Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, October 21, 2024 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 10/21/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:30PM 2. ROLL CALL Scott performed roll call in attendance Jane Laroche, Michael Dellavechia, and Marcia Hayward. Absent from the meeting Michael Foote, Richard Boddie, and Roland Maheau. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Scott Pelchat Recording Secretary. 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Planning Director Rob Mora, and Zoning Technician Scott Pelchat. 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS The prior minutes were accepted with the corrections too be made. 5.I. Minutes 6. EXTENSIONS 6.I. ZB2025-019 Variance Extension 156 Eastman Shore Rd. Robert Owen addressed the Board seeking a 6 months variance extension on a previously approved variance ZO2022-0070 the extension was unanimously granted to allow for the variance to be acted upon within the six month extension window the vote was unanimous. 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. ZB2025-015 Variance 66 Leighton Ave N. Scott Hayward spoke regarding the proposal to allow for the construction of a deck that would encroach into the shoreline setback in the SPOD zone this variance if approved would allow for this deck to be  Time. 9. ZB2025-015 Variance 66 Leighton Ave N. Scott Hayward spoke regarding the proposal to allow for the construction of a deck that would encroach into the shoreline setback in the SPOD zone this variance if approved would allow for this deck to be constructed. Due to a recent beam sag problem they had to do some recent work to repair with the recent improvements has created the chance to install a deck overlooking the water Scott hayward stated he felt he would be at about 33 feet from the water line. Marcia asked Scott if he had the DES permit and it was found yes it did. Michael asked about the true setback and it was stated 50 feet on the setback. Opened to public comment and there was no public comment. The Board spoke amongst themselves and came to the conclusion that a motion be sought to approve Variance application ZB2025-015 to allow for encroachment into the spod set back. These criteria were used in this decision. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It is not as adding a deck would be keeping in character with the neighboring properties. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It is because if the first criteria is granted so is the second one. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would allow the owner to fully enjoy there lake side property. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No data to indicate that a deck would diminish these values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: A denial would inhibit the property owner to utilize his property to the fullest. 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: 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 Laroche and was approved unanimously. 10. ZB2025-016 Variance 1165 Weirs Blvd #9 Jay Spezzaferri spoke regarding the proposed variance applications to allow for the expansion of a preexisting structure on the association property the structure Unit # 9. Marcia and Jay verified on the property plot image which unit was #9. Jay addressed the board members directly regarding the square footage stating the current structure is 224 square feet and that is what he would like to expand on. Michael Dellavechia asked what the name of the association was and it was found to be Wellesley Pines Jay spoke directly to the board regarding the association and the layout of the property as it exists currently. Jay stated he was looking to expand into the North Eastern side set back to add an addition to the side of the house as well as the front of the house (Separate Variance) A kitchen area would be the addition on the side set back Jay stated that if he was allowed to expand on that side it would leave approximately a foot and a half to the property line on this side set back. Michael and Marcia asked about the front of the property as well ( separate Variance ) Jay stated he wanted to extend the front of the structure outward towards Weirs Blvd to allow for another addition on the front area of the structure as well. Jay continued to describe the concrete slab as well as the roof overhang line that exist currently and this would create a wall in front of the structure.  stated he was looking to expand into the North Eastern side set back to add an addition to the side of the house as well as the front of the house (Separate Variance) A kitchen area would be the addition on the side set back Jay stated that if he was allowed to expand on that side it would leave approximately a foot and a half to the property line on this side set back. Michael and Marcia asked about the front of the property as well ( separate Variance ) Jay stated he wanted to extend the front of the structure outward towards Weirs Blvd to allow for another addition on the front area of the structure as well. Jay continued to describe the concrete slab as well as the roof overhang line that exist currently and this would create a wall in front of the structure. This was opened to public comment Jeff Mason 1165 Weirs Blvd Unit 4 spoke regarding the property behind the structure as it should be observed for the family whom owns the property now. And that building up in front of it would affect the view as well as the association had a vote regarding this. Christina Bovaird spoke regarding the variance may diminish the value and felt that a view is a diminishment. Marcia stated that she felt that the HOA should send some kind of letter for approval. Rob clarified legally a denial cannot be made on the premise of HOA rules as we are the City and association rules are between the owner and the association and it would be a civil matter at that point. A Motion was made to DENY ZB2025-016 Variance to allow for encroachment into the side setback by Marcia Hayward these criteria were used in this decision. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It would as only a foot and a half would remain as a barrier between the property line. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It would not be observed because of the denial of category one. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would not as it is denied 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence was presented to confirm or deny. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: The property can be used in its current existence. 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: 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 Motion was seconded by Jane LaRoche and was denied unanimously. 11. ZB2025-017 Variance 1165 Weirs Blvd. #9 Jay Spezzaferri spoke regarding the proposed variance applications to allow for the expansion of a preexisting structure on the association property the structure Unit # 9. Marcia and Jay verified on the property plot image which unit was #9. Jay addressed the board members directly regarding the square footage stating the current structure is 224 square feet and that is what he would like to expand on. Michael Dellavechia asked what the name of the association was and it was found to be Wellesley Pines Jay spoke directly to the board regarding the association and the layout of the property as it exists currently. Jay stated he was looking to expand into the North Eastern side set back to add an addition to the side of the house as well as the front of the house (Separate Variance) A kitchen area would be the addition on the side  Jay Spezzaferri spoke regarding the proposed variance applications to allow for the expansion of a preexisting structure on the association property the structure Unit # 9. Marcia and Jay verified on the property plot image which unit was #9. Jay addressed the board members directly regarding the square footage stating the current structure is 224 square feet and that is what he would like to expand on. Michael Dellavechia asked what the name of the association was and it was found to be Wellesley Pines Jay spoke directly to the board regarding the association and the layout of the property as it exists currently. Jay stated he was looking to expand into the North Eastern side set back to add an addition to the side of the house as well as the front of the house (Separate Variance) A kitchen area would be the addition on the side set back Jay stated that if he was allowed to expand on that side it would leave approximately a foot and a half to the property line on this side set back. Michael and Marcia asked about the front of the property as well ( separate Variance ) Jay stated he wanted to extend the front of the structure outward towards Weirs Blvd to allow for another addition on the front area of the structure as well. Jay continued to describe the concrete slab as well as the roof overhang line that exist currently and this would create a wall in front of the structure. This was opened to public comment Jeff Mason 1165 Weirs Blvd Unit 4 spoke regarding the property behind the structure as it should be observed for the family whom owns the property now. And that building up in front of it would affect the view as well as the association had a vote regarding this. Christina Bovaird spoke regarding the variance may diminish the value and felt that a view is a diminishment. Marcia stated that she felt that the HOA should send some kind of letter for approval. Rob clarified legally a denial cannot be made on the premise of HOA rules as we are the City and association rules are between the owner and the association and it would be a civil matter at that point. These criteria were used in the finding of facts for The 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It will not as it will add value to the property and help make a more livable Dwelling by making it a bit more functional. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: There is no other dwelling or building near the front of the lot adding the addition would allow for it to conform to more properties in the area. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: The current property is very small with only one room adding this addition would allow more functionality and occupants would having a better living space. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: The current property in its state is in disrepair and this proposal may effect values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: No hardship was presented. a. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: 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. 12. ZB2025-018 Variance 98 Province St  ordinance, and a variance is therefore necessary to enable a reasonable use of it. 12. ZB2025-018 Variance 98 Province St Mr. Bean spoke regarding the proposal to allow for a garage to be constructed on the north west corner of the property that would encroach up to 5 feet from the 10 foot side set back. Mr. Bean stated that with construction of this garage it will allow for a better allowance of storage and functionality of the overall property. Marcia stated that she had been to the property that day and was in agreement that this garage would create the use Mr. Bean was speaking of. Michael opened to public discussion Angela Kimball spoke in support of the garage to be constructed citing she is the abutting property at the north west corner. There was no further public comment. Marcia Hayward made a motion to approve ZB2025-018 to allow for the encroachment into the side setback by five feet these were the criteria used in this decision. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The encroachment of five feet into the side set back is not affect the public but only one neighbor whom is in support of this proposal. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: it is as criteria number 1 has been met. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: it will allow the Owner to get full use of the property in question. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: no evidence was presented for and or against. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: A literal enforcement of the variance would prohibit the owner to use it in a reasonable fashion 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: 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. ZB2025-020 Variance 11 Pine Brook Ln Richard & Cynthia Westhoff spoke regarding the application to allow for encroachment into the 25 foot front set back to allow for the creation of a opened walled carport to go over the driveway. Richard said this carport would allow for covered parking within the driveway as well as the garage this would create. The board spoke amongst themselves regarding the proposal. Michael Dellavechia opened to public comment having none it was closed to public comment and was remanded back to the board for a decision. Marcia Hayward Made a motion to DENY ZB2025-0020 Variance to allow for a carport to be constructed within the front setback. The following criteria were used in this decision. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The Addition would only leave 12 feet to the street where the table states 25 feet and was agreeable with the chairman that it  Marcia Hayward Made a motion to DENY ZB2025-0020 Variance to allow for a carport to be constructed within the front setback. The following criteria were used in this decision. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: The Addition would only leave 12 feet to the street where the table states 25 feet and was agreeable with the chairman that it would not be keeping with the neighborhood. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It would not be due to the denial of the criteria of line one creates the denial of criteria two. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: We are saying that this denial would not impede the parking of cars. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence to support the increase or diminishment of property values were presented. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: No hardship exists as the property can be used in its existing state. 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: 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 Laroche and was DENIED unanimously. 14. ZB2025-021 Special Exception 48 Dixon St Michael Dellavechia asked the owners the Patels to speak regarding the proposal of seeking a special exception to allow for the use of Multi-Family at the property at 48 Dixon St. Michael, Marcia And Jane read over the two applications that were submitted. The first being for the use the second a variance for density to increase from one unit to three at this property. Rob advised to the chairman that they would first need the special exception for use than they would need a variance to allow for increase in unit count on the lot itself due to its size. Michael thanked Rob for the clarification regarding the applications. Michael welcomed the Patels and asked them to tell the board how they could help them. Ragi Patel started they were there to change the existing property from a single family to a multifamily. Marcia asked the Patels what was the plan for the property Mr. Patel stated that the first floor would be one family and second floor one family and third floor one family. Marcia stated that she felt the square footage of each unit would fall under 500 square feet Marcia asked if this was accurate. The Patels stated they had no drawings and or details and they stated that this was the process as it was explained to them Seek a special exception for use and then increase in density through a variance. Rob Mora answered Marcia's question after researching the attic space Rob stated it would be more closer to 700 SF. Marcia and Rob concluded that the 700 SF number that was spoken was an average between the finished space and unfinished space of the property. third floor one family. Marcia stated that she felt the square footage of each unit would fall under 500 square feet Marcia asked if this was accurate. The Patels stated they had no drawings and or details and they stated that this was the process as it was explained to them Seek a special exception for use and then increase in density through a variance. Rob Mora answered Marcia's question after researching the attic space Rob stated it would be more closer to 700 SF. Marcia and Rob concluded that the 700 SF number that was spoken was an average between the finished space and unfinished space of the property. Marcia asked if developed what is the parking plan Rob stated the owners (Patels) would still be required to go to planning board if approved through zoning. Mr. Patel stated that he had seven spaces as he has a garage (2) and a long driveway as well Mrs. Patel stated on street parking as well. Marcia asked how this was calculated and Mr. Patel stated he calculated it. Marcia stated she felt that would be a lot of vehicle shuffling. Marcia also mentioned the retaining wall in the front of the property and that would confine them in the front. Marcia stated as well that she had looked into the property use on Dixon St and claimed she found only one house on street that has more than one unit #30 and that the lot is larger and that it is a two family unit. Most of the lots are your size .14 which would only allow for one unit at this property due to its size. Marcia continued that the lot sizes in the neighborhood are similar and that they are single family uses. Michael Dellavechia stated he thought stacked parking was not allowed Rob Mora mentioned there was nothing within the ordinance that prohibits it from being used. Michael Dellavechia asked how they can help these people. Marcia stated she felt it was not keeping in the neighborhood and that is a tight street. The Board spoke amongst themselves regarding parking Mr. Patel asked how many spaces would be needed and it was found to be 5 total spots would be needed currently. Michael Dellavechia opened to public comment at 7:40PM James Poison of Dixon Street and it just cant happen there's been accidents there's been fights over parking on this street its not wide enough you can find it on the police blotter if you have too. Its not wide enough for one car to get out and stacking wont work. You cant decrease the size and Pidgeon hole and its going to devalue my home its so bad the City hade to paint lines. Michael Dellavechia asked James his last name James stated Poisson. Michael stated so theres some issues there. James stated he did not want this used in this manner for temporary housing for Hotel Employee housing and that he wants single family there only. James ended with a comment regarding parking on Dixon street is a known problem with DPW and that more parking be looked into and no is my answer. Scott and Susan Smith spoke regarding the house as abutters they feel its a little bit too much due to the narrowness of the street and that there is no space for this and that this would devalue there property. and Susan stated there autistic son already struggles with being picked up and dropped off at there residency. Mike closed the Public input and brought it back to the board for comments. Michael asked Rob if an accessory dwelling unit might accommodate the situation and Rob replied that it would need to be owner occupied. A. The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter: Yes it is permitted to have a multifamily use in this zone. B. The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety: However permitting this special exception would create undue traffic congestion on this street its very narrow and adding additional cars in a stacked parking would increase congestion in an already tight area. C. The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage or sewer systems or any other municipal system, nor will there be any significant increase in storm water runoff onto adjacent property or streets: Probably Not. D. The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, Fire protection, schools, or solid waste disposal services: Probably Not. E. Any Special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: No provisions 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: N/A G. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: This is not a reasonable use for this size  E. Any Special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled: No provisions 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: N/A G. The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use: This is not a reasonable use for this size property this is a .14 acre property it is a single family residence and certainly not a multi family as it is too small. H. The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the master plan: N/A This was seconded by Jane and was denied unanimously. 15. ZB2025-022 Variance 48 Dixon St The Board spoke amongst themselves regarding the remaining variance application Rob Mora stated that hypothetically speaking if you approved the variance as presented the max that could be used would be two units. Marcia stated but they are asking for three units Rob Mora responded correct that is there request and that is what needs to be acted upon. Michael Dellavechia opened to public comment regarding the variance for density. James Poisson spoke again in opposition to this proposal on Dixon. This is bad for housing values if you put up another multiplex the street will be ruined we all have known this since Harry Bean put it up a hundred years ago. Values go down taxes go up we cant shrink the housing size this is a profit proposal that will impact everything. Michael Dellavechia sought a motion and Jane Laroche motioned to DENY variance application ZB2025-022 using these findings of fact. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: Granting would be contrary to the public interest as it would diminish property values. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: Again this would create a density problem and lead to increased parking issues. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: Due to the narrow aspect of the road it would not fit the existing character of the neighborhood. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: it would definitely be diminished due to the increased congestion at the property. 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 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  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 Marcia Hayward and was unanimously Denied three votes to zero. 16. ZB2025-023 390-394 Union Avenue Variance Ethan Wood spoke regarding the proposal to allow for a variance in density for 8 units on the property at Union Square. Ethan spoke also regarding Kurt Brungardt the developer. Ethan spoke regarding the change of some of these units from commercial to residential. 235 attachment 3 specifically requires as of 2019 a variance be sought for uses falling below 1 unit per 1000 feet of floor space be used for residential. Ethan stated that the average square per unit of under 1000 square feet Ethan stated these buildings were constructed in the 1900s. Also Ethan stated there was plenty of parking already on site. These two affected buildings will have below residential space below the prescribed 1000 square foot criteria. Ethan stated the location is in keeping with the neighborhood as it does have residential characteristics within a mixed use commercial area also the businesses in the area would benefit from an increased residential base in this area. Ethan also said there are five restaurant's within 500 feet of the proposed area. Jane Laroche asked Rob if there was an authorization in place to allow Ethan Wood to speak on behalf of the owner and the answer was found to be yes there was one in place. Michael thanked Attorney Wood for the presentation. Kurt stated again we are just looking for the variance as the change of use is in place already. Michael opened to public comment. James Poisson spoke opposition to a smaller unit size. Reuben Bassett spoke in support of the proposal citing the needs of the community. Patrick Clausen spoke in support of this proposal citing good use of the property and need for more housing. Closed to the public hearing and marcia motioned to approve the variance by using the agents criteria as the finding of fact this was seconded by jane Laroche and was unanimous 3 votes to Zero. these criteria were used in this decision. 1. Granting the Variances Will Not Be Contrary to the Public Interest The Board, in reviewing the variance applications, is required to determine whether granting them would be contrary to the public interest. Generally speaking, a variance by its nature conflicts with the zoning ordinance which is understood to be a declaration of the public interests. Perreault v. Town of New Hampton, 171 N.H. 183, 186 (2018). However, the nature of this conflict and the extent to which such conflict needs to exist to make it contrary to the public interest is set forth as: “[T]o be contrary to the public interest, the variance must unduly, and in a marked degree conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance's basic zoning objectives. In determining whether granting a variance violates an ordinance's basic zoning objectives, we look to, among other things, whether it would alter the essential character of the locality or threaten public health, safety or welfare. Such examples are not exclusive. The requirement that the variance not be ‘contrary to the public interest’ is ‘related to the requirement that the variance be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.’ The public interests are “[T]o be contrary to the public interest, the variance must unduly, and in a marked degree conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance's basic zoning objectives. In determining whether granting a variance violates an ordinance's basic zoning objectives, we look to, among other things, whether it would alter the essential character of the locality or threaten public health, safety or welfare. Such examples are not exclusive. The requirement that the variance not be ‘contrary to the public interest’ is ‘related to the requirement that the variance be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance.’ The public interests are protected by standards which prohibit the granting of a variance inconsistent with the purpose and intent of the ordinance, which require that variances be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance, or which pen nit only variances that are in the public interest.” Nine A, LLC v. Town of Chesterfield, 157 N.H. 361, 366 (2008) (internal citations and quotations omitted, emphasis added). Granting this variance would not violate the basic objectives of the zoning ordinance. One of the reasons that zoning ordinances are adopted is to ensure that dangers to public health, safety, and welfare are mitigated. In this case, however, the existing structures remain, and the conversion occurs only within the buildings. The limited number of units permits egress by the people living there without issue in the case of an emergency and the historical nature of the exterior of the buildings is retained. In addition, the limited change (from commercial/mixed use) to residential will be unlikely to burden any existing city services or threaten public health, safety, or welfare. This change of use to residential apartments does not threaten public health, safety, or welfare. 2. If the Variances Were Granted, the Spirit of the Ordinance Would Be Observed. Another criterion that the Board is obligated to consider is whether the spirit of the ordinance is observed. The requirement that the variance not be contrary to the public interest is “related to the requirement that the variance be consistent with the spirit of the ordinance." Chester Rod & Gun Club v. Town of Chester, 152 N.H. 577, 580 (2005). “[T]o be contrary to the public interest . . .the variance must unduly, and in a marked degree conflict with the ordinance such that it violates the ordinance's basic zoning objectives. One way to ascertain whether granting the variance would violate basic zoning objectives is to examine whether it would alter the essential character of the locality... Another approach to determining whether granting the variance would violate basic zoning objectives is to examine whether granting the variance would threaten the public health, safety or welfare.” Id. at 581 (quotations and citation omitted). In this proposed use, the essential character of the locality is not being modified in any manner. The only change being proposed is the removal and construction of some interior walls and the installation of kitchens and full bathrooms so that the units can be used in a residential manner. The outside of the buildings will remain, and the footprints are not being modified. Additionally, as there is more than sufficient parking onsite to accommodate all of the uses on this site, there is no expected impact to the locality. If anything, the location of additional residential units near restaurants and other services in this area and the high school all are in keeping with the spirit of the ordinance which is focused on increasing density in areas where there are existing City services and amenities. 3. Granting the Variance Would Do Substantial Justice The third criterion is whether substantial justice is done. Within the framework of a variance, substantial justice is understood as whether the loss to the individual when the variance is denied is outweighed by the gain to the public in denying the variance. “Perhaps the only guiding rule on this factor is that any loss to the individual that is not outweighed by a gain to the public is an injustice. We also look to whether the proposed development is consistent with the area’s present use.” Harborside Assocs. v. Parade Residence Hotel, 162 N.H. 508, 515 (2011) (citation and quotation omitted). Since this use is consistent with other nearby properties and adds additional housing to the City, a denial of this variance would be inconsistent with the criteria of substantial justice. While it is true that apartments of a certain size are preferred, the location of these units is prime for slightly smaller units. The denial of this variance would require that the units remain as commercial units but would not otherwise change the structures. The City of Laconia is not in need of additional small commercial space in this area, but housing would be beneficial. Some of the larger units would be ideally located for families given the location near the high school. In addition, the city gains nothing by denying the variance. Denying the variance would only a certain size are preferred, the location of these units is prime for slightly smaller units. The denial of this variance would require that the units remain as commercial units but would not otherwise change the structures. The City of Laconia is not in need of additional small commercial space in this area, but housing would be beneficial. Some of the larger units would be ideally located for families given the location near the high school. In addition, the city gains nothing by denying the variance. Denying the variance would only permit the existing structure to continue to be used as commercial buildings. Not only are additional residential units needed, but the city also needs units of varied sizes. Some of these smaller units will be ideal 4 for single people or young people and the larger units, given the proximity to the schools is perfect. There is no gain to the public that outweighs the loss to the Applicant in denying the variances, so the Board should grant the requested variances. 4. Granting the Variances Will Not Diminish Surrounding Property Values As this proposal involves changing some of the interior walls and changing the use from commercial to residential, the surrounding properties will not decrease in value. The outside of these buildings will not substantially change, but the renovations will only increase property values. To the extent that there is any impact to the neighboring properties, it is generally believed to be a positive one. The change from commercial to residential will provide additional housing stock in walking distance of the high school, five eating establishments, the laundromat, and other amenities. As such, the Board should find that granting the variance will not diminish surrounding property values. 5. Unnecessary Hardship Criteria The fifth criterion is that literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance would result in an unnecessary hardship for the owner. The statute provides two means of determining whether, owing to the special conditions of the property, an unnecessary hardship exists. This first is a two-prong test that requires the Board to consider whether no fair and substantial relationship exists between the general purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property, and whether the proposed use is a reasonable use. RSA 674:33, 1(b). There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the ordinance and the application to this specific property. It is worth noting that if all the buildings on this property were razed and new residential units were constructed, this site would permit seventy residential units without a variance. The zoning ordinance, with regard to this specific site and the plan to convert the units from commercial use to a residential use, has no fair and substantial relationship with the purpose of having larger units. This property is less developed than would currently be permissible and the structures on the premises are not being changed, other than the use and some interior modifications to enable their use as residential units. The floor plans are being included with this application so that the board can view the way the interior will be modified to make the units living units rather than commercial units. There is no fair and substantial relationship between the general purpose of the ordinance and the application to this property. The property is already well set up for residential units given the location and the courtyard between the units, the ample amount of parking, and the existing greenspace. The proposed use here is a reasonable use. As the proposal is to replace existing commercial units with residential units, in an area well suited for residential use, this use is reasonable. In addition to adding additional rental units to the City, these units are in a great location as many amenities are in walking distance. While there is no current plan to designate these units in any fashion, the size of some of these units is ideal for single people or those looking to avoid high costs. As the total number of total units is still well below what is permitted on a site this size, the use is reasonable. While the Applicant believes that this proposed variance meets the first criteria, this application also meets the second criteria. The second method of determining whether an unnecessary hardship exists is available, if the criteria in the first method are not established, and provides as follows: 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. RSA 674:33, 1(b)(2).  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. RSA 674:33, 1(b)(2). In Harborside Associates, 162 N.H. at 516, the Court considered whether the Portsmouth Zoning Board had properly followed the requirements of the law in determining whether the hotel owner, Parade Residence Hotel, LLC, had established an unnecessary hardship that would warrant granting a variance to permit the construction of marquee signs on the hotel. In its analysis, the Court noted that the issue to be decided is not whether the“signs would be unique in their settings, but that its property - the hotel and conference center - has unique characteristics that make the signs themselves a reasonable use of the property.” Id. at 518 (emphasis in original). As the Court stated in Harborside, the test is no longer whether “special conditions of the land rendered it uniquely unsuitable for the use for which it was zoned.” Id. at 519. Instead, “hardship exists when special conditions of the land render the use for which the variance is sought reasonable.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted). In reviewing this proposed variance under the second prong, it is important to keep in mind that the standards for establishing the appropriateness of a variance “are not discrete and unrelated criteria, but interrelated concepts that aim to ensure a proper balance between the legitimate aims of municipal planning and the hardship that may sometimes result from a literal enforcement of zoning ordinances.” Brandt Development, 162 N.H- at 560. The special conditions of the existing use of the land and structures and the proposed change in use to residential, render this variance reasonable. Not only does the exterior and foot prints of the existing structures remain the same, the number of total units on the property is not changing. The proposed variance is for converting existing commercial structures to residential structures where the average square footage of the units in 390 Union Avenue and 394 Union Avenue will be under 1,000 square feet. This ultimately results in furthering the legitimate aims of municipal planning and zoning, including the increase in additional housing units in a location that is ideal for this. As a result, the change to residential units where the average square footage of the units in these two buildings is less than 1,000 square feet makes this use, and therefore the variance, a reasonable one. Conclusion Changing the use from small commercial units to residential apartments is reasonable. As the Applicant has met the five criteria required for this variance. 17. OTHER BUSINESS 18. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:03PM