Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 26, 2013 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, November 26, 2013 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Jack Currier conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Jack Currier David Creed Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Currier explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Currier 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. Currier also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. Michelle M. Ray (Owner) 8 Rocky Hill Drive (Sheet C Lot 368) requesting variance to encroach 5 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback (on Gagnon Circle) to construct an attached 22’x22’ carport. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Jack Currier JP Boucher David Creed Douglas Wright & Michelle Ray, 8 Rocky Hill Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Wright said that right now, it’s just an open lawn area where cars park next to the house. He said that after talking to staff, they were going to be 17½ feet from the property line, because of the large swale area of right-of-way. Mr. Wright said that many years ago, a variance was granted on this side of the street for the property, for an addition in 1977. He said that the encroachment is similar to existing. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 26, 2013 Page 2 Mr. Currier asked if the carport will be at the same location as the front of that side of the house. Mr. Wright said they want it to be about 2½ feet closer to the street. Mr. Currier said that there is a wider grassed area, and it isn’t unusual, as the City owns part of the right-of-way that could be used for a sidewalk or infrastructure. Mr. Creed asked if the carport is going where the pool is. Mr. Wright said that the pool is gone, but it does show up on the GIS map, and the carport will be placed in that general location. Mr. Boucher asked about the previous variance, and what it entailed. Mr. Falk said that there was a variance granted in 1977 for the addition in the corner of the property, it just entailed that addition, it didn’t give them carte blanche approval to encroach anywhere they want along that front property line. He said the carport is 2½ feet closer in to the property line, at 15 feet to the property line. He said that all measurements are taken from the property line. Mr. Boucher asked if there were any stipulations from that 1977 variance. Mr. Falk said he didn’t believe there were any. Mr. Currier asked if the carport will fully be used as a carport, or if cars will park in front of it, potentially blocking the path of pedestrians walking by. Mr. Wright said that they will park their own personal cars in the carport, and it will be an advantage to the neighbors, because the cars will be off the street. He said that only visitors would park in front of the carport. Mr. Currier asked why they are encroaching 2½ feet beyond the front of the house. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 26, 2013 Page 3 Mr. Wright said that the carport is 2½ feet wider than the addition, and they want to line up the back side of the carport with the house instead of the front, but it could work either way. 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 the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property; he said there is an existing addition which adds a few feet of encroachment into the same front yard setback, and this will be a similar encroachment, while being slightly further, and it’s relatively consistent with what’s already existing. Mr. Shaw said that the case is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there is no indication of negative affect to any surrounding parcels. Mr. Shaw said that the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Dan Bergeron Building & Development (Owner) 85 King Street (Sheet 125 Lot 60) requesting variance for lot depth, 80 feet required, 65 feet proposed (from King Street). RB Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Jack Currier Rob Shaw David Creed Zoning Board of Adjustment November 26, 2013 Page 4 J.P. Boucher Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier and Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that he is reserving his right to proceed forward without a full Board. Atty. Prunier said that the existing two-family structure will be demolished, and a single-family home will be built. He said that next door, there were a lot of garages, and they were removed, and that portion of the property will have a new house built there. Atty. Prunier said that many years ago, as long as you had the required frontage from one of the street frontages. He said the Planning staff had interpreted it that way for a long time. He said about five years ago, there was a case in the north end, and the determination by the Board was that applicants had to have depth on both lot frontages. Atty. Prunier said that they have frontage on both sides, and the house will front on Tetreau Street, not King Street. He said they have 65 feet of depth, they are 15 feet short, that is the requested variance. He said they have the depth in one direction, but not two directions. He showed the Board a tax map showing the general neighborhood, and most of the frontage lots in the area, that have double frontages, are all similar, with depth in only one direction, not two. He said the request is consistent. Atty. Prunier said that this area is getting new life, especially on Tetreau Street, with many brand new single-family homes. Mr. Currier asked if the house at the end of the street is one of Atty. Prunier’s client’s homes. Atty. Prunier said it is. He said there will a lot of vitality brought to the area. Mr. Currier asked about the condition of the existing two-family home. Atty. Prunier said it was a balance, between the additional variances that would be needed to keep it there, versus the problems in the house, it’s old and has electric and plumbing Zoning Board of Adjustment November 26, 2013 Page 5 problems, so they decided to remove it and build one new single- family home. Mr. Currier said it’s a density-neutral proposal. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the variance on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicants proposed use of the property, which is redevelopment with a single-family home, in concert with neighboring and abutting properties. Mr. Currier said that the Board finds that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it’s a double-front yard, and it’s reasonable to have 65 feet, it’s matching equivalent homes and properties abutting it, there is no indication of any negative impacts on any other parcels property values, as there will be three new homes on the street, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board found no cases that will have Regional Impact. MINUTES: November 12, 2013: Zoning Board of Adjustment November 26, 2013 Page 6 MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Creed. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 7:01 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Acting Clerk, in Mr. Johnson’s absence. CF Taped Hearing