Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, April 15, 2024 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 4/15/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER the meeting was called to order at 6:30PM 2. ROLL CALL Scott Pelchat performed roll call in attendance Roland Maheu, Richard Boddie, Michael Dellavechia, Mike Foote, and Marcia Hayward 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Scott Pelchat 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Planning Director Rob Mora , Assistant Planner Tyler Carmichael, and Planning Technician Scott Pelchat. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS The minutes were accepted from the previous meeting with one abstain from Marcia Hayward. 5.I. Minutes 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. 9. ZO2024-0012 Variance Withdrawel this application was withdrawn prior to the meeting date. 10. ZO2024 -0025 Variance; Stonewall Corners (126-181-5.2 & 126-280-5.2) Application ZO2024-0025VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-33 for maximum unit density to allow for 52 units where only 22 would be allowed and a variance from Article VI section 235-36 A to deviate from the prescribed greenspace of 60% down to 32%.The approval will be based upon the following criteria: John Cronin and Peter Greiner spoke regarding the application for variances from density and Greenspace John stated the lot would be a 52 unit development with units being 500SF with a garage Application ZO2024-0025VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-33 for maximum unit density to allow for 52 units where only 22 would be allowed and a variance from Article VI section 235-36 A to deviate from the prescribed greenspace of 60% down to 32%.The approval will be based upon the following criteria: John Cronin and Peter Greiner spoke regarding the application for variances from density and Greenspace John stated the lot would be a 52 unit development with units being 500SF with a garage under and a full kitchen and bath. John also stated that prior attempts to achieve a variance were for storage and this application is describing a residential model instead. Mike Foote inquired about the stormwater management area at the low end of the property. Nick the engineering agent stated that this was the case and also snow storage would be onsite as well. John Cronin also stated that a study was done for the diminishment of property values in the surrounding area with no diminishment presented. Also John Cronin stated traffic study's revealed no concerns regarding this development. Mike Dellavechia opened to public discussion at 6:41PM and it was closed to the public at 6:42PM with no discussion. Marcia stated to Michael Dellavechia that she was opposed to the project citing NH Supreme Court in Harborside found that one must determine weather to grant the variance would unduly, and in a marked degree conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinances basic zoning objectives the request of 52 units from the ordinance requirement of 22, she considered a marked degree of conflict. Marcia abstained from a vote on this. Richard Boddie stated that maybe the uniqueness of the property could be a reason to grant the variance. The Board members spoke amongst themselves regarding the variance. John Cronin spoke regarding his take on the allowance. Mike Foote inquired what the character of the neighborhood truly is as he is a resident of the neighborhood and would welcome this type of growth at this property. Richard Boddie asked is this consistent with the master plan and Rob Stated that growth and infill were yes. Mike Dellavechia Sought a motion Mike foote made a motion using the finding of fact as provided by the applicant. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It is important to note that this element is in the negative. Granting the variance does not need to be within the public interest, it just needs to not be contrary to the public interest. Here, the Applicant is proposing a residential development that is consistent with municipal goals for residential use for the site. The site, being situated between two high impact commercial uses, is not suited for a traditional subdivision. It is unlikely that it would be in demand for year-round or full-time residents. The use, planned to be a condominium, will function more like a “Hotel” than a traditional residence. Residents will likely enjoy the high density of the area and the numerous entertainment and dining options within walking distance. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The CR Zone is where “establishments catering to the dining, lodging and recreational needs of tourists or seasonal residents may be located” as stated in Section 235-14(I) of the Ordinance. The development is designed to meet the “recreational needs” of seasonal residents and visitors that need a clean, modern, and safe place to stay. Hotel rooms are in short supply and during the season are only available with reservations at premium prices. The Property will be well-maintained to ensure the Property is an appealing place for residents and the community. The Property will have sufficient parking available. The facility will match the character of the area and satisfy the goals of having residential use in the area. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Substantial justice is measured by determining whether the loss to the applicant, in the event that the variance is denied, outweighs any gain to the general public in denying the variance. Here, denying the variance would be a substantial loss to the Applicant because the Property is limited in its uses due to the CR Zone regulations, access and its location. The preferred use as office/storage is not as appealing to the community as residential use. It would be difficult to develop a viable commercial use on the site due to access and market conditions. Building and operating costs for hotels and motels, the limited season and workforce and staffing problems make such uses a non-starter. This multi-faceted facility fills a need within the community. The general public will not be negatively impacted by the facility because it is low impact, low occupancy with no peak hours of business and the buildings will improve the character of the area. The project, when built out, will substantially tax positive adding millions to the tax base while having limited impacts on municipal services. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: The structures will have aesthetic appeal and their appearance and utility will fit into the existing neighborhood. The proposed use will not have a negative impact on the surrounding property values because the facility will consist of buildings that look like upscale commercial buildings. The facility will also not create a substantial amount of traffic or noise. The Property will provide a buffer between the commercial establishments such as the High-Octane Saloon and the residential neighborhood.  4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: The structures will have aesthetic appeal and their appearance and utility will fit into the existing neighborhood. The proposed use will not have a negative impact on the surrounding property values because the facility will consist of buildings that look like upscale commercial buildings. The facility will also not create a substantial amount of traffic or noise. The Property will provide a buffer between the commercial establishments such as the High-Octane Saloon and the residential neighborhood. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: 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 general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: The Applicant’s proposed facility is designed to meet the needs of seasonal residents and tourists and it will benefit year-round residents. Seasonal residents will be able to maintain living space in the area. The use is a permitted use, but relief is required to make the project feasible. The lot is unique due to its access off a side street. Most commercial uses will require an access on Endicott Street, a busy thoroughfare in the summer months. The access off of the side street is unique to the Property and limits alternative uses. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: The proposed facility is a reasonable use of the Property because it will act as a transition buffer between the traditional residential neighborhood and the high impact uses in the CR Zone. The location of the Property is a special condition because it shares Hayes Road with a residential neighborhood. Another use such as a store, restaurant and bar, or lodging would have substantially more impact on the residential neighborhood. OR 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. Due to the access, land cost, site costs and a limited season, the feasibility of allowed uses are limited. The CR Zone is commercial in nature, but residential uses are also allowed and the zone abuts a residential zone. The Property’s special conditions include location, access and the surrounding property uses. The proposed use is consistent with the requests for the land use community who seek residential units in the zone. This was seconded by Richard Boddie and the vote was 3 for and 2against. and was approved. 11. ZO2024-0023 Variance 1207 Weirs Blvd Application ZO2024-0023VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-37 to deviate from the prescribed building height limit of 35 feet to allow for a building height of up to 55 feet in the CR Zone for residential use. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: Michael McKeown spoke regarding the project at 1207 Weirs Blvd. representing Sebastiano Dominica. Michael stated that this site is one of the more underutilized sites and is very unique and the client has looked at several development approaches for it. Michael stated that he was very excited about the proposal prescribed building height limit of 35 feet to allow for a building height of up to 55 feet in the CR Zone for residential use. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: Michael McKeown spoke regarding the project at 1207 Weirs Blvd. representing Sebastiano Dominica. Michael stated that this site is one of the more underutilized sites and is very unique and the client has looked at several development approaches for it. Michael stated that he was very excited about the proposal and that the variance concessions sought are height and density at this location looking to go up to 55 feet and also a density increase. Michael stated that parking greenspace have been met and that an urban style development is to be constructed using best practices for the lot. The lot will have a green way buffer running along weirs Blvd. and around up to Endicott St as a buffer. Michael gave the breakdown on the units and the style of each as a mix between 1 and 3 bedrooms. Landscaping has been proposed all over the site. Michael showed the entrance and exit plans for the development and it is accessed via Endicott St. The roof top is to be recessed and steeped as to allow for a roof top pool. Michael gave the neighborhood comparison to a larger building with similarity's in the area. Michael answered questions from the board regarding location and individual aspects of such. Michael Dellavechia opened to public comment at 7:20PM Dana Quinn spoke opposing citing view loss would effect her lot Michael Foote asked her if she had deeded rights for the view the answer was found to be no. Marcia read a letter opposing from Allison Hildebrand. John Paula spoke opposing anything that tall in that area. Jill Gulbicki spoke regarding wetlands on the property that effects her lot at this time the board advised improvements are proposed to remediate stormwater runoff. closed to the public at 7:27PM and Michael Mcuen closed with his presentation. Marcia Hayward objected citing the same Harborside case. The request of a 56 ' high building . The ordinance Height requirement 35' she considered a marked degree of conflict. The board spoke amongst themselves on design and location. Mike foote made a motion using the applicants finding of facts for the approval. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It is well known that this parcel has sat vacant for many years due to the many restrictive site constraints that make development of this parcel very difficult. Namely, the site configuration is such that the site does not easily offer development, with an ‘hour glass' type configuration- usable areas of the site at the front and rear but confined by a very small center connector. In addition to this the rear portion of the site has a large section of wetlands that make a large amount of the rear of the site relatively ‘undevelopable. ‘This site is a prime location for development, which would be a great benefit to the Weirs Beach area, the Weirs Channel, Paugus Bay, and Laconia as a whole. Though given the items above, development of this site would need a concession or two to be viable and in the best interests of Laconia. To make residential development at this parcel viable, an urban style footprint is necessary. As the site area is very small, and even smaller in usable area, a development with small footprint is required to meet the majority of the zoning requirements (parking, open area, green space, etc.). This development would greatly benefit the ‘public interest' of Laconia by providing sought after residential housing and luxury amenities to one of the most desirable parts of Laconia, Weirs Beach. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: We understand the spirit of the zoning ordinance in Laconia to govern overpopulation and developing projects that aren't in-keeping with the character that Laconia is historically known for as a Lakes City. That being said, the zoning falls short in an area or two that directly relate to the requests of this project. For example, the zoning does not give a provision for a residential use granting over 35'-0" in height but does allow for any other use to be allowed up to 60'-0" of height by right in the CR District. While the zoning and planning boards can govern the latter adequately, there (by default) isn't a provision for a very desirable urban project in limited areas in the City. Weirs Beach, and this parcel is an ideal example of where such a concession is relevant and desirable. Weirs Beach is a large tourist destination with many amenities for families to come and visit. This project observes the spirit of the zoning ordinance by requesting a dense development in a densely populated and the most desirable area of the city. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: As noted in detail in response to question #2, this project is sited in one of (if not) the most desirable areas of Laconia to visit, stay, and play. Weirs Beach, Weirs Channel, Paugus Bay, and the 'mouth' of Lake Winnipesaukee are the ideal areas to warrant an urban luxury residential development. This could bring much needed housing to the area, 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: As noted in detail in response to question #2, this project is sited in one of (if not) the most desirable areas of Laconia to visit, stay, and play. Weirs Beach, Weirs Channel, Paugus Bay, and the 'mouth' of Lake Winnipesaukee are the ideal areas to warrant an urban luxury residential development. This could bring much needed housing to the area, increase tourism and remain respectful to the character and charm that makes Laconia one of New Hampshire's premier destinations. The proposed development of 1207 Weirs Blvd was modeled after other local developments that exist on the water and are very successful. If granted, this project would bring a beautiful addition to Weirs Beach and potentially be a 'jewel' for the city. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: Nothing about this development proposal is low-cost or cut corners. This is the reason for this variance request. In order to provide luxury, amenity-filled living at this parcel, the development needs to meet the necessary unit count to allow the investment into this parcel to become viable. The investment would be considerable with some of the finest 1, 2, and 3 water-view units the city offers. This development is intended to be one of the nicest, timeless, and desirable locations Laconia has to offer. If this project were build, as proposed, it would greatly increase the value of all surrounding properties greatly as it would be an incredibly large investment to Weirs Blvd. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: 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 general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: Given the hardship constraints of this site: Small parcel size, Undesirable ‘hour-glass' configuration, Wetlands restrictions. And the highly desirable aspects of this site: Proximity to Weirs Beach, Weirs Channel, Paugus Bay, Lake Winnipesauke, Central to tourist hub, Some of the best views in the city. This parcel, to be developed adequately, requires urban style development. Residential use is also ideal for this parcel to cater to the city benefits of this area. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It is the ideal use, development type for this area of the city. The city would greatly benefit from all aspect of this development if granted. The site topography is also terraced which rises in the rear as you progress up Endicott Street. The requested height variance of, up to 55'-0" in height is requested to allow the front of the building to be 45' (4 stories) and the rear of the building (which is built into the Endicott hill) to be 55' (5 stories) to maximize amenities and views provided at the site. The small footprint also allows obstructions to neighboring views to be minimized. This should be a non¬ issue as the adjacent residential development behind this parcel has a wooded perimeter obstructing views to the water currently. OR 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. See responses included above. This parcel's location and desirability greatly warrant  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. See responses included above. This parcel's location and desirability greatly warrant more than 6 residential units. This was seconded by Roland Maheu and was approved 4 votes for and one vote against and it was approved. 12. ZO2024-0024 Variance 1207 Weirs Blvd Application ZO2024-0025VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-33 for maximum unit density to allow for 27 units where only 6 would be allowed. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: Michael Mcquen spoke regarding the project at 1207 Weirs Blvd. representing Sebastiano Dominica. Michael stated that this site is one of the more underutilized sites and is very unique and the client has looked at several development approaches for it. Michael stated that he was very excited about the proposal and that the variance concessions sought are height and density at this location looking to go up to 55 feet and also a density increase. Michael stated that parking greenspace have been met and that an urban style development is to be constructed using best practices for the lot. The lot will have a green way buffer running along weirs Blvd. and around up to Endicott St as a buffer. Michael gave the breakdown on the units and the style of each as a mix between 1 and 3 bedrooms. Landscaping has been proposed all over the site. Michael showed the entrance and exit plans for the development and it is accessed via Endicott St. The roof top is to be recessed and steeped as to allow for a roof top pool. Michael gave the neighborhood comparison to a larger building with similarity's in the area. Michael answered questions from the board regarding location and individual aspects of such. Michael Dellavechia opened to public comment at 7:20PM Dana Quinn spoke opposing citing view loss would effect her lot Michael Foote asked her if she had deeded rights for the view the answer was found to be no. Marcia read a letter opposing from Allison Hildebrand. John Paula spoke opposing anything that tall in that area. Jill Gulbicki spoke regarding wetlands on the property that effects her lot at this time the board advised improvements are proposed to remediate stormwater runoff. closed to the public at 7:27PM and Michael Mcuen closed with his presentation. Marcia Hayward objected citing the same Harborside case. The request of a 27 units where six are allowed she considered a marked degree of conflict. The board spoke amongst themselves on design and location. Mike foote made a motion using the applicants finding of facts for the approval. Mike foote Motioned to approve the application citing the finding of fact presented by the applicant. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It is well known that this parcel has sat vacant for many years due to the many restrictive site constraints that make development of this parcel very difficult. Namely, the site configuration is such that the site does not easily offer development, with an ‘hour glass’ type configuration- usable areas of the site at the front and rear but confined by a very small center connector. In addition to this the rear portion of the site has a large section of wetlands that make a large amount of the rear of the site relatively 'undevelopable.' This site is a prime location for development, which would be a great benefit to the Weirs Beach area, the Weirs Channel, Paugus Bay, and Laconia as a whole. Though given the items above, development of this site would need a concession or two to be viable and in the best interests of Laconia. To make residential development at this parcel viable, an urban style footprint is necessary. As the site area is very small, and even smaller in usable area, a development with small footprint is required to meet the majority of the zoning requirements (parking, open area, green space, etc.). This development would greatly benefit the 'public interest’ of Laconia by providing sought after residential housing and luxury amenities to one of the most desirable parts of Laconia, Weirs Beach. the best interests of Laconia. To make residential development at this parcel viable, an urban style footprint is necessary. As the site area is very small, and even smaller in usable area, a development with small footprint is required to meet the majority of the zoning requirements (parking, open area, green space, etc.). This development would greatly benefit the 'public interest’ of Laconia by providing sought after residential housing and luxury amenities to one of the most desirable parts of Laconia, Weirs Beach. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: We understand the spirit of the zoning ordinance in Laconia to govern overpopulation and developing projects that aren't in-keeping with the character that Laconia is historically known for as a Lakes City. The zoning falls short in an area or two that directly relate to the requests of this project. For example, the zoning does not give a provision for a residential use that allows a dense urban style development (more than 6 units per acre) in the CR District. It seems reasonable that there may be limited areas within the city where an urban style development is acceptable, but also very desirable. Weirs Beach, and this parcel is an ideal example of where such a concession is relevant and extremely desirable. Weirs Beach is a large tourist destination with many amenities for families to come and visit. This project observes the spirit of the zoning ordinance by requesting a dense development in a densely populated and the most desirable area of the city. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: As noted in detail in response to question #2, this project is sited in one of (if not) the most desirable areas of Laconia to visit, stay, and piay. Weirs Beach, Weirs Channel, Paugus Bay, and the ‘mouth’ of Lake Winnipesaukee are the ideal areas to warrant an urban luxury residential development. This could bring much needed housing to the area, increase tourism and remain respectful to the character and charm that makes Laconia one of New Hampshire's premier destinations. The proposed development of 1207 Weirs Blvd was modeled after other local developments that exist on the water and are very successful. If granted, this project would bring a beautiful addition to Weirs Beach and potentially be a ‘jewel’ for the city. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: Nothing about this development proposal is low-cost or corners were cut. This is the reason for this variance request. To provide luxury, amenity-filled living at this parcel, the development needs to meet the necessary unit count to allow the investment into this parcel to become viable. The investment would be considerable with some of the finest 1, 2, and 3 water-view units the city offers. This development is intended to be one of the nicest, timeless, and desirable locations Laconia has to offer. If this project were build, as proposed, it would greatly increase the value of all surrounding properties greatly as it would be an incredibly large investment to Weirs Blvd. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: 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 general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: Given the hardship constraints of this site: Small parcel size, Undesirable 'hourglass' configuration, Wetlands restrictions. And the highly desirable aspects of this site: Proximity to Weirs Beach, Weirs Channel, Paugus Bay, Lake Winnipesauke, Central to tourist hub, Some of the best views in the city. This parcel, to be developed adequately, requires urban style development. A residential use is also ideal for this parcel to cater to the city benefits of this area. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It is the ideal use, development type for this area of the city. The city would greatly  This parcel, to be developed adequately, requires urban style development. A residential use is also ideal for this parcel to cater to the city benefits of this area. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It is the ideal use, development type for this area of the city. The city would greatly benefit from all aspect of this development if granted. The site topography is also terraced which rises in the rear as you progress up Endicott Street. The requested height variance of, up to 55’-0" in height is requested to allow the front of the building to be 45' (4 stories) and the rear of the building (which is built into the Endicott hill) to be 55’ (5 stories) to maximize amenities and views provided at the site. The small footprint also allows obstructions to neighboring views to be minimized. This should be a non¬ issue as the adjacent residential development behind this parcel has a wooded perimeter obstructing views to the water currently. OR 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. See responses included above. This parcel's location and desirability greatly warrant more than 6 residential units. this was seconded by Roland Maheu and was approved with the vote of 4 yes and 1 no. 13. ZO2024-0022 Variance 711 Weirs Blvd Application ZO2024-0022VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-33 to deviate from the required 160 feet where only 80.25 exists. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: Tom Selling Spoke regarding the variance for road frontage the variance from a Hiss survey and a tree study. The Minutes to follow will also be for the variances listed below as well ZO2024-0026 & 27. Tom spoke on these topics throughout these minutes notated below. For The record Thomas Selling unlike the two previous applications were asking for 1.3 units per acre we have a 28 acre parcel and we feel its one of the more unique properties that will be talked about this evening. We are in the commercial resort zone and we are proposing a 37 unit campground with a wedding venue an observatory and a wedding cabin scattered around the parcel. We have four cisterns six detention ponds a well and 12 lots along weirs Blvd. We have before you this evening three variances all dimensional with the first being for road frontage and to allow 80.25 feet where 160 is required. next are two Variances that are defined in the steep slope ordinance first for a high intensity soil survey and also a variance for a tree count study. What we are proposing we believe is to fair and reasonable Tom emphasized the TRC attendances as well for the project and that he had been four times. Tom described the Glamping model for the board and the aspects of the domes and how they are on the site. Tom Handed out pictures to the board members to allow for further description of the Glamping Domes and the camping model. Tom then spoke regarding the 12 lots that sit on weirs Blvd. and how services would get to the sites. Tom described the situation with the water access stating Laconia City water is unable to service the site due to the site itself above elevation 600. Without a booster pump station a hybrid proposal was being made. This would be the necessities behind the road frontage variance. Tom stated this was a low impact development and that the steep slope ordinance variances for the record a land development practice that decentralized the detention of stormwater runoff to replicate the surface runoff conditions that  Tom Handed out pictures to the board members to allow for further description of the Glamping Domes and the camping model. Tom then spoke regarding the 12 lots that sit on weirs Blvd. and how services would get to the sites. Tom described the situation with the water access stating Laconia City water is unable to service the site due to the site itself above elevation 600. Without a booster pump station a hybrid proposal was being made. This would be the necessities behind the road frontage variance. Tom stated this was a low impact development and that the steep slope ordinance variances for the record a land development practice that decentralized the detention of stormwater runoff to replicate the surface runoff conditions that were there prior to activities Tom stated that fits us to a tee. Tom touched on the uniqueness of the site and all the wetlands it has on the site Tom said he has not seen anything like it. Tom continued to advise the board his stormwater management plan on the site plan. Paul Gosselin also stated that the proposal of a retaining wall be part of the house is not a great idea in dealing with storm runoff. Paul Gosselin confirmed the lack of trees on the site and stated there were a diminished amount of trees. Paul Gosselin also touched on driveline line of site at Weirs Blvd. Tom followed up with the LID definition and that study's had been submitted to Wes Anderson. Tom spoke more on the HISS and stated the site was made of one soil type mill site Henniker soil series 8-15% 15-25% slope all three soils being mill site Henniker and Woodstock are hydraulic soils. Tom stated he was an engineer that was capable of designing a stormwater management plan why do i need a HISS survey it tells me nothing i don't already know. Rich Tilton spoke in concern to the stormwater on the cove and that structures have been put into there site and that hopes that this development be done in the right way. And that he wants it done the right way. Tom stated this project is a unique project and tom asked for a third party engineer do inspections paid for by the applicant because Tom Selling is watching this like a hawk during development. Rob Mora stated a third party engineer chosen by the city be out there during development. Roland these studies are required how can they be waived Rob Mora stated that Ordinances are deviated by request of a variance. Richard Boddie motioned to approve Variance ZO2024-0022 VAR using the finding of facts 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The relief is modest compared to the proposed use of the lot out back. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The access off city services to the site warrants it. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It is a reasonable adjustment to the size of the property in use. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: There was no evidence plus or minus. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: Simply services are available but the challenge of getting them up the grade. 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 general 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: The type of the use and the access and services OR 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 Marcia Hayward and passed unanimously 5 votes yes. 14. ZO2024-0026 Variance 711 Weirs Blvd  therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. This was seconded by Marcia Hayward and passed unanimously 5 votes yes. 14. ZO2024-0026 Variance 711 Weirs Blvd Application ZO2024-0026VAR, request for Variance from Article VIIA Section 235-44.2 G. (1)(e) to deviate from the high intensity soil survey submission requirements to allow the applicant to submit a stormwater management report without performing a high intensity soil survey for the site. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: Tom Selling Spoke regarding the variance for road frontage the variance from a Hiss survey and a tree study. The Minutes to follow will also be for the variances listed below as well ZO2024-0026 & 27. Tom spoke on these topics throughout these minutes notated below. For The record Thomas Selling unlike the two previous applications were asking for 1.3 units per acre we have a 28 acre parcel and we feel its one of the more unique properties that will be talked about this evening. We are in the commercial resort zone and we are proposing a 37 unit campground with a wedding venue an observatory and a wedding cabin scattered around the parcel. We have four cisterns six detention ponds a well and 12 lots along weirs Blvd. We have before you this evening three variances all dimensional with the first being for road frontage and to allow 80.25 feet where 160 is required. next are two Variances that are defined in the steep slope ordinance first for a high intensity soil survey and also a variance for a tree count study. What we are proposing we believe is to fair and reasonable Tom emphasized the TRC attendances as well for the project and that he had been four times. Tom described the Glamping model for the board and the aspects of the domes and how they are on the site. Tom Handed out pictures to the board members to allow for further description of the Glamping Domes and the camping model. Tom then spoke regarding the 12 lots that sit on weirs Blvd. and how services would get to the sites. Tom described the situation with the water access stating Laconia City water is unable to service the site due to the site itself above elevation 600. Without a booster pump station a hybrid proposal was being made. This would be the necessities behind the road frontage variance. Tom stated this was a low impact development and that the steep slope ordinance variances for the record a land development practice that decentralized the detention of stormwater runoff to replicate the surface runoff conditions that were there prior to activities Tom stated that fits us to a tee. Tom touched on the uniqueness of the site and all the wetlands it has on the site Tom said he has not seen anything like it. Tom continued to advise the board his stormwater management plan on the site plan. Paul also stated that the proposal of a retaining wall be part of the house is not a great idea in dealing with storm runoff. Paul confirmed the lack of trees on the site and stated there were a diminished amount of trees. Paul also touched on driveline line of site at Weirs Blvd. Tom followed up with the LID definition and that study's had been submitted to Wes Anderson. Tom spoke more on the HISS and stated the site was made of one soil type mill site Henniker soil series 8- 15% 15-25% slope all three soils being mill site Henniker and Woodstock are hydraulic soils. Tom stated he was an engineer that was capable of designing a stormwater management plan why do i need a HISS survey it tells me nothing i don't already know. Rich Tilton spoke in concern to the stormwater on the cove and that structures have been put into there site and that hopes that this development be done in the right way. And that he wants it done the right way. Tom stated this project is a unique project and tom asked for a third party engineer do inspections paid for by the applicant because Tom Selling is watching this like a hawk during development. Rob Mora stated a third party engineer chosen by the city be out there during development. Roland these studies are required how can they be waived Rob Mora stated that Ordinances are deviated by request of a variance. Richard Boddie Motioned to Deny Variance ZO2024-0026 Variance the Denial was based off the criteria: 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The denial of this variance would allow for the study to yield the information to allow for a more detailed development. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: Within the spirit of the ordinance to allow for best practices be met during development. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: the denial will allow for issues to be addressed relative to the property for both the owners and for planning. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished  spirit of the ordinance to allow for best practices be met during development. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: the denial will allow for issues to be addressed relative to the property for both the owners and for planning. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No studies were presented for or against. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: 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: unique property with view and slopes. 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: the denial is a reasonable one due to the allowance for best practices to be performed within this development. OR 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 for the denial was seconded by Roland Maheu and was denied unanimously. 15. ZO2024-0027 Variance 711 Weirs Blvd Application ZO2024-0027VAR, request for Variance from Article VIIA Section 235-44.2 G. (1)(b) to deviate from the tree survey requirement to allow the applicant to not perform a tree survey for the site. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: Tom Selling Spoke regarding the variance for road frontage the variance from a Hiss survey and a tree study. The Minutes to follow will also be for the variances listed below as well ZO2024-0026 & 27. Tom spoke on these topics throughout these minutes notated below. For The record Thomas Selling unlike the two previous applications were asking for 1.3 units per acre we have a 28 acre parcel and we feel its one of the more unique properties that will be talked about this evening. We are in the commercial resort zone and we are proposing a 37 unit campground with a wedding venue an observatory and a wedding cabin scattered around the parcel. We have four cisterns six detention ponds a well and 12 lots along weirs Blvd. We have before you this evening three variances all dimensional with the first being for road frontage and to allow 80.25 feet where 160 is required. next are two Variances that are defined in the steep slope ordinance first for a high intensity soil survey and also a variance for a tree count study. What we are proposing we believe is to fair and reasonable Tom emphasized the TRC attendances as well for the project and that he had been four times. Tom described the Glamping model for the board and the aspects of the domes and how they are on the site. Tom Handed out pictures to the board members to allow for further description of the Glamping Domes and the camping model. Tom then spoke regarding the 12 lots that sit on weirs Blvd. and how services would get to the sites. Tom described the situation with the water access stating Laconia City water is unable to attendances as well for the project and that he had been four times. Tom described the Glamping model for the board and the aspects of the domes and how they are on the site. Tom Handed out pictures to the board members to allow for further description of the Glamping Domes and the camping model. Tom then spoke regarding the 12 lots that sit on weirs Blvd. and how services would get to the sites. Tom described the situation with the water access stating Laconia City water is unable to service the site due to the site itself above elevation 600. Without a booster pump station a hybrid proposal was being made. This would be the necessities behind the road frontage variance. Tom stated this was a low impact development and that the steep slope ordinance variances for the record a land development practice that decentralized the detention of stormwater runoff to replicate the surface runoff conditions that were there prior to activities Tom stated that fits us to a tee. Tom touched on the uniqueness of the site and all the wetlands it has on the site Tom said he has not seen anything like it. Tom continued to advise the board his stormwater management plan on the site plan. Paul also stated that the proposal of a retaining wall be part of the house is not a great idea in dealing with storm runoff. Paul confirmed the lack of trees on the site and stated there were a diminished amount of trees. Paul also touched on driveline line of site at Weirs Blvd. Tom followed up with the LID definition and that study's had been submitted to Wes Anderson. Tom spoke more on the HISS and stated the site was made of one soil type mill site Henniker soil series 8- 15% 15-25% slope all three soils being mill site Henniker and Woodstock are hydraulic soils. Tom stated he was an engineer that was capable of designing a stormwater management plan why do i need a HISS survey it tells me nothing i don't already know. Rich Tilton spoke in concern to the stormwater on the cove and that structures have been put into there site and that hopes that this development be done in the right way. And that he wants it done the right way. Tom stated this project is a unique project and tom asked for a third party engineer do inspections paid for by the applicant because Tom Selling is watching this like a hawk during development. Rob Mora stated a third party engineer chosen by the city be out there during development. Roland these studies are required how can they be waived Rob Mora stated that Ordinances are deviated by request of a variance. Richard Boddie Made a Motion to approve ZO2024-0027VAR using the criteria. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The applicant is demonstrating responsible stewardship to the remaining tree population on the site. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: Because of the lack of trees on site to count and or survey at this time. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Environment and good practice to mediate the vegetation. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence was provided for and or against the diminution of property values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: Not enough trees on site to survey. 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 general 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: : The owner has shown a responsible stewardship towards the property. OR 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 Roland and was passed unanimously.  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 Roland and was passed unanimously. 16. OTHER BUSINESS 17. ADJOURNMENT the meeting was adjourned at 8:57PM