Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, September 16th , 2024 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 9/16/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER The Meeting was brought to order at 6:31PM 2. ROLL CALL Scott Pelchat Performed Roll Call in attendance Richard Boddie, Jane Laroche, Michael Dellavechia, Mike Foote, and Marcia Hayward. Absent was Roland Maheu. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Recording secretary Scott Pelchat 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE In Attendance Assistant planning Director Tyler Carmichael, and Zoning Technician Scott Pelchat. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS The Minutes Were accepted with a correction on Item 2. 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. ZB2025-008 Variance 24-26 Winter St Nick King (agent) and the owner Hsieh Hanshin spoke regarding the property at 24-26 winter street and the variance for an increase in density this application was previously tabled for fact finding on parking. Nick King emphasized the point that this structure existed and functioned as a three family but it was not legally recognized by the city. Parking was emphasized as a reason for tabling the application previously Nick stated that Scott Pelchat Zoning Technician had visited the site to review the parking and could attest to the parking meeting requirements and Scott did so. Nick and Marcia spoke regarding the spots and Tyler discussed with the board on the tandem parking ordinance and its requirements. Marcia mentioned that offsite parking had been referenced and the possibility that a conditional use permit was submitted to the planning board to allow for offsite parking to be allowed on a municipal lot within 1000 feet of the site. Tyler stated as of January 1st the new state law that would require 1 spot per unit would go into effect and would possibly be adopted by the City Of Laconia. The meeting was opened for public comment at 6:40PM and there was none.  parking meeting requirements and Scott did so. Nick and Marcia spoke regarding the spots and Tyler discussed with the board on the tandem parking ordinance and its requirements. Marcia mentioned that offsite parking had been referenced and the possibility that a conditional use permit was submitted to the planning board to allow for offsite parking to be allowed on a municipal lot within 1000 feet of the site. Tyler stated as of January 1st the new state law that would require 1 spot per unit would go into effect and would possibly be adopted by the City Of Laconia. The meeting was opened for public comment at 6:40PM and there was none. A motion was made to approve Variance ZB2025-008 variance. By Richard Boddie. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: No it will not be contrary to the public interest. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: The spirit of the ordinance is observed as it requires this increase for lot size. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It does as it corrects a preexisting non conformity of the property. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence was presented for or against the diminishment of property values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: There was no hardship presented. a. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the 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. This was seconded by Jane and was passed unanimously. 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. ZB2025-009 Variance 42 Centenary Ave. Owner Brian Beaupre and Agent Mark Lawrence spoke regarding the property and proposal at 42 Centenary Ave stating the structure was demolished previously but would be rebuilt upon the existing footprint but it would need a variance to allow for an overhang from the second floor that will encroach into the rear setback which is the requirement for the variance. this encroachment would be the major change as the new structure will sit where the prior structure stood. Mark spoke further regarding the construction and the survey that was gotten by the owner which allowed more space than once thought giving the property an additional 1 and 1/2 feet towards Margin ave. This will allow for the construction of a three bedroom home that will sit on the existing footprint. Mike Foote asked to which street would be encroached upon and it was found to be margin ave. Mark also gave the Board a larger print of the layout of the property at 42 Centenary. Mike Foote asked what proposed conditions would be and how they would effect the existing setbacks. Emergency egress was discussed and Mark stated that code compliancy would be used.  structure will sit where the prior structure stood. Mark spoke further regarding the construction and the survey that was gotten by the owner which allowed more space than once thought giving the property an additional 1 and 1/2 feet towards Margin ave. This will allow for the construction of a three bedroom home that will sit on the existing footprint. Mike Foote asked to which street would be encroached upon and it was found to be margin ave. Mark also gave the Board a larger print of the layout of the property at 42 Centenary. Mike Foote asked what proposed conditions would be and how they would effect the existing setbacks. Emergency egress was discussed and Mark stated that code compliancy would be used. Michael Dellavechia opened to public comment at 6:48 and was closed to comment at 6:49pm. The board spoke amongst themselves regarding the neighborhood as well as margin ave and centenary being a adopted street. A motion was made to approve ZB2025-009 Var by Marcia Hayward With these finding of facts. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The request does not alter character of the neighborhood as the existing footprint of the structure will be utilized. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It is as there is no change in the footprint. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would create a more usable property and there is nothing to be lost by the general public in the granting of this variance. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence was submitted to confirm or deny the diminishment of property values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: It is a narrow lot with tight quarters. 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. This was seconded by Mike Foote and was passed unanimously. 11. ZB2025-010 Special Exception 30 Church St Filippo Mastrocola spoke regarding the purchase and the proposed use of the property and structure located at 30 Church St this building is known as the Busiel House and was attached to the catholic church. Filippo mentioned that His family had always wanted to own a large historic building and that his family was quite large as well he then mentioned the proposal of short term lodging at this property to accommodate larger than normal groups coming to the city for events or private functions within the community. Filippo mentioned that his children were already booking time at the parents new home in gest. Filippo discussed that they would have an agency controlling the rental portion of the ownership model. Filippo spoke regarding the prior owners use and that a higher level of tenant would be had for this rental model. Mike Foote inquired on how things would go with living there and renting there would look like. Michael Dellavechia opened to public discussion at 6:57 pm and was closed with no comments. Marcia motioned to approve special exception with the finding of fact that  Mike Foote inquired on how things would go with living there and renting there would look like. Michael Dellavechia opened to public discussion at 6:57 pm and was closed with no comments. Marcia motioned to approve special exception with the finding of fact that 1. The use requested is specifically authorized in the chapter; AND it is 2.. The requested use will not increase demand for municipal services; AND It will not 3.. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled; AND no special provisions were added 4. The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public; AND it will not create any. The requested use meets ONE of the two following criteria: (1) The applicant can demonstrate that the use in question has been common practice at this specific property and structure for a period of not less than five (5) years prior to the enactment of the Short-Term Lodging Ordinance: Practice has been in effect to the prior owner. OR (2) The applicant can offer convincing evidence that granting the Special Exception for this property includes a general community benefit that rises above the financial gains of the applicant: Looking to attract more people to the downtown area. This was seconded by Jane Laroche. and was unanimous. 12. ZB2025-011 Special Exception 186 Hill Croft Anthony Shedd Spoke regarding the special exception to allow for the use of short term lodging at this property. this was requested because Mrs. Shedd is a teacher in Pennsylvania and Mr. Shedd would not be able to reside here full time as she is still working. Claiming the 150 Day minimum would be tough to achieve. Mr Shedd went through the finding of facts from his application to the board. Michael Dellavechia opened to public discussion and there was no input from the public. Mike Foote asked if there were any amenity's that would go along with the property and Mr Shedd mentioned a beach in the area. Richard Made a motion to approve the special exception for the short term lodging. a. The use requested is specifically authorized in the chapter; AND It is authorized in this chapter. b. The requested use will not increase demand for municipal services; AND . It will not increase demand for municipal services. c. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled; AND They are set forth within the ordinance and the owner has mentioned that he would comply with the ordinance. d. The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public; AND e. The requested use meets ONE of the two following criteria:It will not create hazards (1) The applicant can demonstrate that the use in question has been common practice at this specific property and structure for a period of not less than five (5) years prior to the enactment of the Short-Term Lodging Ordinance:  (1) The applicant can demonstrate that the use in question has been common practice at this specific property and structure for a period of not less than five (5) years prior to the enactment of the Short-Term Lodging Ordinance: OR (2) The applicant can offer convincing evidence that granting the Special Exception for this property includes a general community benefit that rises above the financial gains of the applicant: The applicant has made an effort to create reasonable lodging within the city of Laconia. This was seconded by Jane Laroche and was approved. 13. ZB2025-012 Special Exception White Oaks Rd (218-241-8) Kevin Corbet and Shawn Pierce spoke regarding the proposal to allow for a Power generation facility to be created. This is a New Hampshire solar company based out of Portsmouth. Primarily rooftop arrays but this project is a 5 Megawatt project or 1200 homes or 1400 cars the entire property will not be developed but 21 acres will be used for this project. This will keep 71 acres untouched on this lot. Kevin spoke briefly on the wildlife and how the trees to be removed would be replaced will pollinator seed to allow for regrowth. No staff would be needed and this would be a fenced in area around the Array. Tyler made a statement that Richard Boddie as a resident of the White Oaks area would have to recuse himself from the board during this proposal and he did. Shawn stated that only a certain section of the property requires the special exception but where the property encompasses 3 zones it is needed for the property itself. Shawn spoke more regarding the access road as well as the portion of the property that is near the road itself. Shawn further described the zone breakdown on the plan regarding the wetland areas and the impacted area. The Board asked a few other questions regarding the road itself and how it would be swailed on each side to mitigate stormwater runoff. Jane asked what the timeline would be on completion and Kevin did state that a study is being done by Eversource to see where the tie in would be to the direct line. Shawn described how the panels and mounts would be placed for the array. Shawn also spoke of the panels and how there would be permeable areas where water shed could take place. Marcia asked how many panels would be in the 10 acre area and Shawn stated about 6000 or so. Will this be seen from White Oaks Rd asked Mike Foote and it was answered that it probably not be as there should be a screened vegetation on the road edge. Jane LaRoche asked for a fence type on the enclosure of the solar array it was answered that wood and or chain link be used but it would be done in such a way to allow for the migration of wildlife in the parcel as well as through the array areas. Shawn stated 300 feet would possibly be the closest panel to the road. Michael Dellavechia asked what a fixed panel was and it was stated these panels are static and do not follow the sun. How is sabotage prevented asked Marcia Hayward it was answered fencing. A fence required by the national electric code should thwart any attempts at sabotage. It was asked if the property was in current use and was unanswered at this time. Some questions arouse about what happens at the end of the lease and what becomes of the panels? It was discussed that they could be removed if these wishes were put into the approval.  required by the national electric code should thwart any attempts at sabotage. It was asked if the property was in current use and was unanswered at this time. Some questions arouse about what happens at the end of the lease and what becomes of the panels? It was discussed that they could be removed if these wishes were put into the approval. Joanne and Tom Bonacoursy. Spoke in opposition to this as they have done they own research with alternate findings. Has an environmental study been done on this property. Tyler answered yes one has been done. And it will be public knowledge the answer was yes. Does it have a cost analysis on the effects to the environment. Will there be transformers on site? Touched on Homeless issue and that they will climb the fence to find a warm place to hibernate. Curious about the special exception criteria that would need to be met. Tom went on record stating the developer is out of Mass and that he respected the developer. But wondered why the owner all the sudden wants this for his property. Alex Dea spoke regarding the Turkeys at Prescott Farm and if they would be jeopardized by this use. Mike Foote asked Alex if they used solar at the Prescott farms and he said they did and Mike asked if the Turkeys there are ok and Alex said they were. Mary Smith spoke on behalf of her parents whom still live there on White Oaks Road in opposition of this proposal. Stating that she was very unsure that this would not be the best use of the property. Stating that the owner of the property is an out of state entity. Mary stated that no one would benefit from this array but was unsure of who might benefit. Mary stated the research she had done was found that solar can be negative to some animals and some habitats. Fragmentation of habitats was touched on but no direct evidence was provided. Mary did a search for solar farms in the state of New Hampshire but only stated arrays outside of Laconia. Mary stated the people that benefit from solar usually are based on landfill property's. And again Mary stated she felt this was not a good use of the property. For full statements please see video of meeting. In closing Shawn and Kevin closed the proposal to the Zoning Board and answered some final questions from the board. A motion was made to approve Special Exception ZB2025-012 by Marcia Hayward a. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: Yes, it is. b. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: It should not as there be no traffic of any kind. c. The requested use will not overload any 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 will be no overload as this is a low impact use. d. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools, or solid waste disposal services: As a solar farm there will be no excessive demand. e. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: At the end of the lease a decommissioning bond and a decommissioning plan that will go into effect at the end of the lease and that all items be removed from said 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: The site will be fenced and contained from public traffic g. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: It is as the use is the least impactful h. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan: Yes, it is This was seconded by Jane Laroche and was approved unanimously. 14. ZB2025-013 Special Exception 11 Lewis St. Brittney Olubode spoke regarding the special exception to allow for short term lodging at this property. 14. ZB2025-013 Special Exception 11 Lewis St. Brittney Olubode spoke regarding the special exception to allow for short term lodging at this property. Brittney spoke regarding the purchase of the property and also that another property in Franklin was purchased for this use as well. After purchasing the property and after a few rentals it was found that permitting was required to allow for this use. Hence the seeking of the special exception to allow for the use of short term lodging at this property. Michael opened for public discussion at 8:15 pm Tyler Carmichael read some letters into the minutes from abutting property's. From Jim Dunlop at 1023 North Main st in opposition to this use. Also Robin Dunlop from 1023 North Main St in opposition to this use. Also Julie Riley 1035 North Main St is in opposition to this use. Also 19 Lewis st Jennifer Boyako is in opposition of this use. Also 20 Lewis St Benoit Crowell spoke in opposition to this use. Also 13 Lewis St Carly Dearborn spoke in opposition to this use. Mike Foote asked Tyler what the true definition of short term lodging and Tyler stated that it is 15 Days or fewer. Carol Varney 58 Edgewater Ave spoke in opposition to allowing this use at 11 Lewis St. citing that this area is very residential and this is a quiet low traffic street Carol was disheartened that the process takes too long too stop this use. Karen Vliet spoke in opposition to this use. A motion was made to deny Special Exception to allow for the use of short term lodging at 11 Lewis St. 1. The use requested is specifically authorized in the chapter. The use is authorized. 2. The requested use will not increase demand for municipal services. Increasing use of this property could increase demand. 3. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled. No provisions were set forth. 4.The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public. The Property lies within a block of existing residential homes and the abutting properties were opposed to this use within the neighborhood. This use would create a risk for the neighborhood. The requested use meets ONE of the two following criteria: 1. The applicant can demonstrate that the use in question has been common practice at this specific property and structure for a period of not less than five (5) years prior to the enactment of the Short-Term Lodging Ordinance: There has been no history at this property and the Abutters were against this use being allowed.  1. The applicant can demonstrate that the use in question has been common practice at this specific property and structure for a period of not less than five (5) years prior to the enactment of the Short-Term Lodging Ordinance: There has been no history at this property and the Abutters were against this use being allowed. (2) The applicant can offer convincing evidence that granting the Special Exception for this property includes a general community benefit that rises above the financial gains of the applicant: None was presented. 15. ZB2025-014 Variance 2623 Parade Rd. Ron Palsgrove spoke regarding the proposal to allow for indoor and outdoor storage in the RR2 Zone where it is not allowed per the tables of allowed uses. Ron spoke regarding the criteria for the variance requests that have been proposed. The indoor outdoor storage would allow Pedal Pushers as an entity to allow for new business growth in this tough economy and would allow for certain property owners too utilize these storage areas. Ron stated that the Core of the business would remain unchanged and that noise and traffic would be the same as normal use. Ron stated that this would allow for business use during off seasons. Michael Dellavechia asked Ron a few questions regarding what is existing there currently. Michael Dellavechia touched upon the fact that if these uses were to be granted than if the property were to be sold than any entity could come in and create storage in this area because a president would be set by this allowance. Marcia asked what items would be stored there now and how would the change effect the current business model. Michael Dellavechia opened for public comment and there was no comment. A motion was made by Mike Foote to deny the variance for indoor and outdoor storage at this location with these finding of facts. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It would be as this is a more protected area in the community due to our rural being. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It would not go against the ordinance that exists. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would not as it the Zone is rural residential. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence was presented to support diminishment of property values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: No Hardship was presented as the property can still be performed. 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:  a. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: . ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: b. If the criteria in subparagraph (a) are not established, an unnecessary hardship will be deemed to exist if, and only if, owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, the property cannot be reasonably used in strict conformance with the ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. This was seconded for the denial by Marcia Hayward and was denied with one abstention. 16. OTHER BUSINESS No Other Business Was Presented 17. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00PM