Planning Board

Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 Present: W. Hutchins, Chairman; W. Contardo, Vice Chair; J. Mailloux, Secretary; D. Richards, G. Denio, L. Guild, J. Tivnan, C. Smith, D. Bownes Absent: B. Baer, H. McLean, D. Vachon Staff: S. Saunders, B. Loughlin I. Call to Order W. Hutchins called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. II. Presentations 1. David Raab of Leak Detection Technologies to present 3rd party review report of Cumberland Farms project S. Saunders explained the purpose of the presentation was to understand the Third Party report in the Board’s packet. No action will be taken. When everyone understands the report and there are little to no questions, the application will be scheduled for the next Planning Board meeting and a decision would be made at that point. David Raab, from Leak Detection Technologies, was live via Google+ from Tucson, Arizona. He explained his company. He presented a Stat of CA research project where 182 facilities and the associated pipelines were evaluated. The only case he found that was similar to compare to Laconia, was in Santa Clara, CA. He found that double and single wall systems contaminate equally. He feels they were a waste of money. Vapor leaks are causing most of the contamination in CA. The Veeder Root system takes the vapor leaks and puts them back into the tank by putting the secondary in a vacuum. It is important to understand that The EPA guestimates what is considered an “allowable leak” in the US, which is 876 gallons a year. J. Mailloux asked if the leaking allowed is in the ground or in the system. D. Raab said it can leak into the ground by either liquid or vapor. The vapor contaminates groundwater. They have seen sites all over the US. Active remediation sites have small leaks that are greater than 876 gallons a year. He understands us trying to keep Cumberland less than this. He presented a state of Iowa where they concluded 40% of sites had leaks. The Veeder Root system is the most widely used continuously monitored system in US. They do this by creating a vacuum. J. Mailloux asked how many Veeder Root systems were on the east coast and D. Raab couldn’t answer that. He assumed there were several. In CA 90% of facilities utilize the Veeder Root system. The system is to protect the primary pipeline. It keeps the pipeline containment under vacuum at all times; 19 inches of mercury. Typically the leak evaporates before it becomes liquid. D. Richards asked if the vacuum system is alarmed if there is a loss of vacuum and was told yes, without a Veeder Root. You need to certify the secondary containment. In CA they found secondary had many, many leaks and contaminants were getting into soil. The Veeder Root is a catastrophic system. It will allow a 22.3 gallon per hour leak rate before the alarm would go off. It takes a fairly large breach for the alarm to go off. 1  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 W. Contardo asked where the leak goes and was told the air pulled in from the soil down the secondary pipe then back into the main tank. Some vapor will be condensed in the tank and other vapors will go out the vent riser. Any leak in the primary pipe will be less than the 876 gallons. Those leaks are small enough that they evaporate to tank. Also people are using fuel from tank so inside of tank is at negative atmosphere; usually 2 inches in a vacuum. If large leak two things happen. Primary pipeline alarm will go off or leak will end up at Veeder Root as liquid and Veeder Root alarm will go off. Veeder Root has two sensors, one for the liquid leak and one for the vacuum leak. D. Raab explained his slide of the layout of the Veeder Root system. He was out at site in 2008 to locate leaks. D. Raab noted that there are 3 pipelines at the Laconia facility and only two of them were alarming over liquid. This means a couple months of leaking. There were 4 leaks in one pipe and 2 in another. The leak is like a mist, coming from a bruised piece of pipe. Most of the liquid is evaporating. He showed pictures of leaks. C. Smith asked how much pressure the pipe could take before bursting and was told that a leak would be unlikely to cause a catastrophic fail, he had never seen it happen. Fiberglass is difficult to rupture and rated at 300 psi. The operation of these is usually around 30-40 psi. B. Contardo asked if the vacuum could cause the leak to be pulled through the pipe and be worse and was told yes but that would be a minor situation. The atmosphere inside the secondary containment is around 6 of 7 negative psi, the pipeline is at 30 psi but not significant. The vacuum does assist in moving the leak from the inside to the outside. Leak number 5 was a flaw in the piece of pie that was purchased. And leak 6 was in the pipe pit. If these were in a non Veeder Root system it would go to secondary pie until it found a way out. In the California study the small leaks went into the soil because the secondary containment pipes were not very tight. As far as he knows the secondary system at this facility has never been tested. Other testing that can be utilized is a hydrocarbon study in the facility can be done also. This is done by soil sampling for hydrocarbons. If there are no hydrocarbons in the soil then there are no problems. You can also put chemicals in the tank. You then test for sub-surface soil vapor samples. This is called a tracer test. They use chemicals that mix with atmosphere to test for vacuum test and chemicals that mix with product to test for leak. W. Contardo asked if that is an alternative leak detection method for after the fact, and was told a detection method you do annually or biannually. This will observe a leak at 40 gallons per year. They chose 40 gpy because 50 gallons per year leaked product is mitigated by natural systems. D. Richards asked if the test points permanent and was told yes. He also asked if there was a way to know where to place the rods for best testing and was told they have a formula based on the size of the tank, and they are typically 10 -15 ft apart. If during the testing the probes found hydrocarbons or the chemical marker then a secondary test is done and additional probes are installed and they can ID the location of the leak. W. Contardo asked if there are different standards for leak rates “near a water supply” and was told in shallow water tables, like at this site the contaminant levels are more severe than in an area with low water tables. In California, a fuel dispensing facility can’t be built within 1,000 ft of a well. He has seen well contamination farther than that. Is there a vertical depth as far as proximity to ground water in CA and was told no. Other states are different. But CA rarely has to do remediation now because their standards are so high. 2  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 In D. Raab’s company, employees go around and take samples and ship the sample back to the Arizona plant for testing. It’s a pass/ fail. D. Richards asked how frequent the tests were and what they are based on, site history and D. Raab said tests are based on risk. At this site its 2200 feet to the drinking water and the water source is down gradient, he would do it annually if not biannually. If a pipe leaked directly in soil and you could catch it at 400 gallons or 800 gallons you’ll be ok. If it’s an ongoing leak year after year you might have a problem. J. Mailloux asked what stops the full 876 gallons from going in the ground and was told the insides of the tank is filled with a liquid and there is a float on top that would set off the alarm if the level changes drastically. In the primary pipeline is a line leak detector at a 0.1 leak per hour leak, it will alarm. J. Mailloux said Cumberland Farms has been getting alarms and they are been turning it off and they just keep going. They asked D. Raab if every alarm shuts the system down and was told no, someone will have to deal with the issue then shut it off. Line leak system will shut system off, tank system will not. Some people just turn the alarm off and continue on without checking the system. In the Veeder Root system, if the amount is under size allowed, the vacuum will take care of it. It depends on how the Veeder Root system is wired. J. Mailloux thinks most of the leaks are in the piping and asked how many systems are checked a year and if the majority of leaks are in the piping or both piping and tanks. D. Raab said they check 3 to 4 tanks a week. The majority of contaminations are in the pipelines, the tanks are safer. Tanks have history of vapor leaks. When a truck delivers fuel, the pressure pushes and if the tank is not installed property the vapors go out into the subsurface soil. This is one of the larger sections of contamination they deal with. W. Contardo asked how the seasonal temperature effects and was told it doesn’t affect it. The temperature is basically the same, give or take, 15 degrees, same thing for the pipelines. J. Mailloux asked if there was ever a tight site or does every site have leaks and was told they find leaks at every site but having a leak less than 50 gal a year is environmentally safe above that you should be concerned. In his findings it’s about 50%. D. Richards asked if it should be a state standard we are trying to hold this to or a greater standard and S. Saunders will find out if we have the right to have a stricter standard. J. Mailloux asked if D. Raab’s company tests new sites and was told yes. That is called acceptance testing, and they do about 1 or 2 a week. J. Mailloux asked if the second contaminant pipe is always tested and was told yes. Most testing is 0.1 gal/hr leak rate on the secondary containment pipe and a 0.005 leak rate on the primary pipe. J. Mailloux asked if the leaks showed were found at the acceptance test or after the site had been running for a while. D. Raab said this facility has had 7-8 leaks since it’s been open. They only tested 2 of the 3 pipes and it looks like the leak was there when the site was built. And this leak showed up early on. Only 6 months after the facility was built. He was asked why they only tested 2 of the 3 pipes and was told only 2 pipelines are setting off the alarm and that’s what they were asked to do. They didn’t want the third tested – the site was already torn up quite a bit. J. Mailloux asked if the leaks could get worse and D. Raab is currently doing a project on what happens to small leaks over time. It doesn’t appear leaks get smaller over time. A lot of hammering is done to a pipeline during the everyday process. S. Saunders asked if his company the only one that does the Enhanced Leak Detection and was told one other called Praxair. C. Smith asked if David’s company would help repair issues and was told no. D. Richards asked what the course of action 3  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 would be after a leak is detected and D. Raab said there is typically a construction crew is on standby and the repair gets done in a minimal amount of time right after David’s testing. The company that built the site usually does the repairs. J. Mailloux asked if that’s what happened at our site and D. Raab said yes. The same company that installed did the repairs. J Mailloux asked if the Veeder Root is the best recommendation for this site given its proximity to the water supply and D. Raab would not own a facility without a Veeder Root system. He feels the facility should be protected liability wise. Most facilities deal with loss of product as the situation happens instead of testing ahead of time. S. Saunders asked if D. Raab could help draft proper procedures for the future of this site when the alarm sounds and was told that information was already available from Veeder Root. He can reach out to them. The State requires licensed companies only to do repairs on any facilities. Veeder Root installers need to be certified including the person that lays the piping. D. Bownes asked about the recommendations in the report on pages 6-8: why this is only a good method and not a best method. D. Raab said all the Veeder Root has the mechanisms to safeguard the environment, but there are still many ways contamination can take place. He suggests not just one system in place. But other systems that can test where you are not even sure leaks are happening. S. Saunders asked the board to formally schedule a public hearing. D. Bownes asked if the other testing and S. Saunders said if so then it should be at the public hearing. W. Hutchins asked if the public hearing could be done after the extensions and was told yes. J. Mailloux asked if Veeder Root could be asked how many taken out and how many on the east coast. S. Saunders agreed. 2. Suzanne Perley of the Zoning Task force to present changes to the sign ordinance S. Perley is the Vice Chair on the ZBA and the Chair of Zoning Task Force (ZTF). After the last presentation, the sign company they have been working with contacted her to explain there is no difference in an EMC and a digital changeable copy. All those type of signs can do graphics. The Board went back and took out the category for electronic changeable copy (ECC) and created a new definition. That was broken down to two categories: static display and dynamic display. On the chart the static display would be allowed by special exception to meet all the criteria in all the zoning districts except Downtown Riverfront district. They took the definition of animated signs and refined it. That is not allowed anywhere but the Commercial Resort district. The Weirs Action Committee wanted it to be allowed by special exception so they can be reviewed. Other changes: EMC’s cannot make up more than 50% of the total sign and a frame needs to be around the message center similar to what Coldwell banker has. If the EMC starts blinking or malfunctions they will need to stop immediately. The signs can be at full capacity during the day but needs to be turned down to 500 nits at night. The time between the changeable messages was at once an hour. That was debated and the recommend change will be to every 5 minutes. S. Perley couldn’t find any other towns or cities language ordinance except for Lebanon, which has a change every 20 minutes. The ZTF met twice since last Planning Board meeting. W. Hutchins asked if S. Saunders had any comments and S. Saunders said she wanted to see if board had any changes and if so, those changes would be heard at the next Planning Board meeting as a public hearing. 4  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 Public: Steve Weeks Sr, of Shore Drive has been in the real-estate business for 53 years. The purpose of a sign is to let people know of the business. He doesn’t feel having only 50% of the sign allowed to be electronic is enough; he thinks it should be 75%. Cantin’s and Irwin’s both have bigger. The purpose of a sign is to be read. He feels that this new language is increasing the size of signs when they don’t have to. S. Weeks doesn’t feel the 5 minute change is enough. In order to be able to see changes as you drive by it would have to change every 30 seconds. Signs bring on impulse buying and communication in the community. The changes are not doing the business any good. He disagrees that they cause accidents and doesn’t feel a special exception should be needed on Court Street or Union Ave. That is the Main Street of the community and where most of the traffic is. S. Perley said the problem along Court and Union is that if all these signs are changing that frequently is that they will not be in sync, and it will be a constant change/flash. Signs are only seen for a short amount of time. With the special exception, factors can be looked at on all aspects. People that the committee has talked to are more than willing to go through the process. There is always a procedure to get beyond the rules. S. Saunders said currently, the ordinance reads that animated signs are permitted by right in the Weirs and WAC submitted and email to the ZTF asking to change that to special exception. The 50% is from the sign manufacture as a suggestion. W. Contardo thinks the smaller signs should be allowed more viewing area. S. Saunders thinks the ratio of 75% could work and W. Hutchins agreed. D. Bownes was not at any of the meetings prior and what is being presented today seems contrary at the last meeting. He understood that people were concerned that one sign was dynamic and 20 yards away it was totally different. Laconia needs to have a business growth. W. Hutchins said part of the reason was to keep up with technology. S. Perley will bring the changes to Staff for editing and bring a final copy for approval to the May Planning Board. III. Continued Public Hearings None IV. Public Hearings 1. Appl#PL2014-0016CUP (wetland buffer) 46 Lucerne Ave MBL 155-254-18 Proposal to install a driveway for a separate entrance into the property (Application Acceptance & Decision) B. Loughlin told the Board the application was complete and ready for hearing. Action: D. Richards made the motion to accept the application as complete and open the public hearing and W. Contardo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant: Rusty Bertholet, the property owner, explained the proposal. He would like to install an additional driveway to the existing house. He is taking about 900 sq ft of gravel and making that green space. J. Mailloux asked why the 15 inch culvert outlet diffuser was in the report but not in the conditions of approval. He suggested putting it in the conditions. S. Saunders said they took the language from the ConCom motion and not the report, but will add that. R. Bertholet 5  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 said ditch line near the water only runs when there is heavy rain. It is not constantly flowing. S. Saunders reminded the Board that they are only approving the CUP and must review the criteria. S. Saunders said the ConCom reviewed the plans and are ok with the conditions they recommended. D. Richards is very familiar with the area and this is needed for access to the house. Staff Review: B. Loughlin read the staff report. She will change the language in the conditions to reflect P. Schauer’s language about adding ‘g’ for the outlet diffuser. Abutters: none Public: none W. Hutchins closed the public hearing. Motion: D. Richards made the motion to approve the application with the dates revising condition ‘b’ and add condition ‘g’ for the outlet diffuser and J. Tivnan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Appl#PL2014-0031SP amendment 72 Landing Ln MBL 441-510-14 Proposal to amend the use of buildings 1 & 3 to apartments (Application Acceptance & Decision) S. Saunders told the Board the application was complete and ready for hearing. Action: L. Guild made the motion to accept the application as complete and open the public hearing and G. Denio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant: Peter Howard, of Steve Smith & Associates and Matt Assia, the Director of Asset Management for Chinburg, were present. Two of the buildings, #6 and #8 have been completed. As part of the development, the entire infrastructure has been put in, and most of the pavement is done on the site. In 2011, the proposal was to redevelop building 1 for a restaurant, which had caved in and change the condos proposed for building 3 to 26 apartments and commercial units. The project hasn’t gone anywhere since the approval and now the applicant would like to amend that approval for rental units in Building 1, instead of the restaurant and residential units in building 3 instead of commercial space. There would be 7 units in building 1 and 30 units in building 3. Riverwalk discussion: P. Howard stated that with the restaurant proposal, the riverwalk along the building made sense. It doesn’t make sense having a riverwalk along residential windows and doors. Through TRC meetings and DT TIF meetings, alternatives were reviewed. Option #1 was not ADA compliant like option# 2. Option #3 doesn’t make sense to have a walkway right on the building. J. Mailloux asked if the windows could be raised up. They are utilizing the footprint 6  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 of what was there. S. Saunders added that there are grandfathered DES permits currently and if things start shifting around, the permits would need to be looked at again. M. Assia said the rentals will be built with the same qualities as the condos. W. Hutchins asked if the buildings will be built to later be condominiumized and was told that only the gas will be separate. S. Saunders mentioned that the TIF voted to support option #2 because of ADA but also had strong support for option #3. J. Mailloux doesn’t think people walking through the middle of the complex would be the best idea. W. Contardo and J. Mailloux suggested changing the internal design of the building. M. Assia said there is a hallway to the internal doors and the outside doors are patio doors. J. Mailloux asked why TIF didn’t like #3 and S. Saunders said there is an elevation difference between Beacon West and the Riverwalk and when people are down there, they would be isolated and felt that not a safe area. J. Mailloux mentioned that there are lots of isolated areas along the Riverwalk. P. Howard said the rental value there is a difference. S. Saunders said the Council will be the body that makes the final decision of the Riverwalk location. The applicant would pay for option #2 and option #3 would have to be funded by the City. S. Saunders recommended only one option for the Riverwalk and if Council was ok with that option, then it would move forward. If not, then the applicant would have to be back to the Board. Beacon Street West Association wanted to add a dumpster next to the existing one and one near building 3. Special gaskets would be put on the dumpsters for any noise issues. S. Saunders suggested that be added as condition ‘d’ in the approval. Staff Review: S. Saunders read her staff report. Concerns include location of the Riverwalk and the architecture and feels that those items should go to the architecture subcommittee. The building needs more character. The buildings are within the floodplain. The driveway and parking lot traffic shall be relabeled as one-way per DPW comments. The impact fee will be $64,405.53. S. Saunders passed out a letter from the abutter. She read the letter: “In regards to the added units planned for Landing Way. As an abutter I totally abject to this as over the last few years Chinburg Builders has broken the court agreement we have had in place since the building of the river walk. Each and every year I have to call and complain about the smell of the dumpster less than 50 feet from my bedroom window not even to get into the times in the morning when I hear the top slam shut as is also stated in the agreement. Unless a new location is found for this dumpster I totally object to the new units as it will creative more trash & noise in my bedroom and may require it to be emptied much more often. I was nice to them as the place filled up and allowed them to pick two times a week where the agreement stated once a week. So in conclusion I will never allow more trash pick-up at the location where the dumpster is now and unless a new location is found I totally object to the new units. If a new location can be found for the only dumpster on the property now, I will not object to the new units even if I will have more car head lights coming in my bedroom window”. J. Mailloux asked about the convertible space along the water and if were to be developed and S. Saunders said that was not supported by the city as stated in earlier approvals and will be taken off the plans, even though it was part of the original Master Plan. Abutters: Marie Macozek of unit #116 and the original owner of 66 Landing Lane. She bought in July, 7 yrs. ago. The site plan showed the Riverwalk going by building #1 and she liked that. 7  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 There were amenities promised and now there is nothing. She is upset that she is not living in a condo association but living in a rental/condo group. The condo fees have gone up and now the units are worth nothing. She is distraught with the cost and the waiting and the lack of amenities provided. She lives in building #6 which has a common boiler. She feels that every promise made, has been broken. She has had her car stolen in the past and would like to keep the Riverwalk along the river. Things continue to change and not benefit the people that live there. She also wanted the Board to be aware that behind building #1 there are two huge trees and she would hate to see them cut down. Pubic: None W. Hutchins closed the public hearing. Motion: W. Contardo made the motion to approve the application with option #3, have the architectural subcommittee review the architecture with a detailed floor plan, the recycling dumpster be moved and be reviewed by staff and the architectural subcommittee. There was discussion to have a dumpster in each section of the site: one trash and one recycling together. M. Assia said the condo association pays for the trash removal. He said there is only room for one dumpster in the middle of the site. W. Contardo wants staff to work with the applicant and the subcommittee on the dumpster issue. S. Saunders asked if he wanted to add the keeping of the trees brought up by M. Macozek and W. Contardo said condition ‘e’ to be added to keep the trees if possible with the Riverwalk option. D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. S. Saunders will email the architectural subcommittee and the applicant with the dates to meet. The board took a 5 minute recess at 9:35 pm. 3. Appl#PL2014-0032SU 727-739 Scenic Rd MBL 110-234-13 Proposal to convert the form of ownership to condominium (Application Acceptance & Decision) S. Saunders told the Board the application was complete and ready for hearing. Action: J. Mailloux made the motion to accept the application as complete and open the public hearing and G. Denio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant: Dean Clark and Regina Nadeau were present. D. Clark explained the project. The parcel is located off Scenic Road and is 26,430 sq ft. There are two existing houses with a shared well. The floodplain doesn’t affect the buildings. One of the buildings is a mobile home which will be removed and a new building built out of the setback, connected to an existing freestanding garage. The building will be moved further away from the water. Unit 1 will have its own well and both units will tie into the City sewer. A sewer connector was brought in back in 8  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 2008. They will be crossing the railroad with line drilled pipe designed by Jon Rokeh. There will be a common pump station. R. Nadeau has spoken with the state already and they will give an easement for the driveway. There are existing docks and that will be looked at to reconfigure for future use. Plantings along the shoreline will be done, some rain gardens. That will be submitted with Shoreland Protection plan. They are reducing the lot coverage and increasing green space to make the lot more conforming. D. Clark asked if the dates could be moved out by two months due to the fact that they will need state approvals and that may take longer than planned. R. Nadeau questioned the ConCom request that new structure be sited outside of Shoreland area on the staff report. She believes after the TRC meeting, after explaining all other reductions in non-conformities Con Com was still concerned about the shoreland plantings and the applicant plans to put plantings by the water but wants to have a slight encroachment with the structure in the SPOD. D. Clark has done several lots similar to this and there were no problem with the state. There will be a reduction in the overall impact. Staff Review: S. Saunders read the Staff Report. The building height shall be measured from the highest point of the roof or parapet to the average finished grade of the structure. The maximum building height for zone CR is 35 feet. The elevation drawings for the proposed new structure indicating the dimensions, including height and finished grade measurements, will be looked at as part of the building permit. Erosion control will be tight and detailed erosion control measures must be taken. D. Clark said that will be part of the state approval that Planning will get a copy of. Based on condo conversion fact, the applicant was asked to work with the City to designate the road as a road for emergency service. R. Nadeau spoke with Lou Barker from DOT Railroad Bureau, and found that there is no railroad crossing easement for that area and that will be another incentive. The condominium documents need to be altered to show parking and storage of recreational vehicles meet the ordinance. Plan revision ‘c’ can be removed. Abutters: None Pubic: None W. Hutchins closed the public hearing. Motion: J. Mailloux made the motion to approve the application changing the Plan Revisions from May 1, 2014, and Site Improvement Security and Mylar, final plans from June 1, 2014 to August 5, 2014, with the conditions stated, and to remove condition ‘c’ regarding removing the entire house footprint out of the 50-foot Shoreland buffer. W. Contardo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 9  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 The public hearings ended at 9:55 pm V. Extensions 1. Appl# 06-007 SU Map/Lot 173-248-3, 1144 Weirs Blvd, Proctor’s Lake House Cottages is requesting an extension for the completion date. a. Plan Revision: December 5, 2006 - Done b. Mylar, final plans: January 2, 2007- Done c. Site Restoration Security: January 2, 2007 - Done d. Completion: Nov 13, 2007, ext to Nov 4, 2008, ext to Nov 3, 2009 ext to April 5, 2011, ext to April 3, 2012, ext to April 2, 2013, ext to April 1, 2014, new request: April 7, 2015 Applicant: Fred Clausen and son Patrick were present. F. Clausen mentioned that as of today, his son would be the new manager. F. Clausen said it was the same request; the only thing not done is file with the state. This is not the time to sell condos. The project is moving forward and that is why there is new management. The goal is to get going toward condos. D. Richards assumed nothing in the ordinance or regs changed and doesn’t see why not approve the request. Motion: D. Richards made the motion to approve the extension dates and J. Mailloux seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Appl# PL2013-0093SP, 0094CUP (alt parking), 126 Union Ave MBL 432-220-39, is requesting an extension for the site improvement security, final plans and completion. a. Plan Revision: September 3, 2013 – complete b. Site Improvement Security: October 1, 2013, ext to April 1, 2014; new request: Sept 9, 2014 c. Mylar, final plans: October 1, 2013, ext to April 1, 2014; new request: Sept 9, 2014 d. Completion: August 5, 2014, ext to Aug 4, 2015 Applicant: Linda Harvey, of LACLT was present. They closed on the property and are looking to close on the permanent financing in June. Motion: W. Contardo made the motion to approve the extension dates for site security and mylar to Sept 2014, and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. Application Acceptance None VII. New Business None VIII. Old Business 1. Veterans Square redesign concept – update. 10  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 S. Saunders recapped several points. In the packets was a roundabout plan. The new proposal cannot impact the bank and this proposal does not. The four way alignment was looked at and signage will be added to be able to take a left out of the bank on Pleasant Street. There was discussion about a raised crosswalk. S. Saunders’ hope was to get the plan recommended to Council. She did receive the traffic data from 2009-2013. This year there were 9 accidents. W. Hutchins said he was approached by Frank Tilton to not change that area. It is already a roundabout and this new plan does not improve the pedestrian safety because pedestrians currently go from the church to the circle and the circle to the sidewalk. He feels there should be a request for a traffic light in that area. His recommendation is where the bollards are; extend up toward the Railroad station. S. Saunders spoke to a woman that just moved into Laconia and agrees that the downtown is confusing and dangerous. She would like to get a clean conceptual plan for the future. That can be pushed to the June meeting. D. Bownes said since the Council will not fund the project this year, and not interested in changing it, it didn’t need to be rushed. W. Hutchins said the council also asked for a public hearing on the position. W. Hutchins doesn’t think any more money should be spent on the Downtown area until what is going on, is done. IX. Reports A. Planning Department Report: S. Saunders will present the budget to Council May 12. The Main Street Bridge is currently under construction and the detour plans are on the website and updated when there is a change. The website includes the Union Ave detour plans from Messer Street to Gilford Ave. At the next meeting she will be bringing a draft architectural ordinance that they have been working on for a while. X. Liaison Reports A. Lakes Region Planning Commission: W. Hutchins said there was a meeting in Tamworth and the focus was on the regional plan. The plan is generation of many facts and data for towns and cities to use in their Master Plan process. Completion date is set for June. The house voted down the bill to repeal the planning commissions. Alton voted down as well. B. Conservation Commission: S. Saunders said Laconia specific invasive species hand- outs created for the Transfer Station Earth Day event. Brochures will be available at the new Kiosk upon completion. Availability of Current Use funds have been secured for pursuing open space easements in targeted areas C. City Council: D. Bownes gave his report in the Old Business section earlier. XI. Other Business XII. Minutes Approval of the minutes from March 4 Motion: G. Denio made the motion to approve the minutes with the addition of the two Council members at the top and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. XIII. Adjournment Motion: D. Richards made the motion to adjourn and G. Denio seconded the motion. 11  Laconia Planning Board Minutes April 1, 2014 Approved August 5, 2014 The meeting adjourned at 10:25 pm. Respectfully, K. Graham` 12