Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, August 19, 2024 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 8/19/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Michael Dellavechia brought the meeting to order at 6:30PM 2. ROLL CALL Scott Pelchat gave the roll call In attendance Richard Boddie, Roland Maheu, Jane Laroche, Michael Dellavechia, Mike Foote, and Marcia Hayward. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Scott Pelchat 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Scott Pelchat 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Minutes The prior meeting minutes were accepted as written. 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. ZO2024-0052 SE 24 Keasor Ct. Michael Dellavechia motioned to un table the application for a special exception Scott Pelchat advised the board that this was the incorrect application for the proposal and that it would need to be denied as the only option the board then motioned to deny the application for a special exception for the keeping of chickens. this was motioned 4 votes to deny and one abstention. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS, POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE Note: The Purpose Of This Agenda Section Is For The Board To Have A Presentation From The Applicant And Open A Public Hearing For The Public To Provide Input. The Board May Also Deliberate The Application, Decide And Conduct A Final Vote At This Time. 10. ZB2025-001 SE 9 Mulligan Ct Andrea Cunningham spoke regarding the application to allow for short term lodging at the property of 9 Mulligan Ct. Due to this being the non primary residence a special exception was needed to allow for this  At This Time. 10. ZB2025-001 SE 9 Mulligan Ct Andrea Cunningham spoke regarding the application to allow for short term lodging at the property of 9 Mulligan Ct. Due to this being the non primary residence a special exception was needed to allow for this use on this property. Michael Dellavechia inquired about the association. Mike asked regarding abutter concern and Scott stated that currently there are five owners doing rentals within the Golf Village and that it appears South Down has become less stringent on there bylaws. Mike Foote asked staff a question regarding the RS Zone specifier. Andrea stated some of the requirements of the HOA for the Golf Village Andrea stated she responds to her renters. Marcia asked Scott about the owner occupied criteria of the application. Scott clarified the special exception over the permit requirement. Mike opened to public comment regarding this use and it was closed to the public with no comment. Richard asked Scott to define the criteria for the special exception. Marcia found the page stating the criteria to be met and was used Scott concurred with Marcia that this was correct and Marcia made the motion for this use with these finding of facts 1. Is the use specified in this chapter: Yes it is. 2. This use will not increase demands for municipal services: I do not see that it will no. 3. Are there any special provisions set forth: No provisions were set for this application. 4. Any Hazards to the public health: No there will be none. 5. The applicant can show a benefit to the community: and yes it will bring new money to the area in the form of rentals. this was seconded and was passed unanimously. 11. ZB2025-002 SE 76 Merrimac St. The Bullerwells spoke regarding the request for an ADU on the property at 76 Merrimac St. this property has an interior space that was initially used but was taken out of use after they purchased it. Currently they will be taking that unused space and creating the allowance for an ADU within the extra area. This will allow a space for a family member or a long term renter. Mike opened to public comment at 6:48 PM and closed the public comment with no comments. Scott showed Michael Dellavechia the parking layout from the plot plan to confirm the spots within. Richard Boddie motioned to approve the special exception to allow for the ADU with the finding of facts 1. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter : It is authorized in this chapter yes. 2. the requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: It will not create traffic congestion or impair pedestrian safety. 3. The requested use will not overload any public water , drainage or sewer systems or other municipal system, nor will there be any significant increase in stormwater runoff onto adjacent property or streets : No it will not overload these systems. 4. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police , fire protection , schools or solid waste disposal services: no it will not create excessive demand. 5. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: no special provisions have been set forth.6. The requested use will not create hazards to the 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 as the ADU is attached internally. 7. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: Yes as this structure existed with the space prior. 8. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan: Yes it will. 12. ZB2025-003 VAR 75 Tower St Ronald Pereira spoke regarding the proposal for the application to increase density on his lot from an existing 1.5 units to 4 units of density on this property. Mike Foote sought clarification to the proposal of the application is it 6 units or 4 units it was noted by Mr. Pereira that the request is for four units of density at this property. Ronald described that the existing structure would be demoed to allow for the construction of two duplexes on the property one fronting Tower St one fronting Doe Ave. Each being 1500 Sf and each unit being 750SF with parking under. Marcia asked about specifications on the duplexes and Ronald stated that each would be 30 by 50 making each unit 750 SF. The board spoke amongst themselves regarding the lot itself and its size. Marcia asked about the calculations and felt that SF was incorrect. Richard Boddie asked Ronald the existing square footage of the house and it was 1400 SF .Marcia asked about the parking and Ronald stated there would be under parking as well as open parking in the driveway. Andrew Baker Doe Ave spoke in opposition regarding the proposal citing his view as being in jeopardy Mike Foote asked if he had a view easement and it was found to be no. Brenda Brown spoke in opposition to the proposal due to the current way he keeps his property and called it an eyesore. Nancy Williams Tower St spoke in opposition to the proposal due to the current conditions of the property .Alison Hildebrand was in opposition to the proposal with the concern of the condition of the property citing views traffic and wondered how the City could ever entertain this proposal. Barry Williams spoke in opposition to this proposal citing development, traffic and views. It was closed to public comment and Ronald spoke about the comments and stated that insurance companies are the true cause of the long timeframe of repair and yard clean up. Mike and Ronald spoke regarding the plan for the duplex and it was said that there parents would live at these duplexes. The board spoke amongst themselves to come to a finding of fact. A motion to Deny the application was made by Marcia with the finding of fact 1.Granting the Variance would be contrary to the  opposition to the proposal due to the current conditions of the property .Alison Hildebrand was in opposition to the proposal with the concern of the condition of the property citing views traffic and wondered how the City could ever entertain this proposal. Barry Williams spoke in opposition to this proposal citing development, traffic and views. It was closed to public comment and Ronald spoke about the comments and stated that insurance companies are the true cause of the long timeframe of repair and yard clean up. Mike and Ronald spoke regarding the plan for the duplex and it was said that there parents would live at these duplexes. The board spoke amongst themselves to come to a finding of fact. A motion to Deny the application was made by Marcia with the finding of fact 1.Granting the Variance would be contrary to the public interest because: The lot cannot accommodate a density of four units due to lot size and would create a change in the neighborhood. 2. If the variance were granted the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It would not because number one is not met and that is not keeping in the spirit of the ordinance. 3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: it would not as it would shift the benefit solely to the applicant. 4. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence confirming the increase or diminishment of property values was presented. 5 Unnecessary Hardship : The hardship was not met as the property in its existence can still be used with current zoning guidelines. It was denied and seconded by Richard Boddie and was voted denied 3 votes to 2 with one abstention. 13. ZB2025-004 SE 65 Lincoln St Mr. Andrus spoke regarding the proposal to construct An ADU on the property at 65 Lincoln St within an existing structure and will be used in accordance with the ordinance as it exists. The ADU will allow for the use by aging family members. and also allow the family to stay in the main house. Michael Dellavechia opened to public comment and was closed without comment. Discussion amongst the board was brief as few questions arouse. A Motion by Richard Boddie was made to approve the Special Exception for the ADU use with the finding of fact. a. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: Yes it is authorized in this chapter. b. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: It will not as its contained to the property it serves. 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: It will not as the structure exists currently. d. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools, or solid waste disposal services: It will not. e. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: None were proposed 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: It will not as it is contained to the lot and property. g. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: Yes as it will use an existing structure on the property. h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan: Yes as it is defined within this chapter and is keeping with the master plan. This was seconded by Marcia hayward and was passed unanimously. 14. ZB2025-005 SE 15 Wink Rd Jeffrey Trent spoke regarding the application for a special exception to allow for a campground to be used at 15 Wink rd. Applicant is seeking the allowance for a campground at the property at wink road and it would be for personal use the lot would allow for about three spots for use Mike Foote stated this may qualify under the state family and friends usage. Jeffrey stated that by the allowance of the use he would be able to continue work on the permanent structure to allow for full time residency at the property and a septic would be installed and possibly a well. Jeffrey stated that he is a renter in Belmont but wishes to create a homestead for himself on the Wink road parcel. Marcia asked Jeffrey about the ownership of the property Jeff stated yes. Jeff than stated the City of Laconia will not allow for camping on a property unless the property is a campground. Mike Foote asked about the current structure on the property and it was found to be a garage. Jeff continued to describe the property and his inheritance of it in 2021 but did not know about any permits that had been pulled for this structure. Jeff stated that he had been busy cleaning up the entire property at his time of receipt. Jeff also advised he is nearing the end of fiscal allowance to work on the property. Jeff also stated that assistance will only become available when he is a full time resident on Wink Rd. Jeff Stated he was a disabled and retired veteran also jeff stated the acres are 9.4 acres. Mike Foote asked if there was septic now and if no how would the grey water be handled Jeff stated that he would like it  property is a campground. Mike Foote asked about the current structure on the property and it was found to be a garage. Jeff continued to describe the property and his inheritance of it in 2021 but did not know about any permits that had been pulled for this structure. Jeff stated that he had been busy cleaning up the entire property at his time of receipt. Jeff also advised he is nearing the end of fiscal allowance to work on the property. Jeff also stated that assistance will only become available when he is a full time resident on Wink Rd. Jeff Stated he was a disabled and retired veteran also jeff stated the acres are 9.4 acres. Mike Foote asked if there was septic now and if no how would the grey water be handled Jeff stated that he would like it pumped out. Mike Dellavechia asked Staff if it can be made a temporary campground and Scott stated it could be placed as a condition but the allowance of may not have a timeline. Talk of the septic design was discussed. Mike DellaVechia opened for public discussion. Abutter Lorenzo Trombeta Wink Rd Meredith spoke in opposition to the campground citing this is a residential area and we don't want a campground but spoke very Highly of Jeff as a neighbor. Shawn Noe 24 Wink Rd spoke in opposition of the campground due to activity on these lots as squatting has occurred prior. Tim Donahue 23 Wink Rd spoke in opposition of a campground use at this property. Bruce Cheney spoke in opposition of this campground but had a great admiration for Jeff but was opposed to this use. Jeffs mom spoke on behalf of her son and stated my son is seeking residency on his property. Jeffs Sister spoke on Jeffs behalf stating Jeff has attempted to get assistance and stated help will not come until he gains residency. The board spoke amongst themselves regarding the application proposal. A motion was made to Deny the campground use special exception with the finding of fact that Although A. The use is specifically authorized in this chapter that no other criteria b. thru h. there was insufficient information to address those criteria and with that reason i offer denial this was seconded by Richard and was denied four votes and one abstention. 15. ZB2025-006 VAR 66 Jefferson St The Ringers spoke regarding the application to allow for encroachment into the Front setback to reconstruct a front porch that will also allow for a future ramp to be installed. Mr Ringer mentioned the plan for the future ramp access for the Mother in law. Michael Asked what the true distance of there setback truly is and it was 25 feet. It was opened for public discussion and with no discussion it was remanded back to the board. A motion was made by jane Laroche to approve the variance to allow for the construction of the porch and deck. 1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The placement of the porch and area for the future ramp would improve aesthetics and improve access to the house. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: Yes as the porch would encroach about five feet into the front setback. 3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: it would allow a safer access to the house. 4. If the variance were granted , the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished: no evidence for or against was submitted. 5. Hardship: the proximity of the front stairs and or entry to the house is within the front setback. This was seconded by marcia Hayward and was approved unanimously. 16. ZB2025-007 SE 24-26 Winter St The applicants De and agent Nick spoke regarding the application to allow for the use of multifamily housing at the property stating that during purchase it was marketed as a 3 family and that during the renovation process a building permit submitted to the City of Laconia triggered the need for the special exception to allow for multifamily use as it was not gotten prior for this use. A motion was made by Richard to approve the special exception to allow the multifamily use on this property.  The applicants De and agent Nick spoke regarding the application to allow for the use of multifamily housing at the property stating that during purchase it was marketed as a 3 family and that during the renovation process a building permit submitted to the City of Laconia triggered the need for the special exception to allow for multifamily use as it was not gotten prior for this use. A motion was made by Richard to approve the special exception to allow the multifamily use on this property. a. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: It is authorized yes b. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: It will not create any new congestion no. 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: it will not as the building will remain unchanged externally. d. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools, or solid waste disposal services: it will not no. e. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: None set forth. 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: No it will not as the building existed as it does today. g. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: this neighborhood has multifamily use currently. h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan: It is as creating housing units is a current need within the city. This was seconded by Marcia and was approved unanimously. 17. ZB2025-008 VAR 24-26 Winter St The applicants De and agent Nick spoke regarding the application to allow for the increase in density from 1.5 units to three units of density. On a lot that is smaller than prescribed values. The applicants discussed the process of how the building existed upon purchasing it and that it exists as a three unit now and that this process would make this more conforming by garnering the special exception for multifamily and then increasing density values to meet the multifamily site plan. After the applicant and agent and the board discussed the parking layout the application was tabled to allow for Staff along with the applicants to better narrate the parking for the property as current values require 5 spots of parking for 3 units of density. The application was tabled and will be reopened at the September meeting. Scott advised the board as well as the applicant that by tabling it and Scotts announcement of it being un tabled at the September meeting would constitute as notification. 18. OTHER BUSINESS Scott asked the board if any other business was at hand the board found none at this time. 19. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:55PM unanimously.