Zoning Board of Adjustment

CITY OF LACONIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Monday, June 19, 2017 - 7:00 PM Belknap Mill Minutes Accepted July 17, 2017 I. Call to Order Chair: Steve Bogert called meeting to order at 7:01PM II. Roll Call D Trefethen called the roll with the following present: Roland Maheu, Michael Foote, Orry, Gibbs, Suzanne Perley, and Steve Bogert. Staff present Dean Trefethen and Robert Mora III. Acceptance of Minutes Acceptance of April 17 (no meeting in May) Chair: S. Bogert makes an announcement that today he received an e-mail and 3160 Parade Road withdrew all applications. Chair: S Bogert states that we will now move onto the minutes. He asks the board if everyone has had a chance to review all of the minutes from the previous meeting. S. Perley makes a motion to accept that minutes as they were distributed. M. Foote seconds the motion to accept the minutes. Chair asks if there is any other discussion on the minutes. Chair asks f vote 5-0 all in favor of the minutes. IV. Extensions Chair: S. Bogert: There are no extension. V. Continued Public Hearing 1. Application #ZO2017-0001, 3160 Parade Road. Owner: Dow, MBL 5-155-2, Rural Residential 1 & 2 zone. Applicant is requesting a variance from Article V, Table 1 of permitted uses. Request variance to establish a retail store. 2. Application #ZO2017-0002, 3160 Parade Road. Owner: Dow, MBL 5-155-2, Rural Residential 1 & 2 zone. Applicant is requesting a Special Exception from Article V Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to establish a campground. 3. Application #ZO2017-0003, 3160 Parade Road. Owner: Dow, MBL 5-155-2, Rural Residential 1 & 2 zone. Applicant is requesting a Special Exception from Article V Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to establish a neighborhood store. 4. Application #ZO2017-0004, 3160 Parade Road. Owner: Dow, MBL 5-155-2, Rural Residential 1 & 2 zone. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Article V Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to establish an eating and drinking establishment. Chair: S. Bogert: Previously discussed the continued public hearings were withdrawn VI. Public Hearing 1. Application #ZO2017-0010, 376 Union Ave. Owner: David Livingston, MBL 407-220-1, Commercial Zone. Applicant is seeking a Special Exception for use of unit as a preschool. Applicant: Jonathan Coppi and Courtney Coppi; Applicant is requesting a special exemption in a Commercial zone for use on 376 Union Ave. They are requesting use for the first floor of the building as space for a preschool. It will be a half day program to be broken into two parts. They are only going to be looking to use it for mornings for example from 9AM to 1PM programming. The Board and the Applicant discuss State laws and regulations which govern all of the attributes when running a Preschool program. The Board and the applicant discuss “Health and Welfare” of children while in care/custody and security in the class room. Chair: S. Bogert: Ok if there are no more questions at this time I would like to open it up to the public (at 7:10PM) and ask if anyone from the public would like to speak about this application please come forward and introduce yourself. Let the record state that no one from the public wished to speak concerning this application. I will bring this back to the board if there are any further questions. Any closing comments? I do have one more question. What protects outsiders from coming in or kids from exiting? Applicant: Once the school starts the building will be locked. Parents can enter however they will need to knock. Chair: S. Bogert: With that I am going to bring it back to the board any closing comments from anyone? With that I am going to close this to the public. (7:12PM) Bring it back to the board for discussion. I am open to a motion. S. Perley motions to approve the application for 376 Union Ave Preschool.  The special exemption for the use requested is specific authorized in this chapter in a commercial zone through this special exemption process.  The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. The children won’t be driving to school or parking cars. It will alleviate any traffic congestion. Where the building is located it’s not right on the street, it’s off the main roadway.  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 the storm water runoff onto adjacent property or streets.  The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services.  There are no special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter. The requested 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 ongoing business would be totally enclosed within the building.  The proposed location is appropriate for the property and once again it would not be on the main road but set back off of Union Ave. It’s in a separate building behind not right on the main road.  The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan. Subject to state regulation and approval. R. Maheu seconds Chair: S. Bogert: Asks for a vote. All voted in favor of the motion 5-0. 2. Application #ZO2017-0011, 118 Pendleton Beach Rd. Owner: Robert & Sandra Merchant, MBL 148-271-17, SFR Zone. Applicant is requesting a Variance from Article 235: 35, in order to expand garage in the side setback. Applicant: Ashley Rowe of Farmington agent of the Merchant family who are seeking a variance to expand the garage towards the street by 12’. It will meet the front setbacks however the current garage already sits within the side setback backs of the neighbor’s property line and we would be increasing the volume of the non- conformity. He would like to address the five criteria items and then answer questions. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest as both of the existing garages along the property line in question currently exist closer to the property line than permitted by the ordinance, and the shed associated with Parcel 136-271-1 actually crosses the property line in question. The proposed construction activities would increase the volume of the nonconformity, but would not make the garage any more non-conforming than its current configuration, while having no increase on impervious surfaces on the lot in question. In addition, the owners of parcel 136-271-1, Michael G & Meredith Conner, are in favor of the proposed garage. The spirit of the ordinance is observed in this case as the proposed garage would increase the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood by proving ample space to house the homeowner’s vehicles and equipment, rather than storing these things out in the open. Substantial justice would be done by granting the variance. Granting the variance would do substantial justice as the current size of the garage is rather small in the comparison of those located throughout the neighborhood. The proposed reconstructed garage would be comparable to the others in the neighborhood, allowing the homeowner to comfortably and safely store their vehicles, equipment and belonging. The value of the surrounding properties will not be diminished by the proposed construction. As previously stated, both of the existing garages along the property line in question currently exist closer to the property line than permitted by the ordinance. The proposed garage would not be out of character with the neighborhood and would not be any closer to the property line in question than it currently exists. When it comes to hardship, hardship in this case also exists due to the special conditions of the property. The existing garage is undersized in relation to the others throughout the neighborhood. At its current depth, parking a SUV using a Jeep Grand Cherokee as an example in the garage leaves just two feet from either bumper to maneuver when navigating the space on foot or for storing equipment or belongings. Parking a full size sedan, we used a Lincoln Town Car, would leave less than .75’ from either bumper for the same purposes. The Board and the Applicant discuss the setbacks of the new garage along with dimension of the present and proposed new garage. Board emphasizes that the height should not allow for living space above the garage or a second story. Board and applicant also discuss that the garage will have a change in the orientation of the roof line. Chair: S. Bogert: Any other questions at this time? I would now like to open this to the public, and ask whether anyone from the public would like to speak for or against this application. (7:21PM) Chair: S. Bogert: Let the record show that no one from the public choose to speak for or against this application. I will bring this back to the board for discussion. Chair: S. Bogert: Any closing questions? With that I’m going to close it to the public, and bring it back to the board for discussion. (7:21PM) I am open to a motion. M. Foote: I’m comfortable with it. Chair: S. Bogert: Ok M. Foote makes motion that application 2017-011, for 118 Pendleton Beach Road, to accept this expansion, expanding the garage on a piece of property where the garage is already non-conforming.  Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest.  This would bring the garage up to a size, that modern cars could be parked in and allow for storage of lawn equipment and stuff like that.  The spirit of the ordinance would be preserved because we are increasing the aesthetic appeal of the neighborhood because we are making this good for the size of modern vehicles and allowing people to store equipment inside.  This is in general agreement with how we are these days.  The unnecessary hardship here, is the ability to store stuff out of sight of the neighbors. They will now have parking for full-size vehicles in the garage.  Conditions  No living space above or in the garage. R. Maheu seconds. Chair: S. Bogert: Discussion? All in favor? All voted in favor 5-0 3. Application # ZO2017-0012, 138 Gilford Ave. Owner: George D. Aspogiannis, MBL 427-88-3, RS Zone, Applicant is requesting a Variance for the use of the land to be used for “personal service” and “eating and drinking place.” Applicant: Annie Bridgeman, Is the owner of Annie’s Café and Catering and she is looking to purchase a property at 138 Gilford Ave. She is looking to move to a larger space so that she can accommodate all of her clientele. The property has always been used as a food service establishment. She’s looking for a variance to use it as a eating and drinking place and personal service because it’s been sitting dormant for over three years. The Board and the applicant discuss the history of the building and previous businesses that have been at that location. Board and applicant discuss maintaining the rental unit currently at this location along with appropriate parking. Applicant states she does not wish to turn the property into a 24hr eating establishment or sell alcohol. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public. (7:32PM) If anyone from the public would like to speak for or against to come forward. Let the record show that no one came forward to speak for or against this application. Therefore I bring it back to the board for any other questions or closing comments. Closed to the public at (7:33PM) M. Foote motions to approve application 2017-0012, 138 Gilford Ave, for a variance for 235:28, to establish this as an “eating and drinking place” and “personal services.”  This is not contrary to public interest because this has been done in this location prior.  The spirit of the ordinance is observed, as the building will be utilized for something that it has always been used for.  Justice will be done in that, that we will have a business and surrounding properties will not be diminished.  Will be making the property nicer. S. Perley seconds the motion. Chair: S. Bogert calls for a vote. All voted in favor 5-0. 4. Application # 2017-0013, 72, 96 Church St., 39, 35, 29,23 Messer St., 22, 16 Riverside Court.: Owner Randell C. Bartlett, MBL 425-44-72, -96, -57, -58, 425-158-59, -60, 425-190-66, -96, DRD Zone. Applicant is requesting a variance to connect multiple properties by constructing a walkway within setbacks. Chair: S. Bogert: O. Gibbs recuses herself from the board. Applicant: Randall C. Bartlett, Requests a variance for the setbacks. Last year we went for a permit by notification with the state of New Hampshire for the Messer St. side. We will be submitting a permit to the state this week for the wetlands because we have met the green space requirements for the wetlands if that is what it is called or shoreline protection permit. We just need a variance for the side setbacks. We are only looking to cross our own property lines. We could do just crushed rock and wouldn’t need any variance but we would like to use pavers and we need a variance for the use of the pavers. We are not looking to cross anyone else’s property lines. We have started some work at one end of the property. We are not looking to abut anyone just looking to cross our own property line. The board and the applicant discuss the clarity of the application that was submitted, along with details in regards to which properties the variance is needed for. Applicant explains to the board that brick pavers and granite will be used as the main building materials in the project and that the pathway will be 4’ wide. Applicant states that granite steps will be used to aid in leveling. Board and applicant discuss permits that are needed at the state level for Shoreland protection. Board and applicant also discuss options if properties are sold that new owners would have the right to remove the pathway within their properties. Chair: S. Bogert: Any other questions at the moment? With that I am going to open it up to the public is anyone wishes to speak for or against the application. (7:59PM) Board Discussion Chair: S. Bogert: Let the record show that no one from the public wished to speak for or against the application. I bring it back to the board. So the intent is just to put the walk way in with pavers and granite steps just to connect the properties and would stop at lot 72? Do you plan on putting pavers in the parking lot? Applicant: We have been debating that but with plowing… it would look nice but we don’t know, probably would be this year if we did it. Chair: S. Bogert: Then it would cross the bridge using the City sidewalks and re-enter at the front gate at 96. What is the triangle piece of property? Applicant: Its state land. Chair: S. Bogert: We can say that if the property is sold then the variance goes? We can’t condition it that way. But if the use goes away then it’s done. I think we tried that years ago and it didn’t work D. Trefethen: I can’t see why you couldn’t put a condition if you were to put a condition that the continuity of the property changes by sale that the variance would end. Chair: S. Bogert: I was just trying to figure out how ensure that a potential buyer would be aware that there is a variance in such a place in writing because not all buyers are aware as other buyers. For example multifamily and not multifamily. But that a potential buyer would know. I don’t want to put it on the Deed. That’s more of headache for anybody than necessary. D. Trefethen: Most buyers don’t even see the deed until after they close unfortunately. S. Perley: So if it’s sold these single family houses have a variance for path that goes through their land? M. Foote: That almost has to be deeded. Chair: S. Bogert: No D. Trefethen: I think realistically as a board the only way you can control this is by putting a condition in it. That as long as the owner ship doesn’t change then the variance would go away for that property. S. Perley: That’s right so that if he sells this property there is no easement on the property. Just thinking about the future of the property. D. Trefethen: So if there is another owner in the mix there then they are probably no going to want people walking through their back yard. Chair: S. Bogert: How to do you control the public from walking on here? Applicant: I think most people would know they are on someone else’s property. There is a gate on the front of 96. If someone was to walk down the back part they would figure out there is nowhere else to go and they might figure out that we are not supposed to be there and if they don’t then we can ask them if they need help. Chair: S. Bogert: Could you put a sign up? Applicant: I think we could put a sign up if we needed to. If we ever have that problem. Chair: S. Bogert: Just trying to look out for things that might matter. R. Maheu: Are you going to plow this during the winter? Applicant: Yes it will be clear all season round. We can’t get a plow down there but we will shovel. Chair: S. Bogert: Are there any other questions? With that I am going to close it to the public and bring it back to the board for discussion. (8:07PM) M. Foote: I think that as it is presented, you have to list out what properties are involved, in the end these are individual properties that haven’t ceded any right of ways or granted any right of passage. Chair: S. Bogert: I agree that we have to mention each individual because it would not carry over to newer properties. S. Perley: Could we take a 30 day period to draft a permit so it’s clear and concise? Chair: S. Bogert: I’m weighing through this and on one hand it would have a crushed stone walk way which wouldn’t require anything and they could start yesterday. On the other hand they could provide an enhancement to each individual one with the pavers. The pavers would entail putting something under it for a bed to stabilize the brick when you put it in place. There is nothing there that is not impervious so there is no adverse effect on drainage. Being pervious it doesn’t take away from green space. It appears that by naming it off by property individual you have adjoining sides between 39 and 35 you’d have a variance but from 43 to 39 would not. That can be verbalized out. It can also be written into the minutes along with the motion. The bricks at some point in time can be pickup if a property is sold, it’s only a variance and doesn’t give a right of passage. It’s only a right to build this paver walkway and if a new owner doesn’t wish to have it they can just remove the paver walkway. The city is not responsible for anything as far as upkeep or anything for this pathway. The city is not legally bound if someone slips or falls on it and goes into the lake with this walkway. The city will be clear of all action. One is basically do you want crushed stone or do you want pavers? To me I would think a non-invasive paver would dress up the river a little bit. That’s my thing after I got through all of the interpretation. M. Foote. I can see Mr. Bartlett’s desire to keep internal passages here. So that the residents don’t have to interact with the community. Chair: S. Bogert: It’s not going to have an adverse effect the community. It’s not going to bring up or down anyones value. The biggest stickler is the hardship, because the city does provide sidewalks but they are public. But the hardship is trying to keep the separation of his folks. Any other discussion? Does anyone want to make a motion? Chair: S. Bogert: makes motion to approve variance for individual lots for the setbacks for a paver pathway only, to be pavers with granite steps. The variance will be contained to these lot lines, lot 39 and 35 for lot 39. The lot line for 35 and 29, the lot line for 29 and 23 the lot line for 23 and 72. That is for Messer Street. For Riverside Court for 96 and 16, 16 and 22, that would be the only variance for the side setback for Riverside Court.  The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. It will be only for internal passage for the people living in the multifamily units stated for units 39, 35, 29, and 23 on Messer Street. It allows for internal passage for 96 Church, 16 and 22 Riverside Court allows for internal passage for them to move to the back yoga place and the restaurant.  The spirit of the ordinance is observed by allowing the passage on paver brick pathway, which allows for safe passage in all seasons where as a gravel pathway would be acceptable without a variance but they would like to use the pavers to enhance the area.  Substantial justice would be done allowing the pathway to be constructed.   The value of surrounding properties would not be diminished as this is all internal walking. Folks would not be on others sidewalks and the public would not be on the multifamily sidewalks.  The purpose of the unnecessary hardship is the applicant looks to keep the separation of the multifamily units and the single family units separate to the public by providing the internal walkway, would allow that hardship to be overcome. Conditions  Pathways will always be pavers non pervious materials with occasional granite steps to maintain leveling.  The property owners of the multifamily units would be required to maintain said units themselves  The city has no responsibility for any aspect of said project. Except for the City owned sidewalks on the Messer Street Bridge.  Also this is contingent upon DES permit being provided by the state for the applicant if the permit is not given the variance becomes null and void.  If any of the property is not contiguous at any point in the future the variance needs to be reviewed as its relevance for this individual multifamily units and single family units. M Foote seconds motion. Chair: S. Bogert: All in favor of the motion? All in favor passes 4-0. VII. Other Business VIII. Adjournment M. Foote motions to adjourn. R. Maheu seconds, Chair: S. Bogert: All in favor vote 5-0 Meeting Adjourned at 8:34PM Submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician