Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, July 16, 2018 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A 7/16/2018 - Minutes Accepted 8/20/2018 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair: S. Bogert: Calls the meeting to order at 7:06 PM 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora conducts roll call with the following present: Mike DellaVecchia, Roland Mahue, Orry Gibbs, Mike Foote, and Steve Bogert. Chair: S. Bogert: States that since Suzanne Perley is not present Mike DellaVecchia will be a voting member of the board this evening. 3. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 4. RECORDING SECRETARY Robert Mora, Zoning Technician 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS R. Mahue motions to accept minutes as presented. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 6. EXTENSIONS Chair: S. Bogert: States that no one is here to represent the three extension that are on the Agenda this evening. Therefore we will not open them and they will be continued the following meeting. Chair: S. Bogert: Motions to continue the three extensions to next month's meeting. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 Extension 664 Scenic Road For ZO2009-0027, 63-99 Fletcher Lane for ZO2009-0029, ZO2012-0010, and ZO2009-0030 moved to August Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. 6.I. 664 Scenic Road Extension Request For ZO2009-0027 6.II. 63-99 Fletcher Lane Extension Request For ZO2009-0029 And ZO2012-0010 6.III. 63-99 Fletcher Lane Extension Request ZO2009-0030 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE VOTE Note: The Purpose Of This Agenda Section Is  For The Board To Continue The Public Hearing For The Applicant And The Public To Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. There are 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. ZO2018-0011 - 68 Opechee Street MSL#405-171-13 Chair: S. Bogert: Starts application at 7:10 PM Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Explains that she owns the property at the corner of Opechee St and McGrath St. That she is requesting a variance to build a six foot fence where only a four foot fence would be allowed for privacy for the safety of her property. R. Maheu: Asks if the fence will go all the way around her property? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Explains that it would go to McGrath and Opechee St and she would maintain the corner how it currently is. M. Foote: Asks who maintains the fence along Belknap St? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: States that it is her fence and she fixed it after a car drove through her fence into her yard. M. Foote: Discusses how this property is unique as it has two street frontages and then asks whether or not the back yard is completely enclosed for the children and dogs that she has. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: States that it is enclosed on that side that she placed a personnel gate in that area next to the garage. R. Maheu: Asks if the entire property is fenced in. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: It is. M. Foote: Asks how long she has lived there. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: 12 years. M. Foote: What is the change that makes you want to make it that way? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: In the last two years she adopted two dogs and the dogs bark at those that pass the fence causing anxiety, also had someone drive through her fence into the back yard, states that there is a police report for that. She would like a little bit of privacy for herself and her children while making the neighborhood better for those that have dogs in the neighborhood. R. Mahue: Asks if her dogs can jump the fence. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: They cannot. R. Mahue: They cannot jump over a four foot fence. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: No they can't. They can see over it and they can see through it. Re-emphasizes that she would like a little bit of privacy. R. Mahue: Explains that he believes that this disrupts the line of sight for drivers going in both directions. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Explains that she is not asking to change the fence at the corner that it will stay and meet the zoning guidelines. That her property goes out further than the fence does at the corner. O Gibbs and M. Foote: Ask what kind of fence would you like to put up? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: A fence that does not have spaces in it like I have now. R. Mahue: Asks if it’s going to look like the fences in this brochure. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Explains that her fence would not look like that and does not know where that came from and that the fence that is showing in that picture is not to scale. O. Gibbs: Asks what the fence will look like. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Explains that she would like a cedar fence with some lattice work at the top. That the person that is building the fence is not here today. Explains that she would like to make it look good, that she does not want to put up a fence that she needs to replace every five years. R. Mahue: I don't understand what kind of fence you are asking for. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: I want a fence that slopes down with the road towards McGrath St. R. Mahue: Like a split rail fence? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: No not a split rail fence. R. Mahue: Like this yellow fence in this picture? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: No not like that fence, that fence is not what I want to put up and the scale is not accurate. R. Mahue: Well do you have pictures of your fence? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: No I don't. R. Mahue: Well I have a hard time visualizing what you want to build then. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: I apologize I didn't realize that I needed to bring pictures of the fence with me and plans for them or else I would have. M. Foote: How old is the fence that is there? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: The side on McGrath St was done about six years ago. Those picket fence posts don't last very long. There are also kids that kick it in and the side walk plow causes damage to them as well. Because of the gaps between the posts the plow really breaks it up. R. Mahue: Well the problem with your fence is you didn't paint it. Painting a fence makes it last longer. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: It may but we didn't do that when we put it up, we just replaced what we could. O. Gibbs: Have you considered a four foot fence? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: I have considered it and I spoke about it with some of the abutters and having a four foot fence does not give me any privacy at all in my back yard. It still allows the dog to see over the fence. R. Mahue: Are your dogs vicious? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: No my dogs are not vicious they have taken on the role of protecting the area within their fence like most dogs develop a job and that is the job that they have decided to take on. Also explains the type of breed that they are cattle dogs. Chair: S. Bogert: Has DPW looked at this? D. Trefethen: Not that I am aware of. Chair: S. Bogert: What you want is a six foot privacy fence with no visual through it or around it. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: I want to keep the corner to zoning standards. Chair: How would you do that with a six foot fence? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: It would not be a six foot fence at the corner it would stay the same height. O. Gibbs: At what point are you changing it from six foot? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Leading down to McGrath St at the corner it would not be six foot. O. Gibbs: I am concerned about the line of sight. If we had some sort of visual of what that fence might look like. M. Foote: I want to point out that we are talking about 300 feet of fence line. In what has traditionally been an open space area. Just as we are considering that. R. Mahue: Is this going to go in front of your driveway so you have to get out of your car and open a gate to pull in? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: No it’s just going to replace what is already there. I don't plan to block in my driveway or bring the fence out to the corner like the picture shows. R. Mahue: Then what's keeping the dogs from going out? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: It’s already all fenced in. R. Mahue: You are keeping the chain link fence in the back? Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Yes I am keeping the chain link fence in the back of the yard. There are no issues with that fence no one walk by that portion of the fence. Chair: S. Bogert: What is the requirement for where the fence is allowed to be four feet and six feet. D. Trefethen: If you are within the front set back which this lot has two frontages and applies to both of those 15 feet back from the property line it can be six feet. Not necessarily 15 feet back from the road but 15 feet back from the property line. So she is here asking to put the fence at the property line and have it six foot. She wouldn't need the variance if she was going to put a six foot fence up and be 15 feet back from the property line however she would lose a good portion of her property. Chair: S. Bogert: I was more asking Dean because looking at that last telephone pole it kind of represents where a backyard would begin. But based on what you are telling me it would be frontage all the way down the road. D. Trefethen: According to our Zoning Ordinance she has two frontages and at those frontages she would be required to maintain the four foot fence. Once she reaches the neighboring property lines on McGrath and Opechee those would be her sides. She in affect does not have a rear property line. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the board has any further questions for the applicant. No board members had any more questions. Chair: S. Bogert: Open the application to the Public at 7:27 PM. Abutter: 73 Opechee St: Terry Robertson: States there are other abutters in the audience and the only abutter not present is Carlos Guzman. The letter that we provided pretty much addresses everything and the safety issues. States that they back out of their driveways and they are all only large enough for one vehicle. We all look down McGrath to see if there are any vehicles coming or going in either direction. Ms. Allen questioned the scale of the images that we rendered of what the fence would look like. It was my understanding that it was a privacy fence. Rick Page who is here tonight had someone who is in there office make that to scale. I am confused and am still confused to where the four foot would begin and where the six foot would begin. I walked the property with Ms. Allen we spent a lot of time walking the perimeter. We speculated where a six foot and four foot fence could logically start. I was not sure where the changes would take place. The area is busy at the school and the park. Constantly people walking by and children it is a well- traveled area. States that this concerns her about people crossing the street on the side walk not being visible to vehicles coming down the road. This changes the characteristics of the neighborhood, you would not see anything else like this in the area that would create this fortress like effect on a property. Continues on providing perspectives of pets. States that she and the abutters believe this will depreciate the values of their properties. Asks the board if they have any questions. Abutter: 69 Opechee St: Rick Page: Explains how he came to the scale on the package that was submitted and his scale is correct. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if anyone else would like to speak for or against this application. No one else wished for speak for or against this application. Chair: S. Bogert: Brings the application back to the board for discussion. O. Gibbs: States she is confused with the sketch. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: Explains what is currently there. M. Foote: Asks what size is there now. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: States that it is about 42 inches high currently. D. Trefethen: The two front property lines show the maximum four feet and the 15 feet back shows where the six foot fence could be. R. Mora: States that he did the drawing and it depicts the size limitations to where fence heights would be allowed with the Zoning Ordinance. With the corner height being 2.5 feet for 20 feet and the rest being four foot. M. Foote: Asks how tall the lilac is that is in the front of the property. Applicant: States its tall and she does not know how high. M. DellaVecchia: Asks if she can go south on the property. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: I don't understand what you are asking. R. Mahue: Ask if she had thought about a chain link fence. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: States that would give her no privacy. She would still need to have something to block the view for the dogs. R. Mahue: States that this really changes the characteristics of the neighborhood. Everything else is open down there. This would be the only spot that would be segregated. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: States she didn't know she was supposed to bring a diagram. She is looking for a fence with lattice on the top. M. DellaVecchia. Asks if she can put a fence on the other side of the property for the dog. On the garage side. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: States that she could build a kennel like you ask but I would like to be able to use my yard and have some sort of privacy in my yard. I am just asking for a little bit of privacy. O. Gibbs: States that the dogs are still going to protect the fence whether its four foot or six foot. Its still going to be the line of sight and not change how the dogs will act. I don't think this will satisfy that. I also have a dog that is very protective, I just don't think it will change it. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: I don't think it’s going to completely stop the dogs but will make things a little less for what they see, when they see they go. Chair: S. Bogert: Ok any other questions. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: The picture of that fence is nothing that I want or not what I am envisioning for this property and the height of that fence and compared it to the height of my house. It is showing going up high on the deck and I can't even reach that height. I really believe that this fence is not to scale. O. Gibbs: States she would like to see what her proposed fence would look like. That is solid on the bottom with the two feet of lattice on the top. So she has some privacy and you can still see through the top a little. I would feel better if I could see how it would look in relation to the road. It would make it easier for her to make a decision. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: I tried to reach out to them and explain that was not my intent. R. Mahue: We are going just on your say so that you are not going to build a fence that looks like these pictures and that some of us don't agree that a fence like that should be allowed. O. Gibbs: I would like to see something from the contractor. If you could do that. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: If I could do that you would... O. Gibbs: It would allow us to better determine the impact. Chair: S. Bogert: As a person that sells fences, a fence with a lattice on top just gives you a visual effect of a little bit of openness. So the actual visual looking through would be the same as a privacy fence as people on the outside travel by. It would create a visual impairment. Chair: S. Bogert: Any more questions or closing comments. Applicant: Lindsey Allen: If the board would consider anything that would give me some sort of privacy. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the Public at 7:45 PM. Board Discussion: O. Gibbs: Expresses she would like to see the lattice fence diagram and that it would also visual change the representation of how the privacy fence would appear in the neighborhood. Chair: S. Bogert: The appear would be more appealing the question would still be the safety of the kids two times a day traveling there and sports that take place there moving in and out. That’s the safety aspect of it. M. Foote: You would also have think about how you like art as the kids walk by. Chair: S. Bogert: These are questions that I am think that we need to ask. Do we want to allow the applicant to bring in pictures or other stuff. M. Foote: if you are going to show me a picture of a six foot fence I already know what it is going to look like. O. Gibbs: Asks if the lattice fence would give any more line of sight or change the impairment. Chair: S. Bogert: If I looked at number three the variance is not contrary to the public interest or change the character of the neighborhood, I would have to say, that it would. R. Mahue: It would change the neighborhood. Multiple board members state that it would change the character of the neighborhood.  Chair: S. Bogert: The next question does this threaten the safety of the public and the publics rights. This is not the standard joining roads this is next to the middle school. There are kids moving back and forth. We already had a situation like this in a clear area. Now we want to put a six foot hindrance. You have to look at the intent of the code which is to provide visual comradery within the neighborhood. It also provides safety like in this case. We do get dark at 4:30 in the afternoon and there are cross walks we have cross walks and stuff like that and I don't know. These are things that each individual needs to think about to answer these questions. O. Gibbs: It would be better to put the four foot fence up than have nothing. D. Trefethen: Correct. M. Foote: Except for how much of the front corner? D. Trefethen: It has to be 20 feet back. Beyond that 20 foot mark it can go up to the four foot. The standard that NH DOT and out local DPW is the 30 inches which is where the 30 inches come from at the intersection. Once you are back beyond that it could go back up to the four feet. Originally this came from the measurement of a standard sedan. In this case the contention the houses across the street they are now looking through the fence to McGrath a solid four foot fence would be no different than a six foot but might not be. Chair: S. Bogert: There are more people driving there and coming around this corner. They need to be able to see, especially when you have a bus coming they need to see. They are more my concern than those that are pulling out of their driveway even though they are also a concern. M. Foote: And the kids on the bicycles and the kids walking. Chair: S. Bogert: The fifth one would be that substantial justice is done. By approving it would justice be done to the public? Does the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one or does the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many? To me it’s the safety of the many versus the privacy of the one. The values of the surrounding properties are not diminished, I have not been provided any documentation. M. Foote: But you would recognize that this would change the neighborhood. We talk a lot about walkable and open community as you come down and look across Opechee there are fences everywhere most of them are a separation of sorts. You can see into Opechee Point, you come down from Oak Street and off of Belknap the fences there are mostly on the back walls. To separate back lines and neighborhoods and give them privacy. As I come around that corner at Opechee I could generally see across what is open areas. Explains childhood experiences going to this middle school and there was no fence there which created difficulties, when the owner put up a fence it solved those problems. You recognize that having two frontages. Kids have a lot of activity there putting a six foot fence there would change the neighborhood. The fence is in poor condition and ready to be replaced. I can't feel that a six foot fence that would separate the neighborhood like that would be good. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if there is any more discussion. M. Foote: Motions to deny application ZO2018-0011 - 68 Opechee St. Looking for a variance for article VIII section 235- 39D. This is a unique lot but it’s like buying a property near an airport that you need to recognize that you’re buying into a heavily used section of town with a lot of high intensity use because of the school and the uniqueness of the area that we want for the area. Why would we put up something when kids can dart out. I think that the variance would be contrary to the public interest because of decreased sight lines and safety. I don't think that the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because it would create unnecessary safety issues. Substantial justice is done. I would have to go with the good of the many over the desires of the one. We couldn't tell that the properties would be diminished but in a neighborhood which traditionally had open sightlines, this goes to McGrath, Belknap, and Opechee all of this neighborhood, fences are in the back and that’s where I think. I can't see that literal enforcement would result unnecessary hardship and I don't think that it’s a reasonable use. R. Mahue: Seconds motion. All voted in favor to deny the motion 5-0 9. OTHER BUSINESS  D. Trefethen: States to the board that in regard to the extensions he was not aware the policy of the board to not hear the applications. He had spoken to the applicant who had a scheduling conflict for this meeting and they possibly could have had a representative at the meeting. However, I told them that it shouldn't be an issue. I won't do that again however, I will ask for legal counsel. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if everyone got the results for the court case regarding Big Island? R: Maheu: Asks what happened. O. Gibbs: They upheld our decision. Various board members state it was observed in the paper. 10. ADJOURNMENT O. Gibbs motions to adjourn at 8:03 PM M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0. Meetings adjourned at 8:03 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by: Robert Mora Zoning Technician