Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, October 21,2019 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 10/21/2019 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chair S. Bogert at 6:31 PM. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Steve Bogert; Orry Gibbs; Gail Ober; Mike Foote; Roland Maheu Absent: Michael DellaVecchia G. Ober was seated as a voting member. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Karen Santoro, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Director of Planning/Zoning and Code Enforcement 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. September 16, 2019 ZBA Minutes (PDF) G. Ober made a motion to accept the minutes of the September 16, 2019 meeting as presented. R. Maheu seconded the motion. All in favor. 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. ZO2019-0030AA 263 Lakeside Ave Administrative Appeal (PDF) The Zoning Board of Adjustment was presented with a request by the attorneys for both parties to table Application ZO2019-0030AA 263 Lakeside Ave Administrative Appeal to the November 2019 meeting. S. Bogert made a motion to table Application ZO2019-0030AA 263 Lakeside Ave Administrative Appeal to the November 18, 2019 meeting. O. Gibbs seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 8.II. ZO2019-0024VAR 221 Pleasant St Variance (PDF) Attorney for the applicant Patrick Wood outlined the application provided to the Board including the  S. Bogert made a motion to table Application ZO2019-0030AA 263 Lakeside Ave Administrative Appeal to the November 18, 2019 meeting. O. Gibbs seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 8.II. ZO2019-0024VAR 221 Pleasant St Variance (PDF) Attorney for the applicant Patrick Wood outlined the application provided to the Board including the maps, photos and narrative provided. He extensively outlined the five criteria for granting a variance. The applicant is requesting a variance from the lot density requirements to allow two single bedroom apartments to be built above the existing garage. Currently there is a single family home and 4 apartments. The applicant would like to add two apartments above the existing garage for a total of 6 apartments, plus the main house. He noted that it was not clear in the timeline when the house was divided into the four apartments but it goes back decades. Attorney Wood noted that it meets a recognized need in the area for housing, the property can support the off street parking, its location is within walking distance to downtown, the property has municipal utilities. He also noted that there are a variety of styles of housing in the neighborhood including single family homes; two family homes and multifamily homes. S. Bogert opened the Public Hearing at 7:09 PM. Russell Jones, 220 Pleasant St, spoke in support of the application. He noted that reasonably priced housing is needed in the area; that Mr. Duggan keeps the property well maintained. He noted that Mr. Duggan lives there so the property is owner occupied. He respectfully urged the Board to approve the application. Brian DeLacey, 229 Pleasant St, spoke in opposition to the application. He stated that there is no undue hardship, he also stated that it will increase congestion, there is no rent schedule included as part of application; and that there are building code issues on existing house. Mr. DeLacey stated that the Board is there to maintain the character of the neighborhood and that the increased traffic, noise and use of municipal services would not maintain character. With no additional public to address the Board S. Bogert closed the Public Hearing at 7:29 PM. G. Ober asked the applicant a brief question regarding the parking spaces. It was noted that four spaces are garage spaces. They would be required to have two additional spaces above the number of parking spaces they currently have available. Patrick Wood noted that the two additional parking spaces would not be paved, they would be gravel spaces. He also clarified that there would be no change in footprint of the building; they are going up, not out. The Board discussed the application among themselves. O. Gibbs reiterated that they have to look at each application on its own individual merit as each property has different characteristics. O. Gibbs made a motion to approve with conditions application ZO2019-0024VAR 221 Pleasant St for a variance from Article VI Section 235-33 Maximum Residential Unit Density to allow for the addition of two one-bedroom apartments above the existing garage. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest as it will provide additional safe housing units, municipal services are available, and there is on-site parking (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as it would provide necessary housing without placing a strain on municipal services; and it is in character with the surrounding neighborhood. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would not alter the character of the neighborhood and it does not unduly burden municipal services. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will have no effect on surrounding property values, the area already consists of a mix of single family and multifamily homes. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property; ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one; The proposed use would not unduly harm the abutters; it is a reasonable use of the property; there  If the variance were granted, it will have no effect on surrounding property values, the area already consists of a mix of single family and multifamily homes. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property; ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one; The proposed use would not unduly harm the abutters; it is a reasonable use of the property; there are already other multifamily homes in area so it is not out of character. Condition: The planning department will review the drainage and the additional parking at time of building permit submission. G. Ober seconded the motion. Four in favor; one opposed (Maheu) 8.III. ZO2019-0031VAR 950 Main St Variance (PDF) Paul McManus, applicant, reviewed the request for the Board. He explained that after the previous approval and review of the plans and the cost, it is more feasible to do an extensive renovation and addition versus demolishing and rebuilding. He explained that the only difference in footprint since the submission in 2018 is the existing corner of the building that is proposed to be retained and utilized for the mechanicals and storage. He explained that the way the foundation was built, it would impact the integrity of the remainder of the building if it were removed. S. Bogert opened the Public Hearing at 8:00 PM. Barry Bernard, an abutter to the north, briefly addressed the Board in favor of the application. He noted that the footprint is essentially the same and does not additionally impact him. With no additional public to address the Board S. Bogert closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 PM. O. Gibbs made a motion to approve Application ZO2019-0031 950 Main Street for a variance from Article VI Section 235-35(B) Side Setback to allow for the renovation of an existing building and the retention of an additional portion of the existing building beyond what was previously approved in June 2018. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest as it is a very small portion of the building and will not have an impact on the public. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as it would provide the applicant the ability to improve and grow his business. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would not alter the character of the neighborhood and it does not unduly burden municipal services. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will have no effect on surrounding property values, the building is existing, and the renovation would further improve the building and its services. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; The property is an existing lot with an existing aging building with potential accessibility issues. It has a long standing established use. Current standards cannot be reasonably applied to the existing structure. The change from the variance granted in 2018 is minimal and allows for safe reconstruction and renovation. R. Maheu seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 8.IV. ZO2019-0032VAR 88 Morningside Drive Variance (PDF) Applicant Brendan Florio outlined his request for the Board. Due to the configuration of the property and the 50’ setback from the water, he does not have a location that meets setback requirements. The only place on the property would be in the middle of a state mandated rain garden; this cannot be disturbed. His proposed location places it away from the neighbor and in a small grove of trees to minimize its appearance. Brendan Florio noted that as part of his application he has included a copy of the approval from the homeowners association as well as a copy of his Permit by Notification (PBN) from NH DES Shoreland Protection.  only place on the property would be in the middle of a state mandated rain garden; this cannot be disturbed. His proposed location places it away from the neighbor and in a small grove of trees to minimize its appearance. Brendan Florio noted that as part of his application he has included a copy of the approval from the homeowners association as well as a copy of his Permit by Notification (PBN) from NH DES Shoreland Protection. At 8:23 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing With no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 8:23PM It was noted by the applicant that, as indicated on the drawing in the application package, the shed would be approximately 20’ from rear (water) property line and approximately 24’ from side property line. G. Ober made a motion to approve application ZO2019-0032VAR 88 Morningside Drive for a variance to allow for the installation of a 7’4” x 7’2” shed. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest as it is a very small shed and will not have any impact on the neighbors. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as it would provide the applicant the ability to maintain his property. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would not alter the character of the neighborhood and it does not have any impact on municipal services or the neighbors. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will have no effect on surrounding property values, the shed is very small and will be nearly indistinguishable once it is in place. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; The property is an existing lot with an existing home. There is a rain garden in the available space that meets setbacks. The rain garden is mandated as part of a Shoreland Protection permit approval from when the home was substantially renovated years prior. The owner would not be able to place any outbuilding without relief from the Board. O. Gibbs seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 8.V. ZO2019-0033EQ 26 Teddington Way Equitable Waiver (PDF) Applicant Romeo LaCasse outlined his request for an Equitable Waiver. He explained that there were three pins set prior to construction and that the fourth pin was assumed to be in a transformer pad. The house was completed, after completion an as-build plan was drawn up. At that point the owner and contractor realized that the fourth pin, off of which they had measured the house, was not where they had thought, it was a few feet away. The majority of the house, with the exception of a small portion of the enclosed porch meets setback requirements. The corner of the porch extends 2’1’ into the setback area. At 8:33 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing With no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 8:33PM O. Gibbs made a motion to approve application ZO2019-0033EQ to grant an equitable waiver of dimensional requirements for a 2’1” encroachment into the side setback by the front corner of the house. Encroachment was discovered after completion of construction and an as-built survey was done a. The violation was not noticed or discovered by the owner, former owner, owner's agent or representative or municipal official until after a structure in violation had been substantially completed or until after a lot or other division of land in violation had been subdivided by conveyance to a bona fide purchaser for value The violation was not noticed until the house was completed and an as-built survey was done. b. That the violation was not an outcome of ignorance of the law or ordinance, failure to inquire, obfuscation, misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of any owner, owner's agent or representative but was instead caused by either a good faith error in measurement or calculation made by an owner or owner's agent or by an error in ordinance interpretation or applicability by a municipal official in the process of issuing a permit over which that official had authority;  b. That the violation was not an outcome of ignorance of the law or ordinance, failure to inquire, obfuscation, misrepresentation or bad faith on the part of any owner, owner's agent or representative but was instead caused by either a good faith error in measurement or calculation made by an owner or owner's agent or by an error in ordinance interpretation or applicability by a municipal official in the process of issuing a permit over which that official had authority; The owner and builders were aware of the requirements, an error was made when the front pin was thought to be in one location when it was actually located nearby. The error was not discovered until the house was complete. c. That the physical or dimensional violation does not constitute a public or private nuisance nor diminish the value of other property in the area nor interfere with or adversely affect any present or permissible future uses of any such property; The encroachment in a small portion of the corner of the enclosed porch. It has no effect on the neighbors, does not create a nuisance or diminish property values. d. That due to the degree of past construction or investment made in ignorance of the facts constituting the violation, the cost of correction so far outweighs any public benefit to be gained that it would be inequitable to require the violation to be corrected. The cost of correction would be substantial; the cost would far outweigh any public benefit. G. Ober seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 8.VI. ZO2019-0034VAR 25 McKinley Rd Variance (PDF) Robert Hoey, agent for the applicant, outlined the request. Currently the home has a set of stairs that extend 5 feet into the front setback. The stairs are narrow and difficult for the homeowner to safely navigate. They are proposing a farmer’s porch that is 5 feet wide and 26 feet long (the length of the house). It was noted that the house was built on the front setback line, any work on the front of the house would require relief from the Board. The encroachment is not any closer to the property line, it is increasing in bulk as the porch will go the length of the house. At 8:33 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing With no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 8:33PM O. Gibbs made a motion to approve application ZO2019-0034VAR 25 McKinley Rd for a variance from Article VI Section 235-35(A) front setback to allow for the construction of a 5’ x 26’ farmers porch. (1) The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest as it will not extend farther into the setback and will not have any impact on the neighbors. (2) The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as it would provide the owner safe access to their home. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would not alter the character of the neighborhood and it does not have any impact on municipal services or the neighbors. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will have no effect on surrounding property values and will enhance the value of the subject property. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; The property is an existing lot with an existing home, the home was built on the front setback line. The owner would not be able to do any work to the front of the home without relief from the Board. M. Foote seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 9. OTHER BUSINESS 9.I. 2020 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Calendar (PDF) O. Gibbs made a motion to accept the 2020 Calendar as presented. G. Ober seconded the motion.  All in favor. (5-0) 9. OTHER BUSINESS 9.I. 2020 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Calendar (PDF) O. Gibbs made a motion to accept the 2020 Calendar as presented. G. Ober seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 10. ADJOURNMENT At 8:47 PM G. Ober made a motion to adjourn the meeting. M. Foote seconded the motion. All in favor.