ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
February 5, 2008
3/4/08 jrl____
AGENDA: VARIANCE: 86 SUMMER STREET PROFESSIONALS LLC,
86 Summer Street, #114-084
ATTENDING: Dan Bouchard (Chairman), Mike Willingham (Vice Chairman), Lloyd Belbin, Donna Hardy, Sandra Heaney
Alternates: Lorraine Onoratto-Sullivan
ABSENT: None
OTHER: Public
The meeting opened at 7:00.
MINUTES OF DECEMBER 4, 2007:
S. Heaney made a motion, second by L. Belbin, to accept the minutes as read. The motion carried.
VARIANCE: DURWOOD MILLER JR./86 SUMMER ST. PROF. LLC
Ms. Heaney (abutter) stepped down and Ms. Onorato-Sullivan sat in her place.
Mr. Bouchard asked how many variances they were looking for. Mr. Miller stated that they are looking for two. Mr. Bouchard explained that there should have been two separate applications. Mr. Bouchard then stated that 5.76 spaces are needed for this additional business and that they are showing 4 new spaces. Mr. Willingham asked if the 4 include the handicap parking and Mr. Miller explained that it is not as the handicap parking was part of the previous variance.
M. Willingham made a MOTION, second by Mr. Belbin, to ACCEPT THE APPLICATION AS COMPLETE. The motion CARRIED.
Mr. Bouchard asked if Mr. Miller had received the five criteria for a variance and Mr. Miller said that he had. At this time, Mr. Miller presented the plan. He explained that J. P. Morrison and Corey Johnston had worked on the original plan and were able to give a wider area where the original slope was. They removed two large trees so that the front of the carriage shed has room for more parking. This area has not been used to this point. There is 40’ across in front which would allow for 4 spaces.
Mr. Bouchard asked about the area to the back of the lot and Mr. Miller said that this was in the previous plan and was part of the Pemi-overlay at the time. They previously had 23 spaces (22 plus 1 handicap). Mr. Bouchard read that 35 were required for the first business (this was taken from the minutes).
-2-
ZBA Minutes
2/5/08
86 SUMMER ST. VARIANCE continued:
Mr. Bouchard asked what the two variances are that Mr. Miller is looking for. Mr. Miller stated that they want one for the number of parking spaces required and the second for change of use from a storage shed to retail. The structure is existing and will not be changed structurally. Mr. Miller stated that the Planning Board said that he needed a variance for the building which is in the setback. Mr. Bouchard and Mr. Willingham did not understand why this was needed as the structure is grandfathered.
Mr. Miller stated that the parking spaces are all 10’ x 20’. He said that the original variance had the garage as storage and it was counted at that time so Mr. Miller has calculated the difference and distributed copies. The entire need for the Carriage House is 5.76 spaces, there are 4 new spaces added, leaving 1.76. 1.44 spaces were calculated for the storage previously leaving a need of 0.32 spaces. Mr. Bouchard felt
That 1.76 spaces are needed as you have to recalculate the whole site.
Mr. Bouchard asked how many employees the first business has. Mr. Miller answered that there are 10 sales agents and 4 Administrative positions. He then quoted from the previous Site Plan Planning minutes where Mr. Paradis felt they had more than enough parking for the use. Once a month, on a Wednesday, is the only day that all of the staff and the agents are there. Mr. Miller went on to read the Planning minutes where Mr. Favorite referred to parking within the original Site Plan and Mr. Paradis said they needed two variances. Mr. Favorite felt that this is discouraging business. Mr. Miller added that they want to use what existed and have tried to minimize as much as they could and still keep as much parking as possible. He feels that this is in the Spirit of the Ordinance. As to the special conditions of the property, Mr. Miller stated that the lot is long and narrow. They will not be changing the building/structure and it meets the use of the Village Commercial district that it is located in. He feels that it is consistent with the Spirit of the Ordinance with minimal difference. As to Substantial justice, he feels that they meet this because they can use what is already there. They have most of the parking needed with fewer people than all the other Real Estates in town. It will not diminish the value of the neighbors’ property and they have tried to protect the interest of the surrounding properties. As to Contrary to the Public Interest, Mr. Miller felt it would further the enhancement of another business for the town.
At this time, Mr. Bouchard asked for public comment.
Ms. Heaney, abutter, asked if they are to keep the existing pavement as it is now and was told that they shall.
Mr. Vincent Migliori, Budget Blinds across the street, said that he is in favor. He feels that it would bring additional employment. As to substantial justice, it is an opportunity to establish another business in town.
-3-
ZBA Minutes
2/5/08
86 SUMER ST. VARIANCE continued:
Betty Seeler, abutter, said that she was in favor of the original business but is not in favor of this one. She feels that it will harm the value of her property. She then read from the Planning Board minutes that there was to be a landscaped buffer. She stated that there is no buffer between the garage that would be allowed. She then asked what their busiest time of year would be as she presented the Board with photos showing that they have been parking in that area already. She then stated that Mr. Paradis had found on the internet that 27’ is needed for the swing of the vehicles and they only show 15’. Mr. Miller stated that they removed parking space 5 & 6. Mr. Bouchard stated that this is for Site Plan Review not the ZBA.
Ms. Seeler read the section of the Ordinance on non-conforming situations. She stated that putting in a second business would make this more non-conforming. She added that it takes away the use of her back yard in the summer with those spaces being used. Mr. Bouchard stated that, adding spaces that are not in the setback makes it more conforming. Ms. Seeler stated that her issue is the lack of privacy to her yard. Mr. Belbin stated that the scale of the plan shows that there is 5’ between the garage and her property. Ms. Seeler stated that the building was the buffer but now it won’t be.
Mr. Miller stated that they tried to address the buffer to meet the abutter’s needs. He offered to put up a fence but Ms. Seeler does not like fences. He then offered a berm with vegetation. He was to put in 6 trees and he has planted more than twice that number. Several trees were planted on Ms. Seeler’s property with her permission. Ms. Seeler stated that the mound caused more run-off onto her property. Mr. Miller retaliated with the fact that it used to be a paved surface which they removed. Mr. Johnston’s calculations show that they reduced the run-off. Ms. Seeler stated that the garage roof extends enough that the snow melt comes onto her property. The forester recommended that they plant 10 trees. The one that they took down would have screened everything. They replaced it with 6 Pine trees. They then planted 3 more to deal with the run-off.
Mr. Bouchard asked if there was anything the applicant could do to make Ms. Seeler happy and she answered that there wasn’t. Ms. Seeler brought up the fact that there are windows in the back of the garage. Mr. Bouchard asked how many years Ms. Seeler has been there and she stated that she has owned the property for 34 years. Mr. Miller stated that there are no windows on Ms. Seeler’s side of the garage. Mr. Belbin asked if there will be and was told that there would not. Ms. Seeler pointed out that there are windows as shown in her photos. Mr. Miller thought that there could be a stairway there for the door but he does not believe that those windows are exposed from inside.
-4-
ZBA Minutes
2/5/08
86 SUMMER ST. VARIANCE continued:
Mr. Belbin addressed the May 3, 2006 ZBA minutes, page 2, next to last paragraph, that says that 35 spaces are required and the applicant is proposing 21. The garage was to be used for trash and it was noted that “storage” must be used to store goods. On page 4, 3rd paragraph, Mr. Johnston stated that “in the 1000 sq. ft. of impervious area allowed in the Pemi-Overlay, they can have 6-8 spaces. They would have to reduce office space from 4565 sq. ft. to 3200 sq. ft.”. Page 5, 2nd paragraph, when asked if anyone will be living there, the applicant stated that they propose just one business only. Page 6, top paragraph, “more than one tenant would bring this back to the Planning Board”. Would the new business be owned by the same people. Mr. Miller stated that it would be owned by one of the employees and would be separate. Mr. Belbin thought that we should grant the variance with the condition that it requires Site Plan.
The public portion of the meeting was then closed and the Board addressed the five criteria. Mr. Bouchard felt that the Property Value and Substantial Justice have been met. He went on to say that we have given a variance for parking for the one business. If these are now combined, there is still not enough parking for the one business never mind for two. He feels that this makes it more out of compliance and is not in the Spirit of the Ordinance. He mentioned that the new parking spots are not in the setback and that something could be worked out for the buffer. The building is grandfathered.
Mr. Willingham disagreed that there is no devaluation of the neighbor’s property. This new business will require more in and out activity which does cause the value to go down. Mr. Bouchard mentioned that the property is in the Village Commercial district.
Ms. Onoratto-Sullivan felt that it makes the property more non-conforming and that it does affect the value. She mentioned when she used to live behind the American Legion and the activity, though not steady, did affect her being able to sell. She would be concerned about this.
Mr. Belbin felt that he could only go along with #3 Spirit of the Ordinance. As to #4, he feels that it is contrary to public interest as a second business would create more traffic. He feels an obligation to the public this time.
Ms. Hardy felt that the original variance had already made the parking requirement less. The garage is not a big deal but feels that making it a business would devalue the neighboring properties.
A vote was then taken with 4 opposed and 0 in favor.
Mr. Bouchard expressed his sorrow as we need businesses but it is a tough sell to add to an already non-conforming situation. Mr. Miller felt that, if he added in the Pemi-Overlay and addressed the permitted uses, he would probably be okay. He felt that he is being denied the use from an abutter who has a commercial office in her home with the accompanying traffic. Mr. Bouchard said that he does have recourse within 30 days. He then commended Mr. Miller on his preparation.
Ms. Heaney returned to the table at this time.
-5-
ZBA Minutes
2/5/08
COMMUNICATIONS:
Mr. Bouchard took the calendar from LGC. The date of the Annual Spring Planning and Zoning Conference was announced. There is a seminar on Practical Guide to Zoning and Land Use Law. At a cost of $369.00, it is not within our budget. Notice of Bernie Waugh’s Municipal Law update for Feb. 20th was announced. There was an in-house memo from Dan Paradis requesting a letter for the Planning Board’s PlanNH application. Mr. Bouchard is a member of PlanNH and he will write a letter. The January Town & City magazine will be in the office.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
NEW BUSINESS:
LAND USE OFFICER: Mr. Bouchard announced that we have lost Ms. Montague and that Ms. Corrow, Town Manager, was not happy. This coming Friday, there will be 8 interviews for the position. Mr. Bouchard had worked with Ms. Montague on our applications and the criteria to be placed with it. He does not know the status of that now.
SIGNS: Mr. Bouchard stated that, when the ZBA addressed the sign for the High School, we counted from the ground to the top and side to side. He then explained that Craig Campbell had come in for a sign and Ms. Montague counted the same way. Mr. Campbell went to Mr. Paradis, Chairman of the Planning Board, and the space from the ground to the sign was not to be counted, as Mr. Paradis interpreted it. The new wording for clarification is that the only air space to be counted is any that is within the sign. Mr. Bouchard feels that this leaves a problem if you eliminate the poles and these are lettered. The secretary explained that, in that case, the poles would be counted, as well. Mr. Bouchard then stated that, with this wording, you could have a 2’ x 16’ sign and it would be allowed. He felt that it is still ambiguous.
With no other business, M. Willingham made a motion, second by L. Onoratto-Sullivan, to adjourn at 8:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Laferriere, secretary