Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING July 14, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Jack Currier, Vice Chair, conducted the meeting. Members present were: Gerry Reppucci J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Jack Currier Kathy Vitale Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Currier explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Currier 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. Currier also explained procedures involving the timing light. Mr. Falk said that the cases for 5 Warton Drive, and 12A-B Hanover Street are going to be Tabled to the July 28, 2015 meeting. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to Table the requests for 5 Warton Drive and 12A-B Hanover Street to the July 28, 2015 meeting. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 1. BAE Systems (Owner) 95 Canal Street (Sheet 41 Lot 18) requesting variance to encroach 13 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback to construct a 13’-8” x 13’-8” fire pump accessory building. GI Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 2 J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Ed Gagnon, Facilities Manager, BAE Systems, 95 Canal Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Gagnon said that they have an existing electric fire pump in the building, and it draws its water from upstream at the Jackson Falls Dam, and currently, that water source is unreliable for them, there were two incidents where the dam gates were lowered, and their insurance company has now dictated that they put in a diesel fire pump that will get its water from the Pennichuck Water Service. Mr. Gagnon referred the Board to the submitted plans. He said that in the location of the proposed building, there is an existing pit in the parking lot with a 12-inch main comes into the facility. He said it’s very well suited to place the shed structure right at this location, and pump straight up into the shed, to boost the water pressure. He said that the pit is right in the setback area, hence the variance request. He said that there is very limited space at the facility to locate the pump around the building, as there is truck traffic in the parking lot, and the proposed spot is tucked out of the way for truck traffic. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance application as advertised. Mr. Shaw said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, and the location and connection of the pump is good for tying into the nearby building and the property is fairly constrained from a traffic standpoint to have it in another location on the site, 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. Shaw stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance it is good from a safety standpoint Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 3 relative to the ability to put out a fire, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. EDCO Nashua, LLC (Owner) 274 Amherst Street (Sheet E Lot 2136) requesting the following variances: 1) to allow a portion of an existing building to encroach 10.77 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback (on Charron Ave); and, 2) to allow an existing parking area to encroach 12 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback (on Charron Ave) – both requests due to the acquisition of additional right-of-way by the City of Nashua for roadway and traffic signal improvements. HB Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Wayne Morrill, Jones & Beach Engineering, Stratham, NH. Mr. Morrill said the parcel under consideration is the existing Pep Boys building, at the corner of Charron Avenue and Amherst Street. He said that there has been a traffic study done, and the best flow for Charron Avenue is to make some modifications to Charron Avenue, for an additional lane, and for the removal of the jug-handle across from the Whole Foods Market. Mr. Morrill said that they’d be modifying Amherst Street with new signals, updated and relocated utilities. He said that there will be a dedicated turn lane on Charron Avenue, and the installation of a sidewalk on Charron Avenue. He said that the setback in this zone is 20 feet, and the building would encroach 10.77 feet, and the parking lot for Pep Boys has a similar encroachment. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 4 Mr. Morrill said that NHDOT has received the final design plans for all the highway improvements, and construction should be able to start soon. Mr. Reppucci asked who is doing the design of the road, and said that when the original plan was approved by the Planning Board, he asked if there were any stipulations that required the applicant to come forward if the City chose to move the setbacks. He said that it seems that the City is asking them to get relief for something that you don’t need relief for. He said that the building is in compliance, and the lot is too, and now the City is widening the road, and now they’re asking you to get relief for something that they’re doing. Mr. Morrill said that they’ve been working diligently with the City, and hired a traffic consultant that did the design of the road and highway improvements, they found that they needed to take land from the Pep Boys lot, and the City and the applicant are funding this project. He said that it was their feeling that all parties have entered into the road modifications and there is land available from Pep Boys to give to the City, and the lot still maintains it’s 20% open space, but there is relief needed for the structure and the parking area. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: None. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. Mr. Currier asked who is paying the fees for this variance. Mr. Reppucci said it troubles him that the applicant is required to get relief from things that they don’t really need relief for. He said in his opinion, they don’t need to ask for this relief. He said that he’d certainly support the application, though. Mr. Shaw said that it’s likely that sometime along the way, the applicant had an opportunity to dispute being forced into applying for a variance. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Reppucci asked why the applicant didn’t just appeal it, and it’s just the easiest way, to apply for the variance. Mr. Falk said that there has been a team of people working on this application for several months, there have been several people involved. He said it’s been a joint effort, and it’s a much bigger project with the road widening and traffic and signal improvements. He said that everyone has agreed to apply for the variance. He said that the City has to follow its own rules. Mr. Falk said that there has been some precedent with another project down at the general intersection of Spit Brook Road and Daniel Webster Highway, there were about seven properties that needed relief, for roadway work that included installing sidewalks, where their parking lots, or their ground signs encroached into the right-of-way. He said that the current proposal is very similar to that one. Mr. Falk said that they believed that by applying for the variances, it may be cleaner in the future, for example, if Pep Boys ever decides to sell their property, or refinance their mortgage, if a bank or a mortgage company sees that the building and parking lot is in the setback without getting any relief, it may be a sticking point, so this may be helpful for them in the future to get everything out in a public hearing. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance applications as advertised, both requests considered collectively. Mr. Reppucci said that the variances are 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. Reppucci stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, the situations were pre-existing prior to the expansion of the road, and nothing is contrary to what the ordinance intended. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest as the roadway improvements will benefit everyone, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 6 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Joseph W. & Janet E. Dubois (Owner) 8 Grenada Circle (Sheet C Lot 1400) requesting variance for maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 65.5% requested, to maintain existing accessory structures. R9 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Joe Dubois, 8 Grenada Circle, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dubois said that he is permanently disabled, and said that he needs storage for medical equipment that he doesn’t have the capacity for inside the home, that’s why he had the shed built. He said at the time he had the shed built, he didn’t know that he needed the variance for the accessory use area, and didn’t need a permit for the shed because it was so small. He said that he got a letter from the City, stating that he needed this variance. Mr. Currier said that there are provisions that apply to a handicapped person. Mr. Dubois said that he has some exemptions from taxes and other things. Mr. Currier said that the Board has the ability to grant a variance but that only applies to while the handicapped person lives there. Mr. Dubois said he’s lived there for 31 years, and isn’t moving anytime soon. He said he just received a grant from the VA, and is doing a home addition. Mr. Currier said that the request is only for the 12’x12’ shed, nothing else. He said you can’t see the shed from the street. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 7 SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Reppucci said that his understanding of the ability of the Board to act for someone for relief where there are handicapped disability is different. He said that that statute allows the Board to lessen the burden on the applicant for hardship, it does not require that it stay, or be associated to the person, we have that flexibility. He said that the Board could limit it if the Board so chooses. Mr. Shaw said that as the addition gets added, it will help in the percent of accessory use, since the size of the house will be increased. He said it will lessen the burden because they will be allowed additional accessory use area. MOTION by Ms. Vitale to approve the variance application as advertised by the owner. Ms. Vitale said 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. She said that it is a shed that is currently there, and it is being used by the applicant for health conditions. Ms. Vitale stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. Ronald Roy (Owner) 115 East Glenwood Street (Sheet 129 Lot 153) requesting variance to encroach 2 feet into the 10 foot required left side yard setback to construct an attached 16’x40’ garage and breezeway. RA Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 8 Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Ronald Roy, 115 East Glenwood Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Roy said he’s looking for a variance to encroach 2 feet into the side yard setback to construct an attached 16’x40’ garage. He said it will have an attached breezeway as well. Mr. Currier said that the proposed breezeway is 8 feet wide, and it’s between the house and garage. He said the garage would be one car width, and two cars deep. Mr. Currier said in looking at the neighborhood, many of the houses are similar in size, so it looks as if it wouldn’t be out of character. Mr. Shaw asked if will be a single-story structure. Mr. Roy said it will have trusses for the roof, so it’s going to be one story. Mr. Currier asked if there was any thought of making it thinner. Mr. Roy said that they did, but the breezeway is only 8 feet, and said that he needs the proposed garage width to avoid hitting car doors on the side walls. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised by the owner. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a reasonably sized breezeway and a reasonably sized one-car wide garage. Mr. Currier stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, as the proposal is not out of character with the neighborhood, and it’s in concert with many other homes Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 9 close by. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Currier said that for a special condition, the garage is to be a one-story garage SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 5. Wilinson & Yeni Dominguez (Owners) 136 Kinsley Street (Sheet 91 Lot 16) requesting the following: 1) special exception to allow a major home occupation for an in-home day care for 6 children; and, 2) variance for minimum lot area for day care, 4,950 sq.ft existing, 6,000 sq.ft required. RB Zone, Ward 6. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Wilinson Dominguez, 136 Kinsley Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Dominguez said he was here five years ago for the exact same thing. He said that they are requesting a family day care for six children. He said that in their current day care, there haven’t been any problems. Mr. Reppucci asked if it is a single-family house. Mr. Dominguez said that it is. Mr. Currier said that in his estimation, Kinsley Street is somewhat busy. He asked about drop-off and pickups of the children. Mr. Dominguez said that the children are dropped off and picked up at staggered times, and there never two parents there at the same time. He said that the driveway is large enough for at least seven cars. He said that there is plenty of space in the driveway. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 10 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Falk said that there have been no Code Enforcement issues at the current location on Palm Street, it’s been very quiet. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the special exception on behalf of the applicant as advertised. He stated that the request is listed in the Table of Uses, Section 190-36. Mr. Reppucci stated that the use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. He stated that it will not overload public water, drainage or sewer or other municipal systems. He said that special regulations are fulfilled, per testimony of the applicant Mr. Reppucci stated 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 residents. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised. Mr. Reppucci said 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. Reppucci stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 11 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 6. Germain Revocable Trust (Owner) John & Jessica Forcier (Applicant) “L” Southgate Drive (Sheet B Lot 996) requesting variance for minimum lot area, 18,000 square feet required, 17,501 square feet proposed, to construct a single-family home. R18 Zone, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Jessica Forcier, 32 Williams Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Forcier said that they’d like to build a single-family home on the lot, which needs 18,000 square feet, but has 17,501 square feet. She said the variance will not be contrary to the public interest, as it would be a single family home, similar to the other ones on the street. She said the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance because the new home would not alter the character of the neighborhood, or injure public rights in any way. She said that substantial justice would be done as the home would be built there with no harm to anyone else. She said that the proposed use would not diminish the values of surrounding parcels, as a new home should show an increase. She said the variance will allow the home to be built, as there is no other use. Mrs. Forcier said that there are three other homes that are on the street, that actually have smaller lots than the proposed lot, and all of them have single-family homes on them, and all are zoned R18. Mrs. Forcier said that granting this variance would be fair and reasonable to us as applicants, as it’s only 499 square feet shy. Mrs. Forcier said that they are under contract to buy the land, and need to have the septic and well approved there, too. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 12 Mr. Currier asked if the lot is part of another lot. Mrs. Forcier said that the lot is already there, it’s a separate lot. Ms. Vitale asked if there is a minimum lot size for septic. Mr. Falk said there is if the lot is to be subdivided, you have to have 60,000 square feet for septic and well, or 40,000 square feet if you have one of the two utilities, but this lot isn’t being subdivided, it’s a lot of record. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Mr. Currier said that there is a letter from Phil Marino, 9 Southgate Drive, Nashua, NH. Roy Goodman, 410 East Dunstable Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Goodman said that they’re opposed to this variance. He said he understands that the lot in question does not have the required size, and that it collects water during the rainy season. He said it is an unbuildable lot. He said that the R18 zone encourages conservation subdivisions. He said it is an old wooded lot, and it is an essential part of the neighborhood to remain that way, as there are many birds and wildlife to conserve. Mr. Reppucci asked if this case was not approved, what could be done at this lot. Mr. Goodman said they’ve done nothing with it for 57 years, so they can continue to do nothing. Mr. Reppucci said this is less than a 3% variance. He said that there is plenty of case law that tells the Board that this is a negligible amount of an incursion. Scott Martinage, 4 Southgate Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Martinage said that all the houses in the neighborhood, except for his was Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 13 built pre-1967, so that’s why these lots are smaller. He said he had to have a 2-bedroom house to satisfy the septic requirements. He said the proposed lot is too small, and there’s no talk about how many bedrooms they want. He said he’s concerned because they currently have a business in their home. He said to force another house in the street isn’t in the spirit of the neighborhood. He said the lot is at least 3 feet lower than the surrounding lots, and it’s wet, collects water, and it will never perk correctly. He said all the trees will be wiped out. Andrew Hoge, 2 Southgate Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Hoge said that he moved there two weeks ago. He said that they bought the house due to the location, and they were told by the real estate agent that the lot in question wouldn’t be built upon, and that was a key factor in buying their house. Mr. Currier said that what he was told is partially true, it is an undersized lot, but it could be built upon with a variance. Cathy Martinage, 4 Southgate Drive, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Martinage said that one of her concerns is that Mr. Forcier has his own drywall contracting business that he works out of his residence. She said if there is more traffic, people will turn around in her driveway. She said that there are not supposed to be any businesses in this zone. She said that she has a concern that her well will be compromised, and her septic. She said that their house had to be limited to a two-bedroom house due to the septic. She said it is a nonconforming lot. Mr. Reppucci said that a business use out of a home is not before the Board, they are not looking for that type of relief. He said that the City has rules for running a business out of the home, it covers vehicles parked there, traffic, and other issues. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Jessica Forcier, 32 Williams Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Forcier said that when two of the neighbors just moved in, they saw for sale signs for this property, so they knew there was a possibility of something going in there. She said she met the abutter in the back from Massachusetts, and he was nice and friendly and was open to a house being built there. She said that her husband does have a contracting business, and their Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 14 house is nicely kept and there are no work trucks there. She said that all their trucks are at a rented commercial condo. She said that there are no signs or advertising at their house, and it doesn’t even look like a business is there. She said that whatever septic system they have, the State of New Hampshire would have to approve it. She said that they’re having a wetland firm going out there to do some soil delineations. She said that everything is being looked at to meet the laws and ordinances. She said that the lot and the general area is wooded and there is plenty of room and space for birds and other wildlife. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Scott Martinage, 4 Southgate Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Martinage said that the lot is small, it is wet, and doesn’t anticipate them being able to build on it. He said he doesn’t believe that the lot will perk to have a septic system or a leach field, it will need to be a pump-up system. He said that the lot wouldn’t conform to the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Shaw said that the Board is not looking at what cases to allow or disallow, he said that the purpose of the Board is to allow relief to zoning law where we have a one-size fits all Code, and as thick as the Code book is, it doesn’t even begin to look at all the possible situations. He said that the Board is looking at the specifics of this case, and judging it within the specific context of the ordinance. He said that the Board adheres as much as possible to the laws, but the Board has to decide if relief should or should not be granted. Mr. Reppucci said that the lot is less than 3% of what is required. He said that there would have to be an enormously substantial reason for the Board to not support this case. He said that a new house on this lot would be perfectly in character of this neighborhood. He said if anything, the neighbors were fortunate that the owner chose not to develop the land for so long. He said effectively, if the Board turns this request down, it would be rendering the property valueless. Mr. Shaw said he feels the need to support the application as well, especially if there would be a disallowance of use on this property. He said that there is some concern about the well and septic, but the applicant still needs to get those approvals. He said that our Board may well end up supporting the variance, Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 15 but they may not get their approvals for water or sewer. He said it is a very minimal incursion. Ms. Vitale agreed, she said that any property owner can go in and cut trees down on their lot, and this is a single lot. Mr. Boucher said he’d support the application for the same reasons that have already been brought forward, especially since if it’s not supported, it would be a taking. He said that there are other experts that will look at the well and septic issues. Mr. Currier said that the R18 zoning was put in place after some of the homes were built, but after this property was cut up the way it was, so it’s been this size for 30-50 years. He said that case law will support that this is in kind with the surrounding parcels. He said he understands that the neighbors like it the way it is, it’s a unique street, but for all we know, the land is a gold mine, and can perk ok for a septic system, or, it may largely be wet and couldn’t handle a septic system or a house. He said he agrees with the case law about other similar cases supporting this variance. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance request on behalf of the applicant as advertised. Mr. Reppucci said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, and 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, the Board finds that the incursion is minor, and failing to approve it would render the property relatively valueless. Mr. Reppucci said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it’s only 3% off the required land area; there shouldn’t be any negative effects on surrounding property values. He said that it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Mr. Currier said that just because the lot was 3% too small, it’s not an automatic foregone conclusion that the Board approves it. He said that given the nature of everything in Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 16 this area, with other smaller lots, the request is reasonable that it should be approved. 7. Curt Guthro (Owner) 26 Newburgh Road (Sheet C Lot 552) requesting variance to maintain driveway width, 24 feet permitted, 45.2 feet existing. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Curt Guthro, 26 Newburgh Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Guthro said he’s lived there for the past 9 years, and the variance request is to maintain an existing driveway. He said that this issue came about when he submitted a building permit to add a two-car garage attached to the house. He said that the garage meets all the setbacks, and it was noticed that the driveway was too wide. He said that the driveway was there when he bought the house, its concrete. He said that the round little planter island was there too, and there were a couple nice trees in 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 variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is actually an existing condition, and has been there since before the current owner has owned the property. He said it’s been there for a minimum of at least 9 years, and the benefit sought by the applicant is to preserve this driveway as is, and it would be quite burdensome and would not be beneficial to force them to remove part of the driveway. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 17 Mr. Shaw said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, and that there shouldn’t be any negative effects on surrounding property values. He said that it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice will be served. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: 11 Fowell Avenue: Letter of rehearing request submitted by John Rudolph, at 6 Fowell Avenue. The case advertisement was: 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. Mr. Currier asked if there was a procedural error, which would include improper notice, denying someone the right to be heard, etc. Mr. Reppucci said that the Planning Department didn’t receive the letter from the abutter until after the hearing went forward. He said that the notice is proper, but it’s unfortunate that the letter was late. Mr. Shaw agreed, and didn’t see any evidence of any procedural error. Mr. Falk said that the letter didn’t make it to the office until the day after the public hearing. Ms. Vitale said that she didn’t see any procedural error. Mr. Currier said that he didn’t see any procedural error. Mr. Currier asked if it was an illegal decision, in other words, did the Board fail to completely address each of the points of law required for the special exception and/or variance. Mr. Reppucci said it was not an illegal decision. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 18 Mr. Shaw said it is not an illegal decision. Mr. Currier said he wasn’t at the meeting, but read the minutes and case information, and didn’t feel that it was an illegal decision. Mr. Currier asked if the request for rehearing contain any new information not presented or available to the Board at the original public hearing. Mr. Reppucci said maybe, and wanted to listen to other members comments. He said that his recollection of the applicant’s testimony is that he needed it for parking for his kids. He said he didn’t remember any reference to parking a camper on the spot. He said he’s not sure if this constitutes a reason to rehear or not, but he said he remembers that the extra driveway area was for parking for the kids. Mr. Shaw said he feels the same way as Mr. Reppucci, he said he’d like to further talk it out with the other members. He asked about the requirements of parking large RV’s or campers. Mr. Falk said that the Code does allow for 30 day parking for these for guests. Ms. Vitale said that she remembers the kids being talked about, and didn’t know if she’d think differently, she said she looked at the property as a whole due to the driveway. She said that she remembers talking about the curbcut. She said she’d like to talk about it again. Mr. Boucher said that the Board could debate what if anything is new information. He said that for new information, he said he’d have to say no, nothing that would make him change his decision. He said it’s up for discussion on whether or not there is new information, but is it relevant enough to decide to rehear the case or not. Mr. Currier said he did a site walk, and the camper wasn’t there, and in looking at the minutes, it mentioned kids and their cars. He asked if this is a hardship that runs with the land. He said he knew that the other driveway was coming out as part of the deal. He said he feels that the Board got mis- represented, because there was an image of parking cars for Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 19 kids, and it was sort of a hardship that the person has, and it’s kind of a tight street, and then the camper shows up. He said he was kind of taken aback by that. He said that he thinks that the rehearing request does contain some new information, and the abutter did a reasonable job of trying to get the letter submitted in time, the postmark date was about a week ahead of time, it should have gotten there in time, and he had a reasonable expectation that the letter would have gotten to City Hall in time for the meeting. He said just that issue alone would be worth hearing the case again. He said that his feeling on #3 would be yes. Mr. Reppucci said he is in agreement with a lot of what Mr. Currier said, he said that the letter arriving late was an unfortunate circumstance, but the rule is clear, it didn’t arrive on time, and said that he didn’t believe that we can consider that letter as new information, unless there is some fault of the Planning Department as to why that letter didn’t arrive. He said he can understand that the abutter wouldn’t want to look out at the camper, but perhaps the camper could be parked in back of the house. He said he remembers specifically how the parking would occur, and the response was that they are not driving over the curb, they’re just pulling into the space. He said the camper is right on the edge, there’s no way he’s just pulling it in. He said that parking a car there or parking a camper there are two different things and there was no testimony to the camper to the Board. Mr. Boucher said he is assuming that the owner owns the camper, and that its permanent fixture. He said that maybe there are other circumstances that we don’t know about. He said he’s not sure if the applicant purposely deceived the Board or not. Mr. Currier asked if there is anything that would/could cause the Board to make a different decision. Mr. Currier said he feels that there is, for question #4. Mr. Reppucci said he agrees with a rehearing, in its entirety, is more fair. Mr. Boucher said he would support having a rehearing. Mr. Currier said if there is a request for an oversized driveway to store a large camper in a neighborhood such as this, he said Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 20 he thinks it’s out of character with the neighborhood, so, yes, he’d clearly see it as a different request than for parking passenger cars for the family. Mr. Shaw said in question #4, if there is something that would or could cause the Board to make a different decision. He said he’s not sure if he’d change his original vote on this case, but there is just enough uncertainty in this case, so he could come up with a different decision, it’s not necessarily that he would. Mr. Currier said this is a very small neighborhood, with small front yards, and there is this camper sticking out there, he said he’s ok with the wider driveway, as long as you don’t drive over it, and the stipulation that there is no campers on it, he said that is a completely reasonable request. Mr. Reppucci said whenever we see an application for a wider driveway, there is an explanation of why they want to expand it. Ms. Vitale agreed, and said that there’s no way that he pulls it in and out without going over the curbcut. She said that the Board specifically asked about that section, and they said that his kids would be pulling into that area, he never said that he’d have a trailer, and that’s an entirely different vehicle that would be pulling into the spot. She said that the Board should rehear the case and find out how the camper would get into the spot. MOTION by Mr. Currier to rehear the case, based upon the fact that the Board finds that there are a couple pieces of information that are new, being that there was testimony that it was going to be used only for passenger car parking and that the curbcut was not going to be driven over, and we have information that the curbcut is driven over, and the Board feels that it is prudent to clarify the situation and rehear the case, because the Board may have information that could/would cause it to make a different decision. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. REGIONAL IMPACT: Zoning Board of Adjustment July 14, 2015 Page 21 The Board determined that there are no cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: June 9, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. June 23, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place the minutes in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 9:22 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing