Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, October 15, 2018 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A Accepted 11/19/2018 10/15/2018 - Minutes 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: Mike DellaVecchia, Roland Maheu, Suzanne Perley, Mike Foote, and Steve Bogert. Not Present: Orry Gibbs 3. RECORDING SECRETARY R. Mora 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Chair: S. Bogert: States that Mike DellaVecchia will be a voting member of the board this evening. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if any changes are requested of the minutes. No changes were requested. R. Maheu: Motions to accept the minutes as presented. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 4-0 6. EXTENSIONS No extension. 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. ZO2018-0018 - 556 Weirs Blvd #2 (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application. Applicant: Keith Dube: Explains that they would like to add a dormer to the side of their house that is located within the side setback. That this dormer will be exactly what the same as what is on the opposite side of the house. They will not be extending or changing the footprint of the house in anyway. States that they are just trying to maximize the use of the house as it has about 750SF of living space. R. Perley: Asks if they live there year round. Applicant: K. Dube: States that they do not they use it as a vacation property and that they have two tall sons. So they need the head space. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks for clarification on what the dormer will be like. Applicant: K. Dube: Explains that it will be a full dormer just like what is on the opposite side of the house so both sides will be identical. S. Perley: Asks for clarification from staff on side setback and zoning district. D. Trefethen: Explains that it’s in the CR district and what the setbacks are for that district. Explains that they are not changing the foot print or going any further into the setback. That they are expanding on a non-conformity and that it is going to be within the 10 foot side and 50 foot shoreland setbacks. S. Perley: Asks if they need a shoreland permit. D. Trefethen: States that they do not because the shoreland is intended to preserve green space and provide a buffer to the water. That this is already within that footprint and they are not removing or changing any of the buffer or green space. That they are just adding bulk. S. Perley: Clarifies that they are already within the side setback. D. Trefethen: Explains that is correct. R. Maheu: States that there are two other applications that are similar this evening. That one of them had a letter from the Condo association stating that it was alright to add the dormer. Asks if that was this application. Applicant: K. Dube: States that he submitted a letter to that affect. Also that they have a condo meeting every month and that it was approved and in the minutes. That he is also the president of the association and had to write a letter to himself stating that it was alright to have the dormer added to the property. Board Discussion: Members of the board discuss that the dormer is not changing the footprint of the property and that it appears that it will look the same on both sides. That the run off will be the same as they are not changing anything with the roof. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 7:08 PM No one from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Brings the application back to the board for discussion and asks if any board members have any more questions of the applicant. No one had any further questions for the applicant. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks staff what their opinion is of the application. D. Trefethen: States that he believes that this application is pretty straight forward. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the Public at 7:10 PM.  Board Discussion: Board members state that they don't see any problems with the application. Also goes over which zoning article this variance will be deviating from. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve ZO2018-0018 for 556 Weirs Blvd #2 from 235-35 Side setbacks. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the ordinance is observed and this is an addition to a seasonal home that is not extending the size or the footprint of the home. Just going straight up to square off dormer into a full size room. This will not threaten the health or welfare of the community. Granting the variance substantial justice is done. The use is a residential use and it is consistent with the areas current use. It does no harm to the general public. The values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished. With the special conditions of the property, that it is already built and in the side setback. They have nowhere else to expand on this property. Going up is all they can do. There would be no benefit to the neighborhood in denying this variance. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor to approve this application 5-0. 8.II. ZO2018-0019 - 441 Lakeside Ave (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application. Agent: Dick Mailloux: Provides the board with several pictures. Explains that currently his roof is leaking, that they have tried to replace the decks where they believe the water is coming in. They have lost several ceilings because of this deck issue. That they would like to replace the decks with dormers, which would actually make the property more valuable and visually appealing. That he owns all of the surrounding properties with the exception of the railroad. That some properties in the area have no setbacks and that his property is located within the 10 foot setback of the railroad property. S. Perley: Asks what setbacks, or are there no setbacks? D. Trefethen: States that he is already located within the 10 foot side setback on his property adjacent to the railroad. Agent: D. Mailloux: Explains that the house when it was constructed 68 years ago was already within the side setback. That he also pays money to the railroad every month because the deck that he has is within their easement. S. Perley: Asks for clarification. Agent: D. Mailloux: Explains that the current house is located in the 10 foot side setback and the deck extends beyond that into the railroads easement. Chair: S. Bogert: Ask for clarification on the lot. D. Trefethen: States that the yellow line that is portrayed on the plan is the property line. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks that 10 feet back from that puts the setback on the house. Board discusses the property lines and setbacks. S. Perley: Asks if the applicant is removing the decks and filling it with living space. Agent: D. Mailloux: States that he would be removing the decks and adding dormers in their place which would extend the bedrooms in those locations the 37 inches or about 4 feet. S. Perley: Asks if the new addition would match the construction. Agent: D. Mailloux: States that he is adding a dormer to where the 9 foot deck and the 11 foot decks are. Chair: S. Bogert: Explains that there are two upper decks and the middle deck. That the applicant would like to remove the two upper decks and place dormers on their place. Agent: D. Mailloux: States that is correct that he would like to give the property some character by not having them match the exact line of the house by 6 inches. R. Maheu: Asks if they are moving any closer to the railroad. Agent: D. Mailloux: States that they would like to bring them out and give them a little character. S. Perley: Asks if the dormers are going to have a high peek. Agent: D. Mailloux: No they will not be higher than the existing roof. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks what roof they are going to tie into. Agent: D. Mailloux: That it is going to tie into the rear roof. D. Trefethen: Explains that he is just replacing the decks with dormers that will have a gable end. That they will not be moving any closer to the railroad from his understanding. S. Perley: That’s just what I was trying to clarify. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 7:22 PM No one from the Public wished to speak for or against this application. Chair: S. Bogert: Brings it back to the board for any last questions to the applicant. There were no further questions for the applicant. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the applicant has any closing comments. Applicant did not have any closing comments. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:23 PM. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if Planning has anything to say in regard to this project. D. Trefethen: States that they really don't have any option with this property if they want to expand at all. That this is a very difficult lot to do anything with. S. Perley: Asks if the railroad is involved with anything with this. D. Trefethen: States that the railroad was notified like every other abutter. S. Perley: States it’s kind of harmless they are just kind of filling in. M. Foote: Asks for the zoning article. S. Perley: States 235-35. M. Foote: Makes a motion for ZO2018-0019 - 441 Lakeside Ave for a variance for 235-35 setbacks. This is an addition to fill in some decks that were originally there. It’s a building that is already non-conforming and this is not going to make it anymore non-conforming than it already is. It is not contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the ordinance is observed. Substantial justice is done. The value of the surrounding properties is not diminished. The unnecessary hardship on this is that this is a very tight lot and given that provisions, this would cause a hardship. S. Perley: Seconds motion. All voted in favor of the motion 5-0.  Chair: S. Bogert: Notes that this was for an approval. 8.III. ZO2018-0020 - 62 Winnisquam Ave (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application. Applicant: Mark Maki: Explains that he is looking to improve the deck and make it an enclosed porch so that he can use it as storage space. S. Perley: Asks if he will just be using it as storage space. Applicant: M. Maki: States that it will just be storage space. Explains that the closet space in the house is very limited. S. Perley: Asks the size of the porch. Friend of Applicant: Jay Bernier: Explains that the enclosed porch will be 16' x 12' foot the same exact size as the current deck that is on the property. S. Perley: Validates that they are just filling in the existing deck. Applicant: M. Maki and J. Bernier: State that is correct. S. Perley: Asks how much they are going into the side setback. R. Mora: States that they are not going any further in the side setback they are increasing the non-conformity that is within the side setback already. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the entire lot is in the set back. D. Trefethen: States pretty much the entire lot is within a setback. That there might be a little piece going down the middle where you could fit a 1980's style trailer. S. Perley: Asks whether they would need to deal with it if they made an actual addition to the house. D. Trefethen: States that the board would not as they are making living space. They need to meet life safety codes which they do so it doesn't matter to us. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if the porch is going the entire width of the house. Applicant: M. Maki: States that it is not. M. DellaVecchia: Asks what the structure is in the rear of the lot. Applicant: M. Maki: States it’s his garage. R. Maheu: Asks if you are looking in from Winnisquam Ave whether this will be on the left or the right. Applicant: M. Maki: States that it is in the rear behind the house. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks Staff about whether the City should be concerned about how close this is to the property line. D. Trefethen: States that it’s further from the property line than the actual house is located. States that he believes that should be about three or four feet from the property line and has not heard of a dispute. Chair. S. Bogert: Opens the application to the Public at 7:33 PM Abutter: Harold Martell of 66 Winnisquam: States that he is the property owner that shares the property line where this will be close to and he supports the application. Abutter: Ralph Langavin: States there are a bunch of issues that he has a problem with. If you do the research on this property when we built that deck a few years ago, the neighbor that just got up and spoke turned the Morrils in for building the deck. Also states that when we built the deck we couldn't attach it to the house, because it was considered a patio. States that he has no problem with what the applicant is doing however a problem with the City’s lackadaisical approach and whole thing has. Everything else everyone has to do they have to get a permit, have footing inspections and this and that. You read his letter and this thing is already built, you have two setbacks you got to deal with, and a boundary line dispute going on. I have the survey from the abutter who wanted to come tonight but couldn't. Doesn't believe they meet the green space set back. It’s fine if you approve it just everyone else has to go through A, B, C, and D. If we can just start out a D every time I hope you can set that standard for everyone else. Not just make an exception for this one case, because it’s built or because of ignorance of the law. If he is going to do this it needs to be to code. Just like I have had to do. No one else wished to speak for or against the application. Chair: S. Bogert: I am going to close this application to the public at 7:42. S. Perley: Asks what we do with a boundary line dispute. D. Trefethen: States that the City does nothing that is a civil matter. That according to the Registry of Deeds and the Assessor’s office this map shows what is believed to be the property line. The city has no way to determine whether those lines are correct. S. Perley: Discusses that they are really not encroaching on the abutting property and are staying within the current footprint. Also asks whether this is already built. D. Trefethen: Explains that this is how we found out, they came in for an after the fact building permit, that it will be inspected and if it’s not built to standards it will either be corrected or torn down. Chair: S. Bogert: States that we are doing a variance on something that is already done. D. Trefethen: States that they are not 100% finished with the project. It has started and at some point during the construction they realized they needed a permit and that’s when it was discovered that they were with the setbacks. S. Perley: Asks the applicant if the deck was attached to the house. Applicant: M. Maki: States that it was screwed to the house. D. Trefethen: States that it was properly attached to the house. Chair: S. Bogert: States that it is kind of irrelevant whether it was attached to the house or not attached to the house because the applicant is replacing what was current in that foot print and that should have been properly constructed. S. Perley: Asks if they have a permit. D. Trefethen: Explains that they don't. When they came in for the permit it was discovered that they needed to have a variance. If the Board approves this variance then we can approve the building permit, one the building permit is approved we can perform inspections on the property. S. Perley: Asks about green space. D. Trefethen: States that green space is not affected because the deck would have already been considered coverage before. There is no change of coverage. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if there are any other questions for the applicant. No other questions were asked of the applicant. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 7:44 PM  Board Discussion: Discusses that this is really more of an addition. They removed the deck and then they started rebuilding some sort of living space without a permit. Also whether or not this project being started prior has any bearing on the decision that is made tonight and whether this application meets all of the criteria for approval for a variance. D. Trefethen: Explains that a deck would be considered a foot print just like any other structure. That they would need to be placed outside of the setbacks unless a variance was received to place it within the setback. However for this property he doesn't not know when the original deck was built. Board Discussion: Discuss that they would be granting the variance now to allow the structure and that the structure was already in that footprint. S. Perley: Makes a motion to approve ZO2018-0020 - 62 Winnisquam - Applicant is request a 16 x 12 addition to his house where there is an existing deck. This addition will be in the same position as the current deck and not go any further into the side setback. There is also no change in coverage on the lot. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the ordinance is observed. This is an addition to the home, used for storage and living space. It's consistent use with the neighborhood. Substantial justice is done. The use is consistent with the current use of the property and character. It will do no harm to the general public. The value of the surrounding properties are not diminished. The hardship exists on the lot due to the configuration of the lot and the non-conformity that exists already. They are not increasing anymore into the side setback. The entire building is already non-conforming. There is no place else to go on the property and the use is already authorized. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. Chair: S. Bogert: States that he would like to add some conditions to the motion. Before any more work is done on this site that a permit has been applied for, plans have been approved. The site has been inspected to ensure that it meets the plans forwarded to the Planning Department. If the plans do not match, not submitted, or do not meet this variance, then the variance will not go into force. S. Perley: Concurs with the conditions. R. Maheu: Concurs with the conditions. All voted in favor 5-0 to approve the variance. 8.IV. ZO2018-0021 - 416 Leighton Ave South (PDF) Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application. Agent: Chuck Williams: States that the house is already in the setback and they are looking to add onto it. S. Perley: Asks what the size of the deck is. Agent: C. Williams: States that he cannot remember however it was whatever was written down. R. Maheu: Asks where the garage is located. Agent: States that you cannot see it on the plan because of the tree coverage. S. Perley: Asks what is being done in the garage. Agent: C. Williams: States that the applicant is looking to retire here in the next year or two and they have no storage. That is the purpose of the garage. S. Perley: Asks what they are doing with the garage. Its staying 26 by 26 and you’re just going straight up. Agent: That they are keeping it the same size just going straight up and putting a new roof on it. Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if they will be putting any plumbing in the garage or electricity. Agent: States that they are not putting any plumbing in the garage. However there will be electricity and he does not know where all of the outlets will be place or how many there will be. R. Maheu: Asks what they will be doing with the second story of the garage. Agent: C. Williams: Just storage. S. Perley: Asks what they have going on. D. Trefethen: States that the kitchen that is on the application. Is not part of the application. It meets all of the requirements. S. Perley: Asks whether the deck is going into the side setback or shoreland. D. Trefethen: States that it’s the shoreland. That this is our shoreland protection area. S. Perley: Asks if they would need a shoreland permit from the state. D. Trefethen: States that is correct they would need a permit from the state. That they are pretty much swapping the concrete patio that is there with a deck. M. Foote: Asks where the garage is located on the plan. Agent: C. Williams: States that it is in the front of the property where the trees are showing which makes it very difficult to see. M. Foote: Discusses whether the garage is located in the front and side setbacks and that it will need a variance. D. Trefethen: States that they need a variance for the shoreland protection district as the deck is going into the shoreland protection district. S. Perley: Explains that they would like dimensions for what is going in where and how far into the setbacks they are going. Agent: C. Williams: Explains that he thought he put those dimensions on the application. D. Trefethen: Explains that they need a variance for the garage because it is totally located in the front and side setbacks. S. Perley: States that she would like the dimensions for the work being accomplished so that she knows how far these items are within the setbacks. D. Trefethen: States that when they come in for the building permit we bounce the plans off of application. Agent: C. Williams: States the dimensions are on the application. Chair: S. Bogert: Opens the application to the public at 8:02 PM Abutter: Ralph Langavin: I am concerned sitting back here and you are questioning this guy about shoreland protection district and the last application you didn't. R. Maheu: States that the last application was not within the shoreland protection district. Abutter: Ralph Langavin: States it was or green space. The last applicant was in the shoreland protection act. R. Maheu: Asks if he believes that house is within 50 feet of the shoreland protection district. Abutter: Ralph Langavin: States he wanted to point that out. Chair: S. Bogert: Thank you.  Chair: S. Bogert: Asks if anyone else would like to speak. No one else from the public wished to speak for or against the application. Applicant did not want to make any closing comments. Chair: S. Bogert: Closes the application to the public at 8:04 PM Board Discussion: Does not feel that the application is complete. That they would like more dimensions on how far things are going into the setbacks. Also whether they need to have two applications for each variance. Discuss protocols for approving variances on applications where multiple variances are asked for on a project. Board discusses continuing the application until more information is received. Also that they are concerned about a garage being so close the property line and being a two story. Discusses what information they would like from the applicant. M. Foote: Makes a motion to continue the application ZO2018-0021 for more information. Placement on the garage on the lot and intrusion into the setback. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor to continue the application 5-0 8.V. ZO2018-0022 - 35 Massachusetts Ave (PDF) Application was not opened, as no-one was available to present the application. The application was tabled until the next Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on November 19, 2018. M. Foote: Motioned to table until next month. R. Maheu: Seconds motion. All voted in favor 5-0 Board Discussion: Board discussed options of Zoning Board Applications, when the applicant does not appear and whether the application could be continued, dismissed, tabled or opened and voted on. 9. OTHER BUSINESS Board Discusses 145 Daisy Garner Road and whether the structure should have been taken down. D. Trefethen and R. Mora: Explain that the property owner got a permit. S. Perley: States she would like more information filled out on the Applications. R. Mora: Apologizes for not having all of the information and that if the Zoning Board has questions concerning applications can they always call. S. Perley: States that she did not have time to look at the applications until today. That applications need to have more information and detail. D. Trefethen: Explains that we will try and that these are the applicants application and sometimes it’s very difficult to get information from the applicant. That often applicants don't want to provide further information. Board Discusses: That the board can ask for more information if they did not place it on the application and continue applications. Board and Planning Director: Discuss Storage Containers such as MI BOX. Board Discusses: What they would like to do in the future when applicants are not present for meetings. That each  application needs to be treated the exact same way. Board states that the first time an applicant does not show for a meeting the application will be tabled until the next meeting. That on the second time it will be dismissed. 10. ADJOURNMENT R. Maheu: Motions to adjourn. M. Foote: Seconds motion. All voted in favor to adjourn 5-0 Meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM Minutes respectfully submitted by: Robert Mora, Zoning Technician