Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted June 19, 2017 I. Call to Order Chair S. Steve Bogert called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm. II. Roll Call K. Graham called the roll with the following members present: Gail Ober, Alternate; Roland Maheu, Suzanne Perley, vice chair; Steve Bogert, Chair; Orry Gibbs, and Michael Foote Chair S. Bogert noted that Planning Director Dean Trefethen was present. There was a full board and a quorum was established. III. Minutes Motion to accept the minutes from February 21 made by R. Maheu, O. Gibbs seconded. The motion passed unanimously 5-0. Alternate G. Ober did not vote. Motion to accept the minutes from March 20 made by O. Gibbs, R. Maheu seconded. The motion passed unanimously 5-0. Alternate G. Ober did not vote. IV. Presentations V. Extension VI. Continued Public Hearings 1. Application # 2017-0001 3160 Parade Road, Mblu # 5-155-2, located in the RR2 & RR1 zone. Request for a variance from Article V, Table 1 of permitted uses. Request variance to establish a retail store. 2. Application # 2017-0002 3160 Parade Road, Mblu #5-155-2, located in the RR2 & RR1 zone. Request for a Special Exception from Article V Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to establish a campground. 3. Application # 2017-0003 3160 Parade Road, Mblu #5-155-2, located in the RR2 & RR1 zone. Request for a Special Exception from Article V Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to establish a neighborhood store. 4. Application # 2017-0004 3160 Parade Road, Mblu #5-155-2, located in the RR2 & RR1 zone. Request for a Variance from Article V Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to establish an eating and drinking establishment. Chair S. Bogert noted that the applicant made a request to continue the application to May. However, the chair feels the applicant would not have the ability to fulfil the request by May and suggested a continuance to June. June 19 would give the applicant time for the site plan and survey and abutters have a definitive date. Page 1 of 7  City of Laconia Zoning Board Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted June 19, 2017 Motion to continue the application to June 19 made by S. Bogert, R. Maheu seconded. The motion passed with all in favor 5-0. Alternate G. Ober did not vote. VII. Public Hearings 5. ZO2017-0008 Endicott Street East, Phoenix Capital LLC, located in the SFR zone. Request variance from 235-40.B.(6)(h)[1], to construct buildings in the 10 ft perimeter setback for a cluster subdivision 6. ZO2017-0009 Endicott Street East, Phoenix Capital LLC, located in the SFR zone. Request variance from 235-40.B.(6)(g), to construct roads in the 40 ft perimeter buffer for a cluster subdivision Applicant: Atty. Pat Wood, Jason Hill of TFMoran, Vahe Apelian and Yervant Nahikian were present. The board heard both applications together but will vote separate. Atty. P. Wood handed out the approval from the Planning Board from April 4. The applicant has received three Conditional Use Permits (CUP) for: the cluster, to allow a perimeter buffer reduction, and to fill man-made wetlands. The applicant is still waiting on the subdivision and site plan approval. The application will go to the May 2 Planning Board meeting and depending if all the third party responses are back they may also be at the June 6 meeting. A prior application was approved by the ZBA for special exception of multifamily dwellings. The new proposal will be mostly single family detached units with some twin homes and duplex. The twin homes are basically attached single family units, and duplex slightly smaller. There will be a total of 86 units. Atty. P. Wood noted that the prior subdivision plan had been attached to the application. The project stopped because the economy took a different turn. The roads had been graded and cleared, a substantial amount of underground utilities put in, and major drainage areas put in. The parcel abuts two commercial properties and the Weirs Park on one side, with condos and single family housing on the other. The applicant proposes to use the existing roadway because the development would be far enough away from the abutting properties. One major change from the previous approval is having a second egress. One is needed on developments over 50 units. The access road will only be used for emergency access. Since a lot of work was already done on the site the applicant chose to not cause more of an impact. Atty. P. Wood noted that if the proposal wasn’t a cluster, the buffers would only be the 50 ft from the wetland buffer and the road wouldn’t need to 40 feet. The cluster ordinance has changed since the previous approval and therefore the variances are being requested. A cluster is supposed to consider open space. He asked the board to consider the project as a whole. At minimum, there is still a ten foot buffer with the road. The road meanders and some areas have more. The old wetland buffer was 30 ft that changed to 50 ft and the cluster adds another 10 ft. The roads were moved away from the wetlands and it made more sense to move the road than disturb the wetland buffer. There will be no houses in the rear of the property, just the road to connect. Impact on neighbors will be minimized because the houses are all located on the inside of the property. At Planning Board, questions were asked about headlights spilling into the abutting properties and additional plantings or making that stretch of road Page 2 of 7  City of Laconia Zoning Board Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted June 19, 2017 with no houses one way were discussed. Another concern that was brought up was using the emergency access road during construction. The abutters felt that to be distracting so the applicant agreed to have the construction vehicles use the main access. Atty. P. Wood continued with the legal aspect of the applications. The variance will not be contrary to public interest. The Laconia Zoning Ordinance states that residential cluster development is "an innovative land use control" that provides an alternative to conventional subdivision practices "to encourage the environmentally sound development of land, to preserve open space, to protect natural resources and to create attractive living environments." This means to use what has already been done to the land and not create additional negative impacts. The ten foot setback form the perimeter buffer is needed for a few units, but the applicant has met the 40 ft buffer. This proposal with minor variances meets the purpose and intent of the ordinance with regard to the protection of the environment, preserving the open space and protecting natural resources as well as creates an attractive living environment. The Spirit of the Ordinance is observed. The proposed variances do not conflict with the purposes and intents of the district. It is a residential district and residential development is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit. This does not violate the basic objectives of the Laconia Zoning Ordinance since these setbacks would not apply but for the fact this is a cluster development. There would be no alteration of the basic and essential character of the neighborhood by the granting of these variances. Substantial Justice is done. Existing infrastructure is unusual. There has been well over a million dollars invested in the site and a previous plan was approved by both the Zoning and Planning Boards. The new owners decided to maintain that because it fits well with the cluster development being proposed. The houses are far enough away and provide privacy and will lessen the impact on neighboring properties. The values of surrounding properties will not be diminished. They are all residential properties except for the two commercial properties and Weirs Park. The same type of development surrounds the property. These minor variances will not be noticeable by any of the abutting properties. The encroachments into the 10-foot setback from the 40-foot perimeter buffer means the buildings will still be at least forty feet from the perimeter instead of the normal 10 foot side setback or the 15 foot rear setback. Lastly the unnecessary hardship. The special conditions of this property are that it was already substantially developed for a more intensive residential purpose and major work was done on the site for that prior development. The goal of the Applicant is to retain that previous work to reduce the impact on the property and the neighborhood that would be created if the prior site work were to be removed and a whole new infrastructure were to be developed. Utilizing the existing infrastructure also requires the residential structures to be situated to use that infrastructure effectively, which is in accord with the requirement to provide economical and efficient public services. The Applicant has proposed a residential development that uses what has already been done on the site in a manner that enhances the property and the neighborhood by reducing the impacts on the property and the neighborhood. The condition of this Page 3 of 7  City of Laconia Zoning Board Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted June 19, 2017 property requires special consideration. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property. If this weren’t a cluster it wouldn’t have the setback on top of the buffers. There is only one unit in the wetland buffer. The applicant is trying to provide good design, in a safe and appropriate matter by providing affordable and attractive housing. There is also a playground, gazebo, trails, and park like settings proposed. The proposed use is a reasonable use. The site was substantially developed under the prior ordinance and the applicant feels the cluster setbacks requirements that are in addition to the buffers are not a great benefit to city by enforcing them, but it would be great benefit to the development and the city by allowing the applicant to use those setback areas to maintain the quality of the housing and off street parking. The road encroachment into the perimeter buffer will have minimum impact on neighbors. Yervant Nahikian explained the architecture. The previous project had huge buildings that were not integrated into the topography. The cottages will be built into the site and go with the site topography. Each unit will have garage parking for one vehicle, along with one vehicle in the driveway. The units will be between 1200-1500 sf in size, with the master on the first floor. Some will be two bedroom and some three bedroom. There will be a home owners association. The roads will be private roads, with city water and private sewer that will be pumped to Endicott then tie into the city sewer. Utilities will be underground. Sidewalks are in the development except on the part of the road where there are no houses to be constructed. There was a question on where guests would park and was told on the side of the road. Most developments don’t provide extra parking. M. Foote asked what is in the ground for infrastructure and was told sewer lines, man holes, sub part of the drainage structure, and roads. Chair S. Bogert asked what will separate the existing houses to the road in the development and Atty. P. Wood said there is a buffer but could put in plantings. Chair. S. Bogert asked if they could reverse the houses and emergency access road and J. Hill noted that because of the road grade the longer the road the less the slope. If the road was moved down it would be shorter and a larger grade. The emergency access road is planned to be gated. That is in discussion with Laconia Fire Dept. Atty. P. Wood added that there will be sidewalks along Endicott. R. Maheu asked why the developer chose a cluster and how many units would be allowed with a conventional subdivision. The answer was about 40 to 50 units. R. Maheu feels that if the applicant is applying for a cluster then they should live with the rules of the cluster. Atty. P. Wood said that is what the variance is for, to make reasonable accommodations to a situation where because of the nature of the property, there needs to be flexibility. The cluster is supposed to provide flexibility and design and provide and environmental y sound and reasonable development. J. Hill added that the total for the density is 93 and they are proposing 86. Atty. P. Wood added that the demographics show most of the housing is for older people and there would not be a large impact on the schools. The development will be hard wired to the Fire Dept for fire protection. The development will not be a gated community. Each unit will be responsible for their own units and land. Page 4 of 7  City of Laconia Zoning Board Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted June 19, 2017 Abutter: Jeff Sercel, of Northern Heights condos spoke. Nice job but his concern is that the second road is highly likely to impact the values of the condos. Their bedrooms are located in the rear of the houses and would like to see a light buffer as the road will be close. Chair S. Bogert asked if a wall of separation would work and there aren’t many options, either scenery or a structure. He asked J. Sercel if either would work. J. Sercel feels either would work. Kristian Svindland of 97 Ashley Drive spoke. He is located near the rear of the development and has concern over light pollution. He asked if the variances are not granted how many units would be allowed. He noted that there are cluster rules there for a reason. He questioned the amount of parking and the convenience of the people that live there. He feels that most of the units will be part time and there won’t be a ton of people full time. Brian Iske of 39 Summit Ave spoke. He likes the project but has concern about the impact on Endicott. Single family homes are more desirable. There are number of developments on the road that have been stagnant. He would like to see curb appeal added to the property. No one else spoke for or against the application. Board discussion: G. Ober asked about snow storage and where that would go. Atty. P. Wood said the site will be plowed or trucked off if there is too much. Atty. P. Wood also answered the question from the abutter: if the variance were to be denied there would be 25 units to reconfigure. The units affected would be on the northerly side of the property and possibly pushed closer to the road. Then the road would need to be moved back. The three units along the south-easterly corner of the lot would be affected and some in the wetland buffer setback. The buffer is not to be built upon and should be monitored by the association. Chair S. Bogert thinks there needs to be some kind of separation between the abutting lots and the development so the headlights will not affect the abutters. Some kind of a fence. Atty. P. Wood talked about planting arborvitae, but is not sure of the best solution. He is not sure a fence would be a good solution. The applicant is agreeable to putting some kind of visual light barrier. Planning Director D. Trefethen noted that this came up at the Planning Board meeting and staff will work with applicant to come up with the best fit for the issue. He cautioned the board that the fence can only be up to six feet tall, after that a variance is needed for the height. Planning Director D. Trefethen agreed that if the development had not already been started, this would be a different situation. The buffers were intended to not be disturbed, however they have already been disturbed. Staff was against any approval at the Planning Board level subject to the zoning approval. Regulations state the roads need to be looped and a second egress is required in all developments over 50 units. However, it is up to the applicant on what form it takes. He also noted Page 5 of 7  City of Laconia Zoning Board Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted June 19, 2017 that there are no setbacks in cluster subdivisions. The 40 ft buffer is intended to be a natural vegetative buffer. G. Ober noted that the hardship is that the lot has already been cleared and vegetation hasn’t grown up yet. There was a discussion on back yard and use of the buffers. Chair S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 8:45 pm. G. Ober likes the proposal. It is consistent with the Master Plan and consistent with what is wanted in the Weirs. The hardship criteria is met with the fact the property has already been altered. Chair S. Bogert’s concern is about the access road and fence to alleviate the inconvenience of the headlight pollution. At a minimum, he would like to require a fence. S. Perley questioned Chair S. Bogert’s “fence” meaning. His concern is that in winter there is not much vegetation and vegetation dies. S. Perley’s concern is that fences can be ugly. Chair S. Bogert noted that curb appeal sells. S. Perley thinks that a condition of a visual light barrier as a condition then the Planning Board could add to that if necessary. Planning Director D. Trefethen said the board could say fence and the Planning Board could add vegetation as well as the fence. R. Maheu thinks variance should be issued only when no other recourse. Traditional development would be the alternative. He would like to see something more countrified and less urbanized. R. Maheu will vote against the proposal. M. Foote thinks the proposal is a good use of the property. He would like to see families and people at the Weirs. Chair S. Bogert stated that if this property were a blank slate, it would be very different, but since infrastructure is already in place, it makes things different. The impacts would be the lights and fences. He thinks the best is what is proposed. He would like the fences put in and doesn’t seen why the board cannot move forward. Motion to approve the request of application ZO2017-0008, for a variance from 235-40.B(6)(h)[1], to permit the encroachment into the 40 ft perimeter buffer for the pump house, community room (assuming the Planning Board grants the requested waiver), to permit the construction of some of the residential structures within the 10 ft setback form the perimeter buffer to permit the construction of one residential structure, unit #77, within the 50 ft wetland buffer and to permit the construction of some of the residential structures within the 10 ft setback from the wetland buffers. The variance would not be contrary to public interest and the spirit of the ordinance would be observed. The development of the property will be using existing site work and reducing the amount of additional disruption on the site. The proposal does not injure the private or public rights of others, housing is an allowed use in the zone, and does not threaten public health, safety or welfare of the community. The variance does not conflict with the intent of the district and does not violate the basic objectives of the Laconia Zoning Ordinance since it is a cluster development, the setbacks do not apply. Substantial justice is done the use is consistent with area’s current use and character as housing. The benefit to the applicant is far outweighed by any negative impact to the general public. Values of surrounding properties would not be diminished, they are minor variances within the confines of the whole project and won’t be noticeable by abutters. There shouldn’t be any negative impact. Unnecessary hardship is that the site had been predeveloped to be something else and now will be a smaller development. Page 6 of 7  City of Laconia Zoning Board Monday, April 17, 2017 at 7:00 pm City Hall Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted June 19, 2017 Intensive infrastructure has already been put in. The proposed use is a reasonable use, housing, which is allowed in that zone made by S. Perley, M. Foote seconded. The motion passed 4-1. (S. Perley, S. Bogert, O. Gibbs and M. Foote; R. Maheu against) Alternate G. Ober did not vote Motion to approve the request of application ZO2017-0009, for a variance from 235-40.B(6)(g), to utilize existing road design from the prior project to limit additional impact on the site to permit a better clustering of the residential structures. The variance would not be contrary to public interest and the spirit of the ordinance would be observed. The development of the property will be using existing site work and reducing the amount of additional disruption on the site. The proposal does not injure the private or public rights of others, housing is an allowed use in the zone, and does not threaten public health, safety or welfare of the community. The variance does not conflict with the intent of the district and does not violate the basic objectives of the Laconia Zoning Ordinance since it is a cluster development, the setback do not apply. Substantial justice is done the use consistent with area’s current use and character as housing. The benefit to the applicant is far outweighed by any negative impact to the general public. Values of surrounding properties would not be diminished, they are minor variances within the confines of the whole project and won’t be noticeable by abutters. There shouldn’t be any negative impact. Unnecessary hardship is that the site had been predeveloped to be something else and now will be a smaller development. Intensive infrastructure has already been put in. The proposed use is a reasonable use, housing, which is allowed in that zone. Added conditions to have a minimum of a fence be built along eastern corridor along the property to shield lights from vehicles from the adjoining property with the Planning Board being able to provide whatever is necessary for that area. The fence should be put in the documents that the home owners association will be responsible for upkeep of the fence and be responsible for the fence as to no question of who owns the fence. Chair S. Bogert asked staff to bring the fact that the ZBA wishes the second access road be a nonpublic used access. Motion made by S. Perley, O. Gibbs seconded. The motion passed with all in favor 4-1. (S. Perley, S. Bogert, O. Gibbs and M. Foote; R. Maheu against) Alternate G. Ober did not vote. VIII. Other Business IX. Adjournment Motion to adjourn made by S. Perley, O. Gibbs seconded. The motion passed with all in favor 5-0. Alternate G. Ober did not vote. The meeting adjourned at 9:02 pm. Respectfully, K. Graham` Page 7 of 7