Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING October 13, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair Jack Currier, Vice Chair J.P. Boucher, Clerk Rob Shaw Carter Falk, AICP, Deputy Planning Manager/Zoning Mr. Reppucci explained the Board's procedures, including the points of law required for applicants to address relative to variances and special exceptions. Mr. Reppucci explained how testimony will be given by applicants, those speaking in favor or in opposition to each request, as stated in the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) By-laws. Mr. Reppucci also explained procedures involving the timing light. 1. Curt C. & Diane M. Tobis (Owners) 9-11 Cecile Street (Sheet 103 Lot 301) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 58% proposed; and 2) to encroach 6 feet into the 6 foot side yard setback to maintain two accessory storage structures. R9 Zone, Ward 6. [POSTPONED FROM 9-22-15 MEETING PER APPLICANT REQUEST] Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Attorney Andrew Morin, 191 West Hollis Street, Nashua, NH. Atty. Morin said that there are two applications to this case, the first was done before the accessory structures were taken away from the property, now, it is below the 40% threshold, so that variance is no longer needed. He said they’re asking for the variance for three accessory structures that may encroach in the 6-foot setback. He said he’s submitted a revised application and letter explaining everything that has happened. Mr. Reppucci asked if there are three structures that are encroaching. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 2 Atty. Morin said that there is the garage, the addition to the garage on the left side, and the 90 square foot shed. Mr. Reppucci asked how it was advertised. Mr. Falk said it was for two accessory structures. After a brief discussion, the Board determined that the advertisement was ok and the case moved forward. Atty. Morin said that there is a discrepancy with the City’s GIS maps and what exists out on the lot, but they wanted to apply just to make sure so it’s all on the record. Mr. Falk said he believed it was advertised correctly, and the owners have removed a lot of the temporary structures from the yard, he said he believes it is ok to move forward, if anything, the request is less intense and it’s been made better by removing a lot of what was there, and the first variance is no longer needed. Atty. Morin said that the building where it says 168 has been there since the early 1970’s, before the current owners have owned the property, and none of the neighbors have complained about the property, and feel that the variance is justified. He said they are trying to do this to avoid the cost of a survey, and none of the current issues were caused by the homeowner. Mr. Falk said that the Building Department is not even requiring them to apply for building permits for these old structures, they’ve been there for decades. 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, on behalf of the applicant, and the updated request is for the second variance, the first one is no longer necessary. Mr. Shaw said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, basically these are existing structures that have been there for quite some Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 3 time, identified only recently as being potentially incurring into the side yard setbacks, in fact there is some question as to whether or not the shed structure incurs or not. He said it would be a significant impact for the property owner to alter these structures, and there’s been no evidence of any issues specifically with any of the abutters or any other problems from the structures. Mr. Shaw stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there was testimony that the property values were not affecting surrounding parcels, and there is no sign of any negative property value impact. He said that the request is not be contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Shaw said for a special condition, the variance request is only for these two side yard setbacks, and the intent is to account for any possible incursion that they have, and that this approval does not allow for any other alteration or addition to the existing structures, and that they remain as they are. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 2. Frank & Susan Giarrusso (Owners) 142 Manchester Street (Sheet 137 Lot 178) requesting variance to encroach 2 feet into the 6 foot required left side yard setback to construct an 8’x12’ shed. RA Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Frank & Susan Giarrusso, 142 Manchester Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Giarrusso said that they are requesting to encroach 2 feet into the 6 foot setback, to put in an 8’x12’ shed. Mr. Giarrusso said that it will be used to store seasonal items, things that cannot be stored in the garage. He said that the shed would be in the back left corner, as shown on the submitted drawings. He said that the house is set back far on the lot, and there are Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 4 not many options for placement of the shed, there is a porch and a generator in the back yard which cuts back part of the property. He said that the grade of the lot slopes downward from the left. He said that the 4-foot distance that is proposed from the shed to the property line would be enough room for space to pass through or to do any maintenance. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Stacey Pominville, 140 Manchester Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Pominville said that they are in favor of the request and have no issues with the shed. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, special conditions being the topography of the land and the location of the existing “L” shaped house make the construction of the shed in the proposed spot to be a reasonable spot to use to encroach two feet. Mr. Currier 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, there has been no stated opposition to this case. He said that the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served to allow a reasonable sized shed. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 3. Kristina Eckstein (Owner) Clifford Petron (Applicant) 7 Reading Road (Sheet D Lot 318) requesting variance to encroach 8 feet into the 25 foot required front yard setback (on Trestle Brook Drive) to construct a 14’x23’ attached addition to rear of house. R9 Zone, Ward 5. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 5 Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Rob Shaw Cliff Petron, 26 Bradford Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Petron said that the setback is 25 feet, they are requesting a 17 foot setback. He said that the addition is in the backyard area, and the yard is enclosed with a stockade fence. He said the back yard abuts Trestle Brook Drive, which is the main access drive to Trestle Brook. He said that they’re already approved by the Trestle Brook Homeowners Board for the addition. Mr. Petron said that a variance was granted at the property in 2004, for the addition of a garage, it was to allow a 21 foot setback. Mr. Reppucci asked if the addition connects the garage to the house. Mr. Petron said that the garage is connected to the house by a breezeway. Mr. Reppucci asked if the addition will have a physical connection to the garage. Mr. Petron said the deck is connected to the breezeway, and there is a doorway going to the deck, and that doorway would become an interior door to the addition. Mr. Currier asked if the house and lot has two front yard setbacks. Mr. Falk said it does, but there is no access to the lot from Trestle Brook, and it is treated as a front yard. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said he didn’t think it would be out of character with the neighborhood. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 6 Mr. Boucher agreed, and said that with the fence in the back, it will be harder to see. Mr. Shaw said he’s still looking at this as if it’s a rear yard. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owners. He said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a moderate increase in square footage to accommodate the household. Mr. Currier stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, because this is more of a back yard than a front yard, and it’s not viewable due to a long existing stockade fence that runs along a series of properties adjacent to this one. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels. He said that the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served to allow this addition. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 4. JB Nashua Retail, LLC (Owner) Convenient MD, LLC (Applicant) 563 Amherst Street (Sheet H Lot 649) requesting variance to exceed maximum wall sign area, 150 sq.ft permitted, two wall signs at 106.2 sq.ft proposed. GB Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Attorney Richard Uchida, Hinckley & Allen P.A., Concord, NH. Atty. Uchida said that they are developing the Convenient MD Urgent Care Center which is under construction. He said the parcel is just over a half acre on Amherst Street. He said that they’re seeking to put up two wall signs, each one is 106.2 square feet, where the ordinance permits a total of 150 square feet of wall signage. He said that one of the wall signs will face west towards the Nimcor Drive/Amherst Street intersection, Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 7 and the other one will face Amherst Street, parallel to right- of-way. He passed out a revised site plan to the Board. Atty. Uchida said that they have no direct access onto Amherst Street into the lot, the lot has access from Nimcor Drive. He said that they are obscured by the front building on the upper left hand side of the drawing. Atty. Uchida said that the company is an Urgent Care Center, and many of the patients come from surrounding communities, and a lot of them are in pain, or are in need of urgent medical care when they arrive, so looking for and finding the facility is critically important for the motoring public, and the proposed signs will help the visibility, and help to channel traffic to the site, which is in the public interest and helpful for safety. He said that he believes that their application is very thorough, and is supportive of all the variance elements. He said they won’t detract from other signage along the corridor, and the proposed signage will help to draw attention to the property. He said that their font is very thin, and there are a lot of lower case letters, so to the naked eye, the sign is closer to 78 square feet, because the ordinance has you drawing a box around the letters. He said that the sign meets the spirit and intent of the ordinance. Mr. Reppucci asked if they gave any consideration to drivers travelling westbound not being able to identify the building. Atty. Uchida said that they are proposing a roof sign on the building facing west, which is permitted by right, so that should help. Mr. Currier asked if Convenient MD owns the other lots, and wondered if the building in the back will ask for larger signage. He said that he’d like to see a master sign plan for the site, versus each tenant coming up one at a time, and wondered if there is such a plan. Atty. Uchida said in an ideal world, there would be a master signage plan for the three lots, but Convenient MD is out so far in front of the rest of the development, that they’re not even sure who’s moving into the rest of the development, so it’s premature to come up with a sign master plan. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 8 Mr. Currier said that typically, signage runs with the land, and this is a medical facility, and asked if they would be amenable to a stipulation saying that this sign variance would apply to Convenient MD or medical services only, whereas if the lease runs out, if something else goes in there, there may not be that need, so the sign overage would only apply to Convenient MD. Atty. Uchida said it would be fair to do that, and understands the concern. He said that they’ll be there for the long haul. Mr. Reppucci confirmed that Convenient MD will be the only tenant in the building, therefore, they’ll be the only user that will need signage. Mr. Boucher asked, if in the future, that there would be any need for more signage. Atty. Uchida said that they’re hoping that this meets their needs, and there is a right to a pylon sign at this site, of which there will be the name on it. 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 on behalf of the owner. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is a new structure that provides urgent medical care to the community. Mr. Currier stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, being that people in pain and seeking immediate care will be driving to this facility. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Currier said that for a special condition, a lot of the merit for this application is that the business is for urgent medical care, so the stipulation for the sign overage is granted Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 9 for a facility for urgent medical care, so if the business were to change names, there’d be no variance needed, but if the lease expires or they move on, and another business other than providing for urgent medical care, this sign overage does not apply to a business that does not provide urgent medical care. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 5. Daniel & Maryann Peters (Owners) Clifford Petron (Applicant) 7 Watersedge Drive (Sheet H Lot 339) requesting variance to encroach 8 feet into the 20 foot required right side yard setback to maintain an 8’x12’ deck. R18 Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Cliff Petron, 26 Bradford Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Petron said that he’s been contracted by the owner to build them a deck, and upon the offer, he said he had a free weekend, and the deck was built. He said the owner requested that on Monday morning, that he pull a permit, and when that happened, he said he was told that he was encroaching into the right side yard setback for the deck. He said it used to be a 4’x6’ deck, and he said he built an 8’x12’ deck, and it encroaches on the side yard. Mr. Petron said he’s asking for a 12 foot setback on this side to keep the deck that he just built. He said that the neighbor’s fence is approximately forty feet from the owners right back corner, and there has been some confusion as to where exactly the side line is. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Dan Peters, 7 Watersedge Drive, Nashua, NH. Mr. Peters said that as far as safety is concerned, they have an open back lot, there is plenty of room, and there is a long driveway, and if there ever was a need for emergency personnel to get to the back yard, it wouldn’t be an issue. He said the new deck will help with the value of the property, as the new deck more closely Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 10 resembles many others in the neighborhood, and many of the homes already have garages attached to them, or enclosed porches, so this is just an added accessory to the home that fits right into the neighborhood. He said that the 8 foot deck will suit the family better for barbequing and overall usage. He said that there are other structures close to the property line in the neighborhood. He said that the neighbors are in support of the request. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. MOTION by Mr. Shaw to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owner. Mr. Shaw said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is an already-built deck, and given the special conditions of the property, which is a trapezoidal-shaped property and the corner of the house where the deck was placed is very close to the side yard setback, and this would be significant affect to have the applicant change their location and situation for the deck, it also turns out that there has been a long-standing pre-existing usage of the yard and in context of where the property line in reality exists, versus where the fence is placed at the rear of 5 Thornton Road, led both property owners to not have much clarity on where the actual property line was. Mr. Shaw stated that it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. SECONDED by Mr. Currier. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. 35-37 Crown Street Realty, LLC (Owner) Peabody Supply Company (Applicant) “L” Crown Street (Sheet 24 Lot 12) requesting variance to allow the storage of outdoor construction equipment within 10 feet along Crown Street and Chase Street, where 50 feet is required. GI Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 11 Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said he object to moving forward without a full Board, but will do anyways. Atty. Prunier said that the property is in the GI Zone. He said it is an allowed use, but because the property is a corner lot, and there is a 50-foot setback requirement, it would make the lot useless as far as outdoor storage is concerned, and by the time a truck comes in, unloads pipes, there wouldn’t be any room. He said that the business has been here a long time, and they get their pipes delivered on a daily basis. Mr. Reppucci asked if only pipes would be stored on the lot. Atty. Prunier said yes, no other equipment, and they’d be about 4 feet high each, two high, so about 8 feet. He said they would install a 6-foot high chain-link fence around the property, and provide a security, lighting on the lot for the security cameras. He said it’s only storage of pipe. Mr. Reppucci asked for the chain-link, if it’s desirable for the security of the area, so it’s open and visible all the time. Atty. Prunier said it’s for the area, for the site to be in view. Mr. Boucher asked if it’s the chain-link that you can see through, or with the slats. Atty. Prunier said if the Board wants that, they’ll do it. Mr. Boucher asked when the pipes would be delivered, if the activity is just during business hours, or night or early morning. Atty. Prunier said just during normal business hours. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 12 Robert Wilson, Manager, Peabody Supply Company, Nashua, NH. Mr. Wilson said that the normal business hours are from 6:30 to 4:30, Monday through Friday. He said that the height of the pallets are typically less than four feet, and at the most, there would be two stacked, typically only one. He said that they get the supplies out of the Boston area, so they have to truck the pipe up ourselves. He said they purchase the pipe in pallet quantities and keep it on site, to cut down on the logistics of getting pipe for deliveries. He said they typically load their trucks at night for any pipe deliveries for the next day. He said that the drivers leave at 3:30 p.m. Mr. Reppucci asked where the driveways are for the lot. Mr. Wilson said that the plan is to have one 22-foot gate on the Crown Street side, there’s already a curb-cut there. Mr. Reppucci said that there is a letter of support from an abutter, Robert Caro. Mr. Shaw asked if there is a restriction of the fence and how it relates to the corner of an intersection. Mr. Falk said no, the fence cannot block any vehicle circulation or any line of sight. He said that there is no setback for fences, so people can put them right on the property line. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Further discussion ensued. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Currier said that the applicant is going to be storing pipe on pallets, not necessarily construction equipment. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is essentially the storage of plumbing pipe for the plumbing business which is right across the street. He said that even though there are homes abutting this, it is a GI zone and it’ within the spirit and intent of the Ordinance. Mr. Currier stated it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, it is not contrary to the public Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 13 interest, and substantial justice is served to allow this as planned. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 7. CCG Family Trust (Owner) Maine Oxy (Applicant) 130 Northeastern Boulevard (Sheet 140 Lot 28) requesting use variance to use a portion of an existing building for a welding supply retail sales business, with an outdoor bulk propane dispensing station. PI Zone, Ward 9. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said he objects to moving forward without a full Board, but will do so anyways. He passed out some information to the Board. Atty. Prunier said that the property was one that was approved for automotive parts. He said that the auto parts business bought another company in town, and moved their operations. He identified the part of the building that would be used for the proposed use for welding and retail sales of welding materials. He said that in the back of the property, is the propane tank. He said that the Fire Marshal has reviewed the plan, and is supportive of it. Atty. Prunier said the building was previously approved for retail sales, there is sufficient parking for the use. Mr. Reppucci asked if this is two variances, one for the propane tank and for the business. Mr. Falk said that retail is not allowed in this zone, and there was a variance for the auto parts, but this is a significantly different use, and the bulk storage of the propane outdoors is also not allowed. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 14 Mr. Currier said that Maine Oxy was right down the street some years ago by TJ’s Deli, about 14 years ago, and they had the same setup. Mr. Boucher said that PSNH always has concerns about what is under their lines, and what could affect them. Atty. Prunier said he’s not sure, but knows that the Fire Department would be satisfied. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said that his concerns were answered, as the Fire Department will be ok with the proposal. He said that Maine Oxy was there for many years right down the street, and functioned fine. Mr. Reppucci said it’s nice to see a business going in there, as there have been vacancies down there. He said in the motion, he’d like it to speak to two separate variances, and that the Board is aware that both things require relief. Mr. Shaw agreed, and said it seems like its two items that they need relief from. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owners. He said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use 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. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels. He said that the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served to allow this addition. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 15 Mr. Reppucci said that the Board is approving both the use of the business and the location of the propane storage tank. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 8. 117 W. Glenwood Street, LLC (Owner) 117 West Glenwood Street (Sheet 132 Lot 31) requesting use variance to construct a paved automobile storage lot. RA Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Rob Shaw J.P. Boucher Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that he objects to moving forward without a full Board, but will do so anyways. Atty. Prunier described the property location, between the Everett Turnpike and Daniel Webster Highway, and Eversource to the north. He said that the proposal is to raze the house and garage, keep as much of the buffer as possible, and make it a storage parking lot for 163 cars. He said that there is an easement that goes into the Sienkiewicz property, and the plan is to asphalt it for them as part of the plan. Atty. Prunier said that the whole area is in a period of transition, from Nashua Foreign Auto to the landscape place, it’s a peninsula that should be zoned differently, things have changed. Atty. Prunier said that there are some issues with drainage. He said that there won’t be more than 5 or 6 cars a day, and some days there would be no traffic, and all the cars would have to be delivered to the dealership, and checked in and accepted and inspected, so there won’t be a lot of traffic up there. He said that the area will be fenced in, and there will be some lighting for security purposes, and will keep as much as the trees and buffer as possible, so that the abutters will get that protection. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 16 Mr. Currier said in his recollection, he doesn’t see this area as transitioning that much, or, at all. He said that the line has always been Hobart Avenue, and Nashua Foreign Auto has always been there, and there have always been businesses to the south of that, and residences to the north, and Pike Street has always been there, so he didn’t see it as a marching progress of business zone. Atty. Prunier said that the area around the Sienkiewicz property is really no longer a residential area, you wouldn’t put houses up against the turnpike, and there is a public service company, and it’s going to be a retail area in the near future. Mr. Reppucci said he’s concerned about the lighting, if there are 163 cars up there, it’s going to be pretty well-lit for security reasons, and asked how the people who live right around there aren’t going to be looking at a baseball field. Atty. Prunier said they’re going to keep as many trees as possible to protect the abutters, and the lighting here will only be as much as is necessary for the security cameras. He said that the public won’t be coming up here, and they won’t be bringing up customers to look at cars. He said the Planning Board will want a lighting plan showing the lighting analysis at the property line. Mr. Reppucci asked that with the volume of business that Toyota of Nashua does, how would it be only 5 trips per day going to this lot, he said it doesn’t seem feasible. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Mr. Chris Piekarski, General Manager, Toyota of Nashua, Nashua, NH. Mr. Piekarski said that they store the cars now on Amherst Street in a storage lot, and these are the cars that would move over to this lot. He said that they have days when they don’t even go to the lot, it’s cyclical. He said it could be 3 trips per day, and a lot of times, they’ll take multiple sales staff and bring back several cars. He said that there won’t be a traffic problem to this site. Mr. Boucher asked if there will be any auto transport trucks going to the site or parking on Daniel Webster Highway. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 17 Mr. Piekarski said no, they can only deliver cars to the dealership, they have to go through an inspection process first, there is a team that does that when they come off the truck. He said they just couldn’t put a big truck up there. Jim Petropulos, Hayner Swanson, 3 Congress Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Petropulos said that the property is about 2½ acres in size, and in the RA Zone, there is a requirement of 50% open space, and this site satisfies that requirement. He said in laying out the site, they felt it was important to leave buffers around the property and proper setbacks. He said that there is a general constant 5% grade on the lot, and West Glenwood is about 10%, it is a pretty steep road in poor condition. He said that they’re aware that they need to be prudent about the stormwater, and they are looking to capture it and give it quantitative and qualitative treatment, and to do it in a responsible manner. He said that they’re thinking of a subsurface detention facility, with an outlet that runs down West Glenwood Street, with a drainage system at the bottom of West Glenwood. He said for the lighting, they’ll set the bulb inside the fixture head to hide it, and the poles will be set inside the lot, so they won’t spill off into abutting properties, and the technology has improved greatly over the years. He said that for the question of what else could be built here, there could be a cul-de-sac with 8 or 9 homes up here, and it would also have similar stormwater and utility issues, and most likely there wouldn’t be any buffering since it wouldn’t necessarily be required, also, each single-family home would generate 8-10 vehicle trips per day. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Kerry Sienkiewicz, Milford, NH. Mr. Sienkiewicz said that he is here on behalf of his mother, who cannot attend. He said he is concerned about the essential character of the neighborhood, which has been residential for many years, and it’s been an oasis in the City of Nashua, with trees and wildlife. He gave a brief synopsis of the history of the lot that his parents owned. He said that the proposal would change the character of the neighborhood. He said he didn’t think it’s fair to look out and see a big parking lot. The Board made a motion to allow Mr. Sienkiewicz to speak for another five minutes. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 18 Mr. Sienkiewicz said in approving this, it would change the essential character of the neighborhood from residential to commercial, and having a car lot to store cars is commercial. He said the zoning is residential, and it’s not a reasonable use to have a parking lot, it’s not residential. Mr. Reppucci said a question that often comes up, is that if this is not approved, what else could be built there, it could be a baseball field, or a park. He said that there are uses that are allowed to go there, and the question becomes what would everyone like it to change to, what would be the least intrusive impact that can affect the people around it, or, what could go there that’s worse than this. He said that there are uses that could go there that would generate more traffic and disturbance, activity-wise, than what is being proposed. Mr. Sienkiewicz said that his mother is the owner, and he’s speaking for her, and his parents were under developer pressure the whole time they lived there, from all directions. He said that his mother would want this to remain residential. Mr. Shaw said that 7-9 homes could go there, and asked what he felt about a housing development such as that going there. Mr. Sienkiewicz said that his cousin looked into putting houses in, and as far as the Glenwood Street, it used to go up across DW Highway, and so did Hobart Street, and when they put in the DW Highway, and they did a survey, and then they said that Glenwood Street goes right through the middle of the house, it didn’t go beside the house like we thought. He said his grandparents were stunned. He said he didn’t think his mother would object to a housing development, because it’s residents, and people. Kelly Azarowski, 107 West Glenwood Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Azarowski said she is an abutter, and agrees with most of everything that Mr. Sienkiewicz said. She said that commercial people have always been after them to sell the property. She said she has a lot of concerns, of which some have been answered, such as lighting. She said that drainage is a huge issue up here, she said the plows have a very difficult time, and they cannot make it up to the top of the street, they make it up halfway. She said it’s a narrow street. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 19 Mr. Shaw asked what her opinion would be about a small housing development being built instead. Mrs. Azarowski said its nice being so secluded up there, and no one really knows that we’re there. She said she’s not opposed to residential, and it is what it is. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Prunier said that they understand the circumstances and the feelings involved. Mr. Reppucci asked if the Board decided to approve the case, and made a stipulation that nothing will happen in the next eight months, or until Mrs. Sienkiewicz doesn’t live there anymore, would that be a consideration. Atty. Prunier said he’d tell his client to live with it. Mr. Currier asked if they have considered the rezoning possibility. Atty. Prunier said that he represents another client who has also bought a lot of nearby property, and he understands the emotions going on right now with this land, he said that the Sienkiewicz family were nice people. He said if it is rezoned, the assessment and taxes will go up, and until the Sienkiewicz pass away, they don’t want their taxes to go up, that’s why they’ve suggested doing things via the variance route instead of by a rezoning. He said that it’s a balancing act. He said that there have been very few rezonings in the City, and asked where the planning has been in the City. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Sienkiewicz said that when they clear-cut the lot to the east of his mother, it caused a downturn in her health. He said that she’s in an assisted living facility now, and is not able to take care of herself. Mr. Reppucci asked if the Board were to approve the application, with a stipulation that nothing be done at all until the inevitable happens with his mother, like an 8-month period of time, how would he feel. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 20 Mr. Sienkiewicz said if it were him, it’s different than speaking for his mother. He said his mother wouldn’t approve. Atty. Prunier said at this point, they are withdrawing their application, but want the right to re-apply at some other time when circumstances are different with regards to Mrs. Sienkiewicz. Mr. Reppucci said the case is withdrawn, without prejudice. He said that no decision has been made by the Board, and the applicant has the right to re-apply for the same relief when they wish at any time in the future. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: Mr. Falk said that there are no cases for the next Agenda. He said the only one would be the rehearing request, submitted by the homeowner, for 2 Sheridan Street. He said that there is still about one week to go in the 30-day deadline for a rehearing. He said that it is highly unlikely that anyone else would ask for a rehearing, and if the Board decides to move forward and deliberate on it tonight, if someone else were to ask for a rehearing, it still could be considered by the Board. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board can consider a rehearing request at any point. He said that if another person decides to file a rehearing request within the 30-day window, a separate party, they certainly can. Donald R. Dube (Owner) 2 Sheridan Street (Sheet 59 Lot 30) requesting the following variances: 1) to exceed maximum accessory use area, 40% allowed, 67% proposed, to maintain a 10’x20’ garage extension; and, 2) to encroach 4 feet into the 6 foot required rear yard setback for garage extension. RA Zone, Ward 2. [DENIED AT 9-22-15 ZBA MEETING]. Mr. Reppucci said it’s submitted within the rehearing date window, so it’s a valid rehearing request. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to go forward with hearing the rehearing request. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 21 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Mr. Reppucci asked if there is any procedural error, including improper notice or denying someone the right to be heard, etc. The Board members unanimously said no. Mr. Reppucci asked if it were 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. Currier said the letter stated that the Board was being influenced by other factors from the testimony. He said that the Board did hear other complaints, which were beyond the land use code, but those alone didn’t cause him to vote against it, it was the totality of the activity of the amount going into the setback and the closeness of the addition to the property line. Mr. Shaw said it was the intensity of the use and the encroachment that caused him to vote against the request. Mr. Reppucci said it’s the Boards right to be influenced by things other than the bare minimum requirements that we’re required to meet to make the decision a legal one, so, the issue would be if the Board didn’t consider all the things that we’re supposed to consider, not if we consider something in addition to that. He said that all four of the members do not consider it an illegal decision. Mr. Reppucci asked if the request for rehearing contains any new information not presented or available to the Board at the original public hearing. The Board members unanimously determined that there was no new information related to the case. Mr. Reppucci asked if there is anything that could/would cause the Board to make a different decision. The Board members unanimously determined that there is nothing that could or would cause them to make a different decision. Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 22 Mr. Reppucci said that there are two other items in the letter from Mr. Dube, he asked about asking for permission to trim branches hanging over on his property. Mr. Reppucci said that is beyond the Boards purview, and is not connected to the rehearing request. Mr. Reppucci also said that the letter said that Bill McKinney came to inspect the property. He said that although that may be noteworthy, it has nothing to do with the Boards decision. MOTION by Mr. Currier to deny the rehearing request for 2 Sheridan Drive, because the Board has unanimously answered the four questions as “no” per testimony and discussion on record. SECONDED by Mr. Shaw. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. REGIONAL IMPACT: Mr. Falk said that there will now not be any cases for the next regularly scheduled meeting date. MINUTES: September 8, 2015: No action taken. MEETING SCHEDULE: Mr. Reppucci said that the Board has the Draft of the 2016 Meeting dates. Mr. Shaw said that for the first meeting in November, since it’s Election Day, its consistent practice that the Board of Aldermen does, they push it to the following day after the Election. Mr. Currier said he prefers the Wednesday over Monday. He said it’s also common that there are now special elections, and it always seems to be on a Tuesday, and chances are it hits our meeting. He said if we state on our Meeting deadline sheet that should a municipal election be enacted on a meeting date, that Zoning Board of Adjustment October 13, 2015 Page 23 we would have the meeting on the following Wednesday. He said that ultimately we should update the By-Laws about this. Mr. Reppucci said that Mr. Currier could make a motion to amend the By-Laws to reflect that right now, and we could vote on it, and the following meeting we have, we could confirm it, and it would resolve this for us. MOTION by Mr. Currier to amend the By-Laws, if there should be a municipal election, to be clarified as an election within the City of Nashua, whether it’s for municipal, state or national, that is scheduled for a Tuesday evening, that our regular meeting will be pushed to the Wednesday after that election. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 10:00 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing