Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, September 17, 2018 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A 9/17/2018 - 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: Roland Mahue, Suzanne Perley, Orry Gibbs, and Steve Bogert Not present: Mike DellaVecchia and Mike Foote Mike Foote arrives at 7:03 PM 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Robert Mora, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director ft ra 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS R. Mahue: Motions to accept minutes as presented. O. Gibbs: Seconds. D All voted in favor 4-0 to accept minutes as presented. 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. ZO2018-0014 - 16 Pickerel Pond Road (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that this application will not be heard this evening as it has been removed and withdrawn. 8.II. ZO2018-0015 - 61 Pickerel Pond Road (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Starts application at 7:05 PM Applicant: Bruce Cheney: Explains that he would like the designer who is planning the work to explain the application. Agent: Kate Brewer: States that they are changing an existing garage into an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The purpose of this is to accommodate a handicapped individual. R. Perley: Asks if this will be on the second floor of the garage. Agent: Kate Brewer: States that it needs to be on the first floor. Explains plan on the development of the ADU. S. Perley: Asks if it is tied into the main house. Agent: Kate Brewer: Details how the garage is attached the main house since the wood is stored in one section of the garage because the house is heated with wood. S. Perley: Asks if they are looking to expand onto the garage. Agent: Kate Brewer: Explains that they will need to add accessibility features such as ramps and to comply with ADA standards. S. Perley: Asks if those additions are calculated in the total square footage. Agent: Kate Brewer: States that they are not, and that she thought that only the living area was part of the calculation. That the porch and the deck were considered addendum's and not part of the living space. D. Trefethen: States that he would agree that those are not part of the calculation. ft M. Foote: States that it is kind of hard without dimensions to get a real concept. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that one of the most challenging aspects of this is having the doorways wide enough for wheelchairs speaking as a person with experience in being in a wheelchair. ra Agent: Kate Brewer: Explains the overall dimensions of the existing garage are 24 by 26 feet and the addition is 10 by 16 feet. That she did not calculate out the areas of the garage that were staying storage space and the travel area from the main residence to the storage area since they are not part of the living space for the ADU occupant. M. Foote: Asks if that will be the separation point. Agent: Kate Brewer: States that will be the separation point from the main house and the ADU. D Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if there are two entrances. Agent: Kate Brewer: Explains which doors will function as passage ways from the ADU to the main house and where an additional ramp will be placed so that in the winter the disabled occupant will be able to get into the primary residence without having to go outside. S. Perley: Asks if parking is going to be an issue since they are removing the two parking spots within the garage. Applicant: Bruce Cheney: Explains that the property is 55 acres so parking is not an issue. Also that they have a 50 x 30 barn that they can also use for parking. S. Perley: States it’s just a normal question that they ask because you are taking away parking and if the person leaves you have the ability to rent it out to someone else and it could become a car issue. Applicant: Bruce Cheney: States he understands but he doesn't think it will be an issue. Also explains that the next closest residence is over 800 ft. away. R. Mahue: States there is a bit of confusion on his end to what building this. (Referring to a photo) Agent: Kate Brewer: Clarifies what the house looks like. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks the board if they have any other questions of the applicant. No other questions were asked and the  application was opened to the public at 7:13 PM Chair: S. Bogert: Let the record show that no one from the public wished to speak and asks if there are any closing comments from the applicant. There were no closing comments. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:14 PM and brings it back to the board for discussion. Board Discussion: States that this request seems very reasonable, it doesn't impact anyone else and makes a situation better for the family. That parking does not appear to be the issue since they need to add one parking space for the unit. Seems to meet all of the required criteria for the ADU. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve application ZO2018-0015 for a Special Exception for an Accessory Apartment for 61 Pickerel Pond Road. The size of the apartment not to exceed the size of 668 SF as presented to us tonight. The use is specifically authorized and accessory apartments are allowed. The use will not create undue traffic congestion and will not impact pedestrian safety. The use will not affect any public water, drainage, sewer, or any other municipal service. Nor will there be any significant increase to any storm water run-off onto adjacent properties or streets. The requested use will not create any excessive demand for police, fire, schools, or solid waste. There are no special provisions for this use in this chapter. The requested use will not create a hazard to safety or the general welfare of the public. Nor will it be out of character for the neighborhood. There is more than sufficient land on this parcel to accommodate this use. The proposed location is appropriate for the use. Its an extension of a residential use in a residential neighborhood and is consistent with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. M. Foote: Seconds motion. ft All voted in favor of the motion 5-0 to approve the accessory dwelling unit on 61 Pickerel Pond Road. 8.III. ZO2018-0016 - 32 Lewis Street (PDF) ra Chair: S., Bogert: Starts the application at 7:17 PM Applicant: Abdi Ardehali: Explains that they didn't have enough storage space for yard equipment and activity vehicles, so his wife bought a shed. They didn't realize that they needed to place the shed in a specific location or needed a permit. Also that if they are required to move the shed now it would block the view to the lake from his abutter. His sole decision to place the shed in its current location was to protect the view of that abutter and he would not like to take away D from his abutters view to the lake. Explains that the shed will not take away from the property values of the surrounding parcels and that it is a very nice shed made by Reeds Ferry. Lastly, they had an unregistered vehicle on the lot that has been removed. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks to clarify the location. D. Trefethen: It should be about two feet from the property line and there is space in between the property line and the road. Chair: S. Bogert: States that he wants to make sure that DPW has room to go by with the snow plow. Board and applicant: Discuss location of the shed and its actual location in relation to the road. D. Trefethen: Explains that the shed is not in the front of the property. M. Foote: Asks if the shed is located on the pavement. Applicant: Abdi Ardehali: States that it is. S. Perley: Verifies with the applicant that it will not be used for any living space and its only purpose will be for the storage of outside equipment type items. Applicant: Abdi Ardehali: States that it will only be used for storage so that they can park their vehicles in the garage.  M. Foote: Asks Dean Trefethen if this will trigger a building permit. D. Trefethen: States that the size of the shed will trigger a building permit. R. Mahue: Asks applicant if his neighbor is here that states they have no issue with the placement of the shed. Applicant: Abdi Ardehali: States that they are. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 7:23 PM Abutter: Robert Landry: 1059 N Main St: States he abuts the property on the north side and explains that he supports the application and confirms it does not obstruct his view. Abutter: Camille Bailey: States that she has no objections to the sheds location. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if anyone else would like to speak for this application. No one else wished to speak for or against this application. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks for closing comments from the applicant. Applicant: Abdi Ardehali: Explains that he didn't know that it would have been an issue to place the shed in its location and continues to explain that he placed it there so that he would not negatively affect his abutters. That he is very concerned with his neighbors and them having their views. ft Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:25 PM and brings it to the board for discussion. Board Discussion: Board describes size of the shed being 12 x 8 feet and that it will require a permit. State that they are happier knowing that the shed is not located next to the street where it might be hit by a snow plow from DPW. Lastly, the ra board states that they get concerned when items are placed so close to the property lines such as this shed being located three feet from the side setback. D. Trefethen: Asks that board that if they decide to approve this application that they add a condition for the applicant to acquire a building permit for the shed. D O. Gibbs: Makes a motion to approve application ZO2018-0016 32 Lewis St to leave the in its current location as shown on the picture at the front of the driveway. Three feet from the side setback. The shed was placed there to protect the view of the neighbor’s view of Lake Opechee. It’s not contrary to the public interest. It only affects the applicant and two abutters who both spoke in favor. The spirit of the ordinance is observed in that they have come forward to request the variance and are placing it in the best location possible on their lot to maintain the value of the surrounding properties so the values are not diminished. Literal enforcement of the provision of the ordinance would result in unnecessary hardships in that they would have to move the shed and it would impinge on the neighbors view. While view is not a governing factor in variance requests this does come into place here because the shed was specifically placed to benefit the abutters. The approval would be granted with the condition that it’s a 12 x 18 shed and it will require a building permit and be used only for storage. R. Mahue: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 to all the shed to be kept in its current location and the owner is required to obtain a building permit. 8.IV. ZO2018-0017 - 254 Paugus Park Road (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Starts the application at 7:30 PM. Agent: Patrick Wood, of Patrick Wood Law Offices: Explains that he is representing the owners. Explains that the owners would like to take down the current structure and build a new residence that is less non-conforming than what is presently located on the lot. With media shows the board current conditions on the lot and proposed location on the lot. Also goes over the deed and trust of the property along with a permit that was obtained from the Department of Environmental Services for the removal of the current structure and building of the new residence. Describes the hardship of the lot being very small, shows the shed that is currently located on the lot that is in the front and side setbacks. Completely details the property, and surrounding properties in relation to the property that he is representing. Also details how these properties are assessed with current values, how they have been developed recently, and what this proposed project would add to the neighborhood. Also shows how an abutting property has a similarly placed garage to their proposed garage location. Details the proposed changes to the property and how on the westerly side they meet the setback requirements. While on the opposite side they encroach a few inches further. The deck on the shore land side will be slightly further on the westerly end while the same on the eastern side. While in the front of the property a garage will be placed that is entirely in the front setback. They have also improved the green space by using porous pavers. The new house will be 40 x 30 and the garage will be 20 x 22. Continues on with how they will deal with water run off with drip edges and a dry well at the end of the property moving towards the lake. This lot is also non-conforming and would not be allowed to be subdivided with current standards. Finally, goes over all of the zoning criteria and how their proposal meets all of the requirements for the variances needed. M. Foote: Asks where the well is located on the lot. Agent: Patrick Wood: Explains that it is a dry well used for water retention that is shown as a small circle on the rear of the near the lake. M. Foote: Asks where they get their water from on the property. Agent: Patrick Wood: States that right now it comes from the lake however that may change in the future. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if it’s public sewer on the property. Agent: Patrick Wood: States that currently they have City sewer. ft M. Foote: and Agent: Patrick Wood: Discuss setbacks for wells if they decided to drill a well. R. Mahue: Explains that this is a very congested area and the lot is very congested and asks where visitors will park should they have them? ra Applicant: Mark Tetelman: Explains that this will be better than it currently is because as of now we have to park on the street and we will be able to park in the garage. That this does not change any parking conditions that are already present on the lot. Also explains that people need garages especially as they get older. Continues on and explains that they are trying to make this conform as much as possible. D R. Mahue: States that they have had issues with properties in this area with decks. Agent: Patrick Wood: Explains that they are aware of that and that they did take that into consideration. D. Trefethen: Explains that they are actually improving green space coverage on the lot by almost 1% and that it would be very hard to make them comply with green space requirements given the size of the lot. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 8:00 PM Abutter: Donna England, 98 Paugus Park Rd: States that she supports their application and that this project will enhance the neighborhood. Applicant: Gail Teebagy: Explains that both the direct abutters are no present however she has spoken with them and they fully support the project. No one else wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks the applicant if they have any closing comments. Agent: Patrick Wood: States they do not. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 8:02 PM.  R. Mahue: Thanks the agent for answering all of his questions and states that it was very well presented. Board Discussion: Describe how they feel that this is meets a lot of the requirements and are happy that they have taken past issues and tried to comply with them to reduce difficulties in approving these kinds of applications. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve application ZO2018-0017 for 254 Paugus Park Road. To remove an existing house and deck and replace it with a new house and two car garage in approximately the same size lot a 40 x 30 living structure and a 20 x 22 foot garage which would be in the front setback. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest and the spirit of the ordinance would be observed. The foot print of the new structure and the porch would be in substantially the same location. Certain portions of the deck and the patio will actually be further away from the shore line. The proposed garage will allow vehicles to be parked safely and out of the public right of way. Another plus is that a shed will be removed. The application does not violate any basic zoning objectives. Does not threaten the public health, safety, or welfare. It’s in the spirit of the ordinance. Granting the variance will do substantial justice and it’s consistent with the lands current use and character. The benefit to the applicant is far outweighed to any impact to the general public. it will certainly be no harm to the abutters. The values of the surrounding properties will not be diminished. The unnecessary hardship in this case is that these were smaller lots created previous to zoning being possible and it would be hard to meet current setbacks and put up and kind of real, livable, functional structure. It should also be noted that this is right on the lake and they have obtained a permit, a shore land permit from the state which addresses all the environmental issues that we would otherwise look at but they have been addressed. O. Gibbs: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 to approve the application. 9. OTHER BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT R. Mahue: Motions to adjourn at 8:08 PM ft M. Foote: Seconds motion. ra All voted in favor to adjourn 5-0 at 8:08 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by: D Robert Mora, Zoning Technician