Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 28, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, October 28, 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. 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. [TABLED FROM 10-14-14 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Rob Shaw – [Not voting on this case] Mr. Reppucci said that this case was tabled from the previous meeting, and it was done so strictly to address the status of the property in 2007, and any information that goes into that we will consider. He said the Board is not going through the whole case again, we’ve heard all the opposition and Ald. Donchess’s position, and anyone can speak to only the status of the property in 2007. He said the Board is only going to hear about Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 2 the status of the property in 2007. Mr. Shaw said he wasn’t present two weeks ago, and won’t be voting on the case. Jeff Bridgham, 20 Courtland Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Bridgham said that he converted the property to a single-family in 2009, not 2007 as previously stated. He said in 1985 there was a plot plan drawn up for a two-family dwelling unit, with a floor plan, and the Assessing records show in 1991 that it was a two-family dwelling unit. He said after he purchased it in 2009, he pulled a building permit to change it from a two-family to a single- family, with an in-law, and has a permit for that as well. He said that the Board has all this information. Mr. Reppucci said that Mr. Falk provided a lot of information about the property, as records that the City has. Mr. Currier said that there is a lot more information here tonight in the package, he said it’s a much clearer picture of what’s happened. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Ald. Jim Donchess, 4 Rockland Street, Nashua, NH. Ald. Donchess said that he addressed the issue of hardship the last time when this case was heard. He said that this section of Courtland Street, west of Webster Street, has been changing the other way, from two-family to one-family, and there’s a whole section of one-family homes, this being one of them. He said in his view, it’s not good for the neighborhood, nor is there a hardship that is proved. He said the conversion to a two-family took place in 1985, but at that time, there was no request to the ZBA for a variance, which raises the question as to whether this was ever a legal two-family. Mr. Reppucci said at that time it was conforming, it’s zoned for two-family residences, and the property at that time was conforming in 1985, so there was no need for going to the Zoning Board. He said that the Code has been amended since that time, though. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 3 Mr. Falk said that two-family units only needed 9,000 square feet of land at that time, so it was completely conforming at that time. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: No one. Mr. Reppucci said it’s a very small area request, comparative to what the Board has seen. He said the Board would be hard pressed to deny the request, it would be putting it back to what it was just a few years ago, and is comfortable with that. Mr. Currier said the records show it clearly as a two-family. He said the additional information has cleared that issue up for him. He said he’s supportive of the application, but this doesn’t mean it’s a carte-blanche approval for any multi-family that went down in the number of units, it’s not a free pass to go back up. He said he didn’t see any imminent danger, like inadequate parking, to not support it going to a two-family again. He said it’s a reasonable request. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance request 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. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, this property was used as a two-family legally up until 2009, when the property owner voluntarily converted it to a single-family, and now wants to bring it back to where it was. Mr. Reppucci 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, he said that there was opposition to the application, but the Board finds that it Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 4 didn’t meet the standard of being contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Ballinger Properties, LLC & BT Realty Limited Partnership, Joanne Charron and Towers Motor Parts Corporation of Nashua (Owners) 242 Main Street, 1 & 5 East Hollis Street (Sheet 31 Lots 1, 2 & 6) requesting the following: 1) use variance to allow a drive-through facility accessory to a permitted pharmacy; and, 2) variance to allow vehicle stacking distance of approximately 95 feet – 160 feet required. D- 1/MU Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Attorney John Sokul, Hinckley Allen & Snyder, LLP, Concord, NH. Atty. Sokul said that he has the site civil engineer and the site traffic engineer with him to present, if there are any questions, also, a representative from CVS. Atty. Sokul said that they are looking to redevelop the existing CVS store at the corner of Main Street and East Hollis Street. He said that two other buildings are involved, they all will be torn down. He said that there will be a new approximately 13,000 square foot CVS, along with shared parking. He said that they are requesting a variance for the drive-through use, which is prohibited in this district, and a variance for a 95-foot long stacking lane, where 160 feet is required. He said that they’ve met with City Staff on two occasions to go over plans, and some good feedback and comments have gone into the plans. Atty. Sokul said that the City has asked that the building be moved to the street, right at the corner. He said that there will be two separate entrances to the building, one on the corner, and another entrance on East Hollis Street. He said that the building will have the appearance as a two-story Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 5 building, and the sidewalk on Main Street will be improved to make it match what is being done on the other parts of sidewalks that are being done in the area. He pointed out an existing light pole in the existing sidewalk area, which creates a pedestrian impediment, and it’ll be relocated. Atty. Sokul said that by relocating the building to the corner only allows one spot where the drive-through can go. He said that they’ve done their best to balance what the City wants and CVS’s experience in drive-throughs. He said that the design has been reviewed by a civil and a traffic engineer and believe that it functions very well in this location. He said that the application is very detailed and thorough. He said that drive- throughs in downtowns are usually prohibited to avoid safety conflicts with pedestrians in the downtown area. He said that a Dunkin’ Donuts or a McDonald’s drive-through has much heavier traffic, and a significant percentage of the customers use the drive-through. He said that for the CVS drive-through, it is a much smaller percentage of the overall customers use the drive- through, it’s a much more passive use. He said that there is precedent in this area, as Citizens Bank has a drive-through, and Walgreens also has one. Atty. Sokul said that the drive-through is provided for the benefit of Nashua citizens and customers of the CVS, parents of ill children, pregnant women, elderly, disabled people who can’t get out of their car will benefit by the drive-through to get their prescription medicines. He said it would be limited to prescription medication pickup. He said that it will be consistent with the public interest. Atty. Sokul said that the redevelopment of the site will be in the spirit and intent of the ordinance, as it’s consistent with the City’s Master Plan and the ordinance. He said that the stacking distance of 95 feet will allow for the stacking of five cars safely, and the traffic study indicates that at the most, there would be three cars in queue at peak hours. Atty. Sokul said that substantial justice is served because when the harm to the public is outweighed by the benefit to the applicant, and here, there won’t be any impact or harm to the public, it will result in the public good. Atty. Sokul said that the value of surrounding properties will not be diminished, it will be good for the area, it will fit in Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 6 to the corner, and be consistent with the City’s Master Plan for this intersection, and will enhance property values. Atty. Sokul said that the hardship here is met, it’s a distinct property identified in the Master Plan, it’s called a 100% corner, and some of the design goals that the City is trying to achieve here with the building location create the need for the location of the drive-through in this location, and it’s a passive drive-through, it’s not a fast-food drive-through. He said that the proposed use is a reasonable one, the CVS store is allowed as a permitted use. Mr. Johnson pointed out the traffic flow for the drive-through, and confirmed how vehicles would access it. He said he studied the CVS in South Nashua to see vehicle movement, and in comparing it to the proposed drive-through, it is a reasonable request. Mr. Currier asked about the left-only lane going west-bound on Hollis Street, and asked if it is part of the application, with the parking removed. Atty. Sokul said yes, they are seeking to eliminate the on- street parking spaces, there are four or five of them, and they are working on that. Mr. Currier asked about traffic leaving, that want to go south on Main Street, what is the intended travel leaving the site. Atty. Sokul said that there are two ways to do it, and pointed it out on the map. F. Giles Ham, P.E., Managing Partner, Vanesse & Associates, Andover, MA. Mr. Ham described how cars could go south on Main Street leaving the site, it’s the same as what exists today. Mr. Currier asked if the parking for the redeveloped site will be separate from the hospital’s parking. Atty. Sokul said that there will be a cross-access agreement with the hospital. Mr. Currier said that the traffic study indicates a slight increase in the number of cars, but the building square footage would be less. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 7 Atty. Sokul said that they are projecting an increase in traffic at this site. Mr. Ham said that they’ve tried to be very conservative, the reality is that two businesses are being taken away and maintaining an existing one, but in theory the CVS is getting bigger, so there will be more product, and most likely, the parking will be a wash. Mr. Boucher mentioned the delivery area. He said that at the CVS on South DW Highway, when the trailer comes, it restricts, or blocks a lane of traffic. He asked if there will be a restriction on deliveries, especially when the loading dock is right at the drive-through lane. Brian Dundon, P.E., Site Civil Engineer, RJ O’Connell & Associates, Stoneham, MA. Mr. Dundon said that typically, CVS has one tractor-trailer sized delivery per week, and they have it scheduled to occur during non-peak hours during the day. He said that they shut the drive-through window down during the time as product is being unloaded from the delivery truck. Mr. Boucher said that sometimes, he sees other vendors besides CVS vendors, like Coca-Cola. Mr. Dundon said that some of the smaller vendor trucks will park in the site, and park for 10-15 minutes and leave, it’s a fast turnaround. Mr. Boucher asked if the drive-through is shut down for a delivery, if the exit lane would be also blocked for people to exit the property and take a right onto Main Street. Mr. Dundon said that all access points to the site will be open at all times, there will be no conflicts. Mr. Reppucci asked how a tractor trailer would get in the drive- through lane if there is a curb. Mr. Dundon said that as the truck enters the site, if coming from Main Street, take a left into the site, it’ll back into the loading zone. He described how the truck would maneuver the turning. He said it’s all open and non-obstructed. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 8 Mr. Reppucci asked if anyone considered the drive-through to go the other way, or any other location on the building. Mr. Dundon said that if the drive-through is on the right hand side, the car is on the left hand side, and the calling station and window has to be on the driver’s side. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said that the City has a good Master Plan for downtown, and this site meets that criteria, and three old buildings are being taken down and being replaced with a larger one. He said the left-turn traffic and the drive-through are tough, but the applicants responses are sound, and that the pharmacy drive-through has much less traffic in the queue. He said that there are many positive attributes for this plan, and is supportive of the design. He said that there are some questions about the delivery receiving area, but is supportive of the project. Mr. Shaw said he is supportive of the project, and said that the drive-through would be for the pharmacy usage, and not for fast food or other usage. He said that he understands that modern pharmacies like having the drive-throughs, and said that there is a good balance between all the parking and automobile and pedestrian activity at the site. He said the drive-through shouldn’t negatively impact any of the pedestrian safety in the area. Mr. Boucher said he is supportive of the application, and if CVS chooses to shut down the drive-through for deliveries, it’s fair. He said that often times, drivers will see a couple cars in the drive-through and they’ll just park and walk in, because they think it’ll be faster. Mr. Reppucci said he’s supportive, as long as the drive-through is used for pharmaceutical usage, not for other items coming out of the store. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 9 MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance requests, both requests taken together, on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a CVS pharmacy with a drive-through, by testimony, the queue lines for a pharmacy are much shorter than typical, and the Board finds that it is reasonable to allow the shorter stacking distance. Mr. Currier said that he’s making a stipulation on the motion that the drive-through facility is limited only to pick up or drop-off of prescription pharmacy orders. Mr. Currier said that with that stipulation, the Board believes that there will a shorter stacking distance and the 95 feet is reasonable, and to have the drive-through in the Downtown. Mr. Currier said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is consistent with the City’s Downtown Master Plan, it is not contrary to the public interest, as it is within the public interest to fulfill the Master Plan for Downtown, and substantial justice is served is served for not only the applicant, but for the abutters as well. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Mark S. & Melissa W. Swidler (Owners) 21 Jill Drive (Sheet C Lot 1934) requesting variance to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed – 45% proposed – to construct a detached 24’x26’ garage. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Mark Swidler, 21 Jill Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Swidler said that they are planning on constructing a detached garage for storing Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 10 two vehicles and some other merchandise for his wife’s business, and some lawn and garden equipment. He said that they have an in-ground swimming pool that is over 600 square feet, so between the garage and the pool, and one small shed, the variance for the accessory use area is being requested. Mr. Johnson asked about the shed. Mr. Swidler said that one shed was removed, there is a small pool shed that is included in the 5% over the accessory use area. Mr. Falk said the accessory structures are comprised of the swimming pool, the shed, and the proposed garage. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Shaw said that if the garage was attached to the house, this wouldn’t be an issue, it would be part of the principal structure. Mr. Currier said that it is a uniquely shaped lot, at the end of a cul-de-sac, so the garage can’t be squeezed up front. Mr. Shaw said that in their application, they stated that it’s the only place the garage can reasonably be placed. Mr. Currier said the garage isn’t overcrowding the lot, and it should be in harmony with the neighborhood. Mr. Falk said that the garage is conforming for height and setbacks. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Johnson stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, and the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 11 method reasonably feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Johnson said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, he said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served, and the applicant has taken care to seek the minimum of variances, and has exercised care in setting the garage in a location where it is away from the setback, and it is in conformity with the neighborhood. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: August 12, 2014, August 26, 2014, September 9, 2014 and September 23, 2014: 8-12-14: Mr. Currier said on Page 20 and 21, it was the discussion about the rehearing process. He said that the minutes stated that he and Mr. Reppucci agreed it was beyond the thirty days and that was it. He said that everybody weighed in and it was a universal discussion on it. He said that the Board came to a consensus. He suggested that it read that the Board established consensus that the letter from Attorney Westgate is beyond the window. He suggested the word “concurs” instead of “believes”. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the August 12, 2014 minutes with the change just mentioned, waive the reading, and place in the file. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 12 SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 (Mr. Shaw abstained) 8-26-14: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the August 26, 2014 minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0 (Mr. Reppucci and Mr. Shaw abstained). 9-9-14: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the September 9, 2014 minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 9-23-14: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the September 9, 2014 minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 (Mr. Shaw abstained). Mr. Falk said that the Meeting Dates for 2015 was in the package. He said that Staff checked the dates, and believes everything is ok. Mr. Currier said he’d like the chance to review it a little more. He said he’s concerned about a meeting falling on Election Day. Mr. Shaw said the only issue is if it’s a Primary Election. He said that next year is the municipal election, so there will be a Mayoral primary. Mr. Shaw said that Election Day can only be between November 2nd Zoning Board of Adjustment October 28, 2014 Page 13 and November 8th. He said it’s the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Staff said they’d verify the dates. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing