Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 12, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, November 12, 2013 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci, Chair Rob Shaw 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. James Allard (Owner) 38 Amherst Street (Sheet 68 Lot 104) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 6,280 sq.ft existing, 13,936 sq.ft required, to maintain property as a four-unit structure. RC Zone, Ward 3 [TABLED FROM 10/22/13 ZBA MEETING]. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Rick Johnson JP Boucher David Creed MOTION by Mr. Shaw to take the case off the Table. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. James Allard, 26 Cherokee Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Allard said that a couple of concerns that came up from the last meeting, he said the concerns from the neighbor stemmed from a tenant that Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 2 was problematic, but that tenant isn’t there anymore. He said that he personally mows the lawn, and plows the snow, and maintains the property. He said that he disagrees with some of the points made by the abutter about the condition of the property. Mr. Allard said that it’s his belief that the Board has the response from the Building Department. He said that he can renovate the units one at a time without having to do the whole building. He said that he owns the ten-unit SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Letters from Mike Brown and Deborah Allaire, 37 Amherst Street, Nashua, NH, read into the record and previously discussed. . Gutierrez asked what the proposal was, he wasn’t necessarily against it, he just wanted to learn about the process and why they were notified. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: None. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS - REBUTTAL: None. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance on behalf of the owner 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 applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 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. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Boucher said that the request is not contrary to the public interest, there were a couple letters of opposition to the case, but through testimony of the applicant, the concerns have been addressed, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. He said that the Board is being asked to consider considerable relief to the square footage required, and the applicant did provide the Board with information regarding several other multi-family units within the immediate area, that have even more significant density, so this case is in keeping with the general character of this area, and it’s easy to support based upon that. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. CZL Group (Owner) Rapp Signs, Inc. (Applicant) 221 Main Street (Sheet 81 Lot 7) requesting variance from minimum clearance for a projecting sign, 10 feet required, 7’-9” proposed. D-1/MU Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher Patrick Doyle, Rapp Signs, Inc., Greene, NY. Mr. Doyle said they are requesting approval to install a projecting sign for NBT Bank. He said that the sign would be very similar to the Beckonings sign next door. He said the proposed sign would not be illuminated, and would be in keeping with other nearby signs. He said that the sign is basically to help the pedestrian traffic. Mr. Doyle said that folks are coming down the sidewalk, browsing, window shopping, and a lot of times people wander into the bank, assuming it’s another shop. He said it’s often that someone walks in, and then realize they’re in a bank. He said to alleviate that problem, the projecting sign should help. He said it would be mounted on a wrought-iron bracket. He said they are in compliance with everything except the clearance requirement of ten feet. He said the proposed sign would be the same as the Beckonings sign. He said the TD Bank sign is 8’ – Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 4 4” above the ground, and the proposed sign is in keeping with several other signs and designs on Main Street and the general area. Mr. Reppucci asked if there are any restrictions on the structure that is causing the signs to be installed lower. Mr. Doyle said that there are windows above that are right over the space where you enter the bank. He said that there are columns on the end, too. He said the landlord had concerns about having the two signs at different heights, they were adamant that the signs be at the same height. He said the proposed sign is the same square footage as the Beckonings sign. Mr. Shaw asked if it is feasible to meet the ten foot height. Mr. Doyle said it would be very difficult, as the bracket would be right on the window. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to grant the variance on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw stated that as noted in the testimony and discussion, the sign will help identify this as a bank, and not just another shop. He said that due to the adjacent doorway and the pre- existing Beckonings sign, having the 7’-9” placement will allow for consistency with the existing sign, as well as other limitations from the structural aspects of the building, where a place could be used for mounting the sign, to even meet the height, would limit the benefit of this projecting sign, would be the window above, and the pillar off to the side. Mr. Shaw said that all other aspects of the sign would meet the Code, it’s only the clearance height that is requested, and there would be no other feasible means to mount the sign. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 5 Mr. Shaw said that the sign is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there is no indication of any negative impacts on any other parcels property values, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Robert A. & Sharyn L. Castellano (Owners) 4 Bicentennial Drive (Sheet B Lot 1430) requesting variance to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet allowed – 40 feet requested – to repave existing driveway. R18 Zone, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher Robert & Sharyn Castellano, 4 Bicentennial Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Castellano said this whole thing started when he went to repave the driveway. He said they live at the corner of Bicentennial Drive and East Dunstable Road. He said that they bought the house in July, 2002, and the driveway was always the way it is now. He said they’d like to repave it. He said the house was built in 1976. Mr. Castellano said that the horseshoe-shaped driveway exists because of the busy road, and it’s at the corner, and the school is right there. Mr. Reppucci asked if the other driveway was there, too. Mr. Castellano said it was. Mr. Reppucci asked if any of the neighbors have complained about the horseshoe driveway. Mr. Castellano said that the neighbors have been very supportive, they like that the property has been updated. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 6 Sharyn Castellano said that the neighbors have been very complimentary about the driveway. Mr. Creed said that he is familiar with the property, it stands out. He said the old driveway needed re-paving, and is in favor of the request. He said it is a good idea from a safety perspective, and from an aesthetic perspective. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance on behalf of the owner 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 applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 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. He said that per testimony, there has been positive feedback from the neighbors. Mr. Boucher said that the request is not contrary to the public interest, it is a benefit for public safety concerns for vehicles getting on and off East Dunstable Road, and for the shorter sight distances on that road. He said that substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. Heroina Norena (Owner) 8 Dow Street (Sheet 44 Lot 59) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot area, 4,888 sq.ft existing, 12,446 sq.ft required; and, 2) minimum open space, 20% existing, 35% required – to Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 7 maintain property as a two-family structure. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Rick Johnson David Creed J.P. Boucher Andreas Contero, 8 Dow Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Contero said that they bought the house one year ago, as a two-family house. He said that the taxes show that the house is a two-family, the wastewater bill shows it as 8 and 8½ Dow Street. He said that they weren’t aware it was a single-family house until they were notified by the City that it’s a single-family, and that the apartment was illegal. He said they filled out the application for the repair work on the house, and it indicated that the windows were too small, and the heater doesn’t have ventilation. He said the house has some minor problems, and there is some aid that is being given by HUD. Mr. Reppucci asked about the letter dated July 14. He said it was to a previous owner, and it was addressing three units, so there is some confusion. He said the letter gives a little background info, but that letter is no longer valid. He said the proposal is to continue to use the structure as a two- family. Mr. Contero said they want to keep it as a two-family. Mr. Creed mentioned the assistance given to the owner. He asked if the approval is necessary for them to get the assistance. Mr. Contero said that the aid was based upon a two-family house, so it probably is. Mr. Shaw asked if the neighborhood has many other two-family homes. Mr. Cordero said next door there are some, and there are several in the neighborhood similar to their house. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 8 Mr. Creed asked if the permit is for a two-family home, or for a single-family with an in-law apartment. Mr. Cordero said it’s for a two-family home. Mr. Johnson said he noticed two meters on the home. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to grant the variances on behalf of the owner as advertised, both taken together. Mr. Johnson stated that the variances are needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is actually the current 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 variances. Mr. Johnson 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 will actually help to increase the assessment. He said the approval will improve the overall condition of the property and the safety, so it is not contrary to the public interest, it’s a benefit to the public interest for this to be granted, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Reppucci said the building has been used as a two-family for many years, so it’s not like there will be a new unit introduced to the neighborhood that wasn’t there previously. Mr. Johnson agreed. Mr. Reppucci re-iterated the approval process for the owners, stating that they were approved for exactly what they asked for. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2013 Page 9 MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board found no cases that will have Regional Impact. MINUTES: October 22, 2013: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 7:30 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing