Neighbor to Elm St. project appeals zoning board retaining wall decision

LACONIA — A major development project in Lakeport that was cleared to resume work by a city zoning board ruling on Wednesday will remain stalled for at least another week after an abutting property owner asked for a rehearing of that ruling.

Peter Brunette, whose property on Park Street abuts the Paugus Elm project, notified the city Planning Department Thursday that he would be requesting the Zoning Board of Adjustment to rehear his appeal. He is appealing the city Planning Director’s decision that the metal retaining wall could be installed two feet from Brunette’s property line.

Brunette’s notice followed the ZBA’s decision Wednesday to uphold Planning Director Dean Trefethen’s finding that the retaining wall slated to be placed along the back side of the construction site does not meet the zoning ordinance definition of a structure, as Brunette contended.

Trefethen said he would work to schedule the ZBA meeting for the rehearing request as soon as possible, hopefully next week.

Brunette is contesting Trefethen’s decision that the retaining wall is a construction technique, and not a structure. The wall is to be put in as part of the excavation work for Paugus Elm, a mixed commercial-residential project being developed by Scott Everett on land facing Elm Street and bounded on the side by Park Street and Railroad Avenue, just off Lakeport Square.

“I don’t find that the planning director has erred in his finding that it’s a technique,” ZBA Chairman Steve Bogert, said before the board voted 5-0 to uphold Trefethen’s finding.

Brunette, who lives on Park Street, directly behind the Paugus Elm site, appealed Trefethen’s decision on June 16. The matter was referred to the ZBA for a decision because the issue hinged on the proper interpretation of "structure" as defined in the city’s Zoning Ordinance.

Trefethen lifted the cease-work order earlier on Thursday in light of the ZBA ruling, but reinstated it after Brunette filed his request for a rehearing.

At the conclusion of Wednesday’s ZBA meeting, Brunette told the board he might take the matter to Superior Court. But a few minutes later, after the meeting adjourned, Brunette said he was undecided.

“I’ll have to figure it out. I don’t want to be an obstructionist,” he said.

Brunette told the board during Wednesday’s meeting that he feared the vibrations caused by driving the 35-foot-long steel plates into the ground could damage the foundation of his house, at 15 Park St., as well as threaten the structural integrity of the United Baptist Church next door at 23 Park St.

Barry Salta of Bonnette, Page & Stone, the general contractor for the project, said special equipment was being used to monitor any ground motion in real time, and if the vibrations became too strong the equipment can be adjusted to lessen the shaking.

Ron DeCola, who told the board he was representing Everett, said, “We take Mr. Brunette’s concerns seriously, and are willing to work with him.”

Another concern which Brunette raised is that driving the sheets for the retaining wall into the ground would seriously damage and possibly kill the cherry trees that line the side of his property closest to the construction site.

But Bogert said during the hearing that the developer’s representatives had made a “good-faith offer” to save the trees by removing them professionally during excavation work and then replanting them after the work is done.

Trefethen said the retaining wall was necessary to protect workers when they install the footings and work on the foundation for the three-story building. He said once the footings and foundation are in place, the area between the metal wall and the foundation will be back-filled, the metal sheets will be cut off two to three feet below the surface, and will no longer serve as a retaining wall.

When the meeting on Brunette’s rehearing request takes place, the board will consider only the reasons for reconsideration which Brunette submits in writing to the board beforehand. Neither Brunette nor anyone else involved in the matter will be allowed to speak, although the meeting will be open to the public.