MANCHESTER, N.H. – While the City of Manchester might be experiencing a housing shortage, one request for a new housing unit on Bartlett Street could not receive a variance from the Manchester Zoning Board of Adjustment after a variety of concerns were raised by neighbors and the board itself.
Representatives of property owner Michael Pino requested seven variances for a proposal to add a third unit at 373 Bartlett St., a residential building in the R-2 zoning district of Ward 11 that currently holds two units. The variances included relief from the city’s zoning ordinance sections
- Chapter 5.10(A)6 – Multifamily Dwellings: more than two residences are not allowed by right according to the principal uses grid.
- Chapter 6.01 – Minimum Buildable Lot Area: proposal is 5,000 square feet where 10,000 square feet is required.
- Chapter 6.02 – Minimum Lot Frontage: proposal is 50 feet where 100 feet is required.
- Chapter 6.02 – Minimum Lot Width: proposal is 50 feet where 100 feet is required.
- Chapter 6.03(C) – Side Yard Setback: proposal on northern side yard has 1 foot and 11 feet at area of proposed stairs of setback from property line where 20 feet is required.
- Chapter 6.03(C) – Side Yard Setback: proposal on southern side yard has 5.5 feet of setback from property line where 20 feet is required.
- Chapter 6.06 – Floor Area Ratio: proposal has a ratio of floor area to total lot area of 0.63 where a maximum of 0.5 is allowed
- Chapter 6.04 – Lot Coverage: proposal has the creation of three parking spots creating a percentage of 67.2% impervious lot coverage where 50% is allowed.
While the variance request granting relief from the city’s lot coverage zoning ordinance is intended to prevent flooding at a property during heavy precipitation, the parking spaces received concern from the building’s immediate neighbor to the south, 365 Bartlett St., which shares a driveway with 373 Bartlett St.
Peter Sgrulloni, a resident of that southern abutting property, said that he appreciated efforts by the applicant to move the turnaround area for cars that would be parked at 373 Bartlett St. into the 373 Bartlett St. property. He also accepted that there is an easement in place regarding shared use of the driveway.
However, with the new parking layout, Sgrulloni still questioned the feasibility of how three vehicles would be able to use the driveway, especially after snow storms when snow storage limits parking space.
Sgrulloni also said he still opposes converting the building into a three-family building, stating that the additional unit at 373 Bartlett St. would be out of character with the neighborhood of two-family homes, the variance requests were extreme given that some of them asked for double what is allowed by right, and said that if granted that the new unit could worsen what is a tenable but difficult parking situation currently in place.
“We could be fighting for access to our own driveway,” he said.
Sgrulloni said that even with a new set of zoning ordinances set to begin at the beginning of March that would allow up to four units at the property due to changes in the zoning map, he said that the variance request would still not be in the public interest then given the parking concerns
Richard Bourque of 350 Blucher St., the property abutting 373 Bartlett St. to the west, also expressed concerns with the snow removal, fearing that excess snow could pile up into his back yard
“(373 Bartlett) is a two-family, and that’s fine. But a three-family, there isn’t enough room for that in that area. I have a single-family home and I barely have enough room,” said Bourque.
Zoning Board member Craig St. Pierre felt that the request was appropriate despite concerns over usage of the driveway, since the two lots had been subdivided and the easement was put in place, noting that a “door to nowhere” currently on the third floor of 373 Bartlett indicated that three-family usage was once a part of the building’s history. He also noted that outside of the variances, the applicant could pursue modifications to the parking layout by right.
Zoning Board member Greg Powers acknowledged that 373 Bartlett was unique in regard to how close its building is to the street, he said that there was no unnecessary hardship in place since it was not significantly unique overall compared to nearby properties.
Powers also felt that the proposal would negatively harm abutting property values, a view shared by Zoning Board member Scott Godzyk.
“I think that the abutters are best equipped to know whether it’s improving their interest or not and they seem to think that is not,” said Godzyk.
In a motion declaring findings of fact, a requirement for variances, Godzyk stated that none of the five criteria required for variances in New Hampshire had not been met from the applicant’s proposal.
That motion passed in a 4-1 vote, denying the variance requests. Godzyk and Powers were joined by Robert Breault and Nicholas Taylor while St. Pierre voted in opposition.