Zoning Board of Adjustment

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TUESDAY FEBRUARY 21, 2017 - 7:00 PM Conference Room 200A Meeting Minutes Chairman Steve Bogert called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Chairman Bogert made the public aware that the applications for the property located at 3160 Parade Road will be continued to the March 20, 2017 meeting due to a clerical error. Roll Call: Present were, Roland Maheu, Suzanne Perley-Vice Chairman, Steve Bogert-Chairman, Orry Gibbs, Michael Foote, Dean Trefethen-Planning Director and Wendy Patterson- Recording Secretary. Absent was Gail Ober, Alternate. III. Acceptance of Minutes MOTION: Steve Bogert moved to accept minutes as presented. Seconded by Mike Foote. Motion carried 5-0 in favor of the motion. IV. Extensions - None V. Continued Public Hearing-None VI. Public Hearing 1. Re-Hearing of Case #2016-0015 - 98 Paugus Park Road. Original hearing took place on September 19, 2016 and request for re-hearing was granted on November 21, 2016. It was explained by Steve Bogert that once the rehearing is granted it re-sets the application to the beginning and the case for a deck will have to be presented again. Attorney James Steiner spoke on behalf of the England’s, the original applicants and that he is substituting for Steven Nix at this hearing. Mr. Steiner stated that what may be recalled from the original hearing in September is that a request was made for a 12’x 40’ deck and that the Board, after discussion, approved a 10’x 40’ deck with conditions. The England’s are requesting for the variance to be granted for the 12’x 40’ deck that was requested on the original application. Suzanne Perley inquired if the paperwork from Attorney Steve Nix is being used. Mr. Steiner stated that he is merely an agent at this point due to a conflict of interest between Mr. Philpot and Mr. Nix and was asked to fill in to make the presentation. Mr. Steiner stated that there were numerous issues raised when the request for rehearing was filed. One of the first things suggested was that the England house was taller than the Lacroix house which is not true. Another assertion was made that shadows from the England house block the Lacroix house. This is also not true based on the logistics of the rising and setting of the sun in relation to the placement of the house causing the shadows to actually fall upon the England house. Mr. Steiner referred to the site plan to indicate the siting of the old and new houses. If the new home had been built exactly where the old one was there would be a 20’ wall where the deck is proposed to be. In building the home the way they did there will be better views as a deck does not block the neighbor’s view as a wall would. 1 The other important piece to this is what is being asked to be approved. Steve Bogert stated that he is aware that a statement was made by the Planning Department, to the applicant that the deck could have been built in the original footprint. This is not true as they moved the new building back and created a conforming lot meaning that the ability to build within the original footprint was then null and void. He explained that the ZBA is the Board that says whether or not an error was made and they do feel an error was made by the Planning Department in their assertion. James Steiner said that the Shoreland Protection states in 483-B:11 Nonconforming Structures. – I. Except as otherwise prohibited by law or applicable municipal ordinance, nonconforming structures located within the protected shoreland may be repaired, replaced in kind, reconstructed in place, altered, or expanded. Repair, replacement-in kind, or reconstruction in place may alter or remodel the interior design or existing foundation of the nonconforming structure, but shall result in no expansion or relocation of the existing footprint within the waterfront buffer. However, alteration or expansion of a nonconforming structure may expand the existing footprint within the waterfront buffer, provided the structure is not extended closer to the reference line and the proposal or property is made more nearly conforming than the existing structure or the existing conditions of the property. This provision shall not allow for the enclosure, or conversion to living space, of any deck or open porch located between the primary structure and the reference line and within the waterfront buffer. II. For the purposes of this section, a proposal that is "more nearly conforming'' means alteration of the location or size of the existing footprints, or redevelopment of the existing conditions of the property, such that the structures or the property are brought into greater conformity with the design standards of this chapter. Methods for achieving greater conformity include, without limitation, reducing the overall square footage of structural footprints, enhancing stormwater management, adding infiltration areas and landscaping, upgrading wastewater treatment, improving traffic management, or other enhancements that improve wildlife habitat or resource protection. III. An expansion that increases the sewerage load to an onsite septic system, or changes or expands the use of a septic system, shall require a subsurface approval issued by the department. IV. Under paragraph I, and except as otherwise prohibited by law or applicable municipal ordinance, primary nonconforming structures may be entirely demolished and reconstructed, with continued encroachment into the waterfront buffer, provided the replacement structure is located farther back from the reference line than the preexisting nonconforming structure. V. Notwithstanding paragraphs I and IV, between the primary building line and the reference line, no alteration shall extend the structure closer to the public water, except that a deck or open porch extending a maximum of 12 feet towards the reference line may be added to nonconforming structures erected prior to July 1, 1994. He asked the Board to refer to number V of the RSA. He understands what the ZBA is saying but this also provides some authority. Steve Bogert stated that there is a right to apply up to 12’ but that it does not say that there is the right to go up to the 12’. Mr. Steiner again referred to visual aids and noted that if a line was drawn, then the subject and neighboring decks line up. The home has been placed further back on the lot and will be more aesthetically pleasing and in 2 line with the neighboring homes. He then referred to a legal argument made as an analogy made by the Lacroix attorney referencing NINE A, LLC v.TOWN OF CHESTERFIELD, he opined that there is no analogy in that case that would meet this case. The Supreme Court stated that: ”We have previously stated that, to be contrary to the public interest, the variance must unduly, and in a marked degree conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance’s basic zoning objectives… In determining whether granting a variance violates an ordinance’s basic zoning objectives, we look to, among other things, whether it would alter the essential character of the locality or threaten public health, safety or welfare.” In this case the Englands deck would be in character with the neighborhood. There is also an argument made about diminution of value, in DANIELS V LONDONDERRY 159NH 519, a decision that was made 9 years ago by the Supreme Court that the Zoning Board “may apply its own knowledge of the area and personal observations to conclude that there is no diminution of value”. We present that where an old outdated camp has been replaced with a year round home that puts it in line with the neighboring properties and the result could conclude that there would not be a diminution of value. Lastly, there are some issues that have been raised but no prior appeals were taken by the Lacroix’s of any of the zoning interpretations regarding the construction of the deck and we suggest that they have waived the opportunity to make a new challenge where they previously did not make an appeal. Roland Maheu stated that one of the reasons he recalled that the zoning Board approved the ten feet was due to the stairs. James Steiner stated that the stairs that are proposed with a 10 foot deck would stick out about 2 feet. If the 12’ deck is granted they will be recessed a few inches. Steve Bogert stated that the stairs were to be reconfigured to be within the setbacks as the deck would be. Mr. England spoke in regards to the 12 foot in the meeting minutes and the approval from the initial meeting on September 19, 2016 and that the deck and the stairs have to be within 42’. He further stated that the city did issue a letter that indicated that the deck could be constructed within the original footprint. Mr. Bogert again reminded everyone that the Zoning Board has the right to correct the Planning Departments error in interpretation. Mr. England reiterated that he was given this information regarding rebuilding of the deck prior to the issuance of the permit and he made his decision based on the information provided by the Planning Department. Suzanne Perley asked for clarification on the size of the deck being applied for. James Steiner stated that the proposed deck would extend 12’ from the house and be 40’ wide across the front of the house. Roland Maheu reminded the Board members that there is an issue with the shoreline being indented in that area. Attorney Ed Philpot stated that there are a few things he would like to point out. He (James Steiner) talks about aesthetics and the conformity of the neighboring properties which are not contemplated in the concept of the granting of the variance, whether or not the improvement or addition will make the property fit better in the neighborhood are not a criteria. Shoreland protection speaks a lot to this case. He summarized that we have to get back to the shoreline protection act because that speaks to the public interest and the spirit of the ordinance. The piece of the statute (483) that has been pointed out does not apply in this case as it speaks to extending a maximum of 12’ to the reference line may be added to non-conforming structure constructed to 1994 and this does not apply to this structure. The overlay is for protection of the waterway, shoreline, and the public interest in protecting the drinking water for the city. These speak to the Spirit of the ordinance. These help to consider whether a variance should be granted. It is difficult to argue that it does not offend the public interest. When you 3 get back to the concept of conformity it speaks to the hardship. The owners knew there was an issue with the property and they chose to build and configure at their own risk and then were forced to ask for the variance for the deck. It is not a hardship because when they built this house they did not get a variance first which does not conform to the law regarding hardship which does not meet the standards of the law regarding a hardship. A case was cited, and goes to the issue of adoption of the ordinance and how it relates to substantial injustice. The Nine LLC case as mentioned previously speaks specifically to zoning ordinances or the violation of zoning ordinance and the overlay district was passed for a particular purpose as stated in the ordinance for the protection of the shoreland and it does apply in this case. There are also a few cases that speak to threats of public health and the largest case being HARBORSIDE ASSOC. v. PARADE RESIDENCE HOTEL 162 NH 508 that speaks to types of variance that may impact public health. In this case he feels this (impact to public health) would happen. The Englands talk about the enhancement the values of the surrounding properties yet produce no evidence and they ask you to take that on their word. That is not for this Board to assume and they have failed in that burden. That brings us to literal enforcement of the provision would not result in an unnecessary hardship because they had options to build the deck and did not choose the options that would have conformed. The fact that there are other houses in the neighborhood that have 12’ decks does not matter in regards to this request. Roland Maheu stated that he does not understand where the quality of the water comes in as this is one house on Paugus Bay, far from the intake. How would this have an impact? Mr. Philpot stated that he is not a soil scientist and the Englands have not proven it wouldn’t affect the water negatively, the shoreline protection speaks to this. Orry Gibbs stated that there are supposed to be vegetative buffers that she does not see at the Lacroix’s and that we ask the Englands to put them in. Mr. Philpot stated that the statute states that it does make an impact and deals with structures such as this. Orry Gibbs stated that if you were to have a deck constructed with a roof and drip edge and the water to were run down to the lake, then yes she could understand the argument, but there would not be water running down in that way and it would not make any more of an impact than what existed. Steve Bogert then stated that for example if the house were to be built back in the area that was non-conforming, there would have been more of a water problem to the lake but in moving it back we would now have a deck that has less of an impact on the shoreland. Steve Bogert said that what the board is here to discuss is a variance for the 12’ deck on the house to extend toward the lake and whether it meets the five criteria for a variance or not. At one meeting we said that the 10’ did meet the criteria but the 12’ did not. It was repealed and we were given enough information to grant a rehearing. Those previous decisions do not matter now because this is a complete new hearing for 12’ out and 40’ wide deck and the Board is tasked with finding if the request meets the 5 criteria for a variance. Steve Bogert opened the hearing to the public. Mr. Lacroix began to speak. Steve Bogert asked if his attorney is here representing him. Mr. Lacroix stated that he is. He then provided his information to the attorney and his items can be introduced after the public input. There was no-one from the public to speak for or against the application so the public input session was closed and it was brought back to the board for discussion. Mr. Bogert asked the attorneys if there were any closing comments. Jim Steiner stated that as Attorney Philpot noted that beyond the neighboring houses there have been many variances granted along this road and he relies on the written application that addresses the 5 criteria and that this evening he wanted to speak to the legal allegations that were presented by Mr. Lacroix and his attorney. Second, one of the board members pointed out that the deck proposed is an open deck whereas the deck on the Lacroix property is an enclosed deck. Third, the board chair has pointed out that there was a letter from the City that assured them they could apply for the deck 4 later and they (the applicants) relied on promissory estoppel and so he would hope the board would take into consideration that the Englands relied on the misleading information from the city. Fourth, not unlike some of the other issues raised by Mr. Lacroix, drinking water and height, these are red herrings and the Englands would ask that based on this deck meeting the criteria it is not contrary to the public interest. It is in keeping with the Spirit of the Ordinance, substantial justice would be done, surrounding values of properties would not be diminished and the ZBA has the authority under the supreme court to make that determination without third party evidence and that literal enforcement and denial of the variance would result in a hardship. Mr. Philpot re-stated the issue of water quality and that Mr. Lacroix has said that this will be a pressure treated deck and will add pollutants to the area. Mr. Steiner stated that it is not proposed to be a pressure treated deck and will be of trexlite composite materials. Mike Foote inquired why the applicants did not take into account the setback before the building was constructed. Jim Steiner stated that the city told the Englands that they could rely on the original setbacks and apply after the fact for the deck. They relied on that statement in good faith. Orry Gibbs reiterated that the Englands were given bad information and relied on that misinformation. Steve Bogert asked if there were any further questions or statements from the Board for the Attorneys. There being none he closed the public hearing. Mr. Bogert acknowledged that this is a very emotional case for a lot of folks and will affect people on either side of the case. Suzanne Perley stated that she feels it is an accepted use in the neighborhood and the ZBA has approved many similar decks similar to this in the same neighborhood and does not see the negative effect. Orry Gibbs agreed and said based on the information from Mr. Nix’s brief and presentation by Mr. Steiner’s presentation, one of the criteria you can take in to account is if it would alter the essential character of the locality or threaten the public safety and welfare. Ms. Gibbs feels that the character would be altered if the deck were not to be allowed on a waterfront house. To threaten the public health safety or welfare, especially when using a composite deck material, makes a big difference to water protection and if we were concerned about runoff we could ask for a vegetative or permeable surface. Steve Bogert, for clarification, said that by removing the house out of the formula which created more water drain off because of solid surfaces that were there in the original footprint and by moving the house back it created less nonconformance and that the major portion of the solid surfaces are now 50’ away thereby lessening the water runoff. Orry Gibbs stated that the solid structure is now the full 50’ away from the water and feels that a composite deck will have minimal impact. Mike Foote stated that we are talking about water runoff and we need to remember that the house was doubled in size. Steve Bogert reminded Mike Foote that the runoff from the house is not part of the criteria they are looking at but only the deck. It was again reiterated that when the solid structure was moved there was much more absorption area created whereas the original structure was closer to the water. This house would be out of character with the neighborhood without the deck. He does not feel the safety and wellbeing of the neighborhood would be adversely affected. Discussion was then had on if it would have a positive negative or neutral effect to value. Orry Gibbs stated that it is neutral because we cannot speak to that. Steve Bogert stated that there are some things to be looked at and being a licensed realtor, it is his opinion, that in applying common 5 sense and based on making property evaluations, he could make an opinion for the negative or positive effect and that in this case the lack of a deck would have a negative impact. Orry Gibbs stated that one of the things brought up previously is that the view would be obstructed and she does not feel this is a basis unless there is something written into the deed and that it will not have an effect on the decision. The neighbor may be unhappy that the view is slightly impeded but it is an open deck and not the solid structure that was there previously. Steve Bogert reminded the Board that there are conditions that can be placed if an approval is granted such as the deck never being enclosed or landscaping to be done. MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to approve the deck as applied for 40’ X 12’ which will include the stairs with the condition that it shall not be enclosed and the construction to remain within the contours within the limits of the house. The approval of the variance is not contrary to the ordinance and the spirit of the ordinance would be observed. Paugus Park Rd is a neighborhood in Laconia that is being redeveloped at a quick pace so an approval of the proposed deck is consistent with the neighborhood. The approval of the deck does not injure the public or private rights of others and is consistent with the spirit of the ordinance which is to control the reasonable use of property in the city. Again it does not threaten public health safety or welfare. Approval of the variance will do substantial justice and there is no evidence of harm to environment or health and safety to the neighbors. The benefit to the applicant is far outweighed by any negative impact to the general public and the use is consistent with the areas current uses and characters in a lakefront house. Surrounding property values will not be diminished as the proposed development is consistent with the properties current use and has no direct affect to adjacent properties. Substantial justice is done. Special conditions of the location and width of the preexisting structure was closer to the lake than the abutting houses. The Englands have chosen to move the new house back from the lake to be more in line with the abutting houses and the Englands house lot has a special condition that is not shared by the abutting properties. In terms of the SPOD the house itself was moved back further from the lake to protect the impact of construction. The deck is being built of trexlite composite materials that should not have any effect on the underlying property. This is a raised deck being built approximately 8-8.5’ above ground level. The use us a reasonable use. Seconded by Orry Gibbs. Mike Foote stated that it should be mentioned that native plants, for best management practices, should be planted on the edge of the deck (underneath). Orry Gibbs reiterated that the shape of the lot also poses the hardship for this lot. Motion as amended and with conditions carried 5-0 in favor. Steve Bogert reminded the applicants that there is a 30 day window for appeal and that if they proceed with construction of the deck in that time period then it is at their own caution. It was further noted that the appeal process would not happen at the Zoning Board level but would now be a matter of the courts if so pursued. 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. Orry Gibbs recused herself from the case. Steve Smith stated that he is here representing the estate of Paul Blizzard. They are requesting a special exception as this is a piece of property in the commercial zone. He showed two site plans that indicated the existing structure and proposed redevelopment. At this time there is an outside storage rack and washing facility. The wash bay is tied to municipal sewer as approved by DES. This plan has presented to the Planning Department and under Article 10 235-65 D2 has inadequate dimensions due to the property being in the commercial zone. The property has frontage on two streets and the ordinance stated that there are no side 6 setbacks required but there are front setbacks needed. The original plan had the proposed structure back to the boundary line and was approved but because of the elevation change up to the church property, to set the building would have been 7’ into the church property which would not work. Due to this they redesigned the building and are now asking for relief from front setbacks as: A) the property cannot reasonably be developed for the proposed use without the setback deviation. B) those deviations are necessitated by the size and shape of the nonconforming lot and not convenience of the owner or financial advantage. C) The property can be developed as proposed without causing a significant adverse impact on surrounding properties or the public health or safety. The site plan had been approved by the Planning Board pending the special exception. This has been through shoreland protection and they will put in a stormwater mitigation treatment system. Under special exceptions the proposed use is allowed by right and the request will not create undue traffic. This plan has been reviewed by all city department heads and had passed planning. The requested use will not create more demand for municipal services, police, fire, or sewer. It does not function adequately for today’s boats and would like to bring it up to current BOCA codes and safety regulations as it will be built to today’s codes. The only special provision to be made would be for runoff and they have created the facility to mitigate it. The use will not be out of character as the neighborhood is a mixed use area and the marina has been there for many years. Redevelopment of the site will have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood The proposed location is in an appropriate zone and the last point is that the requested use is in keeping with the masterplan. The master plan calls for strengthening business and to encourage property owners to improve their sites. All other aspects meet the standards from city and state. The approval would allow the property owner better use of the property. Steve Bogert inquired the height of the building. Steve Smith stated that it will be slightly under the allowed height of 60’ in the zone. Steve Bogert indicated an area on the plans located in the bottom right corner where the structure is hugging the property line, he asked if it will be within the setbacks. Steve Smith stated that it would. Steve Bogert asked if members of the Board had any questions. He then opened the hearing to the public. Robert Fay, abutter, asked how much taller the new building will be. Steve Smith stated that the old building is 35’ and the new building will be just under 25’ higher. Lisa Landry, not an abutter, first question is in terms of the use of the building: she asked if this will be for in and out storage or winter storage. Steve said he believes winter storage but that is an allowed use so he is not here to speak on that. She also asked about landscaping on the site. Steve stated that there will be street trees and the areas that are green will be seeded and grassed. Discussion was held on trees and potential planting to which Mr. Smith stated that he believes that there is a 2 year setting by site plan to keep them. Elizabeth Hackett speaking on behalf of the United Baptist Church, stated that they are across the street and have a parking lot behind the lot. They were concerned that they were putting up a building closer to their parking lot and now know that is not the case and for the record she would like to state that they have no objections to the proposal. Steve Bogert inquired if there was anyone else from the public that wished to speak. There being none the public speaking session was closed and it was brought back to the board. Steve Bogert then closed the public hearing. 7 MOTION: Suzanne Perley moved to accept the application for a special exception as presented, for relief from the setbacks under the special exception criteria. And would like to suggest to incorporate the criteria as submitted into the motion. (a) The proposed use is an allowed Use within the Commercial Zone (b) Lakeport Marina occupies both sides of Gold Street in this area and the lot is currently used for Boat Storage and Wash Facility. The proposed redevelopment will not change the current use of the property or further impact vehicular traffic or impair pedestrian safety. (c) The site is currently supported by public water, sewer and storm water drainage. The sewer and water services are sufficient for the current and proposed use. Storm water currently sheet drains to the catch basin system within the street untreated. A storm water detention/treatment facility is being proposed to capture and treat both roof water and site drainage while reducing the impact to the City storm water system. (d) The site is currently being used for Boat Storage and Wash Facility. The re-development will not increase or create excessive demand for police, schools or Solid waste disposal services. The new structure will be built to current Boca and Life Safety Codes reducing potential fire protection services. (e) There are no special provisions for the proposed use. (f) The adjacent neighborhood is a mixed use neighborhood and the marina use has existed on this site and across the street for many years. The redevelopment of the site 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 re-development of the site with a new structure built to current Boca and Life Safety Codes and reduction/treatment of storm water will have a positive impact on the surrounding neighborhood. (g) The lot is located in the commercial zone as is the surrounding neighborhood and the use is an allowed use within the zone. Seconded by Mike Foote. Motion carried 4-0 in favor. Application # 2017-0005 274 Paugus Park Road, Mblu #306-178-2, located in the RS zone. Request for a variance from, Article 235-19 Section F (2) (b), to construct a 6’X17’ upper story deck which will extend at its closest point to 22.16’ into the 50’ shoreland setback. Attorney Nadeau spoke on behalf of the applicant. She was here about a year ago representing the same landowner for a variance for a second floor on existing building and they in fact received the variance. They also received a variance to not add the additional plantings because there was already a lot of foliage. She is here tonight to request an exterior deck and the contractor made them aware that they need to apply for a variance. They deck is proposed to be cantilevered. There lot is approximately 97’ deep to the south and a roughly 115’ deep on north boundary, Paugus Park road runs right through it. If you look at the attacked tax map it is unique to the last 2-3 parcels on the road. The other lots to the northeast are self-contained lots and they (the applicant) actually have an easement that benefits lot 3. The other thing that makes the lot unique is that they have the smallest parcel and the next smallest does not have the road running through their land. In referencing a site plan provided, Ms. Nadeau stated that their building envelope is the dashed line as shown and that there is only about 150 sf. They are proposing to build a 6x17’ deck that would be cantilevered and would be located above an impervious area. The deck would be open and any rainfall would go through the deck and slow the velocity of the water but would not change or increase 8 the amount. If she goes through the criteria of the variance, the purpose of the Shoreland overlay is to protect water quality by making sure that there is no unnecessary erosion and treatment of pollutants and by keeping and maintaining groundcover to maintain impervious area. So there is no impact to the earth. Ms. Nadeau went through the 5 criteria of the variance process and stated that it has been acknowledged by this board that a deck is in keeping with the area. The house to the south has been razed and is in the process of being reconstructed. The houses are in line with each other and there are not any view easements in place. The google earth page that was presented is not accurate and the parcel is actually to the left side of the page. The hardship is the small building envelope and the indentation to the shoreline. There are no adverse impacts to water. It is a reasonable use as it is a single family use and recognized that an exterior deck is normal in this area. Steve opened the hearing to the public. There being no-one to speak for or against the application the public input session was closed and discussion returned to the board. Steve Bogert inquired if the deck is proposed to jut out 6’ from the house. Ms. Nadeau stated that is what they are requesting for the variance but according to the contractor it will only be 5’ out from the house due to the cantilevered design. MOTION: Orry Gibbs moved to approve the application as submitted. Which will be constructed over existing impervious area which will be 22.6’ within the setbacks. Would like to move that the narrative of criteria be used. 1. THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST: The purpose of the Shoreland Protection District is to minimize the degradation of shorelands and assure retention of benefits provided by the shoreland such as prevention of erosion, maintenance of water quality, protection of shoreland cove, and maintenance of scenic qualities of the lake. The proposal will have no impact at all on the ground, as the deck will be cantilevered over an already existing impervious patio. Therefore, there will be no adverse impact on the qualities of the shoreline which the overlay district seeks to protect. 2. THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE WILL BE OBSERVED: The intent of the Ordinance as a whole is to allow reasonable use of non-conforming lots. For the reasons set forth in paragraph 1 above, an exterior cantilevered deck can be reasonably installed and used without adversely impacting the goals sought by the Shoreland Protection Overlay District. 3. SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WILL BE DONE IN GRANTING THE VARIANCE: The City's interest in protecting the shoreland will not in any way be impacted in granting the variance. Accordingly, there is little reason for the applicant's loss of the simple enjoyment of the views of the lake, which the Ordinance itself recognizes as City wide goal. 4. THE VALUE OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WILL NOT BE DIMINISHED: As the aerial view of the neighborhood shows, the deck would not impact any neighbor's view of the lake nor will it result in overcrowding the shoreline. In fact, its location will not be largely out of view of others. 5. LITTERAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD RESULT IN AN "UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP" 9 (A) The property is distinguishable from many neighborhood properties because the road bed is part of the lot, but subject to rights of others and it has only a 150 square foot +/- building envelope. In addition, the indentation of the shore makes it even more difficult to comply with the 50' shoreland setback. i. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the goals of setting back from the shoreline, because the deck will be cantilevered over already impervious ground cover, will not impact quality or result in flooding, will not impact in overcrowding the shoreline, nor impact the scenic views of the lake. ii. The proposed use is reasonable as single family uses with reasonable exterior decking are allowed within this zoning district. (B) Owing to the unique characteristics of the lot, it cannot be reasonably used without encroaching into any of the three setbacks on the parcel. Seconded by Roland. Steve Bogert would like to make a condition that it never be enclosed with a roof or anything. Motion as amended and with conditions carried 5-0. Other Business – Wendy Patterson made the Board aware that her last day with the City of Laconia would be on Thursday February 23, 2017. Adjournment: MOTION: Mike Foote moved to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Roland Maheu. Motion carried in favor with a 5-0 vote. Meeting adjourned at 8:56 PM. Respectfully submitted, Wendy Patterson 10