Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING July 28, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, July 28, 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. Shaw to Table the request for 12A-B Hanover Street to the August 11, 2015 meeting. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 5 Warton Road – was tabled from the last meeting to tonight’s meeting, it was scheduled first on the Agenda, at this point, applicant not in audience, therefore the case will be heard later in the evening. 1. Suzanne M. Kittle (Owner) 6 Hideaway Road (Sheet G Lot 137) requesting the following: 1) special exception to allow an accessory (in-law) dwelling unit; and the following variances: 2) to encroach up to 7 inches into the 20 foot required side yard setback (perpendicular to Bloomingdale Dr); 3) to encroach up to 7.9 feet into the 20 foot required side yard setback (perpendicular to Hideaway Rd); Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 2 and 4) to encroach up to 6 inches into the 20 foot required front yard setback from Hideaway Road to construct a home addition with the accessory dwelling unit, and a front farmers porch. R18 Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Jack Currier Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Suzanne Kittle, 6 Hideaway Road, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Kittle said she is with her daughter, Rebecca Long. Mrs. Kittle said that they are requesting permission to have her daughter and son-in- law to occupy the home and have an in-law. Mrs. Long said that they want to add an in-law apartment that would be attached to a new garage, and the in-law would be for her mother to live in. She said the home would be expanded, it’s a ranch, single story. She said that the property was recently surveyed, and came to the realization that they’d need three dimensional variances and the special exception. Mrs. Vitale said that some of the encroachments are minimal, and one is a bit more at over 7 feet. She asked to describe them. Mrs. Long said that they need the proposed space to accommodate the growing family, the in-law would be behind the one-car garage, so it would give her a little more space. She said in order to have everyone the ability to have normal space, the encroachment is there at 7.9 feet. Mr. Currier asked if the drawings are the final elevation drawings. Mrs. Long said yes. Mr. Currier said that the lot isn’t square shaped, it is only encroaching on one corner in the front, but by the time you go to the back, it meets the setbacks. He said if this were approved, it would still be a single family with an in-law apartment. He asked if she was familiar with the special in-law regulations in the Code. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 3 Mrs. Long said she was. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised, all taken together. 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, 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. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 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 190-32. 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. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 4 2. City of Nashua - Bicentennial Elementary School (Owner) NH Signs (Applicant) 296 East Dunstable Road (Sheet B Lot 28) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum ground sign height, 6 feet allowed, 8’-10” existing, 10 feet proposed; 2) to exceed maximum ground sign area, 10 sq.ft allowed, 42 sq.ft existing, 48 sq.ft proposed; and 3) to allow three rows of manually changing readerboard, none allowed, two existing, three lines proposed. R18 Zone, Ward 8. Voting on this case: Rob Shaw Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Bill Parker, New Hampshire Signs, Londonderry, NH. Mr. Parker said the advertisement pretty much says it all, they are looking to replace an existing sign with one that is slightly larger, and it would have an extra line of changeable copy. He said that the proposed sign is a standard size. He said that the PTA has requested three lines of changeable text to be able to describe more information to the parents, and it can be seen readily to the street. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Letter from Alderman Melizza-Golja – read into the record by Mr. Currier, in favor of the sign. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No One. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised, with all requests considered collectively. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, given the special conditions of the property, the sign is a reasonable sized sign for an Elementary School, and the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method reasonably Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 5 feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Mr. Currier stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it will not be contrary to the public interest, in fact, it will be in concert with the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. MKL 2010 Revocable Trust (Owner) Maida Latvis (Applicant) 9 Manchester Street (Sheet 67 Lot 84) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 57% proposed; and, 2) to encroach up to 5 feet into the 6 foot required side setback to maintain a 10’x14’ shed. RB Zone, Ward 3. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Attorney Andrew Prolman, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prolman said that the contractor did contact the City about a permit, but was told he didn’t need a permit for a shed under 200 square feet, and began construction. He said that is partly true, but they did need two variances, as advertised, as well as Historic District Commission approval. He said that the application came to the Board with setbacks advertised as 5 feet into the 6 foot setback, however, a surveyor, Jeffrey Land Surveying, went out on July 17, shot the line, and they are 32 inches from the lot line, so it’s less than the request, so the request is to encroach three feet, four inches. Atty. Prolman said that 40% of accessory use area is allowed, and the house is small, with a good sized pool in the back yard, and with this shed they are over the 40%, and the request is for 57%. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 6 Atty. Prolman handed out a packet for the Board members. He said that the first exhibit is a map from Google maps. He said that Exhibit A is the tax map from the town. He said that in looking at the map, there are numerous other sheds or garages in the neighborhood, not unlike the proposed shed. He said that Exhibit B is a draft that he put together that shows the shed dimensionally on the property. Mr. Reppucci pointed out that it’s only the rear corner of the shed that encroaches the most. Atty. Prolman agreed, and they took down a portion of the fence to take measurements at the closest point to the property line. Atty. Prolman said that Exhibit C has two letters of support, from Dr. Peppard at 7 Manchester Street, a direct abutter to the south, and a letter from Berkshire Hathaway. He said that Exhibit D shows various pictures and views from Manchester Street. He said that the shed won’t have a cupola, but it will match the color of the house. Atty. Prolman said that you really can’t see the shed from Manchester Street, based upon all the vegetation that is there, and the fence. He said that his testimony is going to go over both requests collectively. He said that the request will not adversely affect the public interest, and keeping the shed where it is will not adversely affect the character of the neighborhood, or threaten public safety or health. He said that the spirit of the ordinance is kept, as the shed is in the rear of the property in back of the fence. He said that substantial justice would be done, as they have had two households coming together and they have a lot of stuff for a small house, and need the storage space in the shed. He said the Berkshire Hathaway letter states that there will not be any adverse affect to the property values in the area, the shed will be finished and will be tastefully done. He said that with respect for hardship, for both the accessory use and the setback, sheds are an allowed use in the RB district and it’s reasonable, and given the location of the shed without any impact to any neighbors, there is no reason to prohibit the location of the shed. Mr. Reppucci said that in fairness, most of the foliage that blocks the view of the shed is on the abutting property, and he Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 7 could, if he wanted, take down some trees and the shed would be very visible. Atty. Prolman said that it could be cut down, but the shed is staggered back from the neighbor’s house, it’s hard to see. Mr. Reppucci asked about the Historic District Commission approval. Atty. Prolman said they received Historic District Commission approval last night, it was unanimously approved. Mr. Shaw said that it appears as if the base of the shed is raised area of the yard. Atty. Prolman said that the backyard is a two-tiered back yard, the lower tier is about a foot lower, and the fence follows the grade of the land. Mr. Shaw asked why the shed couldn’t be made further away from the fence. Atty. Prolman said that there is the pool and the pool side apron area. He said they could only move the shed forward a couple inches, maybe, but any more, and it would be too close to the pool and the pool sidewalk area. He said that the shed is sitting on four sonar tubes, it’s fenced in at the bottom to keep rodents out. Ms. Vitale asked if the shed could be moved to the area by the gate, and if the fence could be changed a little bit, and having it there. Atty. Prolman said that there is a fence and gate there, but there is also a fully mature line of arborvitae and other shrubs and hedges there, which block the view from the street and the neighbors, so the intent is to keep as much vegetation as possible. Mr. Reppucci asked if there will be any utility to the shed besides electric. Atty. Prolman said he didn’t think there would be any power to the shed, maybe temporary power or battery. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 8 SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: David Pierce, 13 Manchester Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Pierce said that there are several violations, and there is no hardship. Fred Teeboom, 24 Cheyenne St, Nashua, NH. Mr. Teeboom said that he understands that the Board has his package. He said hardship is one of the five criteria for a variance, and in Exhibit 3, it says that special conditions shall be found in a property itself, and not to the individual plight of the applicant, so, hardship is with the property. Mr. Teeboom said that where the shed is placed is on an elevated area, with four steps up to it, about 8 inches high per step. He said the top of the shed is about 15½ feet. He said it is very high, and it sits on top of a berm. He said that there is 17 feet from the berm to the fence, and about 14 feet from the fence to the house, so the shed should be built right in that area. He heard that a lawnmower and an all-terrain vehicle would be placed in it, it makes no sense. Mr. Teeboom said that this is not a hardship issue under the definition, because a shed should have been placed in the other area, below the berm area. Mr. Reppucci asked if Mr. Pierce’s concern that there is a shed at all, or is the concern where it is placed. He said it’s his understanding that the shed complies with the height. He asked if this would be an issue if the shed met the setback requirement. Mr. Reppucci asked Mr. Pierce if the shed were relocated on the property, so that there were no setback violations, and not close to the fence, would this be ok. Mr. Pierce said absolutely not. He said it is set up three feet high on a berm. Mr. Currier said when he thinks of a berm, it’s a raised thing that keeps water or a pond away, but has a sense that this is not really a berm, it’s a raised area. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 9 Mr. Currier said that it is his sense that the berm has been at the same height for probably many decades, and not there’s a shed sitting on it. Mr. Teeboom said it’s a level area, but there is a steep drop, it’s about 32 inches high. Mr. Currier asked Mr. Pierce if the shed were on the lower part of the property, and you wouldn’t see it as much, would he be bothered by it. Mr. Pierce said he absolutely wouldn’t be bothered by it, as long as it meets the six-foot required setback, and wouldn’t be objecting. He said if it were in the lower part in the first place, he wouldn’t be objecting and wouldn’t be here tonight. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Prolman said this area is a paved patio, for up until a month or so ago, was a grassy area at the very same grade, there were stone steps stepping up to the same grade that is there today, and the shed that is there today is at the very same grade as the patio level. He said if they were to bring the shed down, to the lower level, that would raise concerns and objections as well, as the gate would have to be shifted, and fully mature 8-10 foot arborvitae that blocks the view would have to be taken down, and the shed would be more in view to the neighbor. He said that the shed is in its best possible location, that would have the least amount of impact to the neighbor, and it would be more visible than what you see today. He said that by moving it forward, they could pick up a few inches, maybe a foot here or there, but it wouldn’t get it out of the setback. He said that the distance from the far corner of the shed to the property line, the furthest point, is approximately 60 inches. He said that as to the hardship, with a small lot, in the back yard that has an existing pool which takes up most of the back yard, we intentionally put the shed in the back yard behind the fence, behind the shrubbery, behind the arborvitae, it is a reasonable use, and there is no reason to prohibit the shed where it is today. Ms. Vitale said in the application, the height is shown at 12½ feet, and the one picture in Tab B says 11’-6”. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 10 Atty. Prolman that the height from the grade to the top of the peak is 12’-5”, at the ten foot mark, coming off the property line, it’s 11’-6”. He said that the mean height between the eave and the peak, it’s 10’-6”. Mr. Currier asked about the apron around the pool, and where the shed is situated next to it. Atty. Prolman said it is about 8 inches away from the sidewalk around the pool. He said its part of the pool structure. He said if the shed were to come out to meet the 6 foot setback, you’d be able to jump off the roof of the shed right into the pool, it would be sitting on the apron right at the edge of the pool. He said it would look much worse by moving it forward. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Mr. Teeboom put up two more pictures. He said that Exhibit 6 is the view directly where the elevated, man-made berm is, and next to that is Exhibit 7. He said that there is 17 feet by about 14 feet, the shed would fit there, and you wouldn’t have to walk up the steps to put a lawnmower in it. Mr. Currier said that Atty. Prolman pointed out that if the shed is moved to the right, as shown in Exhibit 6, it will certainly be a couple feet lower, but it will be more visible to the street, and to Mr. Pierce, because it won’t be behind vegetation. Mr. Teeboom said it would be lower by 32 inches, and with the shed at 12’-6” high on top of the berm area, it makes it over 15 feet high in the air. He said if the shed were lower, it would be less visible, and there is plenty of space to put it. Mr. Reppucci said this is a circumstance where we have people really stressed over what they perceive to be happening, and people have to spend a boat-load of money to get permission to do a relatively simple thing. He said the real crux of this application is not the setback, it’s the accessory use area, that is the most vulnerable criteria for hardship. He said that the opposition doesn’t really have any concerns about that, the concern is with the actual setback. He said if they move this shed, is it really going to be any better for anybody? He said if they move it down closer to the house, it will actually be more visible to the street. He said moving it in or up will not Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 11 make it any less intrusive to the abutter’s property. He said that sheds are permitted uses. He said the shed location was picked with it being in a logical position, and there is a legitimate case to it meeting the hardship by being just in the setback. Mr. Shaw said he’s fine with the accessory use area, and is not convinced that the Board should approve the setback variance. He said he’s very sensitive to the abutters concern about that position, although in the end, he didn’t know if it would be a more aesthetic view to Mr. Pierce or even someone viewing it from Manchester Street. He said he’s not certain on how he’d vote on the setback. Ms. Vitale said she doesn’t see a problem with the accessory use, except for there are other structures on the property that aren’t being discussed. She said that there is a hardship in that there is an existing higher area and lower area. She said the biggest problem with this is that they did build it before coming to the Board, and had they come before the Board first, some changes could have been made. She said that having the structure that they’re proposing to build, in a designed way, it’s going to match the color of the house, having something that is visible from the road is not necessarily a problem if it fits into the overall landscape of the property and the look of the property. She said there shouldn’t be a problem with visually looking at it. She said the encroachment, per testimony, and pictures, there are other encroachments within the area, she said that she didn’t think that the encroachment would bother her, but does understand the concerns of the neighbor with the structure looking high. Mr. Boucher said he’s ok with the accessory use area. He said that the lay of the back yard has been like that for a long time, and there is evidence of the fence, it appears as if that’s the way it is. He said that the Board has seen cases where we’ve had abutters talking about because the structure is higher, they can see more of what is going on in someone’s back yard. He said he believes if the shed was completely moved out of the proposed location, you could see it, and didn’t think you’d see much of a difference in height. He said he doesn’t have a problem with the encroachment, it’s not like they trucked in hundreds of yards of gravel and built it up, this isn’t an uncommon request, and moving the shed wouldn’t change the Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 12 aesthetics for the neighbor, and is in favor of leaving the shed where it is. Mr. Currier concurred with the issue isn’t with the accessory use variance. He said in summary, the Board frequently sees requests for sheds going into the 6-foot side yard setback or rear yard setback. He said it seems that the shed has a pretty steeped pitched roof, and that adds to the dilemma to the neighbor. He said if it was a much shallower pitch, maybe that would take the edge off. He said that the opposition said to move it down, and it would be better, but the applicant said it would be worse. He said maybe a lower pitched roof would be better. Ms. Vitale asked about the possibility of a change to the roof line to bring it down a little bit. Mr. Reppucci said the height of the shed meets the Code. He said he’d be a little reluctant to have someone deconstruct something that meets the Code. MOTION by Mr. Currier to suspend the rules and ask the applicant about a roof height change. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED 3-2. (Mr. Reppucci and Mr. Boucher) Atty. Prolman said it would be an expensive endeavor that they’d like to avoid, however, suggests a condition of approval to allow additional screening along the inside of the fence. He said arborvitae or trees, something satisfactory to staff. Mr. Currier believed that the arborvitae would be behind the shed, so you wouldn’t see the back of the shed, or Mr. Pierce wouldn’t see the back of the shed. He said that the gate, on the Manchester Street side, which would not change Mr. Pierce’s view, but would change the view from the street. Atty. Prolman said that from Mr. Pierce’s view, he is looking at pretty healthy vegetation on 9 Manchester Street to begin with. He said he didn’t think it’s necessary, but as an alternative to lowering the roof height, they’d do that. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 13 Mr. Boucher said that the shrubs would run the back side of the fence, it’s just up to the shed, not behind, just turn the corner slightly. Atty. Prolman said that there’s not enough room between the shed and the fence. MOTION by Mr. Currier to allow Mr. Pierce to respond. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Mr. Pierce asked if it’s been determined what the required distance needs to be from the property line. Mr. Currier said six feet. He said he feels that the determination of the height meets the ordinance, it’s measured from the mean height. He said the fence is 19 inches from the property line. Mr. Pierce said he has a problem with it if the shed is allowed to stay where it is, 2 feet from his property line. Mr. Currier said that they have on record that the closest point is 32 inches, so the encroachment is 3’-4”. He said that each case the Board hears is unique, there is no precedence set with any variance. Mr. Reppucci suggested that the Board speak to the points raised by Mr. Teeboom’s letter, to get them on the record. He said on the second page, he said that the Board has covered the hardship, and the Boards justification for that. He said the line where it says the variance application was incomplete, he said that many times we have an application that are lacking some information and it’ll come through discussion and presentations. He said that the Land Use application is not relevant to our discussion. He said that the incursion applied for by the applicant is actually less than what was advertised, so it’s a lesser request and the case can be heard. Mr. Currier said that he believes that a carpenter could disassemble the roof, and construct a lower pitched roof in one day. He said that moving the shed could be challenging, it would be a potential compromise to lower the roof, and keep the Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 14 shed where it is. He said that right now, he’s not finding support for the shed where it is. Mr. Reppucci said he thinks lowering the roof would be a big deal, it would basically have to be disassembled. He said that the roof height is in compliance. Mr. Shaw said that he didn’t believe that they’d be losing that much overall height by changing the roof line, it may be about a foot or so. He said he’s sensitive to the abutters concerns, and it is an imposition on the abutter, and that’s the abutters concern relative to the setback. He said he didn’t know if he’d support the case if it came to the Board without already being started. Ms. Vitale said that the encroachment of the shed is really common in this area the City, and the Historic District did approve it. She said if the roof were to be lowered, it would also change the sides and the back. She said it does stand up high, but it is within the height ordinance. She said the shed is a pretty standard size, too. Mr. Boucher said that in looking at abutting properties, 28 Concord Street, an abutter to 13 Manchester Street, there is that corner structure, and there are other things going on in the neighborhood that have been there for a long time. He said that 7 Manchester Street has a much better view of what is going on in that back yard than 13 Manchester Street, due to the vegetation. Mr. Reppucci said that there were a couple letters of support in the application. Mr. Currier said that they were in Atty. Prolman’s packet, one by Dr. Donald Peppard at 7 Manchester Street, and one by Berkshire Hathaway. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant approval for the accessory use variance 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. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 15 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. He said that the house itself is relatively small in comparison to the lot, so a significantly larger house, which is quite possible at some point on this property, would come close in negating the accessory use variance. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to grant approval for the variance to encroach 3 feet, 4 inches into the 6 foot required side yard setback, not 5 feet 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. He said that the Board had a lot of discussion on the location of the shed, and all things considered, decided it was in the best place, and met the requirement. 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. Ms. Vitale said that Atty. Prolman mentioned planting the additional vegetative screening, she asked if this should be added as a special condition. Mr. Reppucci said he’s inclined not to, it’s a generous offer by the applicant, and they can certainly go ahead and do that, and they probably will, but didn’t want to make it a requirement. Ms. Vitale said that there were concerns by the abutter, part of it is the visual, and it is being offered. She said that it should be added in. Mr. Boucher said that per testimony of Atty. Prolman, he agreed. He said that he didn’t think what was being offered was going to Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 16 make the concern of the abutter any different at all. He said he’d go along with the majority, but didn’t think it would make a difference, it would only benefit the view from Manchester Street. Mr. Reppucci said it’s a little more complicated than just telling them to go plant something. Mr. Currier said perhaps a barrier of arborvitaes, without a quantity, as Atty. Prolman testified, to provide shade to the shed on the gate side and going around the corner. Mr. Reppucci agreed, so amended, on Mr. Currier’s statement. Mr. Currier said it should be arborvitaes or similar shade plants. Mr. Reppucci agreed. SECONDED by Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED 3-2. (Mr. Currier and Mr. Shaw). 4. Sermed N. Ashkouri & Aseel A. Alber (Owners) 12 Holbrook Drive (Sheet C Lot 1223) requesting variance to encroach 14 feet into the 20 foot required front yard setback (from North London Drive) to construct a 6’x16’ shed. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Kathy Vitale Rob Shaw Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Sermed Ashkouri, 12 Holbrook Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Ashkouri said he’s looking to replace an existing shed in the middle of the back yard with a new shed, that they are in the process of building, and the best possible place is off of North London Drive, it’s the most flat area. He said that most of the back yard is not flat. He said that the shed is moveable, so if the family moves, he would take it with him, so, it’s not permanent. He said it would be the same color as the house, same color of Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 17 the shingles, it will be 8 feet high. He said that there are bushes next to the shed that blocks it. He said that the old shed that it’s replacing will be demolished. He said the new one will be a mini-storage area. He said that he doesn’t have a garage, and will store bicycles, toys and other things in it. Mr. Reppucci asked why they couldn’t build the shed further in by the house, and further away from the street. Mr. Ashkouri said that the ground is not level, and the proposed spot is level. Mr. Currier said that the proposed location, while buffered by the bushes, is very close to the road, and he suggested why not taking out the other shed and put this one in its place. Mr. Ashkouri said he’s demolishing another shed in the back. Mr. Currier said that he finds the proposed shed pretty close to the street. He said that a future homeowner could come and cut the bushes down, and it’ll look like a school bus stop. He said he didn’t see the topography to be a challenge. Mr. Reppucci asked if the shed is already built. Mr. Ashkouri said partially, the base and outside structure, no roof yet. He said it is located on blocks of wood. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: John Oswald, 10 Holbrook Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Oswald said that they have 5 sheds in their yard, one is for lawn mowing items and the others house pigeons, and his concern is that this new shed would be for pigeons. He showed the Board a picture of the shed under construction. Wendy Hood, 2 North London Drive, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Hood said she has several concerns. She said the structure would be looking at her yard, even with the trees and plantings there. She said that the structure has slats, it’s not a shed, and it’s questionable to store bicycles in it that has openings. She Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 18 said it is most likely to be used to replace the shed in back of the house, which houses several pigeons. She asked if the Board of Health knows about this, and the associated health risks. She said that the structure is pretty high. Mr. Falk said that there is no mention in the building file about anything to do with pigeons or pigeon coops. Mike Toledo, 7 North London Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Toledo said he’s very concerned about the intent of the shed. He said he is concerned that the new shed would have all those pigeons in it. He said the shed is very visible from the road, but half of the year, the leaves are gone and it’s even more visible. He said that their yard is perfectly flat, there is no incline. He said that the shed can be moved, outside of the setback. He said he has issues with the location, and the intent of the shed. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Mr. Ashkouri said that there would be pigeons in the shed. He said that the pigeons are just a hobby, they are not farm animals. He said a couple years ago a city inspector came by and didn’t have any issues with them as long as they are inside the cage. He said they don’t fly, and don’t go anywhere. He said that one of the neighbors raises chickens, and sells the eggs. He said that the shed will be half for storage, half for pigeons. Mr. Reppucci said that the original testimony was that this was a shed, with no reference to pigeons. He said that the Board needs the facts of a case to make reasonable decisions, and it wasn’t until some neighbors brought up the fact that there would be pigeons there. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Ms. Hood said if the shed is against the back of their house, it would be totally facing her yard, and all of North London Drive. She said if the roof were lowered, and it stayed on the side, it might not be so bad. Mr. Boucher said that he wouldn’t feel comfortable making a decision that would violate any other codes, like with the pigeons. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 19 Mr. Falk said that there is nothing in the building file relative to pigeons. He said in looking at the picture of the shed, it has slats and openings. He said the commercial raising of chickens or poultry is not allowed in this zone. Mr. Falk said that the advertisement was for the structure, within the setback. The use of the structure is a different matter, and the Ordinance doesn’t allow certain types of animals in this zone. Mr. Boucher said he didn’t feel that he’s in a position to make a decision where there could be a problem later on with the use of the shed. Mr. Falk said that the Board doesn’t want to be in a position where they approve a structure, and come to find out, the use within it isn’t allowed. Ms. Vitale asked if there are any regulations on how the shed is constructed, if it has to be totally enclosed, or any guidelines. Mr. Falk said it would have to meet the building code for an accessory structure. He said that staff generally doesn’t ask what sheds would be used for, it’s pretty much a given that they’re used for lawn equipment, bicycles, outdoor patio items, etc. Mr. Reppucci said he’s having a hard time supporting this shed, it’s very close to the street, and it could easily moved out of the setback. Mr. Shaw said that pigeons are in the dove family, they aren’t necessarily considered poultry by most definitions. He said that the Code lists about ten agricultural uses, it lists hatcheries and poultry houses, kennels, animal pounds and shelters. He said that perhaps this is a code enforcement issue. He said he didn’t like the placement of the shed in the setback, that close to the street. Mr. Reppucci said it’s probably easily done to move the shed to another part of the yard, it’s not attached to anything, they could just jack it up and move it out of the setback. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 20 Mr. Currier said he was surprised to see how close to the road the shed is. He said he’s having a tough time believing that this is the only location for the shed. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to deny the application as advertised on behalf of the owners. Mr. Reppucci said that the variance is not needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, the Board finds that this shed could be located will within the setbacks on the property, and wouldn’t need any relief from this Board, and the Board hasn’t found any hardship that would justify this variance. Mr. Reppucci stated that it is not within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, it is not clear to the Board exactly what is/isn’t permitted there as far as using it for poultry, but certainly being this close to the road is directly contrary to what the intent of the ordinance protects the neighborhood from. Mr. Reppucci said it would potentially adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, the members who support the motion feel that it would adversely affect property values. Mr. Reppucci said it would be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done by denying the application. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. AMENDMENT TO MOTION by Mr. Reppucci, stating that, regarding Mr. Boucher’s statement, that if another application is submitted, for the use of a pigeon house or poultry house, it would be the intention of this Board, that if all the other requirements for the City were met except the setbacks for that use, the Board would consider rehearing the application. AMENDED MOTION SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 6. Linda Chase (Owner) Greentree Builders (Applicant) 15 Ayer Road (Sheet G Lot 104) requesting variance to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 68% proposed, to construct a 720 square foot detached garage. R18 Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 21 Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Nick Komandis, Greentree Builders, Auburn, NH. Mr. Komandis said he is requesting a variance to build a garage for the owner. He said that it would be 24’x30’ with an attic above. He said that they need the extra storage space, for vehicles, and the proposed size was the best fit. Mr. Currier asked if anyone will be living in the rooms above. Mr. Komandis said no, it’ll have a 6-8 foot space, but it’ll only be six feet high up above. 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, to allow for extra storage and for vehicles, and the only way this could be accomplished is to specifically add onto the house, versus a detached structure, and there is no benefit to having this as an attached structure versus a detached structure. He said that it is a very large lot, and a relatively small house, and the garage structure will be relatively large compared to the house, is why this calculation is so high, meanwhile, the total usage of the lot really very limited, and the setbacks are met, everything is about 75 feet away from the property lines for the structure. Mr. Shaw 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. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 22 SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 7. James J. Sullivan (Owner) 17 Robert Drive (Sheet E Lot 1523) requesting variance to exceed maximum driveway width, 24 feet allowed, an additional 12 feet requested. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher James Sullivan, 17 Robert Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Sullivan said he wants to extend his driveway, it’s 24 feet wide now, with a two-car garage, and there is crushed gravel that goes all over the street, and gets plowed into the cul-de-sac, and it’s more of a nuisance than anything. He said he wants to have the extra twelve feet concreted to match the other existing driveway, and the rest of the driveways in the neighborhood. Ms. Vitale said that most of the neighbors have a 24 foot wide driveway, or smaller, except for the Cape at the curve. She asked if it would go to the fence. Mr. Sullivan said he’d keep it off the fence by about a foot. Ms. Vitale asked if some material could be used instead of concrete that would have the same type of runoff. Mr. Sullivan said that there’s gravel there now, but it all ends up in the street. He said he could put asphalt in, but it wouldn’t match the rest of the neighborhood. Mr. Reppucci said that there is porous pavement, but it’s really expensive. Discussion ensued about different types of paving materials. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 23 No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner 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. Mr. Reppucci said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, 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 Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 8. Michael R. Rupp (Owner) 33 Palisade Drive (Sheet B Lot 694) requesting variance to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 70% proposed, to install an 18’x36’ in-ground swimming pool. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Michael Rupp, 33 Palisade Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Rupp said that he is requesting approval to install an 18’x36’ swimming pool, so it’s 648 square feet. He said that he has a signed affidavit from abutters and they are fine with it. He said that their house is rather small, but it’s on a good-sized piece of property, it’s about a half-acre, but the house is about 1,476 square feet, which includes a 200 square foot addition. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 24 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 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. Mr. Reppucci said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, 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 Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 9. David & Tracy Picard (Owners) 114 Conant Road (Sheet C Lot 550) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 72% proposed, to install an 18’x36’ in-ground swimming pool; and, 2) to encroach 4 feet into the 6 foot rear setback to maintain a shed. R9 Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher David Picard, 114 Conant Road, Nashua, NH. Mr. Picard said that when they bought the property, the shed was existing. He said that the proposed pool is actually replacing an existing above- ground pool, there was a framework and crushed stone around it. He identified where the pool was on the plan. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 25 Mr. Picard said that no one would be able to see the pool from the street, and said that there are several pools in the neighborhood. Mr. Picard said that the shed is sitting two feet from the property line, which is where the previous owner placed it. He said that the shed is used for lawnmowers, storage, and the children’s bicycles. He said that numerous neighbors all have sheds. He attached pictures, and said it is consistent with the neighborhood. He said that part of the accessory land use area is already taken up by the portable garage, which houses a boat. Mr. Reppucci said that if the Board grants permission for the carport, it would still require a building permit. Mr. Falk said that any request approved by the Board has to obtain a building permit within two years, according to the Ordinance. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance requests on behalf of the owner as advertised, with both requests taken together. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, and given the special conditions of the property, which is that the property abuts some non-occupied City land, and the other special condition is that the shed encroachment was created prior to the current owner, prior to the year 2000, so it’s been in existence for quite some time. Mr. Currier said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance to allow these two variances, 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. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 26 10. Larry Kittle (Owner) 78 Amherst Street and “L” Putnam Street (Sheet 62 Lots 83 & 85) requesting the following variances: 1) Proposed Lot 1 – minimum lot area, 12,445 sq.ft required, 7,229 sq.ft proposed, 2) Proposed Lot 2 – minimum lot area, 12,445 sq.ft required, 8,007 sq.ft proposed, 3) Proposed Lot 3 – minimum lot area, 12,445 sq.ft required, 10,729 sq.ft proposed – all requests to subdivide one lot into three lots to construct a two-family building on each lot; 4) for 78 Amherst Street, minimum lot area, 12,445 sq.ft required, 2,651 sq.ft existing, 3,083 sq.ft proposed, to convert a single-family into a two- family building; and, 5) to permit the construction of a driveway within 50 feet of an intersection, 41.8 feet proposed. RB Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Chad Branon, Fieldstone Land Associates, Milford, NH. Mr. Branon said that Parcel 62-85 is situated at the corner of Amherst Street and Putnam Street, and is 0.06 acres, and is currently occupied by a single-family residence. He said that Parcel 62-83 surrounds the other parcel, and it has frontage on Amherst Street, Putnam Street and Prescott Street. He said it is .606 acres, and is undeveloped. He said that both parcels are zoned RB, which has a minimum of 6,000 square feet of land and 50 feet of frontage for a single family home. Mr. Branon said that the desire is to subdivide Parcel 62-83, the larger parcel, into three residential lots, which will be served by a common driveway off of Prescott Street. He said the lots would be between 7,229 – 10,729 sq.ft in size. He said this area of the City is primarily developed with multi-family housing. He said that there is a duplex proposed for each of the three lots, each lot would require 6,222 sq.ft per unit, so each lot would require 12,446 sq.ft for each lot, therefore, a variance is proposed for lot area for each of the three lots. He said that the proposed density is in harmony with the surroundings, and in many lots, the surrounding density is Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 27 larger. He pointed out an exhibit that was submitted showing the neighborhood density. Mr. Branon said that there is a proposal to relocate the driveway for Parcel 62-85 from Amherst Street to Putnam Street, along with an associated driveway within 50 feet of an intersection, which is also one of tonight’s variance requests, as it would be approximately 41.85 feet from the intersection, but it will be a much safer condition. He said that the spirit and intent of the ordinance will be met, it provides substantial justice to the property owner, and will not diminish the values of surrounding properties. He said that all the criteria for a variance have been outlined, and they believe they meet the criteria, he said that per testimony and the completed application, everything has been addressed. Mr. Reppucci said it would be a total of 8 units on 29,000 sq.ft of land, or 3,621 sq.ft per unit. He said that each unit would require 6,222 sq.ft of land. Mr. Branon said that the safety would be improved by relocating the driveway, and the lot on the corner would gain a little bit of land, and there is evidence at one point that that lot was a duplex some time ago. Mr. Currier said that the signs on the property said that they’re City owned property, he asked who owns the land. Mr. Branon said that Mr. Kittle owns all the property. Mr. Currier said that with the topography, the land is steep, dropping off. He said if the plan were built as shown, there wouldn’t be much yard space, and asked if the topography would remain as is between the duplex’s. Mr. Branon said it does slope down to the west, from Putnam Street, but when the excavation is done for the basements, that land can be used for fill on site to help with yard space, it will be more leveled out. He said the building envelopes shown are large, it is possible they would be built a little smaller, it’s not the final size of the buildings, so there may be more room between buildings. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 28 Mr. Branon said that a majority of the nearby lots are also multi-family units, there really isn’t much interest in single- family homes in the area, and multi-family fits more in the character and land values in the area. Mr. Reppucci asked if the investment would work with 6 units, or 4 units. Mr. Larry Kittle, 166 Amherst Road, Merrimack, NH. Mr. Kittle said that the single-family home that is here is a 4-bedroom, on a busy road, but would be ok with keeping it a single-family home. He said he is more interested in being able to develop the vacant lot to its full potential, there is a tenant in there now, he said it did used to be a two-family at one time, but is ok with it staying as a single. Mr. Reppucci asked about 4 units on the other lot. Mr. Kittle said he could do 4 single family homes there, without any variances, but single family homes wouldn’t make sense. Mr. Branon said it’s not always what you can or can’t do, a lot of times its’ what the market is and what makes sense in the area. He said that the 3 duplex’s make more sense with the character of the neighborhood. He said it would only make one curb cut onto the City streets. He said it is a low impact to the street system. He said they want to proceed with the 6 units. Mr. Reppucci said that there are certain aspects of the finances of the project could affect the hardship, there are circumstances where hardship is found because of the land, and really asked about the hardship here. Mr. Currier said the driveway relocation makes a lot of sense, it is very positive, its way better than being on Amherst Street, but is struggling with the overall density of the project. He said the application is clear, but said it’s hard to grasp the need for the 6 units without seeing an alternative of a lesser density. Mr. Branon said that when this was marketed for a single family home, there wasn’t a market for that in this area. He said if it were four single family lots, they wouldn’t be the best looking lots, due to the land geometry and topography, there are Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 29 some slopes to contend with. He said what makes the best sense is the proposed duplex units, it’s just not a single family housing area. He said it is a very large area, of mostly all multi-family. Ms. Vitale said that moving the driveway is a big benefit, and found support for changing the single family home on the corner to a two-family unit, an upper and lower unit, and possibly have two duplex’s on the other lot. Mr. Reppucci said a lot of the houses in this area are two- family, with an upper and lower unit, with little yards. He said that there is a lot of pavement here, and the houses are side by side, so the living spaces are next to one another, taking up more ground, there is an inordinate amount of pavement and driveways. He said it’s not similar to other homes in the area. Mr. Currier said the topography is challenging, that’s why it’s not developed, it drops off and is steep. He said it appears as if the development would be dense. Mr. Shaw said that there was some testimony about the building boxes may not be as large, so we’re seeing the worst case scenario. He said that each lot has a “U” around them in terms of a yard, so there is a small yard associated with each unit. He said that sure, there is a lot of asphalt, but from a marketing perspective, people would rather be in their own up and down unit, instead of someone below or above them. He said the driveway relocation is wonderful for the corner lot. He said that initially, the density seemed like a lot, but the development of three duplexes is so consistent with the neighborhood, that the proposed density is in character, and perhaps that the zoning district requirement for density is inconsistent with the area, and that this small pocket of land isn’t out of character. Mr. Falk said that the RB zone is a two-family zone. Mr. Reppucci asked about fire truck access. Mr. Falk said that they’d still have to go to the Planning Board, and it would be reviewed. He said that the property would have three road frontages to work with. He said each lot does meet all building setbacks, and open space requirements. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 30 Ms. Vitale said that she believed that this property was set aside for the Broad Street Parkway, and wasn’t used, and that’s why the City owned it. Mr. Falk said that the site is near City services such as an elementary school, a park, shopping, bus lines, and it’s very conducive to duplex units, instead of a more broader single family use. Mr. Reppucci said he’s finding support for this, and if approved tonight, he’d like to have it come back to the Board if there are any changes to the plan. Mr. Boucher said for Lot 62-83, he’s comfortable with that. He said the 62-85 lot, it seems like a lot, but sees the benefit with what the applicant wants to do with the property. He said he’s not looking at it from a financial view, but it provides more affordable housing, and gets a driveway off of Amherst Street, which is good. He said that the totality of the request is fine, it’s not like it’s out of character at all with the neighborhood, every house nearby looks different, and built at different times, and it’s zoned for two-family buildings. He said he’d be in favor of it. Mr. Shaw said he wouldn’t be in favor of the conversion of the single family home to a two family, but is willing to support the driveway relocation. Mr. Currier said he’s in favor of the driveway relocation, it’s a much safer traffic pattern. Further discussion ensued about variance number 4, whether to table it to have the applicant further review it, or they can withdraw it. MOTION by Mr. Currier to suspend the rules to discuss variance number 4 with the applicant. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Mr. Branon said that they’d like to formally withdraw the variance request for variance number 4. He said they’d still Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 31 move forward with the lot line relocation and driveway relocation. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance requests, all taken together, on behalf of the owner as advertised, except for variance number 4, which was withdrawn by the applicant. Mr. Reppucci said that the variances are 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. Mr. Reppucci said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, 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. Shaw. Mr. Currier said that 78 Amherst Street would include the lot line adjustment. He said that the applicant agreed to move forward with that. Mr. Reppucci agreed to the amendment to the motion. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Maxine & Peter Derby (Owners) 5 Warton Road (Sheet B Lot 1196) requesting variance for maximum driveway width, 24 feet allowed, 15 feet existing, 33 feet proposed. R9 Zone, Ward 8. [TABLED FROM 6-9-15 MEETING] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Rob Shaw Kathy Vitale Jack Currier J.P. Boucher NOTE: The owners are not present. Mr. Falk said that both he and Lori Barrett from DPW went out to the site, and it appears as if their proposed plan was really Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 32 the best option. They will retain the curbing on the street, as shown in the picture showing the proposed driveway. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board should just vote on it now. Mr. Falk said that both Lori and himself looked at it for over an hour with the owners, and there aren’t too many options. There are no abutter concerns. MOTION by Mr. Currier to remove this case from the table. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Board members felt comfortable with the proposal. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance request on behalf of the owner 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. He said that the Planning Department and Department of Public Works came back with a conclusion that the applicants approach to this was the best one available. Mr. Reppucci said that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, 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, the applicant is a disabled person and the Board feels that it allows them to find the hardship and grant the variance. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. Zoning Board of Adjustment July 28, 2015 Page 33 REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board determined that there are no cases of Regional Impact. MINUTES: None. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Currier called the meeting closed at 11:37 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing