Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, December 17, 2018 - 7:00 PM City Hall Conference Room 200A 12/17/2018 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order at 7:22 PM by Chair Steven Bogert. 2. ROLL CALL R. Mora conducted a roll call with the following members present: S. Bogert; O. Gibbs; R.Maheu; M. Foote; M. DellaVecchia Members Absent: S. Perley 3. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Staff Present: Dean Trefethen, Planning Director; Rob Mora, Assistant Planner 4. RECORDING SECRETARY K. Clark, Zoning Technician 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS O. Gibbs made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 17, 2018 meeting as presented. R. Maheu second. All in favor. S. Bogert informed the audience that due to S. Perley’s absence, M.DelVecchia will be a voting member this meeting. 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. 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. ZO2018-0024 - 218 Sheridan St (PDF) 8.I ZO2018-0024 - 218 Sheridan St (PDF) Applicant is requesting a variance from Article VI Section 235-35A and B to replace the front steps that are located within the front setback and to enclose a porch that is located in the rear of the property and extends approximately two feet into the side setback. Zoning district RS MSL# 322-198-29. Applicant Deborah Connors approached the podium to outline her application for a variance to the ZBA. She explained that right after purchasing the home, the front steps needed to be replaced as the original ones were not safe. Additionally she would like to enclose half of the existing rear deck to create a bedroom space for her son. Project would also entail installing a roof over the remaining portion of the deck. O. Gibbs clarified that the existing deck is 12x20 and they would be enclosing approximately half for  Applicant Deborah Connors approached the podium to outline her application for a variance to the ZBA. She explained that right after purchasing the home, the front steps needed to be replaced as the original ones were not safe. Additionally she would like to enclose half of the existing rear deck to create a bedroom space for her son. Project would also entail installing a roof over the remaining portion of the deck. O. Gibbs clarified that the existing deck is 12x20 and they would be enclosing approximately half for the bedroom; with a roof being installed over remainder. Co-owner of the property, Elizabeth Connors confirmed the information and noted that the existing roofline would be continued over the deck. M. DelVechhia asked about heat and insulation. S. Bogert noted that if the variance is approved and the project moves forward that the building permit and subsequent inspections would look for that. No members of the public spoke for or against the application. There were no additional comments or questions from the Board. Chair S. Bogert closed the public hearing. O. Gibbs made the motion to approve the application # ZO2018-0024 - 218 Sheridan St for a variance from Article VI Section 235-35A and B to replace the front steps that are located within the front setback and to enclose a 12’ by 12’ section of existing porch and to cover the balance of deck that is located in the rear of the property and extends approximately two feet into the side setback. Zoning district RS MSL# 322-198-29. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The variance is not contrary to the public interest. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND This is an improvement of the home, to provide room for son and have safe front steps. It’s a use consistent with the neighborhood. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND The use is consistent with the current use of the property and character. It will do no harm to the general public. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the surrounding properties are not diminished. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; A hardship exists due to the configuration of the lot (narrow) and the non-conformity that exists already. They are not encroaching further into the side setback and only two more feet into the front setback. R. Maheu seconded the motion. Discussion: None All in favor. Variance is granted. 8.II. ZO2018-0025 - 38 Pendleton Beach Road (PDF) Applicant requests a Special Exception from Article VII Section 235-41 and Attachment 2 Table 1 to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit. MSL #: 148-271-9 Zoning District: SFR Mike Belzar, agent for the owner, approached the podium to outline the application for a Special Exception. The applicant is requesting a Special Exception for the installation of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) in the newly reconstructed garage. M. Belzar informed that Board that the additional traffic created by the installation of an ADU would be negligible and that there is sufficient parking on the property to accommodate additional vehicles. The property is serviced by the municipal sewer and one additional living unit would be an undue burden on the system. O. Gibbs asked if the garage is detached (yes); R. Maheu noted that in the past parking along Pendleton Beach Road has been an issue. The members asked how long a Special Exception approval is good for (if it were not installed right away); D. Trefethen stated that an approval on a Special Exception is good for two years. The question of was it a rental unit was briefly discussed. Per the ordinance, the unit, or primary residence, may be used as a rental; owner must occupy either the primary residence or the ADU as their permanent residence. No members of the public spoke for or against the application. The Board noted that the application meets the requirements of an ADU, there is plenty of parking, and that it is not out of character for the adjacent neighborhood. There were no additional comments or questions from the Board. Chair S. Bogert closed the public hearing.  The Board noted that the application meets the requirements of an ADU, there is plenty of parking, and that it is not out of character for the adjacent neighborhood. There were no additional comments or questions from the Board. Chair S. Bogert closed the public hearing. S. Bogert outlined that it would not create undue traffic; it would not overload the system; not create an excessive demand on police/fire/public services; it would not generate a hazard or be out of character in the neighborhood. O. Gibbs noted that the proposed ADU is 672 sf. Per the Ordinance is must be larger than 300 sf but not exceed 750 sf.; the lot size is sufficient in the zone. O. Gibbs made a motion to approve application ZO2018-0025 - 38 Pendleton Beach Road for a Special Exception from Article VII Section 235-41 and Attachment 2 Table 1 to create an Accessory Dwelling Unit. MSL #: 148-271-9 Zoning District: SFR (a) The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter. This unit will be 672SF. (b) The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety. There will only be one additional dwelling unit with negligible traffic impact and there is plenty of parking available on the lot. (c) The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage or sewer system or any other municipal system, nor will there be any significant increase in stormwater runoff onto adjacent property or streets. There will not be any overload on any public water, drainage, sewer system, or any other municipal service. (d) The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. There is no excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. (e) Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. Any special provisions set forth in this chapter are met. (f) The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public, nor be detrimental to the use of or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood. The request will not create a hazard to the health and safety of the general public. (g) The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. (h) The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. M. DelVecchia seconded the motion. S. Bogert noted that they would have to go through proper (building) permitting process. O. Gibbs noted that a Special Exception is good for two years. Vote: All in favor. Special Exception granted. 8.III. ZO2018-0026 - 480 Main St (PDF) Applicant is requesting a variance from Article IX Section 235-58 Table of Sign Regulations and Article VI Section 235-37 to allow for a total of 248 square feet for a wall sign where only 24 SF is allowed, for the height of the sign to be 70 feet where only 60 feet is allowed, and 3 signs to be allowed where only 2 are allowed. Zoning district DR MSL# 442-142-61. Prior to the applicant addressing the board, R. Mora noted the originally they had applied for a variance for the height of the sign. Due to the fact that the space where the sign is located in not inhabited, a variance is not necessary. Peter March of NH Signs, agent for the applicant, addressed the members and outlined the requests for variances. The site is the Landmark Hotel which is in the process of being rebranded to a Best Western hotel. As part of the rebranding the applicant is requesting a variance to the size and number of signs allowed. S. Bogert, for transparency, informed the Board that he works for Lowes; Lowes is a supplier of materials for the renovation project at 480 Main St. He is an hourly employee at a retail location and does not have any personal gain as a result of the renovation. S. Bogert stated that he felt he is impartial in this case. The Board had no issue and the hearing continued. variances. The site is the Landmark Hotel which is in the process of being rebranded to a Best Western hotel. As part of the rebranding the applicant is requesting a variance to the size and number of signs allowed. S. Bogert, for transparency, informed the Board that he works for Lowes; Lowes is a supplier of materials for the renovation project at 480 Main St. He is an hourly employee at a retail location and does not have any personal gain as a result of the renovation. S. Bogert stated that he felt he is impartial in this case. The Board had no issue and the hearing continued. P. March continued his presentation to the Board. He outlined the purpose of the request was to make the hotel more visible and easy to find. He noted that the building is the largest in the area being a seven story, one hundred four room building. The current 24 sf sign in not adequate to inform visitors to the area as to what the building is and to guide visitors to its location. P. March stated that he signs are proportionate to the buildings size and are aesthetically pleasing. P. March summarized the facts provided to the ZBA in support of the variance: (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The variance is not contrary to the public interest it encourages signs as a means of communication, maintains and enhances aesthetic environment and improves pedestrian and traffic safety. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The spirit of the Ordinance is to protect and improve the livability and quality of life in Laconia through sign regulations that among others maintains and enhances the aesthetic environment of the City and to improve pedestrian safety. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND The use is consistent with the current use of the property and character. It will do no harm to the general public. Benefits to the public include renovation of a property that was in need of refurbishment, an increase in taxes paid into the town coffers; and jobs and other opportunities for people at the hotel and in ancillary businesses like restaurants. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the surrounding properties are not diminished. Returning the product to a national brand will benefit the town as a whole and will help drive business to associated properties like restaurants and stores. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; A hardship exists due to the height of the existing building; the location is confusing for visitors due to one-way system. M. DelVecchia questioned the height of the sign; it is taller than the building and R. Maheu asked if the signs will be lighted. D. Hutchins of NH Signs explained that there are parapet walls that have been framed for the signs and that the signs (letters) will be internally lit. No members of the public spoke for or against the application. There were no additional comments or questions from the Board. Chair S. Bogert closed the public hearing. The Board briefly discussed the variance requirements and briefly talked about the restrictions on signage. D. Trefethen noted that there is a disconnect between the sign regulations and the Master Plan regarding what is considered an appropriate size; what is mitigated by the size of the building. O. Gibbs made a motion to approve the variance requests for application ZO2018-0026 - 480 Main St variance from Article IX Section 235-58 Table of Sign Regulations and Article VI Section 235-37 to allow for a total of 248 square feet for a wall sign where only 24 SF is allowed; and 3 signs to be allowed where only 2 are allowed. Zoning district DR MSL# 442-142-61. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The variance is not contrary to the public interest it encourages signs as a means of communication, maintains and enhances aesthetic environment and improves pedestrian and traffic safety. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The spirit of the Ordinance is to protect and improve the livability and quality of life in Laconia through sign regulations that among others maintains and enhances the aesthetic environment of the City and to improve pedestrian safety. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND The use is consistent with the current use of the property and character. It will do no harm to the general public. Benefits to the public include renovation of a property that was in need of refurbishment, an increase in taxes paid into the town coffers; and jobs and other opportunities for people at the hotel and in ancillary businesses like restaurants. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the surrounding properties are not diminished. Returning the product to a national brand will benefit the town as a whole and will help drive business to associated properties like restaurants and stores.  general public. Benefits to the public include renovation of a property that was in need of refurbishment, an increase in taxes paid into the town coffers; and jobs and other opportunities for people at the hotel and in ancillary businesses like restaurants. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the surrounding properties are not diminished. Returning the product to a national brand will benefit the town as a whole and will help drive business to associated properties like restaurants and stores. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; A hardship exists due to the height of the existing building; the location is confusing for visitors due to one-way system. M. DelVecchia second. All in favor. Variances granted. 8.IV. ZO2018-0027 - 1073 Union Ave (PDF) Applicant requests a Special Exception from Attachment 2 Table 1 to change the use of one of the buildings on the lot to a rooming house. MSL #: 346-220-16 Zoning District: C. 8:25 pm. Member O. Gibbs recused herself from the hearing. M. Persson, agent/attorney for the owner Jonathan Bedell, outlined the request for Special Exception. The applicant is requesting to convert one of the buildings, which formerly housed a beauty shop and retail space into a rooming house having six rooms. The main house is currently a three unit multifamily dwelling. M. Persson outlined the criteria for the Special Exception in his letter to the ZBA dated November 16, 2018. 1) The use is specifically authorized in this chapter The Table of Permitted Uses lists boarding/rooming/lodging house under “Residential- Special Service” and properties within the commercial (C) zone must obtain a Special Exception to allow this use. 2) The requested use will not cause undue traffic congestion or put pedestrian safety at risk The property is located on Union Avenue in an area with good road visibility in both directions. The area of Union Avenue adjacent the property is well travelled with many business entrances and drivers are accustomed to traffic turning from and entering the roadway. The addition of six cars pulling into and out of the property onto Union Avenue will have a negligible impact on traffic congestion and public safety. 3) The SE will not overload any public water, drainage or sewer system, or any other municipal system: There will be no change to the footprint of the existing buildings and no additional pavement will be required. Consequently, there will be no increase in storm water runoff. The strain on municipal systems caused by the addition of the small number of individuals living in six new rooming house rooms will be negligible. 4) The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. The small number of individuals living in six new rooming house rooms will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. 5) All special provisions for the use as an SE are fulfilled There are no special provisions specifically applicable to a boarding/rooming/lodging house. Per the Table of Permitted Uses off street parking requirements, there will be one additional space being created for a total of 11 spaces to be utilized by occupants of both buildings. 6) The proposed SE will not create hazards to the health safety or general welfare of the public nor be detrimental to the use or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood. There are currently a number of rooming houses on Union Avenue in Lakeport and the applicant’s property is exactly in line with the character of the neighborhood and its current use, the proposed use will not create hazards to the health safety or general welfare of the public. 7) The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use There are currently a number of rooming houses on Union Avenue in Lakeport and the applicant’s property is even better suited to the proposed use due to its location on a safer portion of Union Avenue for cars to enter and exit the roadway. 8) The proposed SE is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan The proposed SE is also consistent with the spirit and intent of the Master Plan and, in particular the recently approved land use section of the Plan which states in its key findings section that existing land use practices require revision to address reversing population stagnation, increasing the commercial tax base and the promotion of redevelopment. The rooming house will add people, increase the value of the commercial property and be an example of successful redevelopment from its prior use to its current use. The Board members asked for clarification on how it works. M. Persson explained there are individual rooms with a shared kitchen and shared bathrooms. Turnover was also discussed; rent is by the month. J. Bedell explained they are not looking at specialized clients (ie sober house); they do not  base and the promotion of redevelopment. The rooming house will add people, increase the value of the commercial property and be an example of successful redevelopment from its prior use to its current use. The Board members asked for clarification on how it works. M. Persson explained there are individual rooms with a shared kitchen and shared bathrooms. Turnover was also discussed; rent is by the month. J. Bedell explained they are not looking at specialized clients (ie sober house); they do not want that responsibility. J Bedell also clarified that is it usually one person per room although sometimes a couple will rent a room. He also stated that an onsite manager keeps it clean. S. Bogert asked owner and his agent about the number of police calls at the owners other rooming house in the area. J. Bedell stated that it was not good at first but that he has gotten the drugs out and kept it clean. S. Bogert opened the hearing to public comment. Dorothy Duffy, who noted she is a member of the Heritage Commission but is representing herself at the meeting, gave a brief history of the previous owner (Wanda Tibbetts) and the house. She also stated that she has been doing a lot of reading about the air BnB’s. She stated that it has to be examined before the city opens a “can of worms”. She noted that it sounds like a good idea but it is too many rooms. Dorothy Duffy asked that the Board keep in mind the heritage of the property. No other members of the public spoke. S. Bogert informed the Board of an email received from the owners of Trustworthy Hardware expressing their concern about the application for a rooming house across the street from their business. They expressed concern about the type of element that would be attracted to this type of housing and the effect on the surrounding property value. M. DelVecchia asked if it is an allowed use. D. Trefethen explained that it is allowed by Special Exception, that it has to meet parking requirements and is subject to inspections by the Fire Department. Fire suppression was questioned. D. Trefethen noted that he is not sure of the requirements but reiterated that they would have to meet Fire Department regulations. S. Bogert addressed the issue of police department activity. He asked for a report of activity at the owners other location as well as other rooming houses to gauge the amount of activity and see what improvements, if any, had occurred. The ZBA does not want to create a problem. He suggested continuing the hearing until the January 22nd meeting to allow time to get the report. M. Persson noted that a Special Exception would run with the property. S. Bogert reiterated that the Board is trying to make sure that the burden is not increased to the Fire and Police Departments. A vote was taken to continue the hearing until January 22nd. The four members present voted in favor. 8:56 PM The Board members took a five minute recess; O. Gibbs returned to the meeting. 9:02 PM S. Bogert called the meeting back to order. 8.V. ZO2018-0028 - 7 Rose Point (PDF) Applicant is requesting a variance from Article V Section 235-28 and attachment 2 Table 1, Table of Permitted Uses, to allow for a boarding/rooming/lodging house in the RS district. Applicant/owner S. Palmer came to the podium to outline his request for a Special Exception for short term rentals (weekly) in the Long Bay/Bay Reach Community. S. Palmer showed a Powerpoint presentation outlining Air BnBs and the positive impact they have on the economy. He offered a comparison in growth of Air BnBs/VRBO to Uber. He also noted that a recent article in the paper labeled his property a “party house”; he stated that those were pictures of his family gathering, not renters. He informed the Board that he has created a handbook for renters with rules and regulations. As part of his presentation S Palmer presented a letter from his neighbor, E. Sullivan, in support of his application. The Board questioned if he only rents to family groups or if a group of single individuals wanted to rent it, would he allow it. S. Palmer explained there is a screening process for renters. Board member R. Maheu asked what the hardship is, does it allow him to pay taxes/fees. S. Palmer stated that he is looking at the future, they hope to have a future in Laconia, he noted it is an expensive property. He stated he spoke to the City of Laconia, but did not specify who he spoke with, and they told him short term rentals are okay. The Board questioned if he only rents to family groups or if a group of single individuals wanted to rent it, would he allow it. S. Palmer explained there is a screening process for renters. Board member R. Maheu asked what the hardship is, does it allow him to pay taxes/fees. S. Palmer stated that he is looking at the future, they hope to have a future in Laconia, he noted it is an expensive property. He stated he spoke to the City of Laconia, but did not specify who he spoke with, and they told him short term rentals are okay. Discussion regarding it being used as a business in the neighborhood and being a “game changer” by bringing strangers into the neighborhood was brought up by S. Bogert. He noted also that the variance goes with the property and they have to take everything into consideration. S. Palmer reiterated that when companies like Lyft and Uber started every taxi company was anti-Lyft, anti-Uber. He stated that there is a fear of renters; he noted that many leave it better than when they found it. M. Foote asked for clarification of Long Bay/Bay Reach/South Down; were they separate communities. It was noted that Bay Reach is a subdivision in Long Bay and that South Down does not have control over it. S. Palmer noted that they have separate recreation areas. S. Bogert opened the hearing to comments from the public. John Crafts; full time Bay Reach resident; Vice President of the Board of Directors addressed the ZBA. He state that there are thirty eight single family homes; that there is a fairly large contingency opposed to the application. He referenced the letter sent from the Board of Directors to the ZBA. He outlined some of the areas of concern including: when Bay Reach was approved it is single family homes in a dense development, the homes are very close together; the regulations of Bay Reach are outdated, they do currently allow short term (7 day) rentals; by virtue of the internet the short term rentals have mushroomed due to the marketing being easy. J. Crafts informed the Board that when they bought into the community, they bought into the amenities. He commented that the renters are there on vacation, they go to the beach, pool every day. This fills up the space and the regulars don’t have room and that their quality of life has gone down; they are marketing to lower income groups and it is no longer exclusive. J. Crafts also stated that he went through the list for a variance and that there is no hardship. S. Bogert noted that the condo documents do not apply for the variance application, they go by the zoning ordinance and the variance criteria. The condo documents are a civil matter. Lloyd Mayhew, 36 Rose Point, addressed the Board. He has been a resident since 2003, he stated that Mr. Palmer owns several properties. His main concern is that it will snowball with investors. He went through the five criteria. L Mayhew outlined them as follows: short term renters put a lot of strain on the resources, it is a narrow dead end street; it is not in the spirit of the ordinance as it is a residential area, this turns it into a business; it does injustice to the neighborhood as it is very disturbing; it reduces the value of the properties; and it puts a hardship on the neighbors. There was no additional public comment; no closing comments from the applicant. The Board discussed the issue and reviewed the variance criteria. O. Gibbs noted her conflicted feelings on the issue. S. Bogert reiterated that it is a business. Issues discussed included whether it is contrary to the public interest by opening the gates of a private community to the renters; if it changes the character of the neighborhood; whether the spirit of the ordinance is observed; has substantial justice been done; have property values diminished; the cohesion of the neighborhood has been lost. M. DelVecchia commented that the rentals can be good; he noted Weirs Beach went downhill when the hotels went condo; short term rentals are good but he would not want it next to him. R. Maheu noted that they have to look at each case individually. If it meets criteria the ZBA can grant the variance; if it does not, they do not grant the variance. S. Bogert noted that each property has to stand on its own merit. He stated that in this case it appears to be a self-induced hardship. The ZBA then briefly discussed how to craft the motion. S. Bogert made a motion to deny the request for the variance. (1) The variance will be contrary to the public interest;  the variance; if it does not, they do not grant the variance. S. Bogert noted that each property has to stand on its own merit. He stated that in this case it appears to be a self-induced hardship. The ZBA then briefly discussed how to craft the motion. S. Bogert made a motion to deny the request for the variance. (1) The variance will be contrary to the public interest; It is contrary to the public interest and general public; it alters the character of the neighborhood. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The spirit of the ordinance is NOT observed in that the impact to the neighborhood is greater than the benefit to the applicant. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Substantial justice is done by denying variance; it resolves complaints from the neighboring property owners (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND This has not been proven. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; There is no hardship on property, reasonable use exists. R. Maheu clarified that a vote of “yes” would be a vote to deny the variance. S. Bogert confirmed that a “yes” vote would be a vote to deny. M. Foote seconded the motion. All in favor. Variance denied. 8.VI. ZO2018-0029 - 110 Franklin St (PDF) Applicant is requesting a variance from Article V Section 235-26 to allow for a boarding/rooming/lodging house in the RS District MSL # 351-82-10. Applicant/Owner Kari Landino outlined the application for variance to the Board. She stated she has been renting out her house for three years, she comes every Saturday to clean and prepare it. K. Landino said that she is conscientious of her neighbors; she is aware there have been a couple of complaints and that her house has been labeled as a “party house”; it is advertised to sleep eighteen. K. Landino said the property has two driveways to park cars off the street. She stated that she has bookings through next summer. Member R. Maheu asked if she lives in Laconia (no); O. Gibbs noted that if a variance is granted it goes with the house so if she sells it, the variance follows; members also asked about her screening process. S. Bogert opened the hearing to public comment. Doug Shaw, 102 Franklin St, stated that the neighborhood is normally a quiet neighborhood. 110 Franklin St is rented weekly in the summer through VRBO; he has had to call the Landinos regarding loud noise and foul language; he has also had to call the Laconia Police Department. He stated he has three children in his home and the renters are out partying on the deck and in back very late. D. Shaw said that the house is advertised to sleep 18 with parking for four cars in one driveway; three cars in other driveway and three on street in front of house. He noted that even after speaking with the owner the problems have continued and that the character of the neighborhood has changed. Linda Perry, 159 Franklin St, addressed the Board. She stated that she is on a separate block but that it is like living in a resort community; the character has changed due to the short term rentals; the noise at the beach is disturbing; other air BnBs in the neighborhood have an owner on site so they don’t present an issue like 110 Franklin (the applicant). Joseph Charland, Chapin Terrace, addressed the Board. He stated that due to the cars on Franklin St, he does not drive down that way; the hardship is to the neighbors, he referenced the cars and trash being left out for days. J. Charland stated that the ZBA needs to stand up for the citizens; the quality of life has declined; the renters party and set off fireworks all hours of the night. Mike Sweet, Cross St, briefly addressed the Board. He stated he would like to see the Board say no to Air BnBs, he is empathetic with the situation but does not want this in his backyard. Dorothy Duffy briefly addressed the Board, asked that people act, not react; speak up and call the  life has declined; the renters party and set off fireworks all hours of the night. Mike Sweet, Cross St, briefly addressed the Board. He stated he would like to see the Board say no to Air BnBs, he is empathetic with the situation but does not want this in his backyard. Dorothy Duffy briefly addressed the Board, asked that people act, not react; speak up and call the police. 10:52PM There was no further public comment K. Landino had short closing comments; stating that she sees that it is not going her way. She has two rentals for January and hopes they can happen, she will cancel the ones for next summer and refund them. The Board briefly discussed the application and that the hardship is self-created. There are areas where the short term rentals can happen (SFR & CR) S. Bogert made a motion to deny ZO2018-0029 - 110 Franklin St variance from Article V Section 235- 26 to allow for a boarding/rooming/lodging house in the RS District MSL # 351-82-10. (1) The variance will be contrary to the public interest; It is contrary to the public interest and general public; it alters the character of the neighborhood. The public is affected by the traffic; garbage; noise. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The spirit of the ordinance is NOT observed in that the impact to the neighborhood is greater than the benefit to the applicant. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Substantial justice is done by denying variance; it resolves complaints from the neighboring property owners (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND This has not been proven. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; There is no hardship on property, it can be reasonably used. O. Gibbs seconded the motion. R. Maheu again clarified that a vote of “yes” would be a vote to deny the variance. S. Bogert confirmed that a “yes” vote would be a vote to deny. All in favor. Variance denied. 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT At 11:03 PM M. Foote made a motion to adjourn the meeting. O. Gibbs seconded the motion. All in favor. Meeting adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Karen Clark 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.