Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING February 24, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 6:30 PM in the Auditorium at City Hall. Rick Johnson, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Kathy Vitale Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Johnson explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Johnson 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. Johnson also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. Keith P. & Sara A. Roy (Owners) 22 Fairview Avenue (Sheet 89 Lot 50) requesting variance to encroach 6 feet into the 10 foot required right side yard setback to construct a one story 15’x26’ home addition. RA Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rick Johnson Kathy Vitale Mr. Roy said that their application is complete, and is ready for questions from the Board. He said their request is to encroach 6 feet into the 10 foot right side yard setback for a home addition. Mr. Currier asked if the addition is going to be one or two stories. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 2 Mr. Roy said he’s looking to follow the main roof line of the home, it’s a cape-style home, and the top floor is an attic area, it would drop down about a foot lower than the existing roof line. Mr. Currier said that the house at 24 Fairview is somewhat close to the property line. Mr. Roy said the abutting neighbor is about 6 feet from the property line, both on the left and right of his property. He said he’s requesting four feet. Mr. Currier asked if the addition would have a foundation and frost wall. Mr. Roy said that he’d be doing a full foundation, a full basement. Ms. Vitale asked if he has had any conversations with the Fire Department for access into the back yard. Mr. Roy said he hadn’t, but would leave access to the back yard, there would be a four foot gate on that side. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Dolores Pacheco, 32 Foxmeadow Lane, Merrimack, NH. Ms. Pacheco said that she is the daughter and primary caregiver for her parents at 24 Fairview Avenue, Mr. & Mrs. Smith. She said they’ve lived there for the past 66 years. She said that they are not in favor of the variance. She said that these lots are very small, and it’s important for her parents to not be stressed out about this. Ms. Pacheco said that the proposed change would leave the houses ten feet apart, and her parent’s master bedroom is the room closest to the proposed addition. She said that the addition will encroach upon them, and their privacy will be compromised, additionally, there is very little parking available, and allowing an increase in size of the home at 22 Fairview Avenue increases the potential now and in the future for more drivers, Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 3 more cars, and parking issues for the neighborhood. She said that the proposed addition will be out of character with the neighborhood, and will create a burden on her parents selling their home in the future, and would depreciate the value of their home. She said that this would cause an undue burden to them. Ms. Vitale asked if there have been any additions put onto her parents’ home. Ms. Pacheco said that there haven’t been any; it’s been the same way since 1949. Mr. Shaw asked if the Board granted a four foot encroachment instead of a 6 foot encroachment, if that would be satisfactory. Ms. Pacheco said that they’d still be opposed to that, it’s still pretty tight as it is, they’re only 6 feet from the property line. Maurice Smith, 24 Fairview Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Smith said he concurs with what his daughter stated. He said the main objection is that the houses would be too close together, and it could hurt his resale value. He said that when he built his house in 1949, the zoning law at that time was five feet on one side, and ten feet on the other side, and he built it at 6 feet. He said that his neighbors are nice, and he’s worried about the value of his property going down. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Roy said that he has a stockade fence that runs the entire length of the side property line, which is 19 feet of stockade fence, which is 6 foot high. He said that there won’t be any windows on that side of the addition, and there won’t be any air conditioners on that wall either. He said he’s not sure what this would do to their property value. He said that windows will be on the front and rear of the addition only, so all noise and disturbing or foot traffic will not be on that side of the house, as the entrance is on the left side of the house. Ms. Vitale asked how many feet there are between the side of the house and the property line. Mr. Roy said it is 19 feet. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Johnson asked if the Board were to grant a four foot encroachment, could he work with that. Mr. Roy said they could, he said that ultimately he doesn’t want the neighbors to be upset. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: None. Mr. Currier said that his inclination is to stay within the rules when possible. He said he’s hearing the discussion of a lesser encroachment, but is against the application right now. Mr. Shaw said he’d possibly be open to a lesser encroachment, perhaps a 3 foot encroachment, and said that with the stipulations it may be ok, but is very sensitive towards the abutter. He said that the abutter’s house is close to the property line, but they built it according to Code standards from that time and there was a different setback requirement. Ms. Vitale said that 10’x13’ sized bedroom is not an unusual bedroom size. She said the house has a pool in the back, and there are a number of safety issues. Mr. Boucher said that there was a concern about the valuation about the home if this was built, but didn’t see anything in front of us about the value of the neighbor’s house going down. He said that the applicant seems to have addressed privacy issues, since there will be nothing on that side of the house. He said he’d agree to a compromise, of a 12-foot addition, for a 3-foot encroachment. He said that the addition may even raise the valuation of the neighborhood. Mr. Johnson agreed about the property values. He said that with the stipulations of no windows, fencing in place, minimizing noise production, and being willing to accept the 12 foot versus 15 foot room size, which would equate to a 3 foot incursion, normally the setbacks are 10 feet, so he’d still be adhering to 7 feet. He said he’d support an encroachment of 3 feet. Mr. Currier said that typically an addition like this would have windows on that side. He said he appreciates the abutters concerns for peaceful quiet living. He said if the Board allows Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 5 a 3 foot encroachment, and stipulates that that side is walled off, for the neighbor next door it’s a peaceful situation than a typical addition with windows. He said if the Board also were to stipulate that the roof line would be about a foot lower and follow the same roof line, and that there would be no walkway, sheds or any language that there wouldn’t be a driveway or shelter, or horseshoe pit that would make a lot of noise, it would go far to the abutters favor. Mr. Shaw said that they could do a 9 foot addition with no relief from the City, and they’d be under no constraints to not place windows or do anything else on that side, so giving them a few feet of relief with those stipulations, they’ll have a much more useable space, and yet would be less burdensome. He said overall it’s a good compromise. Ms. Vitale agreed, she said if we go to 3 feet, she’d like no windows on that side, and no utilities on that side of the home, plus, 3 feet is better access in case there is an emergency. Mr. Johnson said that the applicant seemed willing to do these compromises, and they are sensitive to the neighbors. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw stated that the Board is going to support a reduced encroachment with would be a 3-foot encroachment, where 10 feet is required by law, which would allow for construction of a one-story, 12’x26’ home addition. Mr. Shaw said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, the testimony and the application noted that this side of the house is the only feasible place to place an addition of this size, and with the large family looking to expand their bedrooms. Mr. Shaw said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, he said that there has been testimony expressing concern about the effect on property values of surrounding parcels, in this case, the direct abutter, but there’s no expert testimony about that, and the Board feels that it’s possible that there may be a slight effect one way or another, but no evidence that there would be an adverse effect. He said it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Shaw said that for stipulations of approval, there will be no windows constructed on that right side of the addition, there will not be any placement of any noise-producing devices such as an air conditioner, heat pump, generator or any other kind of facility, and there will not be any constructed pathways or active recreational areas on that side of the house. He said it is for a single-story addition, and that the roofline would match the existing roof line, and would be approximately one foot lower. SECONDED by Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. Circle to Land, LLC (Owner) Christopher Hoffman (Applicant) 10 Lake Avenue (Sheet 92 Lot 80) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 12,445 sq.ft required, 11,067 sq.ft existing (10,342 sq.ft from submitted survey) – to remove an existing single-family home and construct a new two- family home. RB Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Rick Johnson Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Chris Hoffman, 10 Lake Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Hoffman said that the house has already been removed, it was an old structure out of compliance, and there were a lot of problems with it. He said that the lot is a 5-sided corner lot with a paper street, and there was a slight discrepancy with the lot area. He said that they’re trying to open up the neighborhood Mr. Hoffman said that he’d like the house to be set back, with a nice corner open area. He said that all the big trees in the neighborhood are in risk of coming down, they’re too close to foundations, and roots are coming through. Mr. Currier asked about the existing garage, and if it fronts Woodward Avenue. Mr. Hoffman said he’s been investigating the paper street and Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 7 the history of it. He said that the City has taken out that portion of the end of Woodward Avenue, and the land has been divided between the two abutters, and it doesn’t run the whole length behind the garage. He said it’s a 5-sided lot with no paper street in back of it. He said the garage will just become a workshop, and will have materials to maintain the property. Mr. Currier said that the proposed building looks to be a three- story. Mr. Hoffman said that they did some test digging, and there’s concern there is asbestos buried on the site, and there’s at least a five-foot thick bedrock layer underneath the ground. He said the third story may be an attic that will come off, because it will be too high. He said that he is going to amend it to be a two-story with 10-foot interior walls for the second floor. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Letter from Nick Miseirvitch, 32 Linwood Avenue, Nashua NH. Mr. Johnson read the letter into the record. He said the letter mentioned building height and number of units, which has been discussed by the Board, it will be 2 stories after all, and two units. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Hoffman said that the neighbor mentioned an 8 foot high fence, which he can’t do without a variance. He said that he’s not going to ask for a variance for an 8-foot fence. He said that he recognizes his concerns. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a two-family home, this property is unique in shape and size, in that it’s a five-sided property, and it’s a large size for the area, so the Board finds that a two-family would not be out of character with the neighborhood. He said that a stipulation of approval is that the structure will be two stories with a maximum of ten foot interior walls, and with Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 8 that, the Board finds that the structure would not be overly large or tall in the neighborhood. Mr. Currier said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance; he said that the Board finds that the house would be near other single and two-family homes, it’s a mix, so it wouldn’t be out of character. The Board finds that the two-family as proposed will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Christopher Eckler (Owner) 22 Amory Street (Sheet 38 Lot 43) requesting special exception to expand a non-conforming use by adding a 7’x12’ addition to an existing shed; and a 9’x29’ three-season porch to existing structure. GI Zone, Ward 7. [PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY ZBA ON 7-9-13]. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Rick Johnson JP Boucher Kathy Vitale Jack Currier – RECUSED Mr. Falk said that Mr. Eckler is back because the one-year time limit to secure a building permit has elapsed. He said that the State Law has changed to two years, but it hasn’t been changed in our ordinances yet. He said it’s the same request as before. Chris Eckler, 22 Amory Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Eckler said that he’s been working all along towards getting the building permit for the property, but was busy with other issues and wasn’t able to do it within the one year time frame. He said the only real change was the last time it was going to be a four-season porch, this time it’ll be a three-season porch. Mr. Johnson asked if any of the dimensions have changed. Mr. Eckler said it’s the same. Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 9 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Johnson to approve the special exception request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Johnson stated that the use is listed in the table of uses, Section 190-119 A (4). He said that it will not create undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He said it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems, 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. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases that have Regional Impact. MINUTES: 1-13-15: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0. BY-LAWS: Zoning Board of Adjustment February 24, 2015 Page 10 Mr. Shaw mentioned that the Board should take a look at the By- Laws. Mr. Falk said he’d email a copy of the current By-Laws to everyone. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 7:49 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing