2.2 acre Big Island, Paugus Bay; proposed summer girl's camp

[TiltonBB]

Originally Posted by pondguy

Bring on the Lawyers its only the taxpayers money.

I agree that they will probably sue. But keep in mind that the variance they are asking for requires them to meet very specific criteria and they must satisfy all of the points on the list. I had posted that list some time ago and it is still shown above in this thread.

One of the requirements is that you have to show a hardship. I am not sure how the petitioner feels that they meet this requirement.

Steve Bogert is the Chairman of the ZBA in Laconia and he is very much a man who goes by the book. If you do not meet the criteria it is not going to fly.

[Riviera]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

But keep in mind that the variance they are asking for requires them to meet very specific criteria and they must satisfy all of the points on the list. ....

.... One of the requirements is that you have to show a hardship. I am not sure how the petitioner feels that they meet this requirement.

Actually, they are NOT seeking a variance, and hence do NOT need to show hardship. They are seeking a special exception under the zoning bylaw. The special exception they are requesting is to permit a "conference center" use on the property. Under the bylaw, any given use is either "permitted" (ie single family residential), "permitted by special exception" (ie conference center), or not permitted (ie grocery store).

Under the Laconia zoning bylaw, there is no use listed for a summer camp. Accordingly, they selected a use that is permitted by special exception, that they felt most appropriately mimics a summer camp. If they were to be granted the special exception, the use "conference center" would be permitted on the island in perpetuity.

In order to obtain a special exception for a use that is permitted by special exception, the applicant needs to demonstrate the following:

(a) The use requested is specifically authorized in this chapter.
(b) The requested use will not create undue traffic congestion or unduly impair pedestrian safety.
(c) The requested use will not overload any public water, drainage or sewer system or any other municipal system, not will there be any significant increase in stormwater runoff onto adjacent property or streets.
(d) The requested use will not create excessive demand for municipal police, fire protection, schools or solid waste disposal services.
(e) Any special provisions for the use as set forth in this chapter are fulfilled.
(f) The requested use will not create hazards to the health, safety, or general welfare of the public, not be detrimental to the use of or out of character with the adjacent neighborhood.
(g) The proposed location is appropriate for the requested use.
(h) The requested use is consistent with the spirit and intent of this chapter and the Master Plan.

So, the ZBA has a fairly wide degree of latitude in making these determinations. While the applicant has the burden of proof in establishing the above criteria, they are not required to demonstrate hardship.

If the applicant does file suit, they will need to establish that the ZBA wrongly interpreted these criteria. I suspect they will also need to demonstrate that a "conference center" and a "summer camp", are one and the same. If a summer camp is not equivalent to a conference center, they would then need a variance, and would be required to demonstrate that utilizing the land as single family residential, vs a summer camp, presents a hardship.

While I appreciate the applicants goal, I think they have an uphill legal battle.

[TiltonBB]

Riviera, you are correct. I thought it was for a variance, not a special exception.

It would appear that if the applicant is successful the conditions that the ZBA might attach could make it impossible to use the island for a camp anyway. It seems that the conditions can be applied at the discretion of the ZBA and could be very restrictive.

In granting a special exception, the Zoning Board of Adjustment may attach conditions as it deems necessary to assure compliance with the purposes of this chapter. Such conditions may include but are not limited to the following:
(a)
Increasing the lot size or setback area dimensions.
(b)
Limiting the lot coverage or building height.
(c)
Specifying the location and limiting the number of vehicular access points to the property.
(d)
Requiring additional on-site parking or loading spaces.
(e)
Requiring additional landscaping and screening.
(f)
Limiting the number of occupants of a building, and the methods and times of operation of a use.
(g)
Restricting the number, size and illumination of signs.(h)
Modification of the exterior appearance of a building.
(i)
Providing for specific locations or layout of facilities on the property

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

It would appear that if the applicant is successful the conditions that the ZBA might attach could make it impossible to use the island for a camp anyway. It seems that the conditions can be applied at the discretion of the ZBA and could be very restrictive.

Very interesting, especially if we consider that the most obvious way for the owner to recoup his investment is overnight guests in May, June, September and October.

So in addition to the question of whether a conference center is equivalent to a camp, is the question of whether a conference center is equivalent to an inn.

[Broken Glass]

In today's litigious society, would it, or could it be possible, that this guy just wants to give something back, and put a day camp together for the kids?If he had alternative motives, another approach such as a commercial development proposal, would have served him better??