Planning Board

Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 Present: W. Hutchins, Chairman; W. Contardo, Vice Chair; J. Mailloux, Secretary; D. Richards, G. Denio, L. Guild, J. Tivnan, H. McLean, D. Bownes Absent: C. Smith Staff: S. Saunders, B. Loughlin I. Call to Order W. Hutchins called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. All voting members were present. W. Hutchins mentioned to the audience that the Cedar Street application was to be continued to next month and the 357 Weirs Blvd application has been withdrawn by the applicant. II. Continued Extensions 1. Appl# 05-014SP, 05-017CUP, 05-018CUP, Akwa Marina Yacht Club, is requesting an extension for the completion of the project. a. Plan Revisions: Done b. Mylar, final plans: Done c. Site Improvement Security: Done d. Completion: Phase 1: Aug 7, 2006, ext Aug 2, 2011, ext Aug 6, 2013, ext Sept 9, 2014; Phase 2: Aug 6, 2007 ext 8Aug 2, 2011, ext Aug 6, 2013, ext Sept 9, 2014. New request: October 6, 2015 for both phases (This application is continued from Oct 7) Applicant: Troy Mailloux was present. He said the plan is to continue to move along slow. They got rid of all the fill and flattened out the parking area. The next step is the lower parking lot where the handicap parking spaces are, near the train tracks, where they need to build a wall and bring that to elevation. Along the cabanas on the south side, they put in drainage due to flooding. S. Saunders noted that one of the proposals was the upgrades to Centenary Ave and asked where that is in the plans and T. Mailloux said they fixed the drainage problem. S. Saunders asked about the water line and new pavement and T. Mailloux said the water line needs to be moved over and that is dependent on the next phase. They would like to do it, it’s just going to be a matter of timing. S. Saunders asked if it would need to wait until the Marina is built and was told it would have to happen first. At the time of the marina construction, Centenary Ave would be upgraded. S. Saunders feels a one year extension would be fine, and have them back again next year to make sure things are still moving along. Motion: W. Contardo made the motion to approve the extension request to October 6, 2015 and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Appl# PL2013-0108SP, 0109CUP (steep slope), 616 Scenic Rd MBL 124-234-3, North Lodges at Meredith Bay, is requesting an extension for the completion of the project. a. Plan Revisions: Oct 7, 2014 new request: Jan 6, 2015 b. Mylar, final plans: November 3, 2014 new request: Feb 3, 2015 c. Site Improvement Security: November 3, 2014 new request: Feb 3, 2015 1  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 d. Completion: October 7, 2014, August 1, 2015 W. Hutchins noted that a point of information that later in the agenda the tree issue will be addressed, this is just an extension request for the basic application. S. Saunders told the Board that the applicant is moving away on site work. This was an amendment to the plan and an extension is being requested by the City so the trees issue can be discussed further. Motion: W. Contardo made the motion to approve the extension request for the plan revisions and site security to 2015, and J. Tivnan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. III. Continued Public Hearings 1. Appl# PL2014-0108SU 47 Cedar St MBL 427-36-54 ~waiver for sidewalks Proposal to subdivide one lot into two (This application will be continued to December 2 per the applicant) W. Hutchins noted the applicant requested a continuance to December 2, 2014. Motion: D. Richards made the motion to continue the application to December 2 and W. Contardo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. Public Hearings 1. Appl#PL2014-0123SP 357 Weirs Blvd MBL 241-248-7 Proposal to change the use of the building from 1 residential/1 commercial to 3 residential (This application has been withdrawn by the applicant) 2. Appl#PL2014-0214CUP (waterbody buffer) 25 Eastman Shore Rd MBL 313-67-10 Proposal to remove the existing structure & build new in the 50 ft water body buffer (Acceptance & Decision) S. Saunders told the Board the application was complete and ready to hear. Action: L. Guild made the motion to accept the application as complete and open the public hearing and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant: Steve Nix and the owner, John Bernard, were present. S. Nix noted the application is for a CUP for a single family house in the wetland buffer. The property is about .8 acres with approximately 170 feet of shore frontage. There is an existing dock and camp on the property. The structure is on a foundation with a crawl space. There is a large deck on the water side almost to the water. The proposal is to take down the existing structure and build a new structure and use the same footprint along the front of the foundation but not put the deck on. The building will be about 10 ft further away from the water. Along the northerly side of the lot, 2  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 there is a culvert that crosses under the road. The culvert enters into a swale and water has jumped out of the swale and that is mapped as wetland. S. Nix noted that there is a very tiny area that meets all the setbacks on the lot but that will be used to build a new septic system. In order to do that the well will have to be discontinued and a new one will be drilled to meet setbacks. The lot has a lot of overlaying wetland and water body buffers and setbacks. The side setbacks will be met. There will be stone drip trenches for the roof. S. Nix noted that the project will not adversely affect the wetlands functions and values per P. Schauer and in his report. Schauer indicated that no principle functions and values are supported by the wetland on the parcel and the overall functional level of wildlife habitat was determined to be low. A waiver was requested for the evaluation of the Audubon Society method. There will be no impact on abutting properties. Construction for the dwelling and septic and driveway relocation will not have any impact on the wetlands. What is there for wetlands will remain and there will be little impact on the site. Due to the small size of the lot and location of the swale, the proposed area is the only location for the dwelling to be located. The value of the abutting properties will be increased with all the upgrades to the lot. Many homes have been renovated in the neighborhood. W. Hutchins asked if the driveway will stay gravel and J. Bernard said from what he understands it could be gravel or paved and it depends on the future funds, but even if it is paved, the lot will meet the greenspace requirements. B. Loughlin read the staff review. The applicant worked with Staff and the Con Com on the issues and Staff recommends approval of the application and recommending an addition of the waiver request which was accidently left off. That waiver would be a request for providing an evaluation of the wetlands by the NH Method as described in the CUP application. S. Saunders added that Staff recommends approving the waiver. Just for the Board’s sake in the future if someone tells you that a wetland has no function, she would question them on that, because the reason a wetland is in place geologically, hydrological, is because it’s serving some sort of function. There is no doubt that this is a low value wetland and will just have flood intenuation, with just overflow from the stream. This proposal will not be affecting the flood area. S. Saunders felt the applicant didn’t need to go through the evaluation of values of the wetland area. G. Denio asked if the flood plain building practices will be incorporated into the building plans and S. Saunders said yes, that is a piece of the building permit where the applicant has to state whether or not the building is in the flood plain. If so, then the applicant needs to get a surveyor to show they are or not in the flood plain or construct per the flood plain requirement. Abutters: None Public: None W. Hutchins closed the public hearing. W. Hutchins asked S. Saunders how she wanted it worded and was told the waiver could be granted because the comprehensive functions and values report does not need to be completed and that the Board is aware it is a low value wetland area. 3  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 Motion: J. Mailloux made the motion to approve the waiver because a complete functions and values doesn’t need to be completed and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Bownes asked what the Audubon Society waiver is and S. Saunders said it is a methodology published by the Audubon Society for evaluating the function and value of a wetland based on criteria. H. McLean asked if this was going to be a 100% teardown of the building and was told yes and what is being rebuilt will be about twice the size. The current structure is about 1100 sq feet. H. McLean asked if the structure was worth saving and told no. J. Bernard said the structure was one of the originals built in 1947 and one of the first buildings out there. There are a lot of structural damage to it. H. McLean has a problem allowing construction in the 50 foot. It’s double the size and understands the structure isn’t worth anything more but the runoff will be increased. J. Bernard said he is putting in drip edge drains to catch the water and there is none there currently. The building is being moved back and decreasing the footprint to be less nonconforming than what is currently there. As the building stands currently the building is more nonconforming. The drip edge drainage percolates into the ground and doesn’t daylight anywhere. Motion: J. Mailloux made the motion to approve the application with the dates and conditions noted and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 3. Appl#PL2014-0116SP, 0120CUP (wetland buffer) 1321 Union Ave MBL 304-220-15 ~ waiver request for providing an evaluation of wetlands by the NH Method as described in CUP application Proposal to demolish the existing KFC restaurant and construct a new Taco Bell restaurant on the existing pad. (Acceptance & Decision) S. Saunders old the Board the application was complete and ready to hear. Action: L. Guild made the motion to accept the application as complete and open the public hearing and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant: Mark Gross of MHF Design was present repenting the applicant, Charter Foods North LLC. He gave the project overview. The proposal is to take down the existing Kentucky Fried Chicken building and construct a Taco Bell restaurant about the same size, might be a little bit smaller by a few square feet. There will be about the same number of seats. The amount of work they are doing on site is fairly minimal. They are replacing pavement in several areas. There will be some improvements to the stormwater management. The other portion of the site that will change is the current dumpster area. Currently it has a direct access through the drive though and will be relocated and accessed in the small parking area to the left of the drive though. As part of the improvements they are reducing some of the pavement areas and eliminating 4 parking spaces in order to incorporate the new dumpster pad to get it away from Black Brook. There is a CUP that he will go over later for the 75 ft Black Brook buffer. That 4  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 essentially encompasses almost the entire piece of property. The most important changes are the drainage improvements. Currently, on the west side of the parking lot there is an existing catch basin that outlets into the wetland area. However, they were not able to find where the outlet is. There are some low spots on the pavement, so one of the things they will do is reconstruct the pavement. They will take the existing structure and put in a stormcepter to provide pretreatment of the runoff. They will replace a portion of the outlet pipe and create a second outlet which will be the main outlet, from the stormceptor and create a raingarden to treat the stormwater. A lot of this is result in discussion with the Con Com. There is a main drain line that runs from Union Ave and the City has no records of the line. There is an existing catch basin that ties into that line and outlets in Black Brook. That outlet will be eliminated and brought into another raingardern area that is currently where the dumpster is located. The raingardens have been designed to take care of the first flush from the pavement and to improve the water quality from the site. They have agreed to put in a stormcepter on that line which will do some pretreatment to the runoff from Union Ave prior to going into Black Brook. There is a City pipe that rosses the property and the applicant has reached an agreement with DPW that they will work together and DPW will supply the pipe to be replaced because it is a 12 inch corrugated metal pipe and no one has any record on how long it has been there and they are thinking that it will deteriorate which will cause a cave in. So the applicant will install the line and DPW will provide the pipe and permitting because they can do that under a drainage improvement quickly through DES. J. Mailloux noted the stormceptor is not on the plan and was told it was a condition of approval to be done. M. Gross explained there is a break in the curb where the runoff from the parking area currently goes into a leaching catch basin, then drains down to Black Brook through a swale. One of the recommendations by DPW and Con Com was to create a stilling area, cleanout the existing leaching basin and create a plunge pool and reestablish the swale. A new sewer service will be put in and a new grease trap. DPW asked that the domestic waste from the bathrooms bypasses that. J. Mailloux noted that the outlet to the raingarden is lower in elevation and M. Gross said most of that is going into the raingarden it’s only about a tenth of a foot and will still work. M. Gross said they didn’t want to have to take the pipe out and in talking with the Con Com that will be a secondary, the majority will go into the raingarden. The pipe going out of the catch basin will be modified and replaced with plastic pipe because it will be under the pavement area. W. Hutchins asked about the large trees behind KFC near Black Brook and asked if the dead trees will be taken out. M. Gross said as part of the ordinance, they need to remove the invasive species. They could take the tree down in question during that at that time. They are also providing additional buffering in that area. There is little disturbance in the buffer area. They are addition some additional landscaping along Union Ave also. D. Richards asked if there was something low growth that could be put up to stop debris from blowing around and into Black Brook. S. Saunders thinks the site may not have that issue as is wasn’t mentioned by the Con Com Technician. It is something that can be monitored once Taco Bell is open. M. Gross said that is why they are planting around that area and noted that there is a guard rail and curbing for containment. S. Saunders followed up on J. Mailloux’s question about the flow should be going to the raingarden. It looks like the invert out to the final catch basin needs to be changed. 5  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 M. Gross said since they will be replacing the line it can be modified so the invert will be higher to going into the basin. H. McLean asked if they will be reusing the existing light poles and M. Gross said to reuse the light poles but the fixtures will be different. W. Hutchins asked about the 3 large trees along Union Ave on the plan and if they will affect the site line. B. Loughlin said currently there is one tree on each corner and in order to meet tree requirements they need to be planted. The trees will not affect the sightline. M. Gross said they are Maple Trees. Staff Review: S. Saunders read the staff review. She noted that they are asking for the same waiver as the prior application and that is fine because the functions and values of the wetland is known and very high and the applicant is not impacting the buffer. In fact with the stormwater improvements there should be less of an impact than what is currently there. The applicant was before the ZBA for a number of variances. One was for moving the building forward toward the road and that ends up being in the special front setback off Union Ave. That was needed for the turning radius for the drive though as well as the size of the building. DPW is ok with the building moving forward. And some variances for signage was obtained. D. Richards asked about the variance for signage. M. Gross explained that they exceeded the limits allowed by 6 or 7 square feet. S. Saunders added that amount for signage is given due to the amount of the frontage of the building and since this is a narrow building there is not much allowed. M. Gross continued saying they were allowed 3 signs: 1 freestanding and 2 wall signs. The bells and the text are considered a sign so they exceeded the 3 by having 5. The location and size of the freestanding sign is not changing only being refaced. D. Richards asked if the signs will be illuminated and was told yes. S. Saunders noted that in the Board’s packet there is a picture of the Taco Bell in Rochester and this will be similar to that. S. Saunders told the Board that this is the first application to use the architectural regulations and checklist. The minimum was 50 points and this application had 59 points. The architect was pleased with the new regulations. She said it was easy to follow and to know what the City was looking for. The reason for the picture is because it was not clear from the renderings that not only are the signs going to be lit but the grill will be back lit. Architecturally it is not addressed in the regulations but Staff thought the Board should look at this back glow issue because it’s becoming a constant. Not sure any other buildings glow other than the car dealerships. D. Richards said it looks subdued. J. Tivnan asked if the Board would be setting a precedent with approving it and S. Saunders said no but it is something that should be looked for the future and possibly adding the new trend for the back lit into the architectural ordinance. W. Contardo and J. Tivnan said that fits into the area. D. Richards noted that what is acceptable on Union Ave would not be acceptable somewhere else. W. Hutchins suggested D. Bownes update the Council on the architecture support for the regulation. D. Bownes thinks he mentioned it to the Council already. S. Saunders continued with the staff review. There were 2 new conditions added about invasive species per the new update to the Zoning Ordinance that any invasive species encountered during construction need to be removed. The soils need to be removed as well because there is 6  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 seeds and root stock in the soils. The applicant will be removing them and the soils will need to be removed as well. The Con Com met the applicant on site to talk about removal of the invasive species and found that the applicant wanted to start construction right away. It is too late in the year to treat the soils so they will be stored on site and treated in the spring to eradicate the invasive species from the soils. Those additions will go under 5 i: all excavated soils containing invasive flora shall be kept on site throughout the winter. Movement would violate State regulations, and j: Taco Bell shall treat the site soils containing invasive floras in the spring as it is too late to do it this construction season to kill the seeds and root stock. W. Contardo asked what they use to kill the seeds and was told an herbicide. There was concern about the herbicide ending up the Brook. S. Saunders said this is DES protocol to remove and treat the soils. M. Gross said they contacted the State and there was a discussion on how to get rid of it all. S. Saunders will get the Board a copy of the state regulations for the next meeting. D. Richards assumed the herbicide has a life expectancy so it shouldn’t be a problem. W. Hutchins asked where the soils will be stored and M. Gross said probably on the left side of the parking lot. That area currently is used for employee parking and probably will continue that with Taco Bell. J. Mailloux suggested putting something up by the guard rail so the trash will not get into the brook. M. Gross said they are planting Arborvitae along the back and S. Saunders was not sure there is enough room for something to be planted for the root to survive. She suggested putting a condition of approval that the site be checked and cleaned on a regular basis. D. Richards thinks there must be some kind of artificial material that can put into the guard rail to look like a climbing vine or even put in climbing ivy. M. Gross agreed the Arborvitaes could be modified to put something like that in, that is approvable by Planning Staff. The Board added a condition under Plan Revisions 5 l, to put in a planting approvable by Staff so no trash will get into Black Brook. Abutters: none Public: none W. Hutchins closed the public hearing. Motion: H. McLean made the motion to approve the waiver for the NH method and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: J. Mailloux made the motion to approve the CUP application and W. Contardo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Motion: J. Mailloux made the motion to approve the Site Plan application with the dates and conditions noted adding Plan Revisions k and l and condition 5 i and j and G. Denio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The Public Hearings ended at 7:40 pm. 7  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 V. Application Acceptance None VI. New Business 1. City Council request for review of uses permitted in the Commercial Resort Zone S. Saunders noted the Council requested the Board review the use chart specific to the Commercial Resort (CR) zone and the Board needs to decide3 how they want to move forward. The Board could take it on with a few work sessions or the Zoning Task Force can work on it as well. The ZTF is made up of 3 Planning Board members, 3 ZBA members, 1 person from the Weirs Action Committee, 1 person from the Main Street Initiative and a member at large, which is Steve Weeks Sr. The request is to review the permitted uses in the CR zone. This is based on the recent discussions about the proposal for a used car lot on Weirs Blvd. It brought to light all of the uses that are permitted and not permitted in the CR zone. Council thought it was time. W. Hutchins noted that per the City Charter the Council can’t take independent action, it has to be recommended. W. Hutchins was at the Council meeting and Ava Doyle, Councilor of Ward 1 which is the main section of the Weirs, put this in perspective for him as to what they were looking for. The attitude was that this zone was so large and there can be a significant impact to the city as to what goes in that area, what Council wanted was the Board to bring to the Council any changes on the table of permitted uses that would, in effect, tighten it up so that we would have more oversight as to what happens in the Weirs. It was not brought up at that time but he feels that following the Master Plan would be an excellent time to also review the actual size of that zone as to whether it should be re-architected to be more precise. The table of permitted uses would be good to address right now. W. Hutchins’ personal opinion was to use the ZTF to do this so there are different constituencies in the City looking at it. Then, as was done with the sign ordinance, bring a draft to the Board and the final recommendation goes to the Council. J. Tivnan asked S. Saunders if there was something in the chart that she sees that sticks out to her as causing a problem and she said it’s been about 20 years since the chart has been comprehensively looked at, other than the few items recently put on, as things change in the City it is good to review it but feels now is not an appropriate time to do it during the Master Plan process. However, the Board has been asked to do it so it’s not unreasonable to move forward. J. Tivnan asked if now is the time to stop and do this or can it be done alongside the Master Plan. S. Saunders said it was up to the Board. W. Hutchins thinks they could be done concurrently because this is a very detailed and that is why he would like the ZTF involved as well. W. Hutchins thinks every line needs to be understood in relation to the CR zone. D. Bownes noted that this revision request came after a specific request that simply targeted one use: a used car lot. After some debate and discussion this broad approach came back from the Council. He was against it but here to support because it’s the Council’s request. He has spoken to Mr. Driscoll on the ZTF and other members and what he thinks should happen is to look at the CR uses and how they are drafted now, and allow the ZTF to review and keep our eye on the actual zoning ordinance amendments that we are going to do throughout the whole ordinance because of the Master Plan and keep that in mind but come up with some kind of recommendation on whether these uses are adequate or inadequate. There are a lot of uses 8  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 that could be abused and the sooner those issues are taken care of, the better it will be. As long as it is done with the idea that the whole ordinance will be amended at some point. He suggested looking at the uses, get some recommendations and move forward. H. McLean asked if it would be separate from the Master plan and was told yes by W. Hutchins but knowing that it is coming down the pipe. D. Bownes said do the one zone now and the whole overhaul later. H. McLean asked if that meant chopping the CR zone into pieces and it was agreed. W. Hutchins noted that D. Richards had requesting this for a long time. W. Hutchins noted at the City Council he was encouraged with the attitude that it was not let everybody do whatever they want, wherever and it was for the purpose of protecting the CR zone. There was no date certain that the Board had to get back to the Council on the issue. It may be done quickly or may take a few months. H. McLean asked if something like this was done before where a specific zone was reevaluated so different uses could be acceptable within pieces of that zone and was told yes. S. Saunders noted in the early 1990s when the downtown riverfront district was created it went through the same process. H. McLean asked if there were any legal repercussions from that because it does affect property value and was told it affects property rights and values by W. Hutchins. S. Saunders noted that she does not know if there were legal issues but there was, complaining in fact she still hears about it. W. Hutchins noted that there will be in the Weirs as well. There will be public hearings and it’s inevitable that there will be individuals that will perceive the change as negative. W. Contardo asked what the approach will be. He suggested having the public come in to the Planning Board to hear what they have to say and what they would like to see, that way the Board can know what is wanted and not just a few members. Then go to the ZTF so there is a direction to go. S. Saunders agrees with that approach. She likes that because there was a little bit of disconnect between what the ZTF was hearing and the feedback the Board got. D. Bownes asked if it’s going to be a come and tell the Board what is wrong and that was agreed by S. Saunders. D. Bownes agreed and understands it is a lot to take in but feels the approach is unmanageable. D. Bownes is afraid there will be a lot of repeat complaints but is fine with it. D. Richards said over the years the Weirs has changed. There has been tremendous development, condo conversion and so on. There was a time when the handful of businesses that were in the Weirs had a dominant input into what took place. Both from a money and influence point of view. He noted that there are a lot of huge tax payers that own in the Weirs but don’t live here that will want to be heard as well. W. Contardo said to just have a listening session and then give direction to the ZTF. S. Saunders mentioned that there are a lot of innovated outreach that could be used and not just at a meeting. A different way of being heard like surveys or meetings in the Weirs. D. Bownes would like input from the ZTF and W. Contardo said the ZTF shouldn’t be guiding the Board or give a swayed opinion. J. Tivnan agrees and gave the high school water issue as an example. S. Saunders said she often gets chastised for holding public hearings at inopportune times. She thinks between November 1 and December trying to hold public hearings where people are really busy with holidays is not the way to do it. Now that she has input she would like to will come up with a proposal on outreach for the next meeting and possibly have a meeting in January, after the holidays. W. Hutchins said people need to be education on the CR zone, like where it is and the current table of permitted uses first, before they can have 9  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 comment. He suggested a kick off at the Weirs Park Hall to be a good start. D. Richard’s point that a majority of the people that live in the CR zone are not fulltime residents and not voters and may not be currently in the area. S. Saunders said that is when the surveys or other innovated outreach will help. W. Hutchins thinks the ZTF should be started right way with the objective of having some sort of innovated approach and it may not be an initial hearing. We may get something from people like eliminating Bike Week. S. Saunders said they probably will hear that because it is heard often. D. Richards said the residents aren’t that much against motorcycle week it’s kind of a live and let live and put up with. W. Hutchins doesn’t think the idea should be held off, waiting for an approach. W. Hutchins suggested the members go to the ZTF meetings. W. Contardo said being involved with the ZTF the public input is put in after the shape there needs to be input to shape. J. Mailloux said the ZTF should look at it since it’s been so long since it had been looked at. D. Richards said one thing that has to be done first is to decide where the “Weirs” is defined. He is sure it was done with the last Master Plan. There needs to be map and defined area of streets. S. Saunders said the City Council wants the CR zone not just the Weirs, but S. Saunders agrees with D. Richards on the definition and education. Motion: D. Bownes made a motion to refer the change in the use chart in the CR zone to the ZTF and give them the City Council request for a directive and the Planning Board move forward to schedule a time frame for a public hearing. It sounds like January or February and he will rely on S. Saunders recommendation at the December meeting as to when the time is feasible for a public hearing. W. Hutchins thinks there should be more innovative approach than just a public hearing. S. Saunders restated D. Bownes’ motion for clarity to refer this to the ZTF to muddle over and have Staff come up with an outreach plan to present to the Board in December for a possible public outreach process and hearing in January or February. D. Bownes was looking for recommendations from Staff about the approach to take and let the Board know. S. Saunders added that there will be no public hearings around the holidays. J. Mailloux seconded the motion. W. Contardo would like get the public input upfront and to have the ZTF only focus on the CR zone and the Weirs area. D. Bownes will report to the Council about the plan so there will be no question. The motion passed unanimously. 2. S. Saunders added another item. This is another pending directive from Council. It has not been directed yet but her understanding is that it will be in November. It has to do with early street acceptance. A developer approached the Manager or Council about the fact that he has to wait until the road is 100% complete, including top course, which he does not put on until all the units are built, in order to petition the City to take over the road. He does have people living there and services have been bought into so the City Manager and DPW have come up with a proposal to amend the subdivision regulations to include the early street acceptance provision. She has some details but it’s not fully flushed out yet and should be getting wording for the December meeting. Her understanding is that they are hoping for swift action form the Board so the developer and others don’t have to pay for winter services and that road acceptance can happen before winter services are required. J. Mailloux asked that when the base is down isn’t the catch basin frame and grade sitting up and was told yes. He noted that the surfaces wouldn’t be flush and had 10  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 concern with plowing. H. McLean was concerned that the City would be liable for any damages. W. Contardo noted that a while ago Sarah Circle did that and DPW went along with it, and the storm drains were set high and there was damage to storm drains because they were not set down. J. Mailloux is worried about exaction costs. H. McLean asked if after accepted is the City responsible for the wearing surface and was told yes. D. Richards disagreed and set the Board is accepting that the road will be put down before the development is complete and maintain the road. D. Bownes said looking for a procedure where had to meet the 12 conditions and one of the conditions was the water and sewer and other utilities had to be in and stable for a year, after that year passed there were other conditions to make sure the project would be finished. S. Saunders had the draft conditions and was told they were going to be amended and offered what she had to the Board. S. Saunders read: Utilities in the ground for a minimum of 12 months, compaction testing at the discretion of DPW if base material mix warrants, inspection and testing of stormwater, sewer system and manholes, with the results to the City, utility as built plan completed, to include the distance of each sewer service lateral from the manhole, sewer service stubs clearly marked in the field with pressure treated 4 x 4 painted green, depth to service stub noted on as built, the City must sign off on all routine/required inspections prior to all asphalt being laid, winter asphalt binder of 2 ½ inch per DPW specs, must be in place, cash or letter of credit escrow of 30% to cover construction inflation for remainder of work, and if the project is not completed within 5 years additional escrow may be required and triggered once the individual tax bill have been created for the subdivision. D. Bownes said that is called the triggering event. It allows you to get early acceptance because people are paying for the services and not getting the services until the street is accepted. The idea of the acceptance is benefit to the people that are already living there. W. Contardo’s concern is the road not ready and damage will occur. S. Saunders said that is good to discuss when it comes before the Board. It will go to the Council November 10 and they will fully recommend the revision. S. Saunders’ concern is the time frame being asked for. J. Mailloux said it’s up to the motion of the Board on the decision if it takes longer than so be it. W. Contardo said there needs to be standard. J. Mailloux asked if Paul Moynihan or Luke Powell of Public Works could attend a meeting and discuss this with the Board. W. Hutchins’ concern was the percent down is too little. Bankruptcy can be quick and easy and doesn’t want the City to be stuck finishing the road. He wants to know who will be liable. H. McLean said none of the drainage will work because it will be too high. W. Hutchins said on the other hand the road is accepted and lots can be sold with that and that will help the developer. J. Mailloux said this is a precedent and there needs to be a standard. S. Saunders said to be prepared for the Council wanting to fast track it. She had been requested to put a public hearing on the December docket. G. Denio wanted to know the legal ramifications if accepted early. VII. Old Business Discussion of trees for 616 Scenic Road, the North Lodges Chris Duprey was present. S. Saunders noted that a few weeks ago, a few Planning Board members met onsite with Staff, the applicant and an arborist. They were presented with a copy of a tree cut report from the arborist. They walked through the proposed trees to be cut. The proposed trees were all marked in pink flagging tape. There were 9 trees marked. 1, 2 and 3 are 11  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 across the street and off the table. It seemed that most mature trees had defects and reasons to be taken down and there was question to that. It was made clear that it was the trees getting old, but that doesn’t mean they are “hazard” trees. The arborist did pinpoint a couple of “hazard” trees. S. Saunders asked D. Bownes for his notes. He said there weren’t any hazard trees per se, the arborist was concerned with trees marked 5, 7 and 8 that would fall down. S. Saunders said tree 7 would be a hazard in the future because when the duplex goes up it will be near the power line area. L. Guild said tree 4 should stay because the root structure is holding the whole retaining wall. D. Bownes said trees 5, 7 and 8 were trees to be removed. He didn’t see where trees 4, 6 and 9 would not impact the value of the property. L. Guild agreed with D. Bownes. D. Bownes asked C. Duprey if trees 4-9 were trees that were to be taken down and C. Duprey said he flagged trees 4-8 to be cut down. S. Saunders thinks the Board needs to rethink the cutting thing if they thinks that cutting is ok. W. Contardo said the tree cutting was not ok. J. Mailloux would prefer to not have any more trees cut and if they fall down let them. C. Duprey said there is a different viewpoint on the matter. D. Richards feels that there is some place in the middle where can the two can be met and would like to save what can be saved. J. Mailloux said it sounds like too many trees were cut and no more should be cut down. The applicant knows the intent of the Board and feels he took advantage of it. D. Richards came up with the idea so they wouldn’t take a good tree down, and if rotting and obstructing the view then why not take down. D. Bownes said if this isn’t the first time and has been done before and less time consuming he asked what sanctions the Board has and S. Saunders said the Board could require replanting trees in the area or a no cutting in the future. W. Hutchins asked based on the arborist opinion, which should be taken down and S. Saunders said the only tree in the field was number 7, due to the potential power lines in the future. D. Bownes said when they were out there the Board said 5, 7 and 8 were ok to be taken down. J. Mailloux was confused on why there was even a discussion and C. Duprey explained that he is here tonight because he was asked if there were more trees that he wanted to take down. Just like the townhomes he took down trees and was told it would be ok to take more down. He looked at the impact from the lake and he has heard nothing but good things from people. J. Mailloux is more worried about the future and that it doesn’t happen again. D. Richards agreed. Motion: D. Bownes made the motion to use the arborist report from Tree Solutions to have the developer be allowed to take down the trees marked 5, 7 and 8 and D. Richards seconded the motion, W. Hutchins agreed. The motion passed unanimously. VIII. Reports A. Planning Department Report: S. Saunders noted that in the Board’s packet there is a letter and email regarding the Lakeport parcel along the rail road tracks that is owned by the City. The City is working on plans for best re-uses of parcels and wonder what others are thinking. She will have more info in December. D. Bownes said it is a pure Council issue. The lease was a nonrenewable 30 or 40 year lease and will expire in November 2015. Council can set out to lease the parcel again, or sell it or take possession of the land and then can do whatever it wants. Lakeport landing deserves an answer now so they can plan on the future. D. Bownes doesn’t know where the Council is going with it. Council asked the City Manager and others for what options are out there. 12  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 B. Main street bridge update: They are finishing up the middle potion and will begin again the in spring. C. There is a bridge going in over Durkee Brook and the Conservation Technician is pretty much onsite all the time. D. Beaver Pond, the development off Rollercoaster Road, is finishing up and will be completing the as builts in the next couple of weeks. E. FW Webb on the way and there was an issue with the last few rain storms so have been required silt sox to be put up F. Langley Cove: last trc was a year ago and resubmitted for another in a couple of weeks. Might see that application in the new year. G. Lastly S. Saunders told the board that she had been debating on saying something but she had just had her performance evaluation review and was told she needs to work more with developers, and have a more common sense approach to development applications. She told the board this because she wanted them to know where things stand moving forward with Planning and that they are in a tough political climate and that they should think about that as they move forward. W. Hutchins disagreed with that and thinks the work that she and the department does with the applicants is proactive and the approval rating of the Board is low. He can’t think of when an applicant was denied that they didn’t work with the applicant. He feels there is a tremendous disconnect with the City Council and the City Manager as to what takes place. He recommended to D. Bownes that there be a debriefing session to the Council by S. Saunders as to all that is going on in the City. S. Saunders noted that she has offered that and she has been before the Council to report on the EPA Report and the Master Plan and her offer still stands. She wanted to make it clear that she did not mention this for any action on their part, just to make the Board aware that the decisions they make are being watched and she wanted them to know moving forward. She struggled whether to let the Board know or not and decided it wouldn’t be fair for them if she did not tell the Board. IX. Liaison Reports A. Lakes Region Planning Commission: W. Hutchins had nothing current on the Planning Commission. B. Conservation Commission: S. Saunders noted that the discussion of changes to State wetland permitting laws is on the Con Com agenda for November 5 along with three site plans. The Con Com will walk Black Brook with DuBois and King on November 19 to observe the work already completed on Phase 1 of the Geo Morph study. The yearly easement walks are underway with only two easement walks remaining. The Con Com is keeping a close eye on the NH DES Milfoil grants after helping Aqua logic pull hundreds of pounds of milfoil out of Black Brook. A winter meeting for the final phase of the wildlife management /invasive species project is underway at the transfer station. The educational kiosk and long term maintenance commitments will be completed. C. City Council: D. Bownes gave his report when S. Saunders discussed the Lakeport property. X. Other Business 13  Laconia Planning Board Minutes November 3, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 None XI. Minutes Approval of the minutes from October 7 Motion: G. Denio made the motion to approve the minutes and D. Richards seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. D. Richards told the Board how appreciative he was with all the support with the new park. L. Guild said many are not sure where it is, though a wonderful opportunity. XII. Adjournment Motion: G. Denio made the motion to adjourn and D. Bownes seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 9:27 pm. Respectfully, K. Graham` 14