Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, December 21, 2020 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 12/21/2020 - Minutes 1. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (PDF) G. Ober read aloud the ZOOM meeting information. 2. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair G. Ober called the meeting order at 6:41 PM. 3. ROLL CALL Attendance was made by roll call: Present: M. Foote; G. Ober (via Zoom); R. Maheu; M. DellaVecchia (8:17PM) Absent: S. Bogert G. Ober informed the applicants that the full board was not present; one member is absent with notification, a second has notified the Planning Office that he will be late but will be in attendance. The applicants were given the option to move forward with their application and a four-member board or continue the application to the January meeting. The applicant for 58 Edgewater Ave opted to wait for a full board and was continued to the January 2021 meeting. Phil Brouillard, agent for the applicant for the two Province Road applications asked if he could wait until there were four members present, the applications he is representing could be bumped down if the other applicants were willing to move forward with three members. The other applicants present, both in person, and on ZOOM were willing to move forward with their applications. 4. RECORDING SECRETARY K. Santoro, Zoning Technician 5. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE D. Trefethen, Director of Planning and Community Development 6. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 6.I. November 19, 2020 Zoning Board Of Adjustment Minutes (PDF) R. Maheu made a motion to accept the minutes of the November 19, 2020 meeting as presented. M. Foote seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor (3-0) 7. EXTENSIONS 8. 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. Acting Chair G. Ober noted that there is an application from the City of Laconia at the end of the agenda. Due to the fact that the City is exempt from its Ordinances, this application is for transparency. She asked if the members present would like to move this item up on the agenda to allow some extra time for the fourth member to arrive. Time. Acting Chair G. Ober noted that there is an application from the City of Laconia at the end of the agenda. Due to the fact that the City is exempt from its Ordinances, this application is for transparency. She asked if the members present would like to move this item up on the agenda to allow some extra time for the fourth member to arrive. M. Foote made a motion to move application ZO2020-0113VAR for 30 and 50 Church St. up on the agenda. R. Maheu seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor (3-0) D. Trefethen, Director of Planning ad Community Development outlined the application. He explained that the City had purchased the church property, and since the purchase the lot was subdivided into three lots, one containing the mansion (rectory), one containing the church, and the third containing the old school. The parking area in the rear was divided between the first (mansion) and third (school) lot. The City is proposing to divide off the parking area, which contains approximately 80 spaces. D. Trefethen noted that there are easements in place for the three driveways that exist on the properties, so access is not an issue. The application is before the Board as the new lot would not have any street frontage as required by Ordinance. As part of the bond used to purchase the properties was the gain of general parking, by dividing the lot the City can sell the mansion and the old school lot but still retain the parking. G. Ober noted that this was not a hearing but she opened the meeting to the public for comment. At 6:57 G. Ober opened the application public comment. At 6:57, with no public indicating they would like to comment she closed the public comment. The Board noted that they are not voting on a variance but the members were polled for consensus (3-0) with the application. 8.I. ZO2020-0105 401 Lakeside Ave Amended Variance Application (PDF) Applicant Lynn Hapke outlined her application to the Board. The variance is requested for an addition of a second floor on the detached garage with a second floor rear deck and a small front second floor deck as well as the addition of a deck to the main house. The Board asked some questions for clarification regarding the project. At 7:12 PM G. Ober opened the public hearing. At 7:13 PM with no one to speak for or against the application G. Ober closed the public hearing. M. Foote made a motion to approve 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 12’x12’ deck with 2’ cantilever; and the reconfiguration of garage adding a second floor for a bonus room to include external stairs, rear second floor deck 8’x24’ and front second floor deck 5’x10’. He conditioned the approval that the external stairs do not exceed four feet in width and that all appropriate building permits are applied for. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; This will allow the owners to use their property; it will not have an effect on the public. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The application is in the spirit of the ordinance, it allows the owners to improve an older property that does not conform to the current regulations. 3. Substantial justice is done; AND The variance will allow for the improvement of the property which enhances the neighborhood. 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the property will not be diminished, and will potentially increase the value of other surrounding properties. 5. For the purpose of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means that, owning to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area: The lot is a long narrow lot with a very narrow building envelope. To do any work on the property would  The value of the property will not be diminished, and will potentially increase the value of other surrounding properties. 5. For the purpose of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means that, owning to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area: The lot is a long narrow lot with a very narrow building envelope. To do any work on the property would require relief from the Board. The proposed projects are reasonable and in harmony with the area. R. Maheu seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. All in favor (3-0) 9. 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. 9.I. ZO2020-0106VAR 108 Academy St Variance Application (PDF) The applicant was not present either online or in person. The Board continued the application to the January 2021 meeting. 9.II. ZO2020-0107VAR Province St Variance (PDF) 9.III. ZO2020-0108SE Province St Special Exception Application (PDF) After waiting for the fourth member to arrive, due to time, they opted to wait until January. The Board continued the application to the January 2021 meeting. 9.IV. ZO2020-0109VAR 256 Gilford Ave Variance Application (PDF) Applicants Douglas Teegarden and Cheryl Knight outlined their application. They explained that they installed the fence and did not realize that the Ordinance limited the fence to four feet in height in the front setback. The applicants stated that the neighbor has dogs that are not contained in his yard that they installed the fence to prevent the dogs from coming onto their property. D. Trefethen explained that the Ordinance only regulates the height of the fence in the front setback, it was the intent of ordinance to maintain aesthetics. M. Foote noted that the issue of the dogs that has been raised is an issue for the animal control officer, it is not under the purview of the Board. He noted that the fence does not have a front and the dogs could run around it. At 7:52 PM G. Ober opened the public hearing Elizabeth Newell, 249 Gilbert Ave, addressed the Board via ZOOM. She commented that the fence does not block sight lines. There is a truck that is sometimes parked in front of the neighbors property that blocks sight lines but the fence does not. At 7:54 PM with no one else to speak for or against the application, G. Ober closed the public hearing. The Board discussed the Ordinance, in the front setback the fence is not supposed to be over four feet in height. The board briefly talked about the idea of chain link versus the stockade fence that is currently installed. G. Ober noted that it doesn’t impede the sight line, nor does it impede pedestrian traffic but it does break up the line of the neighborhood and is inconsistent with the other houses along Gilford Ave. M. Foote made a motion to deny application ZO2020-0109VAR for a variance from Article VII Section 235-39D Fences and walls to allow for a six-foot fence in the front yard area. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The fence will be contrary to the public interest as it is aesthetically not pleasing and would be there in perpetuity.  M. Foote made a motion to deny application ZO2020-0109VAR for a variance from Article VII Section 235-39D Fences and walls to allow for a six-foot fence in the front yard area. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; The fence will be contrary to the public interest as it is aesthetically not pleasing and would be there in perpetuity. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The spirit of the ordinance would not be observed as the ordinance does allow for a 4’ fence 3. Substantial justice is done; AND Substantial justice is not done as the benefit would be to the applicant, not the public 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the surrounding properties may or may not be diminished by the installation of the fence. 5. For the purpose of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means that, owning to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area: The hardship is not in the land and, if any, was created by the neighbors and there are other avenues for relief (e.g. Animal Control Officer). The fence is not in harmony with the rest of the neighborhood. G. Ober seconded the motion. Vote was taken by roll call vote. All in favor (3-0) 9.V. ZO2020-0110VAR 58 Edgewater Ave Variance Application (PDF) The Board continued the application to the January 2021 meeting. 9.VI. ZO2020-0111VAR 2276 Parade Rd Variance Application (PDF) Michael DellaVecchia arrived (8:17 PM) The Board voted on the Special Exception first (see below), then heard the application for a variance. Applicant Jennifer Mitchell outlined the request for the variance. She explained that she is requesting the extra 250 sf to allow the ADU to be handicap accessible. The intended use for the unit is for parents who are getting older and to make the unit ADA accessible is planning ahead in case either parent needed a wheelchair in the future. At 8:39 PM G. Ober opened the public hearing. At 8:39 with no one to speak for or against the application, G. Ober closed the public hearing. M. Foote made a motion to approve application ZO2020-0111VAR for a variance from Article VII Section 235-41A (8) Accessory Dwelling Unit to allow for a 1000 SF Accessory Dwelling Unit. 1. The variance will not be contrary to the public interest; This will allow the owners to care for family members; it will not have an effect on the public. 2. The spirit of the ordinance is observed; AND The application is in the spirit of the ordinance, it allows the owners to improve property to allow for an ADU that will meet the future needs of their parents.. 3. Substantial justice is done; AND Substantial justice is done as the ADU is allowed by Special Exception, this will allow for future ADA needs. 4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the property and the surrounding properties will not be diminished by the addition of the ADU 5. For the purpose of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means that, owning to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area:  4. The value of surrounding properties are not diminished; AND The value of the property and the surrounding properties will not be diminished by the addition of the ADU 5. For the purpose of this subparagraph, “unnecessary hardship” means that, owning to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area: The requested use is a reasonable one as it allows for the care of family members and their future needs. It is in harmony with the neighborhood and meets all setback requirements. R. Maheu seconded the motion. A roll call vote was taken. All in favor (4-0) 9.VII. ZO2020-0112SE 2276 Parade Rd Special Exception Application (PDF) Applicant Jennifer Mitchell outlined her application for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The intent is that it is being installed for her parents who are getting older. She explained that it would be to the rear of the house and would not stand out to anyone going by the property. At 8:26 PM G. Ober opened the public hearing. At 8:27 with no one to speak for or against the application, G. Ober closed the public hearing. M. Foote made a motion to approve Application ZO2020-0112SE for a Special Exception from Article VII Section 235-41A Accessory Dwelling Unit to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit. a. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: The use is specifically authorized by Special Exception per Article 235-41A. b. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: The Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) will not create undo traffic congestion or impair pedestrian 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 ADU will not overload any public water or sewer system (private systems), and there will no increase in stormwater runoff. d. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services. The ADU will not create excessive demand on municipal police, fire, schools or solid waste. e. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. All special provisions are fulfilled. 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 ADU will not be out of character with the adjacent neighborhood and will not create any hazards to the public. g. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use. The proposed location for the ADU is appropriate, it is in a Rural Residential Zone and will not have any impact on the surrounding properties. h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. The use as an ADU is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Master Plan to provide small, affordable living units.  h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan. The use as an ADU is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Master Plan to provide small, affordable living units. M. Dellavecchia seconded the motion. Roll call vote was taken. All in favor (4-0) 9.VIII. ZO2020-0113VAR 30 And 50 Church St Variance Application (PDF) See above. 10. OTHER BUSINESS 10.I. Short Term Lodging (PDF) At the request of the Board, Dean Trefethen reviewed the Short Term Lodging Ordinance. He outlined which zones are approved with a permit and which require a special exception prior to a permit being approved. He also reviewed the exceptions to the zones, for example, seasonal cottages. He noted that the intent of the Ordinance was to 1) help reduce the problems in the residential- non commercial resort areas, and 2) to help prevent investors from buying up all the housing stock in Laconia. The Board discussed the Colonial Theater project and the relationship to available short term lodging for future performers and patrons. In addition to the parameters and the intent of the Ordinance, he briefly reviewed the permitting process, including inspections, requirements, and notification of the abutters. 11. ADJOURNMENT At 9:36 PM M. Foote made a motion to adjourn the meeting. R. Maheu seconded the motion . All in favor (4-0).