Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING November 10, 2015 A public hearing of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Tuesday, November 10, 2015 at 6:30 PM in Room 208, City Hall. Gerry Reppucci, Chair Jack Currier, Vice Chair J.P. Boucher, Clerk Kathy Vitale Mariellen MacKay Marcia Wilkins, Planner I, Planning Department 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. Collette Levesque (Owner) 4 Wilton Street (Sheet E Lot 1006) requesting variance to encroach 5 feet into the 10 foot required right side yard setback to construct an attached 24’x28’ garage with finished space above. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Mariellen MacKay Daniel Levesque, 4 Wilton Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Levesque stated that they are asking for a 28’x28’ addition, with a 4’ cutout. He said the main reason is to increase the amount of building space, as they are looking to add three bedrooms and a bathroom above the two-car garage, for the children. He said that they are a family of six with four children. He said that his mother lives in the house in the basement in an in-law apartment that was approved last year. Mr. Levesque said that the addition will fit in with the surrounding houses, the majority of which are already two stories. He said the existing house is a one-story ranch. He Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 2 said that they’ve included pictures of the house. He said that the neighbors on the side are ok, and their concerns were addressed, as there will not be any windows on that side of the addition to ensure that the neighbors have the privacy they were looking for. Mr. Reppucci asked what would be on the second floor. Mr. Levesque said it would have three bedrooms and a bathroom. He said that he submitted a floor plan. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mrs. MacKay asked to confirm the application with respect to the number of bedrooms matched what was stated in testimony. Mr. Currier said that number 2 in the application is a little confusing, but in the testimony and the floor plan, it clearly shows the three bedrooms and the bathroom. 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 greater living space for the family. He said that the special conditions of the property is that the only place to add on is on the right side, and the proposed addition with the garage and bedrooms above, and it works with the design of the house. Mr. Currier stated that the request will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, there is a special condition that there will be no windows on the right side of the house, and the applicant stated that that is what they are going to do, so that the privacy of the immediate abutter will not be impacted. He said that the request is not contrary to the property values, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served by allowing the addition to be built five feet Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 3 into the ten foot side yard setback with no windows on the right side. SECONDED by Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 2. Richard R. & Darcy F. Beavers (Owners) 17 Hunters Lane (Sheet E Lot 1141) requesting variance to exceed maximum fence height, 6 feet allowed, 8 feet proposed, for a portion of a new fence on southern property line. R9 Zone, Ward 1. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Mariellen MacKay Richard Beavers, 17 Hunters Lane, Nashua, NH. Mr. Beavers stated that in talking to his neighbor, they have dogs that are kenneled in their yard by the left hand side, and they’re big tall dogs, and every time he goes on his back porch, they notice. He said the fence on all other parts of the property will be six feet tall, it’s only in this one section that it would be eight feet tall. He said that the back yard slopes down somewhat, so people shouldn’t even see that section. He said the taller fence section should be an improvement in the neighborhood, and the dogs may bark less. Mr. Reppucci asked if the extra two feet will keep the dogs from barking. Mr. Beavers said that when the dogs stand up, their heads just clear the six foot height. He said that they are Afghan Hounds. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Frank Liss, 19 Hunters Lane, Nashua, NH. Mr. Liss said that the land slopes down, and Afghan Hounds are sight hounds, if they can’t see it, they don’t bark. He said that from the street, you won’t be able to see the fence. He said that he’d be the Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 4 only person to see the extra fence height, as garages and tool sheds block it. 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 owners. Mr. Currier said that the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is living in quiet concert with the neighbor who has some large dogs, and the mutual relief of the 8 foot tall fence would be a calming issue, and would not impact the neighborhood in any other way. Mr. Currier stated that the use will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance to allow the two-foot overage for the fence, 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. SECONDED by Mrs. MacKay. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 3. Karen D. Eldredge & Gerard McInerney (Owners) 73 Cox Street (Sheet 137A Lot 97) requesting variance to encroach 13 feet into the 25 foot required front yard setback (on Hastings Lane) to construct an attached two-story 16’-7” x 36’ home addition. RA Zone, Ward 2. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Mariellen MacKay Chad Branon, PE, Fieldstone Land Consultants. Mr. Branon said that they’re requesting a variance to encroach 13 feet into the 25 foot front yard setback. He said that the lot consists of 0.24 acres of land, with an existing single family home on it. He said it is an RA Zone, which requires a 25 foot setback in the front. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 5 Mr. Branon said that they want to build an addition on the west side of the residence; it would be approximately 600 square feet. He said the first floor would have a handicap accessible bedroom, bathroom and seating area. He said the second floor would consist of a master bedroom, bathroom and closet. He said the addition would be 12.2 feet from the boundary of the parcel, to Hastings Lane, where 25 feet is required. He said that the addition would be consistent with the neighborhood, as many of the houses in the neighborhood are located up to 10 feet from neighboring residences, and that is the side yard setback in this area. He said the addition will not affect any neighbor’s privacy. Mr. Currier asked about the roof line. Mr. Branon said its two stories, so it would be the existing height of the residence. He said it would have an A-frame style roof that will project into the back yard. Mrs. MacKay asked if there is a handicap accessible entrance into the house, as none of the doors on the plan say that they are. Mr. Branon said that he believes that the access through the garage is being modified to be handicapped accessible, there is an existing garage on the other side of the house. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: Karen Eldredge, 73 Cox Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Eldredge said that there will be a little ramp added so that her mother can come out. She said that her mother will be in a wheelchair most all of the time. Mr. Reppucci asked that, in the addition, if it’s just living space. Mr. Branon said the first floor addition is for the handicap accessibility, and there is no proposed kitchen, as that would require a special exception. He said that the second floor is the master bedroom. He said that the project will also be to refurbish the home, residing the home, and roofing, so there will be a lot of improvements to the exterior of the home. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 6 SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: No one. Mr. Currier said that the house is so much further above Hastings Lane, and didn’t see it as creating any issues with any sight lines, and it won’t look like it’s out of place due to the topography. He said that there is an existing stockade fence there now, and it’s going to be on the inside of the fence, and is good with the plan as its planned and presented. Ms. Vitale said that she didn’t see where they could place the addition for their mother in any other location, and didn’t see where it would affect any sight lines in any way, and the neighbors are all ok with it, and the house will be improved. Mrs. MacKay said she was concerned about the accessibility issues, and those concerns were answered. She said that the substantial justice is for their mother, and for the family to take care of her, so she gets to remain in the community. Mr. Reppucci said it’s a huge encroachment, and is satisfied that the sight lines are ok. He said it seems like a lot, and is wondering about the open space on the lot. He said it may be over the 50% open space. He said perhaps the Board can have Planning staff confirm the open space as a condition of approval. Mr. Boucher said that visually, it doesn’t seem to be a large encroachment, because the right-of-way is there. He said the 12 foot encroachment seems like a lot, but there is also the land that the City owns. MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owners. He said that for a special condition, the approval is based upon the Planning Department double-check the open space to ensure that it meets the requirement, because the Board has a concern that it may not, but it’s just a visual thing by looking at the papers. He said the variance is needed to enable the applicant’s proposed use of the property, which is an added on master bedroom above, and on the first floor specifically for a handicapped parent to reside there. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 7 Mr. Currier stated that the request will be within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, given the special conditions of the property, which is that the street drops down, so the property is up and back, and there is no impact to the sight lines. 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 a handicapped parent to reside on the first floor with this addition. SECONDED by Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. William M. Prizer & Jacqueline A. Prieur (Owners) Zagfelt Properties, LLC (Applicant) 378 Main Street (Sheet 2 Lot 5) requesting use variance to convert a financial office approved by the ZBA on 3-23-99 to a professional law firm, and to use a detached garage for office/conference space, and to allow for 10 employees, where the stipulation of approval was for a limit of 6 employees. RA Zone, Ward 7. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier J.P. Boucher Kathy Vitale Mariellen MacKay Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A, 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that the Attorney’s that he’s representing are Eric Wilson and Tim Bush. Atty. Prunier said that he is aware that Mrs. MacKay and his client know one another. Mr. Reppucci asked if Mrs. MacKay is considering recusing herself from the case. Mrs. MacKay said that they serve on another Board together, and while they do know one another, there is no reason for her to recuse from the case, and there is nothing for her to gain Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 8 whatsoever. She said if anyone has an issue with her sitting on the case, she’d recuse. Atty. Prunier said that back in 1999, there was a variance granted. He said the initial motion for that request was that it only be for financial or investment purposes. He said that there was a subsequent amendment to the motion in which there was a limit of six employees without coming back to the Board, so, there wasn’t a limit of the use to just financial uses, it was for professional use. He said that it’s consistent with the proposed use of office space for attorneys. Atty. Prunier said that another stipulation from the earlier approval was for no left turn out onto Main Street, and the parking was on the number of slots rather than the number of employees, appropriate fencing, cleaning of the property to the rear, and the six employees without coming back to the Board. Atty. Prunier said that there was an existing garage in 1999 to be razed, which it was, and there is a building in the back, and there were no restrictions put on by the Board for that building. He said that they’d like to use that room for a “war room”, a conference room to leave all your papers and files on a big desk for a big trial. Atty. Prunier said that in summary, what they want is the use of the building with the five conditions and they’d like ten employees. He said that the proposed use has nine employees, including the attorneys at this practice. He said that they have a criminal practice, so they see most of their clients in court or in prison. He said that they’ve tried to find more parking nearby for the employees, and the site plan shows seven spaces, maybe some room to make a couple more, but the site plan does have seven spaces. He said that the landscaping and the house is in great shape. Mr. Reppucci said that there would be more employees for the number of parking spaces, and asked what the plan for that. Atty. Prunier said that they thought that they could have some off-street parking that would be committed to the use, but the agreement isn’t able to work now. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 9 Ms. Vitale asked if they are considering having some of them park in the current location until something else can be available. Atty. Prunier said that they’re trying to get the employees some parking nearby, but there’s nothing in agreement right at this moment. Mr. Currier asked if the intent was to get an agreement where there would be some off-street parking nearby. Atty. Prunier said that they want to have some off-street parking nearby for the employees to park, and want it for a long period of time. Mr. Reppucci asked if the other building in the back has plumbing in it, or if it’s heated. Atty. Prunier said he’s not sure if it’s heated. He said he’s not sure what it’s used for now, but believes it’s for storage. He said it would be used as a conference space to lay out files, and perhaps for some storage too. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: James Kaklamanos, 374 Main Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Kaklamanos said he has no concerns about the use of the building for professional use. He said he has some concerns about the number of employees, where the previous approval in 1999 had a stipulation of six employees. Mr. Kaklamanos said that when he came before the Board in 1997, there were just a few professional office conversions in the neighborhood. He said he came before the Board in 1996 for 407 Main Street, and was told that the house was not large enough for the intended use, and has since found his current location at 374 Main Street. He said that in 1999, 378 Main Street was granted similar relief, with several stipulations, and one such stipulation was for a maximum of six employees, to go along with the seven Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 10 parking spaces. He said that the existing use is very clean, very quiet, and has almost no traffic. He said his office has an average of 500 square feet per person, with the expectation that clients can visit and be added to the mix, so there would be room inside the building to move around, and room for vehicles to park beyond the maximum number of parking spaces that he has to maintain, which is ten spaces. He said he’s concerned about the intensification of the use of the property, with upwards of ten people on site, it’s a very small piece of property, and it’s almost doubling the use of what he has on his property and the rules he has to live by. Mr. Currier asked about alleviating the parking by an agreement of some parking nearby. Mr. Kaklamanos said that the building is so small, it’s like taking 10 pounds of potatoes and sticking them in a 5 pound bag. He said that Mr. Prizer did a wonderful job restoring the building to its historical origin, but ten employees is a lot. He said that the Board put a restriction of six employees on his property, and he has 3,000 square feet, this building has 2,136 square feet. He said that six employees is a reasonable use of the property. Mr. Reppucci said that these decisions were made 16-20 years ago, and certainly, the standards for relief now are quite different than they were then. He said that the standards are significantly different. Mr. Kaklamanos said he has no problem with the use, it’s the intensity of the use with the number of people who are using the property. Mr. Reppucci said the way he sees it, it’s sort of a self- limiting issue, if you have a business with ten employees and only have six parking spaces, you’re going to have to solve that problem, if he has four more people than he can park cars on his lot, either he solves that problem or they park on the street and get tickets or something else happens, it’s a problem but they’re going to have to address it. Mr. Kaklamanos said on Taylor Street, it’s very tight, there are a lot of tractor trailer trucks visiting the wastewater treatment facility. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 11 Victoria Carlson, 7 Taylor Street, Nashua, NH. Mrs. Carlson said that the back building is used as a garage, she’s seen two cars in it. She asked what they’re going to do with the garage doors. Mr. Currier asked if cars park on Taylor Street. Mrs. Carlson said no one really does, there are a lot of trucks that go by, it is a busy road. Ben Martel, 6 Montgomery Avenue, Nashua, NH. Mr. Martel said that people for the chiropractor’s office always park on Montgomery Avenue since they’ve been there. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Prunier said that his clients do criminal work, and their clients are mostly in jail, or in the courthouse. He said that Mr. Kaklamanos has a closing practice, and for just one closing, there could be the two families, and the real estate agents, and that’s just for one closing, they’re two different types of practices, so the intensity is not the same. Atty. Prunier said for the garage doors, his clients haven’t gotten to the aesthetics of them yet, but should this be approved, the garage doors would come off and the rest of the building would be finished just like the main building, it’s a very nice area and his clients would ensure that it stays that way. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: Mr. Kaklamanos said that today’s practice is not necessarily tomorrow’s practice. Ms. Vitale said that she didn’t see the intensity of use, by using the garage as a conference room, it’s a pretty big space. She said she’s sure that they’ve looked at the space in the building and is sure that they’ve compared it to the space and desks they need for the practice, otherwise, they wouldn’t consider this property. So, space-wise, it must meet the needs that they are looking for, they wouldn’t buy a property that doesn’t meet their needs on a daily basis. She said she didn’t see the intensity of use as being a problem, and doesn’t see a problem with the number of employees that they’re asking for. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 12 She said that she has a little bit of trouble with the parking part of it, they don’t have a lot of clients coming there, and there will still be snow removal and deliveries coming there, so maybe they can configure what is already there, or arrange for some employees to park elsewhere and get them to the location. Mr. Reppucci said he’s not concerned with the number of people if it accommodates them. He said it seems like it’s a problem that they’re aware of that they’re bringing on themselves, if they need more parking than they have, it’s their problem, and they know that going in. Ms. Vitale said that over the years, the parking requirements have changed. Mr. Reppucci said that they’ve become less restrictive. Ms. Vitale said that you see parking lots everywhere, and never do you see them full. Mr. Reppucci said that he knows the parking requirements have become less restrictive since 1999. He said if the requirement changed from the City, they shouldn’t need relief based upon a 1999 decision based upon the old requirement. Mr. Currier said he never considered the internal density of the use until Mr. Kaklamanos brought it up, that it would be too dense. He said that for many years, there always seems to be opposition from residents to non-residential uses on this part of Main Street, but over time, a lot of the lighter intensive businesses have gone in without much opposition, and they’ve worked out well. He asked if the internal density is something that the Board even considers. He said if the internal density is problematic, it’s not like the lawyers will be hanging out the windows disturbing the neighbors, he said it’s more about the parking. Mr. Boucher said that on Page 2 of Mr. Falk’s staff report, he said he doesn’t think there’s a correlation, the parking requirements are 1 space per 1,000 spaces, therefore, two spaces are required to meet the Code, and existing conditions indicate that there are seven parking spaces located to the rear of the house, however, the March 1999 ZBA meeting put on a stipulation that the use be limited to six employees. He said that perhaps at the time, the Board was looking at it for different reasons, Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 13 and things have changed over time, and we have to look at it in our present perspective. He said it was a different environment on Main Street at that time in 1999. Ms. Vitale said that it was advertised as for ten employees, but per their testimony, they have nine. She said that the Board could look at this for nine employees. She said she doesn’t have a problem with the ten employees. Mrs. MacKay said to her, it feels like someone is trying to run a business and its growth, and by adding employees, you’re growing. She said the parking is the applicant’s issue, and how they can figure, she said the parking doesn’t seem to be the issue, it seems to be whether she has the right to limit business growth, and yes, it was very different back in 1999, and back in the 1980’s and 1990’s that street looked very different, it had a different feel about it, it felt more residential than it does today. Mr. Reppucci said the only time he thinks about employees is for a day care, and the number of employees becomes relevant because of the number of kids there. He said he can’t think of a location where we limit the number of employees. He said that is a thing they dealt with long before he was on the Board. MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci 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 said that the members supporting this motion believe that the change in the use to accommodate a professional law firm, and to approve the use of the detached garage for office and conference space, and to eliminate any stipulation on the number of employees that are allowed at the building, and to leave the parking requirements to the comply with the current zoning law as it stands today, and if relief is needed beyond that, the applicant’s would have to come back, but the Board is not getting into how their parking goes on their property. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance. He stated that it will not adversely Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 14 affect property values of surrounding parcels, we heard no testimony that it would, one way or another. Mr. Reppucci said that the request is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is done. SECONDED by Mr. Boucher. Mr. Currier said that he has no issue to the professional office use, or the use of the detached garage, but still wants to see a parking plan, and won’t be supporting the motion, but wants to isolate it to that issue. MOTION CARRIED 4-1. (Mr. Currier) 5. David C. & Charlotte W. Dion (Owners) Constantine G. Scrivanos (Applicant) 36 & 38 Broad Street (Sheet 61 Lots 60 & 172) requesting use variance to remove existing building and construct a new fast-food restaurant with a drive-through lane. GI Zone, Ward 4. Voting on this case: Gerry Reppucci Jack Currier Kathy Vitale J.P. Boucher Mariellen MacKay Attorney Gerald Prunier, Prunier & Prolman, P.A., 20 Trafalgar Square, Nashua, NH. Atty. Prunier said that about a year and a half ago, the Board approved a new Dairy Queen (DQ), actually, a renovation of the existing DQ. He said that since then, they’ve decided to sell it to a Dunkin Donuts. He said that the DQ building will be removed, and there will be two lots that will be combined. Atty. Prunier said that they are solely here this evening for the drive-thru lane for the restaurant. He described its proposed location on the lot. He said that the total number of vehicles that can be put in the drive-thru without anywhere touching the street is eighteen. He said that they are also able to have a bypass lane. He said that the drive-thru will have two windows, so if your order is larger, you’d go to the second window, quick orders go to the first window, so the lines will keep moving. He said that the drive-thru has become a Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 15 necessity now, especially with Dunkin Donuts. He said it’s a complete re-do of the site, it’ll be a new site. Mr. Currier asked about the two lots to be combined. Atty. Prunier said it’s the DQ lot, and a vacant lot next to it, that will be combined. Ms. Vitale asked how many cars are in the queue on the West Hollis Street site. Atty. Prunier said he thinks there are ten. He said on that site, when the stacking was a problem, the Planning Board asked them to revise it, and they did it on their own. He said that location works very well now and they move the cars through there fast. Mrs. MacKay said that the worst one is the one on Amherst Street, as cars stack right onto the street. She said the locations with two windows really speed up the process, and the West Hollis Street Dunkin Donuts is the fastest of all of them, it moves cars rapidly. Mr. Reppucci asked about the stacking space number. Chris Rice, Engineer, TF Moran, Bedford, NH. Mr. Rice said that the stacking spaces are counted from the first pick-up window, so there would be eighteen cars from that window going back. SPEAKING IN FAVOR: No one. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS: Tom Nguyen, 35 Broad Street, Nashua, NH. Mr. Nguyen said that the use is good for the area, and good for business, and said that his main concern is traffic. He said the drive-thru will help people in the morning. He asked if there have been studies done as to the impact of the traffic would be if having a Dunkin Donuts with a drive-thru at this size here, as opposed to one further down on Broad Street where people are taking a right, and then just taking a right back onto a multiple lanes of traffic, the traffic impact is much lower than right here. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 16 Mr. Reppucci said that it is more of a Planning Board consideration, it is more of a function that they would do, to make sure that the traffic impacts can be accommodated in the area. SPEAKING IN FAVOR – REBUTTAL: Atty. Prunier said that there is a traffic report being done for the Planning Board, and the traffic going to this one is traffic that is already on the street, it’s not a destination location, like a grocery store where you’d make a special trip. SPEAKING IN OPPOSITION OR WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS – REBUTTAL: No one. Mr. Boucher said it is a pretty generous queue. He said he’s in favor of the plan, they’ve addressed the traffic, and if it’s run anything like the West Hollis Street location, it will be fine. He said that when the Board looked at the DQ plan, the folks at 2 Sullivan Street were very concerned about the entrance, and whether it lined up with Sullivan Street or not, but the Planning Board will review that and address it. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board should include something in the motion that if the stacking gets reduced because the Planning Board moves the entrance or exit, that it will have to come back to the Board. He said that eighteen cars for a stack is really good, but if they are required to move the entrance, it may reduce the stacking, and perhaps the Board wouldn’t want to approve it if it’s reduced to fourteen or fifteen. He said he wouldn’t feel comfortable approving it if it didn’t have the stacking for eighteen cars. Mrs. MacKay agreed, the traffic lights have been adjusted, and if there are more cars on the street and less available for stacking, it could be a problem if there is anything less than eighteen spaces. Mr. Reppucci said that when the Broad Street Parkway opens, it may alleviate the traffic burden. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 17 MOTION by Mr. Reppucci to approve the variance application as advertised on behalf of the owner. Mr. Reppucci 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 it is within the spirit and intent of the ordinance, a similar previously approved drive-thru was approved by the Board recently. He said it will not adversely affect the property values of surrounding parcels, there was some concern about the traffic, and it will be addressed by the Planning Board, it is not contrary to the public interest, and substantial justice is served. Mr. Reppucci said that for a special condition, per testimony of the Engineer, that there will be an eighteen-car stacking lane for the drive-thru, and if any changes to the plan come about that reduce that number, then this approval is retracted, and they’ll have to come back to the Board. SECONDED by Ms. Vitale. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. MISCELLANEOUS: REHEARING REQUESTS: None. REGIONAL IMPACT: The Board did not see any cases that will have any Regional Impact for the next agenda, which has two cases. MINUTES: September 8, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 18 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 4-0-1 (Mrs. MacKay abstained) September 22, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. He said that should Mr. Shaw have any comments, we will go over it. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0-2 (Ms. Vitale and Mrs. MacKay abstained) October 13, 2015: MOTION by Mr. Currier to approve the minutes as presented, waive the reading, and place in the file. He said that if Mr. Shaw has any concerns, they can still be looked at. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0-2 (Ms. Vitale and Mrs. MacKay abstained) BY-LAWS: Mr. Currier said that for the By-Laws, if there is a municipal, state or federal election, that is on a night that the Zoning Board meets, that we will meet on the Wednesday after that. Mr. Reppucci said that the Board should review what was discussed at the October 13th meeting. Mr. Currier said that it is, on Page 22, it addresses that we would have a meeting on the Wednesday after the election. He Reppucci said that this is a confirmation of what was discussed on the October 13th meeting, verbatim. MOTION by Mr. Currier to re-affirm the Motion put forth at the October 13th meeting to have our Zoning Board meeting on the Wednesday after an election. SECONDED by Mr. Reppucci. Zoning Board of Adjustment November 10, 2015 Page 19 MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY 3-0 (Ms. Vitale and Mrs. MacKay, as Alternates, not voting). Ms. Vitale said that she has been notified by the Personnel Committee that she has been recommended for a full member, and now it needs to be confirmed by the Board of Aldermen. She said it probably will happen at the next Board meeting night. ADJOURNMENT: Mr. Reppucci called the meeting closed at 9:00 p.m. Submitted by: Mr. Boucher, Clerk. CF - Taped Hearing