise, not two premises, it doesn’t matter how many lots comprise the property, it’s treated as one premise, and since it’s a corner lot, they’re allowed two ground signs per the sign ordinance. He said each one has to be at least 75 feet away from the intersection of Trafalgar Square and Amherst Street. Mr. Creed asked who made the decision to have it be submitted as one premise. Mr. Falk said that it was submitted by the owner that way, it was the two lots, but was considered and reviewed and approved Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 7 the way it is, with two lots, but as one unified site plan designed as such. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Johnson said that there was a recent case for a restaurant in conjunction with a hotel across the street. He said that there was someone from Cannongate that had concerns about traffic. He said that as this whole area becomes more developed, there will be people staying at hotels, looking at services, and said that there will be more traffic going on this road. He said it may make sense to have the second sign there, it may add value. Mr. Creed said it seems like a mistake was made by the applicant, they should have Sign 1 where Sign 2 is, it seems more logical. He said he gets the feeling that the applicant has made a mistake, and need the Boards help. Mr. Reppucci said that there are numerous ways in which the developer could have developed this lot, and they chose the way it is shown. He said they chose to have the back building where it is. He said the overall area is way over-signed, completely. He said the Five Guys signs are so visible. He said it would be a mistake to have the intersection corner sign put there. He said the second sign would be seen by the same traffic. He said he believes that there will be a negative impact in moving the signs closer to the roadway. He said the extra ground sign is unnecessary. Mr. Boucher said he didn’t have an issue with the sign being closer to the road. He said that the building is already close to the road. He said that Sign 1 is an existing sign, no problem with that one. He said that for Sign 2, when the cars are in the Five Guys parking lot, when they’re parked, it looks like the pavement is sloped, so the front noses of the cars look much higher. He said he’s on the fence with Sign 2. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 8 Mr. Reppucci said the goal of signs is to identify where the place is. He said his view of it is not that someone is just driving down the road, and then decide to turn. He said a lot of people say that “we’re in this mall”, and they can look for that. He said if people miss the first pylon sign, and they drive by, the chances of them missing the first pylon sign, and missing the stores, but seeing the second sign. He said its redundancy. Mr. Johnson said he’s in favor of the second sign, but not ecstatic about it. Mr. Creed said that part of his objection to the second sign is that it’s redundant, they already have a sign, and they’re asking for an additional one. He said that they’re entitled to two for the whole property, but they’re looking for an additional sign, where they already have a sign, and, they have signage on the buildings as well. The Board briefly discussed the “Fisher vs. Dover” case, if the case is denied and they decide to re-apply. Mr. Johnson said if the Motion brings up the safety issue, he’d support a denial. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny Variance #1 as in the advertisement. Mr. Reppucci stated that through the Boards discussion, the third ground sign is a redundant sign, and it is not needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, he said that there are no special conditions of the property that justify allowing a third sign in that location, and the benefit sought by the applicant is achieved by the sign that presently exists. Mr. Reppucci said that he believes that it’s not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, he said if the Board found that the criteria in #1 were met, perhaps it would be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Reppucci said it will not adversely affect the property values, there was no testimony either way on this issue. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 9 Mr. Reppucci said the request is contrary to the public interest, in that it would be an obstruction at the intersection, and substantial justice would not be done. SECONDED by Mr. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny Variance #2, known as “Sign B” as in the advertisement. Mr. Reppucci stated that this variance is tied to the first variance that was denied. He said that there would be nothing to prevent them from taking one of their allowed signs and putting it in this location. He said that the variance is not needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, he said that the Board didn’t approve the third sign, but even if one of the permitted signs was placed there, it’s not a reasonable location for it. Mr. Reppucci said that he believes that it’s not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance; it will not adversely affect the property values, there was no testimony either way on this issue. Mr. Reppucci said the request is contrary to the public interest, in fact, the Board finds that this request would be contrary to the public interest to allow a variance at that location, or a sign to be closer to the intersection than is allowed by law, and substantial justice would not be done. SECONDED by Mr. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant variance #3, known as “Sign C” on behalf of the applicant as advertised. 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. He said that per discussion by the Board, by not allowing this variance, locating a sign at that location may be obstructed from the Trafalgar Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 10 Square approach, and it’s reasonable to request a relief to come into the setback. Mr. Reppucci said that the case is within 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. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 5. Christopher & Stacey Westcott (Owners) 10 Bayberry Circle (Sheet C Lot 2617) requesting special exception to work in a 40-foot “other” wetland buffer to install an in-ground swimming pool, a fence, and site grading. R30 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher Chris Westcott, 10 Bayberry Circle, Nashua, NH. Mr. Westcott said they are requesting a special exception to install an in- ground pool, and they abut an “other” wetland. He said that they got Conservation Commission approval, they visited the property. He said the purpose of the special exception is so that they can cross the buffer to access the area where the work will be done. He said that part of the project is to clear some land in the buffer, some brush and some small trees, and extend the back yard. Mr. Westcott said that they will be installing a white resin fence that will match up with the house. He said that the pool isn’t in the buffer, the request is just to cross the buffer for the construction. Mr. Reppucci asked about the nine special wetland conditions. Mr. Westcott said that they meet all the conditions. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 11 Mr. Boucher said that the Conservation Commission looks over these criteria. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the special exception on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Johnson said that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. Mr. Johnson said that the proposed use will not create traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He said it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, all the special regulations are fulfilled, and 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 residents. Mr. Johnson said that the proposal meets all the nine special wetland conditions, and it was approved by the Conservation Commission on October 1, 2013, with nine stipulations for approval. Mr. Reppucci said that the Conservation Commission minutes are also included for the record. SECONDED by Mr. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. At this point, the applicant for Case #1 is present to make their presentation to the Board: Rodgers Mobile Home Park, Inc. (Owner) 21 Brenda Street (Sheet D Lot 107) requesting special exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of the Nashua River to demolish a fire-damaged manufactured home, and replace with a new manufactured home. R9 Zone, Ward 5. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 12 Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson JP Boucher David Creed Peter Graves, President, Rodgers Mobile Home Park, Nashua, NH. Mr. Graves apologized for being late, he had some car trouble. He said they have a manufactured home facility off of West Hollis Street. He said that the structure was burned in a fire, and it’s in a wetland buffer, and needs to be removed, as it’s an eyesore and is not good for property values. Mr. Graves stated that the request received a positive recommendation from the Conservation Commission at their September 17, 2013 meeting, with six stipulations of approval. He said that they meet the nine special regulations of approval as well. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the special exception on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Reppucci said that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. Mr. Reppucci said that the proposed use will not create traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He said it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, all the special regulations are fulfilled, and 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 residents. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 13 Mr. Reppucci said that the proposal meets all the nine special wetland conditions, and it was approved by the Conservation Commission on September 17, 2013, with six stipulations for approval. He said that the Conservation Commission minutes are also included for the record. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: September 10, 2013 and September 24, 2013: Mr. Johnson suggested rewording the first sentence of Page 2 from the September 10th minutes. Mr. Falk said that Staff would reword the sentence. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve both sets of minutes, with the September 10th minutes revised as discussed; waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Mr. Falk said that he has a corrected copy of the By-Laws that was amended and approved by the Board. He said that the Chairman, Vice Chair and Clerk need to sign it, and Staff will appropriately file the By-Laws in the Planning Department and the City Clerk’s Office. Mr. Reppucci said that he will sign as Chairman, and Mr. Johnson can sign as the Clerk for now, as Mr. Currier is absent. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:34 p.m. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 8, 2013 Page 14 Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing