Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, March 19, 2018 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A Accepted 4/16/2018 3/19/2018 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair: S. Bogert: Call the meeting to order at 7:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora conducts roll call with the following present: M. DellaVecchia, R. Maheu, S. Perley, O. Gibbs, M. Foote, and S. Bogert. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY R. Mora, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Board Discussion: Board discusses what kinds of details they would like in the minutes and states they would like some more detail added to the minutes. Whether or not which parts need to be verbatim and which parts do not need to be verbatim as there are digital records of the meetings, with the determination that they would like the motions more verbatim. S. Perley: Makes a motion to defer the minutes until more details can be made as requested. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. The board voted 4-1 S. Perley, O. Gibbs, M. Foote, and S. Bogert voted in favor while R. Maheu voted against. 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. Bogert: Next on the Agenda is going to be continued Public Hearings. The next application is 84 Summit Ave ZO2017-0036 applicant is seeking to store travel trailers in the front of the property. O. Gibbs: Recuses herself from the Board Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that M. DellaVecchia will now be a voting member of the board. 7.I. ZO2017-0036 - 84 Summit Ave (PDF) Applicant: Richard Homsi: Of 84 Summit Ave, Laconia. Greets the board and explains that he was here last month and the board decided to table it until they got a legal decision on matter between Governors Island and the City of Laconia and would like to know if that issue has been found out and Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that M. DellaVecchia will now be a voting member of the board. 7.I. ZO2017-0036 - 84 Summit Ave (PDF) Applicant: Richard Homsi: Of 84 Summit Ave, Laconia. Greets the board and explains that he was here last month and the board decided to table it until they got a legal decision on matter between Governors Island and the City of Laconia and would like to know if that issue has been found out and the determination. Chair: S. Bogert: The City of Laconia will treat Governors Island as an abutter and that the Zoning Board does not have to abide by their restrictions or by their covenant unless it is indeed spelled out in your deed. S. Perley: States that the homeowners association can still sue you as the property owner as you are part of their Association. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Explains that he understands but objects to anything that Governors Island states because he confirmed this past week with Dean the Planning Director that a body of water is a break from any abutter situation and a river and a stream would constitute an abutter situation. Chair: S. Bogert: Clarifies that the board will use the abutter definition as described by the Zoning Ordinance and that if an applicant disagrees with that definition they have legal options that can be taken to settle the disagreement. S. Perley: States that the board can consider the input given by the association. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that the board listens to all of the abutters and that is the only message that he wishes to relay. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Asks the Planning Director Dean Trefethen what constitutes an abutter. D. Trefethen: The term abutter can be used in how it relates to the zoning board in two ways. One is the legal definition of the term abutter a property that either directly abuts the property or is directly across the street from the property as the state law reads, directly across from a river or stream. That’s the legal definition of an abutter. Those would be the people that we would notify about this meeting and we have notified those abutters. The other way to use abutter is really any other interested party that is nearby, which is a very broad term not defined. So in this case when we got the legal advice that we can request the homeowners association input but we would treat it as any other input we are using the broader term of abutter not the legal definition of abutter if you follow me. Applicant: Richard Homsi: But there is not a distance that is required in the City's by-laws? Nothing that speaks about 100 feet, 200, feet 500 feet, nothing? An abutter could be across town if the City feels. D. Trefethen: The abutter could be across town from the standpoint of providing input to the board. From the stand point of us having to notify any one we would using the legal term. Which is the direct one that are abutting your property. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Explains that there will be opposition against him this evening and that he knows of people that support his application. Also details that there are a number of other properties in Laconia that have trailers on them. Applicant also continues to explain that he is against the view point of the Governors Island Association. Summarizes the landscaping that will be accomplished on the property so that the trailers will not be visible once all the landscaping has been accomplished. Also describes the Lakes Region and how this area is specifically used for recreational vehicles. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks about the sign on the property. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Explains the history of how and why the sign was placed on his property. Chair: S. Bogert: Now going through the file one of your hardships for not having a back yard. You have also said it a few times tonight. So the rear property line is going to be your rear of your house. Applicant: Richard Homsi: You are correct that every waterfront property then would have a rear property line. No one though wants to see trailers stored on the waterfront. Not on the waterfront of any lake. You also might not want grease and what not leaking into the lake and I don't know if DES Chair: S. Bogert: Now going through the file one of your hardships for not having a back yard. You have also said it a few times tonight. So the rear property line is going to be your rear of your house. Applicant: Richard Homsi: You are correct that every waterfront property then would have a rear property line. No one though wants to see trailers stored on the waterfront. Not on the waterfront of any lake. You also might not want grease and what not leaking into the lake and I don't know if DES would like that. My house is 57 feet away from the water and I am not sure would want me to store trailers that close the water line. There is really no room in between to place those trailers. Chair: S. Bogert: I'm not sure I think that they look at pervious and non-pervious items. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application up to the public at 7:34 PM Abutter: Dave Jennings of 17 Wentworth Cove: Explains that he is the abutter with the trailers being placed on his property line and on his property. States that he has the same issue because he also have a lot of equipment and that he stores them out of sight and on offsite locations. I also sent a letter to that effect with pictures of the trailers. I am absolutely against this variance. All this storage is against my property line. Thank you. Attorney Paul Fitzgerald Representing the Governors Island Association: Last month Ms. Lacey presented to you the five criteria for a variance, we have also submitted a letter to you. I am not going to repeat all of that information twice. Explains to the board that the applicant doesn't meet the criteria as set forth by the City's Zoning Ordinance. That the Zoning Board of Adjustment should also consider the impact that the trailers on this property would create for the surrounding properties. Abutter: Geoffrey Lynche of 40, 50, and 57 Summit Ave: We enjoy this area and the scenery, this is not conducive to the area and I am a direct abutter and have to look at this. There should have been enforcement on this a long time ago and we should not even be here tonight. This needs to stop. That's all I have to say. Abutter: Chris Rahilly of 37 Wentworth Cove: Richie does take care of his property. We all take care of our properties, I have a trailer and I take it to the dump twice a year. You know you got to be reasonable and work with people. I have Jet Ski trailers luckily I have a garage to put them in. I have a ton of trees around and I have to throw them in the trailer. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if anyone else has any questions in regard to this application. Let the record show that no one else wished to speak for or against the application. S: Perley: Asks applicant to describe his garage situation. Applicant: The house was built with a two car garage. It’s a 3/4 garage because there are stairs, and a bedroom upstairs, so right now the garage area for storage is about 8 x 8, 6 x 8 it’s pretty small back in 1947 when it was built there have been no additions or blowouts for dormers or additions or footprint change. There has always been an apartment with a bedroom, bathroom upstairs since it was built, and part of the lower section of the garage was converted to a kitchen/living room area. I use part of it to store shovels and stuff so about 8 feet by 8 feet it what is left. S. Perley: Asks about a rental property on the site. Applicant: Richard Homsi: States he does not have a rental property on site and states his family has been using it for the last 19 years. Describes his families social dynamics and that the property is not used as much as it has been previously in the past. Just so you know I applied to the city for the garage and a structure and so forth but as you know with the law suit with Governors Island they put a stop to that. So you know that’s a negotiation that’s not an issue for tonight. S. Perley: Asks about his status with Governors Island Association. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Explains he is part of the association with Governors Island. Also explains that the City gave a permit and that Governors Island would not let him construct it, that he is trying to do the right thing. The assets are being stored outside, it’s doing no justice to those assets that are outside. Explains that he has had a lot of damage on his property from a bad wind storm in October. That if he had the garage that the city had approved for him none of his assets would have been totaled and we probably would not be here tonight. Explains that Governors Island says one thing to him and something else everyone else. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Explains he is part of the association with Governors Island. Also explains that the City gave a permit and that Governors Island would not let him construct it, that he is trying to do the right thing. The assets are being stored outside, it’s doing no justice to those assets that are outside. Explains that he has had a lot of damage on his property from a bad wind storm in October. That if he had the garage that the city had approved for him none of his assets would have been totaled and we probably would not be here tonight. Explains that Governors Island says one thing to him and something else everyone else. M. Foote: Asks how big of a garage the applicant would need to store all of his assets. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that motorcycles are vehicles and do not need to be included. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Clarifies that the only issue is for trailers. S. Perley: Asks applicant to explain the uses to the trailers. Applicant: Richard Homsi: States that he applied for a permit, for a 16 x 32 garage and to put a cottage on top, which was approved by the State and the City of Laconia, Governors Island objected to it and they stopped it. Now we are in negotiations and have a conditional approval for a 32 x 60 garage from Governors Island for a garage, because it meets the criteria with the City. He has not applied for a permit for the stated garage for various reason legal and financial, however it would meet the required needs. M. Foote: Asks about a bush fence combination to block the view of the trailers. Applicant: Questions who would pay for the fence and that other abutters do not have a problem with the trailers. S. Perley: Describes that she feels the trailers are very visible from the road. Applicant: Explains that he has nowhere else to put them and that there are other properties with trailers on them in the shore land district. Applicant: Richard Homsi: States that he is willing to limit the property to four trailers. S. Perley: Explains the she feels you should have some storage on your property, that it’s a right to a certain degree. However understanding what the Ordinance states people have the right not to have to look at your assets. Continues to explain that there should be a location within the lot that could be better suited for storage of the assets. Board and Applicant: Discusses confusion over trailers that could have been perceived as storage containers. S. Perley: Explains that she would like a drawing or plan of the property with the placement of the trailers. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Explains that he would like to keep them exactly where they are now and go from seven trailers on site to four. S. Perley: There is a need for a site visit. R. Maheu: I just want to bring up one thing, we wouldn't be here tonight if you hadn't joined the Governors Island Club. When you did your property is not on Governors Island. You’re on Laconia's side of the channel. If you hadn't joined Governors Island they would still complain, but they wouldn't have any sway over you. Applicant: I would have a garage now. R. Maheu: My question is I don't know why you joined but there must have been some advantage but at the time you did it but that’s beside the point. You belong to an association and you know what the by- laws of the association and by not joining that you did have restrictions and by joining them you knew there would be restrictions. We have to take those constrictions into consideration because you are a member of the association not just because they are abutters. Chair: S. Bogert: We don't abide by what a homeowners association says. laws of the association and by not joining that you did have restrictions and by joining them you knew there would be restrictions. We have to take those constrictions into consideration because you are a member of the association not just because they are abutters. Chair: S. Bogert: We don't abide by what a homeowners association says. R. Maheu: I meant to say that he has to abide by the association. Chair: S. Bogert: That’s between him and the civil courts. Whatever direction they take we just abide by the Zoning and how that is between each and every properties. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Describes the history of his property and the legal issues that he has faced with Governors Island. While justifying his need for the variance and that he was willing to bring the number of trailers on the lot down to four. Continuing on that he has attempted to build a garage in the past to no avail. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public and bring it to the board for discussion 7:51 PM Board Discussion S. Perley: I would still like to know where the placement is for the four trailers by either a site plan or a site visit and actually seeing what the plan is and if they can successfully be screened because from I've seen in the past they haven't been. That’s a good size lot, there have got to be options on that lot. I don't know four is still an unreasonable number, based on the neighborhood. There are still some concerns. The fact that he has all this stuff is not our problem, it’s his problem. Discussion: That’s just as bad and those are temporary structures, and probably not allowed. Also that they are lacking some information and a visualization of the property to make a sound decision. The board continues to elaborate on that fact that they don't seem to see or understand the hardship of the applicant. M. Foote: I think, on a nice lot that’s right next to Winnipesaukee it’s a high vis property from the bridge from the water. The hardship here is could be the amount of stuff that someone has. Chair: S. Bogert: Reminds the board that folks on South Main street that wanted to put there camper in there driveway because there garage was too close to their house and they were told that they couldn't keep their camper there and they need some sort of garage. S. Perley: States that the hardship is self-inflicted. Chair: S. Bogert: Is there anything unique about that property that is different than any other piece of property around that he needs to park is trailers there. S. Perley: States that the property is unique because it’s opened up on a corner lot, while whole purpose of the ordinance is the orderly development of the City Laconia. R. Maheu: Expresses concern that he does not see a hardship. Chair: S. Bogert: There is a back yard and as much as I hate to say that because it’s beautiful on the water front but there is a back yard to say there is no back yard is no reason for a hardship we can't say that. We have to get the hardest one fixed first then we can work ourselves backwards. I don't know. M. Foote: I don't see a hardship as a factor of that land or the water. We're talking about storing more things than I would want in my front yard. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that perhaps a hardship could be is that he is not allowed to build a garage. Board: Discusses that in general they feel they have a lack of information and are unable to find a hardship with the proposal. The board continues on stating that they feel they don't have sufficient information and would like to visualize where the trailers will be located on the lot, in that they should have a site visit. Board agrees that they should have a site walk or visit on the day of the next meeting at 6 PM and then returning to City Hall for 7 PM and finished the Public meeting. Chair: S. Bogert: I'm going to open it back up to the public (8:00 PM). We are going to meet at your place 6:00 PM April 16. It’s going to be an open meeting. Everyone will come if you will invite us onto  Board: Discusses that in general they feel they have a lack of information and are unable to find a hardship with the proposal. The board continues on stating that they feel they don't have sufficient information and would like to visualize where the trailers will be located on the lot, in that they should have a site visit. Board agrees that they should have a site walk or visit on the day of the next meeting at 6 PM and then returning to City Hall for 7 PM and finished the Public meeting. Chair: S. Bogert: I'm going to open it back up to the public (8:00 PM). We are going to meet at your place 6:00 PM April 16. It’s going to be an open meeting. Everyone will come if you will invite us onto your property and we will see what we can see and what not then we will bring it back here and close out the meeting. With that I make a motion to continue this until April 16 at 6 PM for a site visit. M. Foote: Second Motion All voted in favor 5-0. 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. S. Perley: States she is leaving the meeting. Chair: S. Bogert: Thanks everybody for showing up and see you on the 16th. O. Gibbs rejoins the board. 8.I. ZO2017-0028 - 145 Daisy Gardner Road Variance/Equitable Waiver (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Opens application ZO2017-0028 145 Daisy Gardner Road they are requesting a variance and equitable waiver and seeks a variance for storage containers on the RR1 and a variance and equitable waiver for the front setbacks. Agent: Attorney, Phil Brouillard: Here with Dennis and Linda Wright who are right beside me and basically the Chairman is correct we are here to ask for two variance but in the event that the board would want to grant an equitable waiver that would be alright as well as I have went through and we meet that criteria. Basically what has happened in 2014 Linda and Dennis having a farm needed space under cover for a tractor and other equipment, which they use to mow their fields and also mow the States fields. The tractor and implements are used for farm purposes and growing of crops. The Wrights have a house with an attached garage and a barn building. They wanted only a temporary structure so it could be removed in the future if they move or stop farming. The temporary structure consists of two storage containers connected with a plastic roof system. The storage containers are being used as support walls, a component of a roof that is attached, which by definition, makes these storage containers a structure or building, which would need to meet the 40' setback from the property line as provided in Article VI 235-35(A),Table II. On April 14, 2014, Linda Wright called the Planning Office, explained the temporary structure she wished to erect, and was told temporary structures were allowed. Steve, the Code Enforcement Officer, inspected the temporary structure on May 30, 2014, and noted it had no permanent foundation. In August 2014, Kris Snow, acting on a complaint from a shore front seasonal owner, who drives by the property, questioned the home occupation that was being conducted on the property, and after further inspection that was resolved to the City's satisfaction, as no further action was taken. It seems during the summer when seasonal out of town, Non-resident property owners are driving down Daisy Gardner Road, they make complaints to the City Manager and Planning Director, who sent Rob Mora Zoning Technician to the property for an inspection on July 26, 2017. During this site visit, it was determined that the property is in violation of the two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance stated in this Application. Storage Containers and Front Setback. Storage Containers are not allowed in the RR1 Zone and the temporary building needs to be 40' from the property line. Regarding the property line, the structure is located 43' and 47' respectively from Daisy Gardner Road's paved edge, which is where the Wright's measured from when erecting the temporary structure and placing storage containers. Unfortunately, there is a curve in Daisy Gardner Road, which moves the actual property line closer to the temporary structure than 40'. This was a simple good faith error in determined that the property is in violation of the two provisions of the Zoning Ordinance stated in this Application. Storage Containers and Front Setback. Storage Containers are not allowed in the RR1 Zone and the temporary building needs to be 40' from the property line. Regarding the property line, the structure is located 43' and 47' respectively from Daisy Gardner Road's paved edge, which is where the Wright's measured from when erecting the temporary structure and placing storage containers. Unfortunately, there is a curve in Daisy Gardner Road, which moves the actual property line closer to the temporary structure than 40'. This was a simple good faith error in measurement that was not discovered until July 26, 2011, over three (3) years after the temporary structure was erected and inspected by the City. It is important to note that the temporary structure is 43' and 47' respectively from the closest edge of Daisy Gardner Road. The other thing that the board needs to know is that there is a very large and thick buffer zone between the road and the storage containers, and when it’s foliated you can barely see it. The storage containers are beige and you can barely see them, Daisy Gardner Road also has a curve there so the natural tendency for a driver would be to look down the road, going around the corner looking at the road. They wouldn't look over and say gee there is a storage container. Those are the facts and I'm going to have Linda speak about what it took for her to get approval in 2014 and then I will go through the zoning criteria. Applicant: Linda Wright: In 2014 I was inquiring about putting up a temporary structure and I called the Planning Department. I talked to Kalena at the time and spoke with her about the type the structure that we wanted to put up and she stated that no permit was required. So a condensed version is the Code Enforcement Officer came out in May of 2014, took a look at and took pictures of the structure and document the notation of who and when I called the Planning Department. He then told us that we might want to anchor that to the structure, because at the time in 2014 they were allowed. Going forward it wasn't until we received the letter dated July 2017, over three years later that we were surprised that we were in violation. At the time in 2014 when the Code Enforcement Officer was out I asked him if we would get some sort of approval and he said not just that no news is good news. So it was great it wasn't until three years later that we received something. So in error we measured from the pavement edge and not from the property line. I just want to know that the only abutter that can see them is the neighbor who is our son who has no issue with the structure. It would be a hardship to move the structure, the few feet we needed for the front setback. The ground is not level it would take considerable site work to make the ground level, we also have wetland considerations on the property. That is why we would like you to consider our variance. Attorney: P. Brouillard: The property kind of has a plateau and then drops off into a wetland. Then there is a garden with the rest of it being grass. There is also electrical transmission lines, which kind of makes this the ideal spot. The lawn and the landscaping it meticulously maintained and the farm equipment is kept in the structure, farming is allowed in that zone. Explains the criteria for an Equitable Waiver of Dimensional Requirements, a variance for the 40 foot front setback in an RR1, and a variance for the use of the Storage Containers in an RR1 with how his clients meet all of the criteria as stated within the application. Chair: S. Bogert: The structure in question here is the storage container with the roof that is kind of placed on top? What is the height at its maximum height? Attorney: P. Brouillard: 32FT Chair: S. Bogert: Question when someone says they are going to put a temporary structure up, how temporary is a temporary structure? Is there a timeline or is it indefinitely temporary? If I asked that correctly... D. Trefethen: Explains that the Zoning Ordinance does not define temporary, there is no definition for temporary structure. We just have a definition for structure. However the International building code does have a definition for temporary, and its a little subjective it’s getting into specifics versus one temporary structure to another. If you were to buy one of those canvas rhino shelter types of thing and has cinder blocks keeping it on the ground that would be a temporary structure because it’s not permanently affixed to the ground. Our definition is permanently affixed to the ground we don't have a temporary definition of structure. In this case in my opinion, since I'm Planning, Code, also the Zoning Director, my opinion it is this is not a temporary structure as it is not readily moveable. The applicant’s attorney has also stated that. To move this structure would require a lot of machinery and a lot of work, from my opinion this is not a temporary structure this is a permanent structure. It’s a structure that has been built out of different elements, when combined together create a structure. Part of that element is has cinder blocks keeping it on the ground that would be a temporary structure because it’s not permanently affixed to the ground. Our definition is permanently affixed to the ground we don't have a temporary definition of structure. In this case in my opinion, since I'm Planning, Code, also the Zoning Director, my opinion it is this is not a temporary structure as it is not readily moveable. The applicant’s attorney has also stated that. To move this structure would require a lot of machinery and a lot of work, from my opinion this is not a temporary structure this is a permanent structure. It’s a structure that has been built out of different elements, when combined together create a structure. Part of that element is the storage trailers that are also singled out because they are not allowed in the RR zone. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that he has seen where they have taken Storage Containers like these and made them into half a million dollar homes. Where is the line drawn when is it a temporary structure, a house, or do we define it as non-livable? Or is a temporary structure livable? D. Trefethen: I don't think there is a distinction between living and non-living when it comes to structure it’s when it’s permanently affixed to the ground, that’s our definition. R. Maheu: Is this structure put together with bolts or welds? Applicant: D. Wright: Both. R. Maheu: Not that it makes any difference I was just wondering. If it had to be taken down it would have been easier if it was built with bolts. D. Trefethen and Board Discussion: Discusses where in the Zoning Ordnance it states where and Storage Containers can be used, and whether the containers at 145 Daisy Gardner Road have been modified when whether or not that changes if they can be used or not. P. Brouillard: That is correct, it’s more like a carport D. Trefethen: Explains storage containers are not just being used for storage of the Wrights equipment, they are also being used as the walls, the first floor walls of the structure. Also explains that the reason this has been brought up is because of a complaint which was a legitimate complaint and we followed up. Board Discussion: Board discusses whether or not a variance can be given over the Storage Containers in the RR1 and differences between a variance and a special exception. Also discuss that the application is for two variances and that the variances must be approved in a particular order by the board if they so decide to grant the variance. P. Brouillard: It is a two part variance. My client was asked what they were going to do and were told that they could do it, and the City has inspected it at least twice, and no one said anything in 2014. Applicant: L. Wright: Explains that in 2014 they had specifically asked if they could use storage containers. O. Gibbs: Explains that this is really a two part variance with an equitable waiver of the dimensional requirements. That the two variances would need to be approved in the correct order and that the variance for the setback could be replaced with an equitable waiver. D. Trefethen: That is correct, I suggest the first thing the board should do is decide whether you are going to give a variance for the storage containers and then decide if you are going to approve a variance or the equitable waiver for the dimensional requirements. M. DellaVecchia: Asks if in 2014 it was legal to have the storage containers? D. Trefethen: States that he does not believe that there have been any changes in regard to Storage Containers. M. DellaVecchia: Questions whether or not approval was given by a City employee. D. Trefethen: It could have been a mistake, an oversight, maybe something did change but I don't see any documentation in the Zoning Ordinance showing that there has been a change. R. Maheu: Asks whether or not a City employee gave approval via word of mouth or in writing. P. Brouillard: Explains that his client called over the phone and that the Building Inspector has also D. Trefethen: It could have been a mistake, an oversight, maybe something did change but I don't see any documentation in the Zoning Ordinance showing that there has been a change. R. Maheu: Asks whether or not a City employee gave approval via word of mouth or in writing. P. Brouillard: Explains that his client called over the phone and that the Building Inspector has also came out and performed an inspection for its safety. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks what brought the City out to Inspect or whether the applicant called for the inspection? Attorney: P. Brouillard: Explains that his clients wanted to make sure that the structure was safe. Applicant: L. Wright: May 30th when Steve (Building Inspector) came out he took pictures and documented who I talked to, and said that we should consider securing the containers. So the containers were in place and the hoop structure was in place and that when he had come up. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 8:04 PM Abutter: Dave Greski of Leighton Ave: Expresses his concern over the property and provides pictures to the zoning board. Explains that he has no issue with it being used as a farm however has great concerns that it is more being used for commercial property and that the applicants are running a home occupation on the property that the business does not meet the City's requirements of a home occupation. Abutter: Art Ablemann of Leighton Ave: Explains that he is against this application. Also provides pictures to the Zoning board, and continues to explain that the property is being changed from a farm to commercial use and that he is totally against that. Also explains that he believes that the applicants are running a home occupation on their property. That large cranes are being stored on the property where in the application that they state that the use of the structure and the storage containers is for farm equipment. Provides pictures to back up claim. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if anyone else from wishes to speak from the Public. Let the record show that no one else from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public 9:08 PM Chair: S. Bogert: The application says farm equipment could you please explain the definition of farm equipment. Attorney: P. Brouillard: There is a tractor with a large mower, a backhoe, a tiller, snow pusher, and implements to a rototiller the garden, plow and such. Chair: S. Bogert: Have you had a chance to look at the pictures that shows anything but. This is totally different than farm equipment. Because there is nothing farming here. Attorney: P. Brouillard: Well there is farm equipment there. Chair: S. Bogert: Like that one? Being shown parked behind the house? Attorney: P. Brouillard: If you look at my application it’s shown parked in the building. Chair: S. Bogert: It also peaks my interest as to why you need a 34FT building 32FT high to put a 12FT tractor which is actually designed to sit outside anyways. Attorney: P. Brouillard: Well that’s something that they thought they would need, there is something that I wanted to be clear about we didn't want to deceive anyone here and the City saw the height and never said there was any violation. The Wrights have never hidden that they have a crane they have a spot at BPS where they have a crane and some nights he parks the crane overnight in the building. We talked to Kris Snow about a home occupation. There was no issue with that. They don't always stay there sometimes they are there and there is no work done on site with them. Chair: S. Bogert: There is another issue. Commercial service should not be being done there. spot at BPS where they have a crane and some nights he parks the crane overnight in the building. We talked to Kris Snow about a home occupation. There was no issue with that. They don't always stay there sometimes they are there and there is no work done on site with them. Chair: S. Bogert: There is another issue. Commercial service should not be being done there. Attorney: P. Brouillard: I misspoke and on that day they were not servicing it there they were cutting down a tree. They do not service them on site. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the cranes are stored in that structure. Attorney: P Brouillard: Sometimes, there is a small crane that is in the barn every night but it’s in the barn. Chair: S. Bogert: When it’s not on the job is it... Attorney: P. Brouillard: It’s stored in the barn. Chair: S. Bogert: Are these cranes stored here when they are not on the job? O. Gibbs: I just want to confirm that it’s welded. Applicant: D. Wright: Both Attorney: P. Brouillard: I want to say that we have come here in good faith and we measured this in good faith to confirm the measurements. To some definition there is some curve in that road even though it may be very slight. Chair: S. Bogert: It’s not the variance that concerns me as much as the storage of the cranes. That’s why I keep coming back to it. Attorney: P. Brouillard: I did say in my application that they are a component. Chair: S. Bogert: You took that component out because you don't actually need 32FT to store tractors and when it was dropped to the ground you would still have room for the tractor and you wouldn't need the variance. You don't store cranes, if that’s the only level place where you can fit that we might be able to see needing a variance. Attorney: P. Brouillard: The door opening is 14FT. So if you took that 8 feet of the containers out it would only be 6FT. Chair: S. Bogert: Well if you take those containers out you still have 26FT. Applicant: There are 8 acres of farm and state forest. Chair: S. Bogert: I appreciate that and I am trying to accommodate that. You being able to store your equipment for haying. Attorney: P. Brouillard: You can't store hay without the storage containers. Chair: S. Bogert: No one has mentioned that. That you store hay and I have never seen that hay be stored in those. Though today hay is stored in many different way. I am having a difficult time in comparing the relationship to 32FT for a tractor for haying. I can relate because I am in this sort of field. Attorney: P. Brouillard: There are wind issues. It doesn't go from the ground up to 32 ft. Chair: S. Bogert: The door could be modified. If I am not mistaken it’s kind of rod iron pipe that forms that ridge that could be accommodate for fit a tractor. Attorney: P. Brouillard: The board can put whatever conditions they want on a variance and we would leave it in the boards good hands to determine that. The effect of denying the variance for the storage containers and the setbacks would accomplish that. M. Foote: If the Containers are denied to be in an RR1 there is no reason to discuss the setbacks. Correct? that ridge that could be accommodate for fit a tractor. Attorney: P. Brouillard: The board can put whatever conditions they want on a variance and we would leave it in the boards good hands to determine that. The effect of denying the variance for the storage containers and the setbacks would accomplish that. M. Foote: If the Containers are denied to be in an RR1 there is no reason to discuss the setbacks. Correct? Chair: S. Bogert: Well once they take it down, they can move it the few feet. Then they wouldn't even need the variance. O. Gibbs: If the variance gets denied for the storage containers then they can't use them? Chair: S. Bogert: That’s correct. The top portion would come down to the ground. If they are using it for farming. As they are bringing it down they can just move it the few feet. M. Foote: How many bales of hay do you get when you hay? Applicant: D. Wright: When I do about 200. Attorney: P. Brouillard: Well the reason we want the setback it was the area for the building was built up and if we move it we would be getting into the farm and the wetlands. If we have to remove the containers then we would like to leave it there. R. Maheu: Is your primary source of income derived from the cranes? Applicant: D. Wright: Yes. But it’s not done there. R. Maheu: Yes it’s done on another property. Chair: S. Bogert: With that I am going to close it to the Public (9:22 PM) and bring it to the board for discussion. M. DellaVecchia: Dean is it legal to run the crane business? From a residential zone? D. Trefethen: The issue of the home occupation has been ongoing for two years. It predates me that’s for sure. When I was first presented with this issue in the middle of last year and we looked at our records and what was presented and we determined at the time they were meeting the terms of a home occupation. We still had concerns with the storage and the structure but in terms of the home occupation they didn't have excess employees and the equipment was stored inside the question would be if there was lucent noise, we have determined that it is a home occupation and they are meeting the requirements. Notwithstanding the issues with the structure. M. DellaVecchia: What is the size I have heard 6 acres and 9 acres? O. Gibbs: There is a substantial chunk of that there is a public service easement at least a couple of acres. It also has wetlands. There is also a very small NH electric coop easement. They are kind of hemmed in. Whatever they build has to be here and the contours. D. Trefethen. Its 9.69 acres. M. DellaVecchia: It would be nice if we could appease the abutters if there was an ability to move this structure. So it wouldn't be seen, they could still park there cranes on the property. D. Trefethen: The cranes have to be enclosed. M. DellaVecchia: I would like to make the neighbors happy. Chair: S. Bogert: What we need to do is make the ordnance happy and meet the criteria. God Bless the neighbors but we need to make sure that the variance is correct. The first one is should the containers be allowed on this property? When there is a structural component on the top of them. This is where we all have to talk. O. Gibbs: I don't see how if you remove those containers and drop what looks like the rhino structure, I fail to see how you are going to get the cranes under the proposed structure if the home occupation is the neighbors but we need to make sure that the variance is correct. The first one is should the containers be allowed on this property? When there is a structural component on the top of them. This is where we all have to talk. O. Gibbs: I don't see how if you remove those containers and drop what looks like the rhino structure, I fail to see how you are going to get the cranes under the proposed structure if the home occupation is allowed. Chair: S. Bogert: The variance isn't for the cranes it’s for the farm equipment. O. Gibbs: Even the farm equipment. You got a 6FT opening M. Foote: Now if it was the same top on a set of poles that is permanently attached poles in ground. Chair: S. Bogert: They have attachments for those structures. S. Trefethen: Are you asking if they removed the storage units with 8 or 9FT poles they would have to affix that to the ground someone in a permanent situation. There is some wind issue there. M. Foote: That would be a permanent structure. D. Trefethen: Yes it would be a permanent structure and to move it 2 or 3 feet would not be an issue. Chair: S. Bogert: The question to the first part is storage containers in the RR1. We feel that there was a hardship that would allow them to have storage containers. M. Foote: I understand the structure and how they get there and really it’s RR1 and there are no storage containers. They have the space I don't see why they have the space and they are right on the road. Once we say no to storage containers it is an undertaking to put a structure. I think it does come from the storage containers of not being allowed and I don't see the hardship. Chair: S. Bogert: You’re taking something that is a temporary structure and making it permanent by using a variance. By the use of the storage containers making the structure variance in. Do we have a temporary structure? D. Trefethen: No we don't have a definition of temporary structures. You are giving a variance to a structure. M. Foote: But the structure wouldn't need a variance if it was permanent. D. Trefethen: You would still need a variance or the equitable waiver for the distance, but for the structure its self you wouldn't need anything. M. Foote: Is there an engineer’s plan for a structure like that? Does it make a difference? Chair: S. Bogert: I'm not an engineer. So the question comes to storage container or not too? Let me Poll the board then. M. Foote: Even in good faith with a tape measure, I don't know when it went from having storage containers or not. If we are going to play croquet then we are going to play croquet. Chair: S. Bogert: Let me ask you this question then? If it’s difficult for this person on this property to develop a proper storage unit, then every homeowner and property owner would have the same. So it’s got to be more than just inconvenience. I am not aware of an inconvenience criteria and I don't see the hardship. R. Maheu: They listened to a City employee who said it was ok. I would be much happier if they had something in writing from an employee at City Hall saying that this was allowed. We always tell people that to have it in writing. To build something on some ones say so that could be gone in a week isn't a good practice. Chair: S. Bogert: I am open to suggestions. M. Foote: Right now I am not seeing a path out of the woods with the structure as it is. Chair: S. Bogert: With this application we are just talking about storage containers on the property. It doesn't matter if there is something on top of it or now. good practice. Chair: S. Bogert: I am open to suggestions. M. Foote: Right now I am not seeing a path out of the woods with the structure as it is. Chair: S. Bogert: With this application we are just talking about storage containers on the property. It doesn't matter if there is something on top of it or now. M. Foote: So it wouldn't be consistent with the master plan as they have already discussed it and that they don't want storage containers in RR1. Chair: S. Bogert: Yes. Ok I make a motion that we deny the variance for the storage containers. The variance would be contrary to the public interest. As it does not meet that meet the table of contents here as adding storage in the RR1 and the current use that it is being used does not justify the use in a part of another construction for temporary usage. The spirit of the ordinance is observed. By denying this use of containers in the RR1 area and on this application as it’s been shown is not really the purpose the purpose of non-farming equipment. Substantial justice is done. For the area the units would be removed and a proper storage facility could be constructed where a building permit is done and inspections could be done and within the setbacks. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished. There was nothing that was determined that would show it would or wouldn’t be diminished would I want to live next to that no. Number four it's kind of a moot point because there was no evidence given either way. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. There was no hardship shown, the use of the storage containers for the farming equipment, a rhino or whatever term could be used to suffice for the farming equipment. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor to deny the variance for the storage containers. 5-0 O. Gibbs: Do we need that variance now that we have denied the storage containers? Chair: S. Bogert: That’s for the board to decide because they have an application here for it. O. Gibbs: My understanding that application is for the temporary structure as it is. If they have to move those storage containers then? They would have to move the structure so they won't need the area variance. Chair: S. Bogert: So what your saying is we can ask the applicant if they would remove the variance or we should deny it or accept it. D. Trefethen: It’s a two part question, you answered the first part with the storage containers and the second part is the distance. O. Gibbs: But the distance is predicated on where the storage structures are. If they are to be removed then they don't need the variance. I suppose we could deny the variance but I don't think. Chair: S. Bogert: We can deny it, because they can fix the problem, we could accept it and then they could drop the rhino thing and leave it there, or they can take their variance back, because if it’s denied they lose their chance. O. Gibbs: It would probably make sense for them to withdraw the variance for the setbacks so that if they want to use it for the permanent structure once they determine what they want to do they can use it there. If they need a variance they can come back and ask for one. Chair: S. Bogert: It would be right of me to open this back up to the public and ask them if they have a chance to continue to hear the aspect or withdraw it on the portion of distance. On this rare occasion I am going to give you the opportunity for us to continue the application for the setbacks or withdraw that portion of the application? (9:52 PM) Attorney: P. Brouillard: Because you just decided to remove the containers, my client just pointed out that if he wants to remove the containers and add walls he would still like you to consider the variance. All of our arguments are still valid for that. D. Trefethen: Then you need to decide if you want to the variance or the equitable waiver for the dimensional requirements. It doesn't matter.  Attorney: P. Brouillard: Because you just decided to remove the containers, my client just pointed out that if he wants to remove the containers and add walls he would still like you to consider the variance. All of our arguments are still valid for that. D. Trefethen: Then you need to decide if you want to the variance or the equitable waiver for the dimensional requirements. It doesn't matter. M. Foote: What does the equitable variance dimension give? D. Trefethen: It gives a waiver of dimension and it lets the structure stay where it is but does not give the variance. There is a criteria for it. It’s a four part. Its four criteria and I'm going to summarize as its petty lengthy. The violation hasn't been noticed for a portion of time and it’s been substantially completed, it doesn't constitute a public or private nuisance, and the cost of correction outweighs any public benefit. They used the edge of pavement as opposed to property line that’s how the condition came to be. M. Foote: You would have the same structure, same height same view. Except it won't have the storage containers. if you’re at that point I don't know why it can't be moved just a few feet they do have cranes I don't know how you deal with that loop system there. Board: Discusses: Where else on the property the structure could be located and sees no reason why the structure could not be moved back the few feet so that they don’t need the variance. D. Trefethen: If you look at the plot plan that was provided with the application the structure in question is right between the barn and the 99.85 foot marking. The 43 and 47 foot are from pavement. The right of way, the structure might be as little from 35 feet from the property line. I doubt that it is any closer than that. We did take a measurement but we don't have that information with us tonight. M. Foote: I make a motion to deny variance equitable waiver for variance 202018-0028, you know. In this here if it wasn't for the complete construction of the storage containers the variance variance would be contrary to the public interest; it can be corrected at this point. The spirit of the ordinance is observed. We’re bringing it into compliance. Substantial justice is done; and we're not devaluing the surrounding properties. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. Due to the fact that we have to remove the storage containers anyways gives us the opportunity to measure the right way. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 to deny the application. 8.II. ZO2018-0002 - 64 Paugus Park Road (PDF) R. Maheu: We made it a policy not to go past 10 PM on our meetings is that still in affect? S. Bogert: There are two things we can do as always, we can vote to continue the next application or we move everything to the next meeting. Those are the two choices. How do you all feel about it, do you want to move it all to the next meeting. Multiple board members explains that they are all working in the morning at the same time. Chair: S. Bogert: Well we do have the rule. Based on that we are not going to open up the last application. We do apologize but we are not going to open this due to the time constraints. So you will be first on the Agenda next meeting. Any questions? Applicant: States that he has listened to this board for the last three hours and that he will lose his purchase and sales agreement on this property, if this application is not heard this evening. Chair: S. Bogert: Let me discuss this with the board. How do you all feel? O. Gibbs: If his Purchase and Sales agreement is contingent upon this decision then we should listen to the application hopefully it can be done before 10:30 PM. Multiple Board members speak at once saying they hope it is done faster than that. O. Gibbs: Maybe they can be done by 10:15 PM? to the application hopefully it can be done before 10:30 PM. Multiple Board members speak at once saying they hope it is done faster than that. O. Gibbs: Maybe they can be done by 10:15 PM? Chair: S. Bogert: Mike is that good with you? M. DellaVecchia: Yeah that’s fine with me. Chair: S. Bogert: States that the Board is in agreement that they will hear the application and should be cut off by 10:15 PM. Attorney: William Philpot: Explains that there is a purchase and sales agreement that is contingent on the decision that the board makes this evening. Describes that his client plans on razing all of the structures on the lot and building a new single family residence with an attached garage. That the structure will be going into the front setback and the shore land protection district. Continues on explaining that hardship with the size and age of the lot with the curvature of the lake in that area. Also describes that the new home could be built conforming however then would not have a garage and that the benefit of having a garage would be more beneficial to the property especially with the rising costs of vehicles in today’s market. Lastly, provides all of the criteria for the variance as stated from within the Application to the Zoning Board S. Bogert: The hardship for this and the future variance for the deck is being used up now and we are not going to have a hardship in the future if they want a deck in the future. Now the shed is done, the hardship for the deck in the future is going to be gone now too. There is no hardship for a deck or a shed. Because tonight you are saying there is a hardship in building the house. M. DellaVecchia: There is a letter here from the neighbor concerning the boundary line are you aware of that? Attorney: B. Philpot: Explains that they had David Dolan survey it and prepare the plans that are being used for construction. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 10:15 PM. Abutter: Donna England from Paugus Park Road: How far is the house from the water’s edge? M. DellaVecchia: 31FT. Abutter: Donna England from Paugus Park Road: Did they get a permit from the state because it’s close to the lake? Attorney: B. Philpot: It’s an existing condition 483 allows for replacement of existing conditions. That is also noted on the plan. R. Maheu: As long as they are building in the same foot print. Attorney: B. Philpot: They are moving it back further. It’s more conforming by pushing it back from the lake if you were to go the opposite direction you would be required to have a something. 483 still works. Chair: S. Bogert: Do they need a shoreline permit? D. Trefethen: Explains that you could add a condition that one be obtained if required. Abutter: Donna England from Paugus Park Road: Is it 10 feet from each side? Is there percentage of green space going to be ok? Attorney: B. Philpot: Explains the plan to Donna England. Abutter: Donna England from Paugus Park Road: I was just concerned, the new house is wider. Board: It is not going into the side setback. Abutter: Donna England from Paugus Park Road: They should need a variance for the side setback then because we ran into that issue. It’s inside the 50 feet and it’s wider so it needs variance that’s  Attorney: B. Philpot: Explains the plan to Donna England. Abutter: Donna England from Paugus Park Road: I was just concerned, the new house is wider. Board: It is not going into the side setback. Abutter: Donna England from Paugus Park Road: They should need a variance for the side setback then because we ran into that issue. It’s inside the 50 feet and it’s wider so it needs variance that’s what you made us do. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that this is a different situation, than what was needed for your property. S. Bogert: Asks if anyone else from the public wishes to speak. Let the record show that no one else from the Public with to speak for or against the application. O. Gibbs: I would like to address the one letter we got with the concern of the property line. I have reviewed the plan and they are actually talking about the southerly property line and not this property on the northerly property line. I don't think that this application will affect the property to the south belonging to the Raineville's. D. Trefethen: I would suggest to the board that you put a condition if you approve that because of the side setbacks being so close that when they install the footings they have the footings surveyed so they don't encroach on the side setbacks. Attorney: B. Philpot: Explains that he doesn't believe that individuals that install foundations know what a tape measure is. However that his client planned on having the footings surveyed. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 10:26 PM O. Gibbs: I'll make a motion to approve application ZO2018-00002 a variance for the front rear setbacks to build and raze the structures that are on the lot and build a new home with an attached garage. The setback from the water will be 30.5 feet and the setback from the road will be 19.6 feet the shed on the lot will be razed and there will be no further additions to the structure. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; and it’s in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance is observed; Improving old homes with new ones. Substantial justice is done; in permitting a new home to be built, the home and drainage will be improved. It will improve the value of the surrounding area. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. Because of the shape of the lot, concave nature of the shore line makes it difficult to place a home 50 feet from the shore front all of the structures for the most part are some form non-conforming the proposed use is reasonable and there is no clear and substantial relationship between the general purposes of the provision of the ordinance or to the provision of this property. I would put on the conditions that the applicant obtain a permit from DES or a permit for shoreline if they need one, and that the footings be surveyed and measured when the foundation is poured to make sure the 10 foot side setback is adhered too. O. Gibbs: A third condition no decks of any kind and no shed within the setbacks. R. Maheu: Seconds motion All voted in favor 5-0. 9. OTHER BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT M. DellaVecchia: Motions to adjourn 10:31 PM Chair: S. Bogert: Seconds motion All voted in favor 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 10:31 PM Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: All voted in favor 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 10:31 PM Minutes Respectfully Submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician