Zoning Board of Adjustment

City of Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment Monday, December 16th , 2024 - 6:30 PM City Hall in the Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber 12/16/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Marcia Hayward called the meeting to order at 6:30PM 2. ROLL CALL In attendance Marcia Hayward, Mike Foote, and Richard Boddie. Absent from the meeting Michael Dellavechia, Jane Laroche, and Roland Maheu. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Scott Pelchat 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Scott Pelchat 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Prior Minutes The prior minutes were accepted with two corrections to be made. 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. ZB2025-024 61 Pine St (448-184-61) This application was withdrawn by the applicant after it was found that this was a preexisting non conforming lot. 9.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. ZB2025-027 206 Baldwin St Variance For Multifamily Use Amanda and Hawk spoke regarding the property at 206 Baldwin St. seeking the use of multifamily at there property. Marcia noted that Amanda is the property owner and Marcia asked Amanda to kindly define the proposal. Amanda stated currently the property has approvals for stl and also that it exists as a duplex and that she would like to create a multifamily on this property by using an out building garage as a third unit. 10. ZB2025-027 206 Baldwin St Variance For Multifamily Use Amanda and Hawk spoke regarding the property at 206 Baldwin St. seeking the use of multifamily at there property. Marcia noted that Amanda is the property owner and Marcia asked Amanda to kindly define the proposal. Amanda stated currently the property has approvals for stl and also that it exists as a duplex and that she would like to create a multifamily on this property by using an out building garage as a third unit. Amanda mentioned that there was parking plans submitted in the application as well. Marcia stated that currently the property is listed as a two family and that you would like to change it to three family. Mike foote inquired that is this property currently a two family and the answer to this was yes it is. Mike Foote asked how the Short term lodging was allowed in the RS Zone and Scott Pelchat Informed him that this was approved by the prior planning director and that it must have been under the owner occupied allowance to allow for the rentals. Marcia reminded the board that in this zone that multifamily is not allowed in the particular zone and Marcia also stated that there were a few two family property's in the area but there were no multifamily. Mike Foote asked if the new unit would be short term rental and the answer was no and that unit would be used by them as the owners which would create the two units in the main house as rentals Mike Foote inquired if those could be used as str rentals and Scott stated currently only the one permitted could be used and that any other areas on the property would have to be applied for and then go through the permit process. Hawk spoke about using the garage spots as well as 5 spots are required for parking. Mike asked about ADUs and Scott advised that the applicant would have to seek that use and that he believes the traditional rental style is what they are seeking. Scott also spoke about the Short Term Rental on the property that exists currently and also that if an ADU were to be used we did not know at the time is if an ADU could be used within a multifamily. Marcia opened to public comment and there was no comment and it was opened and closed at 6:50PM. Marcia than remanded to the board for comment. Richard stated he felt ok with the multifamily and he was not worried regarding parking. Also stated that he felt the property was large enough for the use. Richard also asked if approved tonight could they come back for another density increase? Scott stated they would be allowed to seek a variance for any increases in density. Scott stated that at almost half an acre they are almost meeting density except for the fact that in the RS zone density is not referenced as to preserve the residential single family. Mike Foote asked Scott if the state had made any increases on the ADU allowance over the one allowed by the state by right and the answer was found to be no. The board spoke of the square footage of the garage that would be used as the third unit of density. The Board then spoke amongst themselves regarding the decision to be made and that there was no public outcry against these proposals. A motion was made by Mike Foote to approve ZB2025-027 to allow for the use of multifamily in the RS Zone. the following criteria was used in this decision. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: It would address the need for housing within the community. Also, it will maintain the same footprint and green space will not be affected. 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: It would allow for an expansion of an existing use of a two family into a multi-family. 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: We are moving on density and with no one here to speak against it certainly we are not feeling like we are impacting the community more than need be. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No studies were submitted but it may increase curb appeal. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: a. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: All aspects of this use would remain on the subject property.  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: All aspects of this use would remain on the subject property. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It is in a neighborhood with walking distances to local amenities. 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 Richard Boddie and was passed unanimously. 11. ZB2025-028 206 Baldwin St Variance For Density Marcia asked Amanda and Hawk for any further comments regarding the density aspect of the proposal of the third unit of housing to be created above the garage and this would leave the two units within the main structure. Marcia opened and closed the public comment at7:05 PM. A motion was made by Richard Boddie to approve ZB2025-028 to allow for a third unit of density on this property. using these finding of facts. 1.Granting the variance would not be contrary to the public interest because: yes 2.If the variance were granted, the spirit of the ordinance would be observed because: yes 3.Granting the variance would do substantial justice because: It would do substantial justice to the property. 4.If the variance were granted, the values of the surrounding properties would not be diminished because: No evidence was presented to prove or disprove property values. 5.Unnecessary Hardship: a. Owing to special conditions of the property that distinguish it from other properties in the area, denial of the variance would result in unnecessary hardship because: i. No fair and substantial relationship exists between the general public purposes of the ordinance provision and the specific application of that provision to the property because: Yes as it is inline with the needs of the community. ii. The proposed use is a reasonable one because: It is a reasonable use by the property owners. 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 approved unanimously. Three votes yes and no votes opposed.  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 approved unanimously. Three votes yes and no votes opposed. 12. Zoning Board Member Voting The Voting did not occur as the board was without all the members. 13. OTHER BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 7:07PM