Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, July 18, 2022 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 1. CALL TO ORDER 6:35 pm 2. ROLL CALL T 7/18/2022 - Minutes F A Richard Boddie (Alternate), Jane LaRoche (Alternate), Roland Maheu, Michael DellaVecchia, Steven Bogert (Chairman), Marcia Hayward 3. RECORDING SECRETARY R 3.I. Recording Secretary Sheena Duncan, Zoning Planner Technician D 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE 4.I. Staff In Attendance Dean Trefethen, Director of Planning & Community Development Sheena Duncan, Zoning Planner Technician 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. 6-21-22 Draft Minutes Motion by R. Maheu to accept minutes as written, seconded by M. Hayward. All in favor 5/0 6. EXTENSIONS 6.I. ZO2020-0013VAR - 156 Eastman Shore Road N ZO2020-0013VAR - 156 Eastman Shore Road, Variance from Article IV Section 235-19 Shoreland Protection and VI Section 235-35 (B) Side and rear setbacks; to reduce rear setback for the construction of a screen porch-Extension request : Robert Owen addressed the Board- due to pandemic related complications with contractors and materials availability , he was unable to start the work that he intended to. He continues to have difficulty with these issues, and requests a Variance extension. There being no requirement for public input, the Board went directly to a motion by M. Hayward to approve the extension; seconded by R. Maheu. All in favor 5/0, extension approved.  the work that he intended to. He continues to have difficulty with these issues, and requests a Variance extension. There being no requirement for public input, the Board went directly to a motion by M. Hayward to approve the extension; seconded by R. Maheu. All in favor 5/0, extension approved. 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 T At This Time. 8.I. ZO2022-0038VAR - 137 White Oaks Rd F ZO2022-0038VAR - 137 White Oaks Rd: Applicant requests a Variance from Article XI Section 235-28 (Uses Not Permitted) Attachment 2, Table 1 (Table of Permitted Uses) to permit the use of “Professional Office” to operate a professional counseling service. Shawn and Marci Dutile- already have an in-home counseling business that they wish to expand through the construction of a new barn style building to contain 3 offices, and an upstairs accessory dwelling unit. The ADU will be A rented at low cost to 2 year interns from Mr. Dutile’s church. The church will not be connected to the counseling office. The rural character of the property, including animals are an asset to the service, and he intends to keep the property in much the same fashion. Open to the public at 6:55 pm. There being no one to speak for or against, public comment closed at 6:55. R The existing counseling practice enters the property from White Oaks Road, but the future expansion will enter from New Hope Drive. D. Trefethen said that any restrictions of the access for the business would be a civil matter. He said that the existing service caused no harm, and the proposed style of the building would be in keeping with the rural character. D M. Hayward noted that there were two other businesses close by. Motion by M. DellaVecchia to approve the Variance for Professional Office Use; the building fit the area, spirit of the ordinance was observed because this service is needed in the community, the building and service will not diminish property values, and the service is a reasonable use. Seconded by M. Hayward. All in Favor 5/0. 8.II. ZO2022-0039SE -137 White Oaks Rd ZO2022-0039SE -137 White Oaks Rd: Applicant requests a Special Exception from Article V Section 235-26 (Uses Permitted by Special Exception) and Attachment 2, Table 1 (Table of Permitted Uses), for the use of “Accessory Dwelling Unit” to construct a 640 square foot accessory dwelling unit. Still on the stand from his prior testimony regarding the Variance for use to permit a professional counseling office at the property, the Board shifted to the Dutile’s request for Special Exception. Motion by M. DellaVecchia to approve; it’s good for the area because of the need for additional housing. Seconded by R. Mayhew. All in favor 5/0, Special Exception approved. 8.III. ZO2022-0040VAR - 465 Leighton Ave N ZO2022-0040VAR - 465 Leighton Ave N: Applicant requests a Variance from Article VI (Dimensional Standards), Section 235-35 (Minimum setback requirements), A. (Front setback), & Attachment 3, Table 2 (Table of Dimensional Requirements), requesting a setback of 34 feet where 40 feet are required, to accommodate a deck built within the front setback. Chris Cahill- The deck constructed on the house at 465 Leighton Ave intrudes 4 feet into the 40 foot front setback. He sited issues with drainage and very steep slopes on site which caused the need for an access easement, and extensive drainage and retaining walls . The deck is seven feet above the ground. The  ZO2022-0040VAR - 465 Leighton Ave N: Applicant requests a Variance from Article VI (Dimensional Standards), Section 235-35 (Minimum setback requirements), A. (Front setback), & Attachment 3, Table 2 (Table of Dimensional Requirements), requesting a setback of 34 feet where 40 feet are required, to accommodate a deck built within the front setback. Chris Cahill- The deck constructed on the house at 465 Leighton Ave intrudes 4 feet into the 40 foot front setback. He sited issues with drainage and very steep slopes on site which caused the need for an access easement, and extensive drainage and retaining walls . The deck is seven feet above the ground. The deck is still 36 feet from the lot line, and cause no harm to anyone. Opened to the Public at 7:10 pm. There being no one to speak for or against, public comment closed at 7:11 pm. R. Boddie asked if the construction was finished; it was in the final stages of landscaping etc., the deck was already built. T R. Boddie asked if there was a conflict with the Shorefront setback; D. Trefethen said that the application had gone through Site Plan Review, and that it should not be an issue. F Motion by M. DellaVecchia to approve the Variance; the deck is already there, its up to standards, not a hinderance to anyone. S Boggart added that the grades shifted the build, causing the applicant to build a raised deck vs a patio- a hardship in the land. Seconded by M. Hayward. All in favor, 5/0. Variance approved. A 8.IV. ZO2022-0041VAR - 41 Spruce Street ZO2022-0041VAR - 41 Spruce Street: Applicant requests a Variance from Article VI Section 235- 35 (Minimum Setback Requirements) A. (Front Setback) & B. (Side Setback) to rebuild a ranch style home as split-level, increasing bulk on an existing nonconforming construction. Stephen Converse addressed the Board- the house burned down, and will need to be reconstructed. The R proposal is to construct largely on the same footprint, reducing it slightly. water continues to rise through the foundation, and drainage remedies have failed to correct it. The best way to remedy the situation is to raise the foundation, changing the building from a ranch to a split-level ranch. The nonconforming footprint is being decreased, but the “bulk” is being increased as the building exposure will increase. D S. Bogart said that he lives two houses away, and was familiar with the poor drainage. Open to the public at 7:25 pm. There being no one to speak on the issue, public comment closed at 7:25. S. Bogart said that the house would be well under the 35 foot height maximum. D. Trefethen said that if the house were rebuilt in the ground, as was, there would be no need for a variance as they were maintaining most existing setbacks, if not reducing them to become less non- conforming. The Variance relates to the raised height. R. Boddie motioned to approve- reconstruction would represent a public good, spirit of the ordinance would be upheld because the applicant would get their home back, it could only increase values in the neighborhood. Seconded by M. DellaVecchia. All in favor 5/0. Variance approved. 8.V. ZO2022-0042VAR - 201 Holman Street ZO2022-0042VAR - 201 Holman Street Variance: Applicant requests a Variance from Article VI Section 235-35 (Minimum Setback Requirements) B. (Side Setback) seeking a setback of 8 1/2 feet where ten feet are required, to accommodate deck access by an existing exterior door. George Draper addressed the Board stating that he was requesting relief of 16 inches in the side setback of 10 feet to build a door that would allow access to the deck that was already build. Placing it elsewhere would require major reconstruction, replacement of siding etc. J. LaRoche said that she lived in the neighborhood and agreed with the placement. S. Bogart said that the door would allow greater ADA and Fire access. M. DellaVecchia said that it wasn’t asking much, and it would do substantial justice to the owner because of the costs that would be saved, and it was a good fit for the neighborhood.  setback of 10 feet to build a door that would allow access to the deck that was already build. Placing it elsewhere would require major reconstruction, replacement of siding etc. J. LaRoche said that she lived in the neighborhood and agreed with the placement. S. Bogart said that the door would allow greater ADA and Fire access. M. DellaVecchia said that it wasn’t asking much, and it would do substantial justice to the owner because of the costs that would be saved, and it was a good fit for the neighborhood. Opened to the public at 7:35 pm. There being no one to speak on the application, for or against, public comment closed at 7:36 pm. R. Boddie motioned to approve because there would be no negative impact caused. Seconded by M. Hayward. All in favor 5/0. Variance approved. 8.VI. ZO2022-0043VAR - 78 Garfield St F T ZO2022-0043VAR - 78 Garfield St: Applicant requests a Variance from Article V (Uses) Section 235-28 (Uses Not Permitted) Attachment 2, Table 1 (Table of Permitted Uses) to permit the use of “Agriculture, including livestock” to allow for the keeping of two pet goats. Matthew Gleason and Elizabeth Gleason addressed the Board. They relayed how they hay had the 2 dehorned, dwarf Nigerian female goats since the lived on Meredith Center Road, and raised them for the age of 2 weeks. A They said that their daughter was severely allergic to animal dander, and had at one time had airway collapse and spent 5 days in the hospital dues to a cat allergy. The goats were hypoallergenic, stayed outside where a dog could no be left, and represented a perfect pet for their daughter. The yard was blocked by a fence and had little impact on anyone. They moved into Mr. Gleason’s father’s house after he passed and took the goats with them. R R. Maheu asked if the pet goats had ever been registered as therapy animals; they had not, in part because of the short time frame of the violation would not allow for it. M Hayward asked how they manage the animal waste; it is collected and taken to a farm in Northfield. D Opened to the Public at 7:46 pm. Michael Weeks, a neighbor addressed the Board. He said that the goats were very friendly, his daughters play with them, he’s never noticed a smell or loud noise coming from them. Allen Raper, 72 Garfield St said their yards were separated by a chain link fence, the goats are spotless, clean, very nice. They’re not “farm animals” they are pets, they’re not being bred, they’re not producing anything “agricultural”, they’re for the little girl, they are pets. He has never had a problem with noise, smell etc. They’re quieter than dogs. Maria Raper, 72 Garfield St, said that she had seen the neighbors teaching the goats tricks, they are therapeutic for the kids, and her clients (she cares for clients at her home). They aren’t “farm animals”, they are pets. S. Bogert mentioned the letter from Robert Mayo in support of the goats. R. Bodie asked if granting the Variance would set a precedent in the city; D. Trefethen said that the ordinance was in existence for a long time, and he was not aware of any case where a variance for the keeping of livestock as pets had ever been granted. Closed to the public at 7:55. R. Boddie asked if they were trying to redefine the meaning of the term “pet” or “farm animal”; D. Trefethen explained the route by which that would be done, and that it is not this Board’s duty. M. DellaVecchia motioned to approve the Variance. The spirit of the ordinance would be upheld because the goats are not “farm animals”, they are pets, there are only 2, and no more. Justice would be done because the child could have a pet, the hardship is that due to allergies, she cannot have  R. Boddie asked if they were trying to redefine the meaning of the term “pet” or “farm animal”; D. Trefethen explained the route by which that would be done, and that it is not this Board’s duty. M. DellaVecchia motioned to approve the Variance. The spirit of the ordinance would be upheld because the goats are not “farm animals”, they are pets, there are only 2, and no more. Justice would be done because the child could have a pet, the hardship is that due to allergies, she cannot have “normal pets”, it would do no harm because none of the public have a problem. Seconded by M. Hayward. S. Boggart said to keep in mind that the next application involves chickens for a similar purpose, and that this decision could have future impacts. R. Maheu noted that the animals could be certified as therapy animals, relieving the Board of the decision. M. DellaVecchia said that they were not voting on past or future animals, they were voting on these animals. M. Hayward said that there were no complaints about these animals, vs the chickens in the next application. T R. Boddie asked if there was a route by which the applicants could get the animals registered as F therapy animals; D. Trefethen said that it still wouldn’t cover the keeping of goats in the city- it would allow them access to different places (stores etc). There is a process to amend the ordinance, but it is not a fast process. It should be considered that there has been no hardship in the land shown. M. DellaVecchia- the hardship is in the location of the land, everyone agrees that they should be able to keep the goats but it’s not allowed. A Vote: 2 for, 3 against. Motion failed. S. Bogart motion to deny the Variance- seconded by R. Maheu, vote: 3/2. Variance Denied. R 8.VII. ZO2022-0044VAR - 187 Court St Variance ZO2022-0044VAR - 187 Court St Variance: Applicant requests a Variance from Article V (Uses) D Section 235-28 (Uses Not Permitted) Attachment 2, Table 1 (Table of Permitted Uses) to permit the use of “Agriculture, including livestock” to allow for the keeping of hens. With no applicant present to represent the case, R. Maheu motion to continue to the August 15, 2022 meeting, seconded R. Maheu. All in favor 5/0 Motion Passed. 8.VIII. ZO2022-0046; 33 Clearwater Pl - Application For Administrative Appeal ZO2022-0046 Administrative Appeal - 33 Clearwater Pl Applicant requests an Administrative Appeal of a Short-term Lodging Permit issued to 33 Clearwater Place because the property does not meet the requirements for the Special Exception (defined by the ordinance), nor the permit that were issued to allow for the use of short term lodging, and because both the Special Exception and permit were issued to the previous owner, not the current owner. Jon Hildreth addressed the Board stating that the use was granted based on the former owner occupying the unit, operating the business less than 6 months out of the year. The new owner openly discussed that the property was one of among several that they owned and permanently used for short term lodging, which they intended to do with 33 Clearwater, which is classified as a different use under the terms for the special exception. R. Boddie asked if there is a distinction in that use. D. Trefethen said that the previous owners lived in the unit for mare than 150 days per year, with the site as their primary residence, and used the site for more than five years for short term leases. The Special Exception runs with the land- it could sell, and the use would carry over to the new owner, whether or not the use was more extensive. Since the Board allowed the exception, the Planning Department cannot deny the permit. J. Hildreth- Owner occupied vs. absentee are different uses. Opened to the public at 9:57. Lisa Bianco attorney for 33 Clearwater- the use dates back to 2014, and the current owners register  J. Hildreth- Owner occupied vs. absentee are different uses. Opened to the public at 9:57. Lisa Bianco attorney for 33 Clearwater- the use dates back to 2014, and the current owners register their vehicles at the address, residing there in the winter months. M. Hayward- is this a commercial use? It still retains its residential character, and its not the sole purpose of the owner to make money. Closed to the public at 9:02pm. J. Hildreth -Closing, the Melville’s confided that this is not their only rental property. The request was made by D&G LLC, not the owner. It is not longer “owner occupied.” It will now be no different from any T other commercial property. S. Bogert- Was there a mistake made by the Planning Department in assigning a permit? M. Hayward- (in making the decision) we had to look to future use, not past misconduct, why? S. Bogert- because the Superior Court told us to. It was not about the permit, but the rehearing. F S. Bogert- did the Planning Department make an error in issuing the permit? M. Hayward motion to deny the appeal based on the lack of error being made on behalf of the Planning department, or fault with the approval for Special Exception. Seconded by M. DellaVecchia. A All in favor, 5/0. Appeal denied. 9. OTHER BUSINESS 9.I. ZO2021-0018SE Motion For Rehearing; 33 Clearwater Pl R Due administrative procedure, the Board chose to hear from “other business” case ZO2021-0018SE - Clearwater Pl Motion for rehearing. ZO2021-0018SE -33 Clearwater Pl Motion for rehearing: D. Trefethen explained why the procedure would take place in the changed order. The Board would have to decide if there had been an error made D in the decision to grant the Special Exception to allow for Short Term Lodging based on a. new evidence submitted by the applicant, or b. if they change their view based on testimony submitted by the applicant. S. Bogert addressed the Board: do we feel that there has been an error made in the decision based on the testimony submitted? (see submittal) M. DellaVecchia- according the applicant, the new owner has no right to the decision made. R. Boddie- Does the allowance belong to the owner? D. Trefethen- the decision runs with the land. M. DellaVecchia- voted against the Special Exception because it had been a nuisance property, but he did not find that there had been an error in the process. S. Bogert motioned to deny, seconded by R. Boddie, 4/0 with one abstained. Motion denied. 9.II. Election Of Vice Chair M. DellaVecchia nominated M. Foote for Vice Chair. S. Boggart nominated M. DellaVecchia for Vice Chair. Seconded by R. Maheu, all in favor, 5/0 Michael DellaVecchia is now Vice Chairman of the City of Laconia, Zoning Board of Adjustment. 10. ADJOURNMENT M. Hayward motion to adjourn, seconded by R. Mahue, a Meeting adjourned 9:22. M. Hayward motion to adjourn, seconded by R. Mahue, a Meeting adjourned 9:22. F T R A D