Project abutter wants judge to show ZBA the error of its ways

LACONIA — An abutter to a major redevelopment project off Lakeport Square pressed his case in a court hearing Monday seeking to have a judge issue a ruling that makes plain how the city’s Zoning Board should handle appeals.

Peter Brunette, who lives at 19 Park Street, which abuts the rear of the Paugus Elm project, argues that the Zoning Board of Adjustment affirmed an administrative decision by Planning Director Dean Trefethen without adequately determining if Trefethen’s ruling was in accordance with the city’s Zoning Ordinance.

“The court should direct the ZBA how to handle an appeal from administrative decision,” Brunette told Superior Court Judge James D. O’Neill III when the judge asked Brunette what kind of remedy he was seeking from the court.

At issue is Trefethen’s decision that allowed a metal retaining wall to be installed 2 feet from Brunette’s property during the excavation phase of the Paugus Elm project. Because Trefethen concluded the retaining wall was not a structure, but rather a “building technique,” it could be installed inside the 5-foot buffer — or setback — from abutting property.

The city’s attorney Joseph Driscoll said ZBA had, however, handled the issue appropriately.

“They (the ZBA) made a lawful decision based on credible information provided to them at the time.” Driscoll told the judge, referring to the July meeting when the board affirmed Trefethen’s decision.

But Brunette said that since the term “construction technique” is not mentioned or defined in the city’s Zoning Ordinance, the ZBA should have shown greater independent thinking to determine whether Trefethen’s finding was, in fact, in accordance with the ordinance.

However, during the 30-minute hearing Brunette acknowledged the issue is moot because he does not want the interlocking metal 20- to 25- foot metal sheets to be removed regardless.

“It would be a disaster if they were to remove them,” Brunette said, citing the amount of vibration that was created when the sections of the wall were hammered into the ground.

O’Neill took the matter under advisement, but gave no indication when he would issue a ruling.