Zoning Board of Adjustment

CITY OF LACONIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Tuesday, January 17, 2017 - 7:00 PM Conference room 200A Meeting Minutes Accepted February 21, 2017 Chairman Bogert opened the meeting at 7:02 PM. Roll call was made and present were; Gail Ober, Roland Maheu, Vice Chairman-Suzanne Perley, Chairman-Steve Bogert, and Michael Foote. Absent was Orry Gibbs. Also present was Brandee Loughlin – Interim Planning Director and Wendy Patterson – Recording Secretary. Chairman Bogert asked Gail Ober to be a full voting member in the absence of Orry Gibbs. Gail Ober accepted. Chairman Bogert brought forth the first application of the Public Hearing, 98 Paugus Park Road, and explained to those present that the applicants have requested to continue their hearing until the February 21, 2017 meeting. Attorney Steve Nix spoke in affirmation and a letter from Attorney Ed Philpot was presented to the Board confirming the request. Hearing has been continued to the February 21, 2017 meeting. Extensions: Chris Duprey spoke on behalf of the extensions for Akwa Vista and Akwa Waterfront LLC. Included with the applications is a map that shows the properties in question and Scenic road. Mr. Duprey gave some history on the project. Over the course of time more land has been acquired and 2 of the four buildings planned have been built and sold. Blue Gill Lodge is complete. Over the course of the year they have been developing a trails system for walking, snowshoeing and areas with exercise stations. They are looking for extensions based on all of the other work that has been completed. Steve Bogert asked if there were any questions from the public. There were none. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve the application for extension for 664 Scenic Road, Special Exception for Multi Family in SFR, for a 6 month period ending in July 2017. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried 5-0. Applicant will have to reappear before this Board at the July 2017 meeting for further extensions if necessary. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve the application for extension for 63-99 Fletcher Lane, Special Exception for Multi Family in SFR, for a six month period ending in July 2017. Gail second motion carried 5-0. Applicant will have to reappear before this Board at the July 2017 meeting for further extensions if necessary. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve the application for extension for 63-99 Fletcher Lane, for an area variance, for six months ending in July 2017. Seconded by Roland Maheu. Motion carried 5-0. Applicant will have to reappear before this Board at the July 2017 meeting for further extensions if necessary. Public Hearing 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. 1 Randy Bartlett spoke in regards to the application. Mr. Bartlett handed out information to the board. The pictures supplied show the edge of the building where the State Department of Environmental Services has approved a permit by notification to allow the deck which they are now asking the city for. Roland Maheu asked where the catwalk will be going and why it is needed. Mr. Bartlett explained that the catwalk will be attached to the structure at 72 Church Street and that in the spring he will be requesting a variance for a paver walkway to reach all the homes so that the men in recovery can access each of the homes so they do not go in to the streets. Suzanne Perley asked for clarification that this is attached to only one building. Randy stated that it is. Steve Bogert inquired if there is an entrance from the walkway into the building. Randy stated that there is not. Randy said that at this time there is a restaurant, administrative offices, a yoga studio and rooms for meetings. Mike Foote asked if there would be stairs on to the catwalk. Randy stated that there will be stairs to get on to it. Steve Bogert asked if there were any further questions. There being none from the Board he opened the hearing to the public. As there were no questions from members of the public, Steve Bogert then closed the public hearing for this application and returned discussion to the Board. Mike Foote stated that the presentation this month of what the applicant is hoping to do to the property makes more sense than it did last month. Steve Bogert inquired if any of the other city departments reviewed this application. Brandee Loughlin explained that the departments, minus the police, will review for the building permit. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve the request for a 4’x 87.5’ catwalk and staircase along the Winnipesaukee River that shall be cantilevered to the building located at 72 Church Street as presented by the applicant. It is also noted that according to shore land permits there shall be no disturbance of ground. No supporting footings or posts to be used as indicated in the plans. The granting of the variance would not be contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the ordinance is observed. The change to the building does not threaten the public health safety or welfare of the community and does not violate any basic zoning objectives. Substantial justice is done as this is a use that will be part of this campus located in the center of the downtown area so is consistent with the current use of the area and does not do any harm to the general public. Values of surrounding properties should not be diminished given the location of the catwalk on the side of the building closest to the Winnipesaukee River and based on the proposed location it essentially has no abutters. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general public for the purpose of this ordinance and the specific application the hardship exists in the property in that there is no other area to place a walkway to allow for residents of this community to get from one area to another and the adding of the deck does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Roland Maheu. Motion carried in favor of granting the variance 5-0. Application #2016-021-B 72 Church Street. Owner; 72 Church Street LLC/Randy Bartlett, MSL #425-44-62, DR Zone. (b) Variance also sought from Article 235- 58 Table of Sign Regulations, to erect an electronic message center sign/EMC Static Display. Randy Bartlett showed photos of the existing sign and what he would like to replace it with. He explained that the bottom three feet of the proposed sign would be the digital copy. It is size for size and light for light and these types of signs are allowed everywhere else in town except for this area. Randy Bartlett stated that Byse Agency has been allowed one and they are not located far from his establishment. Steve Bogert explained that he (Mr. Bartlett) is in a different district and when the City upgraded the sign code in 2015, the Planning Board and ZTF team, which is made up of local businesses and realtors, recoded the areas and worked diligently on this sign 2 ordinance. The downtown riverfront district was left intact with the hopes for maintaining the old English signage and that wish was confirmed by the planning board and sent to council. It then allowed for electronic signs in many areas with the exception of the Riverfront District. Randy Bartlett stated that he is on the outskirts of the downtown district and does not feel this will be out of character of the area. It will not be animated, scrolling or flashing. Roland Maheu asked if there will be any additional signs. Randy stated that the existing signs will remain and the only change being asked for is the message center. Steve Bogert opened the meeting to the public. There being no one to speak for or against the application he closed the session to the public and returned to the board. Steve Bogert read in to the record a letter from an abutter that states he would like the sign to be turned off no later than 10pm. Mike Foote asked what the final outcome was with the request for the illuminated sign at the library. Steve Bogert stated that it was denied. Randy stated that when they went to the state that they said he is in a different zone. Brandee Loughlin explained that there are different regulations with the state regarding waterbodies. Randy Bartlett asked where exactly his property is in relation to the riverfront district. It was shown by Brandee Loughlin, with reference to the zoning map, that the property in question is located close to the middle of the zone. Randy stated that his closing statement is that he understands preserving the DR district but that this proposed sign would not be intrusive and would allow for the restaurant to be able to display specials and such. Suzanne Perley opined that she does not see any hardship in the request. Gail Ober was in agreement and Roland Maheu stated that he is normally in favor of giving latitude in sign allowance but does not feel this would be in keeping with the area. MOTION: Steve Bogert moved to deny the application based on discussion of the Board and further denied based on the following; the variance is contrary to the public interest as the section regarding signs in the ordinance was updated in 2015 and was adopted to maintain the non-digital copy type signs in the riverfront district based on the character of the area. Spirit of the ordinance is being observed by continuing to maintain the type of signs that are allowed and intended for the area that was approved in 2015. Substantial justice is done because the character of the area would be maintained. Values of the surrounding properties would be diminished by the sign change and would result in changing the character of the neighborhood. Literal enforcement would not result in an unnecessary hardship as signs are allowed and all businesses have to abide by the same codes. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor of denial of the application, 5-0. Application #2016-025 - 30 Spring Street. Owner; Usen Wareagle, MSL #431-204-29, Professional Zone. Applicant is 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 a .06 lot (7,260 sf) and 14,520 sf would be required for 2 family use. Roland Maheu recused himself from the hearing of this case. Usen Wareagle spoke on behalf of the application. Mr. Usen stated he is seeking the variance from dimensional requirements. He showed the proposed schematics for parking. Suzanne Perley asked where the spaces are located. He stated they are in the rear of the building. The new parking layout would provide for 4 spaces. He explained that it was a 2 family prior to his purchase of the building and the previous owner changed it back to a single family. The spaces are accessed from Olive Place. Discussion was held on the parking being stacked 3 parking and if the area was already a parking space or if there will be a loss of green space. Mr. Wareagle stated that the area is not paved and just a dirt lot. Mike Foote inquired what the green space allowance is in the Zone. Brandee Loughlin stated that it is supposed to be 25% left green. Suzanne Perley inquired if they do not pave the area is it still considered green space? Brandee stated that it is a gray area and they could put in pavers that grass can grow through. Suzanne Perley stated that many of the homes in that area probably have the same issues with parking as they are small lots. Mike Foote pointed out that there is a right of way on the property. Brandee Loughlin stated that the right of way could contribute to the green space as you cannot do anything with it. Mike Foote asked if there is a working kitchen. Mr. Wareagle stated that there is. Suzanne Perley asked how many bedrooms are upstairs. Mr. Wareagle stated that there is one bedroom. Steve Bogert opened the application to the public. There being no one to speak on this application it was returned to the board for discussion. Gail Ober stated that this request is in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood. Discussion was held on suggesting pavers to maintain green space. It was inquired if there could be a condition made to prohibit the future paving of the parking lot. Brandee Loughlin opined that this can be done but does not think the required green space will be affected. Steve Bogert asked if there were any questions from the Board or closing statements from the applicant. There being none he closed the public hearing. MOTION: Gail Ober moved to grant the variance for application #2016-025 with the condition that all applicable building permits and a certificate of occupancy be applied for. The granting of the variance would not be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance as this is a residential neighborhood and the use would be consistent with other houses. The Spirit of the Ordinance is observed as this is a residential neighborhood and an allowable use. Substantial justice is done as is it not unduly affecting the composition of the neighborhood. It should not affect property values. It would be an unnecessary hardship to the owner because of the prior use as a two family and to deny him that right presently would not be sustainable. Seconded by Suzanne Perley. Motion carried in favor of granting the variance 3-1. Application #2016-026 - 68 Provencal Road. Owner; Double D Development Laconia, LLC. MSL #480-350-4, Residential Apartment Zone. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Table VI-Table of Sign Regulations, to construct a freestanding sign in a zone where they are not allowed. Scott Auberton from First Sign representing Apple Ridge with proper permission. He stated that his client is looking to install a property identification sign and to provide leasing information at the site of the apartment complex. Roland Maheu asked if the sign will be on the property of Apple Ridge. Mr. Auberton stated that the sign will not be located on the corner of Provencal and Mile Hill Rd but further down Provencal Road so that it is on their property. Suzanne Perley asked if anyone other than those that live there would see the sign. Scott stated that the one single family home may see the sign. Scott discussed the development location with the Board. Mike Foote asked what materials the sign would be constructed of. Scott Auberton stated that it would be a wood composite, wrought iron and no lights. There would not be any changeable copy on the sign. Steve Bogert opened the meeting to the public. Mark Mirski owns the property at 1 Mile Hill road and he was not sure where the sign is to be located and asked the board to see the site. He asked if the sandwich board sign that has been put out will go away. Brandee Loughlin explained that they will need a sign permit from DPW for a 4 sandwich Board sign. Mr. Mirski stated that he has been misled in many aspects on this road and he just wants clarification. Steve Bogert asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. There being none he closed the public hearing and brought discussion back to the board. Mike Foote, for clarification, inquired if the proposed sign will be on Provencal Road down near to the community. Scott stated that it is and that there is no electricity to the area so it will not be lit. Steve Bogert closed the public hearing. Roland Maheu stated that when he went up to look for the site he had difficulty finding it and feels that a sign is needed. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve application #2016-026, for a variance to allow for an identification sign at the entrance to the Apple Ridge development as presented. Substantial justice is done as signs are consistent with other properties of this type. It does not harm the general public welfare or safety property values will not be diminished. The proposed sign will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Roland Maheu. Motion carried 5-0. Application #2016-027 – 2 Methodist Circle. Owner; John Paula, MSL#138-159-2, CR Zone. Applicant is requesting an appeal from administrative decision re; interpretation of Article 235-63 & 66 and replacement of non-conforming structures. Discussion was held in regards to a board member recusing himself. It was agreed that there is no conflict of interest so it is not necessary. Steve Nix spoke on behalf of the applicants with proper permissions. The applicants were present in the audience. Mr. Nix stated that if case #5 on the agenda is approved then #6 will not be necessary. Mr. Nix described where the property is located. His first appeal is to the decision of the Zoning Administrator, that a variance is necessary, as the house will meet setback and be in the same footprint and it will only be expanded upward. When an applicant disagrees with the Zoning Administrator then an appeal from administrative decision is requested. Zoning Ordinance is law and the Supreme Court has stated that in its establishment we use the rules of statutory obligation. The meaning of zoning ordinance is from the construction of the ordinance as a whole and you cannot read one paragraph without reading the whole section. You cannot read over one section to make another section meaningless. In this case what the Zoning Technician has done is read 235;66 (B)4 and has interpreted it to render 235-63(B) meaningless. If you read the Zoning Ordinance as a whole, this section states a single property may exhibit more than one type of non-conformity and it is the intent that each type be treated distinctly. It is this part that is being challenged as it will still comply with the maximum 35’ height requirement. Each of the setbacks must be treated distinctly. Argument will be that the Paula’s can replace in the same footprint but because the distinct regulations says that they can have a 35’ building. Roland Maheu asked how tall the present building is. Mr. Nix stated that it is 20’ high right now. Mr. Nix stated that the fact that the planning department has misinterpreted the ordinance for a long time does not make the interpretation of the ordinance correct. Steve Bogert asked if the whole footprint is within the 50’ setback. Steve Nix stated they do not meet the 50’ setbacks. Suzanne Perley inquired if they have been granted a state issued shore land permit. Steve Nix affirmed that they do have one issued by the state. Steve Bogert stated that it is a non-conforming structure and can be replaced with a building of the same dimensions including height. 5 Gail Ober stated that she is inclined to agree with the applicant as it will remain below the requirements. Suzanne Perley stated that since the ordinance has historically been interpreted in this fashion she would side with the staff but would like to speak with legal counsel in the future for clarification. Discussion was held on how the applicants would like to proceed. Steve Nix, after speaking with his clients withdrew the application for administrative appeal. Steve Bogert made the applicant aware that if the variance fails it does not allow for them to go back to the administrative appeal. Application #2016-028 – 2 Methodist Circle. Owner; John Paula, MSL#138-159-2, CR Zone. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Article 235-66 (B) 4, to replace a non-conforming structure on original footprint but with expansion of height. Steve Nix stated he is the attorney representing the Paula’s. In the packet that has been provided to the board is a map and aerial photo of the property. He explained where the property is located. It is non-conforming and has a structure on it presently and the applicant is seeking permission to replace the existing structure in the existing footprint with a higher roofline. They are looking to add 13’ in height to the existing structure. Mr. Nix made a visual presentation to the board. All photos described in this presentation are part of the permanent file. The most direct abutter’s house will not be compromised in view or height due to the slope of the land and that the abutting house will sit higher than the subject property. Mr. Nix went through the five criteria needed for a variance. Will have a pitched roof with dormers. Will not be contrary to the public interest as it is in an area of similar buildings where changes have already been made. It will also allow for building codes to be met. This proposal will not create additional density as there will still only be one lot. At this time it is the smallest building in the neighborhood and by being able to renovate and rebuild it will bring this property in line with the neighborhood. Views will not be impacted. Hardship lies in the small lot and is offset from the row of houses. The proposed use is reasonable use in the allowance of the construction of a functional building that is up to code. Mike Foote stated, when we look at the footprint we see the houses extending over the property lines. Steve Nix stated that the tax maps are incorrect and they do have a stamped survey that shows a one foot setback that will of course be adhered to and respected. Steve Bogert opened the meeting to the public. There being no one wishing to speak for or against the application it was brought back to the board. Steve Bogert asked Mr. Nix if he had any further questions or statements. There being none, the public hearing was closed. MOTION: Mike Foote moved to approve application # 2016-0028, 2 Methodist Circle. Motion is to approve the variance to deconstruct and reconstruct a home on the same footprint with a 33’ limit on the height of the house. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the ordinance as the existing house is challenged by time and placement and by allowing for a new home to be built will be reasonable. It is in the spirit of the ordinance. An updated house will improve the neighborhood. Unnecessary hardship is the size of the lots and that in time these properties do need to be upgraded. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried 5-0. Application #2016-030 – 32 Lyford Street. Owner; Brian J Blake, MSL#425-139-40, RG Zone. Applicant is seeking a Special Exception for expansion of use from a three family home to a four family house. 6 Application #2016-029 – 32 Lyford Street. Owner; Brian J Blake, MSL#425-139-40, RG Zone. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Article 235 Table 2-Dimensional Requirements, in order to utilize a pre-existing fourth unit. Property is a .37 acre lot (16,117 sf) and 29,040 sf would be required for a 4 family use. Brian Blake explained that he is the new owner of 32 Lyford Street as of December. He visited the assessing and planning departments and in the packets there was a letter saying that a special exception was needed on the property. The letter does indicate that the assessing department has it as a 4-8 unit building. Years ago the fourth unit was occupied and that there was a fire in that area in the ‘94-‘95 era, it was repaired with permits pulled but has not been occupied. House is located in the RG zone which allows for multifamily homes on a street with a mixed use of properties and he does not feel a small 2 bedroom unit would increase traffic or city utilities. There will not be any physical changes to the property and only wants to utilize what is there. The planned upgrades he is looking to make to the property will enhance the neighborhood. A partial roof has already been put on and trim work on the trees has been done, rotting siding has been replaced and more work is being done, new carpets, painting, flooring, vanity upgrades. This spring he will be replacing the front porch and the rest of the roof and the house will be painted in the summer. Property was bought as an investment and needs a lot of work and he is doing it. Spirit and intent is for reasonable use of the property and he believes it is in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance. Gail asked if there were appliances in the unit. Mr. Blake stated that there are no appliances at this time. There is a separate electrical box and it is heated to keep the pipes from freezing. Steve Bogert opened to the public if anyone wanted to speak for or against. Barbara Foster 21 Lyford Street stated that she is so pleased that Mr. Blake has bought the property and is looking to fix it up. That property has been allowed to disintegrate and she is so pleased he is looking to take care of it. She is here because she is split down the middle because she would like to see him make the most of the property but there were issues when the unit was there before. There are flooding issues when it rains because there are no gutters to divert the water on the right side. There is a dirt path and two cars easily fit in there and are always very respectful of one another. On the left side of the property have two large vehicles and the concern is there will not be enough parking. There was so much wear and tear on the left side that the pavement collapsed. Partially because there is nowhere for the water to go. Another issue is that because of the driveway there have been four accidents in that location. She would like to see him be successful and be able to rent the additional unit but her concern is the parking safety and water safety. There are no specific objections to the fourth unit but her concern is again for the parking. Steve Bogert inquired if anyone else wanted to speak for or against the application. There being no public to speak on this it was brought back to the board. Mr. Blake stated that the sketch showing the parking is to scale and it meets the requirements as set forth by the planning department. Roland Maheu stated that he went out to the building and he did not see that there was a parking issue. Brandee Loughlin stated that there are times that Planning will have the property owner meet with DPW or Conservation to discuss mitigating water flow. Gail noted for record that on the plat print out it states that the property is 132 Lyford St. Request to discuss this with assessing. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve the request for a variance from Article 235 Table 2, Table of Dimensional Requirements as applied for in application #2016-0029 to allow for the use of a preexisting 7 fourth unit on a lot which does not meet the minimum size requirements. There are no changes to the footprint of the property, substantial justice is done as the proposed use is consistent with other neighborhood uses. The use is appropriate for the area. Values of surrounding properties will not be diminished as the unit already exists. The granting of the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Seconded by Gail with requirements by Code to obtain a certificate of occupancy or other permits and documents as necessary. Motion carried 5-0. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve application # 2016-0030, request for Special Exception to utilize an existing fourth unit. The use is specifically authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion of unduly impair pedestrian safety. 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 on t adjacent property or streets. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public, not be detrimental to the use of or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use and the requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance and Master Plan. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor of the motion 5-0. Other Business: Election of Officers: MOTION: Mike Foote moved to nominate Steve Bogert as Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the next year. Seconded by Gail Ober. Motion carried in favor 4-0 with Steve Bogert abstaining from the vote. MOTION: Mike Foote moved to nominate Suzanne Perley as the Vice Chairman of the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the current year. Seconded by Steve Bogert. Motion carried in favor 4-0 with Suzanne Perley abstaining from the vote. MOTION: Mike Foote moved to nominate Suzanne Perley as Secretary for the next year. Seconded by Roland Maheu. Motion carried in favor 4-0 with Suzanne Perley abstaining from the vote. MOTION: Gail Ober moved to adjourn. Seconded by Roland Maheu. Motion carried in favor 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:35pm Respectfully submitted, Wendy L. Patterson Recording Clerk 8