Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Tuesday, May 22, 2018 84 Summit Avenue Site Walk at 6:00 to 6:30 PM Meeting will be continued at 7:00 PM at City Hall Conference Room 200A 5/22/2018 – Minutes as Amended by the Zoning Board of Adjustment 6-19-2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair: S. Bogert: Calls the Zoning Board of Adjustment to order at 7:04 PM 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora: Performs roll call with the following present: Michael DellaVecchia, Roland Maheu, Suzanne Perley, Michael Foote, and Steve Bogert. The following were not present: Orry Gibbs. Chair: S. Bogert: States that Michael DellaVecchia will be a voting board member this evening. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Robert Mora, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if every had a chance to review the minutes from last month and if any changes are requested? S. Perley: Motions to accept the minutes as presented. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 6. EXTENSIONS 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE VOTE Note: The Purpose Of This Agenda Section Is For The Board To Continue The Public Hearing For The Applicant And The Public To Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. 7.I. ZO2017-0036 - 84 Summit Ave (PDF) Site Walk Chair: S. Bogert: Calls the Site Walk for 84 Summit Ave to order at 6:00 PM The following board members were present at the site walk: Steve Bogert, Roland Maheu, and Michael Foote. Staff in attendance were Dean Trefethen, Planning Director and Robert Mora, Zoning Technician. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks for every to be respectful and for only one to speak at a time. Discusses that the applicant is seeking a variance to store trailers in the front of the property. That the board will stay out for about 30 minutes adjourn and then return to City Hall where the meeting will be called back to order. Applicant: Explains that there are a lot of trees that have come down on the property right now due to the storm in fall and that it should all be cleaned up shortly. Describes his lot to the people that are present. Discussion over what is allowed to be parked in the front of the property and that the variance is for the trailers. General discussion over where the front of the property ends and what is considered the front of the property. Also discuss other properties that are in Laconia that have multiple trailers and junk stored in areas. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that this application was started at 6 PM as advertised on the Agenda was adjourned at the site and was to be continued back here at 7 PM. That this application will be reopened to the Public, closed to the Public, the applicant will be afforded closing comments, and we will then bring it back to the board for discussion. Abutter: David Jennings: Explains his concerns over what Mr. Homsi has stored on the lot and that he does not appreciated looking at his assets all year. Other board members and residents walk around the property and talk amongst themselves. Site Walk ended at approximately 6:20 PM as people began to leave and separate. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 7:07 PM. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Thanks board members for showing up to the site walk. States that he believes that the board has two letters from abutters that support the request. Explains that he believes that each person should have a right to keep their assets on their property and as it has been seen this evening when you have a property like mine it can be seen from all angles and that there is no privacy which is a hardship. Continues on that no one wants to see trailers on the water front and he also has two road frontages that are also hardships. He has offered to install privacy bushes between the property lines and has limited the trailers to be stored on the property to four. States that there are a lot of properties in Laconia that have trailers on them and the City is not enforcing those. Explains that the trailers are placed on the property that is the lesser of the evils of where they can be stored on the property. Also that he has done his best to try to keep them screened. Describes that the issue on the property is for trailers and not the Jet Ski lifts that are on the front of the property as seen while on the site walk. R. Maheu: Asks if the trailers on the lot have license plates? Applicant: Explains that some trailers have plates some don't require plates. The vehicle that is on the lot has dealer plates. Continues on to explain that debris that is left on the lot is still being picked up. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 7:14 PM Abutter: Dave Jennings, 17 Wentworth Cove: States that his objection is that this is in his front yard. That he continues to accumulate these assets. That Mr. Homsi needs to follow the Zoning Ordinance. Describes where the applicant can store these assets and that he does not appreciate looking at these assets. These assets also end up on his property at times and he does not appreciate that. R. Maheu: Asks if he would object if those items would be covered with tarps? Abutter: Explains that he would then have to look at those tarps. M. Foote: Asks about a fence? Abutter: Explains it is what it is even if he can't see them and it’s not a remedy to clean up the front yard. Attorney Paul Fitzgerald representing Governors Island: States that he believes that the board has taken its time to listen to this application. Explains that he has analyzed this application and provided his information to the board and that they have demonstrated to the board that this application does not meet the variance requirements. States that the hardship that Mr. Homsi has created is self-inflicted and that it is not the norm to store trailers and especially not four trailers in the front yard. Describes what was viewed during the site walk and that this is not in keeping with the neighborhood and the ordinance. Continues to emphasize that this issue is self-inflicted and that the application does not meet the criteria set forth by the zoning ordinance. Also explains that he has permission from Governors Island to build a garage and that he needs to go forward with that he is also using other properties to store trailers. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if anyone else from the Public wishes to speak? No one else from the Public wished to speak. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the Public and asks the applicant if they would like to give any closing comments. Applicant: Richard Homsi: Explains that Mr. Jennings believes and feels that the trailers are being stored in his front yard when they are not. He has also offered to provide more screening to the property. Also he does not believe that storing the trailers in the rear yard on the lake is not the direction that people on the lake would want him to go. Continues to explain the hardship that he has no ability of putting trailers in the rear of his yard and explains that he is not running a business on his property as stated by Mr. Jennings. Describes how his application meets the variance criteria and that he disagrees with Mr. Fitzgerald the attorney for Governors Island. Describes his property and that the hardship is that he has no privacy and has frontages of two streets. States that he feels that his application meets all of the requirements and that he has been a resident and a supporter of the programs that are here. Continues that he is trying to make this the best possible property as possible. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the Public at 7:29 PM Board Discussion: Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that this property is unique and that there have seen situations with trailers before, with them being parked on the side of the properties or in the front. This one is unique because it has two road frontages and you can see the trailers regardless of where you are standing whether that be the neighbor's driveway or front yard or across the street they are visible. Continues on and explains that Zoning is delicate between the use and how that affects the neighbors and in the delicate balance is what is reasonable. Trying to accommodate people who are trying to utilize their property while also protecting the neighbors. Explains that views are not protected in regard to scenery however that the zoning ordinance to some degree is protecting the view that people see as it refers to enforcing codes so that what people see is what is allowed or by code. Explains that the purpose to having site visits is to see if there is a possibility of satisfying both parties where everyone can walk away and say that’s doable. Explains that in this case there are two options we can accommodate them or we can't, can we move these assets from one side to the next or can we put a fence around it. It seems that in this case the neighbor doesn't want to wake up every morning and see these things in the front yard. Gives examples of who this could be correct with fences of natural color. States that it is the board that is to determine whether or not the criteria is met in these applications as some people do not know how to always put everything into words to show how they meet or don't meet the criteria of the variance. S. Perley: Explains that she is stuck on hardship. She feels that this is an excessive request with the amount of trailers and that the individual has the right to build a garage. He has a permit for a garage so why are we making an exception if he has a permit for a garage that would take care of this situation. R. Maheu: Explains that he agrees. That Mr. Homsi was allowed to build a storage facility for these assets and he should build that if he wants to store these assets.  M. DellaVecchia: States that he would not want to live next door to Mr. Homsi. M. Foote: Explains that it is a difficult property with two frontages and that the buyers of these kinds of properties recognize this when purchasing the property. He also understands that you wouldn't want to fill the lake side up with all of these trailers and that there must be way to get back there if the Jet Ski lift is able to be placed there. Discusses that he thinks there are other options to be used for a solution and that he is disinclined to allow the storage and the clutter in the front yard of a property. Chair: S. Bogert: States that he is kind of getting the feeling that the board is more inclined to denying the application than approving the application. Based upon the discussion, the site visit, and listening to abutters, he is comfortable with making a motion to go in that direction. Board discusses whether or not they should seek legal counsel to craft a motion for them or do the motion themselves. S. Perley: Makes a motion to deny it would be contrary to public interest and the spirit of the ordinance would not be observed. The storage of four trailers in plain view does alter the essential character of the neighborhood. As testified by the abutters it does create an eyesore. This is what the Zoning Ordinance is meant to prevent, peaceful enjoyment of one’s property. Substantial justice would not be achieved by granting this variance. The benefit to the general public is much greater than any hardship to the applicant. The applicant has the ability to build a garage on his site or to store his trailers. The value of the surrounding properties could be diminished if the variance was granted. Literal enforcement of the ordinance does not result in any unnecessary hardship. The hardship is self-created and there are options available to the applicant to storing this amount of trailers. He should go through the process of getting the garage. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. D. Trefethen: Asks the board that should they vote to deny the variance that they place a timeline for the applicant to bring the property into compliance. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks what kind of time frame would be appropriate 30 or 60 days? D. Trefethen: We usually give people about 30 days when we send out violation letters. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if an addendum could be added to the motion to add that the applicant has 30 days to bring the property into conformance. S. Perley: Agrees. R. Maheu: Agrees. Chair: S. Bogert: States that they now have a motion that has been amended. Asks the board if anyone has any questions or comments? All voted in favor of denial 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. 8.I. ZO2018-0005 - 121 Pleasant St (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application at 7:48 PM Agent: Attorney Joseph Driscoll IV: Explains that he has described all of the criteria in the application. MDMT Properties is the owner of the property and he is representing them. Mr. Driscoll continues to explain that this is a family run business and not a large corporation. That they just recently purchased this property and it is already a multifamily unit. They are here to request a density variance for the addition of another unit. There will be not construction on the outside everything will be done on the inside and there is no foot print change. Describes that the applicant is from the area and would like to revitalize the area. Explains that the owner is already renovating the property and has had a lot of residents approach him and tell him that they are happy with what he is doing. We are looking to bring more people to the downtown region. Explains that there is a barn that is attached to the back of the structure and it is currently just used for storage and they would like to use that as a residential unit. Describes that the zoning for the downtown region does not make sense and that his property falls in Professional zone which does not make sense since the structure was built in the 1800's and if the line for the district would have been drawn a little differently they would not have needed a variance at all. Describes how the variance for density would not adversely affect the area because one of the neighbors is a parking lot owned by the bank, several businesses, and commercial entities. This neighborhood can completely support this addition to density in the area. There is also plenty of parking on the lot to support the addition of the unit. Continues to explain that there is little to no impact in this variance to the property because everything that is needed is already in place they are not creating anything additional. The property is already multifamily and will continue to be used as a multifamily. Describes how this variance meets the zoning criteria set forth for the variance and it will not be contrary to the public interest and that the spirit of the ordinance is observed. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks how many units are currently on the lot and where they are located. Agent: Joseph Driscoll: Explains that there are five units already on the lot and that they are all located in the house. The barn that is located on the lot is just used as a garage and for storage space. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks how many bedroom apartments are available in the unit and what will be proposed. Applicant: Mike Desroche: Explains that there are two, two bedrooms units and three, one bedroom units. The one unit that they would like to add would be a two bedroom unit. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks about kitchens and bathrooms. Applicant: States that they all have their own bathrooms and kitchens nothing is shared. M. Foote: Asks if they are going to use the third floor in the barn.  Applicant: States that they will not be using the third floor that it is not cost effective to use it and that there would be no egress if they used the third floor. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks about parking and plants on the plot plan. Applicant: Describes the parking locations and that the parking that is shown on the lot is currently already there. Also that the bushes are already in place from the previous owner. M. Foote: Asks about fire suppression. Applicant: Explains that they would be using fire rated dry wall and other materials. Also that he has spoken with the Fire Department about any additional needs. S. Perley: Explains that she thinks they have done a great job on the property so far. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 8:08 PM No on from the Public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the Public at 8:08 PM, and asks the applicant if they would like to provide any closing comments. Agent: Attorney Joseph Driscoll: Thanks the board for their time and consideration. Board Discussion S. Perley: States that she thinks it’s a great project with no changes or impact to the downtown area. R. Maheu: States that he does one have concern with the application. Thinks that it is a nice property, though several months ago the Zoning Board voted against allowing this for a similar project. S. Perley: States that she remembers that project and that the area was very congested and was very much different that this project that was presented this evening. Also explains that there were multiple conditions in regards to that property. Board Discusses differences between a project that was proposed on Baldwin Street and this application on Pleasant Street. That density was a factor along with multiple conditions on the property. That the site layout was also different in regard to the structures being separate and not connected. Explains that this property on Pleasant Street meets the requirements of the multifamily unlike the property on Baldwin St. M. Foote: States that he likes the project because they are reusing a property that is not fully being utilized which is going to help in the revitalization of the area. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that there are two other Victorian properties in that neighborhood that are being used similarly to what the proposed use is for this property. M. DellaVecchia: States that he would like some ever greens planted between the street and the parking area. Chair: S. Bogert: Says he would be willing to entertain a motion. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve a variance to deviate from maximum density at the site to allow for the addition of one two bedroom unit above the existing barn. The variance would not be contrary to public interest. The spirit of the ordinance would be observed. The unit at Pleasant street is already a multifamily residential which already contains five units. The addition of one unit in the back does not violate any zoning basic objectives. This would not threaten the health or safety of the general public. There is no substantial change in the use being proposed or in the building being proposed. Granting the variance would do substantial justice. The benefit to the occupant is far out weighted by any negative affect to the public. The use is consistent with the current use of the neighborhood. There is no harm to the general public. The values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished. The hardship is, the property is unique in its setting, it is right between two districts, one that would allow the increase in density and one that would not. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in enforcing the ordinance in thiscase. The proposed use is an allowed use in the district and a reasonable use. The applicant also has the ability to satisfy parking in the area. We also ask that if possible additional screening be placed along New Salem St. The applicant is to work with the planning department in the choosing of a plant that would assist in shielding. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0. 8.II. ZO2018-0006 - Prides Point (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Opens application at 8:25 PM Applicant: Roland Harris, Prides Point President: Explains that they are a condominium unit and developed under the old Planned Unit Development guidelines in the Zoning Ordinance. As of right now he explains that they are over the amount of allowed build-able area. Currently set at 20% coverage and they would like to increase that coverage to 25%, which is still less than what that zone would have been provided today. However, since this was developed under the PUD it must follow the same guidelines that it was developed under. We would like to bring the village into compliance and allow for homeowners to build decks that would not be allowed because of coverage restrictions. Discussion between board, member, and Planning Director: Clarify that they are looking to increase the build-able area and not increase green space restrictions. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if this will affect the one villages green space or it if adversely effects the overall green space for South Down.  D. Trefethen: Explains that it will not. Each village has its own green space requirements and does not affect the overall larger development. Continues on to explain that most likely this will not affect the green space in South Down as there are large amounts of area that will never be developed which would most likely keep and maintain the 80% green space. Also explains that they are slightly over there coverage by .018%. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that he wanted to make sure since he had seen several villages come in to change their coverage limits and wanted to validate that this was not going negatively impact the entire development. Board Discussion with Planning Director: Describe what could be done to the development if there were given the additional space. The board could also condition that the only new construction that could be allowed would be decks. S. Perley: Asks the applicant if they would have an issue if the additional coverage was limited to decks and outside amenities? Applicant: States that from his perspective he does not see any issue with that. That since they were developed under the PUD that need to stay in their perspective building envelopes and that all of the buildings have been built and most people are just looking to add decks to their properties. D. Trefethen: Explains that he spoke to legal about this application because in the future he sees other villages coming to the Zoning Board to ask for the same increase. That when these units were created the regulation stated that for the PUD they were to maintain only 20% lot coverage and that today within the Zoning Ordinance these unit would not have been allowed to be developed. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks the board if they have any other questions for the applicant? Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 8:45 PM No on from the Public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the Public at 8:45 PM. Board Discussion: S. Perley: States that she does not see any issues with the application as long we have the right language for the conditions. M. Foote: Makes a motion to approve application. ZO2018-0006 for Prides Point Condominium. Applicant seeks a variance from 235-33 to change the Green Space coverage limit. Prides Point was originally developed as a PUD with that it is restricted to the laws at the time. They are looking to go from 20% green space coverage to 25% developed coverage. This variance would not be contrary to the public interest as it’s an inter change to Prides Point. It changes them so they are not in violation and still give them a little bit of leeway for other improvements such as deck and only decks. Substantial just is done and the value of the surrounding properties will not be diminished. Literal enforcement would mean that they just stay uncompliant and this would bring it into compliance. S. Perley: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0. 9. OTHER BUSINESS R. Maheu: Asks for a status on Daisy Gardner Road. D. Trefethen: States that the owners were in the Planning Department this week to discuss the time frame to the removal of the structure to bring it into compliance. 10. ADJOURNMENT M. Foote: Motions to adjourn. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 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.