Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 14, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, October 14, 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 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. Mr. Reppucci opened the public hearing for 20 Courtland Street to allow Alderman Donchess to speak on the case before the Alderman meeting: 1. Jeffrey & Deanna Bridgham (Owners) 20 Courtland Street (Sheet 66 Lot 8) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 10,135 sq.ft existing, 12,445 sq.ft required – to convert a single-family home into a two-family home. RB Zone, Ward 3. Ald. Jim Donchess, 4 Rockland Street, Nashua, NH. Ald. Donchess said he’s spoken with some of the neighbors about this case, and opposes the variance, and does not believe that there is a hardship to convert from a one-family house to a two-family house. He said that there is a mixture of single-family and multi-family residences, but this section of Courtland Street is predominantly single-family homes. He said that the neighborhood is converting, and has been converting, in the other direction, from houses that used to be two-family homes, now are single-family homes. Ald. Donchess said that the house at the northwest corner of Webster Street and Courtland Street was formerly a single- Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 2 family, then became a ram-shackled multi-family, then a young family bought it and restored it back to a single family. He said there is another house across the street that converted from a multi to a single family. He said the character of the neighborhood changes when the City allows a single-family home to be converted to a multi-family home, as inevitably a single- family home is a better-kept residence than an absentee landlord, and tenants. He said that to protect the character of this neighborhood, the house should be retained as a one-family, and to deny the request. Mr. Reppucci closed the public hearing for this case, and it will be re-opened later tonight. 2. Brendan Quirk (Owner) Lowe’s Home Centers (Applicant) 22 Dudley Street (Sheet A Lot 154) requesting the following variances: 1) to encroach 5 feet into both 6 foot required side yard setbacks to construct a 24’x40’ deck around a pool; and, 2) to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% permitted, 65% requested. RA Zone, Ward 7. [TABLED FROM 9- 23-14 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Mr. Reppucci read a letter into the record stating that the owners have withdrawn their application. He stated that if they wish to apply again, they’d have to pay all the fees again. 3. MacThompson Realty, Inc. (Owner) 3 Marmon Drive (Sheet A Lot 349) requesting variance to exceed maximum wall sign area, 150 sq.ft allowed - 182 sq.ft permitted from May 27, 2008 variance - 278.5 sq.ft proposed. HB Zone, Ward 7. [TABLED FROM 9-23-14 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 3 Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that he objects to moving forward with a four-member Board, but will do so anyways. Atty. Prunier said that he provided more information from Detroit, explaining the situation of the signage, and how they came up with the size, and submitted the program itself. He said if you don’t participate in the program, you lose $475 per automobile, and then you’re competing with all the surrounding dealerships. He said that it’s a disadvantage to not participate in the program. Atty. Prunier said that for the signs, General Motors will keep their signs, but the dealer name will be removed, so the MacMulkin sign would be removed. He said that there are penalties involved, and it starts with the dealers name being removed. He said that the dealer can be moved to the bottom of the list with new cars coming out, as you wouldn’t be a dealer that is favorable to General Motors. He said that the program is described very well in the letter. Jeff Thompson, President, MacMulkin Chevrolet, Nashua, NH. Mr. Thompson said that the program came out in 2008, after the whole building was done over. He said that they were given a grandfather clause, and the deal was that they’d start construction on the building by the end of this year, or be out of the program. Mr. Reppucci asked if the appeal was on all the work done on the building, or for the amount of signage on the building. Mr. Thompson said that it was to do the whole building. He said that the signage issue is that GM will reduce the signage, starting with the dealer name being removed, so no dealer identity. He said that the next thing to go is the Certified Service sign on the canopy, it would be reduced down until it fits in with the sign ordinance. Atty. Prunier said that the sign ordinance does not take into consideration the size of the building, he said that the request is only 3% of the total façade of the building, it’s an 8,800 square foot three story building. Mr. Reppucci said that if this case is not supported, in effect, Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 4 it would cause the MacMulkin name to be removed. Atty. Prunier said that they’d have to take down the MacMulkin sign completely, and then start working on the Certified Service sign, and then the Cadillac sign. He said the only signs left on the building would be Chevrolet and Cadillac. Mr. Currier asked about the process in the sign planning stages, and why this is coming up now after the major construction project. Atty. Prunier said that there’s nothing in the program that says anything about signs, it says that they have to comply with Gessner, and they rely on Pattison Signs, as to the size. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve the variance request 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 method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Boucher said that he didn’t believe the request will adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Currier). 4. Pennichuck Water Works, Inc. (Owner) “L” Tinker Road - Intersection of Tinker Road and F.E. Everett Turnpike (Sheet G Lots 486 & 488) requesting special exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland and wetland buffer of Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 5 Harris Pond to extend an existing culvert running beneath the maintenance access road to allow for better access to the treatment basins. R18 & R40 Zones, Wards 2 & 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Donald Ware, Chief Operating Officer, Pennichuck Water Works, Merrimack, NH. Mr. Ware said that in 2011, they built an access road to treat stormwater coming out of the Monza Drive area, and also to treat the stormwater coming off of the Everett Turnpike. He said that there is an access road off Tinker Road to the west. He said that as part of the DES approval, they didn’t want the company to use the access road to service the sedimentation basins, they wanted us to come off the Everett Turnpike. Mr. Ware said that there’s a steep bank there, and there was thought by the Department of Transportation for an access down there to service the facility, and it was not determined to be approved. He said that what is proposed is logical access because it’s not off the highway, and there are no steep slopes for a vehicle to maneuver on. He said that the best thing is to re-use the access road, and construct a 48-inch culvert, and continue with the plans as submitted. He said that the request has received approval by the Conservation Commission, and have submitted an application to the NH DES as well. Mr. Johnson asked about item #4 from the Conservation Commission letter, about the invasive species, and asked if they are amenable to this condition. Mr. Ware said that they will take out invasives within the construction zone area, which is about a 32’x30’ area, and agree to do it each year as the Conservation Commission recommended, and its Pennichuck’s recommendation to do this. Mr. Reppucci said that there are nine special regulations for working in the wetlands or wetland buffers. Mr. Ware said that they will comply with all nine. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 6 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: None. MOTION by Mr. Currier to grant the special exception on behalf of the applicant, as advertised. He stated that it is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. Mr. Currier said that the request will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety, it will have no impact, and will help in cleaning out the access to this area. Mr. Currier said that the use will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, it will allow for reasonable access of the culvert area. He said that special regulations are fulfilled, and it will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of residents. Mr. Currier said that the approval is subject to the 9-3-14 Conservation Commission approval, with seven stipulations, along with the Conservation Commission meeting minutes. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 5. Unitarian Universal Church (Owner) 56-58 Lowell Street (Sheet 43 Lot 48) requesting variance to exceed maximum ground sign area, 12 sq.ft allowed, 17.1 sq.ft existing – 34.2 sq.ft proposed, to construct an additional granite post and duplicate the sign to form a “V” shape. RC Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 7 Bill Kennedy, Unitarian Universal Church, 58 Lowell Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Kennedy said that he is the Chair of the Public Relations Committee for the Church. He said that the sign change has been reviewed and approved by the Historic District Commission. Mr. Kennedy said that they’re requesting the variance because people just cannot see the sign. He said that the sign would be visible from Lowell Street and Canal Street, so the request is to double the size of the sign and make it into a “V” shaped sign, where the open part of the “V” would be facing the church, and the two sides facing Lowell Street and Canal Street, so people can see it coming from both directions. Mr. Currier agreed with the testimony, it is hard to see the sign from either way, and the proposal is not asking for a lot, and feels that it is reasonable. Mr. Johnson said the Historic District Commission reviewed and approved this case. Mr. Boucher said he is in favor of the request. Mr. Reppucci said he is in favor, the Historic District Commission recommended approval, and the Zoning Board is the appeal Board to the Historic District Commission. He said that their decisions are appealable to our Board. Mr. Falk said that the HDC believed that the “V” shaped sign is better than a back-to-back faced sign. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. 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 October 14, 2014 Page 8 method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Boucher said that he didn’t believe the request will adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Boucher referenced the Historic District Commission approval letter dated on 8-26-14, and is incorporated into the record. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Gregory Sterling (Owner) 47 Wethersfield Road (Sheet B Lot 698) requesting variance to encroach 10” into the 10 foot required left side yard setback to construct an attached 24’x24’ garage with room above. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Greg Sterling, 47 Wethersfield Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Sterling said that they are requesting a variance to encroach 10 inches into the 10 foot setback, the request is to construct a garage with a room above. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is very thorough and complete. Mr. Johnson said that the applicant did a really good job in the application, it’s very thorough, and supports the request. Mr. Currier asked if there is going to be a room above the garage. Mr. Sterling agreed, and the roof line will be lower. Mr. Currier remarked that there is a significant topography change in the lot. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 9 Mr. Sterling said about three-fourths is near ground level, and another portion is higher. He said the garage would be just past the driveway. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the variance on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Johnson stated that the variance will allow the applicants proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, which is some significant topography. He said that 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 said it’s within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there’s no testimony that property values will be negatively impacted, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 7. Jeffrey & Deanna Bridgham (Owners) 20 Courtland Street (Sheet 66 Lot 8) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 10,135 sq.ft existing, 12,445 sq.ft required – to convert a single-family home into a two-family home. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Jeff Bridgham, 20 Courtland Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Bridgham stated that they’re asking for a variance to convert the Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 10 existing single-family with an in-law apartment to a two-family. He said that his house was previously a two-family house. He said from the corner of Courtland to Webster, there are approximately four very nice single-family homes, the rest are two, four, six family homes that are very questionable. Mr. Bridgham said he didn’t believe that by changing his house back to a two-family would have a negative impact to the neighborhood. Mr. Reppucci said it is unusual for someone to speak on a case before the meeting, but the Aldermen have a meeting just after the Zoning Board meeting. He said that he should focus on the variance application issues. Mr. Bridgham said the house used to be a two-family house, and it was changed to a single-family with an in-law. He said it was a two-family before 2007 and it was converted to a single family with an in-law. Mr. Reppucci asked why it was changed to a single-family. Mr. Bridgham said at the time, he didn’t need the space or the rental portion of it, and was ok with that financially. He said that when he financed it, there were multiple foreclosures that affected him. He said he spent a lot of money renovating and upgrading the property, and with the rising tax costs, he said he needs some income to remain a member of the community. Mr. Boucher asked to confirm whether Mr. Bridgham will live there. Mr. Bridgham said he will. Mr. Currier asked if he bought it as a legal two-family. Mr. Bridgham said he purchased it in 2006 as a legal two-family. Mr. Currier asked when it was an in-law apartment, if a relative lived there. Mr. Bridgham said yes. Mr. Reppucci said that it was a two-family in functionality. He asked if it was a two-family in the eyes of the City, listed, and assessed as a two-family. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 11 Mr. Bridgham said yes. Mr. Reppucci asked, in 2007, if the City came along and say that you have a two-family here in its functionality, but it’s really a one-family, and you have to go through the process of converting it into a one-family, then went through the process of converting it. Mr. Bridgham said he bought it as a two-family, and it was listed at a two-family. Mr. Reppucci asked if there was any push-back from the City, with them saying it’s not a two-family. Mr. Bridgham said there wasn’t, he said that he had no problems with the inspections, it was inspected and approved by the City. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Lisa Scontsas, 24 Courtland Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Scontsas said she’s seen the good coming back. She submitted some pictures of the neighborhood and street, and labeled the houses. She described the houses on the drawing, how many units they have and the condition of the homes. She asked the Board to not support the application. Mr. Reppucci said that prior to 2007, this was a two-family house. He asked if Mrs. Scontsas agreed. Mrs. Scontsas said it was a single-family with an in-law. Dyann Levesque, 18 Hall Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Levesque said that she’s lived there since 1978, and is the back-door abutter. She said that the neighborhood has many residents that have lived there all their lives. She said that she does not support the application, as the property values of abutting properties will be lowered if there’s an expansion on this property. She said the parking issue has already been brought up. She said she is concerned about the noise level, pollution, crime. She said a lot of the homes in the neighborhood have recently been refurbished. She said she is concerned with overcrowding as well. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 12 Randy Wilbert, 51 Concord Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Wilbert said that he concurs with the earlier concerns that were raised. He said that he is concerned about the density, and the collateral density of automobiles. He said each unit has two cars, and on the weekends there are more cars. He said that there will be at least four cars during the week, and five to six cars on the weekends. He said he visits Jeannotte’s a lot, and in the winter, with snow, sometimes it’s unpassable. He said that there will be more cars parked on the street. He said that the applicant’s request should be denied. Peter Bauer, 27 Courtland Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Bauer said he opposes the request. He said his grandfather has lived here since 1964, and has seen a lot of the houses fall in disarray. He said that there has been some revitalization of some of the older homes. He said that if the house were to sell, there would be a maintenance question. He said that the current owners have done a good job. Joan Meckel, 24 Chester Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Meckel said that she recently moved to the neighborhood. She said that she just renovated her own house. She said by changing the house from a one-family to a two-family changes the dynamics of the neighborhood. She said that in-law apartments are occupied by a family member, and the owners maintain the property better. She said that two-family homes are often sold to an investor, and too many people are brought to the property, and maintenance goes bad. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Bridgham said that his ReMax Broker sold him the house, it was on the deed that it was a two-family. He said that his wife checked in the Assessing Office, and was told that it is clearly a two-family, and then it was changed to a single-family. He said he has no plans for any expansion on the property. He said he has a single car garage, with over a one-hundred foot long driveway, with a gated fence. He said his driveway is 18 feet wide, more than 10 cars can fit on it. Mr. Reppucci said he’s hung up on the two-family in 2007. He said that he is because in the permits, there was a requirement to pull out the stove to convert it. He said that seems like in Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 13 2007, or before it had to be done, this was probably more than two units. He said that he wants to know why there was the request to convert it from a two-family to a one-family. He said it’s just unusual for someone to change a two-family to a one-family. Mrs. Bridgham said that they came to City Hall, did what they were supposed to do, and got an electrician to cover up the area where the stove went, the kitchen is still there. Mr. Reppucci said that it’s the stove that matters. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mrs. Scontsas said that her understanding is that if an in-law is an illegal, the stove has to be removed. She stated that there is a pool in the backyard, it’s a small home, it was a single-family. She said it’s an in-law house, and if they go to move, and they get this variance, it’s a two-family, and they are bought up as investment properties and they are not always kept up well. She said she doesn’t want to be surrounded by two-family homes. She said the street already has gotten two houses that have gone to single-family. She said that she hopes the Board denies the request. Mr. Reppucci said that as this application as presented, he sees it as a relatively minor encroachment. He said it looks as if it was a legal two-family up to 2007, when it was converted to a single-family, and now it’s being requested to go back to a two- family. He said that if it were a legal two-family back in 2007, and it changed, and now they want to bring it back as a two-family, they’re very close to what they need, and on the scheme of things, it’s pretty reasonable. He said that there is some confusion, someone gets a house listed, buys it, and doesn’t necessarily understand that it’s not the way the City sees it. He said he can’t get past the pulling out of the stove in 2007, and needs to understand that better. Mr. Johnson said he is looking at the same issues. Mr. Currier said that he’s heard two distinctively different testimonies so far, he said that the owner fully believes it was a legal two-family prior to 2007, and we have testimony from long-time abutters saying it was not a two-family, so the testimony tonight is puzzling. He said in looking at the file, Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 14 it’s not clear one way or another what it was. He said he’s also unclear on the status of the previous structure. Mr. Boucher said in 2002, the inspector wrote down that it was a duplex. He said that there was a violation from years back, about smoke detectors in the common area. He said that those two things indicate that it was a two-family. He said there was evidence that the structure was a two-family. He said he’d like to see the Assessors card. Mr. Currier said there is an assessment difference between a single-family and a two-family. Mr. Reppucci said that the assessment difference was not something that was mentioned by the owner as a consideration. Mr. Currier said he concurs with the owners assessment that he has a decent parking. He said that Courtland is a tight street, and has been in that situation many times where you have to pull over to wait for people to go by, and the volume on the street, with snowbanks, is tight. He said it’s a valid question if the street can handle another unit. Mr. Johnson said it is a compelling argument, for the street volume. Mr. Reppucci said that parking on the street is more of an Aldermanic issue. Mr. Reppucci said if all the evidence and testimony is true, in considering the size of the lot, he said he’d have a hard time denying the application. Mr. Currier said he’s not finding much of a hardship in the presentation, it’s seemingly been a perfectly functioning single-family home with an in-law, and, per testimony, he said the applicant is looking for more revenue, and that’s not criteria that we look at for a hardship. He said he’s not finding that it meets the tests for hardship. He said if he knew that it was a legal two-family, he may feel different about it. Mr. Johnson said he remembered the applicant saying that the information from the deed was that it’s a two-family unit. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 15 He said that the City should be able to get the Board some additional information about the property, about the action of pulling the stove out. He said he just wants to get clear answers. Mr. Boucher agreed, it’s a perfect case to get that clarification, because it will give him a better comfort level. Mr. Johnson said that we could vote with more clarity if we have a little more information MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to table the application to the October 28, 2014 meeting, strictly to address the status of this property in 2007, and any information that goes into that we’ll consider. He said that he can’t see going through this whole application again, we’ve heard the opposition and Alderman Donchess’s position, and anyone would be welcome to present on that status of the property in 2007 and the conversion and why it happened, and most of that will come from the Planning Department, and doesn’t see the benefit of having a whole hearing on this, but won’t oppose anyone who thinks we should. Mr. Currier said he doesn’t think we have to have the whole hearing, but would like to have the Planning Department’s whatever history is there, not just 2007, in other words, maybe it was in fact a single family up until this time, and then a building inspector went out and saw two meters, and said it’s a two-family. He said it would be worthy to have that timeline and a history, not just the snapshot in 2007, the Planning Department’s history of it. Mr. Falk said they may not have any records of why they pulled out the stove in 2007, we have evidence and documentation and permits that there was a two-family there, they have a C.O. for a two-family, it was a legal two-family in 1985. He said if it had two units in there from 1985 to 2007, if the applicant wanted to change it back to a single-family, all they had to do was obtain a permit to remove the stove, they have the right to do that. Mr. Reppucci said that wasn’t the testimony of the applicant, and it wasn’t a relative factor. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 16 Mr. Falk said he’d see what is there, but doesn’t think there’s any more information than what is in the building file. He said it’s pretty clear from the records that it was a two-family. Mr. Boucher said it would be nice to see something like a catalogue of events. Mr. Currier said that would be nice, instead of us flipping through the file, and trying to determine your assessment and saying if nothing else, this is what we have through the years, and this is the tax assessment through the years. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 8. Highland Lake Properties, LLC & Clay A. Garcia (Owners) 18- 20 Auburn Street and “L” Auburn Street (Sheet 68 Lots 52 & 153) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 14,302 sq.ft existing, 20,908 sq.ft required, to convert a previously approved 4-unit multi-family building into a 6-unit multi- family building. RC Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rick Johnson J.P. Boucher Attorney Jeff Zall, 221 Main Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Zall said that in this case, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow 6 units in an apartment house on a lot consisting of 14,302 square feet in area. Atty. Zall said that the property was before the Board last year, and received a variance for 4 units on a lot consisting of 8,735 square feet. Atty. Zall said that the applicant is obtaining the adjacent vacant lot of approximately 5,567 square feet, and will be consolidating them into one lot. He said that in 1945, the Shattuck’s obtained this lot, and it became a six-unit apartment house well into the 2000’s. He said that even though the lots were never consolidated, the vacant lot has been used for a side yard and for parking. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 17 He said that in 2007, the Estate of Alta Shattuck sold the property to Mermaid Holdings, LLC, and deeded the house lot to the LLC, and the vacant lot was deeded to Clay Garcia, who worked at Mermaid. He said that Mermaid was given a mortgage only for the house lot, and in 2010, the bank foreclosed on the property, which separated the ownership completely. Atty. Zall said that in 2011, Mr. Falk stated that with the separation in ownership, that they couldn’t go to six units, as the lot only had 8,000 square feet. He also said that if the lots are put back together again, they couldn’t go to six units without coming back to the Board. He said that in 2013, they came to the ZBA, and sought a variance initially for six units, but amended the application at the meeting for four units, and it was granted on the house lot. He said that a condition of that variance was that the parking would be in the back next to 11 Locust Street. He said that the owner of 11 Locust was concerned about lights going into his property, so there was a condition that lights cannot shine in his windows. Atty. Zall said that now, the applicant is going to be consolidating the two lots, and is not going to have the parking out back anymore, it’s going to be on the vacant lot like it used to be all along. Atty. Zall said that the building used to have six units, it was that way for over 50 years, maybe even longer. He said that the neighborhood is predominantly multi-family homes, and handed out a GIS map, showing the subject property, and shows that there are 32 properties nearby, and 25 of those are multi-family properties. He said that 7 of them are six units or more. He said that the density is 3,484 square feet per unit. He said that the applicant is proposing a density of 2,384 sq.ft, and the average density in the area is 2,034 sq.ft, which is less than what is proposed. He said that the building is a big building, it has 22 rooms and 7 bathrooms. He said that the property meets the variance points of law. He said that the parking arrangement is better than before, and the property was six units for many years. He submitted a letter from a property appraiser, who said that in his opinion, bringing the property back to a six unit building will not diminish the values of surrounding properties. Mr. Reppucci asked when the request was granted to go to four units, if they ever did go to four units. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 18 Atty. Zall said that they did not, they never did any work to go to the four units. Mr. Reppucci said that the explanation to bring it down to four units was that the interior of the building was better to accommodate four units instead of six units. Atty. Zall said it’s had six units for over fifty years. Mr. Reppucci asked why the Fisher v. Dover case shouldn’t be explained here, and why it’s significantly different. Atty. Zall said that it’s different, because the lot was only Lot 52, so the lot size was smaller. He said the building could always accommodate six units, and it had six units. He said the thought was that they could have larger units, and reduce it down to four units. Mr. Reppucci said at the last hearing, there were a lot of people that spoke out against the case, not for the number of units, it was for the density. Atty. Zall said a lot of neighbors spoke out even against two units, but it’s all a factor of density. Mr. Reppucci said the number of apartments going in there was the point of concern for the neighbors. Mr. Johnson asked if the applicant has closed on the property, the lot next door. Atty. Zall said it’s subject to approval by this Board, there is a binding purchase and sale agreement, it would close after the ZBA decision. Mr. Johnson said that doing a basic count, and facing Locust Street, and it looked like seven meters on the side of the house, and asked why. Dr. Cary Shaffer, Highland Lake Properties, Nashua, NH. Dr. Shaffer said that there are seven meters there, for six units. He said right now there are two units, but the extra one is a house meter, for hallways, common areas. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 19 Mr. Reppucci asked if they have pulled permits to change it into a four-unit building. Dr. Shaffer said no, not at this point. He said that originally, they bought it as a two-family, and with the sheer size of the building, asked for four units. Mr. Reppucci said the City takes the position if you don’t act on your approval in 12 months, the approval becomes null and void. Atty. Zall said that has been changed in NH State law, and now its two years. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Attorney Morgan Hollis, Gottesman & Hollis, P.A. 39 East Pearl Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Hollis said that he is representing Clay Garcia, the owner of the vacant lot. He said that in 1955, a permit was issued to convert from two units to six units. He said that in response to the opposition, he said that his notes indicate that it physically is a six-family building, five of those units can be consolidated into three, but any other consolidation would be physically difficult. He said that they submitted an opinion of the value, and stood with other neighbors, in that the concern of parking for six units on the property. He said that there were other concerns about drainage. He said that the spare lot makes for a substantially different request, as now there is parking back where it was, and there’s enough space to put the cars. He said that the request is substantially different. He said that if approved, the property will revert back to how it had been used for over fifty years, and therefore is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and substantial justice will be served. He said it makes sense to have the six units. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Thomas Guevin, 16 Auburn Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Guevin said a six-family was much different fifty years ago, as a lot of people didn’t have cars. He said he believes the current zoning laws are correct, and the back of this house is on Locust Street, and it does slope down. He said that the vacant lot does slope down, and the whole lot cannot be used for parking. He said the 14,000 square foot lot is not all flat and even, he Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 20 has some rugged terrain and slope and parking will be difficult. He said that parking in the back area is not viable. He said that the plan does not make any sense, and does not see the hardship here, it would cause a hardship to the neighborhood, the parking is not sufficient for six units. Mr. Currier asked how many cars can reasonably park in the upper vacant lot. Mr. Guevin said maybe three or four cars, it’s all on a hill, and it will be worse in the winter months. Peter Guevin 16 Auburn Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Guevin said that the applicants application is false and misleading. He said that the application lists no single-families in the neighborhood, and that it consists of all multi-families, and that the neighborhood is made up of high density multi-family properties. He said that on his map, there are eleven single- family homes nearby. He said he got the information from the City’s GIS Website. He said he showed all the properties nearby on a map, color coded to the number of units. He said that the applicant showed properties hundreds of feet away, that he used in the density calculations, therefore, the calculations are incorrect. He said that the proposal is not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and it is contrary to the public interest. He said the application is going from a four unit to a six unit. Mr. Reppucci said that the 12-month period is not an issue, as previously discussed. Mr. Guevin said that there are no special conditions associated with this property, especially since it’s been a two-unit for the past four years. He said that two of the units are built on cinder blocks, they were stables, and should never have been constructed as living units. He said that the grandfathering has been lost on this property, it’s been a two-unit for quite some time, and the neighborhood has drastically changed for the better, the level of crime has dropped, and to go back to six units will be an effect to the public health, safety and welfare. He said that the proposed use is not reasonable, and it will affect the property values and should not be approved. Mr. Johnson asked what his sources are for the crime reduction. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 21 Mr. Guevin said it’s his own personal experience. He said that there were a lot more crimes there at this property in the past, there were SWAT teams there at one time. He said he’s lived here a long time. Mr. Reppucci said that crime can happen anywhere, and SWAT teams go where they are needed. He said that all of the units will have to get building permits, and they’d all be permitted to meet the building code. Mr. Guevin said the crime issues were continuous at this place, it wasn’t a one-time thing. He said based on his experience, bringing the building up to Code is one thing, but to bring it up to a desirable enough place to live is another matter, and getting quality tenants. He said that some of the units are very old and in a state of disrepair. Don Poirier, 11 Locust Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Poirier stated that the applicants back yard abuts his driveway, and in the past, there have been a lot of incidents where cars have gone over the wall. He said he’s concerned about the tenants that are going to live out back, if they’re parking up on top, it will difficult for them to bring groceries in, it’ll be a hardship for them to park up top. He said that he’s lived here for 39 years, and the lawn area in the back is all overgrown and looks like a jungle, its run amok with weeds and bamboo and invasive plants now. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Zall said that the major concern is on the property at 18- 20 Auburn Street, there is a driveway and a garage. He said on the vacant lot, there should be room for at least six to eight spaces. He said that the applicant will still need to go to the Planning Board with a site plan, to put in the parking, so it’ll all be up to Code. He said that the applicant will agree to a stipulation that all the parking will be on top, on the vacant lot and the driveway area of the existing house, so this should alleviate the concerns that Mr. Poirier has. Atty. Zall said that the second gentleman that spoke said that the map earlier presented was incorrect. He said that he got all that information from the City’s GIS records. He said he picked out what he thought was the relevant neighborhood for this property. He said it is a generally highly populated Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 22 multi-family area, and felt that he needed to show the density of the multi-family area nearby. He said that they are convinced that the upper lot area can accommodate all the parking up there at the top. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Peter Guevin said that it’s been identified as a six-unit apartment for over fifty years. He said that the 1.5 parking space per unit is not adequate for this building. He said that there is a lack of practical parking spaces, and the tenant that lives there now has two cars. He said that the garage is in extreme disrepair, and the parking spaces will overload the lot. Mr. Reppucci said that in his recollection of this case, parking is a factor, but it was not the sole major concern. He said that the vast majority of the people against the case mentioned safety of the neighborhood. He said that Mr. Garcia did own both pieces of land, and the house lot was foreclosed upon. He read some testimony that Atty. Hollis read at the previous meeting, stating it needed major renovations, and some of the units were shoddily put together into very small studio apartments, and the function of the neighborhood now, having meticulously maintained homes, and the homeowners interest should be maintained. He said that the City would be best suited not to grant this. He said that his comments didn’t have anything to do with parking. He said that he made the last motion to approve this, and part of that motion was that these little tiny units would be converted to four functioning units. Mr. Currier said he’s feeling as if there’s an extreme parking challenge at the site now, and by merging the lots and going to six units, the parking isn’t really being resolved, it’s being mitigated a little bit. He said that it’s tight for four with the parking situation, and said he’s struggling going to six and merging the lot relieves all the problems, and is not feeling that it’s the best situation at this point. Mr. Johnson said that there’s a letter of support from 16-18 Beacon Street, its right at the corner of Beacon and Auburn Street. He said that the letter indicates that they do not mind the remodeling of the property, or to convert the building into six units, providing that they satisfy the off-street parking available. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 23 Mr. Boucher said that there were a lot of people here last time. He said that there’s not as many here tonight. He said that the new units would be reviewed by the Building Department, and they’d have to be brought up to Code. He said that any building issues would have to be addressed. He said if this is approved by the Board, the City will be reviewing the building permit for all code compliant issues, and it will be brought up to Code. Mr. Currier said that he is hung up on the parking. Mr. Boucher said it’s tough, because we don’t have a plan that shows all the parking. Mr. Reppucci said that maybe there is a plan, and it could be supported if we see it. Mr. Currier said he doesn’t see the feasibility of the parking with the topography and engineering changes on the lot. Mr. Reppucci said it would be great if we have a plan that satisfies the parking on both the lots together. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Reppucci opened the Public Hearing to ask the applicant what meeting they would like the case to be tabled to. Atty. Zall said that he agrees that more information is necessary, and apologized for not having the information of a detailed parking plan tonight. He said they’ll need more than two weeks to put together a detailed engineered plan, and suggested four weeks or six weeks. He suggested four weeks, and if they’re not ready, it can be tabled again. Mr. Reppucci said that there are people in opposition to this, and didn’t want to keep tabling the case. Atty. Zall said they’d be ok with six weeks out. Mr. Currier said he’s looking for a plan that shows where the driveway is, where all the spaces are. Atty. Zall said that they do need an engineer to draw it out and to show where the parking would be. He said that six weeks will give them enough time. He said they’d also supply info on how Zoning Board of Adjustment October 14, 2014 Page 24 the units are going to be reconstructed in the building. He said it will show what the units will look like. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to Table the request to the November 25, 2014 meeting, and will just hear the application again in its entirety. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: August 12, 2014, September 9, 2014 and September 23, 2014: No Action taken. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 10:35 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing