Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 12, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Wednesday, November 12, 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. Colette Levesque (Owner) 4 Wilton Street (Sheet E Lot 1006) requesting the following: 1) special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit; and, the following variances: 2) to exceed maximum area of accessory dwelling unit, 700 sq.ft allowed – 730 sq.ft proposed, and 3) to exceed the maximum floor area for an accessory dwelling unit, 30% allowed - 39.4% proposed. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Dan Levesque, 13 Profile Circle, Nashua, NH. Mr. Levesque said that he is the applicant’s son. He said that the in-law apartment will be where his mother will stay, and he and his family will take over owning the home and will live upstairs. He said he and his wife will be able to help his mother out with the house. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 2 Mr. Currier asked about the 730 square feet, and stated that it’s just over the 700 square foot maximum area, and asked to explain how it’s laid out. Mr. Levesque said it’s one bedroom, one bathroom, kitchen, living room. Mr. Currier asked if Mr. Levesque is aware of the Code requirements for the in-law apartment, and read them for the applicant. Mr. Levesque said that they’ll meet all the requirements. Mr. Shaw asked to clarify the 730 square feet, as the plans state that it’s a 26’x 40’ measurement. Mr. Levesque said his figures came from the contractor. Mr. Falk said that some of the space downstairs wouldn’t count towards the total, as it is common area, such as the mechanical room, computer room, stairways, hallways, storage room, laundry room. He said it’s his understanding that the in-law portion would actually be 730 square feet in area, and the rest of it would be common space. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance requests on behalf of the owner as advertised, both variances taken together. Mr. Currier stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is an in-law apartment in the basement, it’s a standard ranch-sized house and the basement will be used for the in-law, the 30% usually ends up in an overage on the size. Mr. Currier said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and the Board finds that it won’t Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 3 affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the special exception request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-32. Mr. Currier stated that it will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, the special regulations are all fulfilled, and the use will not impair the integrity or be out of character or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of the residents, as there will be no exterior changes to the house. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. 53 Deerwood Hollow, LLC. (Owner) Headlines Boutique, LLC (Applicant) 35-41 East Hollis Street (Sheet 30 Lot 66) requesting variance to exceed maximum ground sign height, 10 feet allowed, 12’-7” granted by Zoning Board on 2-27-01 - 14 feet proposed. D-1/MU Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Tyler Tulchinsky, 742 Shore Drive, Laconia, NH. Mr. Tulchinsky said that they’d like to extend the height of the sign to a height of 14 feet, it is 12’-7” now. He said that the current sign is rectangular in shape, and the proposed sign would be oval shape. He said that because of the oval shape, it would be 17 inches higher than the rectangular shape. He said that they’re just replacing the top of the sign, the rest of the sign Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 4 would stay the same, the lower half would all remain as is. Mr. Tulchinsky said that the new sign would be a wood-carved sign, with fluorescent lights shining down at it, so, it’s a cleaner, classier looking sign than the present one. He said that their Rochester store has the same sign, and the one in North Conway has the same one, only it’s a smaller version. Mr. Shaw said that in order to keep the present height, the proposed oval shape would have to be shrunk so significantly, that it wouldn’t look right. Mr. Currier asked about the fluorescent light, and if it would hang down and shine on the sign. Mr. Tulchinsky said that because the sign is not a lit sign, it would have no lighting, it would have two curved arms that come out on each side, and would have an angled fluorescent light pointing right at the sign. Mr. Currier asked if there were a stipulation that the sign stays as externally lit. Mr. Tulchinsky said that is fine. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance request 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, the applicant is trying to universalize the sign with their other shops, it’s essentially an oval shape, and the top of the oval touches up to the 14 feet, and it only touches it on the center, and tapers down. Mr. Currier said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, given the D-1/MU zone, its right next to the GB zone, and it’s not out of character with the area. He said it will not negatively affect property values, by Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 5 testimony, the sign will be externally lit, and tastefully made out of wood, and the Board finds that it’s not against the public interest, and substantial justice is served. He said that it will be an externally lit sign. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Mark A. Berkovich (Owner) 25-27 Greeley Street (Sheet 63 Lot 47) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 4,390 sq.ft existing, 24,891 sq.ft required – to convert a three- family building into a four-family building. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Mark Berkovich, 41 King Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Berkovich said that he is requesting to convert the existing three units into four units. He said that the building was originally built as three units, there are two units on the left side, and one on the right side, it is a strange, doubled apartment. He said in looking at the building, it looks like it should be four units. Mr. Berkovich said it would be natural to have the building have four units. He said that the one big unit has three/four bedrooms, and sometimes more people can be living in it, because it’s so big inside. He said that the two one-bedroom units don’t have many cars. He said by having the extra unit, it will actually result in less cars on the property. Mr. Reppucci asked if the building has always been used as a three-family building. Mr. Berkovich said yes. Mr. Reppucci asked how many rooms are in the large unit. Mr. Berkovich said that it has seven rooms. It has two exits. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 6 Mr. Currier asked about the parking. He said on the right hand side, there’s a dumpster. Mr. Berkovich said that the parking for this building is across the street, there is room for six or seven cars. He said that they’re from Housing Authority. Mr. Currier asked if he owned the parking area on the left side of the house. Mr. Berkovich said that area is not owned by him, he said that Nashua Housing Authority owns the house on the left. Mr. Reppucci asked if he has contacted the City to determine what would be required to convert the building into a four- family. Mr. Berkovich said not yet, and stated that he understands that it will cost some money. He said he knows that he will invest the money into it to make it a nice place to live. Mr. Reppucci said that the fire requirements to go to a four- family might be pretty expensive. Mr. Berkovich said that he’s ready, and understands that he’ll have to invest the money, possibly with sprinklers. Mr. Currier asked how many bedrooms are in each of the three units. Mr. Berkovich said in unit #1 and #2, on the left side, they have one bedroom and one living room, a kitchen and a bathroom. He said that on the second floor, it’s exactly the same thing. He said the other side, they are together, the kitchen upstairs was demolished, but there is some plumbing. He said for the bedrooms, it depends on how you want to use the rooms. He said that what is supposed to be the living room, is used as a bedroom, and there’s a kitchen on the first floor, but on the second floor, instead of the kitchen, it is a room that has one entrance to the bathroom, and another entrance to what is supposed to be the living room. He said that there are two other bedrooms. He said it is unique. He said that you have to walk through two bedrooms to get to the bathroom. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 7 Mr. Currier said he’d like to see a current and proposed floor plan, it would help in evaluating the request. Mr. Shaw said that the plan, if approved, would be to make unit #3, and make a unit #3 and a unit #4, that would look just like units #1 and #2. Mr. Berkovich agreed. He said it would be minor work to make it how it was before. Mr. Shaw said that ultimately, there would be four one-bedroom apartments if this is approved. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Lisa Scontsas, 24 Courtland Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Scontsas said that this house was probably originally a two-family. She said it has parking for six cars from the City, and there’s a lot to the side of the property that is so dug out from people parking on the grass. She said that this house cannot support eight cars, two per unit. She said that the north end cannot take any more of these houses. Mr. Reppucci said that the applicant is not looking to add any living space to this house, he said that the seven-room apartment is going to be rented to people who have multiple cars, and there could be multiple adults living there. He said it could be looked at as a reasonable view to convert the building to four one-bedroom apartments, it would decrease the activity there. Mrs. Scontsas disagreed. Ald. Jim Donchess, 4 Rockland Street, Nashua, NH. Ald. Donchess said that there is 24,000 square feet of land that is required, plus parking, he said that they have only 4,000 square feet, with no parking. He said that the applicant has not shown a hardship as to why this is necessary, and why it doesn’t work as a three-unit building. He said he looked at some old tax records to see if it’s ever been a four-family, and from 1994, it’s been three units. He said he has a record from 1980 and it Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 8 shows it was three units. He said that just because the size of the building is not increasing, that shouldn’t be cause to allow a variance to increase the number of units. He said that they have not submitted any information to justify granting a variance. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Berkovich said the right side of the building is not to be used for his tenants, they are not allowed. He said that in the lease, for the one-bedroom apartments, one car parking is allowed. He said for the maximum, four cars for the whole building, if converted. He said if the building is converted, there will be less people living here, with less cars. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mrs. Scontsas said that the house was probably originally a two- family, and having it get changed inside, and people manipulate it, and next thing you know, it’s grandfathered, and something else happens. She said the north end of Nashua is something to be very proud of, and there is a problem with zoning and parking. She said that this area has problems with parking, and adding a unit adds more. Mr. Reppucci said that every applicant, every application, has to be taken individually, on its own merit. He said that the collective idea that we have to look out for a neighborhood, he said that doesn’t come in for him, as it’s beyond what the Boards scope is to do. He said the Board is just getting testimony in opposition to applications that are just general opposition to expansion, not really speaking to an application. He said he could see a lot of benefits to the City to allow this, it’s a very old house that was a four family before 1980. He said by approving this, it would make the building be brought up to Code. He said that these types of improvements makes the City better, and safer. He said that the presentation by the applicant makes sense. Mr. Shaw said that he was hoping to see some stronger evidence about the unit count. He asked if Mr. Falk had any other history of the unit count. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 9 Mr. Falk said that the building file is thin, and there is no information or history of the number of units, and the Assessing records only go back so far. Mr. Shaw said he’s focusing on the intensity of use, and said that there’s something to be said about having about the three- four bedroom unit, on whether some of those rooms are technically bedrooms by Code if they don’t have a closet. He said they have two one-bedroom units and a three or four bedroom unit, there is the question of the intensity of the use. He said his main concern is the intensity of the building. Mr. Currier said he believes it is more intensive of a use. He said he was surprised to learn that none of the parking is for this unit. He said that there is no evidence that the parking spaces across the street are tied to this unit for their parking. Mr. Shaw said that the parking was through the Housing Authority, and that those six spaces were allocated through the Housing Authority. Mr. Currier said that even though the large unit is unique, there is still an opportunity to change walls around and change the interior. He asked if they need a site plan for the four units. Mr. Falk said that with four units, they will need a site plan. Mr. Johnson asked if Staff had any information, or history, or records about the parking arrangement with the Housing Authority. Mr. Falk said that there is no information in the building file about it, it’s a private matter between them. Mr. Johnson said that he didn’t see any substantial justice in this case. Mr. Boucher said that there’s been a lot of discussion about the larger unit and the potential number of people living there and the parking. He said it’s hard to look at the potential problems in the future, as opposed to looking at the other side, where there may be potential benefits to be had by supporting Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 10 this application. He said if it’s just the parking issue, maybe they could contact the Housing Authority to get more space. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board should look at properties with the limitations that they have, sometimes people find parking at one of the garages, or they make arrangements with another property owner. He said that sometimes it is self-controlling. Mr. Johnson said that when the Board sees an application with a minimal encroachment, most of the Board gravitates towards it meeting the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said that the existing and required land area in this case is a struggling point. He said that the land area is a stretch, and even with three it is, and going to four units is quite pronounced when they’re asking for this large of a variance. Mr. Boucher asked in reference to the parking, if it would be reasonable to get the facts on whether or not there is assigned parking, if there is something that exists for offsite parking. He asked if this is enough to table the application. Mr. Currier said that if there is an agreement that runs with the land, that’s one thing, but if it doesn’t run with the land, that’s different. Mr. Reppucci said if it’s Nashua Housing Authority, it might be Section 8 housing, if that’s the case, there’s no commitment by any landlord to stay with Section 8 housing. He said that just because they may be associated with Nashua Housing Authority now, that doesn’t mean that they will be a month or a year from now. Mr. Johnson said that if the case was tabled to get a better understanding of the parking, it would be helpful, and we’d have a better insight, and floor plans would be great to see to get a better understanding of the layout. He said he would appreciate further information with specifics of the parking, and also what is going on inside the home as well. Mr. Shaw asked if that information was available, would it be enough to overcome the unit count of four units versus three units. He said he senses that it seems unsurmountable regardless of the parking, and the number of bedrooms, or the layout. He said if the building is brought up to Code for a four family, that would be a nice outcome, but doesn’t think Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 11 it’s sufficient to be really a factor in the consideration, it’s a great result. He said that if the other factors weren’t an issue, he said he could say yes to the conversion to four units. Mr. Johnson said that the Board has been very flexible in the past, but not this flexible. At this point, the Board took a 5-minute break. Mr. Johnson asked to confirm, if this is to be approved, that a site plan would be required. Mr. Falk said yes. 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. He said it was the applicant’s testimony that the configuration of the unit that is going to be split is uncommon and would be brought more in line with a reasonable use. Mr. Reppucci 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, there was no testimony on that issue one way or another. He said it is not contrary to the public interest, there was some opposition testimony and concerns about the density of the neighborhood, but the finders of this motion find that it doesn’t rise to the level required to deny this, and substantial justice is done. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED 3-2. (Mr. Currier and Mr. Shaw) 4. Redes Realty, LLC (Owner) Michael McAdam (Applicant) 28 Charron Avenue, Unit #1 (Sheet E Lot 1350) requesting use variance to allow for private music lessons in a portion of an existing building. AI Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 12 Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that the property is a horseshoe-shaped building, and the applicant is purchasing the end unit on the right side. He said that when the building was built, it had one landlord, one owner. He said that subsequently, the building was put into condominiums, and there are a lot of different tenants. Atty. Prunier said that he’s been before the Board twice in the past for variances, once for a hairdresser, and one for a dog grooming use, and there have been others before the Board. He said that most of the spaces are 2,000-3,000 square feet. He said that the building spaces don’t lend themselves to industrial uses. He said that the building doesn’t have loading docks, they’re better intended for small businesses, professional businesses. Atty. Prunier said that the applicant offers music lessons. He said that there is adequate parking for the use, and will not infringe upon any other business in the building, and no exterior changes will be made. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Neal Barrett, Colliers International, Manchester, NH. Mr. Barrett said that the space was last set up for an IT company, they outgrew the space, and moved out. He said that the building has a lot of mixed uses, and a lot of non-traditional industrial uses. He said most of the units are between 2,000- 2,500 square feet, with mezzanine space. He said that the economics and operations of the uses in the building fit very well, and the proposed use would be a good use for the building. He said that the building doesn’t lend itself well to industrial uses. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 13 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 the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, he said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels. He said it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: October 14, 2014: Mr. Reppucci said that on Page 22, there was testimony in the 3rd paragraph down, that Attorney Hollis read into the record. He said that he thought that Attorney Zall said it instead. Mr. Falk said that Staff would check it, and make the change if necessary. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the October 14, 2014 minutes with the potential change just mentioned, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 12, 2014 Page 14 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0 (Mr. Shaw abstained) ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:30 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing