Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday November 16, 2020 RESCHEDULED TO Thursday, November 19, 2020 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc City Council Chamber 11/19/2020 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER S. Bogert read aloud the ZOOM meeting information. Chair S. Bogert called the meeting order at 6:38 PM. 2. ROLL CALL Attendance was made by roll call vote: Present: S. Bogert; M. Foote; G. Ober (via Zoom); R. Maheu; M. DellaVecchia 3. RECORDING SECRETARY K. Santoro, Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE D. Trefethen, Director of Planning and Community Development 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. October 19, 2020 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Minutes (PDF) M. Foote made a motion to accept the minutes of the October 19, 2020 meeting as presented. M. Dellavecchia seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor (5-0) 5.II. October 21, 2020 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Minutes (PDF) M. Foote made a motion to accept the minutes of the October 21, 2020 meeting as presented. R. Maheu seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor (5-0) 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. 7.I. ZO2020-0087VAR 522 Endicott St N Variance Application (PDF) The applicants, Robert Boyd and Noel Boyd, outlined their application to the Board. They noted that due to water issues, lot size and a brook that runs through their back yard that keeping the camper in the rear of the yard in not feasible. The applicants noted that their property sits below the site line of the road so it would not be an eyesore, they keep it away from the property line, and it would not devalue the neighboring home. In response to questions from M. Foote, they noted that they have owned it for 3-4 years, it is not used for housekeeping and it is not connected to water or sewer. It is typically registered but due to COVID this year they did not bring it on the road. At 6:55 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing Linda Pilliod, 222 Rollercoaster Rd, spoke in opposition of the application. She noted that she lives on Rollercoaster Rd but also owns the 1.2 acre parcel directly next to the applicants. She noted that  road so it would not be an eyesore, they keep it away from the property line, and it would not devalue the neighboring home. In response to questions from M. Foote, they noted that they have owned it for 3-4 years, it is not used for housekeeping and it is not connected to water or sewer. It is typically registered but due to COVID this year they did not bring it on the road. At 6:55 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing Linda Pilliod, 222 Rollercoaster Rd, spoke in opposition of the application. She noted that she lives on Rollercoaster Rd but also owns the 1.2 acre parcel directly next to the applicants. She noted that granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest, it is in a commercial area, it is already non-conforming with the number of buildings on the lot (2 houses; 3 outbuildings) and allowing the camper in the side yard would make it more non-conforming. She noted it would also set a precedent. There are places that can store trailers. Chair S. Bogert read aloud a letter from Jim St. Pierre, 114 Morningside Drive. It was noted that this letter was for both the application for 522 Endicott St N and 958 Main St., both applications are requests for variances from §235-41(L). From Mr. St. Pierre: “I am opposed to granting these 2 variances for following reasons: 1. Within a mile of my home I pass three camper/trailers parked in a driveway or side of homes on a main street. Laconia is in a competitive market with Gilford and Meredith for home sales and I get concerned buyers will look at Laconia in a negative light. 2. Do not benefit the rest of Laconia’s citizens in anyway. 3. Add no increase in tax value. 4. Does not add to the visual appeal of a house, neighborhood, or city. This is of particular concern when it comes to real estate in Laconia as a place to buy a home or retire. 5. Can negatively impact value of a surrounding home when listed for sale. 6. Approval would suggest to others it is ok to use yards as storage against a city ordinance by submitting a variance. D. Trefethen addressed the Board. He noted that one of the functions of the office is to drive around and if properties are not in compliance with the Ordinances, send letters, etc. to property owners to inform them of the requirement. He also noted that during the fall there is an influx of complaints as boats get taken out of the water and campers are being stored for winter. D. Trefethen noted the concern about setting a precedent. At 7:08 PM, with no additional public to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing. The Board had no additional questions for the applicant. The applicants, in closing comments, stated they have tried to keep it out of the way, they are trying to make the property look nicer, there have been campers on and off that property for over thirty years with no prior issues. They also noted that you have to look for it to notice it is there. M. Dellavecchia presented an ad from The Daily Sun to the Board. The ad is for camper storage $100 for the season with a name and phone number. The Board briefly discussed the application. M. Foote made a motion to deny application ZO2020-0087VAR for a variance from Article VII Section 235-41(L) to allow the parking of a camper in the side yard. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; Granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest as this is not what the Ordinance was created for. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would not be observed as the Ordinance was intended to improve the appearance of the City by having them stored in rear yard 3. Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would not do substantial justice because the greater benefit is to the applicant and not the community 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it may diminish the value of the neighboring properties, the lot is unattractive due to large amount of items on the lot; 5. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; The hardship criteria has not been met, the hardship is self-created. G. Ober seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. All in favor. (5-0) 7.II. ZO2020-0091SE 1A Gables Drive Special Exception Application (PDF) Thomas and Jeanette VanDeWater outlined the additional information as requested by the Board. They provided an affidavit signed by the owner of Bayside Rentals confirming at least seven years of rentals. At 7:26 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing. At 7:26 PM, with no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing.  Thomas and Jeanette VanDeWater outlined the additional information as requested by the Board. They provided an affidavit signed by the owner of Bayside Rentals confirming at least seven years of rentals. At 7:26 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing. At 7:26 PM, with no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing. M. Dellavecchia made a motion to approve application ZO2020-0091SE Applicant requests a Special Exception per Article VII Section 235-70(2) to allow Short Term Lodging. a. The use requested is specifically authorized in the chapter: The use is authorized by Special Exception in the RS Zone. b. The requested use will not increase demand for municipal services: The property will not be used in any way that exceeds demand as a permanent residence. c. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled; The provisions for trash removal, occupancy limits and off street parking will be met. d. The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public; There will be no hazard created for the public. e. The requested use meets ONE of the two following criteria: (1) The applicant can demonstrate that the use in question has been common practice at this specific property and structure for a period of not less than 5 years prior to the enactment of the Short-Term Lodging Ordinance. The applicant has provided copies of rental calendars and a sworn affidavit from the rental agent indicating at least five years of rental history at the property. M. Foote seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. All in favor. (5-0) 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. ZO2020-0101SE 61 Pickerel Pond Road Special Exception Application (PDF) Attorney for the applicants, Phil Brouillard, addressed the Board. He noted that the two applications are ultimately for the one overall project but that the two uses required separate applications. The first application is for a 140’ communications tower, the second application is for the accessory building (transmitter building) that is located at the base of the tower. He introduced Jeff Levitan of Northeast Communications, he is available for any technical questions. Attorney Brouillard noted that the tower is 140’, approximately half the height of the tower located across the street. The proposed location is one of the highest points in the City making it an ideal location for a tower; a technician visits transmitter building once a month; it would located on a ledge outcropping in an already cleared and mowed field; it would have no effect on drainage; it is located such that if there were an event that would cause the tower to fall, it would not hit anything. He noted that with more and more phones and devices there is an increase in demand, additional towers are important and necessary. P. Brouillard outlined the accessory building (transmitter building), he indicated that the pictures presented of the building across the street are a good representation of what would be built. It is an approximately 16’ x 18’ building, it has electricity but no water or sewer. The building would be checked monthly and would be surrounded by a chain link fence to prevent unauthorized access. P. Brouillard noted that if the applications are approved for the use, the project still has to go for site plan review with the Planning Board. M. Foote asked about access to the site, P. Brouillard informed the Board that access would be through “Old Parade Road”. At 7:47 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing. Linda Golden, owner of 29 Pickerel Pond Rd, addressed the Board. She noted she owns the property with her brother Michael Lovely who lives out of state and could not attend but he shares her concerns. L. Golden stated that they are in opposition to the project, she lives in the area, it is country and she wants it to stay that way. She also stated she has concerns about the environment, use of the access road and that it will affect the property values. She also noted that the septic system is on the side of At 7:47 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing. Linda Golden, owner of 29 Pickerel Pond Rd, addressed the Board. She noted she owns the property with her brother Michael Lovely who lives out of state and could not attend but he shares her concerns. L. Golden stated that they are in opposition to the project, she lives in the area, it is country and she wants it to stay that way. She also stated she has concerns about the environment, use of the access road and that it will affect the property values. She also noted that the septic system is on the side of the easement and the traffic might damage it. L. Golden also commented that the type of lighting may affect her house, and she was concerned that there would be blasting. Linda Golden’s son, Jared Golden, read a letter from his uncle Michael Lovely, who co-owns 29 Pickerel Pond Rd. He reiterated the concerns about property values, he noted that the access road has not been used in years and that it is consistently wet. M. Lovely (in letter) had concerns that he only had a few days notice and did not have time to obtain legal counsel. He requested an extension of 30 days to allow time to obtain counsel. Jared Golden, commented that they had spent a lot of money on lawn and horseshoe pits in the area of the easement. He stated that this is not the neighborly thing to do. M. Foote asked if they had previously looked into buying back the property or nullifying the easement (No). S. Bogert asked the Golden’s what the deed says. L. Golden stated that she did not know about the easement. Michael Horne, 2870 Parade Road, addressed the Board. He is opposed to the project, he has concerns that using the road will flood his property, he commented they already have access via the Cheney’s driveway, he noted that the upside of his rear driveway is always wet and it runs next to easement; he wants a study done. Dennis Franciosi, 2938 Parade Road, asked why the tower cannot be placed next to the existing tower across the street. At 8:10 PM Chair S. Bogert closed the public hearing. P. Brouillard addressed the Board. He noted that he walked the right of way with the engineer and that they had no issues. He stressed that the issues being raised by the neighbors are issues that should and will be addressed when the Site Plan application is filed with the Planning Board, the two applications before the Zoning Board are to determine if it is an appropriate location for a radio/communications tower and supporting building. P. Brouillard answered some of the concerns by stating that the tower cannot be put on someone else’s property, there will be no lights on the tower (it is not tall enough to require them); the use of the ROW would be minimal and that there will not be blasting, the tower will be pinned to the ledge. He stated that since they do mee the criteria for a Special Exception, that there is no reason for a delay. G. Ober commented that the Board needs to stick to the issue of the Special Exceptions, she has not heard any reason to deny the requests. The issues that have been raised by the abutters are not in the purview of the Zoning Board, they are issues for the Planning Board application. M. Foote noted he is sympathetic to their concerns but they are an issue for the Planning Board. R. Maheu asked about the height of the tower. D. Trefethen noted that they do not fall under height restrictions as structures do. M. Foote also noted that the location is on high ridge and that it will be on a ledge outcropping, not taking away from farmland and that there are trees to act as visual buffer. G. Ober made a motion to approve Application ZO2020-0101SE Applicant for a Special Exception from Article V Section 235-26 Uses Permitted by Special Exception to allow for a communications tower (140’). a. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: The use is specifically authorized by Special Exception per Article 235-26. b. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: The unmanned communications tower accessed monthly over private drive (ROW), no direct pedestrian access; no impact on public safety. c. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage or sewer system or any other  The unmanned communications tower accessed monthly over private drive (ROW), no direct pedestrian access; no impact on public safety. 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. Tower is located in a field that will remain largely undisturbed. No runoff onto adjacent property or streets. d. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. The use will not create excessive demand for municipal police and fire protection and will have no impact on the school system. e. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. The provision of a special exception will be met if granted; there are no other special provisions. 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 use will not create hazards to health, safety or general welfare of the public and will not change the character of the neighborhood. g. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. Tower located on ledge outcropping on land with one of the highest elevations in the city, perfect for a communications tower. h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. The requested us is consistent with the spirit and intent of the chapter, other similar taller communications tower is in same area of the city. M. Dellavecchia seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor. (5-0) Motion passes 8.II. ZO2020-0102SE 61 Pickerel Pond Road Special Exception Application (PDF) See Application ZO2020-0101 for discussion and public hearing. Applications ZO2020-0101SE and ZO2020-0102SE were presented and heard together. G. Ober made a motion to approve ZO2020-0102SE Applicant for a Special Exception from Article V Section 235-26 Uses Permitted by Special Exception to allow for a non-residential accessory building (transmitter building). a. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: The use is specifically authorized by Special Exception per Article 235-26. b. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: The unmanned nonresidential transmitter building, which is surrounded by chain link fence, is accessed monthly over private drive (ROW), no direct pedestrian access; no impact on public safety. 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. The unmanned nonresidential transmitter building is located in a field that will remain largely  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. The unmanned nonresidential transmitter building is located in a field that will remain largely undisturbed. No runoff onto adjacent property or streets. d. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. The unmanned, fenced in transmitter building will not create excessive, or any, demand for municipal police and fire protection and will have no impact on the school system. e. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. The provision of a special exception will be met if granted; there are no other special provisions. 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. Accessory building 16’ x 18’, fenced in by chain link fence, will not create hazards to health, safety or general welfare of the public and will not change the character of the neighborhood. It will not be visible to any abutter or from any street or road. g. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. Building located on ledge outcropping on land with one of the highest elevations in the city, perfect for a communications tower and support building. h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. The requested us is consistent with the spirit and intent of the chapter, other similar nonresidential accessory use building located next to a communications tower is in same area of the city. R. Maheu seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor. (5-0) Motion passes 8.III. ZO2020-0105VAR 401 Lakeside Ave Variance Application (PDF) Applicant has requested a continuance to the December 21, 2020 meeting. G. Ober made a motion to continue application ZO2020-0105VAR. for a variance from Article VI Section 235-35A Front Setback and 235B Side and Rear setback to allow for the construction of a 12x12 deck; 20x20 addition and the reconfiguration of garage with a bonus room to the December 21, 2020 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting. M. Foote seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor. (5-0) Motion passes 8.IV. ZO2020-0106VAR 958 Main St Variance Application (PDF) Applicant B. Bernard outlined his application to the Board. He is requesting a variance to allow him to park his motorhome in the driveway. He explained that he purchase the motorhome last year, he noted that COVID has restricted some of their plans to travel with it but they use it often to get away. He noted that it is inspected, insured, registered. B. Bernard stated he cannot build a garage for it as he would be encroaching on side setback. He uses it on a regular basis. At 8:35 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing. Paul McManus, 950 Main St., addressed the Board, he noted that the applicants have owned the RV for about a year and a half, it has not been a problem, he noted that they use it on a regular basis. At 8:38 PM, with no one else to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing.  At 8:35 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing. Paul McManus, 950 Main St., addressed the Board, he noted that the applicants have owned the RV for about a year and a half, it has not been a problem, he noted that they use it on a regular basis. At 8:38 PM, with no one else to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing. D. Trefethen reiterated his comments from earlier regarding the intent of the ordinance, he noted it is difficult, this is a highly visible situation. He stated his concern is opening the floodgates for requests. The Board briefly discussed parking versus storage. M. Foote noted that there are places where they can be stored, he does not want to open floodgates for variance requests. G. Ober made a motion to deny application ZO2020-0106VAR for a variance from Article VII Section 235-41L Residential Accessory Uses to allow for parking of a motorhome in the driveway. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; Granting the variance would be contrary to the public interest as it would open floodgates for requests and can be unsightly for anyone passing by. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would no be observed as it is in direct conflict with the ordinance and its intent. 3. Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would not do substantial justice because it would be in direct conflict to the intent of the ordinance. 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will may or may not diminish the value of the neighboring properties; 5. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; There is not a hardship. Alternative off-site storage is available to RV owners. M. Foote seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor. (5-0) Motion passes 8.V. ZO2020-0107VAR 978 Weirs Blvd #15 Variance Application (PDF) Applicant Anthony Schaffer outlined the application to the Board. He informed the Board that they would like to reconstruct the existing stairs and add a set of stairs/ramp to the second floor, where there is no current egress door. He noted that there would be no impact on the surrounding properties, it will not look out of character in the neighborhood and it will improve their safety by providing a means of egress from the second floor (currently they have to go up a spiral staircase to the top floor to exit out the door). He explained that the unit was built before zoning and the front of the house sits on the front property line, anything he does outside would require relief from the Board. At 8:56 PM S. Bogert opened the public hearing. At 8:56 PM, with no one to speak for or against the application, S. Bogert closed the public hearing. M. Foote made a motion to approve Application ZO2020-0107VAR for a variance from Article VI Section 235-35A Front Setback to allow for the construction of a new side entrance and stairs and the reconstruction/expansion of existing stairs and landings. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The house has been in this location since the early 1900s, nearby properties and dwellings have similar proximity to the property lines. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as the owners would be improving the house and improving safety with the installation of an additional means of egress. 3. Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would upgrade the property as the existing stairs must be replaced for safety reasons, and the new side entrance/exit increases safety.  2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed as the owners would be improving the house and improving safety with the installation of an additional means of egress. 3. Substantial justice is done; AND Granting the variance would do substantial justice because it would upgrade the property as the existing stairs must be replaced for safety reasons, and the new side entrance/exit increases safety. 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND If the variance were granted, it will not diminish the value of the neighboring properties; it will be located a significant distance from all abutting properties and is not out of character with the neighborhood. 5. Literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship; The current structure was built in early 1900’s prior to zoning regulations being in place, the current stair structure is not sound and needs to be replaced and the second set of stairs increases safety. The project is reasonable because it is in harmony with the surrounding properties, the property is owner occupied and safety issues must be remedied. M. Dellavecchia seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor. (5-0) Motion passes 9. OTHER BUSINESS 9.I. 2021 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Meeting Calendar (PDF) The Board briefly reviewed the calendar; it was noted by D. Trefethen that the last two filing deadlines fall on holidays, the filing deadline for December 2021 should be November 24th (it was 26th on calendar presented); filing deadline for January 2022 should be December 23rd (it was the 24th on calendar presented). Calendar will be updated and distributed. G. Ober asked about when Dean will address the Short Term Lodging with the Board. 10. ADJOURNMENT At 9:09 PM M. Foote made a motion to adjourn the meeting. R. Maheu seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor. (5-0) Meeting adjourned.