Zoning Board of Adjustment

EXPANDED DRAFT MEETING SUMMARY THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF TAPE RECORDED PROCEEDINGS THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE ZBA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING April 28, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, April 28, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Rick Johnson, Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci 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. C. Thomas & Susan G. Brooks (Owners) Carole & Michael Poulin (Applicants) 4 Hopkins Street (Sheet 66 Lot 22) requesting the following: 1) special exception to maintain an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit; and, 2) variance to exceed maximum area of accessory dwelling unit, 700 sq.ft allowed – 820 sq.ft existing/proposed. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Carole Poulin, 4 Hopkins Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Poulin said that they just recently closed on the property. She said that the home has an in-law apartment, and didn’t realize that it is an illegal unit, so that is why they’re applying. She said that there are no changes expected to the outside of the home, or the Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 2 inside. She said the unit upstairs is finished, and it’s a really nice apartment. Mrs. Poulin said that her 25-year old disabled son will live there, and she said that they will be able to help support him. She said he does not drive, so there will be no additional traffic. She said that there will only be three people living in the home, and there will be no additional demand on utilities. She said the variance is necessary because the apartment is 820 square feet, which is over the 700 square foot total; however, it is under the 30% total of the home. She said the application is pretty straight-forward. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. 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; 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. He said that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels; it is not contrary to the public interest. He said that substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant the special exception request on behalf of the owner, as advertised. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-32. He said that the use will not create any undue traffic congestion, or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 3 Mr. Reppucci stated that the use will not overload any public water, drainage, sewer or other municipal systems. He said that all the special regulations are fulfilled. Mr. Reppucci said that the use 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. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. SAAJ, LLC (Owner) Barlo Signs (Applicant) 322 Amherst Street (Sheet G Lot 438) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum projecting sign area, 24 sq.ft allowed – 39 sq.ft proposed; and, 2) to exceed maximum projection, 5 feet allowed, 6’ – 3” proposed. GB Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher - RECUSED Tim Sullivan, Barlo Signs, Hudson, NH. Mr. Sullivan said that they are seeking two variances, the first one is to allow a projecting sign to exceed 24 square feet in area, where 39 square feet is being proposed, and the second variance is for the maximum projection of 5 feet is allowed, where 6’-3” is proposed. Mr. Sullivan said that there is an existing projecting sign on the building, as shown in the photos. He said it’s a 26 square foot projecting sign, and it projects 8 feet from the building, so, this proposal will have the sign closer in to the 5 foot allowed, but it’s still over the 5 foot requirement. Mr. Sullivan said that the building is wedged in between the Nashua Outdoor Power Equipment building and the carpet store, its tucked into that corner, and the building is fairly close to Amherst Street, so there is no room to place a ground sign between the building and the road. He said a wall sign that is Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 4 flush on the building wall would not be visible. He said that the building is turning into more of a multi-tenant property, there is space for four additional tenants, so the larger sign will allow for a little more identification for the other tenants. He said that the sign will be internally illuminated, but it will have a predominantly black background at night, it’ll just be the white letters that are illuminated. He said that a majority of the sign would not be lit. He said that the proposed sign would be in keeping with the surrounding properties and other signs in the area. He said that the sign will help the way-finding public find the property. Mr. Shaw asked what the size of the existing sign is. Mr. Sullivan said it is 3’x8’, 24 square feet, plus the smaller sign that is 1’x6’ underneath it, so the whole sign is approximately 30 square feet. Ms. Vitale asked what has gone on the building, as it used to be just one business in there. Mr. Sullivan said that they’ve reconfigured it inside, and there is room for additional tenants there. Mr. Reppucci said it is a very hard building to locate, and it is a very reasonable request, and it will help. Mr. Shaw said that the incursion is limited, and they’re keeping the sign as small as possible, and there will be less projection than what is there now. Ms. Vitale agreed, and it won’t affect anyone’s property values. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variances, both taken together, 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 Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 5 conditions of the property, 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. He said that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels; it is not contrary to the public interest. He said that substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. POSTPONED TO 5-12-15 MEETING: 3. Rita Jean Family Trust (Owner) Dan Bergeron Building and Development, Inc. (Applicant) “L” Underhill Street (Sheet 14 Lot 474) requesting variance for minimum lot width, 60 feet required, 52.16 feet proposed for two lots – to subdivide one lot into two single-family lots. RB Zone, Ward 7. 4. Steve Rheaume (Owner) 40 & 42 Prescott Street (Sheet 62 Lots 36 & 167) requesting the following variances: 1) minimum lot frontage, 50 feet required – 40 feet proposed; and, 2) minimum lot width, 60 feet required – 40 feet proposed – both requests to permit a lot line relocation and re-subdivision between two existing lots. RB Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Rick Johnson Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Attorney Jay Leonard, Welts, White & Fontaine, P.C., 19 East Pearl Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Leonard said that the Board should have three map sheets, and a GIS map showing the neighborhood. He said that there are two separate lots, 40 and 42 Prescott. He said that 40 Prescott has a single-family home Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 6 on the lot, and 42 Prescott is an existing vacant lot, about 40’x200’ in size. Atty. Leonard referred the Board to Sheet “2”, showing the existing conditions of each lot. He said that Mr. Rheaume acquired these two lots in an auction from the City, they were transfers associated with the Broad Street Parkway. Atty. Leonard said that because 42 Prescott Street only has 40 feet of frontage, the lots needed to be re-configured, there is no way to make the two lots compliant, so as shown on Sheet “1”, the proposal is to take approximately 6,000 square feet and creating a lot that while it still lacks frontage, the requirement is 50 feet, the lot will only have 40 feet, and it will still be non-compliant as far as the width, it has to be 60 feet, however, it adds land area to the rear, and the lot becomes larger than many in the area. He said that 42 Prescott would be about 14,000 square feet, and would be served by all utilities. He said that they’re not correcting the situation, but are improving the situation. Atty. Leonard said that the neighborhood is an old, established neighborhood, it has city blocks, and most of the lots are between 6,000 – 8,000 square feet. He said that he sent a letter out to the neighbors, and hasn’t heard anything back. Atty. Leonard said that the items that they’re requesting variances from are frontage and width. He said that the new home would be built in the rear of the lot, and it would meet all the setbacks. He said by adding this land to that existing lot, the spacing of the houses in the neighborhood would be consistent. He said that the request is a reasonable opportunity for infill development Atty. Leonard went over the relevant variance points of law. He said that the use is a permitted use, and all setbacks for the house will be met. Mr. Boucher asked if Pennichuck Water Works has any issues with this plan. Atty. Leonard said he hasn’t heard of any concerns. He said the proposal keeps the easement, and it won’t be interfered with. Ms. Vitale said that a duplex is being proposed in the back. Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 7 Atty. Leonard said that presently, that’s the plan, but a better way to say it is that it will be a permitted use. He said he’s not sure if Mr. Rheaume will build the building, or someone else is going to build the building, so there is still some discussion, whatever the case, it will be a permitted use. Mr. Shaw said that his biggest hang-up with this application is the potential for a two-family being built, he said his inclination is to support a single-family home on the lot. Atty. Leonard said that the primary argument is that in this zone, both single-family and two-family uses are permitted uses, so, by definition, they are reasonable uses. He said that the vacant lot is an existing lot, and it’s a lot of record, and the request is to add onto the lot. He said in a legal sense, he didn’t think that use was an issue. He said on Prescott Street, there are many other two-family homes, mixed in with some single-family homes, and a two-family would be consistent with the zone. Mr. Reppucci asked if the Board were inclined to just allow a single-family home, would the applicant still be comfortable going forward. Atty. Leonard said that their preference is a lot without restrictions, but would rather have an approval over a denial. He said that he didn’t feel that it’s appropriate to restrict it to a single-family home. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Scott Currier, 44 Prescott Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Currier asked about the lot line relocation, and thought they should be asking for that first. Mr. Falk said that the first Board the applicant needs to apply to is the Zoning Board, and should the variance for frontage and width be approved, then they’d have to go to the Planning Board. The advertisement mentioned a lot line relocation, it’s just to Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 8 give the public an idea of what the overall request is. He said he’s not sure exactly what they’re doing for the driveway. Mr. Falk gave Mr. Currier a plan showing the proposed driveway and structure. Mr. Currier said that the driveway will be coming out to a hill, and it’s pretty steep, and in the winter, the road freezes up pretty good. He said the sidewalk is deteriorating in this area, too. He asked about the sewer line, and it was explained where it is proposed. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Leonard said that the sewer is proposed on Mr. Rheaume’s land, 40 Prescott. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: None. Mr. Reppucci said he’s in favor of the application, and stated that it’s within the Boards purview to consider whether a stipulation can be brought forward to only allow a single-family home, and it’s appropriate to discuss. Mr. Shaw asked how many square feet are required to allow a duplex in this zone. Mr. Falk said 12,446 square feet, and they are proposing 14,000 square feet. Mr. Shaw said that he can understand having a flag lot to allow for a single-family home, but it’s another thing to do some creative carving to have enough square footage to allow for multi-units. He said the lot would be constrained enough, and is having difficulty with the idea of a duplex going in there. Mr. Reppucci said he understood the testimony that once the lot line relocation is approved, that there wouldn’t be any additional relief required, that the two-family would be in compliance with all setbacks, with exception of what is being asked for tonight. Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Shaw said that right now, each lot would only accommodate a single-family home, without the lot line relocation. He said he’s fine with the lot line relocation to allow more space in the back. Ms. Vitale said she thinks it’s contrary to the public interest and understands that the extra land gives them a larger envelope to have a duplex, but doesn’t see how it’s a benefit to the public interest, and there was no testimony on property values, and how it may or may not affect them. She said she didn’t see any benefit to the public interest to allow for this. Mr. Boucher said he’s in support of the application as it stands, he said he wouldn’t support putting a restriction on the property. He said that the property is unique due to the easement that is on the lot, and they can’t build anything on the easement. He said that this is not a 20,000 square foot lot that they’re looking to carve up into a flag lot, it’s a lot of record, and they’re having two lots that meet the ordinance, and the neighborhood does have some two-family homes, the request is a reasonable use of property for the neighborhood, and is in support of it without any restrictions. Mr. Reppucci said that the driveway that coming in won’t be any different, and the question of the flag lot is whether or not to allow it. He said in back of this lot, is the railroad easement, so there is nothing behind this property that would affect it. Mr. Johnson said he’s in support of the request, but is not in favor of any restrictions. He said that the infrastructure is there, it’s in the back, the zone allows for it, and didn’t see any taxation on infrastructure in the immediate area, whether it’s one unit or two, and it shouldn’t matter since they’re both permitted uses. He said he didn’t see any value in limiting it to a single-family house, since there are many other two-family units in the immediate area. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variances, both taken together, 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, 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 Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 10 that even though the advertisement mentions a lot line relocation, it’s not before this Board, it’s just the two variances for width and frontage. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said that it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels; it is not contrary to the public interest. He said that substantial justice is served. He said that the request is approved as presented. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED 3-2 (Mr. Shaw and Ms. Vitale). MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not find that any of the cases have Regional Impact. MINUTES: 4-12-15: MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Johnson. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Mr. Johnson said that this is his last meeting, and thanked the Board for all the support. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Johnson called the meeting closed at 8:05 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. Zoning Board of Adjustment April 28, 2015 Page 11 CF - Taped Hearing