Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 25, 2014 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, November 25, 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. 1. City of Nashua (Owner) Amy Gill, Division of Public Works, Engineering (Applicant) 17 Stadium Drive (Sheet E Lot 2191) requesting special exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer on the southeast side of Mill Pond to construct an elevated pedestrian walkway and bank restoration over an existing eroded trail. PI Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Amy Gill, CSO Stormwater Engineer, City of Nashua DPW, 9 Riverside Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Gill said that the request is to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Mill Pond. She said that the proposal is to construct a 270 foot long elevated boardwalk, about 8 feet wide, over an existing trail. She said that it will be on the bank of Mill Pond, located between Mill Pond and Riverside Street, it is a very narrow strip of land. She said that the existing trail had bikers, Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 2 runners, and the bank has eroded, and during rainfall, it causes further erosion. She said that the boardwalk will make it a more uniform walking surface. Mrs. Gill said that once the boardwalk is constructed, the bank will be restored by planting native vegetation and the erosion will be stopped. She said that the project received approval from the Conservation Commission on October 7, 2014, with four stipulations, which the project intends to meet. She said that the project has no effect on traffic or parking, because it is an existing trail in the park. She said that the project also meets the nine special wetland conditions of the Ordinance. Mr. Boucher asked if the boards would be spaced from one another safely, and to meet any building code that is required. Mrs. Gill said it will. Mr. Currier said that this will be a great improvement, as there is a great view shed there, and it will stop the erosion. He said that there is a well-established hard dirt trail there. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the special exception on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the request is in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. He stated that the request will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety, actually the pedestrian safety will be improved for the park users. Mr. Currier stated that the use will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. He said that the special regulations are all met per testimony, including the nine special regulations, and the Board finds that the request will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of the residents, actually, it will be more in character with Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 3 the neighborhood of having a needed boardwalk in Mine Falls Park. Mr. Currier said that the minutes and record of the Conservation Commission are included, and all of their criteria will be adhered to. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Galen Rose (Owner) 7 Monica Drive (Sheet B Lot 854) requesting special exception to work in the 75-foot prime wetland buffer of Salmon Brook to construct a new single- family home [approved by ZBA on 9-10-13, requesting two year extension to secure a building permit]. R18 Zone, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Galen Rose, 7 Monica Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Rose said that last year, he received a special exception to work in the wetland buffer to construct two single-family homes, Lot 854 and Lot 855. He said that he built on Lot 855, and received a C.O. in June of this year, and the lot next door, an attempt was made to find a builder, and it didn’t pan out with the market. He said that he’s looking for an extension to the special exception to pursue building a house on the lot. He said that the neighborhood will be completed with this last lot. Mr. Rose said that the lot does border on Salmon Brook, and a portion of the lot is in the buffer. He said that there is a sixteen foot drop to the water. Mr. Johnson asked why he is seeking two years for an extension. Mr. Rose said that he’s not a developer, and the construction season is shortened up here due to the winter months. He said he’s hoping that he can get it built next year, but is asking for an extra year just in case. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 4 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Letter of support from Mr. Machell, 8 Monica Drive. Letter of support from Linda Bretz, 6 Tomolonis Drive. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Reppucci said that this Board has already approved this application last year, we would just be re-approving it and extending the time. Mr. Johnson asked about any history with granting requests above the one-year time frame. Mr. Reppucci said that now, the State of New Hampshire has a two-year time frame, but the local Ordinance has not been updated to reflect the two year period. Mr. Reppucci said that nothing significant has changed since this case was originally approved. Mr. Currier said that this is one single-family lot left out of a subdivision to be filled in, and there’s no gross issues where a couple years go by, that there would be a problem that we extended something for an extra year. He said that he didn’t see any issue with extending this request another year. Mr. Falk said that in his tenure here, there have only been a few times when someone has asked for additional time. He said that in this case, the wetlands ordinance is not anticipated to change at all, nor will any of the dimensional criteria to build a single-family home here. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve the special exception on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Boucher stated that the request is in the Table of Uses, Section 190-112. He stated that the request will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Boucher stated that the use will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. He said that the Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 5 special regulations are all met per testimony, including the nine special regulations, and the Board finds that the request will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, or be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of the residents. Mr. Boucher said that the minutes and record of the Conservation Commission are included and still in effect. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. Gregg R. & Melissa Kennedy (Owners) 11½ Joffre Street (Sheet 122 Lot 45) requesting special exception for a major home occupation for an in-home hair salon. RA Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Gregg Kennedy, 11½ Joffre Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Kennedy said that he is requesting a special exception for an in-home hair salon, for his wife. He said that they will not need any signage, it is appointment only, and part-time. He said that they have plenty of parking in their driveway. He said it is a single chair, with one shampoo bowl, so it’s not like a full- blown salon. Mr. Reppucci asked if there is anything that is less permission that the request. Mr. Falk said that the next step down is a minor home occupation, but with those, done administratively, there can be an average of three or less visits per week by clients, customers, deliveries, patients, etc. He said that most of the time, people don’t even know that there is a business there. He said if they’re having an average of more than three visits a week, it kicks it up to a major home occupation. Mr. Reppucci asked what the limits of a major home occupation are. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 6 Mr. Falk said that there is a limit of 300 square feet inside the principal structure, one non-resident employee, a 2 sq.ft sign. He said that most of the major home occupations that this Board considers are for hair/nail salons and child day care facilities. Mr. Currier said that he is supportive of the application, but doesn’t want it to turn into a Supercuts. He asked if the salon is going to be in the basement. Mr. Reppucci suggested keeping it as the applicant has suggested, with one chair. Mr. Kennedy said that the house is a two-family, it’s upstairs. Mr. Johnson said on the drawing, at the bottom of the corridor, it looks like there is wall that is being positioned, and if it’s there, he questioned how someone would get into the salon work area. Mr. Kennedy said that area is a coat-hanging area, there’s a bathroom there, and what used to be his office. He said that the access there will be up to the building code. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the special exception on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Currier stated that the request is in the Table of Uses, Section 190-47 B. He stated that the request will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Currier stated that the special exception would be with two stipulations, that it is a one-chair salon, with no employees other than the owner doing the work. He said that with those two stipulations, the use will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. He said that the special regulations are all met per testimony, the design of the Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 7 home with the salon will meet the major home occupation of 300 square feet or less. He said that the Board finds that the request will not impair the integrity or be out of character with the neighborhood, it will have one seat, without a lot of traffic, and it will not be detrimental to the health, morals or welfare of the residents. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. Constance P. Gosselin Rev. Trust (Owner) 356 Amherst Street (Sheet G Lot 50) requesting variance to exceed maximum wall sign area, 52.5 square feet permitted, 87.75 square feet proposed. GB Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Jonathan Ramirez, Capital Sign Group, Willis, TX. Mr. Ramirez said that he is representing AT&T. He said that he is requesting a second wall sign on Airport Road, to help with visibility on Amherst Street. He said that the total square footage is 68.5 sq.ft. Mr. Reppucci asked why the application is for 87.75 sq.ft. Mr. Ramirez said he wasn’t sure. Mr. Reppucci said that he needs to give an accurate square footage of what they are requesting for size. Mr. Ramirez asked if the City allows 1.5 times the linear frontage for the part of the building facing Airport Road, the side elevation. Mr. Reppucci said that the application indicates that 52.5 sq.ft is allowed, and 87.75 sq.ft is proposed. Mr. Ramirez questioned how the City comes up with the signage requirements. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 8 Mr. Falk said that wall sign area is based upon the street frontage. He said that the frontage is based on the address, based on Amherst Street. He said that it sounds like they are asking for signage based upon the frontage on both Amherst Street and Airport Road. He said it’s only based upon Amherst Street. He said that they get the frontage on Amherst Street, times 1.5, and that’s how many square feet of wall signage they are allowed. Further discussion ensued about the wall signage requirements. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said as you’re driving Amherst Street going west, you see the ground sign first, and then the existing wall sign. He said that when you get close to the site, he said that you’d see three AT&T signs, and questioned whether or not it’s really needed. He said that he’s struggling with this application. He asked about the Five Guys sign across the street. Mr. Falk said that the Five Guys space is very large, and they were permitted large wall sign area by right, they didn’t need a variance. Mr. Currier said that our sign ordinance is fair, and believed that if they’re held to the ordinance, it would not be problematic to their business. Mr. Johnson said that when you sit there and watch traffic, and if you miss the jug handle, you go by the property. He said that it is a static, crisp sign, and is supportive of it. Mr. Boucher said that the proposed sign really isn’t out of character, and it’s not too much, and is supportive. Mr. Reppucci said he’d like to see a presentation of the totality of the signs they expect to need. He said that it seems like a lot of people get an initial permit of almost what Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 9 they’re allowed to have, then come to the Board with a variance application. He said that Five Guys has so many signs on their building, it’ like sign central, there’s more signs in this area than anywhere else in the City. He said he is supportive of this application, as a smaller sign to meet the ordinance would be worse, and wouldn’t accomplish anything. Mr. Reppucci said that there are two letters that should be put into the record. He said one is from AT&T themselves, and the second one is from Chipotle, in support. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the variance request on behalf of the applicant 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 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. He said it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED 3-1 (Mr. Currier). 5. Kim & Stephen Zincavitch (Owners) 39 Robinhood Road (Sheet B Lot 1479) requesting variance to encroach 4½ feet into both 6 foot required side yard setbacks (from Robinhood Road and Nottingham Drive) to erect an 8’x18’ shed. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Kim Zincavitch, 39 Robinhood Road, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Zincavitch said that they have a tiny lot, and it’s where their dogs play. She said that having the shed six feet out, it would look like Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 10 it’s in the middle of the lawn. She said that they do have a fence around the yard, with an in-ground pool, and most of the yard is on the right side, with the pool. She said the rest of the application can speak for itself. Mr. Johnson asked about the shed that’s there right now. Mrs. Zincavitch said the shed is not put up yet. She said that they have an attached garage. Mr. Currier asked how tall the shed would be. Mrs. Zincavitch said she believes it will be twelve feet high, it has a gambrel look to the roof, she said it is an expensive shed. Mr. Currier asked if the vinyl fence wraps all the way around the back. Mrs. Zincavitch said it does, it’s six feet high. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said that the one and a half foot space at least gives them some room to rake it, and maintain it. He said that it will look neater back there. Mr. Reppucci asked if there will be any obstruction to the Fire Department to get around there. Mr. Currier said that whether or not the shed is there, he said it looks like you can get around on the right hand side where the driveway is. He said that with the street, and the topography, he didn’t know if you’d see the shed from the street. Mr. Boucher said he is very familiar with this neighborhood. He said the topography does go up to the back, so there should be no obstruction. He said that the applicant’s house looks nice Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 11 with the fence. He said that by them having the shed in the corner, it takes nothing away from the surrounding properties at all. He said that he is supportive of the application. Mr. Johnson said that there’s a nice fence there, and didn’t see any issue with the request, you probably won’t even see the shed. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance request on behalf of the applicant as advertised, with the stipulation that the shed height not to exceed 12 feet in height, as per testimony. Mr. Currier 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. Currier 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, the topography goes up in the back, and it shouldn’t impact the neighbors. He said it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done to enable the shed to be 1½ feet from the corner setbacks. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Claire McHugh (Owner) 61 Dublin Avenue (Sheet 53B Lot 17) requesting variance to encroach 20 feet into the 20 foot front yard setback (on Freedom Street) to maintain an 8’x14’ shed. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Claire McHugh, 61 Dublin Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mrs. McHugh read her application into the record, going over all the variance Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 12 points of law in detail. Mr. Currier asked if the shed went in in 2010. Mrs. McHugh said it did. Mr. Currier asked if she’s ever heard any complaints about the shed. Mrs. McHugh said she’s never heard any complaints about the shed. Mr. Currier asked if she maintains the grassed area between the hedges and the Freedom Street pavement. Mrs. McHugh said that she does, she treats it as her own. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. The Board spoke briefly about a neighbor who apparently had complained about the shed, however, nothing was formally submitted. MOTION by Mr. Boucher to approve the variance request 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, it’s a corner lot, and the shed doesn’t encroach upon an abutting property owner, 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 served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 25, 2014 Page 13 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:19 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Johnson, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing