Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING May 13, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, May 13, 2014 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw 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. Digital Federal Credit Union (Owner) Andreas Stahly (Applicant) 25 Riverside Street (Sheet 75 Lot 68) requesting use variance to allow a veterinary practice within an existing building. PI Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier stated that the use is for an indoor veterinary office. He said that there will be no kennels or runs outdoors, it will be strictly an indoor office use, it’ll be just like a medical or dental office, but it will be with animals. He said that there will also be no overnight stays; it is only during regular office hours. He said it is office space, and they’re keeping the building there. He went over the variance points of law. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Johnson asked if it’s just like a clinic operating during the day, except for animals instead of humans. Mr. Currier asked if the applicant would be asking for outdoor kennels and an increase of the use sometime in the future. Atty. Prunier said that she has two other similar offices, and what she is requesting is exactly what she wants. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to grant the variance request by 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; 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, as stated by the Board, the use is solely for veterinary services for an office, there will be no overnight stays or kennels or outside use is proposed. Mr. Shaw stated that the use 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. Mr. Shaw said that the use only supports usage where services are indoor; there will be no outdoor kennels or runs. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. Mathew Paras (Owner) 560 West Hollis Street (Sheet E Lot 336) requesting variance to encroach 2 ft into the 10 ft left side yard setback to construct a 37’x28’ single-story home addition. R9 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 3 Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Mathew Paras, 560 West Hollis Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Paras said that he is requesting to build an addition onto his house, it would be eight feet from the property line, where ten feet is required, it would just continue the line of the house going towards the back. He said all of his neighbors have said that they are fine with the request. He said that according to his application, he meets all the points of law. He said it would be for two bedrooms and a bathroom. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the variance request by the owner as advertised. 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; 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, as stated by the Board, the request is an extension of a side of the house by two feet into the setback, consistent with the existing home. Mr. Currier stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it may even improve the values, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 4 3. Rochelle Renna & Jennifer Gibbs (Owners) 7 Forest Street (Sheet 60 Lot 53) requesting variance to encroach 4 ft into the 6 ft right side yard setback, and to encroach 4 ft into the 6 ft rear yard setback to relocate an existing shed. RA Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Rochelle Renna, 7 Forest Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Renna said that they want to relocate the shed, because they want to put in a swimming pool in the back yard. She said she spoke with the neighbors, and they didn’t mind, and also, there is a bulkhead on one side, therefore, the pool is proposed for the best position it could be in. She attached a letter of support from one of the neighbors in the back. She said the relocated shed would also provide privacy. Ms. Renna said they want a two-foot distance to allow for cleaning and maintenance, as well as to leave a space between the bulkhead and the shed. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to grant the variance request by the owner as advertised. Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 5 values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. 635 Amherst Street LLC & 647 Amherst Street LLC (Owners) 635 & 647 Amherst Street (Sheet I Lots 26 & 28) requesting special exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Pennichuck Brook for reconstruction and resurfacing of parking areas, and drainage system construction in previously developed areas within the buffer. GB Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Earle Blatchford, Hayner Swanson Inc, 3 Congress Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Blatchford stated that the plans put up on the board are the same ones in the application packet. He said that the application is related to an amended site plan application. He said that last year, a similar plan was approved, and the owner was able to purchase the property next door, where the restaurant was located. Mr. Blatchford said that the request is to do work within portions of the 75-foot wetland buffer. He said that all the work is going to be done within existing developed areas, and the work is mostly demolition of the existing restaurant building and a deck. He said that they are reconstructing parking areas. He said that the Conservation Commission has approved the request, and they suggested a change to the parking areas, and to add a rain garden. He said that there will be significant changes to the drainage, and there will be a lot of new landscaping. He said that the net impacts will be reducing the building square footage, and reducing the impervious area by about 1,800 square feet, so there will be an improvement to the buffer area. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 6 Mr. Blatchford said that they meet all the nine special regulations, and that they’ll abide by and agree to all the Conservation Commission stipulations. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board doesn’t have the Conservation Commission approval letter, but said that the applicant is highly professional and their firm is highly trusted and one of the best. Mr. Blatchford said that there is a snow-storage area out of the buffer. He said that there will be no disturbance to the bank, and there will be additional buffer plantings. Mr. Johnson asked if there are any special procedures in removing the deck, and asked for more details on the snow storage. Mr. Blatchford said that the entire deck and pilings will be removed. He said the snow storage will be on an existing paved area, and if there is a significant snowfall, the snow will be taken off-site. He said that the soils are well-drained, and there will be less runoff to the brook. Mr. Currier asked about the car care center, and asked if any oil spills would go into the brook. Mr. Blatchford said that they are following all the Best Management practices, and nothing will go into the brook Mr. Reppucci said that the Board has received a letter from Cynthia Overby. He said the letter raises some concerns. Mr. Currier said that the Conservation Commission has given their recommendation of approval with all their stipulations. Mr. Currier said that the Conservation Commission has given their recommendation of approval with all their stipulations, and the applicant is meeting all of those. He said he’d feel comfortable going forward with a vote, even though there is no Conservation Commission approval letter, but the applicant said that they did approve the request. Mr. Johnson asked if the Board were to vote on this request, if a copy of the Conservation Commission letter would be available within 30 days. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Shaw said he feels pretty comfortable moving forward with the request, even without the Conservation Commission letter. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to grant the special exception application as submitted by the applicant. Mr. Shaw stated that the request is listed in the table of uses, Section 190-112. He said that that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Shaw stated that the use will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, as there will be much less encroachment of active usage into the 75-foot wetland buffer, and the mitigation should further protect the brook. He said that the special regulations are fulfilled per testimony, and the Board heard testimony that all stipulations will be adhered to. Mr. Shaw said that the request will not impair the integrity, or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to health, morals or welfare of the residents. Mr. Shaw said that the Board does not have a specific copy of the Conservation Commissions meeting letter with all the stipulations, but the applicant has testified that they will adhere to all the items and stipulations in the letter. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Johnson said that the Conservation Commission meeting minutes will be made available as soon as possible. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 5. Gill Family Realty Trust (Owner) 6 Jasper Lane (Sheet F Lot 1543) requesting variance to encroach 5 ft into the 6 ft Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 8 rear yard setback to construct a 10’x14’ shed. R30 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Mark Gill, 6 Jasper Lane, Nashua, NH. Mr. Gill said they are requesting to encroach 5 feet into the 6 foot rear setback to construct a 10’x14’ shed. He said he also included some supporting letters from some neighbors. He said that his application is complete, and meets all the points of law. Mr. Currier asked what the strip of land is in back of where the shed would be. Mr. Gill said it is a 50-foot buffer strip, that is owned by the developer, to buffer the development from Pine Hill Road. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance request by 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 stated that the use 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. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 9 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 6. Jaclyn Marquis & Nancy Gilbert (Owners) 91 Westwood Drive (Sheet B Lot 1497) requesting variance to encroach 6 ft into the 20 ft front yard setback to construct a detached 18’x24’ garage. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Nancy Gilbert, 91 Westwood Drive, Nashua, NH. Ms. Gilbert said that their request is pretty straight-forward, and there are no sidewalks on the street. She said that there is a 10-foot swale area from the pavement to the property line, so the area where the garage would be is larger than it seems. She said it may increase the value of their home. Mr. Currier asked how much driveway length is there from the front of the house to the street, or to the property line. Ms. Gilbert said that there is 14 feet to the property line, but to the street, it’s much more. Mr. Currier said he’s struggling with this application, to have a detached garage where it’s proposed, it would be an aberration to the rest of the neighborhood. Ms. Gilbert said if the garage were built on the existing driveway, it would be in a perfect place based upon the property layout. She said the front and back of the house lot is flat, but the side yard is sloping down. She said the most opportune place is where it’s proposed. Mr. Currier asked what the space would be between the proposed garage and the house. Ms. Gilbert said about three feet. Mr. Shaw said that it looks like it’s about four feet. He asked Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 10 why they’re not doing an attached garage. Ms. Gilbert said the reason is mostly financial. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Shaw said that his concern is that he believes that there’s another reasonably feasible solution for the applicant to pursue. Mr. Johnson said that he’s looking at point #4 in the application, and said it’s really going to stick out and be an aberration, and will be noticed. He said there are no other homes with this type of layout. Mr. Reppucci said he couldn’t think of a past request like this one. Mr. Currier said he’s uncomfortable with this one, and said that homeowners finances are not something the Board can consider in reviewing a variance request. He said that there’s a very doable other plan they could do. He said that he’s not quite sure how it would look. Mr. Reppucci said it will not look proper, and will not be aesthetically pleasing, and we cannot look at financial issues. Mr. Boucher agreed, he didn’t think it was placed correctly on the lot MOTION by Mr. Currier to deny the request as advertised. He said the variance is not needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is to have a garage added to the property. He said if this request were approved, it would not be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and it wouldn’t appear to be an orderly development within the neighborhood, sitting in front of the house. He said there wasn’t any professional testimony one way or another about the property values of surrounding parcels, but the Board found that Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 11 it would impair the property values of surrounding parcels to have a garage sitting in front of the house. Mr. Currier said that the request is therefore contrary to the public interest, and the request is to deny. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 7. William Tate (Owner) 4 Epping Street (Sheet 53 Lot 69) requesting variance to exceed maximum driveway width, 18 feet existing, 24 feet permitted, an additional 20 feet requested (off of Dover Street). R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw William Tate, 4 Epping Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Tate said that they are requesting approval for a second driveway, it’s 18 feet. He said it’s tight right now for the two existing cars they have. He said they have 3 vehicles. He said they’ve talked to all of their neighbors about the request, and no one had an issue with it. He said they’ve been parking one vehicle on the grass. Mr. Currier asked if there is a curb there. Mr. Tate said that there’s no curb at this location. Mr. Johnson asked what the distance is from the street to the house. Mr. Tate said about 12 feet, you can barely fit the vehicles in there. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 12 SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance request by 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, the proposal would enhance the parking situation, and it’s a corner lot. Mr. Boucher stated that the use 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. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 8. Cotton Mill Square, LLC (Owner) 30 Front Street (Sheet 78 Lot 87) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum temporary wall sign area, 32 sq.ft allowed, 345 sq.ft proposed; and, 2) to exceed 30-day limit for temporary wall sign - 3 months proposed. GI/MU Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Dean Jackson, Stabile Companies, Nashua, NH. Mr. Jackson introduced Paul Tripp from Classic Signs, Inc. Mr. Jackson said that they are requesting a variance from the Sign regulations to allow relief for a temporary wall sign, the Code allows a maximum of 32 square feet. He said their request is to allow a sign that is 345 square feet at the top corner of the building, facing Main Street. He said that they are also asking for relief for the time frame, where 30 days are allowed, a total of Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 13 3 months are proposed. At this point, Mr. Jackson went over the remainder of his application. Mr. Johnson asked if other alternatives were considered, such as off-site locations. Mr. Jackson said they’ve asked the Department of Public Works, and were told that the offsite A-frame signs on the sidewalks were not permitted. Mr. Johnson asked how the sign is constructed, and how it would be anchored to the building. Mr. Tripp stated that the banner material is made out of a mesh material, so wind and air goes through it. He said that there will be a vertical steel cable going down the sides, threaded through, so structurally, it will be rigid against the building. Mr. Shaw asked about the text sizes. Mr. Tripp said that the word “lease” is 56 inches, and everything else is smaller than that. He said the main impact to have the public read is the word lease, it’s the most important word, and it’s clearly important for the drivers on Main Street to see the sign. Mr. Tripp said that the banner is two-fold, initially, it’ll be to give attention to the public that there is leasing at this building, and as they drive closer, they can see the Cotton Mill sign, with the phone number, it’s a progression of providing information. Mr. Reppucci asked how big their permanent sign will be. Mr. Tripp said fairly small, approximately 4’x8’, well under 100 square feet. Mr. Tripp said that the variance for the time frame is self- limiting, it’s only good for 90 days. He said that this type of temporary banner is allowed all over the country, it’s very common to see. He said that this project is huge for revitalization in the City, and the sign is needed for a competitive edge. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 14 No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the variance requests by the applicant as advertised, both requests considered collectively. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a redevelopment of an old mill into a residential area, and 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. Currier stated that the use 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. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 9. Ruth B. Girouard & 75 Deerwood Drive, LLC (Owners) RASP, LLC (Applicant) 75 & 77 Deerwood Drive (Sheet H Lots 81 & 134) requesting use variance to convert existing house at 75 Deerwood Drive into a rental office, and construct a maintenance garage and 13 rental townhomes on merged lots. PI Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Peter Dolloff, Sequel Development, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dolloff said that they’re taking two properties, 75 and 77 Deerwood Drive, and merging them into one property, which will be over an acre. He said that both existing houses are in poor condition. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 15 Mr. Dolloff said that one house will be used for a rental office for the project, and the other house will be removed. He said that the plan is to allow for 13 rental townhomes, which will be of similar size and height to the townhomes across the street. He said that the points of law are thoroughly covered in the application. He said that the lot sizes and frontage requirements are met. He said that they are requesting to renovate the existing house and use it as an office, but the roof pitch will need to be changed to add some square footage. Mr. Dolloff said that a previous owner, Todd Boyer, received approval to build six townhomes, but never constructed them, so this project is picking up where that one left off, and since the adjacent lot became available, the project is now for thirteen units. Mr. Currier asked if the commercial garage is intended to just be used for this property, or to service other businesses or properties. Mr. Dolloff said it would primarily be used to service this property, and most of their properties have some sort of maintenance garage on site. He said it wouldn’t be used 100% for this site, but there would be a little used for storage of equipment or other items as needed. Mr. Currier said the last time this case came in, he was the dissenting vote. He said his last concern was that there are large, contiguous back yards, and this proposal would ruin the back yards to abutting properties. Mr. Dolloff said he did talk to the neighbors, and the folks on Dumaine Avenue by and large were very positive about the project. He said there was talk about the 20-foot buffer, but they’re glad to see the land cleaned up. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Robin Finneral, 79 Deerwood Drive, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Finneral said that their concerns are for privacy, now, it’s a wooded Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 16 lot, and now there will be a 13-unit townhome property. She also mentioned the affect on their property values. She said they’ve lived there for 27 years. She said that Regent Park has had some issues with some of their tenants. Mr. Boucher asked to confirm that the removal of trees would take away all their privacy. Mrs. Finneral agreed, all those trees would be gone, and they’d be looking at 6 townhouse units instead. Mr. Reppucci asked if there was a 6-foot tall fence there, would it make it better. Mrs. Finneral said it would be better, but they’d still see the units. She asked if they will be low-income rentals. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Dolloff said that they will not be subsidized units, they will be garage under, 2-story units, and will be rental units. He said they won’t be condominium units. He said the units will be upscale, in the neighborhood of $1,600 - $1,800 per month. He said their intention is to continue to have 6-foot high stockade fences around the property on three sides. He said they have no issues working with the neighbors to ensure privacy. Mr. Boucher asked if there will be decks on the second floor. Mr. Dolloff said no, just bedroom windows. There will be a patio on the first floor, the property is very flat. Mr. Currier asked if the units are two or three stories high. Mr. Dolloff said they will be two stories high. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mrs. Finneral asked how it would work with the fence, how they’d do it. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board could put conditions on their approval, stipulating that they’d have to put in the fence, or some language that would allude to the fence around the Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 17 property. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variance request by 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, other than an area variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use 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. Mr. Reppucci said for a special condition, that the applicant will place a 6-foot high privacy stockade fence around both sides and the rear of the property. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (Mr. Currier). 10. Riverside Properties of Nashua (Owner) Richard Picard (Applicant) 46-50 Bridge Street (Sheet 40 Lot 38) requesting use variance to sell automobiles. GI/MU Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Richard Picard, 50 Bridge Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Picard said he’s looking to sub-lease the property to park some cars. He said he is looking at about 1,000 square feet of office space inside the building, and it would be for about six cars maximum. He said it won’t be a big used car lot. Mr. Currier asked if this is a new business, or if there is another branch somewhere else. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 18 Mr. Picard said it is a new business for him. He said he is working with the State of New Hampshire to get his license. Mr. Currier asked if there will be repair and reconditioning of cars for sale. Mr. Picard said that there will be none of that, he said he’s going to buy the cars and sell them as they are, and any work that they do need will be done somewhere else. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the variance request by the applicant as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a small used car sales business, and there are other small automotive business in this area, and that are currently there. Mr. Currier stated that the use 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. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 11. Luz Eugenia Millan (Owner) 20 Shattuck Street (Sheet 45 Lot 134) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 14,040 sq.ft existing, 25,891 sq.ft required – to convert an existing two-family dwelling into a four-unit dwelling. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 19 J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Heidi Arango, daughter, translating for mother, Mrs. Millan. Ms. Arango said the request is to convert the two-family into four units. She said the extra units are just for the family. She said one of the extra units is in the basement, and one is in the attic. She said the building inspector said that they needed a larger window for the basement unit. Mr. Reppucci said that he understands that there are four units there, and the City got involved, and how did this all happen. Ms. Arango said that the gas company came out, and the Fire Department did too, and ultimately the Building Department found out, and everything was safe. Mr. Reppucci asked how long they’ve owned the property for. Ms. Arango said about 8 years. Mr. Shaw asked how long it’s been 4 units. Ms. Arango said it was originally a 2 unit, and she wants to use it as a four-family. Mr. Reppucci asked if it has been used as a 4-family, and if so, when did it start. Ms. Arango said about three years ago. Mr. Reppucci asked if the units all have separate entrances/exits, separate bathrooms, kitchens. Ms. Arango said they do, they all have two exits and two or more windows. Mr. Currier asked about the available parking, and asked if there is access to Laton Street in the back. Ms. Arango said there’s a long driveway, and there is a garage and three cars can go in there. Mr. Reppucci asked if they are aware of all the future steps that will be needed should this case be approved. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 20 Ms. Arango said that Nelson Ortega from the Code Enforcement Department did tell her. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Ed O’Brien, representing Irene Francouer, Nashua, NH. Mr. O’Brien questioned the general proposal, and it was determined that they were looking at the wrong property and after going over the case, they had no other issues. Tim Corcoran, 25 Shattuck Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Corcoran said it was always a single family and duplex neighborhood, not a multi-family neighborhood. He said it will reduce the property values in the neighborhood. Tim Dionne, 19 Shattuck Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dionne said he recently purchased his house. He said they have a large driveway, but still use the street for parking, and it can block the view of who is driving up the hill. Mr. Reppucci said if this were approved, they’d be forced to have the building come into compliance. Bruce Hansen, 24 Shattuck Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Hansen said his house doesn’t meet the setbacks in any direction, and it’s a two-family. He said the applicant has been running the place as a four-family for at least three-four years. He said his concerns are the parking, there is an unsafe land area abutting his property, as it slopes downhill. He said the Board should consider them having to fix this area. He said the cars go to the right, and it’s an unsafe area, as there is nothing to stop the cars from hitting his house. He said the issue should be easily addressed, there should be a retaining wall or something similar to that. He said they’ve never had a problem with them as neighbors. Ken Lebrecque, 41 Laton Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Lebrecque agreed with Mr. Hansen about the slope and runoff. He said it’s not safe, a car could come tumbling down the hill. He said he’s not opposed to the four units, it’s just that the parking area Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 21 is not safe SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Ms. Arango said she understands what the abutters said about the slope and the parking. Mr. Reppucci asked if there was a requirement that the owner puts a fence or obstacle to prevent cars from parking to the right of the driveway, would it create a parking problem where all the cars couldn’t park in the driveway. Ms. Arango said definitely. She said her Mom is willing to help with the issue. She said that right now, it’s all family members living there. Mr. Johnson said his concern is not only the cars parked in that area, but the erosion, too, and a car rolling down the hill. He asked about installing vegetation on the slope to keep the vegetation in place. Ms. Arango said that her mother didn’t take down any trees, they just cleaned out the yard. She said that her Mom would take in any recommendations. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: No one. Discussion ensued. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the variance request by the applicant as advertised. Mr. Reppucci stated that the Motion is to grant a level of relief less than what was advertised, it is to convert a two-family into a three-family dwelling, and to approve the variance for a minimum lot area 14,040 square feet existing, 18,669 square feet required for the three units. Mr. Reppucci said 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 that an area variance. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 22 Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, in fact, there is no evidence one way or another on that requirement. Mr. Reppucci said it is not contrary to the public interest, it has operated as a four-unit for the past three years, and this variance will reduce the density of the property, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Reppucci said the special conditions are that the property owner agrees to construct a north-south barrier to the east of the present driveway, to not allow any vehicles to park east of the paved driveway. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson asked if the Board could add a stipulation about the erosion on the site. Mr. Currier said it could be that vegetation be installed to stabilize the slope on the east side. MOTION CARRIED 4-1 (Mr. Currier) 12. James & Mary Cutter (Owners) 86 Palm Street (Sheet 84 Lot 61) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 2,058 sq.ft existing, 6,970 sq.ft required, to convert a single-family home into a two-family home. RC Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw James Cutter, 89 Palm Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Cutter passed out some information he received at the library. In 1949, there was a man named Raymond Galipeau who lived upstairs. He said he wants his son and children to live upstairs. He said that the owner at that time passed away, and left the property to his niece, and they had 9 children, so they lived in the whole house, and took out the unit upstairs. So, it was a two-family, and said he’d like it to return to a two-family. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 23 Mr. Reppucci asked about off-street parking. Mr. Cutter said it is extremely tight. He said that the driveway can handle four automobiles. He said that the City building inspector made a mistake back in 1950, and in 1971, it was done again, giving three feet of land to the neighbor. He said he’s been working to get this corrected for the past few years, and hopefully if this is resolved soon, there will be 10 feet. He said the drawing submitted shows 10’-3”, but in reality it’s less, the drawing shows what it should be. Mr. Cutter further discussed the people who have lived in the house over the years. Mr. Currier asked if’s it’s been a single family home. Mr. Cutter said yes, in 1977, it was a single family. He said at one point, it had two doorbells for upstairs and down. He said currently, it is a single-family home. He said the plan is to have his son and three children live upstairs. Mr. Reppucci said it is an extremely small lot. He asked if an in-law unit was considered, so it would be a special exception instead of a variance. Mr. Cutter said that would be a good option to him. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Letter from abutter. Mr. Reppucci said that there is a long-standing dispute relative to the property line between Mr. Cutter and the abutting property. He read a letter written from Corporation Counsel Attorney Steven Bennett, from 2009. He said that the letter stated that the property line dispute is a civil matter, and that the City is not going to be involved with this property line dispute. He said that the Board is just looking at the case as is. Mr. Johnson mentioned the Fisher vs. Dover issue, and whether or Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 24 not Mr. Cutter could come back in the future and re-apply. Mr. Reppucci said that any future Zoning Board would have to make that decision. He said that the request is for an extreme amount of relief on a 2,000 square foot lot. Mr. Boucher said that there are a lot of multi-family buildings in the neighborhood next door. He said that 73 Ash Street, 79 Ash and 83 Ash are similar sized lots. He said that a lot of the multi-families nearby have no parking spaces, either. Mr. Currier said that he’s struggling to find a reason to approve a two-family on this size of a lot, even though it was a two-family years ago. Mr. Shaw said that an in-law apartment would address the owners need. He said a two-family use is very intensive, and is not very comfortable with a two-family, and would be more supportive of an in-law apartment. Mr. Falk said that should the applicant wish to apply for a special exception for an in-law apartment, it is a different application, with different points of law than a variance, and we’ll still need to see a completed application with responses for a special exception. Also, it wasn’t advertised and notified for a special exception. The Board has to deliberate and vote for what was submitted and advertised for. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Boucher said 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 that an area variance. Mr. Boucher stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels. Mr. Boucher said it is not contrary to the public interest, it is located in an area where there are many other multi-family buildings on small lots, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 13, 2014 Page 25 MOTION CARRIED 3-2 (Mr. Currier and Mr. Shaw). MISCELLANEOUS: REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases that have Regional Impact. MINUTES: April 29, 2014 (Special Meeting): MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. The Board took no action on the Minutes. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 11:00 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing