Town of Plaistow Archive - ZBA Minutes 03/26/15

ZBA Minutes 03/26/15

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

March 26, 2015

The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m.

Roll Call: Larry Ordway, Chair

Timothy Fisher, Vice Chair

James Allen

Paul Boniface

Peter Bealo, Alternate

P. Bealo was appointed as a voting member for this meeting.

Approval of Minutes

L. Ordway moved second by J. Allen to approve the minutes of the February 26, 2015 meeting. There was no discussion on the motion. The vote was 2-0-3 (Ordway, Fisher and Bealo abstaining.

#15-03: A request from Dianna Huff special exception under Article X, All Sections to permit a home occupation, namely a consulting business. The property is located at 75 Forrest St, Tax Map 48, Lot 9 in the LDR District. The applicant is the property owner of record.

Dianna Huff, 75 Forrest St, was present for the application. She noted that following for the Board:

She would like to have an office for a Marketing Consultant business in her home
He customers are small industrial manufacturers
She has been in business since 1998 and moved to Plaistow in 2001
All her space requirements are for a desk and a computer

The Board reviewed the requirements for a Home Occupation as outlined in Article X:

The business qualifies as a home occupation under §220-66.A of the permitted uses
There is nothing noxious, injurious by emission of fumes, noise or dust and there are no electrical fluctuations involved in the operation of the business
There is just a desk and computer
The property is owner-occupied and Ms. Huff is the only employee
The business use will occupy approximately 11% of the living space
There will be no change to the residential character of the dwelling or the neighborhood
There is no need for exterior storage
The applicant is not seeking a sign at this time
This is a one-person business
There will be no display of merchandize
There is sufficient off-street parking, however no clients ever come to the residence
There are no covenants or restrictions in the deed
The property is not part of a condo or home owner’s association so no additional permission are required
The applicant was reminded that the home occupation needed to be renewed every three (3) years

L. Ordway asked if the Board had any questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one and that matter was closed.

L. Ordway suggested that the Board take deliberative action on this matter before hearing the other matter on the agenda.

L. Ordway read the legal notice.

L. Ordway moved second by T. Fisher to grant the special exception request for a home occupation as stated in the legal notice.

L. Ordway a summarized the application noting the following:

The request is for a home office for a consulting business
The use will be 11% of the living space, no outside storage or merchandize
No customers will be coming to the home

It was noted that this is a straight-forward request.

There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 and the special exception was granted.

#15-04: A request from Melissa Dennison for a variance from Article IX, Section 220-59 to permit a 32.4 sq. ft. sign where 6.3 sq. ft (10% of the façade) is the maximum allowed. The property is located at 166 Plaistow Rd, Tax Map 30, Lot 55 in the CI District. 166 Plaistow Road, LLC is the property owner of record.

It was noted that the maximum allowable signage for this location was incorrectly noticed as 6.3 sq ft. The correct amount is 19 sq ft, which makes for a lesser variance request.

Present for the application were Melissa Dennison, DMD of Highland Family Dental and Jon Wendell, property owner of 166 Plaistow Rd.

M. Dennison explained the application for the Board noting the following:

She owns a general dentistry office, currently located in Newton, NH
She was looking to relocated the office to Plaistow, which would offer a more handicap accessible location
The office that she is relocating to is the lower level of the building located at 166 Plaistow
Most of the office is located below grade and therefore she doesn’t have as much wall space as the other units in the building to calculate adequate signage
Her signage would be consistent with the other compliant signs planned for the other offices
Adequate signage would make her more visible to patients as well as any emergency vehicles

There was discussion about the number of units in the building. It was noted that there are six (1) units and there will be four (4) business offices. Two (2) businesses were using two (2) units and the remaining two (2) businesses had a unit each.

There was discussion regarding how the signage is calculated under the ordinance. It was noted that the allowable signage is calculated by measuring roofline to foundation of the unit, subtracting any glass for that unit, and the allowable signage is 10% of that calculation. It was noted that the subject unit was 150’ long, by 28’ wide, 36’ deep, but mostly below grade.

M. Dennison noted that this is why she was seeking a variance. Her unit is mostly below grade and what is able grade is mostly windows, leaving very little façade to provide an adequate sign once all the calculations were made. She added that she was seeking to have a sign the same size and character as the other units in the building which would make for a more aesthetically pleasing look to the building.

The allowable signage for the other units in the building was discussed for comparison.

J. Allen asked if the sign would be lit.

J. Wendell noted that none of the signs will be illuminated.

P. Bealo noted that if the building were raised to grade level this applicant wouldn’t need a variance for the same sized sign as other units.

L. Ordway asked if there would be any changes made to the pylon sign.

J. Wendell replied that he intended to clean and fix it up, but that it will be 100% compliant with the sign ordinance.

L. Ordway asked if the Board had any questions, there were none. He asked if there was anyone speaking in favor of or in opposition to the application. There was no one and that matter was closed.

L. Ordway read the legal notice.

P. Bealo moved, second by T. Fisher to grant the variance request for 32.4 sq ft sign, as stated in the legal notice, noting the correction of 19 sq ft to the maximum allowable signage.

L. Ordway summarized the application noting the following:

The applicant’s unit is mostly located below grade level and if it were located at grade the variance would not be needed.

T. Fisher added that granting the variance would allow for consistency in the signage for the entire building, which would look better and not be hodge-podge.

The Board reviewed the criteria for the granting of a variance noting the following:

It would be in the public interest to have consistent sizing in the signage for information and aesthetics
It is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance as all the signage will be of the same size. If the building were built at grade then it would be easy to make the sign comply
There is substantial justice in that it’s impossible to make an ordinance that can be applied to every circumstance. This ordinance does not consider buildings built below grade
The building is in good shape, having business occupants will increase its value and the value of those around it
The hardship is that signage is restricted for the bottom units as they are below grade

There was no additional discussion on the motion. The vote was 5-0-0 U/A and the variance was granted.

There was a brief discussion of some pending legislation as well as training that staff was attending.

There was no other business before the Board.

The meeting was closed at 7:42 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Dee Voss

Administrative Assistant