Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING June 24, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, June 24, 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. Armand & Sandra Lussier (Owners) 11 Montclair Drive (Sheet F Lot 1523) requesting variance to encroach 2 feet into the 6 foot required rear yard setback to construct a 10’x10’ shed. R30 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Rob Shaw Rick Johnson Armand Lussier, 11 Montclair Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Lussier said that Reeds Ferry Sheds was delivering a shed to his yard on May 30th, and a City inspector noticed that there was no permit. He said that he investigated the situation, and it led to applying for the variance for the 2 foot encroachment. He said that there is a retaining wall due to the land contours, and it would be difficult to move the shed to another location. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Reppucci asked why the shed can’t be straightened out to meet the setbacks. Mr. Lussier said it’s due to the retaining wall, it’s about a foot wider than the shed, and if they did, it would be sitting at a funny angle, maybe even on the edges. Mr. Currier asked where the retaining wall is exactly located. Mr. Lussier said directly underneath the shed, about a foot beyond the shed. He said the shed is 10’x10’, and the retaining wall is 11’x11’. Mr. Shaw said it sounds like it’s more of a foundation or slab under where the shed would go. Mr. Lussier said the land is rounded, it’s like a little mound. Mr. Currier asked if the retaining wall was built with the express purpose of putting the shed on top of it. Mr. Lussier said that it was, it was built two days prior. Mr. Shaw asked about the land in back of the shed. Mr. Lussier said it is common land, and the builder has put in some fill and rocks, and the land slopes down. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Letter from Steve Gutwillig and Kristine Tingley, 15 Montclair Drive, Nashua, NH. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. 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. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 3 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. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. Alfred Ocasio & Joan Hanley (Owners) 4 Vespa Lane (Sheet G Lot 206) requesting variance to encroach 12 feet into the 20 foot required left side yard setback to replace an existing 8’x16’ deck with a 12’x16’ three-season porch. R18 Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Alfred Ocasio, 4 Vespa Lane, Nashua, NH. Mr. Ocasio said that they’re looking to extend and enclose an 8’x16’ deck, to make it a 12’x16 three seasoned porch, on the side of the property. He said it would have a roof, and walls. He said that he’d like to have his application speak for itself, as it is complete and thorough. Mr. Currier asked about the abutters. Mr. Ocasio said that all the abutters are fine with the request. Mr. Currier asked how many feet would be from the outer wall to the fence. Mr. Ocasio said the fence is on the neighbor’s property. He said that the house is twenty feet from the property line, and they got a variance. Mr. Currier asked if it would be one story high. Mr. Ocasio said one story. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 4 Mr. Reppucci said that there can be electrical in it but no plumbing. Mr. Ocasio said that is fine. Mr. Currier said the structure on the abutting property is further away, and facing the other street, so it’s sort of unique SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION Mr. Shaw to approve the variance on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property by converting a deck into a three-season porch, and as was discussed, the adjacent property is facing another street on the corner, so the encroachment is much further away from the other structure than might be in a normal side-to-side yard setbacks of two structures. Mr. Shaw 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. Mr. Shaw said that a stipulation of approval is that this will be a one-level, single story structure. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Mark & Amy Seo (Owners) 10 Burgess Street (Sheet 115 Lot 101) requesting the following variances: 1) to encroach 12 feet into the 25 foot required front yard setback (on Beauview Avenue); and, 2) to encroach 10 feet into the 25 Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 5 foot required front yard setback (on Charlotte Street) to construct a 24’x24’ attached garage. RA Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Mark Seo, 10 Burgess Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Seo said the house does not have a garage, and they are requesting a variance to build one. He said that they’ve had their cars broken into, and virtually every other house in the neighborhood has a garage, so it would be in keeping with the neighborhood. He said that even though they’d be 12 feet from the property line, there is about twenty-four feet to Beauview and twenty-one feet to Charlotte to the actual street pavement. Mr. Reppucci asked where the existing driveway is located. Mr. Seo said it is in the back of the house, and would move it to the front, towards Burgess Street. Mr. Reppucci asked if the driveway would be too close to the corner. Mr. Falk said possibly, the plan doesn’t show the driveway. He said that there is some room to put it in, but it would be angled. Mr. Reppucci said the requirement is that the driveway has to be at least 50 feet from the intersection of Burgess and Beauview. Mr. Reppucci stated that he thought that Burgess Street would be a better option from the City’s point of view for the driveway, it makes sense. He said that it’s possible that additional relief will be required if the driveway is within the 50 feet to an intersection. He said it may be in their best interest to table the request until they meet with the Street Department, and come back. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to Table the request to the July 22, 2014 meeting. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 6 SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. Susan & Steven Weintraub (Owners) 10 Damon Avenue (Sheet 49 Lot 209) requesting variance to encroach 5½ feet into the 6 foot required left side yard setback for a pool deck, and 5 feet into the 6 foot left side yard setback for an above- ground swimming pool. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jack Currier Steven Weintraub, 10 Damon Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Weintraub passed out some pictures to the Board members. He also submitted a drawing of the yard area, and described the photos. He said that they have three young children. He said that the back yard has a sandbox, a swing set and a shed in the corner, with trees. He said he’d also like to build a deck at the same height as the stairs, by the sliding door, to meet the pool. He said that in picture #7, a bulkhead is visible. He said that there is very little area for a deck. He said that in picture #8, that is the 12 Damon side, that side yard used to have a chain link fence, it was rusty, it’ll be replaced with a nice white vinyl fence. Mr. Reppucci asked what the height of the deck would be. Mr. Weintraub said about a foot and a half, the deck would come out from the house level with the sliding glass door, as shown in picture #8, and it would have steps up to the pool, with a ladder. He said that the deck would not be at the level of the pool. He said it won’t be a high deck at all. He said the abutters at 8 and 12 Damon have no problem with the plan. Mr. Reppucci asked how high the pool would be. Mr. Weintraub said it would be 52 inches tall. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Reppucci asked if there was any thought to putting the pool further into the yard instead of right against the fence. Mr. Weintraub said in picture #2 and #7, there is a post from the swing set, they’re anchored in the ground, it took four people eight hours to install, it’s not an easily moveable swing set. He said that the pool can’t be moved in, as the end of the swing set A-frame has a monkey bar extending from the end of the A-frame. He said the sandbox is an 8’x8’ size, with 2,000 pounds of sand in it. Mr. Reppucci said he can’t remember an application where there would be a pool right on the property line. He said he’s not even sure of what the safety of it would be. Mr. Weintraub said that the intent is to have the pool and other backyard items gone after the children are done using them. Mr. Johnson asked if the swing set will be coming down eventually as well. Mr. Weintraub said yes, the swing set, the sandbox and the pool will be removed from the yard, approximately twelve years from now. He said that eventually, they’d like to see the pool gone after the children are done using it, and the deck expanded. He said that the pool is solely for the children. Mr. Reppucci said he thought by having the pool only six inches from the fence, he said that may be dangerous, a kid could get their neck stuck in there. He said it’s a workable yard to work with the setbacks. Mr. Reppucci said that for resale value, if the neighbor wants to sell his house, and someone sees a neighbor’s pool six inches away, it may be a problem. Mr. Shaw said he’d like to investigate a setback more along the lines of three feet, which will allow sufficient space between the pool and the fence, and just the pool and the neighbor’s property. He said he’s looking for a more reasonable encroachment, in line with allowing the homeowner to use their property. He said it is a limited space. He said if the pool is only six inches from the fence, if there are kids in the pool splashing and playing, water will go over the pool and into the neighbor’s yard. He said that three feet will take care of a Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 8 lot of that. He said that three feet will give a little space, and it will take care of the safety aspect as well. Mr. Currier said that on the subject of what space is adequate, he said that a couple feet, like the shed, is ok. He said that a six inch space leaves no room to feasibly do anything to maintain it. He said about two feet of clearance should be fine, it can be maintained, and if there is a three foot gap, that would not present a problem. Mr. Boucher said he’d move forward with a two or three foot setback. Mr. Johnson said he’d be more comfortable with three feet, and is not comfortable with the application the way it is. Mr. Currier said that the hardship that the Board finds keeps getting lowered in time. He said if anything, this is a lower bar. Mr. Reppucci said he sees zero hardship in this case. Mr. Johnson said that is where he is too. Mr. Shaw said that here is a case where there seems to be no harm, neighbor support, and we don’t really have a strong reason to support or deny, but is there really cause for meeting all the criteria. He said he really doesn’t see the hardship. Mr. Boucher said that the Board has already approved a variance for the shed on this property. He said for an accessory structure, is it reasonable to have three feet between the property line and the fence and pool. He said that since the pool is round, there would only be one point of the circle around the pool that would be closer to the fence. He asked if a three foot distance is reasonable. Mr. Reppucci said in the application for the variance for the shed, his recollection that it be a couple feet off of the property line, was good for safety and maintenance, people could walk through and have access. He said that maybe the best option would be to table the request so that the owner can possibly re-design the back yard, and come up with a less- intrusive plan for the Board to consider. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 9 Mr. Shaw agreed with the idea to table the request, as the Board has raised a lot of concerns, and maybe the owner would not want to alter anything. He said by tabling the request, it might give a best chance of a solution to accommodate the plan. Mr. Currier said that he doesn’t feel like he volunteers his time to hand out variances for applications just because no one complains about. He said the Board is here to assess the hardship of it. He said he’s struggling to find the hardship in this one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to table the request to the July 8, 2014 meeting, the next meeting, that the Board hears the case in its entirety again, with the applicant going over all the points of law again. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases that have Regional Impact. MINUTES: April 22, 2014: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. May 27, 2014: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes as presented, Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 10 waive the reading and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 (Mr. Shaw abstained). June 10, 2014: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 (Mr. Johnson abstained). Mr. Reppucci handed out a revision to the By-Laws, on the Boards procedures where there are cases that are more complex and the applicant needs more than 15 minutes. Mr. Currier said an issue he sees is some applicants talking and talking, and not adding any value to what they’re saying, they’re just filling up billable time. He said that sometimes, applicants write very lengthy responses to the points of law, and just stand up there are read them verbatim, which can take quite a bit of time. Mr. Falk said that for any By-Laws revisions, they need to be read at two successive meetings, and this is the first. Mr. Reppucci agreed, and at the next meeting, the Board will read it again, and it can then be incorporated into the By-Laws. Mr. Shaw pointed out a typo, the third paragraph down, the word “requested” should be “request”. Mr. Reppucci said he’d like the change to be unanimous. Mr. Currier suggested instead of it saying “any time during the public hearing”, it should read “at any time during the applicant’s presentation”. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:36 p.m. Zoning Board of Adjustment June 24, 2014 Page 11 Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF Taped Hearing