Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, September 19, 2022 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 9/19/2022 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Call to order: 6:37PM 2. ROLL CALL Richard Bodie (alternate), Jane LaRoche (alternate), Roland Maheu, Michael DellaVecchia (Vice Chair) Steven Bogert (Chair), Michael Foote, Marcia Hayward 3. RECORDING SECRETARY 3.I. Recording Secretary Sheena Duncan, Zoning Planner Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE 4.I. Staff In Attendance Sheena Duncan, Zoning Planner Technician 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Acceptance Of August 15, 2022 Meeting Minutes Motion M. Foote to accept the minutes as presented, seconded by Roland Maheu. 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. 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. ZO2022-0064VAR - 43 Addison St Theodore Krampitz and Robert Morse explained that they were seeking relief in order to create a second dwelling unit in the house they currently own together, and share, in order to create a more  At This Time. 8.I. ZO2022-0064VAR - 43 Addison St Theodore Krampitz and Robert Morse explained that they were seeking relief in order to create a second dwelling unit in the house they currently own together, and share, in order to create a more livable space for Mr. Morse. They explained that the space would be 900 sf there abouts, being too large for an accessory dwelling unit. The garage, 1 st and 2 nd floor would each have a 900 sf footprint (stacked). R. Bodie asked if the addition would be higher in the back of the house than the existing roofline in the front- Krampitz said that it would as there would be a garage below, with 2 stories above. The first story above the garage would constitute an addition to the existing living space, the second floor would be the apartment. R. Maheu asked if the tower (tree house) on the property belonged to the applicants- it did. R. Bodie asked if they had applied for a building permit- Krampitz said that he believed that they required a Variance for the setback, as well as the use of 2 family, and applied directly before seeking a building permit. Krampitz said that the tree house, a storage trailer and some other obstructions in the back yard would all be removed, as the garage would remove the need for the storage trailer. M. DellaVecchia asked if they could make greenspace with the current proposal- Krampitz believed he could (estimated 60%) but had no calculation. M. Foote asked how tall the structure would be- 32 feet there about. R. Maheu asked if the construction would be considerably larger than others in the neighborhood- Krampitz sited 2 other houses larger in size nearby. Opened to the public at 6:55PM. There being no one to speak for or against, public comment closed at 6:55PM. S. Bogert read a letter submitted by Mark Haynes, 55 Durkee St: Mr. Haynes said that there were 2 families already living in the house, against zoning. He said that there had been an attempt at rezoning that was fought by the neighborhood, in order to keep it single family. He disagreed with the addition to the house and questioned if it would block neighbor’s view of the lake. Closing comment: Krampitz said that he believed it would be difficult, but they were trying to make things better for Mr. Morse. Board discussion: M. DellaVecchia said he would like to see a rendering of the proposed addition, and to have green space calculated and delineated- Bodie said that it was a use issue to be addressed first. S. Borgert believed that the Board should seek legal advice, and to have a green space calculation. M. DellaVecchia, and M. Foote requested an elevation drawing be done. M. Foote motion to continue to the October meeting, seconded by M. DellaVecchia. All in favor. 8.II. ZO2022-0068SE - 242 Elm St; This Application Has Been Withdrawn Withdrawn 8.III. ZO2022-0069VAR - 82 Leighton Ave N Attorney Bruce Marshal representing the Shackets explained that the 2 sheds had been moved from  Withdrawn 8.III. ZO2022-0069VAR - 82 Leighton Ave N Attorney Bruce Marshal representing the Shackets explained that the 2 sheds had been moved from the left side setback when trees were taken down, placed in the right side setback 2 feet off the property line. The Shackets were avoidant of getting a Variance, and decided to hold off on consolidating the sheds. The Shackets returned seeking a building permit, finding that one wasn’t required for a building under 150 sf. And were given a cease and desist. This shed, like others in the neighborhood couldn’t make setback requirements. He said he thought that there was a grandfathered right to the setback because of the original placement of the shed. It was the same placement that had been used (prior to the 2013 move). It was the same sort of placement others had in the neighborhood. The lots in the neighborhood are small, and predate setback limitations. Regarding substantial justice: there was no major change proposed; regarding value diminishment- it was similar to others, similar in size to combined sheds; hardship: literal enforcement would not allow the Shackets to utilize their yard, and force them to repair old sheds rather than replace. He felt that they fell well within previously granted Variances, He said that he had been practicing law since 1999 and his understanding was that the encroachment in the setback was grandfathered for the whole yard. He added that a new sceptic would have to be put in the right side of the yard, effecting placement. Opened to the public at 7:30PM. Norm Wright- Asked if additional documents regarding grandfathering had ben submitted. S. Bogert- no, we will discuss it. S. Bogert read a letter submitted by Greg Bourbeau, 88 Leighton Ave.- He supported the shed change, and believed it was an upgrade that would look better. Public comment closed at 7:33PM. Board discussion: M. Foote said that the shed would be in the old position. S. Bogert said that when a use was abandoned for more than a year, it was lost. These sheds had been moved for at least 3 years. The Variance had merits on its own without the grandfathering- but the grandfathering does not hold. Marshall- I’m a lawyer, this is not about use, if a use goes away for a year, it’s a different thing. He discussed a neighbor whose house had burned down, but they got to keep the placement of their sheds- when they came for a building permit for two sheds on the lot line and asked if they weren’t told they needed a Variance. …How long has it been ok to have a structure within 2 feet of the lot line? Bogert- We aren’t here to discuss the neighbor’s yards, and asked if there were any closing comments. (None). R. Bodie said that there were 3 sheds on the land now, and that they should get rid of the 2 old ones. S. Bogert- putting the sheds where the new septic would go makes no sense. M. Hayward, and S. Bogert said it was reasonable. M. DellaVecchia- if they came and asked, we would have granted it. S. Bogert- makes sense to reduce size. M. Foote- don’t like Variances after the fact, but it seems reasonable, it would be an improvement.  M. Hayward, and S. Bogert said it was reasonable. M. DellaVecchia- if they came and asked, we would have granted it. S. Bogert- makes sense to reduce size. M. Foote- don’t like Variances after the fact, but it seems reasonable, it would be an improvement. Motion by M. Hayward to approve the application for the reasons stated in the Variance request. Seconded by M. Foote- with the condition that the old sheds be removed. All in favor 5/0 8.IV. ZO2022-0070VAR - 156 Eastman Shore Rd 156 Eastman Shore- Bob Owen and Barbara Owen explained that 2 ½ years ago they had come for a similar Variance, for an expansion of their deck. Mr. Owen explained the changes on the new plan, and that he believed the foundation was more likely to crack without a change. The new design would create an enhanced view from the kitchen window, and be in line with the rest of the existing deck constructed in 1975. He said it would have no impact on the neighbors, and would be well screened, setbacks on the side and front conform. The Planning Director recommended that he re-apply showing the changes to the existing approval. M. Foote said that it would fill in a 4’x8’ area notched in the deck. Barbara Owen said that that area would com out 8’ to match the rest of the deck. M. Foote asked if the state permits had been approved- they were in the process. S. Bogert added that per RSA, the Board could not ask that the permit be granted before they render a decision. Open to the public at 8:04PM. There being none to speak for of against, public comment closed at 8:05PM No closing comment- Board discussion- S. Bogert- regarding public interest? M. Foote- not against public interest, and it doesn’t decrease value. Spirit of the ordinance-it’s a better use of the property with minimal effects, its already nonconforming and can’t be altered otherwise. It will allow for better use, and access to living area, potentially better safety, better mobility. Motion by M. Mayhew to approve. Seconded by R. Maheu. All in favor 5/0 8.V. ZO2022-0072VAR - 13-14 Hoyt Court Melanie Sawyer explained how the house was already divided into sections, with 3 dwelling units within, and a space with 2 rooms that were currently only used for storage that she planned to convert into a new apartment unit intended for her elderly brother on a fixed income. 2 walls would be removed, and a kitchen installed. M. Foote asked if there would be exterior changes- no. M. Foote asked S. Duncan what Assessing had to say about the exiting 3 units (not allowed by density) M. Foote asked if there would be exterior changes- no. M. Foote asked S. Duncan what Assessing had to say about the exiting 3 units (not allowed by density) S. Duncan said that per Assessing, the building had been used as such since at least 1965, predating zoning requirements. M. Foote- we recently passes a similar case (377 Union Ave) for an apartment unit with no parking. R. Mahue said that there was no city parking near, minus 3 units in the front of Hoyt Court. The Board discussed the current parking arrangements, and potential space for parking. R. Bodie asked how many units were in the adjacent buildings- there were several multifamily. Open to the public at 8:27PM. Harry Bean, owner of 70 Academy Street: Limited parking in the neighborhood ultimately becomes his problem- everyone parks in his lot. Parking in the access easement isn’t fair, and has been an issue for 18 years. Assing another vehicle would increase his problem. The building is already nonconforming with zoning. S. Bogert- asked S. Duncan if we could get a parking plan for this project- she said she could work with the applicant. There being no others to speak, public comment closed at 8:35PM. Closing comment: If there has ever been a problem from our building, I’ve never heard it. We can’t block the right of way. *More discussion about potential parking configuration. Board discussion: R. Bodie- is it an allowed use? M. Foote similar use in the area, is it allowed? S. Bogert- by Special Exception, but this is already multifamily. M. DellaVecchia- low cost, surrounded by multifamily, odd lot, no exterior changes. M. Foote- it is in an area where we want to allow increased density. S. Bogert- Regarding public interest? Its within walking distance of services etc. regarding spirit of the ordinance? M. Hayward- the zone allows for a variety of housing types. Regarding substantial justice- S. Bogert said it would provide housing where people can walk, values will not be diminished. M. Hayward-it may increase taxable value. Regarding hardship- the purpose was reasonable, and would provide a needed use- affordable 1 bedroom apt. within walking distance of services etc. Motion by M. Hayward to approve based on Board discussion, Seconded by M. DellaVecchia S. Bogert- with the condition that a parking plan be submitted to the Planning department. All in favor 5/0  Motion by M. Hayward to approve based on Board discussion, Seconded by M. DellaVecchia S. Bogert- with the condition that a parking plan be submitted to the Planning department. All in favor 5/0 9. OTHER BUSINESS M. DellaVecchia said that he has a feeling that the goat issue raised by the 78 Garfield case may be brought back before the Board. M. Hayward said that the 30 day window of appeal had closed. R. Mahue said it appeared there was a split in city council. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion by M. DellaVecchia to adjourn, seconded by M. Foote. Meeting adjourned at 8:55 PM