Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, December 16, 2019 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 12/16/2019 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Meeting was called to order by Chair S. Bogert at 6:30 PM. 2. ROLL CALL Present: Steve Bogert; Orry Gibbs; Roland Maheu; Gail Ober; Michael DellaVecchia; Mike Foote (6:54PM) Michael DellaVecchia 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. November 18, 2019 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Regular Meeting Minutes (PDF) R. Maheu made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 18, 2019 meeting as presented. O. Gibbs 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And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. 8.I. ZO2019-0030AA 263 Lakeside Ave Administrative Appeal (PDF) Application was withdrawn without prejudice by applicant. 8.II. ZO2019-0036VAR 62 Prescott Ave Variance Application (PDF) At the request of the applicant, John Trickett, for 73 Leighton Avenue South, due to extenuating circumstances, his application ZO2019-0037VAR was moved up on the agenda. Applicant Lori Desmarais outlined the application to the Board. She explained that due to the age of the lot, over the course of time boundary markers and monuments became lost and the lot lines not clear. After purchasing the house they discovered that their fence was on the neighboring lot at 62  At the request of the applicant, John Trickett, for 73 Leighton Avenue South, due to extenuating circumstances, his application ZO2019-0037VAR was moved up on the agenda. Applicant Lori Desmarais outlined the application to the Board. She explained that due to the age of the lot, over the course of time boundary markers and monuments became lost and the lot lines not clear. After purchasing the house they discovered that their fence was on the neighboring lot at 62 Prescott, and, the house at 62 Prescott was partially on their lot at 64 Prescott. Both parties consulted with an attorney about the best way to clear up the boundary discrepancy. The boundary line adjustment has been agreed to by both parties. Due to the fact that both lots are non-conforming lots, and that the structures cannot meet setback requirements, a variance is required from the Zoning Board of Adjustment for the Boundary Line Adjustment to occur. (M. Foote arrived 6:54PM) At 6:56 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing With no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 6:56PM O. Gibbs made a motion to approve application ZO2019-0036VAR for a variance from Article VI Section 235-35(B) Side Setback and Rear Setback to allow for a boundary line adjustment between two non- conforming lots (62 and 64 Prescott Ave). (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 specific to these two properties, over time boundary markers and monuments have been lost; (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 two property owners, and any future owners, a clear delineation of the property boundaries. (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. Both parties have addressed the encroachment issue, the boundary line adjustment will make the house and fence more conforming as they will be wholly on the respective owners property. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will not change the property values and will not have a negative effect on surrounding property values. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; The properties are an existing nonconforming lots in an old subdivision, over time monumentation has been lost. The boundary line adjustment makes them more conforming as a house and fence will be wholly on the respective owners’ property. The lots are very small and no change may be made to either lot without relief from the Board. Gail Ober seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 8.III. ZO2019-0037VAR 73 Leighton Ave South Variance Application (PDF) Applicant John Trickett outlined his application. He explained that the current house is more of a cottage and is too small to accommodate his family, additionally he is hoping to retire and make it his year round home. Mr. Trickett is planning on demolishing the current nonconforming structure, and building a new house. The new house would be more conforming as it would meet side setback, however, to maintain the fifty foot buffer to the water, a portion of the new house would be in the front setback area. He noted that some small nonconforming sheds will also be removed. The Board asked about the garage being a dotted line versus the rest of the plan and how big the garage would be. Mr. Trickett stated that the house is to be built first, the garage will be dependent on the cost of the build, he stated it would be either 24x24 or 26x26. The front setback to the corner of the garage would be 15’. At 6:40 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing With no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 6:40PM  The Board asked about the garage being a dotted line versus the rest of the plan and how big the garage would be. Mr. Trickett stated that the house is to be built first, the garage will be dependent on the cost of the build, he stated it would be either 24x24 or 26x26. The front setback to the corner of the garage would be 15’. At 6:40 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing With no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 6:40PM The planning staff noted that the applicant has gone to great lengths to maintain the 50’ buffer to the water. O. Gibbs made a motion to approve application ZO2019-0037VAR 73 Leighton Ave South Variance from Article VI Section 235-35(A) Front Setback to allow for the construction of a new house with either 24’x24’ or 26’x26’ garage. The front setback would be 15’ to 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 improve the appearance and overall value of the property; (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 utilize and improve his property by constructing a house that will meet the needs of his family. (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. The applicant has gone through great lengths to maintain the 50’ buffer from the lake. (4) The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will increase the property value and will not have a negative effect on surrounding property values. (5) Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; The property is an existing lot on an undeveloped road. The lot is undersized for the zone (.41 acres; minimum lot size is 2 acres); the lot is oddly shaped; the building envelope is small and uneven. Gail Ober seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 8.IV. ZO2019-0038VAR 111 Pendleton Rd Variance Application (PDF) M. DellaVecchia stepped back to alternate at arrival of M. Foote. Jordon Burlos, agent for the applicant, addressed the Board and outlined the application to convert a carport that is in poor condition to living space. He provided an image of what it will look like when it is complete to give the Board a sense of the project. The Board and the applicant discussed the proximity of the current carport to the neighboring property. After a brief discussion, a two foot setback was agreed upon to help ensure that the structure remains wholly on the property. It was noted that there was a previous variance to allow the construction of the existing carport. At 7:13 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing With no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing at 7:13PM G. Ober made a motion to approve application ZO2019-0038VAR 111 Pendleton Rd for a variance from Article VI Section 235-35(B) Side Setback to allow for the reconstruction and conversion of a carport to living space. (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 improve the appearance and overall value of the property; (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 his property by demolishing a carport in need of repair and replacing it  (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 improve the appearance and overall value of the property; (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 his property by demolishing a carport in need of repair and replacing it with new living space. A 2’ setback would improve location in proximity to neighbor. (3) Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would not alter the character of the neighborhood, it improves the property, 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 increase the property value and will not have a negative effect on surrounding property values. (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 lot is undersized for the zone; the building envelope is extremely small and there are wetlands to the rear of the property. Condition: A two (2) foot setback from side property line must be maintained. O. Gibbs seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0) 9. OTHER BUSINESS None. 10. ADJOURNMENT At 7:22 PM M. Foote made a motion to adjourn the meeting. O. Gibbs seconded the motion. All in favor. (5-0)