Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING May 27, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, May 27, 2014 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Jack Currier 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. Mary D’Amelio (Owner) Fun Properties, LLC c/o Richard Jean (Applicant) 6 East Pearl Street (Sheet 35 Lot 57) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 3,534 sq.ft existing, 10,454 sq.ft required, to convert a two-family building into a three-family building. RC Zone, Ward 4. [POSTPONED FROM APRIL 22, 2014 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Richard Jean, Central Realty, West Hollis Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Jean said that he is now the owner of the property. Mr. Jean said he is requesting approval by the Zoning Board to indicate that there are three units there instead of two. He said that the Assessors Office has it as a three-unit, and the Community Development Department has it as a two-unit. He said that the oldest records going way back had it as four units, and the tax collector has been taxing it as a three-unit for quite some time. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Jean said he found a 1954 Nashua phone directory, and it reflects three units. He said it’s been difficult obtaining older information from the utility companies. He said that there are three gas and three electric meters on the building, and they are older meters. He said he’s been involved in managing the property, and there have always been three units in the building. He said that there will be no change to the building, it’s always been a three-family, and it’s got adequate parking for six cars. Mr. Jean said the property is surrounded by multi-family homes, and the approval will not affect the property values of surrounding parcels, and for substantial justice, there is a high demand for affordable units, and it benefits the public interest. He said it’s an antique apartment building, and nothings been done to it since 1954, it’s all old looking inside. He said that there are two means of egress, and smoke detectors in all units. Mr. Reppucci asked when Mr. Jean took ownership of the building. Mr. Jean said the time between the application to the City was submitted until now, in that time frame. Mr. Reppucci asked how the applicant got to be before the Board. Mr. Jean said that in his due diligence efforts in buying the building, he came to the Planning Department prior to closing to see if there are three legal units. He said he found out about the discrepancy between the Tax Collectors Office and Community Development, and they suggested I come before the Board. Mr. Currier said in the package, there is a note from a building permit from April 1960, that says that the third floor is not to be used as an apartment, it was for sleeping quarters for the second floor. He asked if Mr. Jean had any information on any older tax assessments from in-between. Mr. Jean said the only thing he could find was down in the Tax Collectors Office, where the oldest record they had was that the building had four units. He said he can’t imagine how it ever had four units. Mr. Currier said that for a status, there are three units, with three kitchens, and no changes are needed. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Jean agreed, no changes are needed. Mr. Reppucci said that should this request be approved, a building permit will be required, to bring this building into Code for a three family. He said that the Zoning Board doesn’t speak for the Building Department or Fire Department, and some of the work may be expensive. Mr. Jean said he’s aware of this. Mr. Currier asked about the parking, he said it appears as if they’re on the left, and saw some cars parked on the side street, White Avenue. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Douglas Dichard, 42 Parrish Hill Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dichard said he is a direct abutter, and has three properties, and has been for twenty plus years, and sees this building daily. He said the building has never been a three unit building. Mr. Dichard said he knew the owner and the owner’s brother, who lived in the unit on the first and second floor. He said there has never been anyone living on the third floor. He asked if the property has been sold as a two-unit or a three-unit. He said for the parking, last year, they cut a hole in the side of the building on the White Avenue side, put in a stairway, and a platform for an entrance to go to the third floor. He said they tore down a three-season porch which the owner used to sit out and enjoy for years, and is now used for parking. He said the reason why they did that is because they have no parking. Mr. Dichard said that the lack of parking is a problem for him. He’s had to tow cars because they park in his parking area, for his buildings. He said in the wintertime, it’s a nightmare, he said he plows his own properties, and the cars from their building take up his own tenants spaces. He said he’s knocking on doors in snowstorms asking people to move their cars. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 4 He said he’s looked at this building to buy it, it’s a two- family, it’s an old Victorian house that had a front stairwell. Mr. Reppucci said that the presentation was that it’s a two- family, and they’re asking for permission to use it as a three- family. He said the applicant is asking for something that they want to do, and they are doing it through the proper channels. He said that last year, seven cars were towed, and his tenants call that cars are in their spaces or blocking them. He said overall, there is insufficient land and insufficient parking at the subject property. He said they’ve made the changes to the property illegally, without permits. He said he doesn’t know who did the work and changed the house. He said the house has never ever been a three-unit building. He said that only after the outside staircase was put in, that someone was living upstairs. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Jean said he was not involved with any of the rehab, and the first time he was physically in the building was 2009, and there was three units then. He said the tenant that is currently there has been there over three years, he’s a handicapped single man, he’s on the third floor. He has no vehicle. He said as far as the stairways go, they’re antique, as well as the wallpaper. He said all the work done on the property was done before he bought the property. Mr. Reppucci asked to confirm, that Mr. Jean did his due diligence before purchasing the property relative to the number of units, and knew that the Planning and Building Department knew it was a two-family, and even thought it was assessed as a three-family, that he knew that it wasn’t a legal three-family when he bought it, and decided to come to the Board. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: None. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve 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 applicant cannot be achieved by some other Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 5 method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Boucher stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He stated that there will be no change to the property values of surrounding parcels, he said that this is predominantly a multi-family neighborhood. He said the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served to the owner. Mr. Reppucci asked to amend the motion to make Richard Jean the owner. Mr. Boucher agreed. Mr. Reppucci said he’d like to see as a stipulation some language that the applicant is required to meet all the requirements of the Building Department and the Fire Marshal. Mr. Boucher agreed. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Currier). 2. David & Charlotte Dion (Owners) 36 & 38 Broad Street (Sheet 61 Lots 60 & 172) requesting the following: 1) use variance to allow a drive-through lane for proposed restaurant; and the following variances: 2) to exceed height for a ground sign, 15 sq.ft allowed, 20 sq.ft proposed; 3) to permit an Electronic Message Center on said ground sign; and 4) to allow graphics on the Electronic Message Center. GI Zone, Ward 4. [POSTPONED FROM APRIL 22, 2014 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Mr. Reppucci said for variance number 2, as advertised above, it should state “feet”, instead of “sq.ft”. Mr. Falk said it is a typographical error. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 6 Attorney Andrew Prolman, Prunier & Prolman P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prolman said that they are proceeding with the request, but object to moving forward without a full five-member Board. He stated that on behalf of the owner, they are withdrawing two of the variance requests, numbers three and four. He said they are going forward with the first two variance requests. Atty. Prolman said that the existing Dairy Queen has looked about the same since its approval in 1966. He said at that time, the property was zoned “A-Residential”, but has since been rezoned to General Industrial. He said the owner, David Dion, has been the operator since 1993. He said that he purchased the franchise in 1996. Atty. Prolman said that there was a sign variance applied for in 1972 and it was denied. He said he submitted a memorandum stating why they believe that they meet the Fisher vs. Dover criteria. He said that there are truly different facts and circumstances as to why this case should proceed. Mr. Reppucci said that the previous denial was about forty years ago, and there’s no way that the current application will affect the Fisher vs. Dover criteria, and this case should move forward. He said that the neighborhood has substantially changed over the years. Atty. Prolman said that the current site has two lots instead of the original one lot. He said that 36 Broad Street is an empty lot in-between the Dairy Queen lot at 38 Broad Street and the Weisman-Tessier office immediately to the east. He said the site is all paved, there are four curb-cuts, there is poor drainage, virtually no landscaping on the site, and there are a lot of floodlights that light up the whole area and it spills onto other lots. He said that there are ten employees at the DQ now. Atty. Prolman said the proposal is to tear down the existing building, combine the two lots, and put up a 45-47 seat small restaurant with a patio out front, coolers in the back and a drive-through facility as shown on the plan. He said that drainage will be brought to Code, there will be landscaped buffers all around, and the lighting will comply with the Code and there will be more efficient lighting that will be on Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 7 shorter poles, so it won’t adversely impact the neighbors. He said that the building will be all new and updated, with seating inside and out. He said that the drive-through will meet the ordinance for stacking spaces, and the escape lane. Atty. Prolman said that they will add another forty employees in addition to the current ten. He said they’ll be on staggered shifts, not all of them will be there at the same time. He said it will be a $1.4 million dollar investment to the site. He said the current hours of operation are 11:00 am to 10:00 pm seven days a week, with the exception of summer when school is out, it stays open until 11:00 pm. He said the proposed new hours will be 10:00 am to 11:00 Sunday through Thursday, and 10:00 am to 11:00 pm on Friday through Saturday all year. Atty. Prolman said that they reached out to the neighbor across the street, Kelly Mirabito, and most are Planning Board issues with regards to the ingress/egress. He said that there are four existing curb-cuts, and the proposed plan will have two curb- cuts. He said that the neighbors had some concern about the location of the sign. He said that they are only here for the sign height variance, and said that they are flexible where the sign goes along the frontage. He said that their concern is more with the visibility of the sign. Atty. Prolman said that the GI zone designation doesn’t belong for this site, as all the old industrial businesses are gone now. He went over the variance points of law as specified in the application. Mr. Johnson asked why they need the variance for the sign height. Atty. Prolman said that the existing sign is 15 feet high, and the proposed sign is 20 feet. He said the additional height will provide for greater visibility, readability and direction to the site. He said at 15 feet, the sign is cramped. He said there’s not enough room to have the DQ logo, the Grill and Chill sign, and the reader-board. He said that proportionally, the 20 foot height works the best. Mr. Reppucci asked if the applicant would be amenable to a restriction on the drive-through that would allow it for only the Dairy Queen business, and exclude any other business should Dairy Queen vacate the site. He said the drive-through impact Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 8 to the Dairy Queen is very minimal, but if it were another type of business, it could have a far more aggressive drive-through use. Atty. Prolman agreed, and said that he believed that the Board has the authority to stipulate that the drive-through is only for the Dairy Queen. He said they wouldn’t object to a stipulation limiting it to the Dairy Queen only for the drive- through. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Kelly Miribito, 2 Sullivan Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Miribito said she had some concerns about the drive-through, and it may cause some backups on Broad Street. She said cars are already turning onto Sullivan Street, and it may cause traffic backups on Broad Street. She suggested moving the drive-through entrance to the farthest entrance to allow more cars to get in the drive-through lane. She said she would prefer that they keep the current hours, as after they close, there are some cars remaining in the parking lot making noise. Mr. Reppucci said that really isn’t an issue for the Zoning Board. The issues raised are more for the Planning Board. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Prolman said for the sign, the sign that’s out there, is so short and squat, that the owner gets feedback that people cannot see the sign, they just see the top of it. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variances, taken together, on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the Board finds these variances are needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property. He said that the special conditions of the property is that this corner of the General Industrial zone is really not General Industrial any Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 9 more, it’s more of an operation of a Dairy Queen that’s been operating here for over forty years, therefore, it’s within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Currier finds that the drive-through entrance in the back of the lot would not create congestion on Broad Street. Mr. Currier said as a stipulation, that should there be a change of operation from a Dairy Queen to a different franchise, then that drive-through would need to come back to this Board, in other words, if the variance we’re approving is because we believe it to be an appropriate light-use drive-through with a Dairy Queen, as the evidence was provided to the Board tonight, so that this stipulation is ok with the applicant. Mr. Currier said the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served to this long- standing Dairy Queen owner will be served. He said as far as the ground sign height, the Board finds that twenty feet is reasonable, considering the location on the street. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. Karen B. Wolfe (Owner) 9 Summer Street (Sheet 44 Lot 160) requesting special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit. RC Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Karen Wolfe, 9 Summer Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Wolfe said she’s owned the home since the spring of 2012, and there is a little space in the back of the home that can be converted into an accessory dwelling unit. She referred the floor plan to the Board. She said the home was vacant when she bought it, and it’s a single family home. She said she’d like the space to be considered as an in-law apartment. She said earlier in the month, an electrician came and updated the space and received a permit. She said most of the homes surrounding hers are multi- Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 10 family. She said that there is room for six vehicles to park in the driveway, and the entryway to the unit is in the back of the home. Mr. Reppucci asked if she’d be in compliance with all the in-law requirements. Ms. Wolfe said she would be. Mr. Reppucci asked about the restriction that the unit has to be occupied by an immediate blood or marriage relative. Ms. Wolfe said yes. Mr. Currier asked if there is a kitchen in the unit now. Ms. Wolfe said it has a little kitchenette, it’s a small cooking unit, and has been in the house since she bought it. Mr. Johnson mentioned that there is a For Sale sign out on the property. Ms. Wolfe agreed, and said that she’s selling the property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the special exception request on behalf of the owner as presented. Mr. Boucher said it is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190- 32. He said that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Boucher said the use will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. He stated that all the special regulations are fulfilled per testimony, and that 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 the residents. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 11 SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Stephen C. & Karen M. Roebuck (Owners) 21 Gendron Street (Sheet E Lot 730) requesting variance to encroach 6 feet into the 10 foot required left side yard setback to construct an attached 23’x28’ two-car garage. R9 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Steven Roebuck, 21 Gendron Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Roebuck said they are requesting the variance for a 23’x28’ two-car garage addition that would be four feet from the property line. He said it would be attached to the home by a breezeway that would be 8 feet wide. He said that they’ve done their best to pick a location that is in keeping with the neighbors. He said that their application is thorough and complete. Mr. Reppucci remarked that the application is very thorough, with a lot of pictures. Mr. Currier asked if they’ve considered making the breezeway narrower, or eliminating the breezeway and having a wider garage. He asked what the impact would be of meeting the ten- foot side yard setback. Mr. Roebuck said that the distance between the foundation and the property line is 35 feet. He said that the average sized width of a garage is 24 feet. He said they’ve tried to balance the width of the garage with something that they feel is important to the enjoyment of the home, and the use and utility of the home, and that is to connect the garage with a reasonable sized breezeway. He said in back of the breezeway, they want to build a sunroom. He said that they’ve gone through several different configurations, and have met with the neighbors, and the neighbor at 23 Gendron has raised some concerns, stating that the garage would be too visible from the back of their Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 12 home. He said that in talking to builders, they are saying to not go lower than 22 feet. He said they’ve lived in the house for 29 years and want to spend many more years here, and the sunroom and breezeway will accommodate normal, ordinary life. He said that grandchildren will be visiting, and an elderly parent with mobility issues, and the breezeway and sunroom will be best for them. He said that the breezeway will only be 7’-9” wide. He said that there is a necessity to make a way around the chimney, and access into the kitchen. Mr. Currier said the most interesting drawing was the one with a shadow. He asked if it was going across to the neighbor’s house. Mr. Roebuck said the shadow was the last day of the calendar summer at 5:00 p.m., so it would be the longest cast shadow. He said page 14 of the application, there is a birds-eye view and the shadow cast from the garage would be cast in the direction of the neighbors garage. He said the neighbor does not have any windows that face in our direction, except for the very peak of their house. He said the trees, when they’re in full foliage, the shadow has no effect upon them. Mr. Currier asked if the sewer runs to the street, and has two 90-degree bends and then comes up the side of the house. Mr. Roebuck said they originally had the septic field out back, and the field was out back. He agreed with Mr. Currier, it goes out behind the house, makes a 90-degree bend, then another 90- degree bend, and continues down to the street. Mr. Currier said that he heard during testimony that the garage couldn’t be put on the right side, due to the drainpipe cutting across the corner. He said that they can have a driveway over it, as driveways and streets are put over drain pipes all the time. Mr. Roebuck said the distance on the right side of the house is even smaller, also, there is a swale. He said that page 10 of their package shows shadows created by the trees. Mr. Reppucci asked about the space above the garage. Mr. Roebuck said it is only storage. He said they’d have a drop-down ladder to gain access. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 13 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Elaine Marshall, 23 Gendron Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Marshall said they’ve lived here since 1966. She said they’re impacted more than any abutter by this request. She said they’re opposed to any encroachment into the setback. She said that although the design of the garage and breezeway is in keeping with the neighborhood, the 4-ft setback is not. She said that there are no houses within 4 feet nearby of the side property line. Mrs. Marshall said that the variance would alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and establish a precedence that others may apply for similar variances. She said that granting a four foot setback will not complement their property, aesthetically, or with the value. She said they’ve contacted a real estate consultant, a lawyer and a realtor, all who’ve stated that the proposed setback will have a negative impact to the property values. Mrs. Marshall said that two viable options are to eliminate the breezeway and attach the garage to the house. She said that building the garage in the back yard will not require any variance, and it is in keeping with the neighborhood. She said that the garage would simply be too close to the property line. Mr. Reppucci asked if she had anything in writing from the people she contacted relative to property values. Mrs. Marshall said she does not. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Roebuck said he did provide a letter to the Board from a Realtor, on page 24. He said that the Realtor was asked to consult, consider and take a look at the plans, and the letter concludes that there should be no negative effect to the property values, actually, it should be a positive effect. He said that Mrs. Marshall mentioned a concern about shrubbery, fence, irrigation systems. He said that they provided the Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 14 Marshalls with a letter guaranteeing that if there is any damage, they will repair it. Mr. Reppucci asked if the garage will just have a slab, and asked if there will be any footings around the building. Mr. Roebuck said it will be a slab. He said he believes that the deepest they’ll go is four feet down. He said they’re in contact with Danis Foundations, and they’re extremely experienced. He said that on page 25, there are other examples less than a mile away, on Leslie Lane, of a garage very similar to the layout that is requested. He said that the proposed layout will work very well. He said that there will be 21 feet between the structures. He said that the front of the garage will be 16 feet, approximately 16 feet 6 inches back from the front of the Marshall’s home. He said that the Marshall’s currently have a privacy fence, and the proposed location for the garage would only extend a little more than ten feet beyond the end of that privacy fence. He said that they feel that the garage is completely in keeping with the neighborhood, and don’t see it setting any type of precedence, or that it is an unreasonable request. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mrs. Marshall said that they never complained about the design of the house, actually they stated that it is in keeping with the neighborhood. She said what they don’t feel what is keeping with the neighborhood is the four foot setback. She said that the design is up to them, she said that they’re concerned with the four foot setback, that’s the biggest concern, that it’s too close. Mrs. Marshall said as far as the letter of guarantee for any repairs, she said that the applicant got very legalistic with the wording and how it was written. She said it referred to materials, but not to materials and labor, and the letter didn’t have labor in it. Mr. Reppucci said it’s extremely unusual for a property owner applying for a variance to even address this issue. He said that if there’s a problem between you and he, by something that he does, it’s a civil matter, and not a requirement by the Board for any pre-arranged agreement. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 15 Mr. Currier said he’s not finding support for this, and stated that the garage could be accommodated without the variance, and the breezeway could be thinned down, but the garage can be accommodated with the 10 foot setback being respected. Mr. Reppucci said that the numbers game gets looked at, and percentages of what’s there, and we have to pick out the differences between having 20 feet between the structures or 24 feet between the structures. He asked if the four feet makes such a difference. He said the real perception of what you’ll see is in looking at the two garages. He said what he thinks is the perception of this, is how close the two structures are to each other. He asked if that extra four feet would be a major difference. He said that perceptually, it won’t be that noticeable, the total distance between the two structures, not the setback. He said that people will perceive the distance between the structures, not that its four feet off the property line. He said he’d have more of a concern if this were living space at the house, but it’s a garage next to a garage. Mr. Johnson said that the only thing that has him leaning towards approving the application is that the living space is in the applicant’s favor in this case, because it is a garage abutting a garage, essentially. He said that there is substantial justice to grant the application, and they’ve done their homework to lessen the impact to the neighbor. He said the letter that they’d take care of any damages is quite neighborly. Mr. Boucher said he is in support of the request, he said the tell-tale sign is the setback of the garage, with the current situation of trees, he didn’t see it as impactful. He said the application is well-thought out, and quite reasonable. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance on behalf of the owner 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, the testimony of the applicant was that they narrowed the garage as much as possible, and they want to have a breezeway and made the garage as small as they could to accommodate the breezeway. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 16 Mr. Reppucci stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He stated that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, he said that there was a lot of discussion about that, an abutter believes it will. He said the Board has one professional letter that says it will actually increase. He said that his judgment is that it will increase the value of surrounding parcels by increasing the value of this property. He said the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Currier). 5. John & Pamela Terrell (Owners) Coosane, LLC (Applicant) 9 Groton Road (Sheet D Lot 337) requesting variance to exceed maximum number of principal structures on one lot, one permitted, two existing – two additional buildings proposed - to construct additions onto the existing house with a great hall/cafetorium addition and an enrichment center addition to the barn; and to construct a new school/gymnasium and a sugar/smoke house building. R40 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Denis Gleeson, 17 Gregg Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Gleeson said that they were here about ten years ago when 10 Groton Road was done. He provided some pictures for the Board to see. He said the property is about 17½ acres, and are looking to working with the Conservation Commission to put some of that land in conservation. He said that they’re trying to maintain the field in front of the property on 10 Groton Road, that piece hopefully will be put in conservation. Mr. Gleeson said that they’re looking to expand the existing school, with a gymnasium and an auditorium, and additional classroom space. He said they’re also expanding the agriculture, as right now, there are horses, goats, sheep, and are looking to do a “farm to table” concept here also. He said Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 17 that they’re keeping within what the land was used for originally. He said they’ve met with all the neighbors, and they like the concept. He said they’ve put millions of dollars into the property, they have the first LEAD Platinum commercial building in the State of New Hampshire, the building produces 60% of its own energy. He said that everything they do, it’s done environmentally friendly. He said that the values of the surrounding properties should increase with this plan. He said he is also working on sharing the parking with the City with Yudicky Field, so as to not put too much hard surface on the property. Mr. Reppucci said that this is a huge asset to the City, and the owner is doing everything right. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is an extension of their school. Mr. Currier stated that in this highly agricultural area that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He stated that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, actually the Boards sense is that it will increase the property values. He said the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. SPSC Associates, LLC (Owner) Tokyo Joe’s Studio of Self Defense (Applicant) 85 Northeastern Boulevard (Sheet 140 Lot 43) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum wall sign area, 39 sq.ft permitted, 72 sq.ft proposed, 2) to exceed maximum number of ground signs, 1 Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 18 permitted, 2 existing, 1 additional ground sign requested, and 3) to exceed maximum ground sign area, 91 sq.ft. existing, 100 sq.ft permitted – 131 sq.ft proposed. PI Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Robert LaMattina, President, Tokyo Joes, West Pearl Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. LaMattina said they’re requesting a variance for two signs. He said it is a safety issue, a lot of families come with children, and there are no signs at all. He said they just moved into the Shrink Packaging building, and there is a temporary A-frame sign right now, and a temporary wall sign facing Northeastern Boulevard. Mr. Currier asked if the existing Shrink Packaging ground sign staying on site, and asked if the 91 square feet existing includes the Shrink Packaging sign. Mr. Falk said the off-premises ground sign that was approved by the Board with GM Roth, and the existing low-profile SPSC sign, combined, are 91 square feet, and the additional sign from Tokyo Joes makes up the balance of the square footage that is requested. Mr. Currier asked about the 72 sq.ft wall sign, he asked about the sign that’s on the wall now. Mr. LaMattina said the sign up there now is much smaller, and temporary, just to let customers know what door to enter. He said the sign he wants to install is the one that is on the West Pearl Street location, its 3’x24’. Mr. Currier asked if the owner is intending on subdividing out the rest of the building. Mr. LaMattina stated that he has one-third of the building, and Shrink Packaging has the remainder, he said he wasn’t sure. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 19 No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to grant the variance requests on behalf of the owner as advertised, all variances taken collectively. 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 values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 7. Hannaford Brothers Co (Owner) 175 Coliseum Avenue (Sheet E Lot 1489) requesting the following variances: 1) to allow a drive-through exit to be 20 feet away from a driveway – minimum of 85 feet required; 2) to allow a pick-up window to be 30 feet from a drive-through exit – minimum of 60 feet required, and 3) minimum stacking lane distance for drive-through lane, 160 feet required – 107 feet proposed. GB Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Bill McKinney, Hannaford Supermarkets, Rye Beach, NH. Mr. McKinney said that the request is a new service that is being offered to customers, where they can log on to Hannaford.com and place your order for groceries online, and the store will Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 20 prepare the order for you. He said that the callbox is used to announce your arrival, and the groceries will be brought out, payment is accepted, groceries loaded in the car. J.M. Lord, Hannaford Supermarkets. Mr. Lord said that Hannaford will be doing a series of these throughout New England. He said that every site is different, in this one, the drive-aisle is positioned away from the main flow traffic area, and it’s about 500 feet back from the main entrance to the site. He said that it is a single drive-aisle, and it’s close to the store. He said that customer service is a key aspect of Hannaford, and there’s no way that they wanted to interrupt the existing traffic flow, that’s why it’s designed where it is. Mr. Lord identified where the stacking is going to be, and the pick-up area on the site plan. He said that there is a 60-foot requirement from the pick-up window, and 30 feet is proposed. He said the 60-foot distance wouldn’t make much sense. He said that safety will not be an issue. He said that another variance is the drive-through exit needs to be 85 feet from a driveway, where 20 feet is being proposed, and the other is the stacking lane, where 160 feet is required, and 107 feet is proposed. Mr. Reppucci asked to have further explanation of the variances requested. Mr. Falk explained the proposed variances to the Boards satisfaction, and stated that the advertisement and notification is correct. Mr. Lord agreed with Mr. Falk about the advertisement and notification, and are seeking relief for all three of the variances. Mr. Lord described the variances that are requested, and pointed out on the site plan how the process would work for the customers. Mr. Currier said his only concern was a line of idling cars. Mr. Lord said that this is a small segment of what Hannaford is going to do, he said that 99.5% of all the customers will shop as they currently do, they don’t want to upset the existing use of the store. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 21 Mr. Boucher asked how many cars per hour this use would generate. Mr. McKinney said that they have two locations where this occurs, one is in North Windham, Maine, and the other is in Dover Fields, New Hampshire, they’ve been operating a couple years. He said the busiest time is during the PM peak hours. He said with this program, you can contact the store earlier, and pick the groceries up on your way home, but it’s a 5-min wait. He said there could be 10-15 orders during the peak hours. He said that there are only so many available slots per hour, so its regulated on how many cars can wait anyways. He said it’s a unique operation, as customers have to place their order beforehand. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the variance requests on behalf of the owner as advertised, all variances taken collectively. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a grocery pick-up design. Mr. Currier stated that the use is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, as it is designed in a way in the back corner of the lot that it will not bother anything with the public way or pedestrian safety. Mr. Currier said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 8. Cynthia Livingston (Owner) 4A-4B Carver Street (Sheet 127 Lot 77) requesting the following: 1) special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit; and, 2) variance Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 22 to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit within a two- family residence. RB Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Cynthia Livingston, 4B Carver Street, Nashua, NH. Ms. Livingston said that they’re requesting to construct an in-law apartment on a two-family home. She said that she owns the property, and her brother lives in the other unit, it’s not rented. She said that the new unit would be for their parents, who are having some health issues. She said that there is ample parking for the three vehicles that would be on this side. She said that the building addition will be within the setbacks, and traffic will not be affected in any way. Mr. Reppucci asked if it is a single-level addition. Ms. Livingston agreed. Mr. Reppucci asked if the in-law unit is associated with the unit on the right. Ms. Livingston agreed. Mr. Reppucci said it’s a side-by-side duplex, not top and bottom. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Reppucci asked if they agree to comply with all the requirements of an in-law apartment. Ms. Livingston agreed. She said that all the direct abutters are fine with the request. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 23 MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the variance request 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 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 will be served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to grant the special exception request on behalf of the owner as presented. Mr. Boucher said it is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190- 32. He said that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Boucher said the use will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. He stated that all the special regulations are fulfilled per testimony, and that 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 the residents. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases that have Regional Zoning Board of Adjustment May 27, 2014 Page 24 Impact. MINUTES: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing