Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 10, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, June 10, 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 (arrived at 7:10 p.m.) 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. Ronald R. & Laura Lee Leblond (Owners) 63 Manchester Street (Sheet 65 Lot 238) requesting variance to encroach 6 feet into the 25 foot required rear yard setback to replace an existing 10’x12’ open deck with a 10’x15’ sunroom addition. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Ronald LeBlond, 63 Manchester Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. LeBlond said that he is requesting approval to build a 10’x15’ sunroom, over a pre-existing 10‘x12’ deck. He said the deck is used for a screen house, in which pictures are shown in the packet. He said there is a fence in the back, and it won’t impact any of the neighbors. He said it will be done for the family’s enjoyment while sitting in the back yard, and want more of a permanent structure, rather than a screen house. Mr. Reppucci asked about the foundation. Mr. LeBlond said it will be built on a slab. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 2014 Page 2 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. The Board discussed the application, and had no issues with the request. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve 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 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 the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served to the owner. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. 2. Allen-Nashua, LLC (Owner) Whole Foods, Inc. (Applicant) 255-269 Amherst Street (Sheet G Lot 8) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum number of ground signs, 1 permitted, 1 existing - 1 additional ground sign proposed on an existing abandoned pole; 2) to exceed maximum ground sign area, 150 sq.ft allowed, 180 sq.ft existing via approved sign permit on 6/10/98 - an additional 214.5 sq.ft proposed; and, 3) to exceed maximum ground sign height, 40 feet allowed – 70 feet proposed. GB Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 2014 Page 3 J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs, Greeley Street, Hudson, NH. Mr. Sullivan passed out some pictures and plans to the Board. He said that Whole Foods Market is moving into the space previously occupied by Market Basket. He said it would be the first Whole Foods Market in New Hampshire, and their goal is to make it a destination shopping location and experience. Mr. Sullivan said the sign is needed to property identify the store for the public. He said the relief is to have a sign on the poles, where there was one years ago, same size. He said the proposal is to replace what was on the poles with a sign that would be the same size and shape sign. He said that the sign is needed to properly identify the location. He described the photos which identify the exit. He said that seven or eight months out of the year, the trees block a majority of the sign, and this sign will help to navigate motorists to the site safely. He said that there are other highway signs along the Everett Turnpike that are there for the same reason. He said that most of the time, during the day, the sign will be subtle, the green color blends in. Mr. Sullivan said that the request is basically to continue the existing sign that was already there, and there were really never any complaints for that sign, as that is the typical sign along the corridor. He said that the proposed sign will allow for Whole Foods to properly identify themselves at this location. He said that the request will not diminish the property values of surrounding properties. Mr. Currier asked if the existing poles would still be used. Mr. Sullivan said that they’d use the existing sign structure. Mr. Currier said he’s struggling with the highway sign, coming from the south, you’re beyond the exit when you see it. He said he always sees these buildings from the street. He said he didn’t see the benefit from the sign coming from the south. He said coming from the north, people should see it. He said he’s struggling for the need for the sign. Mr. Sullivan said that you can see the sign before you get to the exit if you’re travelling north, because you can see the top Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 2014 Page 4 of the structure before the exit, and when you add the other six feet on top of the structure, it should give people the visibility to safely negotiate that exit. He said the goal is two-fold, there are a lot of weekend travelers coming through on Route 3, also, for the day to day drivers that travel back and forth. Mr. Boucher said that if this were to be approved, Staples, Bob’s, AC Moore, would they be coming in asking for a sign on the structure as well. Mr. Sullivan said that they’re using the size and shape of a previously allowed structure, that was previously approved, it would limit the need for the other stores to apply. He said that those stores have better visibility from the highway, as Whole Foods is tucked down at the end. He said that the Whole Foods letters will be smaller than the Market Basket letters too. Mr. Reppucci said that the sign that was there was there many many years ago, and according to the Ordinance, it is an abandoned sign, and there are zero rights to a sign on this pole. He said this isn’t just replacing something that was already there. It was there over forty years ago, and it’s not like a grandfathered issue, those rights have been gone for years. Mr. Boucher asked if there was any consideration of another location, and minimizing the impact on the height. Mr. Sullivan said from a cost standpoint, the proposed option is the most inexpensive way to go, is to use the existing poles. Mr. Boucher asked if there was a consideration of a height less than 70 feet, or is this it. Mr. Sullivan said right now, you can see the foliage on the highway, it doesn’t make much sense to lower it down, as the trees would block the sign. Mr. Reppucci asked if Allen-Nashua is the owner of the plaza. Mr. Jim Strain, Whole Foods Construction Coordinator. Mr. Strain said that Allen-Nashua owns the entire property, he said that Whole Foods is a tenant. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 2014 Page 5 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Ron LeBlond, 63 Manchester Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. LeBlond said that he works for Hannaford Brothers. He said he uses that on- off ramp all the time. He said it’s a congested area, as people come off the highway, it’s difficult, and the new sign would be a distraction. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Sullivan said that if you can see the sign from a distance it would help safely negotiate where to get off to get to the store. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: None. Mr. Currier said he’s struggling with this application, as most highway signs are for gasoline or hotel accommodations, versus a supermarket. He said that the sign was built there at around the same time the highway was put in. He said a comment he hears all the time, as people enter New Hampshire, is the beautiful landscape, and now Nashua is having this proliferation of signs. He said he’s sensitive to sign clutter. He said the site is very visible, and doesn’t feel that by Whole Foods not having the sign, that it will affect them from being a very successful business. Mr. Reppucci said that technology is changing so rapidly. He said that ten years ago, this type of sign was looked at differently, now, virtually everyone has a smartphone, and it will give directions on how to get there. He said that this portion of Amherst Street is complete sign clutter. He said it’s a conglomeration of many signs, it’s just too overdone. He said that he doesn’t feel that the highway sign is necessary, and not a good idea. He said if it were a gas station, or hotel, it would be different. He said that the property owner has the responsibility for the tenants sign, and they have the responsibility for the totality of the signage on site. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 2014 Page 6 At this point, Mr. Shaw arrived. Mr. Boucher agreed. He mentioned the Shell Station sign, and the Holiday Inn sign, they are tall, about sixty feet. He said he’s struggling with the height of this sign. He said he’d be open if it were different. He said the sign is for a specialty retailer. Mr. Reppucci said if it’s possible to have a sign in a different location, perhaps thirty feet high, that may change the view of this request. Mr. Reppucci said the sign has to be taller than the highway barrier. He said the signs at exit 6 for all the stores there doesn’t bother him, they have great visibility, and the signage there is appropriate. He said if Whole Foods had a sign that was smaller, lower and still visible, he said he’d be open to that idea. Mr. Currier said that if a new sign were to be proposed, he’d see it as a distinctly different application. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny the request, all requests taken collectively in the same Motion. He said that the Board finds that the proposed sign is not necessary to allow the applicant to use their property, and there are no special conditions on this property that would justify the relief that is granted. Mr. Reppucci said it’s not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, the Board finds that the request is considerably beyond what the ordinance allows. He said there was no testimony either way relative to the property values. Mr. Reppucci finds that the public interest of knowing where business are in the City is pretty universal, and the Board is not differentiating that one business that is not motor related is different than any other business. He said that supporters of the motion believe that it does not deny the applicant of substantial justice. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. MISCELLANEOUS: Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 2014 Page 7 REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases that have Regional Impact. MINUTES: May 13, 2014: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes, waive the reading and place the minutes in the file. He said that Staff is to correct the formatting as there are some lines of text that are underlined. Mr. Falk said that Staff will correct the formatting. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Mr. Reppucci mentioned that in cases where there are several different variances in one application, that perhaps the Board could give extra time to the applicant for their presentation. Mr. Shaw asked if Staff charges more in these situations. Mr. Falk said that generally, the first request is $330, and each additional request is an extra $200. Mr. Shaw said that the City is already recognizing that with extra fees, the request is more involved than a single case. He said it’s reasonable to consider some extra time for an applicant. Mr. Currier said that some extra time is worthy. He said that often times, the written application is prepared very well, and the oral presentation is just a re-iteration of the written application. Mr. Shaw said that the Board can just be more sensitive if they Zoning Board of Adjustment June 10, 2014 Page 8 need more time. Mr. Reppucci said that a minor amendment can be made to the By- laws. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 7:40 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Currier, Acting Clerk in Mr. Johnson’s absence. CF Taped Hearing