Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, November 18, 2024 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 11/18/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Michael Dellavechia brought the meeting to order at 6:30 PM 2. ROLL CALL Scott performed roll call in attendance Richard Boddie, Jane Laroche, Michael Dellavechia, Mike Foote, and Marcia hayward. Absent from the Meeting was Roland Maheau. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Scott Pelchat 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Scott Pelchat 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Prior Meeting Minutes The Minutes were accepted with three modifications 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. ZB2025-024 61 Pine St (448-184-61) Brad Leighton and Realtor Chris Kelly spoke regarding the proposal to allow for a variance to correct a non conformity at the property at 61 Pine St where currently a structure exists in the RG Zone where the use of two family is permitted but the lot size does not support a second unit of density. Chris spoke about prior owners stating the transference of this property has been recognized as a two family. Chris stated that the prior owner had done due diligence and that Scott had stated that yes the use is allowed in this Zone that the density calculation needs to be met as the lot size only supported one unit. The variance would allow for an increase from one unit to two units on this lot. Chris stated they were seeking the approval for the property to allow it to become a legal two family. Michael Dellavechia asked about the Parking at this property to see if it met the defined amount of 4 spots  two family is permitted but the lot size does not support a second unit of density. Chris spoke about prior owners stating the transference of this property has been recognized as a two family. Chris stated that the prior owner had done due diligence and that Scott had stated that yes the use is allowed in this Zone that the density calculation needs to be met as the lot size only supported one unit. The variance would allow for an increase from one unit to two units on this lot. Chris stated they were seeking the approval for the property to allow it to become a legal two family. Michael Dellavechia asked about the Parking at this property to see if it met the defined amount of 4 spots as defined for two family use. It was also found that their was a shared easement between 61 Pine st and the adjacent property 60 Pine street. Chris stated he felt there was ample parking on this site for A two family. Chris also stated that Parking at this property has always been interesting. Marcia stated she had concerns for parking as well. Chris stated a prior tenant created a parking spot on the front lawn (later found to be unapproved by the City) but was the topic of parking discussion. Chris mentioned a neighboring property regarding the future ownership model and that there were minimal challenges for the property regarding use and parking. Mike asked about bedrooms per unit and the requirement of parking Scott corrected stating it was based on units and it was found to need 2 spots per unit from the table of parking requirements. Chris also stated the property has no tenants at this time. Chris showed the board what his thought was on the parking . Michael Dellavechia opened to public discussion Stacy Weare spoke regarding this application for the increase in density and was concerned with the matter of parking and stated a concern with the shared driveway. James Poisson spoke in opposition to the increase in density at 61 Pine st stating shoehorn them into another ward as we are full. Michael brought it back to the board for discussion Marcia stated that she had found 4 units of parking the board asked about different requirements and the board landed on the 4 spots of total parking. Richard stated he would like to see the language of the easement before going forward. Scott stated that it would be on file at the registry of deeds. Scott advised the board that they could approve the density. table the application for the allowance of finding parking and or deny the application. Chris Kelly read to the board the language of the easement. Richard Boddie made a motion to table application ZB2025-024 for density at 61 Pine St to allow the applicant more time to see if they have the parking and or need to seek a variance for parking. this was seconded by Mike Foote and tabled until the December 16th ZBA meeting unanimously. 10. ZB2025-025 76 Hillcroft Rd. (179-322-22) Mathew Thoin spoke regarding the property at 76 Hillcroft and the proposal to seek a special exception to allow for the use of short term lodging at this property. Jane inquired if there were any other short term rentals in this area Matt did not know of any. Mike Foote asked about any associations in the area that might control the use of. Marcia inquired regarding the Zone it was in Scott stated it was in the RR1 Zone where a special exception is required if the property is not owner occupied for 150 days minimum. Mathew again stated it was a second home that his family used. Michael opened to the public for discussion at 7:07PM and there was no input from the gallery but Scott read a letter from a concerned citizen. Michael Newhouse asked if the application were to be approved if the email and or phone number be provided to him, Scott stated that the City does not provide emails and or phone numbers of property owners. the second concern was if fireworks could be allowed only during the 4th of July and Scott stated that any allowance provided by right to a citizen is allowed to abutting properties in the same neighborhood and that the fire department controls these allowances on fireworks. Michael stated that he was in favor of short term lodging as long as its done responsibly. Marcia asked about the phone tree process and whose numbers are listed on the abutter letter that accompanies the final permit. Mike Foote stated that this road was private and asked how trash would be cared for and Mathew stated they would have to remove it from the site. Richard Boddie made a motion to allow the special exception for the use of short term lodging be allowed on this property where it is non owner occupied these were the finding of facts used in this decision. a. The use requested is specifically authorized in the chapter; Yes it is. b. The requested use will not increase demand for municipal services; It will not. c. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled; Yes they will. d. The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public; No they will not.  c. Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled; Yes they will. d. The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public; No they will not. e. 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: 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: It will benefit the community by bringing in the money of the renters. This was seconded by Jane and passed 3 votes affirmative to two votes negative. to approve the special exception. 11. ZB2025-026 92 Pine St ( 443-184-75 ) Thomas Labree owner of Blue stone rentals LLC spoke regarding the proposal to add a fourth unit of density where 3 units are currently approved by a prior variance. Thomas stated after starting construction on the second floor of the old Pine Hill Market. That it was found to have a considerable amount of square footage ( 2700 first floor )( 2100 second floor) that could be used for a fourth apartment. this if kept at 3 units would create a 2100 square foot apartment. If made into 4 units it would then create one second floor unit @1250 SF and an additional unit of 500/600 SF. Thomas presented pictures to the board regarding the unused space upstairs and indicated that if kept at three units it would create a apartment that is very large. The final specs of the space to be used will be presented in the building permit phase of the process. Thomas further explained how and where the domicile will be accessed and how the apartments are to be accessed as well. Michael Dellavechia opened to the public comment James Poisson spoke in opposition to the increase in density citing Pine Hill is a very dangerous area for accidents and that the City is over densifying the area. The Board spoke amongst themselves regarding the proposal and marcia made a motion to approve ZB2025-026 to allow for a fourth unit of density where three exist from a previous variance. these were the finding of facts used in the decision. 1. Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It does not change the character of the neighborhood but allows a more varied housing situation for the city. 2. If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It fits the ordinance because if criteria one is met than criteria two is also met. 3. Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It still allows the property to be used as is and is a benefit to the community with a variety of housing options. 4. If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: Property prices should increase as the property is in repair now over sitting idle prior. 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: The property was a market that is now used residential. creating housing stock by this use. i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance  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: The property was a market that is now used residential. creating housing stock by this use. 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: It will create more housing within the City. -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 unanimously passed. 12. OTHER BUSINESS In other business Scott advised the Board that election of board members positions was missed by Scott at the August meeting and it was decided that the voting would occur at the next meeting in December. At the December 16th ZBA meeting. 13. ADJOURNMENT The Meeting was adjourned at 8:00 pm