ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES OF 4/18/11
APPROVED MEETING OF 5/16/11
PRESENT: S. Bogert, Chairman; S. Perley, Vice Chairman: D. Greski; O. Gibbs; J. Tivnan, Alternate ABSENT: S. Saunders, Planning Director; M. Foote, Alternate
S. Bogert called the meeting to order at 7 pm and welcomed the public to the April 18th meeting of the
Laconia ZBA. He let the members and public know that the application from 279 Lakeside had requested to be removed from the agenda at this time and would not be heard this evening. J. Tivnan was seated as a full board member for the evening.
HEARINGS:
Application # 2011-0005 MSL # 145-127-33 CR Zone Tolios 279 Lakeside Ave Variance
The applicant is requesting a variance from 235-66 (C) (2) , in order to add on a patio area and second floor deck. The proposed deck would be 12’ x 22’ and would cause no further encroachment than what currently exists.
Application # 2011-0006 MSL # 442-142-40 DRD Zone Landwild Holdings 423 Main Street Variance
The applicant is requesting a variance from Table VI, Table of Sign Regulations. The current sign is 72 SF and the proposed is 49.6 SF while the allowed size of a freestanding sign in this zone is 24 SF.
Applicant: Randy Bartlett from Barlo Signs appeared for the application. The tenant that is moving in is requesting a sign to replace what is currently there.
J. Tivnan asked if this is part of the Melchor Prescott sign or would it be by itself and R. Bartlett said it is a new sign as Melchor Prescott moved across the street. R. Bartlett said this is a sign re-placement of what had been located on the site.
S. Bogert said that there is technically no sign here as the other one was approved to be moved across the street so we are starting over with a fresh slate.
S. Perley asked for clarification on sizes and R. Bartlett said what is being requested is the 49 SF. He said the same hardships exist as did with the Melchor Prescott sign presented at the last meeting. He said the code for the City of Laconia doesn’t assist with a 4 way intersection. Signs need proper visibility. The applicant is losing visibility from 2 directions, especially coming down the hill. They are just trying to get enough visibility to identify the business. This is in keeping with the business zone. He said he understands why we have zones but other businesses have signs of the same nature.
D. Greski asked to go back to the math as he doesn’t understand the 49 SF. R. Bartlett explained how the figure was arrived at and showed the board a different picture which he thought would be clearer and easier to understand.
S. Perley said she didn’t feel the colors shown on this color photograph fit into the neighborhood. The picture submitted to the board was black and white and the one R. Bartlett just showed the board is in color. She said the old sign that was located here fit much better. S. Bogert asked R. Bartlett to allow the board a closer look at the picture he had showed the board.
D. Greski asked about the filler panels and R. Bartlett explained them. J. Tivnan asked if the top portion is lit and was told yes. R. Bartlett said the filler panels would be solid black. The Bayside Rental section of the sign would be metal and non lit per R. Bartlett. He said they try to make their signs aesthetically pleasing.
S. Perley asked for an explanation on colors and was told the cabinet is red, as well as the pole cover .R. Bartlett said the pole cover could be painted if needed. This is the national logo for the company so they want to keep it red if possible but would sacrifice the color in order to get the required visibility.
R. Bartlett went over the criteria. He said this proposal won’t be contrary to the spirit of the ordinance because a large monument sign currently exists on the property. The property identification is currently there now and has served for a number of years. The proposed sign is less than what was there. The proposal is not obtrusive.
The spirit of the ordinance is met as this is an updated sign. It will serve as an aid in the public finding of the business as a lot of people won’t be from the area. The sign currently exists there now. It won’t adversely affect the public, as it is replacing a similar sign. Similar signage exists in the area now. This serves a business need.
Substantial justice will be done in that this business will be enjoying the same usage as their predecessor. This will be similar to what they had. R. Bartlett said to look at the surrounding area. This would be the only sign in the area that would be 24 SF so it would look out of place. He said to go up the street and take note of what looks like single family homes which are businesses and have signs. Moving up the street there are more commercial businesses and more signs.
Literal enforcement would result in an unnecessary hardship as the real estate business would lose the identification the former tenant had. Again he said to look at the surrounding area. There are other digital signs and others of same size. This business is located on the corner of 2 well traveled roads and they need more visible signage than the 24 SF that is allowed in this zone.
This is a reasonable use as it properly identifies entrances and the new location by retaining the current size that is there.
R. Bartlett said that the by-laws do not support what the area already has.
Board: S. Perley said this is in the DRD so there are other issues with the sign than just the size. R. Bartlett said leniency has been granted to other businesses in this area. He mentioned The Funky Monkey as an example of what is in the area.
After further discussion, R. Bartlett said he can remove the right and left area of the Remax sign if necessary and could also remove the Bayside Rentals if they have to.
S. Perley read the ordinance regarding DRD signage to R. Bartlett.
R. Bartlett said they can go smaller but the color should not be used as a reason to deny this. S. Perley said this is a very visible sign on a busy corner lot; there is a lot going on here. O. Gibbs said the Melchor Prescott sign was
complimentary to the architectural style of the building.
R. Bartlett asked if the color is the largest objection. The balloon and Remax are trademarks and can’t be changed. The pole cover could be changed. He said that possibly the pole could be bronze which would match trim on the building. S. Perley said the message board is illuminated, and they are using very bright colors, which she feels is overkill for this location. S. Bogert asked if the sign would be saying the same thing on both sides and R. Bartlett said yes. The sign is internally lit, using fluorescent bulbs. R. Bartlett said the illumination could possibly be modified so the only thing that
lights at night could be the copy. He could run an opaque panel. O. Gibbs read the times the sign has to be turned off, from 11 pm – 6 am.
D. Greski read the corner lot issue from ordinance, 235-57 A and 235-54 B. He said the sign needs to meet the historical nature of the structure and he thinks there are height, historical, and illumination issues as well as size. S. Perley said she agrees; she also feels the corner lot is an issue here.
S. Bogert said the sign can be made of metal and D. Greski said yes, providing it blends in historically. He said he doesn’t feel this blends with the building and that the copper option would be better. R. Bartlett said they can cover the poles and can make the change to the bronze. Behind the Bayside Rental portion and the top could be copper. J. Tivnan said there are a lot of distractions now in this area and he feels that the red color would just add to that. R. Bartlett said he feels size is the most important thing and keeping the Remax logo. He said he doesn’t think his customer will be thrilled with losing the red pole cover and the back board but the building does have copper trim so feels the copper would blend in.
J. Tivnan mentioned the Remax sign in Meredith. D. Greski said the height is 8 ft. R. Bartlett said he could make it wider and turn it into a monument sign. They need the size, not the pole cover. He feels the size is more important. The reduction of the height would not interfere with visibility of the sign. S. Bogert asked how the sign would sit and R. Bartlett said parallel to the main road. S. Perley asked if this will be on Union Avenue and was told yes. S. Bogert asked how wide, this would be and was told about 20 inches. S. Perley asked if the illuminated message sign can only change once an hour, and was told yes.
R. Bartlett stated that if the code says the height can be 8 ft he can do that, and change the pole cover and make this a monument sign. For the aesthetics and historical value, he can change from red to bronze. For the lighting, other signs are opaque so he can do that. It will show as white during the day with black vinyl so only the copy would light up at night.
R. Bartlett said they have made 3 concessions. O. Gibbs said that LED displays can be limited in intensity. S. Bogert asked R. Bartlett if the lighting is done in percentages, and was told yes.
D. Greski asked about clarification on illumination and R. Bartlett said he can cover the back of the sign with black so only the letters would show at night. S. Bogert said that is a passive night thing, so this won’t light up the bushes at night. S. Perley asked when they are moving into building and R. Bartlett said they are going to be late with the sign. R. Bartlett said they have agreed to make the sign opaque, use bronze on the pole cover, re-do the 8 ft height, and give up the base. He said he would be hard pressed to fit the Bayside Rental onto the sign with these limitations, so he could concede that now, too. This will now be a monument sign. He said it would look best to leave black ends and run it all the way to the ground. He feels this would still look good.
D. Greski said he would feel more comfortable if they meet the concessions he agreed to and come back with a new rendering of the sign as the sign company does this type of thing all day long and the board members don’t. It was agreed that the board wants them to return with the changes.
R. Bartlett went over the changes again: he will opaque the sign, change the pole cover from red to bronze and, fix the illumination. They will give up Bayside Rentals and change the height. R. Bartlett asked if he does make the changes do the members feel an approval would be in order and S. Bogert said we are trying to get to that point.
S. Bogert said the signage would meet historical, illumination, and height requirements with the changes. With those as guides the approval chances would be better but the board does need to see the new rendering of the sign before approval.
S. Bogert had a question on the “fillers” on the sign. He said the size said 54” on the bottom with the fillers. S. Perley asked if the sign could be shrunk, and R. Bartlett said it is already built, as they used a similar size to what is there now, but less. S. Perley said she feels that the Remax logo is challenging. R. Bartlett said this sign, if re-built, will be set across the street from a much more massive sign.
O. Gibbs said she won’t be at the May meeting, and J. Tivnan will be gone so there will be only 3 members at the meeting to vote. R. Bartlett said he said he could draft this now at the meeting and S. Perley replied no, we need him to return, as we need the appropriate pictures and document on all the signage proposed for the site. O. Gibbs agreed that we need to see the completed sign, photos and application.
R. Bartlett said if you take the site aggregate this would be within it, not utilizing what he could on the wall sign. He was asked if this freestanding sign was their only request and he said they are also re-facing a wall sign. K. Snow said we did not get that as part of the variance and we do need it. R. Bartlett said it won’t exceed the total site aggregate.
S. Bogert said it sounds as if this application should be tabled until the May meeting to allow the applicant to return with the needed changes.
Motion: S. Bogert moved to table application # 2011-0006 in order to allow the applicant to return with the needed information and to make the changes and amend the application to include all of the signs at the site.
S. Perley seconded and all voted in favor of tabling the application until the May 16 meeting, 5-0.
S. Perley said that K. Snow might have to call R. Bartlett as we need pictures of all of the signs on the site. Application # 2011-0007 MSL 287-178-6 RS Zone
Thuis Haven LLC 118 Paugus Park Rd Variance The applicant is requesting a variance from 235-35 19 (F) (2) (b), shoreland setback, in order to replace an existing deck, increasing the width by 3 feet, which would then encroach into the required 50 ft shoreland setback by 2 F. Applicant: Bill Totten appeared for the application. He said that the existing deck has loose railings. When stepping out of the kitchen you have only about 3 ft of walkway, which is unsafe and gets congested; people bump into one another and he thinks this is why the railings are loose now. The bigger area has room for only a table and chair, with no place for a grill, which the owner has placed in the 3 ft area close to vinyl siding. They want to keep existing posts, cantilever the deck, use the same footprint, and make this area safer and more usable, as now it is just a walkway to get to the water.
D. Greski asked if this is cantilevered now, and was told no. There is a carrying beam below; there are 4 posts and the beam rests on it. The deck goes out to the end of the beam. They will remove the current deck, the existing beams would stay, and they would cantilever this out.
D. Greski asked about any additional construction to the ground and was told there is none. The vinyl railing is failing. D. Greski asked what additional work would affect the ground and was told nothing - they are just going out 3 feet. S. Perley said it doesn’t sound like this would affect any vegetation, and was told that is correct.
B. Totten stated this was originally well built in order to do what is being proposed. He said he will have to lower a beam a bit but he is over 6 ft and can still walk under it. He said the pressure treated beams are in good shape; they are 2 x 8, and he will go to 2 x 10 as they don’t work for what is being proposed. D. Greski said he drove by and tried to see the deck but couldn’t. S. Perley asked if this is an older house, and was told about 10 years old. Last summer was the first year the owner used the house and realized this was not a good set up.
S. Perley asked for clarification on how far into the setback the new deck would encroach. B. Totten said that only a small portion will encroach. He told the board about 2-3 SF would encroach into the 50 ft setback. The owner is trying to get application to get a garage on side, and needs to go to the state. S. Perley asked if they have gone to the state yet for the application and was told no, but will do as soon as they get this approval. He was told he should go ahead and apply and get that process going as this all takes time.
Public: No one appeared to speak for or against the application.
Board: S. Perley said they are going out no more than 3 ft into the setback; it is close now. The picture shows 3 ft and only a portion of that goes into the setback. S. Bogert said he feels the encroachment is only about 3 ft.
B. Totten said the staircase remains the same. The length of the deck is 29 ft, with only 3 ft off of the back door now, so they are going to 6 ft. They are widening by 3 ft. and adding approximately 87 SF total, all of which is not located in the setback. S. Bogert said the left side about 6 ft wide, with the right side about 10 ft in width.
D. Greski said that the full size of the deck has to be indicated on the state application. He said it is good that the new construction is not impacting the ground but feels we need the exact dimensions of the deck as this will be needed for the application to the state.
The board agreed that they have no problem with this as they are not upsetting the ground, but want the deck dimensions. They don’t have an issue with approving, the variance but do want the exact dimensions.
S. Bogert said that unless the deck comes out further than what we are anticipating, he doesn’t feel there would be an issue with approving this but we do need to have the applicant return with the dimensions.
Motion: S. Perley moved to continue application 2011-0008 until the ZBA meeting of May 16 to allow the applicant to return with the requested information. S. Bogert seconded and all voted in favor of continuing the application until May, 5-0.
OTHER BUSINESS: S. Bogert let the other board members know that he had asked S. Saunders to give him a number or percentage on digital sign illuminations as there is nothing in the code. The board could then possibly set that as a condition of approval. We could potentially request that at night illumination be set at 20 or 30%, so signs don’t blind the neighbors. Irwin and Cantin are too bright when driving down Union Avenue. O. Gibbs said Mike’s Automotive is too bright as well. They are on Union Avenue, too.
D. Greski asked for clarification on the continued hearings. Next month we will only have 3 members present for the continued hearings; he wondered how that works.. J. Tivnan explained that his hearing with the City Council to be approved for the Planning Board is on the 25th and if approved he will automatically go to Planning. M. Foote has
applied for full board member for ZBA. J. Tivnan said they won’t know until the 25th if they are actually approved.
Only 3 members can vote next month. D. Greski asked if the approvals had to be 3 for 3 and was told yes; an applicant needs 3 votes in favor to pass.
MINUTES: The minutes from the ZBA meeting of March 21, 2011 were reviewed. S. Perley moved to approve the minutes as written; D. Greski seconded and all voted in favor of approval, 5-0.
ADJOURNMENT: S. Bogert moved to adjourn the meeting with the second by S. Perley. All voted in favor and the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.
