Zoning Board of Adjustment

CITY OF LACONIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Monday, November 20, 2017 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A Accepted 12/18/2017 11/20/2017 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair: S. Perley: Calls meeting to order at 7:00 PM Chair: S. Perley: Explains that one board member O. Gibbs was not present at the last Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting however by law she can still sit on the board and listen to the application. O. Gibbs: Explains that she once worked for the law firm that represented Big Island in 2014, and states that she is perfectly willing to listen to the application and has spoken to the City and her employer and all agree that she is able to sit on the board. Also asks the applicant if they have any issue with her sitting on the board. Chair: S. Perley: Asks Agent of Big Island if they have any objection with O. Gibbs sitting on the board for their application. Agent: Rose Dennett: States that they have no objection. 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora: Conducts roll call with the following present: Roland Maheu, Orry Gibbs, Mike Foote, and Suzanne Perley. The following were not present: Steve Bogert. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Robert Mora, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. 7:00 PM Draft Minutes From October 16, 2017 Meeting (PDF) R. Maheu: Motions to accept minutes. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor to accept minutes as presented 4-0 6. EXTENSIONS 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE VOTE Note: The Purpose Of This Agenda Section Is For The Board To Continue The Public Hearing For The Applicant And The Public To Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. Chair: S. Perley: States that there is one other application this evening that should not take very long and that they will hear this before the Continued Public Hearing. Also three other applications were moved to the December meeting. 7.I. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0030 - Big Island Paugus Bay Special Exception (PDF) Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. Chair: S. Perley: States that there is one other application this evening that should not take very long and that they will hear this before the Continued Public Hearing. Also three other applications were moved to the December meeting. 7.I. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0030 - Big Island Paugus Bay Special Exception (PDF) Chair: S. Perley: Re-opens hearing to the public at 7:26 PM and asks if anyone from the public wishes to come forward and speak for or against the application. Tom Noe of 8 Prescott Ave: Spoke about family history in the area, and changes that have taken place in the community. States that he supports Scott Everett and does not see any big impact by his request, and believes its noble and just. Shawn Fiester of Paugus Bay: Talks about noises in the area and what items bring in the most noise on the lake. States that he supports the application. Mark Ashley of 11 Sonia Dr: Does not know Scott Everett but supports the application. Bob Proctor and Linda Proctor of 56 Paugus Park Rd: Discusses land that Scott Everett has purchased and that he is concerned about those purchases. States that he is also concerned with the safety of children on the lake. Continues on with concerns over the application and that the particular spot is not zoned for the use that is being proposed. Bill Maczko of 82 Paugus Park Rd: States concerns with Loons and other wildlife on the island and in the area. Expresses concerns with any type of emergency that would arise on the island with getting emergency services to the area. Also discusses size of island in comparison with other girls camps. Also discusses issue with noise study that was performed on the island. Lastly, states concern with the property purchases that Scott Everett has made in the area. Sarah Keroack of 18 and 24 Paugus Park: States she also spoke at the last meeting and has an issue with odors from the sewer pumping station and asked what the added usage would mean for that pumping station. Ed Martel 110 of Paugus Park Rd: States that he can't add to what has already been said but supports his neighbors against this application. Explains that there are other properties available that could be better suited for the use than this small island. Karin Hoeffler of 8 Paugus Park Rd: Explains that she is against the application and that the venue for a camp is not in the right location as the island is made of rock. Also continues on the explain that the island contains a lot of wetlands and this is not the right location for the camp. Also that Scott Everett owns a lot of property in Laconia, and that he must know real-estate people where they can locate a good place to build a girls camp. Lastly he could donate the island to a conservation trust. Christian Svindland of 97 Ashley Dr: Explains that he supports the application. Mike Dellavechia of Little Island: Explains that he supports the application and hopes that the abutters think about what the island could be and what they would rather have a girls camp or condos being built on the island. Travis Youseff: Explains that he agrees with a lot of his fellow neighbors and has concerns over the sewer pumping station in the area. Also compares others camps for children in the area with the size of the camp that is being proposed for Big Island and explains that the camp would not have sufficient space to operate. Marnie Schulz of 5 Margery Place: Explains that she has taught children how to swim for a long time and that the island is not a safe place to do that. Ben Gamache of 50 Paugus Park Road: Explains that he has been in real estate for 40 years and that this is his expert opinion that mixing commercial with residential, that residential values will decrease. Marnie Schulz of 5 Margery Place: Explains that she has taught children how to swim for a long time and that the island is not a safe place to do that. Ben Gamache of 50 Paugus Park Road: Explains that he has been in real estate for 40 years and that this is his expert opinion that mixing commercial with residential, that residential values will decrease. William Gannon, Attorney for Paugus Pard Rd: Explains that a girls camp was requested for the same area and didn't have enough traction and the application was retracted, then someone tried to get the island rezoned for commercial. Lastly they then resubmitted the present application and the only thing that has changed was that they added the word conference center. He continues on to explain views of City Staff that could have been spoken to and how that was understood by the applicant. Going on he explains that the applicant has not presented what the Conference Center is going to be, however they have discussed a girls camp that is being proposed on the island. Lastly, he explains that a special exception is not a right of law, and then describes the difference between what the island would be like with a girls camp and what it could be like if it was left residential. Eric Fowler of 38 Crane Circle: Explains that he is supportive of the application. Joshua Youseff of 3 Lynnewood Rd: Explains that he has seen a heard a lot of good arguments at the meeting mostly from the opposition side. That this is also the largest island project that the City has seen because its the largest island in the City. Explains that this is not giving back to the community as the applicant is letting on if they were giving back to the community then they would be doing something to support the people that have already bet on the City by living here and paying taxes into this system. Agent: Rosi Dennett: Explains that she would like to respond the the comments and questions that have been brought up. She continues that they had a meeting on 4 November and invited the opposition and no one from the other side showed up to the meeting. She explains that the zoning is not changing and that it is staying a residential zone and that if the island was sold any new owner would have to maintain the property as a residential zone or perhaps the special exception. She continues to explain scenarios for the noise study and that the conference center would be all indoor activities. Agent also explains how Conference Centers and camps kind of go hand in hand, and describes the differences between camps that have been compared to what they would like to do on Big Island and activities that will go on. Agent also describes that all deliveries to the island will be through the marina and not through the neighborhood. John Arnold, Attorney for Big Island: Discusses Girls Camp and Conference Center with how the Zoning Ordinance for Laconia defines these things and that the ordinance describes how these things need to be similar enough to the definitions in the ordinance. Mr. Arnold continues on with describing other camps in NH that have similar uses and are also classified as Conference Centers. Eric Router, Noise Consultant: Explains that he was unable to be at the last meeting. States that he would like to clarify the report that was submitted with the application and answer some of the questions that had been asked. He then continues on and explains the process and how the study was done, with the variables that had to be factored out in the report. Agent: Rosi Dennett: Explains that she would like to address the concerns about the Loons. She continues to explain Loons and their life cycle and nesting habits, also would be willing to provide protective barriers and other things needed to help preserve the Loons on the Island. Agent then continues on and states they have looked at other option for the island. They have looked at the size of the island and what development would be possible on the island. Chair: S. Perley: Explains that they are not here this evening and to look at plans for a housing development on the island. Continues on to respectfully request that you not present the plans. Agent: Rosi Dennett: States that it is fine and she had spoken to Dean and asked if that was appropriate to bring to this meeting. John Arnold: Explains that they are concerned with water safety and that is a matter of state law not local law. That special exception is more geared towards the use is compatible to the area. Also discusses impacts with what could be built on the island and how those developments would change peoples perceptions. John Arnold: Explains that they are concerned with water safety and that is a matter of state law not local law. That special exception is more geared towards the use is compatible to the area. Also discusses impacts with what could be built on the island and how those developments would change peoples perceptions. Larry Rosenfield of 278 Paugus Park Rd: Expresses his concerns with the application, and the safety concerns of having 60 girls on the island. William Gannon, Attorney for Paugus Park:Discusses proposed uses and the differences between having family residences on the island and the girls camp or conference center. Also explains how the argument that has been made between being a girls camp and a conference center, with how more revenue will be brought in from the conference center than from the girls camp. Dick Rainfeld of 70 Paugus Park Rd: Explains that he is from Massachusetts just like the majority of Paugus Park Road and they have chosen this area to retire and raise children here. That they have spent a substantial amount of money just like Scott Everett has and they need to be considered as investors as well. Also describes his concerns over the development/application. Mike Demurs of 74 Paugus Park Road: Discusses his concerns over the transportation and contract of Paugus Park Marina and Big Island. Chair: S. Perley: Closes the application to the public at 9:02 PM Board Discussion Board discusses history of the island and familiarity of the island. Continuing on that the applicant has tried for a variance before for the island later pulling the application and going to the City Council to change the zone which was denied. In July of this year the applicant sought a conditional use permit to change the electrical on the island and was asked if this was going to stay residential and the applicant stated that it was and now they are attempting to make the island commercial. All the camps on the proposed plans will be right on the edge of the wetlands buffer as the island has a large amount of wetlands. Board also discusses travel between big island and Paugus Park Marina, with respect to the amount of boat traffic there currently is with concerns over congestions and safety. Board also discusses that there are safety concerns on the island with emergency services and lack of options to get emergency services to the island. Another issue is lighting and that lights will have to be on 24 hours a day so that campers and people going to the island will be able to find that bathrooms as the proposed tents lack bathroom services. Board also discusses that they need to consider the neighborhood that it is in and that a special exception is not a guarantee. Board continues that they should really need a variance not a special exception as they really more want a camp than a conference center. Chair: S. Perley: Makes a motion to deny application ZO2017-0030 l The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter. The use of a Conference Center was requested however all of the information provided was for a “Girls Camp” which was deemed previously as a not permitted use in the zone without a variance. The Zoning Boards job is to look at each proposal individually and determine if its right for the specific request. l The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. That the location is on an island that is relatively close to five marinas where there is a lot of boat traffic and wake. Adding additional kayaking to the island via a group of girls would create more congestion for the boats that are already in the area. This would create an unsafe area as kayaks are difficult to see by some boaters. l 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 stormwater runoff onto adjacent property or streets. The applicant did install water and sewer systems on the island which is the City’s system. Other property owners in the area have given examples of issues with the sewer in the area, adding approximately 60 people to that system could create more issues. If there was ever an issue with the sanitary sewer in this area from the island supporting 60 people that could create an even larger issue. l The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection,  property or streets. The applicant did install water and sewer systems on the island which is the City’s system. Other property owners in the area have given examples of issues with the sewer in the area, adding approximately 60 people to that system could create more issues. If there was ever an issue with the sanitary sewer in this area from the island supporting 60 people that could create an even larger issue. l The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. It would be impossible for City Fire and Police to reach the island if there was an emergency, they are also not equipped to provide such services. This would also be time intensive process as the departments would have to mobilize for any sort of emergency which would be a burden for those departments. l Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. l The requested use 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 camp would encroach upon the wetland buffer. The requested use is also out of character for the island, as historically it has been used for only single family residences. l The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. The location is not appropriate, other girl camps and conference centers that are in the area, looking at the list provided by the applicants attorney show these camps and conference centers placed on larger parcels of land. l The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan: This is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and master plan as this is zoned as a single family residence. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor of denial 4-0 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS, POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE Note: The Purpose Of This Agenda Section Is For The Board To Have A Presentation From The Applicant And Open A Public Hearing For The Public To Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. 8.I. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0025 - 423 South Main St Variance (PDF) Chair: S. Perley: States that application ZO2017-0025 requested to be deferred to the December 18 meeting. The application will not be heard this evening. 8.II. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0026 - 21 Morris Ave Variance (PDF) Chair: S. Perley: States that application ZO2017-0026 requested to be deferred to the December 18 meeting. The application will not be heard this evening. 8.III. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0028 - 145 Daisy Gardner Road Variance/Equitable Waiver (PDF) Chair: S. Perley: States that application ZO2017-0028 requested to be deferred to the December 18 meeting. The application will not be heard this evening. 8.IV. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0031 - 12 Charles St Variance (PDF) Applicant: Gordon Sanborn: Explains that he has placed a fence on his property and presented photos to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Applicant continues to explain why he has put of the fence and that he would like the fence to be six foot high within the front set back. Also gives examples of other fences within the City that are six foot high within the front setbacks. Continuing to explain that there was once a fence in that spot, where he has erected the new fence, and needs this fence for privacy from his neighbor. States that he put his fence up somewhere around September. Chair: S. Perley: Opens the application to the public at 7:09 PM and asks if anyone would like to speak for or against the application. Virginia Edwards, resident of 8 Charles St: Comes forward and presents pictures to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Abutter explains that that she does not understand the justification of her neighbor in putting up the fence. Continues to explain that she has a lack of view of the street with the fence up using the photos that she has presented as evidence. She continues to explain that her son asks Mr. Sanborn for permission to blow the snow during the winter onto his property, and that no damage is being done to Mr. Sanborn's property. Virginia Edwards, resident of 8 Charles St: Comes forward and presents pictures to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Abutter explains that that she does not understand the justification of her neighbor in putting up the fence. Continues to explain that she has a lack of view of the street with the fence up using the photos that she has presented as evidence. She continues to explain that her son asks Mr. Sanborn for permission to blow the snow during the winter onto his property, and that no damage is being done to Mr. Sanborn's property. Chair: S. Perley: Asks for clarification about the abutters only issue with the fence is the first few feet of the fence that abuts the sidewalk. Mrs. Edwards: States that yes that is her only objection to the application. She continues to explain that she feels that the fence is a safety hazard for her as she tries to exit her driveway. M. Foote: Asks what the speed limit is on the street? Mrs. Edwards: States that its 30 MPH. M. Foote: Asks if she can see in the opposite direction with the bush that is next to the road? Mrs. Edwards: States she can. Mike Little, resident of 16 Charles St: Explains that three owners ago there was a fence in that location. His only objection is that he was not notified. States that he heard about the meeting second hand and would like to know why he was not notified. Board: Reviews the abutter list provided with the application and do not see his name however all properties were notified. States he should speak with the assessors office to make sure the information is properly updated. M. Little: States that the lots were merged next to his and that he should have been notified. Also explains that the land slopes where the fence is and that it is higher than four feet towards the end of the fence due to the land sloping. Chair: S. Perley: Asks if anyone else would like to speak for this application? Applicant: Gordon Sanborn: Explains that he feels the neighbor has enough of view to exit the drive and asks to keep his fence the way it is. Also explains that the neighbor has called his daughter an inappropriate name before. Chair: S. Perley: Closes the the application to the public at 7:17 PM. Also asks D. Trefethen about the City's Policy on fences. D. Trefethen: Explains that the City does not require a permit for a fence and that fences are allowed to run on the property line. However, they need to be 4 ft in height when they are within the front set back area, with a maximum height of 6 ft outside of that area. D. Trefethen, explains that the section of the fence in this case that is 4 ft high closest to the fence is legal however its the next section that is not legal. Board and D. Trefethen: Discuss the fence height and the current situation. Discuses the issue of the neighbor not being able to see and that the section of the fence that is blocking the view is the issue which is a legal fence. Board discusses granting the variance and having the first 4 ft section of the fence shortened to 3 ft in height. M. Foote: Motions approve the variance ZO2017-0031 l The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; l The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND l Substantial justice is done; AND In that both the property owners and neighbor both have to give a little and get a little. l The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND l Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary  l The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; l The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND l Substantial justice is done; AND In that both the property owners and neighbor both have to give a little and get a little. l The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND l Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. In that the applicant would have to remove the fence. Conditions of approval include: l The first 4 ft section of the fence must be lowered in height to the first crossbar approximately 3 ft in height. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 4-0 9. OTHER BUSINESS No other business 10. ADJOURNMENT M. Foote: Motions to adjourn. R. Maheu: Seconds motion All voted in favor 4-0. Meeting adjourned at 9:26 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician