Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, October 17, 2022 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 1. CALL TO ORDER Call to order 6:35PM 2. ROLL CALL T 10/17/2022 - Minutes F A Richard Bodie, Jane LaRoche, Roland Maheu, Michael DellaVecchia (Vice Chair), Steve Bogert (Chair), Michael Foote, 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 and Development Sheena Duncan, Zoning Planner Technician 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS Motion by M. Hayward to approve the minutes as presented, seconded by R. Maheu. All in favor 5/0 6. Draft Minutes 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. 8.I. ZO2022-0064VAR - 43 Addison St - Variance Ted Krampitz presented new materials as requested at the September 19 meeting, including renderings of the proposed elevations, green space calculation, and additional information regarding the sizes of both his proposal and the surrounding homes, stating that they were not trying to build larger than Time. 8.I. ZO2022-0064VAR - 43 Addison St - Variance Ted Krampitz presented new materials as requested at the September 19 meeting, including renderings of the proposed elevations, green space calculation, and additional information regarding the sizes of both his proposal and the surrounding homes, stating that they were not trying to build larger than others in the neighborhood, but trying to suit their needs. M. Foote asked if the applicants were proposing to build an addition that was larger than the entirety of the existing house- T Krampitz said yes. R. Maheu asked if the applicant was advised to seek the 2-family use because of the number of kitchens proposed for the house, currently already lived in and owned by both of the applicants. T. T Krampitz explained how he had come to the conclusion to apply for 2 family, based on the style of use proposed. He said that since the last meeting he had asked (S. Duncan) if it were allowed to have a second kitchen in a house, and she could find nothing forbidding it after consulting (Joe Gray) the Building Inspector. Krampitz continued to say that the applicants had shared a kitchen for over 6 years, and he was fine with forgoing the 2-family use if he could avoid it by using an interior entrance for the F addition. D. Trefethen -much is based on how the dwelling will be entered, without a plan it is hard to know. S. Bogert said that if it were walled of and separated, it may change the use. A M. DellaVecchia asked what would happen if Krampitz’s room mate were to pass away, would the property then be inherited by a family member? No- they own the house as joint tenants with rights of survivorship. M. Foote asked if the proposal would be allowed as an ADU. T. Krampitz said that an ADU had a limit R of 750 Square feet- no. R. Maheu asked if the tree house and trailers on the property would be removed, as per the minutes of the previous meeting- could it be a condition of approval? D T. Krampitz agreed. Opened to the public at 7:07PM Claudia Prescott of 17 West Street- told T. Krampitz that he could take out the second kitchen and keep one large one, and keep the house as a single family, and make the addition. Closed to the public at 7:09PM. S. Bogert asked D. Trefethen if the Board could amend the request. Yes, by motioning that 2 family was not necessary, which would maintain the right to apply in the future. Motion by S. Bogert to remove the request for 2 family because it was not needed. Seconded by M. Foote. All in favor 5/0 Regarding the setback, M. Hayward said that it was very close. R. Bodie said that all of the houses in the neighborhood had some variation of encroachment, due to the age. He asked S. Duncan who owned the narrow strip of land at the back of the lot- S. Duncan replied that at the time of the initial application discussion it was found that the land was in an “unknown” ownership. M. Foote motioned to approve the setback request (with the condition that the storage trailers and tree house on the property be removed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy) stating that it was in line with an existing nonconforming deck, because it was not contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the variance would give the owners more room, without seeking the 2-family use. It would not diminish values because the applicants would remove any obstructions and storage devices in the back yard, cleaning up the site. The proposal was reasonable because it was already a nonconforming, increasing use of a single-family home.  house on the property be removed upon the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy) stating that it was in line with an existing nonconforming deck, because it was not contrary to the public interest. The spirit of the ordinance would be observed because the variance would give the owners more room, without seeking the 2-family use. It would not diminish values because the applicants would remove any obstructions and storage devices in the back yard, cleaning up the site. The proposal was reasonable because it was already a nonconforming, increasing use of a single-family home. All in favor, 5/0 8.II. ZO2022-0080VAR - 17 West Street Claudia Prescott represented he case, explaining how she had bought the house in 1995, and with help from her husband, has made incremental improvements for many years, including the addition of a shed which she sought variance for because of the narrow property’s difficult setbacks. She explained the T addition of a concrete pad and doors to remediate water entry in the basement, the hot tub on the pad, and the original fencing of the hot tub with lattice, and how it evolved into the now existing 3 season porch. She showed the Board a photo of the fence line, on foot away from the structure. She said that they weren’t trying to be “sneaky”, and that the assessor had been to the property in the past and nothing had been mentioned to them about the need for variance. F Opened to the public at 7:36 PM. Phyllis Shoemaker of 14 Mathews Court (rear abutter) said that she supported the addition. Closed to the public at 7:37 PM. A R. Maheu said that he visited the site that day, and the setbacks made the yard very narrow. M. Hayward said that she also visited the property- its in alignment with the existing house, no different than the rest of it- no reason to deny. R R. Bodie said that they had come to correct it when asked. S. Bogert said it was not against the public interest, followed the spirit of the ordinance because it was already extremely close to the property line (also a hardship), it would not diminish the value of neighboring properties, literal enforcement of the regulation was very difficult because the lot is so D narrow and the existing house is already in the setback, preexisting zoning. Motion by S. Bogart to approve without condition, seconded by M. Hayward, all in favor 5/0 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. 10. OTHER BUSINESS 11. ADJOURNMENT Motion by S. Bogert to adjourn, seconded by M. Foote. All in favor. Adjourned at 7:42PM.