Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING May 26, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, May 26, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Gerry Reppucci conducted the meeting. Members present were: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale 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. Mr. Reppucci stated that the Chairman resigned, and the Vice Chair will not be attending. He said that both he and Mr. Shaw are former Chairmen, and decided that Mr. Reppucci will Chair the meeting. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to allow Mr. Reppucci to Chair the meeting. SECONDED by Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 1. Alain & Ann Gauthier (Owners) 17 Victor Avenue (Sheet 111 Lot 60) requesting variance to encroach 4 feet into the 6 foot required left side yard setback to construct a 14’x26’ detached garage. RA Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 2 Alain Gauthier, 17 Victor Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Gauthier stated that he is trying to build a one-car garage, 14’x26’ in size. He said he’s spoken to his neighbors about it, and they have no issues with it. He said that the garage will match the rest of the house, and it will not negatively affect the looks of the neighborhood. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board has a detailed packet of information, along with the application. Mr. Shaw asked if the garage can in any way be downsized. Mr. Gauthier said that he can’t downsize it; he really needs this size of a garage. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw stated that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property; especially the size of the garage structure is about the minimum width that would be useful, and there is limited space where the garage can be placed on the property. Mr. Shaw 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 Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 1. 145 Ridge Road Realty Trust (Owner) 145 Ridge Road (Sheet B Lot 1949) requesting variance for accessory use area, 40% Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 3 allowed, 33% existing - 85.3% proposed, to construct a 28’x32’ detached garage. R18 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Michel Maynard, 145 Ridge Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Maynard said that he has a 3-acre lot, which is much larger than most. He said that the proposed garage will not be seen from the street, and it meets all the yard setbacks, the lot is all wooded with trees. He said all the neighbors are fine with it. He said the reason why he wants to construct the garage is for his antique cars. He said that the garage would match the house in terms of the windows and siding. Mr. Maynard said that he was told by Staff that if the garage were attached to the home, he wouldn’t have to be here, it would be part of the principal structure. He said that there isn’t any possible way to attach the garage to the house. Mr. Reppucci said that the Code does mandate that this particular variance is required. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Ricky Michaud, Contractor, Beacon Court, Nashua, NH. Mr. Michaud said that they have solar panels coming in, that will attach the garage to the home would affect the solar panel energy. He said he is in favor of the garage. Mr. Reppucci asked if the garage would have any plumbing in it. Mr. Michaud said it will not, and it will only be one level, and will be 14 feet tall. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw stated that the variance is Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 4 needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, the lot is large, and while the garage would add to the accessory use area, the incursion on the overall property is small, and due to the limitation of the house, there is not an opportunity to attach the garage to the house. Mr. Shaw 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 Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. Brian & Marcia Carpenter (Owners) 11 Fowell Avenue (Sheet 108 Lot 36) requesting variance to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet allowed, 23 feet existing – 39 feet proposed. RA Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Brian Carpenter, 11 Fowell Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Carpenter said that their driveway used to be 39 feet when the home was purchased, it was filled in, and grass was planted, and now as the children are getting older, they need more space. He said that the property is locked, as shown by the picture provided, and there is really no other use for the property. Mr. Reppucci asked if there is a curb in front of the house. Mr. Carpenter said no, the other side of the street, just that one house, has a curb that he put in himself. He said that was the problem, he pulled up the apron, and that’s how this all started, because it makes it a driveway versus a patio. He said that the apron exists under the grass, but said that he’s since put it back and re-sodded it. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 5 Ms. Vitale asked if he is going clear to the one corner of the house. Mr. Carpenter said that they are coming straight off the corner of the house, with the interlocking paver wall. Mr. Shaw said that the existing driveway is pretty shallow, or not very deep, and it looks like you can only get one car for every standard part of the width, so, the challenge is the size of the lot lends itself that there is nowhere else to extend the driveway other than widening, no depth can be added, or to the side of the garage. He said it’s just the curb cut, and you expand out, there’s not much distance to work with. He said to accommodate extra cars; there is nowhere else to go. Mr. Carpenter said yes, there’s pretty much nowhere else to go, he said he’s locked by the garage and the sidewalk, and then on the other side, there is ten feet from the garage to the lot line. Mr. Shaw said it’s not enough space to put a car. Mr. Reppucci said that when this space is used to park cars on it, you can’t drive right onto the street from it, the curb cut width won’t increase. Mr. Carpenter agreed, it won’t be a curb cut. Mr. Reppucci said that he’s not asking for permission to drive over the curb cut, he’s asking to use the existing curb cut, and pull in off to the right to that additional space. Mr. Carpenter said that is correct. Mr. Reppucci asked about the driveway on the other side of the house, on the side. Mr. Carpenter said that is coming out. He said that he told Mr. Falk that he is taking it out, because it’s right on the line. Mr. Reppucci asked if that area is a curb cut as well. Mr. Carpenter said no, there’s no sidewalk or curb, it’s off of Zellwood Drive. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Reppucci said that if the Board chooses, there may be a stipulation that the driveway on the side must be removed. Mr. Falk said that the advertisement was only for the driveway width and the new proposed driveway area, it didn’t include the driveway portion off of Zellwood. Mr. Carpenter said that they will remove it and put a patio there, he said if you park there, there is no use for it. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw said that the request for this additional driveway is for the applicants usage of the property, for the need to accommodate additional cars, and with the fairly small lot, the position of the existing garage, and house, there is no additional depth available to increase the parking on the driveway, so by adding the additional width to the driveway that would accomplish what they’re trying to achieve. Mr. Shaw said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there is no evidence of any negative effects on surrounding property values. He said that it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served. Mr. Shaw said that a special stipulation that the existing driveway in the back corner on Zellwood Street will be removed and will no longer be used as a driveway. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 1. Dennis Parker (Owner) 2 Dartmouth Street (Sheet 64 Lot 93) requesting the following variances: 1) to encroach 19 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback; and 2) to encroach 5 feet into the 6 foot required left side yard Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 7 setback, both requests to construct a 18’x20’ carport. RA Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Dennis Parker, 2 Dartmouth Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Parker said he’s lived there for 16-17 years. He said approximately two years ago, he purchased a carport package, 18’x20’, and erected it over his existing driveway for winter months. He said that snow and ice is problematic for snow and ice on the cars. He said that there are three occupants in the house, and there are three vehicles, and two of them park under the carport. He said that he has a 100’x100’ sized lot, and is bordered by two streets, so there is very limited access to parking. Mr. Parker said that in January, he received a notice from the City that something was being done illegal with the temporary structure, and then applied for a permanent structure with the proposed variances on the south property line and also on the Dartmouth Street side. He said that he would permanently attach the metal poles to the ground. Mr. Reppucci asked how long the carport has been there. Mr. Parker said approximately two years. He said its tarp material and steel posts, he said it’s a $500 kit, and it houses two small cars. He said that there is no place to put snow. Mr. Reppucci said that the problem that he sees is that it is completely right into the front yard setback. He said that the setbacks are there for the neighborhood to have an aesthetic quality of not having an inconsistent line of structures. He asked if there is any other place on the property that this could be erected. Mr. Parker said no, not on a 100’x100’ lot. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 8 Mr. Reppucci said it’s a quarter-acre lot, it’s not a tiny place. He asked if there is any thought to putting any parking off the Cushing Avenue part of the lot. Mr. Parker said he only has about twenty feet of back yard from the back of the house and patio, so the whole back yard would be lost. Ms. Vitale said it appears as if there are similar situations on the street. Mr. Parker said it looks like a lot of people put their garages right on the property line, and are asking to do the same. Ms. Vitale said that because these are metal poles, and it’s really a temporary structure that is requested to become a permanent structure, would the applicant need to come back in a few years if the poles rust out. Mr. Falk said that if the City determines that the structure is unsafe, they’d have two years in which to replace it. Mr. Boucher asked if the carport is directly on the driveway, or does it overhang. Mr. Parker said it overhangs a little bit, and a majority of it is on the driveway. Mr. Reppucci asked if any permits were given for the carport. Mr. Parker said he was under the impression that he didn’t need any permits for a temporary structure. Mr. Reppucci said that if this were to be granted, it would have to meet the Building Code. He asked if this had been researched. Mr. Parker said no. Mr. Reppucci said it’s just not as easy as setting the poles into the ground. Mr. Shaw asked about play structures, swing sets, things like that, about getting building permits. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Falk said that typical homeowner playsets or swing sets, the ones you can purchase at WalMart or Home Depot, those do not require building permits, however, if it’s a very large structure like what you’d see at a school, those would. He said that garage structures, carports, canvas igloo structures, they all do require building permits. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Douglas Hamm, 20 Sargent Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Hamm said that he strongly opposes the granting of this variance for the carport. He said he has concerns about safety, the encroachment to his property, and the shanty-looking appearance which is detrimental to property values. He said the carport was erected by Mr. Parker two years ago with the pretense that it would just be there for the winter, and it’s never moved, and last winter, it collapsed under the weight of snow. He said that the applicant has used his fence as a support structure, he has 2x4’s, as shown in photos. Mr. Hamm said that his garage was built in 1915, is at the back boundary of his property, and the roofline is approximately five inches from the fence. He said he had a fence installed five several years ago by Gate City, that runs along the rear of the lot, and it’s set back four inches from the property line, he said that a one-foot setback would not be adequate, the first being if it would collapse again, it would damage his fence and garage. He said that there is also the potential for a rapidly spreading fire, the occupant of the apartment above the garage habitually throws cigarette butts over the fence into his property. He said that the construction, the materials used and the appearance of the carport is not in keeping with the neighborhood, it’s an older neighborhood of homes that are 80- 100 years old, and the roof of the carport does not fit in, and it will decrease property values. He gave the Board some photographs, which were passed around. Ms. Vitale asked if there are any stipulations of approval when they built the existing two-story garage. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 10 Mr. Falk said he didn’t see any specific stipulations for the garage, he said that they did get an after-the-fact permit above the garage for living space. Mr. Shaw asked if Mr. Hamm would be ok with the structure meeting the six foot minimum side yard requirement. Mr. Hamm said it’s not so much the structure, but he was told that he was just putting it up for the winter temporarily. He said he has some safety concerns, since it already collapsed last winter, and with the tenant smoking and carelessly discarding cigarette butts. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Parker said for the collapse, it was determined that the material of the roof, in New England, was not going to work. He said he took it down in the fall, after the first snowfall, and put up a lightweight material that looks better, and it was a design change, it wasn’t a collapse, it was just a change to a more rigid material on the roof. Mr. Parker said for the fence, he said they went to Gate City Fence and purchased the Dartmouth Street side, about 5-7 years ago, when the existing structure was rotted and needed replacement, and had Gate City match the fence to the neighbors, and even lengthened one of the pieces for visual appearance, and custom made a piece of fence. Discussion ensued about the fence. Mr. Shaw asked if some or any of the carport structure is utilizing the fence for support. Mr. Parker said one piece. Mr. Reppucci said that there is no way that the Building Department is going to issue a permit for a roof such as what is out there today. He said that most likely, 2x6’s every 16 inches on center will be required to carry the weight of the snow. He said that the roof as it is will not pass any building permits. He said the building permit requirements will be, in effect, replacing the entire structure. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 11 Mr. Shaw asked if there were any stipulations regarding that structure for usage, or anything that could or couldn’t be done on the property, when the variance was approved. Mr. Parker said that it is a legal apartment, and his stepson lives there, and the studio is for their daughter. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Hamm said that the structure did collapse, it was a tent- like structure that was there, and it bowed in on the cars below it. He said as far as the fence, he said he bought the fence for the entire length, corner to corner of the property, the only reason he replaced that fence is because of the design. He said that the issue isn’t who bought the fence, it’s that the structure is resting on the fence. Mr. Reppucci said that this request is contrary to everything we do in zoning, it takes away the front and side yard setback, it blocks views, and it looks way out of character for the neighborhood. He said if it weren’t there at all, and they were asking to put this there, he said there is no possible way he’d support it. He said he believes that there are other options besides this. Mr. Shaw said that he’s not inclined to support another permanent structure on the lot, placed in this location on the lot. He said that the location is troubling, and the aesthetics and the way this looks is an issue, and the way the lot has already been used, and to have this be approved as another permanent structure, it’s too much of an encroachment, there’s only one foot left on either side of those two setbacks, and it’s a pretty significant incursion. Ms. Vitale agreed, and said that to have this additional structure right in front of the previously added garage, isn’t the intent of the ordinance. Mr. Boucher said he’s having a hard time supporting this request. He said that there may be other options, and is just looking at it for face value of what it is. Mr. Reppucci said if the Board just denies the application as it’s applied to us, when or if the applicant decides to come back to the Board with a re-designed plan, perhaps with a plan Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 12 that would meet the Building Code, and then we are looking at the aesthetics and location of it, he said that it shouldn’t preclude the applicant from having the opportunity to come back and ask for permission again. He said in land use law, you generally cannot keep coming back for the same issue once you have been denied, it’s the Fisher v. Dover case. He said that the applicant can come back to the Board if the request is re- designed. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny the variance requests on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Reppucci said that this motion for denial does not enable the property to be used based upon special conditions, there aren’t special conditions on this property that would justify these variances at these locations on this lot. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, the structure is out of character with the area, and is contrary to what the intent of the ordinance is. Mr. Reppucci said that there is no testimony for property values, but believes that it would negatively affect surrounding properties. He said that the request is contrary to the public interest, in that the aesthetics of this structure would be detrimental to the neighborhood, and substantial justice would be presented to the opponents of this structure. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 5. Pickering Court Apartments, LLC (Owner) Dan Botwinik (Applicant) 14-20 Amory Street (Sheet 38 Lot 44) requesting special exception to expand a non-conforming use by expanding from 24 dwelling units to 25 dwelling units. GI Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 13 Brian Strauss, Contractor for Pickering Court Apartments, Nashua, NH. Mr. Strauss said that there was an illegal basement apartment in the building for a very long time, and the recent buyers of the building want to bring it up to Code. He said that the Building Department gave them a list of items that need to be addressed, such as sprinklers, egress window. He said they just want to make it a legal habitable unit. Mr. Strauss said there will not be any negative effect to the property, and will add value to the property. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Barbara Blake, Property Manager, Pickering Court Apartments, Nashua, NH. Ms. Blake said that they are updating the 24 existing units, so they’d like to include the 25th unit as well. She said that they’ve been cooperative with the Building Department. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the special exception request on behalf of the owner as advertised. Mr. Shaw stated that the use is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-119 (A)(4). He said that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. Mr. Shaw said that the use will not overload public water, drainage, or sewer or other municipal systems. He said that there are no special regulations to be fulfilled, and 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 residents, as there has been this apartment for quite some time, and it will be brought up to Code. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 12A-12B Hanover Street was Tabled to this meeting, however, an inspection has not been made yet by the Fire Marshal, and is not ready to be considered. Zoning Board of Adjustment May 26, 2015 Page 14 MOTION by Mr. Shaw to Table 12A-12B Hanover Street until the 6- 9-15 meeting. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not find that any of the cases have Regional Impact. MINUTES: No Action taken. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 8:00 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing