Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, July 15, 2024 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 7/15/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Michael DellAvechia brought the meeting to order at 6:30PM. 2. ROLL CALL The roll call was performed in attendance were Roland Maheu, Jane Laroche, Michael DellAvechia, Mike Foote, and Marcia Hayward. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Scott Pelchat recording secretary 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Scott Pelchat Zoning Technician 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS The prior meeting minutes were accepted as written. 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. ZO2024-0050 VAR 64 Hill Croft Rd. Arthur Rosaki spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the construction of a two car garage on the property at 64 Hill croft Rd that would encroach the side and rear setbacks. Arthur discussed with the board his proposal for this construction. Zoning Technician Scott Pelchat Advised the Zoning Board that Mr. Rosaki was returning as he had received a variance prior but had not used it within the two year window which Variances become void after two years if not acted upon. The Board continued with a few more minor questions and also discussed the neighborhood and the property's where in and that most had garages as  Arthur Rosaki spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the construction of a two car garage on the property at 64 Hill croft Rd that would encroach the side and rear setbacks. Arthur discussed with the board his proposal for this construction. Zoning Technician Scott Pelchat Advised the Zoning Board that Mr. Rosaki was returning as he had received a variance prior but had not used it within the two year window which Variances become void after two years if not acted upon. The Board continued with a few more minor questions and also discussed the neighborhood and the property's where in and that most had garages as this one would if approved. Michael DellAvechia opened the public discussion with no public input it was closed and the board spoke amongst themselves and Marcia made a motion using the finding of facts from the previous language from the 2021 approved variance and it was seconded by Jane Laroche and was unanimous. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15 th , 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to Approve Application ZO2024-0050VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-35 B. To allow for construction of a two-car garage that will encroach into the side setback and rear setback. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The addition of the garage to the house will have no effect on the public. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The spirit of the ordinance will be observed as this will allow the homeowner to improve his home, making it more functional and providing storage for his vehicles in the winter. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: The project will do substantial justice because it will allow the homeowner to improve his home, making it more functional and it would be in harmony with the neighborhood. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: The project will improve the property, allow the owner storage for his vehicles, and would not diminish the value of the surrounding properties. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: The lot is undersized for the zone. The current minimum lot size is 2 acres. Additionally, the house is set at an angle to the lot making it even more difficult. The project is a reasonable one as it is similar to other homes in the neighborhood and will provide a place for vehicles out of the winter weather. 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: 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. 10. ZO2024-0051 VAR 72 Shore Dr Jason Sproul, property owner and Thomas Robinson accompanied him as the contractor, the owner stated that they were seeking a variance for the shoreline setback to allow for the construction of a water access deck with stairs to the shoreline. Michael DellaVecchia inquired if the stairs were considered a structure and was found to be correct. Scott Pelchat advised of the need for the shoreline setback as well as the need for a des permit from the state. Mr. Sproul stated that was in process and he would reach out to the state. Marcia asked Jason if he had this yet and it was found he did not have it as of the meeting date. Jane asked about the DES interaction as well and Thomas gave a description of the proposed structure on the Jason Sproul, property owner and Thomas Robinson accompanied him as the contractor, the owner stated that they were seeking a variance for the shoreline setback to allow for the construction of a water access deck with stairs to the shoreline. Michael DellaVecchia inquired if the stairs were considered a structure and was found to be correct. Scott Pelchat advised of the need for the shoreline setback as well as the need for a des permit from the state. Mr. Sproul stated that was in process and he would reach out to the state. Marcia asked Jason if he had this yet and it was found he did not have it as of the meeting date. Jane asked about the DES interaction as well and Thomas gave a description of the proposed structure on the water’s edge with no structures within the water. Mike Foote inquired about the area of impact Jason and Thomas explained the dimensions to Mr. Foote regarding the question. Mike mentioned he would in the future prefer some renderings. Michael then opened to public discussion finding no public comment it was closed to public comment. Michael inquired about the path leading to the water’s edge and it was found to be existing. Michael Foote inquired about stormwater management during construction. Jason stated the existing conditions remain unchanged. Thomas mentioned the remediation steps that would be taken during development. Other items were discussed regarding decks that are existing and it was found that there were no decks nearer the house. Mike Foote asked Staff how much is to much on impacts to shoreline Scott answered that conservation opinion over developer opinion would be different but the City’s Setback of 50 feet is much less stringent than the states setbacks. A motion was made to approve the variance to allow for a deck and stairs to be constructed at the shoreline. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15th, 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to Approve Application ZO2024-0051VAR, request for Variance from Article IV Section 235-19(2)(B) To allow for encroachment into the shoreline setback to construct a deck and stairs within the shoreline setback. The criteria below were used as a finding of fact. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The placement of the decking would be shielded from view by the tree lines on the sides of the property. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The adjacent homes have a well vegetated buffer between the properties. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would provide easier access to the shoreline from the main house for the property. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence to support the diminishment of property values was presented. 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 public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: The lake is the closest abutting property. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It would create water access for a lakefront house. 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.  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. 11. ZO2024-0052 SE 24 Keasor Ct Jeffrey Ferland spoke regarding the application for a special exception to allow for the keeping of chickens and the agricultural use in the UC zone where it is a no on the table of uses. Jeffrey stated that he had received a letter stating this was not an allowed use and felt there were no real ordinances that govern this and the allowance should be given. Marcia asked what animals were on the property Jeffrey stated chickens Marcia then asked how many chickens and Jeffrey asked is this relevant and Marcia stated that it was. Marcia stated the ordinance had a number to it Jeffrey stated he had asked for clarification on this and had gotten none and was seeking clarification on this. Jeffrey stated he ha applied for the special exception and that he was later advised that a variance was needed for this and that he feels that a small back yard chicken coup would fall into this category. Jeffrey asked do we not want animals in this area Mike Foote stated that so much space is needed to allow for the proper keeping which would require a 60 foot setback for the coup and a 100 foot setback for the waste created by the animals. Mike stated that this use is not one of a general allowance within the city. Jeffrey stated that more animals than normal migrate through his yard currently. Jeffrey asked for the distinction against non pets that are accepted within this area and asked again the definition between pets and non pets. Marcia stated the usual definition of domesticated pets are usually cats and dogs and birds. Jeffrey asked wouldn't chickens constitute birds. Jeffrey said there is not a dam thing the board can do about the use of chickens. Scott advised the ordinance compliance portion to Jeffrey stating that after a series of letters legal action could be taken by the City the courts could remand fines of up to 275.00 dollars a day. Jeffrey stated the board had no idea what we were talking about and Marcia stated that these ordinances are on the City website and that Jeffrey should be doing the research on his own behalf. After a measure of time Scott stated to the Chair that the special exception cannot be voted upon as it is the wrong application Scott then advised this be tabled to allow Jeffrey to do more research on his proposal and to then submit the proper application Mike Foote motioned to table the application to allow for the proper application be submitted to allow for further research to be done. it was seconded by Jane and was unanimous. Mr Wetherbee spoke regarding no opposition to the request for Mr. Ferland. RE: Special Exception This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15th, 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to Table Application ZO2024-0053 SE, request for Special Exception from Article V section 235-26 Atta. 2 Table 1 table of permitted uses to allow for the keeping of chickens and approval to allow agricultural use in the UC zone. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: This application was tabled without bias to allow the applicant to submit a variance application to present to the Zoning Board of Adjustment to seek approval for the allowance of agricultural use in the Urban Commercial Zone. The original application submitted was incorrect and a Variance is what is needed to allow for the approval to be sought. 12. ZO2024-0053 VAR 205 Court St  is what is needed to allow for the approval to be sought. 12. ZO2024-0053 VAR 205 Court St The applicant Ezekiel Perez spoke regarding the application for 205 Court St to allow for the keeping of Chickens and the agricultural use in the UC zone. Mr. Perez and Mrs. Perez spoke regarding the keeping of chickens at the property and the use of agricultural in the UC Zone where this is a no on the table of uses. The Perez spoke regarding the chickens and how the family had become interested in the keeping of chickens and the hatching of younger chicks. The board asked a few questions to the family in regards to the coup and also the distances from the coup to the property line. The two lots are both owned by the same owner to allow for the keeping of chickens Marcia asked if the ownership encompassed both lots and then advised them this use is a no on the tables of allowed uses marcia stated the distances of coups and the waste that is produced will need to be set back from the property lines. Michael DellaVechia read into the minutes a letter from an abutting property in opposition to this use. Marcia made a motion to Deny the application and this was seconded by Jane Laroche and was denied 4 votes to deny and one abstention. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15th, 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to DENY Application ZO2024-0053 VAR, request for Variance from Article V Section 235-28 Atta.2 Table 1 Table of permitted uses to allow for the keeping of chickens and to allow for agricultural use in the UC Zone. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It would be contrary as this use is a no on the table of approved uses. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It is not in the public interest as it would only benefit the applicant, so the spirit is not observed. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would not as concerns over odors, disease, waste, and the potential of predatory animals to the subject property. 4.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 property values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: There is no hardship as the Denial of this use will not burden the property or its overall use. 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: 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. 13. ZO2024-0054 VAR Veterans Ave Keith Normand and Nic from from Dubois and king seeking a variance for density for a vacant lot that was created prior to current zoning standards the variance would allow for an increase in density to allow for two units of housing to be utilized on this lot currently the Zone supports two family and multifamily homes but 13. ZO2024-0054 VAR Veterans Ave Keith Normand and Nic from from Dubois and king seeking a variance for density for a vacant lot that was created prior to current zoning standards the variance would allow for an increase in density to allow for two units of housing to be utilized on this lot currently the Zone supports two family and multifamily homes but the lot size was just below the value of supporting two units hence the variance request. Nic went on to support the usage and all other zoning criteria would be met it is just an increase in density only with no other zoning guidelines to be affected. Nic stated as well minimal impact and keeping with the character. Keith spoke on the lot and what utility's the lot has Keith stated they had sewer but not city water. Mike Foote asked about the entry and it would be from veterans Ave. Marcia had a concern on the lot size to the density calculation for this lot and this was clarified by Scott to state that the duplex would take up only a certain amount of square footage. Keith spoke on the style of the structure and that the plans were not created yet as they did not have the density variance yet. Mike opened to public discussion and there was no comment and it was closed to public discussion. A motion was sought Mike Foote motioned to approve the variance for density and it was seconded by Jane Laroche and it was approved unanimously. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15th, 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to Approve Application ZO2024-0054VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-33 Atta.3 Table II. To allow for an increase in density from the existing 1.7 units to 2.0 units of housing.The approval will be based upon the following criteria: 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The use is allowed in this zone and all other zoning guidelines are met. It is a lot of record and would be keeping with the character of the area. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The use is allowed in this zone and all other zoning requirements can be met. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: As it would allow for two units of housing on a lot where 1.7 units exists and create housing for an additional family. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: There was no evidence presented supporting the diminishment of the surrounding property values. 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 public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: The lot was created before current zoning values. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: Two units could exist on the property while still meeting other Zoning regulations. 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. 14. ZO2024-0055 SE 30 Winter St The owner of the property and Nick King agent spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the use of 14. ZO2024-0055 SE 30 Winter St The owner of the property and Nick King agent spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the use of Multifamily at the property located at 30 winter St. Nick spoke on the plans for the three efficiency apartments to be created at the property located at 30 Winter st The owner of the property and Nick King agent spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the use of Multifamily at the property located at 30 winter St. Nick spoke on the plans for the three efficiency apartments to be created at the property located at 30 Winter st also touching upon the vacation rental aspect of most housing being used in Laconia. Jane Laroche spoke regarding her visit to the property and questioned the foundation piece in the rear of the house and what would become of this portion. The owner stated no plans were in place for the development of this portion of the property. Jane also touched on the parking for the area. Jane spoke to the owner emphasizing the development would be great for the street as well as the property. The owner of the property discussed the crime aspect of the subject property and the day to day activity that has been transpiring there. DE spoke about the owner model and that short term lodging would not be happening at this property. Marcia agreed it would be a great improvement but is concerned with parking Nick spoke asking for 3 spaces to be had instead of the 5 prescribed spaces. Scott and Marcia spoke regarding the parking issue for this lot. Nick and De continued on the proposal to allow for the multifamily use. Marcia motioned to allow for this use and this was seconded by Jane Laroche and was approved 4 to 1. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15th, 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to Approve Application ZO2024-0055 SE, request for Special Exception from Article 235 Attachment 2 Table I to allow for the use of Multifamily housing in the RG Zone where it is by special exception. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: a. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: It is permitted to have a multifamily within this zone by special exception. b. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: The request will not increase traffic congestion and a provision for this will be mentioned in item E. c. 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: There was no input from DPW stating any increase in storm water runoff. d. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools, or solid waste disposal services: No input was provided to substantiate any increase in these services. e. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: Parking be restricted to three parking spots on this property. f. 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: Refurbishment of this building would improve the health and safety in the area. g. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: Other units in the neighborhood share similar usage for multifamily. h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan: The RG zone is for two family and also multifamily housing. 15. ZO2024-0056 VAR 30 Winter St The owner of the property and Nick King agent spoke on behalf of the application to allow for an increase in density as well as a diminishment in parking allowance's at the property located at 30 winter St. The owner of the property and Nick King agent spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the use of Multifamily at the property located at 30 winter St. Nick spoke on the plans for the three efficiency apartments to be created at the property located at 30 Winter st also touching upon the vacation rental aspect of most housing being used in Laconia. Jane Laroche spoke regarding her visit to the property and questioned the foundation piece in the rear of the house and what would become of this portion. The owner stated no plans  The owner of the property and Nick King agent spoke on behalf of the application to allow for an increase in density as well as a diminishment in parking allowance's at the property located at 30 winter St. The owner of the property and Nick King agent spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the use of Multifamily at the property located at 30 winter St. Nick spoke on the plans for the three efficiency apartments to be created at the property located at 30 Winter st also touching upon the vacation rental aspect of most housing being used in Laconia. Jane Laroche spoke regarding her visit to the property and questioned the foundation piece in the rear of the house and what would become of this portion. The owner stated no plans were in place for the development of this portion of the property. Jane also touched on the parking for the area. Jane spoke to the owner emphasizing the development would be great for the street as well as the property. The owner of the property discussed the crime aspect of the subject property and the day to day activity that has been transpiring there. DE spoke about the owner model and that short term lodging would not be happening at this property. Marcia agreed it would be a great improvement but is concerned with parking Nick spoke asking for 3 spaces to be had instead of the 5 prescribed spaces. Scott and Marcia spoke regarding the parking issue for this lot. Nick and De continued on the proposal to allow for the Density increase as well as the use of three parking spots where 5 are required. Marcia made the motion to approve the density and parking values for 30 Winter St. this was seconded by Mike Foote. And was approved. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15th, 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to Approve Application ZO2024-0056VAR, request for Variance from Article 235 Attachment 3 Table II to allow for an increase in density to three units where 1 exists currently & Article VIII section 235-46 B. to allow for two parking spots. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It will meet the character of the neighborhood hence providing more housing for the area. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It would be observed as Multifamily housing exists in that section of winter St. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: By granting this variance it will benefit the applicant with no harm to the general public. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: Although no evidence was presented values should increase with the property makeover. 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: This property previously existed as a commercial storage garage. On a small parcel of land. 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: 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. 16. ZO2024-0057 VAR 92 Pine St Thomas Labree spoke regarding 92 pine street and the request for a density increase from 1.8 to 3.0 units  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. 16. ZO2024-0057 VAR 92 Pine St Thomas Labree spoke regarding 92 pine street and the request for a density increase from 1.8 to 3.0 units of density. This property has the multifamily use that was gained last year. Thomas spoke to the board regarding past attempts at converting this property to a multifamily but the ask for density was too high on past attempts. Thomas stated that he watched the meeting from last year and the board said come back with a density count of three so here i am asking for three units at this time. the board chuckled Thomas continued to advise the board with the proposal of the creation of two downstairs apartments and a third future apartment on what is to be a second floor. Thomas also advised greenspace would be increased by the reclamation of some asphalt areas where parking cant be supported as they have more than ample parking 3 units would need 5 units of parking Mr Labree said currently there are 12 spots on site. Michael DellaVechia opened to public discussion at 7:52PM and it was closed at 7:53PM Mike Foote made a motion to approve the application to allow for the density increase and it was seconded by Roland and was unanimous. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15th, 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to Approve Application ZO2024-0057VAR, request for Variance from Article VI Section 235-33. Attachment 3 Table II. To allow for an increase in density from the existing 1.8 units to 3.0 units of housing. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: Based on the prior use of the property and the use of the surrounding properties. It would return this property to its residential function. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: Yes, the current zoning guidelines for density would be increased but other zoning criteria would be met for this property. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Laconia is in dire need of housing and this building would provide 3 units of housing where it is needed. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: By utilizing this empty building the repairs and development should increase curb appeal for the neighborhood and bring an empty building into utilization. 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: There is enough parking to provide for three units and it should be a welcome utilization of the property. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: During development the building will become more conforming due to parking and greenspace reclamation. 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.  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. CERTIFICATION I hereby attest that the foregoing is a true and accurate record of the action of the Zoning Board. 17. ZO2024-0058 VAR 53 Pearl St Joanne Morin spoke on behalf of the application to allow for the keeping of two female Ducks at the property at 53 Pearl St Joanne explained to the board the proposal to allow for two Female ducks to be couped in a pen on the property to allow for the property owners to have access to fresh duck eggs for consumption by them. Joanne also stated that the coup would be shielded from view and would be contained to the lot and there would be two streets bordering the property. Joanne also stated the waste would be composted. Joanne concluded that this use is for the property owners to have these eggs for the nutritional aspect of the harvested eggs. Marcia asked about who they would seek if the ducks would become sick what would become of them and is there a veterinary office that would care for them. Scott Mcwilliam abutter spoke in opposition to the proposal stating the lot size of the area and the waste smell and overall use is not allowed. The discussion was returned to the board and a motion was sought to deny the variance to for this use using these finding of facts. Marcia made the motion and Jane seconded the motion to Deny the variance with a vote of four to deny and one abstention. This is to certify that at the meeting held on July 15 th , 2024, the City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment voted to DENY Application ZO2024-0058 VAR, request for Variance from Article V Section 235-28 Atta.2 Table 1 table of permitted uses. To allow for the keeping of two Ducks and the approval of agricultural use in the RG Zone. The approval will be based upon the following criteria: 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It would be contrary as this use is a no on the table of approved uses. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It is not in the public interest as it would only benefit the applicant, so the spirit is not observed. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would not as concerns over odors, disease, waste, and the potential of predatory animals to the subject property. 4.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 property values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: There is no hardship as the Denial of this use will not burden the property or its overall use. 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: OR  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: 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. 18. OTHER BUSINESS Scott asked the board for any additional business to come before the board. 19. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:10PM