Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia, NH ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Meeting Minutes November 21, 2016 Call to Order; Chairman Bogert called the meeting to order at 7:06 PM. Mr. Bogert brought to the audience’s attention that case # 2, regarding 72 Gold Street, would not be heard this evening and would be continued at the next regularly scheduled meeting per the applicants requests. For application #3, 958 Union Ave, there would only be a three member board for the hearing because two members would be recusing themselves from the case. The applicant stated that he would be willing to have his case heard and decision made with the three member board. Mr. Bogert then stated that there would only be a four person Board due to a member recusing themself for the application pertaining to 72 Church Street. The applicant was not present at the time so Mr. Bogert stated he would reiterate the information should they show in time for their hearing. Roll Call; Gail Ober, Roland Maheu, Chairman Steve Bogert, Orry Gibbs, and Mike Foote all present. Absent was Suzanne Perley. Also in attendance was Brandee Loughlin, Interim Planning Administrator and Wendy Patterson, Recording Clerk. Acceptance of Minutes; MOTION; Roland Maheu moved to accept the meeting minutes as written. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried 5-0 in approval. Extensions-None Continued Public Hearing - None Public Hearings; Application # 2016-0018 98 Paugus Park Road Applicant; Michael Lacroix. MSL #287-178-2. . Owner; Raymond England. Applicant is Requesting a re-hearing of Case # 2016-0015 which took place on September 19, 2016. Chairman Bogert explained to those present that this first case is a request for re-hearing and as such, no public testimony is taken at this time and the decision is made amongst the board members as to whether or not a rehearing should be granted. The basis of the decision shall be whether there has been new information provided in the request or if the Board feels there may have been any errors made in their decision. Chairman Bogert asked the Board if they have all had a chance to review the information that has been provided today. Orry Gibbs and Michael Foote made the Chairman aware that they had not seen some of the information provided this evening. Mr. Bogert said that most of the information had been provided previously but that it is now in a formal way. Roland Maheu stated that his concern is that a nine page document was presented on the day of the meeting and feels that it should have been done earlier than now. 1 Gail Ober stated that a decision would not be made this evening on the information provided but only to hold a rehearing so that the information presented could be properly reviewed and discussed. MOTION: Gail Ober moved to rehear the case. Steve Bogert seconded. Discussion was held on some of the reasons why the case should/should not be reheard and that it would behoove the Board to rehear all of the information. It was reiterated that the information they were given this evening is a legal version of the information already provided by the applicant. Mr. Bogert also stated that the criteria for a re-hearing is not only based on new information but also to review the merits of the case for possible points of error. Chairman Bogert continued, for example, was there an error made in properly reviewing hardship and was the question of whether it would or would not cause a positive or negative impact on the neighborhood, as there was no cost analysis to prove it either way, which again calls in to question the hardship. Mike Foote asked whose job it is to come up with the values (regarding impact on surrounding values). Steve Bogert stated that it is the original applicants (Englands) duty to provide all applicable information. Mike Foote asked if this information will be made available. Mr. Bogert stated that he cannot say whether it will or will not but would hope it was available should the question arise. Gail Ober stated that she would like to hear the case again because it is her opinion that the porch was an afterthought and should have been incorporated in the original plan and should have been brought up sooner and for that reason would like to hear the case again. that it does not Orry Gibbs explained how hardship is defined and reasoned in ZBA cases and that it is based on the property having a unique feature of their lot that would make it different from similar properties. The hardship would be the shape of their lot, for example. ` MOTION: Steve Bogert re-called the motion placed before the board. Motion carried with a passing of 4-1 to re-hear the case at the December 19, 2016 meeting. Gail Ober-Aye, Roland Maheu-Nay, Steve Bogert-Aye, Orry Gibbs-Aye, and Michael Foote-Aye. Chairman Bogert stated that this case will be first on the agenda at the December 19, 2016 meeting. Application #202016-0016 72 Gold Street. Owner: Estate of Paul F. Blizzard MSL#350-92-37, C Zone. Applicant is requesting a Special Exception from Article X Sec; 235-65 A & D to re- establish a business requiring a relief from setbacks as set forth. Case is continued at the request of the applicant. There can only be one more continuance before the applicant will need to reapply. This will be second on the December 19, 2016 agenda. Application # 2016-0019 958 Union Ave. Owner; James R. Irwin & Sons Inc./Irwin Marine MSL #350-220-40, Commercial Zone. Applicant is seeking a Special Exception from Article 235 Section 60(D) Table VI To construct a Freestanding EMC-Static Display sign. Mike Foote and Orry Gibbs recused themselves from the hearing. Roland Maheu, Gail Ober and Steve Bogert were the voting members for this hearing. 2 Bruce Wright from Irwin Marine spoke on behalf of the application as stated above. Also present were Andy Paquette of Paquette signs and Ben Barr from Watchfire, supplier of the EMC sign, in case there are any technical questions. Mr. Wright stated that Irwin Marine would like to place an EMC sign at the site of their existing sign on Union Avenue. The sign is allowable by the granting of a Special Exception from the Planning Board. The sign will meet the requirements of 235-60-D and will replace the changeable letter sign portion of the existing sign and replacing it with the EMC. In that the total sign area is under 64 sf, the EMC area will be 28.33 sf which is less than the 32 sf allowed and 44% of the total sign surface will be the EMC which is less than the 76% allowed. Minimum display time of 5 minutes, no animation, will be only EMC sign on lot and software will show the current and factory brightness levels and will not exceed those allowed by the ordinance. Gail Ober opined that she does not see any problem with this application. Chairman Bogert inquired if there were any abutters who were there to speak on behalf of this application. Joshua Youssef stated that he owns property at 397 Union Avenue and owns an EMC sign and has long been an advocate of the enhanced and increased signage allotments in Laconia. He is approximately a mile from the Irwin property and feels they deserve the opportunity to be allowed the sign. No further public members spoke for or against the application. Chairman Bogert inquired f anyone from the Board had any questions. The applicant also had no further comments and therefor the hearing was closed to the public. MOTION: Gail Ober moved to accept the application as presented based on the information that; 1. The use required is specifically authorized in this chapter Section 235-60(D0 Sign, Electronic Message Center (EMC) Static. 2. The requested use of an electronic message center will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. 3. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage, or sewer system or any other municipal system, nor will there be any significant increase in storm water runoff onto adjacent properties or streets. 4. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. 5. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. 3  6. The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public, nor be detrimental to the use of or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood. 7. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. 8. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. Application #2016-0020 140 Court Street. Owner; Michael Pelky II. MSL #450-54-2, Commercial Zone. Applicant is seeking a Special Exception from Article 235 Attachment 2 Table of Permitted Uses in order to utilize the property as a rooming house. Attorney Charles Need introduced himself and stated that he is here to speak on behalf of the applicant who is present. Chairman Bogert asked the applicant to state for the record that he is allowing Attorney Need to speak on his behalf. Michael Pelky rose and stated for the record that he is allowing Atty. Need to present the case to the Zoning Board. Atty. Need stated that the applicant is here to seek a special exception of the use of 140 Court Street as a rooming house. There was recently a fire at the property and the back section is vacant and once insurance has been processed it shall be gutted to be rewired, new insulation and other items. He would like to refinish the area as a six room boarding for tenants. The property historically has been used as such in the past. One of the units was then made in to a commercial unit with two existing three bedroom units. The tenants are mostly social security disabled people. The facility has security cameras and no alcohol and drugs requirements written in to the agreements between the tenants and owners. Mr. Maheu stated that most of the clients/residents do not have vehicles. Mr. Maheu inquired if that is a requirement of staying there. Atty. Need stated that it is not a requirement but that most of the tenants have not had vehicles. Michael Pelky stated that to date there has been one resident who had a vehicle and most have bikes or walk to their destinations. Gail Ober stated that the entire lot is approximately .23 acres and asked how many units/rooms there are proposed to be. Atty. Need made the Board aware that presently, in the front of the building, there are two 3 bedroom apartments and the plan is to re-construct the rear of the property in to a six bedroom unit with a common kitchen, laundry and bath. Discussion was held on how many parking spaces would be required. Each apartment would require 1.5 spaces so there would need to be a total of 9 spots. Gail Ober inquired if they had a schematic of the spaces. Atty. Need stated that they do not but that they could get one. Steve Bogert made the Board aware that under 235:70-4 the Zoning Board has the authority to place conditions on approvals. Chairman Bogert then asked how many persons would be occupying each bedroom. Atty. Need said that the rooms are approximately 10x12 and would have one person per room. 4 Mr. Maheu inquired if the tenants would be transients. Atty. Need explained that they have had some referrals from Carey House and that essentially these are Laconia residents. The intent, despite renting the rooms by the week, is not to have turnover with people moving in and out on a weekly basis. Chairman Bogert explained to the applicant and his Counsel that the ZBA is not only looking at the request for the Special Exception for current use but also for the future as the approval follows the property and good intent today may not be those intentions with a possible next owner or down the road. Discussion returned to the amount of parking with Gail Ober stating that this is her primary concern at this time. Atty. Need stated that there is a large paved area in the rear of the property and that they can be measured out and a schematic can be provided for the Board. Chairman Bogert opened the meeting up to the Public with any comments or concerns. Robert Fisher, abutter to the property on the rear east of the property stated that his concern is noise and perhaps the accumulation of vehicles in the applicant’s rear yard. It appears at this time from the family that lives at 92 Bowman Street that there is a large amount of noise and perhaps a business enterprise going on in the rear as there are a lot of trucks coming and going. He is concerned about property values and future sale of the property. Mr. Maheu inquired about the trucks going in and out. Mr. Fisher stated that there is a parking lot and a grassy area and that there are vehicles parked in the grassy area. Gail Ober inquired if the trucks could be due to the work going on at the property since the fire. Atty. Need stated that is what they have been coming in and out for. Chairman Bogert asked Mr. Fisher if this is something that has been recent or if it has been going on for a while. Mr. Fisher introduced his son who at this time occupies the neighboring property. Robert Fisher Jr. introduced himself to the Board and stated that his family has owned the property since 2005 and he has lived there off and on since that time and has lived there for the past year. Some of the noise is coming from the recent activity at the house but it appears that they are working on some vehicles out back as well and the noise has become a nuisance. He lives there with his significant other and they are hoping to start their family soon. At this time there has been a lot of arguing from the tenants with profanity and that not a week goes by where they don’t experience something like that. He suspects that his father would have issues trying to rent the property in the future. The noise is recent, starting about May. His concern is the number of people coming in and out unlike the stable neighbors. He is afraid it will be new people living there every day. Paul Poirier owns building next door. There are three units and they have owned it since 1994. They have very good long standing tenants and there were not any problems until about February. The building was bought in January by Mr. Pelky and in February they started receiving complaints from their tenants about noise. Mr. Poirier presented photos to show the property as it is. Mr. Bogert made him aware they those photos are now property of the ZBA and will be made part of the permanent record. He further presented a police log indicating the calls that have been made to the property over the past few months that number approximately 15. His 5 concern is that he would have a difficult time renting out his properties in the future. Mrs. Poirier stated that when they purchased their property, Kemps did have a “tourist home” for Church going people who were travelling through the area. It was almost more like a Bed and Breakfast. She stated that they sold it as a three unit building. She stated that turning it in to a weekly renting boarding house will only bring trouble. Mr. Fisher stated that he is constantly picking up trash and cigarette butts off of the properties. Josh Youssef stated that the shorter you stay in a home the less investment you have in the neighborhood. He feels that it is appalling to think people will live where they are trapped by their neighbors and urges the Board to deny the application. Mr. Bogert closed the public hearing and returned discussion to the Board. Mr. Bogert stated that he would like a report from the Police Department and Fire Department on how many calls were made to this property in the past year. He would also like a comparison to other Boarding Houses. Gail Ober reminded the Board that a Special Exception was recently granted for the Belknap House. The Board stated that the Belknap House is a shelter. She stated that Mr. Pelky stated that like Carey House, drugs and alcohol will not be allowed or tolerated. Mr. Bogert stated that Belknap House will be for displaced families in Belknap County that will be paid for by the towns from where the people are coming. Mr. Bogert stated that there is a difference in the two entities and that the task of the Zoning Board is to weigh the criteria of the Special Exceptions to make sure that municipal services such as police and fire will not be unduly tasked as well as the other criteria. Discussion was held on the merits of a rooming house in the proposed location. The Board spoke in regards to concerns of appropriate number of parking spaces, emergency services calls to the property, and the input from the abutters. The question of density was also raised. Chairman Bogert said that he would like to table this case until the next meeting and have information provided on the following; a. Parking b. Police and emergency services calls with another similar property as a benchmark. c. Density calculations. MOTION: Steve Bogert moved to table this case until the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 19, 2016. Seconded by Mike Foote. Motion carried in favor of the motion, 5-0. This item has been continues and will be third on the December 19, 2016 agenda. Application #2016-021 72 Church Street. Owner; 72 Church Street LLC/Randy Bartlett, MSL #425-44-62, DR Zone. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Article VI, 235-35 F (2) to construct a catwalk and walkway that will encroach 11' in to the required 15' setback as prescribed. Variance also sought from 235- 58 Table of Sign Regulations, to erect an electronic message center sign/EMC Static Display. Owner of the property was not in attendance. Agenda item continued to the next regularly scheduled meeting on December 19, 2016. This item will be fourth item on the agenda. 6 Other Business – Discussion was held on a recent court case involving a property on Baldwin Street in which the court sided on the behalf of the ZBA. Mr. Bogert asked that the ZBA be provided with new calendars, updated copies of the Zoning Ordinance and a list of members, including their appointment and expiration dates from the Board. Adjournment MOTION: Roland Maheu moved to adjourn. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor of the motion 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:29 PM. Respectfully submitted, Wendy L. Patterson. Recording Clerk 7