City now aiming to hold Elm St. project rehearing next week

LACONIA — The question of whether a retaining wall can be installed on the site of a commercial-residential project in Lakeport will remain on hold for another week, according to the city.

Planning and Code Enforcement Director Dean Trefethen said Wednesday the Zoning Board of Adjustment will not hear an appeal from Peter Brunette this week because of an inability to convene enough ZBA members to constitute a quorum. Brunette’s house at 23 Park St. abuts the Paugus Elm project being developed by Scott Everett along Elm Street between Railroad Avenue and Park Street.

The board last Wednesday ruled that the installation of a metal, pile-driven retaining wall was a construction technique, and so could be installed 2 feet from the side property line of Brunette’s house. However, Brunette had argued that the wall was a structure and therefore needed to be at least 5 feet from his land. The following day Brunette informed Trefethen that he would be asking for a rehearing.

“Due to various reasons a quorum of the ZBA is not available this week to meet,” Trefethen said. “I’m hoping we can schedule the meeting for next Tuesday or Wednesday.”

Brunette told the ZBA last week that he fears the technique to be used to beat 35-foot-long metal sheets into the ground could make his house structurally unsound as well as that of the historic United Baptist Church which is next door.

The city first ordered that work on the project cease on June 18 when Brunette appealed Trefethen's decision to the ZBA. Following the ZBA's ruling on June 30, the cease-work order was lifted the following day, only to be reimposed a few hours later when Brunette notified the city of his intention to seek a rehearing.

Asking the board to rehear the matter preserves his right to take his case to superior court, Brunette explained. He may appeal to superior court if the ZBA refuses to grant a rehearing, or if he gets a rehearing but loses again.

Trefethen said that as of mid-day Wednesday his office had not received Brunette’s written submission laying out his arguments of how he contends that the ZBA legally erred in its decision. Trefethen said the board needed to have Brunette’s written appeal at least one or two days before its meeting so they would have time to analyze it.

Under the board’s rehearing procedure, the only evidence that the board will consider will be Brunette’s written submission, and board members will be the only ones allowed to speak.

In the meantime, Trefethen said site work can proceed on the project, but none that is close to Brunette’s property line.