ADOPTED
City of Keene
New Hampshire
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING MINUTES
Monday, January 6, 2014
6:30 PM
Members Present:
Louise Zerba, Chair
Jeffrey Stevens, Vice-Chair
Nancy Wilkinson
Joseph Hoppock
Nathaniel Stout
John Norton, Alternate (14-02/ N. Stout)
Council Chambers, 2nd Floor
Staff Present:
Gary Schneider, Plans Examiner
Karen Purinton, Planner
Others Present:
Members Not Present:
June Jones, Alternate
I.
Introduction of Board Members
Chair Zerba called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. A roll call was taken and Board members
introduced to the public.
II.
Minutes of Previous Meeting – December 2, 2013
Mr. Hoppock made a motion to accept the minutes as submitted from December 2, 2013.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Wilkinson. The motion passed with a unanimous vote.
III.
Unfinished Business – None at this time.
IV.
Hearings
Chair Zerba read the first hearing.
ZBA 14-01:/ Petitioner, Joe Boulay, requests a Variance for property located at 349C
Washington St., which is located in the High Density Zone. The Petitioner is requesting to be
permitted a projecting sign in the High Density Zone. This request is in accordance with
Division 7, of Article VIII of the Zoning Code.
Mr. Schneider located the property, 349 Washington Street, and described the general area
noting that the zoning for the property is in a High Density Zone and that signage not allowed in
residential districts.
Melinda and Joe Boulay of 220 Fay Martin Road Richmond NH addressed the Board. Mrs.
Boulay noted that the property facilitates a small automotive shop that her husband, Mr. Boulay
ADOPTED
opened in August of 2013. Mrs. Boulay noted that there is not a front area to the building to post
a sign and that business is being compromised because of the lack of signage for the business.
Mr. Hoppock asked if there were any similar businesses in the surrounding area. Mr. Boulay
stated that there is, including Tattersall Electric and Fran’s Auto Body shop up the road, both
with signage. Mr. Hoppock asked if the owner of the property approved of the design for the
sign. Mr. Boulay indicated that the owner approved. Mrs. Boulay noted that the sign had been
designed professionally by Keene Sign Works, would run perpendicular to the building, and felt
it would not impede foot or automotive traffic. Mr. Boulay noted that he has actually lost
specific business due to customers not being able to find the shop. Mr. Stout inquired if they had
tried hanging a ‘flat’ sign on the building. The Boulay’s responded that they had not. Mr.
Schneider indicated that regardless of the signs orientation, a variance would be required with
respect to the zoning. Mr. Hoppock inquired as to the signs dimensions. Mr. Stevens pointed
out where in the packet these are found. (42x37 inches)
Chair Zerba asked if anyone from the public would like to speak, to no response. Chair Zerba
then closed the Public Hearing.
Mr. Hoppock addressed the criteria by stating that he believed that the criteria are satisfied. Mr.
Hoppock specifically noted that he sees no detraction to public interest and that the spirit of the
ordinance is maintained further noting that there are signs for businesses “up and down this
road”.
Mr. Hoppock moved to approve the variance ZBA14-01; a request for an extended sign in the
High Density Zone that is no more 42x37 inches overall and displayed in a manner as
represented in the materials presented to the Board. Mr. Stevens seconded the motion.
Mr. Stevens stated that he thought it a reasonable request that would not cause any disturbances.
Mr. Stout added that a sign is consistent with the surrounding area that has many businesses with
posted signs. Chair Zerba expressed her agreement with the previous comments by Board
members and extended her support.
Chair Zerba then covered the Findings of Fact:
1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Granted 5-0.
2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed. Granted 5-0.
3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice. Granted 5-0.
4. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be
diminished. Granted 5-0.
5. Unnecessary Hardship:
A. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the
Page 2 of 6
ADOPTED
area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:
i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of
the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property.
Granted 5-0.
ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one. Granted 5-0.
The motion made by Mr. Hoppock to approve the variance (ZBA 14-01) carried on a vote of 50.
ZBA 14-02:/ Petitioner, 434-440 Winchester St., represented by SVE Associates, requests a
Variance for property located at 434 & 440 Winchester St., which is located in the Commerce
Limited Zone. The Petitioner is requesting to be permitted pavement in the 15 foot pavement set
back. The site of the Fairfield’s Kia dealerships today is paved at the north and south ends to the
property lines and the need is for it to remain that way. This request is in accordance with
Section 102-1226, Setbacks of Paved and Unpaved Parking and Travel Surfaces.
Mr. Stout recused himself from this hearing and Mr. John Norton will take his place.
Rob Hitchcock of SVE Associates withdrew the petition on behalf of the petitioner. Mr.
Hitchcock noted that an entirely new petition will be resubmitted.
Mr. Stout reclaimed his active position of voting Board Member.
Chair Zerba read the next hearing:
ZBA 14-03:/ Petitioner, Joe Barile, from Heyman Properties, requests a Variance for property
located at 480 West St., which is located in the Commerce Zone. The Petitioner is requesting to
be permitted construction within the Surface Water Protection Ordinance setbacks without the
need for a Conditional Use Permit. The proposed expansion of pavement, requiring
encroachment into the wetlands and surrounding buffer, is required in order to provide enough
room for a WB-67 tractor trailer to access and exit a proposed loading dock, a requirement of
Aldies, Inc., the prospective tenant. This request is in accordance with Section 102-1484 (b) of
the Surface Water Protection Ordinance.
Mr. Schneider located the property and noted the surrounding areas, and the abutting tenant in
the building, Kohls department store. Mr. Schneider noted the current truck pattern and noted a
small area of wetlands directly adjacent to the driveway.
Robert Hitchcock of SVE Associates in Keene spoke on behalf of the petition and petitioners Joe
and Kathy Barile. Mr. Hitchcock presented two maps and pointed out the loading dock, the
driveway and the wetland area directly adjacent to the driveway. Mr. Hitchcock noted that in
order for a truck (WB-67) to align itself with the loading dock it would need to advance into an
area currently classified as wetlands, and owned by Antioch University. Mr. Hitchcock proposed
Page 3 of 6
ADOPTED
that the driveway extend into the wetlands area to provide such access to the loading dock as
required by potential tenants of the building.
Mr. Hoppock inquired why a variance is being sought as oppose to a Conditional Use Permit.
Mr. Hitchcock stated that this route is being pursued at the recommendation of the Planning
Board. Mr. Hitchcock explained his understanding that the intent of the Surface Water
Protection Ordinance is to protect the vegetative buffer, but there is no vegetative buffer to
protect as the property currently stands. Chair Zerba asked if Antioch University was in favor of
this proposal. Mr. Hitchcock stated that they are in favor as this action and will sell the portion
of land in question. Mr. Stout asked if the extended pavement would be at a grade. Mr.
Hitchcock calculated that the depression was at a 2% grade and that the pavement would follow
that grade further noting that water will flow into the depression as it has been. Mr. Hitchcock
noted that they calculated that the depression had plenty of volume, enough to handle a 50 year
rain event. Mr. Hitchcock also suggested that the depression may actually be the original grade
of the area and that all the surrounding land has been built up around it. Mr. Hoppock asked if
there needed to be any offset to compensate for any displaced capacity. Mr. Hitchcock explained
that there would be no displacement with the extension of the pavement. Mr. Stout asked where
the flood zone is. Mr. Hitchcock described it as being well south of the rail trail that ran along
the back of the property.
Ms. Purinton addressed concerns about the Surface Water Protection Ordinance. Ms. Purinton
emphasized that the Ordinance is new and that it is important to remember that the Planning
Board has the ability to reduce a buffer zone down to 10 feet but since it is mostly paved already,
there is no buffer to work with in this case. Ms. Purinton assured the Board that there is little
concern over setting precedence because the site’s characteristics are very rare and another
application would have to exhibit the exact same constraints. Ms. Purinton made note that this
proposal would still need to go in front of the Planning Board for site review.
Mr. Hitchcock addressed the criteria stating:
 That it does not affect the public in any way, that there is no public impact.
 The spirit of ordinance is observed because it allows the project to move forward and
there is no buffer to protect.
 Substantial justice is served by allowing the variance, otherwise there will be more vacant
space, and vacant space does not benefit anybody.
 Values of surrounding property will not be affected; this impacts nobody if anything it
benefits the surrounding properties.
 There are no undue hardships created, there is no vegetative buffer to preserve.
 It is reasonable; to accommodate trucks, reduce vacant space.
Mr. Stout asked what a vegetative buffer would look like. Mr. Hitchcock responded that it
would be an area of trees, shrubs, and/or grass between the pavement and the wetlands. Mr.
Schneider added that the area that is currently paved now would be where a buffer would be.
Chair Zerba opened the hearing to the public:
Page 4 of 6
ADOPTED
Kathy Rorick, Executive Vice President of Heyman Properties, 445 Hamilton Avenue White
Plains, New York, addressed the Board. Ms. Rorick noted that they worked long and hard with
Antioch University on this proposal. Ms. Rorick noted that Antioch liked the idea of being
compensated enough to pave their parking lot and a strong agreement has been reached
Chair Zerba closed the Public Hearing.
Chair Zerba commented that she had done some research on “man-made” wetlands online, that
she supported the request owing to there not being any other choices combined with the fact that
this would prohibit a new company from being established in Keene.
Mr. Stevens motioned to approve ZBA 14-03 as stated in the application. Mr. Hoppock
seconded the motion.
Mr. Stevens commented that his personal concerns over precedence were alleviated by the
unique circumstances of the application. Mr. Hoppock agreed with Mr. Stevens adding that the
criteria have been met and that he supports the motion.
Chair Zerba then covered the Findings of Fact:
1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. Granted 5-0.
2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed. Granted 5-0.
3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice. Granted 5-0.
4. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be
diminished. Granted 5-0.
5. Unnecessary Hardship:
A. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the
area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because:
i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of
the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property.
Granted 5-0.
ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one. Granted 5-0.
The motion made by Mr. Stevens to approve ZBA 14-03 as stated, carried on a vote of 5-0.
V.
New Business –
Chair Zerba mentioned that the election of new officers would take place next month, appointed
after Mayoral review.
Page 5 of 6
ADOPTED
VIII. Adjournment A motion to adjourn was made at 7:26 pm. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stevens and
carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted by,
John Hehir, Minute-taker
January 9, 2014
Page 6 of 6