Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Tuesday, July 18, 2023 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 7/18/2023 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Steve Bogert advised All in attendance of his recent appointment to the City council and turned the meeting over to the vice chair Michael DellaVecchia and excused himself from the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 6:35PM 2. ROLL CALL Scott Pelchat called the roll Roland Maheu, Jane Laroche, Michael DellaVechia, Mike Foote, and Marcia Hayward. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Scott Pelchat Zoning Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Kathy Menici Interim Planning Director, and Scott Pelchat zoning technician. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS The Minutes from the June Zoning Board Meeting were accepted unanimously. 5.I. Zoning Board Of Adjustment 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. Zoning Board Of Adjustment ZO2023-0055VAR – 23 Appleton St. Applicant is seeking a variance. variance for density from Article VI Dimensional Standards. Section 235-33 maximum residential unit density. To allow for the conversion of a four-unit multifamily building to a five-unit multifamily building. Currently 1.26 units are allowed per ordinance. Miguel Romero spoke on behalf of the 23 Appleton St application regarding the proposed parking layout. He explained to the Board the layout for parking along with pictures and a plot plan. Miguel presented the measurements for each driveway as there are two driveways on the property. Jane Laroche asked if any driveway widening would be done on the property as winter will affect the parking as well. M. Foote stated more than two people can live in one unit. R. Maheu asked if there were true measurements done for each spot and Miguel stated he measured the entire space, but Roland was not certain the measurements would work. Kathy clarified the dimensional requirement for the spots themselves as well as a driveway width requirement as well. M. Hayward mentioned that the width would make turning in the driveway problematic. Marcia also mentioned the pass over easement from the abutting property. Miguel stated that he himself parked the cars for the pictures that were  property. Jane Laroche asked if any driveway widening would be done on the property as winter will affect the parking as well. M. Foote stated more than two people can live in one unit. R. Maheu asked if there were true measurements done for each spot and Miguel stated he measured the entire space, but Roland was not certain the measurements would work. Kathy clarified the dimensional requirement for the spots themselves as well as a driveway width requirement as well. M. Hayward mentioned that the width would make turning in the driveway problematic. Marcia also mentioned the pass over easement from the abutting property. Miguel stated that he himself parked the cars for the pictures that were presented to the board. M. DellaVecchia asked Miguel to have a seat and opened the podium to the public at 7:46 and closed to the public at 7:46. M. DellaVecchia Mentioned the density levels of the property are well over the allowed amounts. Marcia commented on the parking again as well and then commented on the density as well. Mike Foote asked if these were recognized units by The City. Scott Pelchat stated that per his knowledge it is recognized as a four-unit apartment building. It is currently assessed by the city as a 4–8-unit building. Mike said they are looking for one more apartment and asked again how it became a multi-unit M. Foote asked as well about the parking requirement. Mike DellaVecchia asked if Miguel had any further questions. Kathy stated and verified the current usage and maybe it was preexisting non-conforming. Kathy asked the board to address the variance criteria before the motion was read. Mike Foote Motioned to deny the application. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It is contrary to the public interest. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: Would not be observed due to density. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Would not be done. This would impact the neighborhood due to increased density levels. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: There were no presentations for or against the diminishment of surrounding property values. Unnecessary Hardship: The property has four units in a single-family home. And is yielding profits for the owner. It was seconded by Roland Maheu and the denial was unanimous. 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. 9. Zoning Board Of Adjustment ZO2023-0057VAR – 13 Summer St. Applicant is seeking a variance for density from Article VI Dimensional Standards. Section 235-33 maximum residential unit density. To allow for the conversion of a 6-unit multifamily building to an 8-unit multifamily building. Currently 3.8 units are allowed per ordinance. Tom Cochran and Sonya Misiaszek. spoke on the density variance for 13 summer St. Advising it was originally owned by lakes region mental health. Tom also talked on the qualifiers for these units by the tenants that will reside there. Sonya spoke about the overall layout in its current conditions and the future use as proposed by the Laconia Housing Authority. Tom explained the voucher program and the way it is used regarding tenants. Tom also spoke on the renovations for this property. Sonya spoke about the density variance for the UC district in which the property is. Sonya also stated all renovations would be internal and no outside construction would be happening. Sonya defined each unit for the board including details for each. Also, Sonya talked about the shared space that currently exists and that this space would be better suited as individual apartments. Mike DellaVecchia and Mike Foote inquired about the use of the shared space. Tom And Sonya defined it for the board. Sonya continued through the remaining units. Marcia asked about a difference in square footage change and Sonya defined the no change comments she had made. Sonya then went to describe the building in comparison to how the ordinance reads. Sonya mentioned granting this density variance would allow for tenants to have their own space over a shared space. Sonya described the criteria from the application as they had answered these criteria. . Michael DellaVecchia made a motion to grant the variance for density. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It would benefit the needs of the tenants it would be housing. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: Getting people into housing units is a good thing and housing people is a necessity. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: The property is a buffer between single family housing and the commercial section. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: no evidence was presented to confirm or deny the diminishment of property values. Unnecessary Hardship: The lack of housing in the community if not allowed. of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: no evidence was presented to confirm or deny the diminishment of property values. Unnecessary Hardship: The lack of housing in the community if not allowed. a. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: There are currently six tenants living in the building, and there have been tenants living there when the lakes region mental health center owned the building. The classification of the building as a multifamily one would be more descriptive than prescriptive at this point, and the work we intend to do will improve the safety of each unit despite the density. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: 13 Summer appears to be the largest residential building footprint on a single lot in the neighborhood. There are already a few 4–8-unit apartment buildings close-by. Including abutter 223 Union Ave, 38 Summer St, 5Winter St., 8 Winter St, the adjoining buildings on 21 and 23 Winter St. Most of the buildings on the street are at least two families, and there are three-family homes on 14 Summer, 62 Summer, 63 Summer, and 79 Summer Street. b. If the criteria in subparagraph (a) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use .This was seconded by Marcia Hayward and was passed unanimously. 9.I. Zoning Board Of Adjustment ZO2023-0058VAR – 13 Summer St. Applicant is seeking a variance from Article VIII Off-street parking requirements: minimum requirements. Table III off-street parking requirements. To allow for 1 space per unit where 1 and ½ spaces are required. Tom stated that there was analysis done with findings that. Sixty to seventy percent of the voucher program users do not own cars and use foot traffic for their primary travel. Tom also spoke again, touching on the other Laconia Housing owned properties. Sonya spoke about parking and a study that had been done by Craig Bailey. Currently the parking is not delineated. The Proposed layout is for 8 spaces. Sonya then explained the rationale behind the need for this variance as it would allow the units to be created and would still allow for 8 parking spots. Sonya explained to the board that other residences on this street are similar in parking scenarios. Sonya also supplied a time capture pamphlet of the parking lot over the course of several days further proving parking will not be an issue at this location. Michael DellaVecchia asked again about the efficiency unit and Sonya answered about the usage. Mike Foote stated that this housing could act as a place where the tenants in theory could improve and rise to betterment. Tom touched upon the voucher program and how it would help with this betterment. After a brief exchange between Tom and Michael Foote. Michael opened it to the public comment, and it was closed to the public. Marcia inquired if we were to grant the variance would we in turn be creating more nonconformity. Mike Foote mentioned the voucher program again. Mike DellaVecchia expressed his likes about this project and this plan. Marcia mentioned again about future usage of the parking requirements and the future needs of the tenants. Mike DellaVecchia expressed to the board members that if someone was to achieve a better situation, they may no longer need the voucher program all together. Tom closed the presentation for Laconia Housing and broke down the aspects of this project and the grants and how this would help the Tennant and the community as well. Tom went on to list all the Laconia Housing Authority properties. Marcia asked about parking situations at the other properties. Tom explained the additional property scenarios and also it was found not all are voucher program properties. Mike Foote continued the questioning of the voucher program and what fair market rent was and how the voucher truly works. Mike Foote explained his struggle as a citizen in this community and how hard it is to make it in this community. Sonya and Tom explained in essence that this is necessary for the people they serve, and its housing will benefit the people who live there. Roland Maheu thought it was a good plan and helps the community, Mike DellaVecchia stated parking should not be a nullifying factor in the decision. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The Property and the tenants it houses will not require the 1.5 spaces as some of the tenants do not own vehicles. Marcia Hayward made the motion to grant the parking variance for Summer St. using the following criteria. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The City of Laconia is attempting to meet the need for low-income housing and the People that need such housing.  would not be contrary to the public interest because: The Property and the tenants it houses will not require the 1.5 spaces as some of the tenants do not own vehicles. Marcia Hayward made the motion to grant the parking variance for Summer St. using the following criteria. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The City of Laconia is attempting to meet the need for low-income housing and the People that need such housing. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: There are other buildings in the neighborhood that have similar parking situations. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence was presented to confirm or deny the diminishment of property values. Unnecessary Hardship: Not everybody can afford a car. A. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: I. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: The property allows for 8 spaces and that is the need of the tenants. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It will increase the Low-income housing for the city. b. If the criteria in subparagraph (a) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. This was seconded by Mike Foote and passed unanimously. 10. Zoning Board Of Adjustment a. ZO2023-0067SE – 47 Belvidere St. Applicant is seeking a special exception from Article VII (Supplementary provisions) section 235-41 (residential accessory uses) Attachment A (1-13) to allow for the construction and use of an accessory dwelling unit. Michael DellaVecchia asked the applicant to come forward to speak on behalf of the application. Robert and Roberta Kirmelewicz spoke on behalf of the application for a special exception to allow for an Accessory Dwelling Unit for there property on 47 Belvidere St. Robert described the house itself Stating they would utilize the upper floor of the domicile while the lower portion now a full garage would be sectioned and turned into a functioning Accessory dwelling Unit for their family members. Robert explained the square footage layout as well for both the upstairs and downstairs stating the ADU will be approximately 600 Square feet. Robert also explained the parking layout as well for the property and went on to explain the finite details for the usage of the ADU. Mike Foote asked about the ADU as it will be constructed and the internal layout and asked if any work would be done on the exterior. Michael DellaVecchia asked about the prior use of the structure before their purchase of the property. Michael asked Scott if they meet the criteria within the ordinance Scott stated that all items presented for this application lead him to believe the criteria has been met at this time per his knowledge. Michael opened comments to the public and no abutters commented. Marcia Hayward motioned to grant the special exception for the ADU using the following criteria. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: Yes, it is defined in this chapter. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: It will not be as the accessory dwelling unit will be within the primary structure. The requested use will not overload ay public water, drainage or sewer system or any other municipal system, nor will there be any significant increase in stormwater runoff onto adjacent property or streets: No, it will not as it will be within the primary structure. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools, or solid waste disposal services: It will not as the use will be as defined within the ordinance and must be used in accordance with the ordinance. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: No special provisions have been set forth. The requested use will not create hazards to health, safety, or general welfare of the public, nor be detrimental to the use of or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood: No, it will not. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: It is as it will be within the main structure. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan: It is. This was seconded by Mike Foote and was passed unanimously. 11. Zoning Board Of Adjustment ZO2023-0069VAR – 225 Franklin St.: Applicant requests a Variance from Article VI (Dimensional standards) Section 235-33(Maximum residential unit density), Attachment 3 Table II (Dimensional requirements) to allow for the conversion from a single family to a Two-family residence. Where currently one is allowed per the ordinance. Mary Jo Glynn spoke on behalf of her application for a variance to allow for 11. Zoning Board Of Adjustment ZO2023-0069VAR – 225 Franklin St.: Applicant requests a Variance from Article VI (Dimensional standards) Section 235-33(Maximum residential unit density), Attachment 3 Table II (Dimensional requirements) to allow for the conversion from a single family to a Two-family residence. Where currently one is allowed per the ordinance. Mary Jo Glynn spoke on behalf of her application for a variance to allow for her single-family home to become a two-family home. Mary Jo explained to the board that when the house was built it was created with a space above for this conversion to happen and it was stated she had been in prior to getting a variance for the decks to be built. Michael asked about the large garage. Jane asked if it was in the single-family Zone Mary Jo stated that Opechee shores had many houses, but it was found this is an intersection of multiple zones. Mike Foote asked Scott if this is a No on the table of use and it was stated by Scott that it was a not permitted use. Mike asked about the multifamily usage and inquired if this could be used as an ADU and Kathy stated not as it is too large to qualify for that use. Kathy stated the uses permitted in this zone from the tables of use. Mike Foote stated if this was to pass it would be a contradictory use to the ordinance. Jane asked about the current set up for the second floor Mary Jo described it in its current state. Kathy advised Mike Foote to follow the square footage guidelines for the ADU. Michael DellaVecchia and Mike Foote attempted to advise the applicant for an ADU and Kathy reminded the board that the application in front of them needs to be addressed and not factors of an ADU. Mike Foote made a motion to deny the variance for 225 Franklin St using the following criteria. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It would be contrary as the ordinance states this is not allowed in this zone. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It would not be observed as the ordinance does not allow for this use in this zone. . Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would not do substantial justice. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No studies were presented for or against the diminishment of the surrounding property values. . Unnecessary Hardship: there was no hardship presented. a. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: b. If the criteria in subparagraph (a) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. The motion was seconded by Marcia and the denial was unanimous. 12. OTHER BUSINESS 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was Adjourned at 8:35PM