Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, November 21, 2022 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 1. CALL TO ORDER Call to order 6:34 p.m. 2. ROLL CALL T 11/21/2022 - Minutes F A Steven Bogert (Chairman), Michael Foote, Marcia Hayward 3. RECORDING SECRETARY R 3.I. Recording Secretary Sheena Duncan (Zoning Planner Technician) 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE D 4.I. Staff In Attendance Dean Trefethen (Director of Planning and Development), Sheena Duncan (Zoning Planner Technician) 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Draft Minutes Acceptance of the October 17, 2022 minutes- Motion by M. Hayward to approve as presented, seconded by M. Foote. All in favor, 3/0 6. EXTENSIONS 6.I. ZO2019-0021SE - Endicott St E Solar Project Extension Request ZO2019-0021SE Endicott St E Solar Project Extension Request- Adam Sandahl PE, CMA Engineers requested an extension for the previously approved solar project, stating that construction was expected to begin in the spring of 2023. Motion by M. Foote to approve the extension- the project was previously proven to be reasonable in scope and design, and required an extension for practical reasons. Seconded by M. Hayward, all in favor, 3/0.  project, stating that construction was expected to begin in the spring of 2023. Motion by M. Foote to approve the extension- the project was previously proven to be reasonable in scope and design, and required an extension for practical reasons. Seconded by M. Hayward, all in favor, 3/0. 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 T Public To Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. 8.I. ZO2022-0084VAR - 485 Endicott St E Unit 17 Variance F S. Bogert explained to all applicants that because there was a quorum, the Board could vote, but being short two members, the applicants would have the right to continue their hearing until the following meeting should they choose to. Shawn Sprague (ZO2022- 0084VAR- 485 Endicott St E Unit 17) indicated that he would like to continue their case until the December A 19 meeting. A member of the public expressed concerns that some of those who came from several hours away and as far away as Florida to testify, would not be able to make the trip in a month. S Duncan explained that they could submit written testimony, and to contact the office with any concerns. The Board then transitioned to the acceptance of the October 17 meeting minutes. Meeting continues to the December 19 meeting. R 8.II. ZO2022-0086SE - 92 Pine St Special Exception ZO2022-0086SE 92 Pine St. Special Exception- John Suldenski /Wonderful Properties- Mr. D Suldenski explained the past uses of 92 Pine Street. He explained that the property owner wished to convert the property into a six unit multi-family development because it would be a reasonable use, especially considering the city's need for affordable housing units. He explained that retail uses had failed in the past and dwelling units would be economically viable. M Foot asked if the building was two-story, Mr. Suldenski explained that it was but that there were no windows on part of the second floor. They would be proposing a partial extension on the second floor. M. Hayward inquired about the lot size- .29 acres. Mr. Suldenski said that the property had roughly 14 parking spaces available. The developer is considering converting some of the impervious surface into green space. D. Trefetgen reminded the Board that the special exception was for the use of “multifamily” and that there was an additional request for variance for six units. S. Bogert mentioned that the commercial use would require little to no setback but expressed concern that the residential use would not be able to meet the required setback allowance. D. Trefethen said that the building itself would be grandfathered, so the setback requirement would not be an issue.  expressed concern that the residential use would not be able to meet the required setback allowance. D. Trefethen said that the building itself would be grandfathered, so the setback requirement would not be an issue. M. Hayward expressed concern about parking on the hill on the property as outlined in the parking plan- Mr. Suldenski reminded the board that there was a surplus of parking and that the parking already existed and had been in use, but those spaces could be considered for conversion to green space. Opened to the public at 6:55 p.m. There being no one to speak for or against closed to the T public at 6:55 p.m. In closing, Mr. Suldenski said that there was a need for housing, it was a good use for the lot F that also fit the neighborhood, and would create temporary short-term work. M. Foote said that the parking was fine and asked his fellow board members if this was how they would like to densify the neighborhood. S Bogert said that the use they were voting on A was not problematic and wouldn't be an anomaly on its own. He said that the request met the requirements for special exception- it would not strain the city in any way, it would not create health and safety issues and would not be out of character for the neighborhood, it would not create any problems with traffic flow. M. Hayward said that the use was in keeping with the neighborhood. S. Bogert, using discussion for the creation of a motion for approval, R sought a second. Seconded by M Hayward, all in favor, application approved. 8.III. ZO2022-0087VAR - 92 Pine St. Variance D ZO2022-0087VAR- 92 Pine St Variance request for density (6 units where 1 would be allowed) M. Foote regarding the number of units asked the board if they believe this lot would support such high density. S. Bogert mentioned that in another part of the city there had been a recent approval for a new dwelling unit converted from a commercial unit without parking in an area that supported it. He mentioned that this property had enough parking but was not sure if it justified the number of units requested. M. Hayward said that she could understand four units but maybe not six- there were other multifamily properties in the area (such as the Bachelder school) but she did not believe that there were any with more than 4 units. M. Foote said that there would not be an expansion of the building's footprint and that this was an area close to services and so forth. Chairman Bogert addressed the applicant explaining that there did not seem to be support for six units and that if he were turned down, it would be a final decision. He asked the applicant if he would like to table the application to consider changing his request. Mr. Suldenski said that in order to meet the cash flow requirement for the loan to improve the building the applicant would require six units. S. Bogert said that the law would not allow a cash flow problem to affect the board's determination. Mr. Suldenski said that if they could not pursue six units that he would keep the commercial use for the time being. M Foote said that the lot had enough parking and it was not against the public interest- M.Hayward agreed. M. Foote said the spirit of the ordinance would be observed (residential  cash flow problem to affect the board's determination. Mr. Suldenski said that if they could not pursue six units that he would keep the commercial use for the time being. M Foote said that the lot had enough parking and it was not against the public interest- M.Hayward agreed. M. Foote said the spirit of the ordinance would be observed (residential general allowing for a mix of housing types) and this would provide housing which was a running topic. S. Bogert asked if the Board felt that this would do substantial justice- M. Foote agreed but M. Hayward said she was not convinced. S. Bogert asked if values would be diminished- they would not. Regarding hardship S. Bogert asked if the property could be used with lower density and reminded the board that a monetary flow problem was not a hardship and the property could be used otherwise. Using the prior discussion, S. Bogart sought a second for a motion to deny. Seconded by m T Hayward. All in favor- application Denied. 8.IV. ZO2022-0088VAR - 209 White Oaks Rd Variance F ZO2022-0088VAR – 209 White Oaks Rd. Variance Request for side and rear setbacks for the placement of a shed- Nicholas Watts (representing Francine Ray) addressed the board, stating that Miss Ray could not attend because she was traveling to see family for the holidays. He explained the nature of the small lot which would require Miss Ray to place the 10x10 shed squarely in the center of the backyard in an inconvenient location. A M. Hayward asked for clarification about the yard's boundaries. Mr. Watts explained that the property ended just after the line of trees in the plan, saying that they would block the shed from view by neighbors. R M. Foote mentioned that in the RR2 district the 75 ft front setback would go through the house, stating that the property was already non-conforming and predated zoning. D. Trefethen mentioned that in order to meet setbacks only a small space in the middle of D the backyard would be considered conforming, leaving little choice for the applicant. Open to the public at 7:34 p.m. There being none to speak for or against public comment closed at 7:34 p.m. M. Foote said that the hardship was that the lot was created prior to set back allowances giving the owner very limited area for the placement of a shed which appeared to be a reasonable use. S. Bogert asked the board if this shed would be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance- no. Would it do substantial Justice to allow it? Yes. Would it diminish property values? No. Regarding hardship, S. Bogert restated that the setback and lot size created an inappropriately small area for the project. Using Board conversation as a motion to approve, S Bogert sought a second. Seconded by M Foote. All in favor, application approved. 9. OTHER BUSINESS D Trefethen announced to the board that S Duncan would be transitioning to the Conservation Technician position, but would be covering zoning as well for the near future. S Bogert, addressing D Trefethen mentioned that the state school property presentation was very well done and that knowing what he knew about development this was a good first step in a series of many to come. He said that the city was lucky to have Mr. Trefethen in the driver's seat for this. 10. ADJOURNMENT  S Bogert, addressing D Trefethen mentioned that the state school property presentation was very well done and that knowing what he knew about development this was a good first step in a series of many to come. He said that the city was lucky to have Mr. Trefethen in the driver's seat for this. 10. ADJOURNMENT Motion S. Bogert to adjourn- seconded by M. Hayward, all in favor. Meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m. F T R A D