Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, June 19, 2018 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A 6/19/2018 - Minutes Accepted 7/16/2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair: S. Bogert: Calls the meeting to order at 7:00 PM 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora: Conducts roll call with the following present: R. Maheu, S. Perley, O. Gibbs, M. Foote, and S. Bogert. Chair: S. Bogert: States that there is a quorum and they will continue. M. DellaVecchia arrives at 7:36 PM 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Robert Mora 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if everyone has had a chance to review the minutes and if any changes are requested? R. Maheu: Asks to amend the minutes so the Robert Mora is shown as staff that is present at the Site Walk for 84 Summit Ave. M. Foote: Motions to accepted the minutes as amended. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 6. EXTENSIONS No 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. No continued public hearings. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS, POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE Note: The Purpose Of This Agenda Section Is For The Board To Have A Presentation From The Applicant And Open A Public Hearing For The Public To Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. 8.I. ZO2018-0007 - 53 Sanborn St Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application at 7:03 PM Applicant: William Bedard: Explains that his existing garage is falling down and would like to build a new one and that it would need to be a little larger so that he can fit his vehicle into the garage. Continues on and states that he is looking to enlarge the garage by making it 6 feet longer and 1 foot wider. M. Foote: Asks if there is a floor to the current garage. Applicant: William Bedard: Explains that there is currently a cement slab in place. M. Foote: Asks if that is why he would like to maintain the same foot print. Applicant: William Bedard: States that he would like to make it 6 feet longer and 1 foot wider. He would be removing the current flooring and putting in a new cement slab for the new garage. S. Perley: Asks if there will be a second floor or any living space above the new garage. Applicant: William Bedard: States there will be no living space, no second floor, and no storage space above the new garage. Chair: S. Bogert: Ask which direction the doors will open on the new garage? Applicant: William Bedard: States that the new doors will open towards the street and that the orientation will remain the same. M. Foote: Asks if there is a reason that he can't make the building conform since they are removing the existing garage and will be laying a new slab? Applicant: William Bedard: Explains that he would not be able to drive a car into the garage if it was to be moved since there is currently a fence and a deck in the area. Moving the garage would force him to remove the fence and the deck that he currently has. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if any one from the public wishes to speak for or against this application. 7:38 PM. No one from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:39 PM. Board Discussion: Board discusses that the request seems reasonable and that there is a minimal change to the area and should not be contrary to the public interest. Will also most likely improve the property values of the surrounding area. That there is a hardship in that the current structures prohibit the placement of the garage in a conforming area. O. Gibbs: Makes a motion to approve the variance application ZO2018-0007 for 53 Sanborn St to build and locate the new garage 1 foot further in the side set back and it will be 6 feet longer. The variance is not contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the ordinance is observed as it allows the applicant to construct a garage that will accommodate his vehicles. It will also improve the appearance of the neighborhood. The value of the surrounding properties will not be diminished. The hardship in this case is the location of the garage and the placement of the current structures, requiring the garage to be placed 1 foot more into the setback. M. Foote: Seconds motion.  All voted in favor 5-0. 8.II. ZO2018-0008 - 174 Province St Chair: S. Bogert: Opens application at 7:10 PM. Agent: Steven Smith from Steven Smith Associates: Explains that he’s representing Grace Presbyterian Church at 174 Province St. Explains that when the church was constructed they were not at capacity so they did not build a large structure. They are now looking to go back to the planning board to get permission for an addition. Continues on to describe the site and current conditions to the Zoning Board. Showing on a site plan where the parking lot would be enlarged with current conditions and that this area is not visible to the public. Highlights that there is existing wetlands in the area and they are trying to mitigate the impact to them and which is why they are seeking a variance for the parking landscape requirements. That if they were required to build the island that would be required by the Zoning Ordinance they would be forced to make the parking lot larger which would impact the wetlands more. They would also have to change how the drainage would be done on the site. The drainage plan that they have now would be better than the alternative would be if they were forced to place the landscape island in the parking lot. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks that if they were to put the landscape island in the parking lot if they would need to irrigate it? Agent: Steve Smith: States that it probably wouldn't survive very long if they didn't irrigate it however there is not a requirement for them to install one. Chair: S. Bogert: States that you would have to dig up the rest of the parking lot to lay the lines to accommodate the irrigation system. Agent: Steven Smith: Explains that this is the best of two evils really and preserves the wetlands. M. Foote: What is the theory of having the island? Agent: Steven Smith: Explains that they are kind of to buffer views of parking lots, instead of just having a large expanse of asphalt. S. Perley: Asks if they are looking for any change in requirement for parking or just the landscaping aspect. Agent: Steven Smith: Explains that is correct and its more just to protect the wetlands. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if this was a different material would the island still be needed? D. Trefethen: States that the ordinance does not cover that and the variance would still be needed. Also that Steve Smith's description on what this island was designed to do is correct. That this landscaping is just to break up the landscape of looking at asphalt from the main streets. That in this case they are very much off the road and well hidden, that this is a very legitimate request. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:25 PM No one from the Public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:26 PM Board Discussion: Board discusses that this is a reasonable request and the requirement seems a little useless in this case. That it is not contrary to the spirit of the ordinance and would not diminish the value of the property. That the hardship would be the wetlands and the steep slopes  that are on the lot around the church as it is now. That if they didn't approve this the applicant would have to change the parking and add in different draining to protect the wetlands. M. Foote: Makes a motion to approve application ZO2018-0008 - 174 Province St, Grace Presbyterian Church, and the variance is not contrary to public interest as it’s off of the beaten path. The spirit of the ordinance is observed in that it is not going to alter the character of the neighborhood. Justice is done that they are able to increase the size of their church so people can go there. Literal enforcement of the ordinance would result in development within the parking lot and without it finding a way to treat your sheet flow, without damage to the wetlands. S. Perley: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 8.III. ZO2018-0009 - 7 Pendleton Rd Chair: S. Bogert: Opens application at 7:30 PM Applicant: Mark O'Leary: Explains that he would like to place a shed on his property and the proposed location is the only space he has available. Also the design of shed would match the design of the house. S. Perley: Asks what the purpose of the shed would be. Applicant: Mark O'Leary: Explains that it would just be to store yard equipment and yard furniture. R. Maheu: Asks what the dimensions are of the shed. Applicant: Mark O'Leary: 10 x 15. S. Perley: Asks if there is a shed there now. Applicant: Mark O'Leary: Its a brand new house and there is no shed on the property. M. Foote: Asks if the shed is attached to the house. Applicant: Mark O'Leary: Explains that the shed will not be attached to the house and apologizes that the map is not to scale. M. Foote: Asks if there will be space between the house and the shed. Applicant: Mark O'Leary: There should be 6 feet between the house and the shed. M. Foote: Asks where the utilities are located on the lot. Applicant: Mark O'Leary: Explains that all of the utilities and the gas tank are on the opposite side of the property. Which is why he wants the shed in the proposed location so that it does not interfere or cause problems with utilities. R. Maheu: Asks if the bushes on the map indicate where the property line is. Applicant: Mark O'Leary: States it is. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the dashed lines indicates the build-able area.  D. Trefethen: It is. Board and Applicant: Discuss where the rear of the house is located in regard to adjacent lots and the roads. Discuss that the shed would be 5 feet from both property lines. Also that this is the first house that has been developed in the subdivision and that all of the utilities come in from one side which is why the shed can not be placed in that location. That all of the utilities are underground on the lot so the applicant can't put the shed on top of the utilities. There is also a large rock in the other corner that can not be moved so nothing can be placed there. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:38 PM. No one from the public wished to speak. Board wished to note that there was a letter from an abutter that was received stating they supported the placement of the shed on the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:39 PM. Board Discussion: Discuss that the developer should also make note whether the developer should think ahead of the placement of the house on the lot so that shed could be added to the property. Also discuss that some of the lots are shaped and sized so that they would not experience these problems while other lots have smaller and differently shaped lots which create hardships for them. The other issue is where utilities are placed on the lots. Continuing on that lots 1 and 2 in this development have hardships on where shed can be placed with size of the lots and where the utilities come onto the lot. Does not think that this would be contrary to the public interest and that the hardship is the location of the house on the lot. Also discuss that the public benefit does not outweigh hardship to the applicant. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve application ZO2018-0009 for a 10 x 15 new construction shed that once constructed would reduce the setbacks on this property to 5 feet on each side. The variance would not be contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the ordinance is observed. This is a reasonable use on this lot and it does not threaten the public health or welfare in anyway. Granting the variance would do substantial justice its an accessory use to a residence. It’s consistent with the area. Its benefit to the applicant outweighs any negative impact to the general public. The values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished. The hardship that exists on this lot are the placement of underground utilities and a large rock. This is the only realistic placement of the shed. There is no benefit to the neighborhood in enforcing the ordinance in this circumstance. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 8.IV. ZO2018-0010 - 950 Main St Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application at 7:46 PM Applicant: Paul McManus: Explains the history of the 950 Main St and that they have been practicing professional eye care in this location for the last 31 years. Chair: S. Bogert: States that he has been a patient of the business however has no financial or any business association with the practice. Applicant: Paul McManus: Explains that they would like to replace the building that is in the current location with a new one that would better suit their needs. Also that they have spoken to all of the abutters and they are supporting the application going forward. They are looking to increase space to bring in new equipment and technology to stay update with current medical care. Also that the current building was not designed to meet ADA requirements and that the new building would be, which would assist in caring for patients. The new site design would also help to eliminate some of the water drainage issues that are present on the location now. The parking area would also be improved to allow better access. Lastly, they have been practicing in the location since the 1960's and would like to stay in the area, while they also bring customers into the area with their current business. They are not looking to change any use that is already going on within the property. Architect: Sonya Misiaszek: Explains that she initially reached out to the City of Laconia and asked for any requirements that they would need for this project to move forward. Explains the characteristics of the lot and the how the surrounding zones change as they move down the street. Then shows the Zoning Board the site and explains the non-conforming aspects. S h e c ontinues to describe the new site plan for the location, which would reorganize the parking, a new building that will be one floor, will be in line with the current residential zone, and providing better access for patients. States that they are looking for three variance with this request, the first being parking within the setbacks, expansion of a non-conforming use, and the third is expansion into the side setback. Describes current parking conditions and how they will be changed with the new site plan using the requested variance for parking. Begins to explain the second variance and that it is for the expanding of the non-conforming use. Provides details on changes in the foot print and how the new project will be less non-conforming than it presently is. Lastly, explains why they have submitted the third variance for the minimum setback requirements. That when the building is rebuilt they are still going to be in the side setback as they need to ensure that they have room for the reconfigured parking lot. While the area that is going to be in the setback will be part of a larger area within the building that will allow for better service for patients. Provides closing comments and details all of the criteria for all of the variances. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks the Planning Director Dean Trefethen about the different setbacks being requested in the variance a 10 foot and a 25 foot. D. Trefethen: States that it is correct. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks the Architect if they are just asking for one piece on the parking lot that is currently not paved. Architect: Sonya Misiaszek: She states that it is correct and that it is depicted in the blue and the gray area show in the plan. That the gray area is existing and the blue is the new area that will be put down. Chair: S. Bogert: Clarify's with the Planning Director the differences in the business set back requirements for this project as opposed to residential requirements. D. Trefethen: Describes that it is very much like a residential project and that density is different. Though architecturally this will look very much like a residential use other than a hospital. Then describes that the use is professional and that it is in a residential zone, that this current use is grandfathered. S. Perley: Just asks for clarification whether they are taking down completely the structure that is there, working with what is there, or building something completely new. Architect: Sonya Misiaszek: Explains that they are taking down the entire structure and will be doing intensive site work, that there is no way to work with the current structure. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks Dean Trefethen why they are not asking for a variance for all of the parking area. D. Trefethen: Explains that most the parking area is already there and it is grandfathered they are just asking for the addition to the parking area. That within this project they are actually making the parking lot more conforming. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 8:12 PM No one from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 8:13 PM Also states that the board received one letter from an abutter in support of the project. From Barry Bernard and Eleanor MacDougall, 958 N Main St. Board Discussion: States that they believe the request for the variances are reasonable. That this project will not be contrary to the public interest and the impact will be very small. Also that it should not affect the property values of the surrounding area. Also that the new structure will look more appealing with adjacent residential properties just past it. Also discuss that the parking area will be safer as it will be more conforming with better access. Board goes through the variance criteria and feels that the applicant meets all of the requirements. S. Perley: States that three motions need to me made as they are asking for three different variances. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve the first request for setbacks and in order to meet the criteria she would like the criteria as submitted by the applicant put into the record as its very comprehensive and explains the situation. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The requested shift of parking spaces would not increase the overall area of parking currently being used, it would reduce the non-conforming area by 481 square feet. The requested variance would also provide better public access and safety. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The ordinance was adopted to maintain a buffer zone between properties. Granting this variance would allow for a more compliant, less non-conforming parking area. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting this variance would allow the property owners to make a non-conforming parking situation less non-conforming. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND Granting this variance would allow parking to be totally on the owner's property and not encroach at all on the abutter’s property and would allow for a more safe entry/exit driveway. It would increase property value by becoming less non-conforming, thereby increasing surrounding property values. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship The property is an existing lot of record with and established use. The proposal for relief represents the least impact to make the parking area less non-conforming. The variance would afford relief to the owners and easterly abutting property. A denial would represent and unnecessary hardship due to the application of the current zoning laws. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve the second variance for the expansion of the non-conforming use. Once again ask to use the the facts supporting the request be entered into the record to satisfy the variance criteria as presented in the application. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The requested expansion will provide safer accessibility and provide an improved quality to the current conditions. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The ordinance was adopted to ensure limits on continuation of non-conforming uses. The intent was not to prevent improvements or upgrades to the previously established uses. The proposed expansion will meet or exceed all of the items listed in the Article. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting this variance would not change the current impact on the property. It would enable the property owners to expand the existing use and further improve the property. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND  Granting this variance will allow the property owners to provide safer, more code compliant use with significant upgrades to the site and improved public view. The improvements propose no loss to the abutters or the general public, while representing reasonable upgrades to the property. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship The property is an existing lot with and existing aging building with potential unsafe accessibility issues. The property of record has a long standing established use. Current standards cannot be reasonably applied to the existing structure. The proposed expansion represents the minimum variance that will afford relief to the owners and protect the spirit of the zoning regulations. A denial would represent an unnecessary hardship due to the literal enforcement of the current zoning laws. R. Maheu: Second motion. All voted in favor 5-0. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve the third variance from relief from the minimum setback requirements. Once again ask to use the facts support the request to be entered into the record to satisfy the variance criteria as presented in the application verbatim. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The requested replacement of footprint area does not encroach any further to the side reference line than the existing footprint area. The requested variance will not encroach on the rear or front setback line. The requested square foot area will move to the front of the property setback line. The existing non- conforming garage will be removed. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The ordinance was adopted to ensure the lots created after its adoption would be larger to decrease the density in years to come and to give the zoning board control over future expansion of existing pre- zoning properties. The intent was not to prevent the maintenance, upgrade and/or reasonable expansion of existing structures and properties. The replacement of the area would allow the proposed footprint area to shift away from the abutting home. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would not adversely change the side impact. It would in fact, diminish the impact to that abutter by shifting the proposed building more away from the abutter's home. The improvements propose no loss to the abutter's or general public, while representing reasonable upgrades to the property. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND Granting the variance would allow the property owners to enhance their property with a new building better situated on the property in a more safe, and accessible location. Overall it would locate the footprint more northerly and away from the abutting property to the north west. The new building will increase the value of the subject property, which will in turn increase the values of the surrounding properties. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship The property is an existing lot with an established building and use of record. Current standards cannot be reasonably applied to the existing structure. The proposal represents the minimum variance that will afford relief to the owner, and still protect and enhance adjoining properties. A denial would represent an unnecessary hardship due to the application of the current zoning laws. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0. 9. OTHER BUSINESS No other business 10. ADJOURNMENT M. Foote: Motions to adjourn. O. Gibbs: Seconds Meeting adjourned at 8:18 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician