Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, April 16, 2018 84 Summit Avenue Site Walk at 6:00 to 6:30 PM Meeting will be continued at 7:00 PM at City Hall in Conference Room 200A Accepted 5/22/2018 4/16/2018 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair: S. Bogert: Calls the meeting to order at 7:02 PM 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora conducts roll call with the following present: M. DellaVecchia, R. Maheu, O. Gibbs, M. Foote, and S. Bogert. S. Perley was not present. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that M. DellaVecchia will be a voting member of the board this evening. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Robert Mora, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. 6:00 P.M. Site Walk (PDF) Canceled due to weather 6. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if anyone has any requested changes or additions? No one had any requested changes or additions. M. Foote: Motions to accept the minutes as they are presented. R. Maheu: Second motion All voted in favor 5-0 7. EXTENSIONS No Extension 8. 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. 8.I. 7:00 PM ZO2017-0036 - 84 Summit Ave (PDF) O. Gibbs: Recuses herself from the board. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that there are only four members of the board present. That in order for a motion to be passed there must be three votes in the affirmative and that a 2 to 2 vote would be the same as a negative vote.  Asks applicant if they would like to continue with the application with the current board or wait for a full board to continue. Applicant: Richard Homsi: States that he would like to provide his condolences with Councilman Bolduc's death. Asks about the site walk and explains that he called the Planning Department in the morning and was told that the site walk was still on and then he got a phone call canceling the site walk at 3:25 PM. Continues to ask board if there will still be a site walk if he asks to continue the application until next month when there is a full board? Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that the board has asked for a site walk and that you the applicant would like the site walk and that it is only fair to continue with the plan to have the site walk. Asks if it would be possible to have the site walk next month at 6:00 PM and that it would be Tuesday May 22,2018. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Asks that if they cancel the site walk if he could get notified before 12:00 PM. States that he is fine with continuing until next month with the site walk. Chair: S. Bogert: States that he will continue the application until May 22, 2018. 9. 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. O. Gibbs: Rejoins the board. 9.I. 7:00 PM ZO2018 - 0003 - 150 Birch Haven Road (PDF) Applicant: Henry and Susan Sacco, Architect Sandra Misiaszek and Claire Wilkins: Explains that they have been property owners for 16 years and have decided to become permanent residents. Explains the history of the property and that in the last five years they have done some work. They now would like to make some additions to make the residence more livable. They would like to add a one and a half car garage, a small porch, and place a deck on the rear of the house towards the lake. They are seeking the variance to add livable space and security to the property, along with a new egress. Everything that is being added is very similar to other features on houses that are in the neighborhood. Explains that they are not increasing the height of the structure, moving closer to the lake nor moving closer to the neighbors in the side setbacks. They also have a shed on the front of the property that is in the setbacks that is going to be removed. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks what size the deck will be. Applicant: States 12L x 15W Board and Applicant: Discuss what the setbacks are in the zone and Applicant explains drawings to the board. Explains that the drawings show the build-able area on the property with the setbacks. Also that all foot print changes are in blue and that all of the proposed additions will have roof coverage except for the deck which will not be covered. M. Foote: Asks what the road frontage to the property is. Applicant: Explains that its 56FT. Also explains that he has spoken to all of the neighbors and the association and they all are in agreement and are supportive of the addition. M. Foote: Asks for clarification about the porch and the deck. Applicant: Explains that the porch becomes the new kitchen and that the deck would expand out further. M. Foote: Asks if the only expansion towards Birch Haven Road is for the garage and the shed. Applicant: Explains that is correct, that they are only moving towards the road in order to build the garage and that they will be removing the shed as it is ready to fall down. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks which parts will be covered by roof. Applicant: Explains that all parts will have a roof with the exception of the deck which will be uncovered. M. Foote: Asks if the garage will be a single story. Applicant: Explains that the garage will be a single story with no living space above. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the roof lines are going to be aligned? Applicant: Shows design pictures and explain that there would be storage in the roof of the garage however there would be no livable space above the garage. Also explains that the space above the garage will not be habitable at all. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the basement is a walk out? Applicant: States that it is. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:21 PM No one from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Board Discussion: Discuss that there should be a condition to the motion that the shed is removed. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public. Board Discussion: Agree that the use seems reasonable and that the lot is very small and does not allow any option for the expansion of the property. Also discuss that they are happy that they are not moving closer to the lake. D. Trefethen. Agrees and states that they should add a condition to the motion that the shed is removed before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. M. DellaVecchia: Makes a motion to approve ZO2018-0003 - 150 Birch Haven Road. Requesting a variance for the expansion of a non-confronting structure into the front and side setbacks. Chair: S. Bogert: The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; As it would add to the value of the surrounding property and is in line with the neighborhood. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; Allowing expansion of the house without further encroachment of the side setbacks. This plan does not impede on the water side setbacks, which is the most important side. Substantial justice is done. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished and the property being maintained would most likely improve the surrounding properties. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. The unnecessary hardship is that the building envelope on the property is smaller than the current house on the property and anything they would want to do would require zoning relief to have reasonable use of the property. O. Gibbs: A condition that they must remove the shed before applying for a certificate of occupancy. R. Maheu: Seconds motion  All voted in favor 5-0 9.II. 7:00 PM ZO2018 - 0004 - 575-577 Main St - Lakes Region Mental Health (PDF) Agent: Attorney Regina Nadeau: Explains that she is here on behalf of the Lakes Region Mental Health Center and with her is Edward Burby Veteran Affairs Special Projects Manager. Invites the board to the window to view the sign and the building she is about to speak about. Board: Views building outside. Agent: Explains that Lakes Region Mental Health Center made a mistake. Explains that they have been looking at properties to move to and that they moved into the current location and started renovating the entire property. Somewhere in the process the issuance of a sign permit fell through the cracks. Then when a sign was erected it was assumed that it was grandfathered. It was not intentionally put up to go against the zoning ordinance. Applicant explains that they are only allowed to have 24 SF for a Wall sign even though they are allowed to have two signs with a total of 96SF. Continues on to explain that there has also been some confusion over their address and that they share the parking lot with Citizens Bank. This means that the building is over 100 feet from the road. This is really a hardship with the limited space we can have and how far the structure is from the road and the ordinance does not address this issue. Also we do not have an ability to put more than one sign on the wall because of the fact that there are windows. Explains that the sign that Lakes Region Mental Health Center has selected is a good size that matches the neighborhood and will not negatively impact the surrounding properties. The sign is there strictly to promote the business and this business supports many jobs in the local area and supports many of the local residents. Explains that they meet all of the criteria and that there will be no adverse impact from this sign and that other businesses in the area have very similar signs. Emphasizes that the sign is on a one way road and back from the road and the size is needed for visibility. Board: Discusses that you can have 96SF, however wall signs in that zone are limited in size to 24SF. Agent: Explains that the Zoning Ordinance when it comes to signs is not consistent. Also demonstrates how each district has very different requirements and are allowed different sized signs make it very difficult and for businesses around the City. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the only signs are located on Beacon Street. Agent: States that all the signs are located on the Beacon Street side and they have no signs on the Main Street side of the building. Explains that there might be a logo on one of the doors on the Main Street side. D. Trefethen: Explains that they are currently reworking the Master Plan and that the Downtown area is currently broken down into 8 districts and that if you are located on one side of one street you might have a larger allowance for signs than those on the other side. We are trying to consolidate all of these districts so that at some point they will all have the same requirements and same allowances. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:42 PM No one from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:42 PM and brings it back to the board for discussion. Board Discussion: Board states that they think that the request is very reasonable and the applicant is not asking for too much, and they feel the sign is fine. O. Gibbs: Makes a motion to accept application ZO2018-0004 - 575-577 Main St - Request for a  variance for a 30SF Wall Sign where only 24SF is allowed in the Downtown Riverfront District. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; It’s not going to be illuminated and its not changing, not distracting, its consistent with other signs in the area. It gives the applicant the opportunity to advertise and label their building without being overly ostentatious about it. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; the ordinance actually allows for 96SF with two signs which would be difficult for them to achieve. They are currently only allowed 12 inches by 24 feet and this is just six feet over the 24 foot allowance. It allows the placement of the sign in a reasonable location where a sign was previously located. Substantial justice is done; It is done tastefully, it is similar to other buildings in the area and set back far enough from the road. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; this is not going to detract from the values of the surrounding properties. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship. The construction of the building itself with the windows does not allow two signs this one sign. This achieves the objective of the owner. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0. 10. OTHER BUSINESS No other business 11. ADJOURNMENT M. Foote: Motions to adjourn at 7:47 PM R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 Meeting adjourned 7:47 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician This meeting facility is ADA accessible. Any person with a disability who wishes to attend this public meeting and needs additional accommodations, please contact the department at (603) 527-1264 at least 72 hours in advance so necessary arrangements can be made.