Zoning Board of Adjustment

CITY OF LACONIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Monday, July 17, 2017 - 7:00 PM Conference Room 200A Minutes Accepted August 21, 2017 I. Call to Order Chair: Steve Bogert: Called meeting to order at 7:01PM II. Roll Call R. Mora called the roll with the following present: Roland Maheu, Orry Gibbs, and Steve Bogert. Staff present Dean Trefethen and Robert Mora III. Acceptance of Minutes 1. Acceptance of minutes from June 19, 2017 Chair: S. Bogert: Makes announcement that there are only three board members present and that all must vote in favor of any application to approve, and asks any applicants if they wish to be moved to the following month or to continue. No Applicants wished to be moved to the following month’s meeting. R. Maheu motions to accept minutes from June 19, 2017 as they were distributed. O. Gibbs seconds motion. Chair: S. Bogert: Calls for a note 3-0 all in favor. Minutes accepted as written from June 19, 2017. IV. Extensions 1. 664 Scenic Road, request for an extension of Special Exception to allow multi-family in SFR Zone Application #2009-0027 Applicant: Chris Dupery on behalf of the applicant, discusses his need to extend Applications 2009-0027, 0029, and 0030. Agent explains that the hold up on applications is due to sales, and that all work is based off of the sales of the properties for all of the applications. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public 7:07PM, No one from the public wished to speak, closed to public and brought back to the board 7:08PM Board Discussion: Board describes from what they have seen that the project appears to be of high quality. Chair: S. Bogert makes motion to accept extension, and that the applicant has met all requirements, and requested the extension before approval expired, and that justice is done because they haven’t broken ground. R. Maheu seconds motion. Chair: S. Bogert: Calls for vote. 3-0 All in favor 2. 63-99 Fletcher Lane, request for extension of Special Exception to allow multi-family in SFR Zone Application #2009-0029 Chair: S. Bogert makes motion to accept extension, and that the applicant has met all requirements, same as the previous extension. R. Maheu seconds motion. Chair: S. Bogert: Calls for vote. 3-0 All in favor  3. 63-99 Fletcher Lane, request for extension of Area Variance Application #2009-0030 Chair: S. Bogert makes motion to accept extension, and that the applicant has met all requirements, same as the previous extension. O. Gibbs seconds motion. Chair: S. Bogert: Calls for vote. 3-0 All in favor V. Continued Public Hearing VI. Public Hearing 1. Application #ZO2017-0014, 553 Weirs Blvd. Owner: 553 Weirs Boulevard LLC, MSL 216-248-12, 13, Commercial Resort Zone. Applicant is seeking a Variance for Steep Slopes. Chair: S. Bogert: States application was withdrawn. 2. Application #ZO2017-0015, 553 Weirs Blvd. Owner: 553 Weirs Boulevard LLC, MSL 216-248-12, 13, Commercial Resort Zone. Applicant is seeking an Administrative Appeal to the decision of the Planning Director for Steep Slopes. Chair: S. Bogert: States application was withdrawn. 3. Application #ZO2017-0016, 38 Eastman Shore Drive N, Owner: Matthew and Tracy Boucher, MSL 38-67-2, Rural Residential – 1 Zone, Applicant is seeking a variance for the side set back. Applicant: Robert Polock on behalf of Matthew and Tracy Bouchard. Agent explains that the property is already non-conforming and that the side set back on one side is 3’ from the property line and the other side is 10’ from the property line. The applicant would like to rebuild the house and make the garage attached. This would make only one side of the house within the 25’ side setback. The agent describes that the house would be at the closest point be 9’ away from the property line. The house would be less non-conforming than it presently is. The agent also describes that the property owner has to drive through the neighbor’s lot to get to the driveway via an easement. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if there will be a height change in the structure? Agent: States that there will not be a height change in the building; however there is a small tower that will be removed from the property. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks about the layout of the lot, whether or not its level, and what kind of vegetation is on the lot? Agent: Describes that the lot is not level and that there is a walk-out basement in the back of the property. Also describes that some of the vegetation will be removed during construction but will be replaced when the construction is completed. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks about the easement that is currently in place and if a new deed will be recorded once all of the work is completed? Agent: Describes that they will be doing a new driveway and will be releasing the easement with the neighbor once the project has been completed. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens application to the public 7:21PM. No one from the public wish to speak and it was brought back to the board for discussion. Closed to the public at 7:22PM Board Discussion: R Maheu: Describes that the properties are changing in that area and that he feels that this would fit into the new types of homes that are currently being built in that area. Agent: This new building will match neighbored structures.  Board discusses due to lot size there are not many options available to make this a conforming structure, with a wetlands going through the lot there are a lot of hardships with the property. Board also discusses that the green space is also improved. O. Gibbs: Makes motion to approve application ZO2016-0016 for a variance for the side setbacks table 3 for 38 Eastman Shore Road. The applicant will be removing the current structure and garage and building a new structure with an attached garage. The current setbacks are 3’ from one side and the new structure will be 9’ from the side setback still 16’ within the side setback. It will be more conforming than the current structure is.  The variance will not be contrary to the public interest, in that they are replacing a non-conforming structure with a less non-conforming structure. They will also be releasing the driveway easement with the current neighbor.  The spirit of the ordinance is observed in that the replacement structure is less non-conforming  Substantial justice is done in that the new development will be improving the lot and the neighborhood  The Value of the surrounding properties are not diminished, this will improve the overall quality and enhance the neighborhood  Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship, in that this is a very narrow lot with wetlands already existing, and shore land restrictions Conditions  Formal release of the easement for the shared driveway. This is all based off of drawing submitted dated 6-14-2017. Any of the vegetation that is disturbed will be replanted. R. Maheu seconds motion, Chair: S. Bogert: Calls for vote 3-0 All in favor 4. Application #ZO2017-0017, 55 Bay Street, Owner: Fifty Five Bay Street Storage, MSL 450-13-29, Downtown Riverfront District Zone, Applicant is seeking a variance to change use to Indoor Storage/Self Service, Warehouse, Vehicle Storage, Water Craft Storage Long Term, and Construction Yard Storage. Applicant: Philip Brouillard, agent on behalf of Fuller Trust. Agent describes history of 55 Bay St and that the state is observing the property, and also has monitoring wells on the property. Applicant is seeking Indoor Storage/Self Service Warehouse, Vehicle Storage Long Term, Water Craft Storage Long Term, and Construction Yard Equipment Storage. Agent states that they will not be storing any sort of materials. Agent also describes that the City has re-zoned this as Downtown Riverfront District, and was unable to find a suitable use for the property and had a meeting with the Planning Director. After the suggestion from the Planning Director the applicant filed for a variance due to lack of suitable options for the property. Agent also states they will be going before the planning board if, the variance from the Zoning Board is approved. Lastly, the agent states that the public is in need of a property such as this for storage. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if placing fencing, and vegetation is part of the plan for this property? And what types? Applicant: Agent states that they are waiting to go before the planning board to before a decision is made Fred Fuller Trustee: States that the State of New Hampshire has taken responsibility for the cleanup of the property, and that the property will be monitored for the next five years. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the building will come down, and for clarification about the storage of construction materials on the site. Applicant: States that if they need to rebuild the structure on the site and it is within the setbacks they will come back to the board for approval. Also states that they will not be storing any materials. The site would only be used for any equipment to be stored. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:42PM. No one from the public wished to speak and it was brought back to the board for discussion at 7:42PM.  Board Discussion: Board discussed that the Planning Board would set conditions for fence types and vegetation that would be placed on the property. Anything done to this property would be an improvement. Chair: S. Bogert: Would like to place a condition on application if approved to make sure there is some sort of security screening is placed on the property to prevent the need to use the Police Department. Board discusses the hardship of the property and the lack of options available. R. Maheu motions to approve the variance to use the property for Indoor Storage/Self Service Warehouse, Vehicle Storage Long Term, Water Craft Storage Long Term, and Construction Yard Equipment Storage.  The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; granting this variance would not be contrary to the public interest because the property is already developed and has frontage along Bay Street, and Winnisquam Avenue, Parcel is .75 acres in size. The site is flat, is in very good shape for storage, and very useable and provides a suitable location for residents use for storage purposes. The public interest is served in having ready useable property upon which to store vehicles, equipment, watercraft, and warehouse/store goods.  The spirit of the ordinance is observed since the property is located between two semi- industrial/commercial buildings and bounded by the BCI and I zones and a Commercial Condominium. This variance does not unduly and in a marked degree conflict with the Laconia Zoning Ordinance and does not violate the ordinances basic zoning objectives. Granting this variance would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood or locality and would not threaten the public health, safety or welfare. In fact nothing would change as a result in granting this variance, except the property would be upgraded.  Substantial justice is done, in that the owner and applicant can make a reasonable use of the property to obtain some financial return from the property to improve same and provide needed storage to the City, and at the same time abutters should not be affected.  The value of surrounding properties are not diminished because adequate fencing, landscaping, and improvements to the property will make it more aesthetically pleasing. The nearest residential zone is over 60’ away from the residential zone and the houses are almost 100’ away from the property. The property is located between BCI Zone and Industrial Zone and the general area is commercially used. Upgrading the existing building will benefit the area as will fencing and landscaping.  Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in the unnecessary hardship, Due to special conditions of the property being polluted and under State monitoring with test wells that distinguish it from other properties in the same area. The property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the Zoning Ordinance, therefor relief from the Ordinance is necessary. Conditions  Placement of a security barrier or fence and some landscape screening, as determined and required by the Planning Board, to alleviate any extra burden to the Police Department for any theft or vandalism on the property. O. Gibbs seconds the motion. Chair: S. Bogert calls for a vote 3-0 All in favor VII. Other Business Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if there is any other business to be discussed? Staff: Dean Trefethen states that the City has a new website. Board and Staff discuss capabilities of new site and that the Agenda’s will be changing to support the new website. VIII. Adjournment Chair: S. Bogert motions to adjourn. O. Gibbs seconds, Chair: S. Bogert: All in favor vote 3-0 Meeting Adjourned at 7:53PM Submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician