Planning Board

Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 Present: W. Hutchins, Chairman; W. Contardo, Vice Chair; J. Mailloux, Secretary; G. Denio, L. Guild, J. Tivnan, H. McLean, D. Bownes Absent: D. Richards Staff: S. Saunders, B. Loughlin I. Call to Order W. Hutchins called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. II. Presentations None III. Extensions 1. Appl# 05-006 SU, 05-007 CUP (wetland buffer) Map/Lot 260-249-10, 82 New Hope Dr, is requesting an extension for the completion date: a. Plan Revisions: Complete b. Mylar, final plans: 6/6/05; 6/5/6; 6/4/7; 12/4/07; 6/8/9; 6/1/10; 6/14/11; 12/6/11; 2/7/12 c. Site Improvement Security: 6/6/05; 6/5/06; 6/4/07; 12/4/07; 12/1/09; 6/1/10; 6/14/11; 12/6/11; ‘prior to the start of work’ d. Completion: 4/3/06; 4/4/07; 4/7/08; 6/8/09; 6/1/11; 12/1/11; 12/11/12; 6/4/13; 12/2/14; new request Dec 1, 2015 Applicant: Pat Wood was present to represent Mr. and Mrs. Bossey. He noted that this was not the first time requesting an extension, but hoped it was the last. The project had been in process for 10 years. In 2008 the Supreme Court made the decision and in later that year the market went down. The price being asked had been reduced a number of times since then. The hope is this summer that a buyer can be found. All the plans have been submitted and site security will be determined once construction is ready. S. Saunders said because this application has been caught up in the court system for a number of years, the Board should look at the current date minus the years in court, it would still be ok and in the 6th year for a request. She feels it reasonable for another extension. H. McLean asked if the subdivision requirements had changed and was told yes. S. Saunders stated that only the wetlands and impact fee would have had any effect on the application. H. McLean asked if there would be a disadvantage to the City by approving the request and W. Hutchins feels granting the extension would be the right thing to do. D. Bownes asked about the State regulations and S. Saunders said the state statute is 6 years, it does not count the amount of extensions, only the number of years. It would be the discretion of the Board. P. Wood added that the applicant had been to Supreme Court twice. Motion: W. Contardo made the motion to approve the extension request to December 1, 2015. D. Bownes seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Appl# PL2013-0121SP, 12 Veteran’s Sq MBL 432-225-3, The Holy Grail, is requesting an extension. a. Plan Revision: Dec 3, 2013, Feb 7, 2014, Dec 2 2014; new request Dec 1, 2015 b. Site Improvement Security: Jan 7, 2014, March 7, 2014 Dec 2, 2014; new request Dec 1, 2015 1  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 c. Mylar, final plans: Jan 7, 2014, March 7, 2014; Dec 2, 2014 new request Dec 1, 2015 d. Completion: Dec 2, 2014; New request: Dec 1, 2015 Applicant: The applicant was not present. S. Saunders stated things were being done and issues were being worked out so she felt approval of the extension was not unreasonable. She noted that the date should be the completion deadline. She feels the project will be done within the year. Motion: L Guild made the motion to approve the extension request to December 1, 2015. W. Contardo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. IV. 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 January 6 per applicant’s request) W. Hutchins stated the applicant has been working on the approach and where the sidewalk should be. Motion: H. McLean made the motion to continue the application to January 6, 2015. J. Tivnan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. V. Public Hearings 1. Appl# PL2014-0128SU Road Acceptance for Nature’s View Drive & Port Way (Acceptance & Decision) S. Saunders told the Board the application as complete and ready for hearing. Action: D. Bownes made the motion to accept the application as complete and open the public hearing. W. Contardo seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Applicant: Steve Smith was present to represent Nature’s View at Paugus Bay. He stated is was a cluster subdivision approved in 2005 for 51 lots. The project is 94% complete in terms of lots to develop and there are only two more lots left. As houses have been completed as builts have been submitted. S. Smith has been working with L. Powell from Public Works and the property owner to get the acceptance. He believes all items on the punch list are done. The final pavement is done. The road has been monumented and the plans have been submitted. The plan with the deed would be recorded if Council accept the roads. A couple of things need to be done with the wetland labels in terms of the subdivision. S. Saunders stated that the only thing left for DPW is a chain-link fence on the backside of the sidewalk near a drop off into the common area. A rail is needed because it is steeper than 3 to 1 slope. She is happy with progress of the road and issues have been worked out. Staff recommends acceptance to City Council. W. Hutchins was asked by Armand Bolduc who lives across the street from the development to note that he is very pleased with the work done and would like the Board to recommend approval. 2  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 Abutters: None Public: None W. Hutchins closed the public hearing. Motion: W. Contardo made the motion to recommend street acceptance of Nature’s View and Port Way to City Council. J. Tivnan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 2. Consideration of updating Section 6.2 of the Subdivision Regulations to include the method for early street acceptance as recommended by City Council S. Saunders told the Board there is a memo from the City Manager to City Council detailing the changes to be made to the subdivision regulations. She passed the memo out to the Board with minutes from the City Council meeting. Section 13.5 (1). L. Powell, from Public Works, was present to answer any questions on the matter. He said currently an applicant can have the base pavement down for 1 year, the change is to have the utilities in after a year and the base pavement not necessarily down for a year. W. Contardo asked what would happen if less than a year and L. Powell said once the utilities are in, there is always movement. The ordinance requires a one year base coat so it can go through the freeze/thaw cycle and traffic. If something happens that is deficient with the sub-base it will be seen at that point. With this proposal there is not the requirement for sub-base to be down for a year but does require still, the utilities be in for a year. L. Powell said it’s not necessarily the pavement that is the issue but what is underneath. The base could be put down as soon as utilities are in. W. Contardo asked if that is beneficial and L. Powell said if there are safeguards in place with compaction and inspections with documentation, once the utilities are in for a year, and a thicker base course put in there should be no issue. S. Saunders continued with the changes. J. Mailloux asked what items wouldn’t be done and was told curbing, sidewalks, street trees, lighting, etc. L. Powell said it will all depend on the fluidness of the project. S. Saunders reached out to other towns and has heard back from a couple of towns. They have two year acceptance with heavy restrictions on top of the two years. G. Denio asked if there was a minimum amount of time the base needs to be down and was told no. L. Powell said the inspection process is a big thing. They would be looking for damage to the road, but Public Works would be involved throughout the process and would be closely monitoring the paving. W. Contardo asked if there was something different to be looked at for early acceptance and L. Powell said compaction would be looked at. L. Powell stated that they are starting to do the compaction testing on all projects now. L. Powell said currently the winter binder is being looked at closely. They are changing from 2 ½ base and 1 ½ top as to 2 and 2. Every manhole will have vacuum testing and stormwater will be videotaped so all will be in hand. L. Powell said that if the project has had issues from the beginning then it wouldn’t be early accepted. H. McLean asked how the roads are plowed with the drainage on the base and L. Powell said they are lowered and then raised in the spring by the developer. H. McLean asked if the developer goes bankrupt between that timing can the Courts take the money for creditors and L. Powell was told by Walter Mitchell that the City is safe. The LOC are not cash. S. Saunders said they don’t take bonds because of what happened with the Shaker Hill project out on Endicott East. H. McLean asked why the Board was discussing an early acceptance and J. Mailloux said the City Manager and D. Bownes said City Council wants to be developer friendly. H. McLean asked what the motivation is and D. Bownes 3  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 said to sell homes, and have plowing and trash pick-up done by the City. D. Bownes said the developer is responsible until homeowners buy, then it is up to the property owner until the road is accepted by the City. L Guild was concerned that the City can keep up. W. Hutchins said a good business man evaluates risk and as soon as the road is accepted, the City is liable. Many of the subdivisions that are approved are not finished by the original applicant. He thinks that it would be unfair to buyers if City roads are not built to City standards and that all roads should be built to City standards period. J. Mailloux does not have a problem with what Kevin Morrissette wants to do, but has a problem that other developers will not do as good of a job and will just blow it off. L Guild would like the personality taken out of it and look at the procedure. Public: K. Morrissette said his road is in the same situation as Sarah Circle was. He has built 8 roads in Laconia in the past 30 years. His issue is when people buy in his developments, they ask about services. He feels the process is gray and negative for the City. It doesn’t pay in a new development to put the top coat on during constructing. When the development is done is when top coat should go on. He feels the City should be happy because Linny Lane generates $26,000 in taxes but no services are being used. There is no more liability to have an early street acceptance as to a year from now. As a taxpayer he feels that the City should only be taking cash, no letter of credit and no bonds. D. Bownes asked L. Powell when the process can begin and was told the generation of tax bills is what defines that. W. Contardo had no issue with an early acceptance with K. Morrissette but does have an issue with other developers that might not be as good. K. Morrissette stated that when he proposed the Linny Lane subdivision, he intended it to be a City road from the beginning. He noted that some developments do not start that way and then there are issues. If all the regulations are followed, he feels there is a way to meet halfway. The Water Dept accepts the water lines after 12 months of being put in. S. Saunders stated that per Legal Counsel, the City cannot only require cash, there has to be at least 2 options. She noted that there are studies and reports that taxes paid on a property do not pay for services, only a fraction of the services. That is what the Impact Fee is for. She noted that there is a liability issue and the City has escrow still being held from developers and most is from sidewalks not put in. S. Saunders agrees that K. Morrissette is case alone. K. Morrissette said all those escrows are old issues. If the City has an adequate amount there is no reason the road shouldn’t be finished. Linny Lane is assessed over a million dollars which is $26,000 in taxes. L. Powell noted that in section 6.2 (b) (13) (4) currently there is a provision that a developer could ask for an early acceptance. L. Powell noted that he had been wrong and been noting 2 years but the language is actually 1 year. The question is why early accept is needed if it’s already being done. D. Bownes doesn’t see the liability, he understands the issue, but it is one change in the process. L. Powell said in the report to the Board there should be a list of completed items. J. Mailloux’s concern is the Board might be setting a precedent and doesn’t want to have someone coming in and doing it halfway. K. Morrissette understands the scenario but if people are living in the development, there is money in place to finish the road, that’s the reason for the site security. J. Mailloux asked K. Morrissette how long the base on Linny Lane has been down and was told July. K. Morrissette stated he went to City Council twice and they voted favorable. H. McLean noted that the City shouldn’t be in the business to finish roads. D. Bownes gets a sense of discourse that needs to be looked at. He would like someone with knowledge of this to look at the issue. He is not sure of the City’s liability for the escrow account and would like to flush those issues out. J. Mailloux added if a road had phases could it still be accepted and was told yes. Governor’s Crossing was an example of phasing. S. Saunders thinks there isn’t an issue of developers running away and leaving. W. Contardo said every situation should be outline to the board. 4  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 L. Powell said with Nature’s View there were 22 items on the punch list that needed to be done. L. Powell said on any road they will go through a list of things that need to be looked at before street acceptance is considered. 100 % of the funds need to be in place for the City to use the funds to finish. S. Saunders brought up Phoenician way. There were years between when the City found out that there were problems, to when it was finished by the City. D. Bownes asked if would be in the same situation whether early accept or not and S. Saunders said no because the developer would continue to work. She thinks that an early acceptance will bring more proposals of City streets to come forward. S. Saunders thinks developers will be swayed because of an early acceptance. D. Bownes doesn’t know construction but knows that when a developer comes in, the departments work with them from day one on compliance and requirements and thinks the City does a good job working with developers. D. Bownes will bring that back to City Council. J. Mailloux said City Council is asking for adoption, not asking why. H. McLean asked L. Powell why 12 months and was told to see if movement of the utilities or if anything is happening to the sub base. DPW does spot inspections. L. Powell said the only way to ensure stability is to have an inspector on site all the time or wait a year. W. Hutchins asked if there needs to be a change in the subdivision regulations. He thinks the Board needs to decide whether they want the change or not. Keeping the 12 months puts liability issue to bed. W. Hutchins feels that the regulations don’t need to be changed. He noted that the Board could also think about this for a month. J. Mailloux asked if DPW is on board with changes and L. Powell said they did not initiate the change but the City Manager requested they be reviewed. W. Contardo added that there should be a quantified recommendation and was told by J. Mailloux that they do that. L. Powell told the Board that the punch list is shared with the Planning Dept and S. Saunders agreed. K. Morrissette feels this affects sales and if the City can do something to take that issue out of the picture, they should. On Linny Lane there are 5 items left to be done on the punch list. J. Mailloux noted that L. Powell will not accept the road until the punch list is done. W. Hutchins asked if DPW didn’t accept the road, is there a recourse and L. Powell said an applicant could petition the Council and the decision would be up to the Council. The developer would still need to fix any issues, if there were issues. DPW would still require all the items on the punch list whether early acceptance or not. J. Mailloux asked if an early acceptance would increase the workload at DPW and L. Powell said inspections need to be beefed up now and they are trying to request more funds from developers for inspector presence. The Water Dept has a full time inspector when a water line goes in. There would be no impact on DPW. W. Contardo doesn’t see a need for the change. S. Saunders said in reviewing the street criteria, she feels number 11 should be struck out because there is no logic to it. It will add more intersections and there is no reason to have it. S. Saunders noted that she didn’t change the intent of the regulation on the draft, just reworded to legally adhere. W. Hutchins asked if the trigger for taxes should be clarified. J. Mailloux asked S. Saunders to ask Legal Counsel to find out which is better a NH bond or LOC. W. Hutchins would recommend the board allow S. Saunders to digest and research the points so there can be a determination to either leave it alone or make changes. He doesn’t feel comfortable that the board is comfortable at this time. D. Bownes wants to know how the original requirements and the new changes will impact the process. W. Hutchins asked S. Saunders rather than waiting to get packets if she could get the information requested to the board beforehand. W. Hutchins closed the public hearing. 5  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 Motion: L Guild made the motion to continue the discussion of consideration of updating Section 6.2 of the Subdivision Regulations to include the method for early street acceptance as recommended by City Council to January 6. J. Tivnan seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. VI. Application Acceptance None VII. New Business J. Mailloux asked if Item 2 could go before item 1. Item 2 went first. 1. Capital Improvement Program – Presentation of CIP recommendations to the Planning Board The Board took a short break at 9:17 pm and returned at 9:21 pm. W. Contardo stated that it was the same process as in the past but there were some new members. Many asked questions this year and that was a good thing. W. Contardo noted that each individual ranks the request. Street repairs are on the top most of the time. H. McLean, who was on the CIP this year, said that looking at the enterprise fund was good because it allows the committee to see how old something is. Motion: D. Bownes made the motion approve the CIP report and recommend to City Council. G. Denio seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. W. Hutchins asked S. Saunders to send out a formal email to the CIP members and the department heads that Planning Board appreciates their time and also to let them know that their suggestion was recommended to Council. 2. Early street acceptance of Linny Lane - located off Elm Street S. Saunders told the Board this was not an application and told K. Morrissette that she would bring Linny Lane up to the Board can ponder, but this would have to in January for abutter notification and a finished as built. K. Morrissette felt discouraged. City Council gave the impression that they wanted early acceptance to happen. Chapter 197.1 and 3 discuss that in the Charter. In August he discussed with L. Powell about early acceptance. K. Morrissette had asked L. Powell if DPW would be plowing and was told not until the street was accepted. W. Contardo asked about Union Ave and noted that everything was done without delay. L. Powell noted one year is adequate. K. Morrissette noted that the 20 lot subdivision off Elm Street is completed, all the utilities have been in the ground for 16 months and was paved in July. Street acceptance does affect sales and the people that live in there. His noted he was present for the people who have bought there. W. Hutchins agrees and thinks it needs to be addressed in the Master Plan process. H. McLean asked L. Powell if there are different classes of roads and was told one specification for all residential roads. L. Powell added if there is a requirement that every street be accepted, that may do away with the cluster ordinance because DPW will not accept a 40 ft ROW. The DOT standard is ASTM standard. They are the specifics on materials and the sub-base specifications are the City. K. Morrissette thinks the time clock need to be adjusted. The issues are from the developers that come in and 6  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 aren’t built to City specifications and then decided to change and want the roads accepted. L. Powell is not sure who picked the time frame and W. Hutchins would like the depts to coordinate on the best amount of time. K. Morrissette said snowplowing is the issue. In the past, the City had plowed roads and picked up trash before acceptance. Pine Street Extension had an issue with plowing but that got fixed. The 1 year is an issue and affects the people living there. There are 5 items left and a dollar value has been determined. D. Bownes asked why the Board can’t recommend acceptance to City Council now because it meets all requirements of 197-1. Motion: D. Bownes made the motion to put Linny Lane on the next Council meeting for street acceptance. He feels the issue has been discussed at length and Linny Lane meets all the requirements. W. Contardo added criteria of acceptance of DPW. S. Saunders said the Board can grant a waiver of the timeline between the initial binder regulation and include a request of abutter notification by City Council. She noted that because the early acceptance regulation is not approved yet, the 30% of required escrow should be removed. D. Bownes said Council can require the amount. W. Contardo seconded the motion. W. Hutchins said it bothers him a lot. There has not been an inspector on site on the particular road other than spot inspections and there is no way of knowing if there is damage. J. Mailloux said L. Powell has money to fix anything that will need to be fixed. L. Powell has confidence in the contractor because it’s the contractor that he recommended. L Guild is offended at the motion. D. Bownes apologized for the offence but he is looking for a way to deal with the legal issues of early acceptance. W. Contardo said the precedent was established by City Council. W. Hutchins said there are 2 different perspectives. A request for a full as built, along with the waiver of the timeline, an escrow of $42778 and considering notice abutters was the motion. K. Morrissette handed out a paper that had the language in the deed for the notice to abutters. S. Saunders said the deed only says it’s telling the abutter it will be a city street, it does not allow for a public hearing to have discussion on it. D. Bownes said the Council will have the final decision. The motion passed 5-3 for the waiver. Motion: D. Bownes made the motion to recommend Linny Lane to City Council as a City Street with the conditions from the memo from the City Manager and the recommendation that the Council do abutter notification. W. Contardo seconded the motion. The motion passed 5- 3. W. Hutchins, H. McLean, and L. Guild in opposition. VIII. Old Business 1. Rezoning of the Commercial Resort zone (CR) in the Weirs S. Saunders gave the Board an update on where in the process this is. She added the signed resolution in the Board’s packet. She also added the definitions so the Board can see the difference. If a use is going to be removed it has to be available in another zone. Nothing can be outlawed completely in the City. Note that several uses have special criteria in the ordinance, like 235 42 speaks to Marinas and adult businesses. She spoke with Zoning Task Force (ZTF) and they know that this is coming their way. She talked with Suzanne Perley about the outreach tactics and she, Brandee and Suzanne spoke with Joe Driscoll Jr, who represents the Weirs Action Committee, on how to best get input from the people in the Weirs. J. Driscoll said internet and email and suggested a webpage, surveys, Facebook page, etc. W. Contardo would like to know quantity of suggestions as well. For example if there are suggestions from 3 or 10 people rather than just hearing the suggestion. S. Saunders noted the Commercial Resort boundaries. W. Contardo asked if that is going to be reshaped and S. Saunders said might be breaking areas into commercial resort and residential. D. Bownes thinks the reshaping is more of a Master Plan issue and this was a specific look at the uses in the CR zone, not necessarily to reshape the zone. W. Hutchins noted that there are issues with rezoning because of property rights and values. S. 7  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 Saunders asked the board if January would work for a public hearing and D. Bownes was thinking February and was told that the hearing is for an idea for the entire City to speak, not just abutters. W. Hutchins added that it was an intake process. The ZTF will be present to hear what the public says also. J. Mailloux asked if could be on a by-week from regular Planning Board meetings and S. Saunders will ponder that. W. Hutchins noted that Charlie Smith resigned and now alternates are needed, there are three vacant spots. W. Hutchins asked S. Saunders to send a thank you letter to C. Smith for his service of the last few years. He asked the Board to get the word out about the vacancies. IX. Reports A. Planning Department Report: S. Saunders let Board now the old FW Webb building is down and the new building should be starting, the Lilac Valley Bridge is in and the road should be going in over the next couple months, Chinburg has started demolition for the apartment building, and she heard that Appleridge is going to start up soon. Received a grant from the Pardoux Foundation to partner up with LRPC as follow-up for the Smart Growth audit. They will help rewrite the Natural Resource chapter of the Master Plan. H. McLean asked how the Economic chapter was going and S. Saunders said there has been a lot of data gathering but she feels the data needs to be more specific to Laconia. W. Hutchins stated Watermark was doing work in the parking lot and S. Saunders will look into it. W. Hutchins said the City lacks a “Laconia only” boat ramp and the property next to watermark would be a great spot. D. Bownes agreed it was a great idea. W. Contardo said there is an easement that goes into the water right beside watermark. S. Saunders pointed out map that was in the Board’s packet about the climate change. She just felt it was interesting that this area will be receiving more precipitation in the future. X. Liaison Reports A. Lakes Region Planning Commission: W. Hutchins stated the final draft for the Lakes Region broadband plan was presented to LRPC. B. Conservation Commission: W. Contardo stated a Black Brook site walk was held on November 19 with DuBois and King. The walk was held to summarize the progress thus far toward completion of the Geomorphological study. Soak Up the Rain Stormwater initiative is a site specific program where DES works with local Con Coms to encourage rain gardens and other devises to be installed as part of the BMPs when new homes built or reconstructed. Completion of easement walks. Wetland permit review and comment to DES. S. Saunders added that Gilford is involved with Black Brook as well. C. City Council: D. Bownes stated that City Council referred the task of rezoning the Commercial Resort zone. XI. Other Business None XII. Minutes Approval of the minutes from November 3 8  Laconia Planning Board Minutes December 2, 2014 Approved January 6, 2015 Motion: D. Bownes made the motion to approve the minutes. L Guild seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. XIII. Adjournment Motion: D. Bownes made the motion to adjourn and G. Denio seconded the motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:00 pm. Respectfully, K. Graham` 9