Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia, NH ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Meeting Minutes December 19, 2016 Call to Order Chairman Bogert called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. 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. Chairman Bogert appointed Gail Ober as a full voting member in the absence of Suzanne Perley. Acceptance of Minutes- MOTION; Roland Maheu moved to accept the meeting minutes as written. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried 5-0. Chairman Bogert started the meeting by making the public aware that Case# 1, Re-Hearing of Case #2016-0015 - 98 Paugus Park Road and Case #2, Application #202016-0016 - 72 Gold Street have requested to be continued until the January 17, 2017 meeting. Item #4 on the agenda will have a four person board as Orry Gibbs will be recusing herself. He explained to the applicant that a 2-2 vote would fail. The applicant’s representative stated that he would like to proceed. Chairman Bogert opened the Public Hearing for 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/boarding house. Mr. Bogert reminded the Board and the public that at the previous hearing in November, there were concerns regarding parking spaces and the Board requested that Wendy Patterson acquire information regarding police calls for other boarding houses in the City, which the Board has received. Mike Pelky Sr. spoke on behalf of the application with the verbal permission of his son, Mike Pelky Jr. Mr. Pelky Sr. explained that yes, there were many calls in the past to the property, however as evident in the police reports, the calls have all but ceased since a problem tenant has been removed from the property. The tenant who was causing the issues was there when the property was purchased last winter and it took several months to have her removed from the property. Steve Bogert commented that the calls have ceased at this address, per the police reports supplied, since the fire. Mr. Pelky made the Board aware that he and his family occupy one of the 3 bedroom units in the building and they do not want problem tenants as much as the neighbors don’t want them. 1 Discussion was held on the proposed parking and security cameras on the property so that it is monitored at all times. Further discussion was held on the utilization of the property. It was inquired if this is planned to be a “rehab” type house. Mike Pelky replied that it is not and that his tenants are often referred by Carey House and other service providers. Steve Bogert opened the hearing for public comment. Paul Poirier, owns abutting property at 146 Court Street, stated that he continues to have concerns with the amount of police calls and that there have been two fires at the property. He is also concerned the allowed use would follow the property and not the owner and what that may open up in the future. David, a tenant at the property being discussed, stated that he came to the property from the Carey House and Mike has helped him in a lot of ways. He stated that he feels very safe at the property and hopes to be able to remain there for a long time. Karen Poirier, owns abutting property, stated that she and her husband are concerned about transients and the amount of turnaround in tenants this could create. She also opined that the property would need to be ADA compliant. Jessica, a tenant at the property being discussed, stated that she is a single Mom with a limited income. She has tried various places but Mike seems to be the only one who is trying to help her get back on her feet. She moved to the property from a domestic abuse shelter and feels safe because problems are taken care of if they arise. Jason, a tenant, stated that he was also referred from Carey house. He stated that due to his mental illness he has had a hard time finding housing and that the Pelskys’ have given him a chance to get his life back on track. He hopes to be able to stay there for a long time. Susan, Jason’s fiancé, stated that she does not live at the property but feels that what the Pelskys’ are doing, by trying to help people, is a great thing. Robert Fisher, state representative and lives in abutting property, stated that things have been quieter over at the property on 140 Court Street, however he is very concerned about transients moving in and out of the property and the potential for property values to go down. Chairman Bogert inquired if there were any further comments from the public. There being none he closed the public session. The Board had a lengthy discussion on the number of apartments and number pf proposed bedrooms in the rear of the property (that would be the boarding house area). The Board focused on the criteria for a special exception approval. MOTION; Steve Bogert moved to deny the application for Special Exception based on the following; 2 (a) The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter. The use is an authorized use. (b) The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. The general consensus was that it would cause undue traffic congestion. (c) 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 property or streets. With increased people living there it would cause an additional demand on the services. (d) The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. Municipal services may be increased. Will create an excessive demand on municipal services based on police reports from other boarding houses in the area. (e) Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. Parking has not been adequately adjusted. (f) 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. The character of the neighborhood would change as this is a neighborhood of apartment and single family dwellings. (g) The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. The proposed location is not a good one because of the makeup of the neighborhood. (h) The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. It is not in the spirit of the ordinance as the proposed location is not good as it is already causing uncomfort to others in the neighborhood. Gail Ober stated that her concern is for the people already living there and for the baby. Steve Bogert explained that the ZBA cannot grant a Special Exception based on the situation and that he is also affected by it. Orry Gibbs stated that they could reasonably turn the rear space in to separate units and rent them out with a dimensional requirement approval. Motion seconded by Roland Maheu. Motion carried to deny the application 4-1 with Gail Ober as the dissenting vote. Chairman Bogert called for an intermission to the meeting at 8:11 PM. Meeting was called back to order at 8:20 PM. 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 Article 235- 58 Table of Sign Regulations, to erect an electronic message center sign/EMC Static Display. 3 Orry Gibbs recused herself from this hearing. Ryan Spellman spoke on behalf of, and with written permission of, Randy Bartlett, property owner. Ryan Spellman explained that the applicant would like to install a catwalk on the side of the building located at 72 Church Street that would encroach on the setbacks. The catwalk would link all of the Riverbank Campus to help keep their residents off of the main streets. Steve Bogert inquired what Riverbank House is. Ryan clarified that it is a long term treatment facility for men. He further explained that there are a total of 9 properties on both sides of the river that are considered to be the Riverbank House Campus. The proposed catwalk would extend from the back of 72 Church Street to connect the other houses on Messer Street. Steve Bogert inquired if the properties all have separate deeds. He stated that he asks the question because if they are all deeded separately and in the future get sold, the catwalk will still be there connecting the properties Gail Ober made the applicant’s representative aware that each property would have to be handled as a separate entity because of the setbacks that would be associated with each property. Mike Foote noted that the state approval has the property as 62 Church Street and we are here for 72 Church Street. Roland Maheu pointed out that the application only requests the catwalk for the building at 72 Church Street and not across the other properties as being explained by the applicant’s representative. Roland Maheu requested photos and schematics of the property. MOTION: Steve Bogert moved to continue the public hearing until the January 17th, 2017 meeting. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor of the motion 4-0. Discussion turned to the second application for the same property to allow an EMC sign in the DR zone. Ryan Spellman, again speaking with permission on behalf of the applicant, stated that they would like to place an EMC sign to promote the Karma Café at the 72 Church Street location. He is under the impression that the sign bylaws are outdated and that this is a reasonable request. Board members Mike Foote and Steve Bogert stated that extensive work was done on the sign bylaws within the past two years and the objective is to keep the DR zone free of brightly lit signs to keep the character of the DR zone a a downtown New England look. Mike Foote asked what would be on the message center sign. Ryan Spellman stated that it would list the specials of the day, hours and what is going on in the restaurant. The Board requested clarification on the type of sign and the dimensions. MOTION: Steve Bogert moved to continue this portion of Application #2016-021 to the January 17, 2017 meeting. Seconded by Mike Foote. Motion carried in favor of the motion 4-0. 4 5. Application #2016-023 – 742 Weirs Boulevard; Owners Scott & Todd Silva. Applicants are requesting a Variance from Article 235 Table 2-Dimensional Requirements, in order to convert the single family dwelling in to a 2 family dwelling. Property is located on a .26 acre (11,325 sf) lot where 14,520 sf would be required. Scott and Todd Silva explained to the Board that the property was left to them by their father. At this time it is a one family dwelling. They would like to transform the dwelling in to two separate units so that each of their families could utilize the property more functionally. The structure is an odd design and it almost looks as if it is two separate units attached by a breezeway/entrance. There would not be any additional need for parking. The applicants have spoken to DPW and will be hooking up to City water and sewer in the spring so there would not be a need to expand the septic. Because of the property being left to both brothers, they could not sell one unit individually. They would not become permanent residents of Laconia and this would be a weekend/vacation home. Steve Bogert opened the hearing to the public. There being no- one to speak for or against the application he closed the public hearing. MOTION: Mike Foote moved to approve the application as presented with the following conditions; 1. that there be no further structures erected on the property and; 2. that there be no expansion of the original dwelling. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor of the motion 5-0. 6. Application # 2106-0024 – 1065 Watson Road; Owner Karen Gehris. Applicant requests a Variance from Article 235-28 Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to utilize the property to establish an indoor storage facility which will hold vehicles, trailers and watercraft. Eric Mitchell, Mitchell and Associates, spoke on behalf of the proposal. Mr. Mitchell explained that this a 6.6 acre lot on which an existing restaurant (closed) exists. The owner, Karen Gehris is looking to sell the property and Mr. Morgan, developer, is proposing to construct an 80,500 sf, two story building, for the purpose of storing watercraft, vehicles, recreational vehicles and motorhomes. The zone allows for self-storage facilities but not for long term vehicle storage which is why they are seeking a variance from the board. The structure would look like a single story building from the Watson Road side as it will be built into the grade of the land. Patrons of the facility will not be able to access the facility at all hours and will only be able to do so by appointment. Only employees of the facility would be placing the vehicles in and taking them out of the facility. The structure will be a metal structure, but the coloring and style will be of importance to make it blend in to the land. Some trees and foliage will have to be removed for retention ponds and other storm water mitigation requirements however they plan to leave a considerable buffer and replant trees and foliage as necessary to soften the look of the site. Mike Foote inquired if the developer has thought of placing this type of structure and use in the Industrial Zone. Mr. Morgan stated that the location on Watson Road would be the ideal spot, 5 located between Meredith and Weirs Beach, for local and seasonal residents to store their recreational vehicles, boats, jet ski’s etc. Steve Bogert stated that his concern is question #4 of the Variance criteria and how this proposed structure and use would affect the surrounding area. Mr. Mitchell replied that they do not have a formal appraisal to respond adequately to this. He continued to explain that Hack Ma Tack Campground will be the most affected by this proposal and they have no issues with this proposal. Elizabeth Stone, Susan Davis, Carol Kelly, Wayne Guthro, Robin Freeman, and Jason Neimaszyk, all abutters to the property, spoke in opposition to the proposal. It was the general consensus that they are concerned about traffic, noise, light pollution, junk on the site, wildlife, and the possible change in the character of the neighborhood. Russ Poirrier, Realtor for the property, stated that his client is trying to sell her property and it is his opinion that it is one minor item, the non-allowance of long term vehicle storage that would put a halt to this proposed project. He presented photos of other business uses in the area and stated that it would fit in with the already established character of the neighborhood. Steve Bogert noted that there were also 8 letters of dissent from persons in the neighborhood that could not attend this evenings meeting. Chairman Bogert asked if there were any other comments from the public. There being no one he closed the public input session. Discussion was held on greenspace, foliage and trees, retention ponds and the general character of the neighborhood. Brandee Loughlin reminded the Board that this will also have to go through Planning and their regulations if a variance is granted. Steve Bogert asked members of the Board if they think this will have a positive or negative impact on the neighborhood. He feels that there was not enough evidence provided either way so they cannot determine if there would or would not be. As previously done by a judge, an applicant did not provided the information regarding the inpact of surrounding values and the courts remanded it to the ZBA because there was no way of the Board determining this factor. Gail Ober stated that her primary concern is the potential for two more curb cuts. She does not feel that this proposal is contrary to the public interest. There was extensive and lengthy discussion on the merits of the application versus the variance test. MOTION: Steve Bogert moved to deny the variance requested for application # 2106-0024 – 1065 Watson Road based on the following; a. Based on the overwhelming input from the public in opposition to this proposal it would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance b. The spirit of the ordinance is observed by denying this application based again on the input from the public in opposition. 6  c. Substantial justice would be done based on the denial and in keeping with the wishes of the public regarding this property and proposed use. d. There is no verdict as to whether the surrounding values of properties would be affected. Therefor this test fails. e. Denial of the variance would not be an unnecessary hardship to the owner because the City does provide zoning areas for this type of use. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor of the motion 4-1 with one dissenting vote. Other Business; Brandee Loughlin made the board aware that we are in the process of getting updated ordinances to the board. Gail Ober made the board aware that Suzanne Perley has asked Gail if she would like to serve on the Zoning Task Force. Discussion was held on the fact that several definitions need to be reviewed as well as other items in the ordinance. Chairman Bogert inquired if this request for review needs to go through the City Council (CC). Brandee Loughlin explained that it should go through Planning first and then be recommended to the CC because once an item is proposed to them, it starts a clock on how quickly something must be done or in some cases a moratorium on things that can be done. Steve Bogert thanked the Board for the marvelous discussion this evening. MOTION; Steve Bogert moved to adjourn. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor of the motion 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Patterson Recording Clerk 7