Zoning Board of Adjustment

CITY OF LACONIA ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Tuesday, January 16, 2018 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A Accepted 2/20/2018 1/16/2018 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair: S. Bogert: Calls the meeting to order at 7:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora: Conducts roll call with the following present: Alt: Michael DellaVecchia, Roland Maheu, Suzanne Perley, Orry Gibbs, Michael Foote, and Chair Steven Bogert. Alt: M. DellaVecchia: Currently nonvoting member of the board pursuant to RSA 676:1 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Robert Mora, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS R. Maheu: Motions to accept minutes. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion All voted in favor 5-0 6. EXTENSIONS Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that they will listen to ZO2009-0027, 0029, and 0030 and then vote on each extension one at a time. Chris Duprey: Explains the current status of his projects and the need for the extensions of the three applications. Board Discussion: 6.I. 7:00 PM Extension ZO2009-0027 (PDF) S. Perley: Motions to approve six month extension of application ZO2009-0027 until July 2018. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 6.II. 7:00 PM Extension ZO2009-0029 (PDF) O. Gibbs: Motions to approve six month extension of application ZO2009-0029 until July 2018. S. Perley: Seconds motion.  6.II. 7:00 PM Extension ZO2009-0029 (PDF) O. Gibbs: Motions to approve six month extension of application ZO2009-0029 until July 2018. S. Perley: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 6.III. 7:00 PM Extension ZO2009-0030 (PDF) S. Perley: Motions to approve six month extension of application ZO2009-0030 until July 2018 M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 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. There were no continued public hearings. 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 ZO2017-0026 - 21 Morris Ave Variance (PDF) Agent: Lorenzo Trombetta: Discusses the plan to finish the rest of the second floor to 21 Morris Ave. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:15 PM Abutter: Robert Regan, 15 Morris Ave: Explains that he is against the application because it will block his view to the lake and that he was once told by a person that worked at City Hall many years ago that additions were not allowed in that area. Board and Planning Director Dean Trefethen: Discuss whether there is anything in writing that prohibits additions in that area. That there is nothing that would prohibit anyone from putting up an addition that due to the closeness of the properties variances would be required for almost all work. Board and Abutter Robert Regan: Discuss how the proposed changes to the property would effect his view at his property. Agent L. Trombetta and Board: Discusses changes in roof line and water drainage issues that are plausible due to the planned construction. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:24 PM Board Discussion: Board discusses the effects of the changes to the property, and whether neighbor has the right to a protected view. Continuing on to discuss how the roof-line changes will effect the water drainage on the property and whether water run off will cause damage to neighbors and go into the lake. Chair: S. Bogert: Motions to continue the application to the February Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting so that the applicant can provide more detail on the roofing plans and a water run off plan. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0  Chair: S. Bogert: Motions to continue the application to the February Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting so that the applicant can provide more detail on the roofing plans and a water run off plan. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 8.II. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0028 - 145 Daisy Gardner Road Variance/Equitable Waiver (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: States that ZO2017-0028 - 145 Daisy Gardner Road will be deferred until March 19, 2018 Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting. 8.III. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0032 - Mountain Lake Village Variance (PDF) O. Gibbs: Explains that as she must recuse herself from this application. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks Alt. M. DellaVecchia to participate in application and vote. Applicant: Philip Brouillard: Explains application and that previously there was an approved variance, however when he re-started the development it was discovered that the variance was expired and had to re-apply. Board and Planning Director Dean Trefethen: Discuss why the applicant had to resubmit application and that the previous application expired. Board Discussion: Discuss the reasons behind why the Zoning Ordinance have a variance requirement for private roads over 1000 ft. Due to all of the homes that will be developed on the property being equipped with sprinkler systems the risk of fire is reduced and which is the reason a variance is needed for private roads exceeding 1000 ft. Also to what standards the streets will be built to and whether or not they will be public. Applicant: Explains how the application meets all of the criteria for the Variance. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:53 PM No one from the public wished to speak for or against the application Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public and brings it back to the board for discussion at 7:54 PM Board Discussion: Board states that they feel the application was very well presented and that the owner properly explained and elaborated on how the variance criteria were met. S. Perley: Motions to approve the variance with the following conditions. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest: a. Granting this variance would not be contrary to the public interest and granting the requested variance will provide a benefit to the general public. b. The proposed Cluster Development Plan conserves 50% of the land area of the Cluster Subdivision over 17 acres in Laconia and over 70 acres of 100 acres overall in Belmont and Laconia. c. The proposed plan encourages environmentally sound development of land by preserving steep slopes, wetlands and preserves open space, to protect natural resources to create attractive living environments. d. By providing sprinklers to all houses in Laconia, the main reason for cul de sac length limit is addressed. There is also Laconia City Water and hydrants along the road. e. By allowing this variance, the houses are located at least 400' feet +/- from the Laconia By-Pass right of way and the houses will hardly be visible from the By-Pass, preserving this scenic wooded corridor along the By-Pass. 2. The spirit of the Ordinance is observed: a. The Cluster Development encourages environmentally sound development of land, to preserve open spaces, to protect natural resources and to create attractive living environments.  addressed. There is also Laconia City Water and hydrants along the road. e. By allowing this variance, the houses are located at least 400' feet +/- from the Laconia By-Pass right of way and the houses will hardly be visible from the By-Pass, preserving this scenic wooded corridor along the By-Pass. 2. The spirit of the Ordinance is observed: a. The Cluster Development encourages environmentally sound development of land, to preserve open spaces, to protect natural resources and to create attractive living environments. b. By allowing this variance and sprinkling the houses, the Plan preserves usable contiguous open space, tree cover, scenic vistas and keeps the houses to built over 400' from the By-Pass, making them hardly visible from the By-Pass and limiting road noise from the By-Pass. c. Fire protection concerns about the length of the road are addressed by sprinkling the houses and providing fire hydrants along the road serviced by the Laconia Water Works. 3. Substantial justice is done: a. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because the primary reason for the restriction on the length of a road to a cul de sac is fire protection and life safety, which is addressed by sprinkling the houses and providing fire hydrants along the road with municipal water supply. Perhaps the only guiding rule as substantial justice is that any loss to the individual that is not outweighed by a gain to the general public is an injustice. 15 P. Loughlin, New Hampshire Practice, Land Use and Zoning 524.11 at 308 (2000) (quoting New Hampshire Office of State Planning. The Board of Adjustment in New Hampshire, A Handbook for Local Officials (1991)). In this case there is no harm to any abutter, there is no evidence that this variance will harm any land, wetland, aquifer and granting the variance encourages the permitted use of single family residential housing, by means of an environmentally sound, innovative Cluster Subdivision Plan that preserves open space, steep slopes and wetlands, which is allowed in the RS Zone. To deny this variance and force Applicant to re-design the Plan, road, drainage and be forced to abandon existing engineering, wetland and Site Specific Permits would be a huge loss and injustice to Applicant, which is not justified and necessary, since the Plan meets all other requirements of the Cluster Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished: a. The proposed use is single family residential, which is an allowed use in the RS Zone, and is in keeping with the neighborhood. It is extremely doubtful that the new homes proposed by the Cluster Plan would be visible from existing houses in the neighborhood. b. The proposed road would locate the new houses further away from the abutters and the By-Pass and would isolate the new houses to be built from the existing houses and back up the new houses to undeveloped open space, land and woods. c. The new houses to be built according to the Proposed Cluster Plan for which a variance is sought will hardly be visible from Mile Hill Road and will not be visible from the Laconia By-Pass because of the extensive open space buffer created by allowing the road length variance for this Cluster Subdivision. 5. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property: a. The road length specified in the Cluster Ordinance is driven by fire protection concerns. There is no other reason for this limitation, which is addressed by sprinkling the houses and fire hydrants with municipal water supply. The length of the road for which the variance is sought is necessary to meet other criteria of the Cluster Ordinance to preserve large amounts of open space and because the property has a 100' PSNH Row for transmission lines, ravines, wetlands, steep slopes and the road is necessary to access the developable land areas. Applicant has agreed to sprinkle all houses to be built in Laconia, which address the life safety and fire protection reason for the road length limit, thus no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to Applicants property. ii. The proposed us is a reasonable use: b. The new homes to be built according to the proposed Cluster Plan for which a variance is sought will hardly be visible from Mile Hill Road and the Laconia By-Pass, because of the extensive open space buffer created by allowing the road length variance. c. The Cluster Ordinance is a reasonable method to developing this parcel of land because it preserves open spaces, protects natural resources and creates attractive living environments. d. By allowing this variance and sprinkling the houses, the Cluster Plan preserves usable contiguous open space, tree cover, scenic vista’s, ravine, wetlands and steep slopes as well as incorporating a 100' wide PSNH electricity transmission line into an attractive Cluster Subdivision Plan. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 8.IV. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0033 - 64 Manfield Court (PDF)  All voted in favor 5-0 8.IV. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0033 - 64 Manfield Court (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert and O. Gibbs: Discus whether O. Gibbs should recuse herself over this application or not. They determine that she has no reason to recuse herself from this application. O. Gibbs re-joins board. Alt. M. DellaVecchia transitions back to non-voting. Owner: Louise Scanlon: Explains the deck that she would like to add on the rear of her property. Board Discussion: Board discusses 25 foot setback for the property and for Briarcrest. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 8:06 PM No one from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Board and Applicant: Discuss the reasons why the deck is needed and if there will be a need for a ramp in the future or it stairs will be fine. Also how the property sits in comparison with the property line and the direction the stairs will be placed on the new deck if so approved. Also discuss that permission was obtained from the Cooperative for the addition of the deck. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 8:09 PM Board Discussion: Board states that they don't see any red flags with the application. M. Foote: Motions to approve the variance with the following conditions. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest: Granting this variance would not be contrary to the public interest and granting the requested variance will add value to the area as it replaces an egress porch/deck that had rotted and was no longer safe. 2. The spirit of the Ordinance is observed: The proposed deck does not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, threaten public health, safety, or welfare, or injure public rights in anyway 3. Substantial justice is done: The look of the area is improved and a safer egress deck will protect anyone coming and going from the home’s back door. It will also allow the handicapped persons living in the home to enjoy their back yard safely. 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished: The value of the surrounding properties is improved by replacing a rotting deck with a safe one that also improves the look of the property. 5. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would result in unnecessary hardship. To the residents of the home making it impossible for them to utilize their back yard and no egress. Conditions of Approval: 1. Must match Notice of Decision from Lakemont Cooperative dated 10/30/2017 for 64 Manfield Court. S. Perley: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 8.V. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0034 - 291 Union Ave Agent: Frederick Matuszewski: Explains project at 291 Union Ave, and how the owner would like to consolidate the properties, and move an elementary school from one property to another property, where a prior school was located. Continuing on that there are additional applications being presented to the Planning Board in regard to the same property. Board and Planning Director Dean Trefethen: Discuss making the Conditional Use Permit for Parking a Condition of Approval. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 8:19 PM where a prior school was located. Continuing on that there are additional applications being presented to the Planning Board in regard to the same property. Board and Planning Director Dean Trefethen: Discuss making the Conditional Use Permit for Parking a Condition of Approval. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 8:19 PM Robert Ive, Director of Real-estate for the Diocese of Manchester: Discusses how the Manchester Dioceses supports this relocation, and the application meets the requirements for a Special Exception. Agent, Board, and Pastor Marc Drouin: Discuss the property and the uses of the specific buildings including the history of the property, along with minor changes in the Convent's footprint to add a stairwell and elevator for handicap access. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 8:20 PM Board Discussion: That they would be utilizing a building that was previously under used and that was previously was used as a school. Board also discusses how there is a need to keep the services that are being provided by the owner of the property in the community. A conditional use permit for parking is also discussed, that the applicant has already submitted to Planning Board. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve the Special Exception with the following conditions. a) The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter. The conversion by renovation of the building to be used as an elementary school and Preschool/Kindergarten is allowed by 235 Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses. b) The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. The intended use will add a nominal increase in vehicles accessing the property twice a day, during the week, morning and afternoon. Estimated numbers of vehicles will be somewhere between 20-30, as the school's full student population is less than 100.’ c) 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 conversion of the convent into an elementary school will result in a very negligible increase in water consumption, as the school is designed for approximately 100 children. The facility will be equipped with an automatic fire suppression system (sprinklers) but this system is dormant unless called upon for an emergency. There will be a very small addition of a stair tower and elevator to the building. This will result in approximately 600 SF of additional roof area. There is no intention to alter the configuration of the site - the ratio of imperious to pervious area, as it presently exists. d) The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. As the proposed facility is a school for 100 students, it is not expected there will be a demand for increased municipal police or fire protection, or solid waste disposal services. e) Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. Special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. f) 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 requested addition of an elementary school to 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 adjacent neighborhood is a combination of businesses and residential on the adjacent streets. This is an ideal location for an elementary school. g) The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. This is an ideal location for an elementary school, as residences are immediately adjacent to the Commercial zone. h) The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. As the introduction of an elementary school into a Commercial Zone, is allowed by Special Exception, it is in keeping and consistent with the spirit and intent of the Master Plan. Conditions of Approval • Applicant is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Laconia’s Planning Board for Parking. M. Foote: Seconds motion.  it is in keeping and consistent with the spirit and intent of the Master Plan. Conditions of Approval • Applicant is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Laconia’s Planning Board for Parking. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 9. OTHER BUSINESS 9.I. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0030 - Big Island Rehearing Request (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that this is not a public hearing and that the board will not be listening to anyone from the Public in regard to this request. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks M. DellaVecchia if he will be recusing himself from this application due to the fact that he has spoken for the application prior. M. DellaVecchia: States that he will be recusing himself from this application. Board Discussion: Discuss the first part of the request in the application as to whether Board member S. Perley should be recused. S. Perley: Explains her thoughts on whether she should recuse herself and how she conducts herself during meetings and her note taking methods. Continuing on how she conducts herself during meetings and methodology on how she comes to conclusions. Also states that she doesn't feel she needs to recuse herself however would like to know how the board feels. O. Gibbs: Explains that she agrees with S. Perley about not recusing herself. Continues to explain her methodology and note taking while sitting on the board. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that he agrees with what has been voiced and doesn't see any issue with a board member doing their home work and researching an application. R. Maheu: Explains that he believes that everyone was treated fairly during the process for this application and that the public was allowed to share their opinions. M. Foote: Explains how he has sat on this board for a long time and that their are a lot of factors to consider in each and every application. Continues on with perceptions with the board viewed by the public and his views on the board. Chair: S. Bogert: Discusses another topic in the rehearing request, the unconstitutional taking. Board Discusses: Discusses that they have not taken all of the rights of the property from the property and they are still allowed everything that is allowed currently on that property. That if they had an unconstitutional taking nothing would be allowed on the property. Board discusses evidence that was provided to the board at the time of the application R. Maheu: Discusses the confusion that he perceived about the application and how it was presented in regard to a girls camp or a conference center. Board Discussion: Discusses comparisons between other conference center information that was presented with the rehearing request and what was presented during the application. Board continues to discuss past history of actions with this island and applicant and the City. Board also discusses how the presentation of the primary purpose of the island was a girls camp and transitioned to more of a conference center during the presentation. They also discuss that the abutters were not supportive of the proposal and the board had to listen to that. Also discusses evidence that was presented and what evidence was presented in the rehearing request. Board members also discuss that they would not change their opinion now from what they originally voted. O. Gibbs: Motions to deny the request for re-hearing.  a conference center during the presentation. They also discuss that the abutters were not supportive of the proposal and the board had to listen to that. Also discusses evidence that was presented and what evidence was presented in the rehearing request. Board members also discuss that they would not change their opinion now from what they originally voted. O. Gibbs: Motions to deny the request for re-hearing. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor of denial 5-0 9.II. 7:00 PM Officer Elections S. Perley: Nominates Steven Bogert as Chair of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 M. Foote: Nominates Suzanne Perley as Vice Chair and Secretary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 10. ADJOURNMENT R. Maheu: Motions to adjourn. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:47 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician