Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, Month XX, 2018 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 8/15/2022 - Minutes T 1. CALL TO ORDER Call to Order 6:32. F 2. ROLL CALL Jane LaRoche (Alternate), Roland Maheu, Michael DellaVecchia (Vice Chairman, acting Chairman for meeting), Marcia Hayward, Michael Foote 3. RECORDING SECRETARY 3.I. Recording Secretary R A Sheena Duncan, Zoning Planner Technician D 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE 4.I. Staff In Attendance Dean Trefethen, Director of Planning and Community Development Sheena Duncan, Zoning Planner Technician 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Acceptance Of 7-18-2022 Minutes Accepted with the following amendment recommended by M. Hayward: Under case ZO2022-0043VAR – 78 Garfield St, the line “M. Hayward asked if the pet goats had ever been registered as therapy animals” should be attributed to R Maheu. 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. ZO2022-0044VAR - 187 Court St Variance #ZO2022-0044VAR -187 Court Street: David & Marlene Colbath; Variance from Article V (Uses) Section 235-28 (Uses Not Permitted) Attachment 2, Table 1 (Table of Permitted Uses) to permit the use of Time. 7.I. ZO2022-0044VAR - 187 Court St Variance #ZO2022-0044VAR -187 Court Street: David & Marlene Colbath; 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 hens in the Urban Commercial (UC) District. Marlene Colbath explained that she currently cares for 11 hens and 2 ducks which she has been raising since they were chicks, understanding that she would have to reduce her flock to 5 birds under the City’s regulations for keeping of poultry. She said that she’d had 3 strokes in 9 years and the birds were therapeutic in nature because of her limited mobility and lack of socialization. M. DellaVecchia asked why she kept the birds, if they were for egg production. She replied that she did T not, as there had only been 2 eggs produces from the young birds thus far. M. Hayward sited the ordinance, stating that there was a limit of 5 birds, to be kept not less than 20’ from the lot line, in a fenced area, and mentioned that Colbath’s birds had a record of escape. F M. Colbath said that the had in the past, but the bird’s wings had been clipped to prevent further escapes, but that they were “jumpers”. M. Hayward asked how the food was being kept (siting the ordinance). M. Colbath said that the food was stored in the kitchen. She said that her neighbors didn’t dispute her having hens, and that she was A considering getting a higher fence. M. Foote asked what kind of chickens were being kept. M. Colbath said that she was not sure what breed they were, but that they were black and white. M. Foote asked how she would choose which birds to keep- ducks or chickens. She said that ducks didn’t escape. R R. Maheu asked if she would be keeping them in winter. She would; they require heat to lay eggs, and there are no roosters. J. Laroche said that the neighbors weren’t happy about the birds (siting the letter received from Forrest Letarte of 11 Bay street) stating that there was no fence between their yards, D asking if she planned to get a fence. M. Colbath said that she didn’t know that neighbor. R. Maheu said that it was a congested part of the City. M. Foote asked if the chickens were in a pen, or had a run. She said that the pen was in a caged area, about 20’x20’. M. Foote asked how big the pen would be considering the 20’ setback requirement. Examining the scaled satellite image provided, none could determine if the pen would make setback requirements. R. Maheu asked what would happen if the birds were to escape into traffic on Court street. She said that they come when she shakes a bag of food. D. Trefethen interjected, saying that the use was not permitted in the District. Opened to the public at 6:50. There being no one to speak for or against, public discussion closed at 6:50. M. DellaVecchia said that the City says no to the use, but maybe he could understand if she had enough space. M. Foote said that the Board had been dealing with the chicken keeping issue for years. The City doesn’t want to attract the animals that prey on chickens or their eggs, and this is why they came to the conclusion (to ban the use) some time ago. Motion by J. Laroche to Deny the application. Seconded by M. Hayward. All in favor, 5/0. M. Colbath asked if she could have 30 days to rehome the birds- M. DellaVecchia said yes, and encouraged her to speak to City Council because the issue was reoccurring, and people should speak to Council to persuade some form of change. R. Maheu said that a family denied goats the previous week had done  The City doesn’t want to attract the animals that prey on chickens or their eggs, and this is why they came to the conclusion (to ban the use) some time ago. Motion by J. Laroche to Deny the application. Seconded by M. Hayward. All in favor, 5/0. M. Colbath asked if she could have 30 days to rehome the birds- M. DellaVecchia said yes, and encouraged her to speak to City Council because the issue was reoccurring, and people should speak to Council to persuade some form of change. R. Maheu said that a family denied goats the previous week had done so. 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. T 8.I. ZO2022-0052EW - 13 Opechee St #ZO2022-0052EW - 13 Opechee Street: DHB Homes, LLC; Equitable Waiverfrom Article IV (Overlay Districts) Section 235-19 (Shoreland Protection District) F. (Minimum requirements within specified F areas of the SP District) (1) (Waterfront buffer requirements) To allow a 28.27-foot buffer, and a 34.76- foot buffer where 50 feet are required, to accommodate two units currently under construction, previously approved to be built as such, in the Urban Commercial (UC) District. Ralph Meisner (Representing DHB Homes) Requested that the application be held over until the lawyer representing the applicant would be present. M. DellaVecchia (Acting Chair) agreed. A John Cronin represented the applicant. The property was once the site of a mobile home, and a trading post. All involved believed the property to be exempt form the Shoreland Protection Overlay District boundary. The proposed buildings were 80-90% complete. D. Trefethen contacted the applicant to inform them that there had been a mistake made in the calculation when the condominium subdivision R plan was submitted. He said that some towns were known to give permission to build with out variance when thy were making a situation like this better- the proposed buildings were further from the shoreland than the existing construction, and if these buildings were built on the existing footprint, they would require no variance. Equitable waivers had been created 10-15 years ago to remedy situations like this- when there had been a staff mistake. D M. Foote said that they had missed the setbacks on both buildings by about half- removing many trees from the shore, and asked what was in the waiver request. J. Cronin said that it was an error in good faith, a staff mistake, and nobody foresaw an issue. He asked the Board what the inequity was, and if they should take the buildings down? D. Trefethen explained that it was believed that the lot was exempt from the SPOD, the mistake was found on the foundation plan, and that it fits the criteria for an Equitable Waiver. J. Cronin said that the Department of Environmental Services reviewed the application and signed off on it because it was more conforming. Opened to the public at 7:35. Karen Santoro, former City of Laconia Zoning Planner Technician, stated that on November 9, 2021 she specifically told D. Trefethen that she believed the property was in the SPOD during permit review, which he chose to ignore and override. Closed to the public at 7:37. M. DellaVecchia said that if it were presented as a Variance it would have probably been approved. M. Foote said that after hearing the testimony, he didn’t know if he would have approved, asking if it had been presented to Conservation Commission. D.. Trefethen said that it had not because 2 family dwellings were allowed. He said, allowed or not, he allowed the building permit and it was his mistake. M. Foote said that he was not convinced and that this was an easy way out- it would have been strongly disputed, and asked if green space and other setbacks checked out. D. Trefethen assured the Board that the builder had done their due diligence.  Foote said that after hearing the testimony, he didn’t know if he would have approved, asking if it had been presented to Conservation Commission. D.. Trefethen said that it had not because 2 family dwellings were allowed. He said, allowed or not, he allowed the building permit and it was his mistake. M. Foote said that he was not convinced and that this was an easy way out- it would have been strongly disputed, and asked if green space and other setbacks checked out. D. Trefethen assured the Board that the builder had done their due diligence. Motion by R. Maheu to approve. Seconded by J. Laroche. 4/1, M. Foote disapproving. Application approved. 8.II. ZO2022-0055VAR - 29 Carver St # ZO2022-0055VAR - 29 Carver St: William & Jeannette Buell; Variance from Article VI T (Dimensional Standards) Section 235-35 (Minimum setback requirements) & Attachment 2, Table 1 (Table of Dimensional Requirements) to allow a rear setback of 10 feet where 15 feet are required to accommodate a 12’ x 16’ sunroom addition, in the Residential Single-Family (RS) District. William & Jeannette Buell Explained the application, saying that the house was already in the setback, F and the screen porch would go no further into the setback, but run the same distance. M. Foote said that the house was in the setback already. J. Buell said that the neighbors were in support. A Opened to public comment at 7:02. There being no one to speak for or against the application, close at 7:02. M. DellaVecchia said that it seemed reasonable, it was an additional nonconformity, but the house was already there. R Motion by M. Foote to approve; the house was an existing nonconformity, the setback is only part of the construction, it won’t go further than the existing house, it wouldn’t change the use, threaten views, people would always like to add room to their homes, and it would add a 36”, code compliant door, making the house more conforming to code. It would do no harm to other properties, and the house was built before zoning existed. D Seconded by J. Laroche. All in favor, 5/0 8.III. ZO2022-0056VAR - 240 Court St ZO2022-0056VAR 240 Court St: Xzito LLC; Variance from Article VI (Dimensional Standards) Section 235-33 (Density) Attachment 3, Table II (Table of dimensional Requirements) (A) (…existing building) to allow for 3 residential units in a space of 2,979 square feet where 3,000 are required, in the Urban Commercial (UC) District. Jason Bishop and Sarah Tilton explained that they wished to convert a commercial unit to a residential unit. S. Tilon said that the building was new, constructed for the commercial use. M. Foote asked about the exterior finish of the building. S. Tilton said that it would be vinyl siding. M. Foote asked which unit would be changed- S. Tilton showed the Board on the plan. M. DelaVecchia asked what the previous use had been- they said it was a mortgage company. R. Maheu asked if the building would be torn down- S. Tilton said it would not. M. DellaVecchia asked if they met the green space requirement. D. Trefethen said that it did. R. Mayheu asked if an adjacent lot belonged to the applicants- J. Bishop said that it did, and that it was paved, with green space all around, used for parking. Opened to the public at 7:13. There being no one to speak for or against the application, public comment closed at 7:13. M. Foote said that he supported the idea, that he didn’t see a loss to anyone, and that the city needs  Mayheu asked if an adjacent lot belonged to the applicants- J. Bishop said that it did, and that it was paved, with green space all around, used for parking. Opened to the public at 7:13. There being no one to speak for or against the application, public comment closed at 7:13. M. Foote said that he supported the idea, that he didn’t see a loss to anyone, and that the city needs more housing, especially with 2 other apartments in the building. The commercial loss was negligible. Motion to approve by J. Laroche, adding that it was reasonable for such small relief. Seconded by R. Maheu. All in favor 5/0 8.IV. ZO2022-0057VAR - 727 Scenic Road #2 T ZO2022-0057VAR 727 Scenic Road #2: Basur 2014 Rev Family Trust, Gobind & Renu Basur, trustees; Variance from Article IV (Overlay Districts) Section 235-19 (Shoreland Protection District) F. (Minimum requirements...) (2) (Development standards) (g) (impervious structures…) seeking an 11’ waterfront buffer where 50’ are required in the Shoreland Protection overlay District, and Article F VI (Dimensional Standards) Section 235-35 (Minimum setback requirements) B. (Rear setbacks) & Attachment 3 Tbl. II (table of dimensional requirements) seeking a rear setback of 11’ where 15 ‘ are required in the Shorefront Residential District, to accommodate a 280 Square foot expansion to an existing non-conforming deck, in the Shorefront Residential (SFR) District. A Romy Maurer, PLA, ASLA, Terrain Planning and Architecture (Representing the Basur’s) Explained the requests, showing that the majority of the entire house was located in the setback/ buffer area already, showing the existing conditions. M. DellaVecchia asked if the applicant was squaring off the existing deck. She said they were. He asked if the nonconforming part of the deck was a small chunk on the plan. She explained that the R whole structure was already conforming. She further explained that the proposal would reduce the amount of impervious space already existing. M. Foote asked if any trees would be cut down- there would not. He asked if there would be proper erosion controls in place, and best management practices observed. She said that there would. M. DellaVecchia asked if the proper DES permits had been received- they were. He asked if there was a D conditional use permit, she said that R. Mora said that it was not needed. Opened to the public at 7:22. There being no one to speak for or against the application, public comment closed at 7:22. M. DellaVecchia said that it seemed that all the proper permits and approvals were in place. M. Foote said that the hardship was that the entire building was already in the setback. Motion by M. Hayward to approve for the same reasons listed in the application. Seconded R. Maheu. All in favor, 5/0 8.V. ZO2022-0058VAR 136 Pine St - Variance ZO2022-0058VAR - 136 Pine St: LFT Realty Trust; Variance from Article VI (Dimensional Standards) Section 235-33 (Maximum Residential Density) to allow 6 residential units where 4 are allowed. Variance from Article VI (Dimensional Standards) Section 235-35 (Minimum setback requirements) & Attachment 2, Table 1 (Table of Dimensional Requirements) to allow a rear setback of 10 feet where 15 feet are required. Variance from Article VI (Dimensional Standards) Section 235-36 A (Green Space) & Attachment 3 Tbl. II (Table of Dimensional Requirements, Minimum Green Area) to allow for 50% green space, where 60% is required. In the Residential General (RG) District, to allow for the construction of a 2-unit, multifamily dwelling on Variance from Article VI (Dimensional Standards) Section 235-36 A (Green Space) & Attachment 3 Tbl. II (Table of Dimensional Requirements, Minimum Green Area) to allow for 50% green space, where 60% is required. In the Residential General (RG) District, to allow for the construction of a 2-unit, multifamily dwelling on the site of an existing garage in the Residential General (RG) District. Thomas LaBree stated that the proposed construction would replace an existing garage, expanding the footprint, running along the same nonconforming setback line in the rear of the property. He said that there were 4 existing apartments, and that he could accomplish the construction without the setback variance but would have to build narrower and longer. T The Board discussed the City of Laconia sewer easement on the property, and the capacity of the existing sewer to handle the additional load. M. DellaVecchia asked what the density allowance was on the lot. D. Trefethen said that it currently had a Special Exception for 3, and a contentious 4 th unit existed. Assessing picked up the 4 th unit but F there was no record of it, requiring more research. Regardless, the request would be to add 2 more units, but 3 was the maximum legally allowed currently. T. LaBree said that he purchased the property as a 4 unit, and only found out about this a week prior. A M. Hayward asked if this (6 unit multifamily) was something that we would see in the surrounding neighborhood. D. Trefethen said that the neighborhood was a mix of uses depending on the part of the street, saying this was one of the largest lots in the area, many having .25 acres or less. He said that the City doesn’t control what the property was marketed as, and that because no building permit was found didn’t mean that one had never existed. R M. Foote asked if there was a record of any inspection of the 4 th unit. D. Trefethen said there was not, and that it was a Code issue, not a Zoning issue, that if it was determined to be an issue, it would be dealt with then. R. Maheu asked if the lot would accommodate 6 units. D. Trefethen said that from a space and parking D stance, yes it would. Open to the public at 7:55. Paula Samson, 135 Pine Street presented testimony from an abutter who could not make the meeting due to ill health and complications to healing caused by Covid-19, a petition signed by 5 abutters (Dan Denauw -132 Pine, Jeff Chambers -150 Pine, Paula Samson -135 Pin, Margo Chambers -145 Pin, Tim Samson -23 Lafayette. The letter (Phillip Morin, 11 Highland St.) mentioned abuses he suffered from tenants and their pets, snow storage dumped on his land, and his disagreement with the application. P. Samson said that the neighborhood was not characterized by mixed multi-family, but 1 and 2 family. She said the Bachelor Street school property (multifamily) tenants do not cross Pine Street Extension. This neighborhood is characterized by owner occupied dwellings, with owners that had a vested interest in their properties. She said the losses to property value could not be quantified, the traffic flow on the property was very high already as the owner uses the 6 bay garage for his business only, tenants and their vehicles all using a single driveway. She voiced issues with snow storage, additional parking, lot coverage and many more people living on the lot. She requested the Fire Department and Code enforcement do inspections before the application be considered, and that Assessing be allowed to inspect for measurements and layout of the units as none are currently available, adding that the residential property was being used for additional commercial uses. Margot Chambers of 145 Pine Street said the traffic was in and out at all hours, and Mr. LaBree was frequently in and out with his commercial vehicles (up to 7 times a day). She said she bought a house in a single family neighborhood, and would not have chosen to live in a multifamily one. Michael J. Persson (Chisholm Persson & Ball, PC Attorneys at Law) Representing Daniel & Sheryl Denauw of 132 Pine Street said that there was no hardship proven for the Variance. There was nothing impacting his use of the property, and no way to prove an undue burden. There is nothing unique about the property, and the sewer easement was not an excuse- it would be a poor president to set for the  frequently in and out with his commercial vehicles (up to 7 times a day). She said she bought a house in a single family neighborhood, and would not have chosen to live in a multifamily one. Michael J. Persson (Chisholm Persson & Ball, PC Attorneys at Law) Representing Daniel & Sheryl Denauw of 132 Pine Street said that there was no hardship proven for the Variance. There was nothing impacting his use of the property, and no way to prove an undue burden. There is nothing unique about the property, and the sewer easement was not an excuse- it would be a poor president to set for the City to allow an easement as hardship. The setback request was not from the easement. There was a reasonable use (3-4units exist), and there is no evidence that the use would not diminish property value. Daniel Clark, 157 Pine Street Said that the property was already unsafe for the kids living there with so much traffic coming and going. Parking and snow removal were already a problem. T Closed to public comment at 8:19. M. Foote said that it was an intensely used property already. T. LaBree said if he had known there would be such push back, he would not have sough Variances. Past problematic tenants had been F removed. There was plenty of snow removal space, and 2 of the tenants have to have regular inspections by the state, which are more stringent. Parking was worked out with R. Mora in the Planning Department, M. Hayward asked if he was considering withdrawing. Yes. M. DellaVecchia asked if garage units were rented- yes the 2 in the proposed building site ar rented to his lawyer. A J. Laroche asked if he was considering postponing- yes. M. DellaVecchia said that density was a concern. M. Foote said it was obvious the neighbors oppose. Communities change, but it was unlikely to make things better adding to it. R M. Hayward asked D. Trefethen if they had to have 3 denials. D. Trefethen recommended 1 vote for density, and 1 for the green space and density together. He told T. LaBree if he were to withdraw now, he would preserve his right to propose again. D T. LaBree requested to Withdraw. Application Withdrawn. M. Hayward said that the commercial use and residential on a single lot left questions to be answered. Motion DellaVecchia to adjourn. Seconded by R. Maheu. M. Hayward said that the commercial use and residential on a single lot left questions to be answered. 9. OTHER BUSINESS 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion DellaVecchia to adjourn. Seconded by R. Maheu. Meeting adjourned at 8:37.