Planning Board

CITY OF LACONIA PLANNING BOARD 6:30 PM City Hall - Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber Accepted February 4, 2020 12/3/2019 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair P. Brunette called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM 2. ROLL CALL Kalena Graham called the role with the following members present: Charlie St. Clair, Sarah Jenna, Mike DellaVecchia, Brett Beliveau, Peter Brunette Absent: Jay Forester, David Bownes, Edwin Bones Sarah Jenna and Brett Beliveau were seated as voting members. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Kalena Graham 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Planning Director Dean Trefethen, Assistant Planner Rob Mora 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Acceptance of Minutes from November 6 Motion to accept the minutes as submitted made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. The motion passed with C. St. Clair abstaining. 6. PRESENTATIONS 7. EXTENSIONS 8. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE VOTE Note: The purpose of this agenda section is for the Board to continue the Public Hearing for the applicant and the public to provide input. The Board may also deliberate the application, decide and conduct a final vote at this time. 8.I. PL2019-0127SP; 435 Union Ave; Proposal to eliminate the cul-de-sac at the end of Cottonwood Ave and create a T-turnaround with associated easements Applicant: Steve Smith representing the Taylor Home addressed the board. S. Smith explained the proposal. The applicant would like to change the current cul de sac to a T- turnaround. He has spent a lot of time with Public Works and Fire Depts on site to resolve how it will look, function and whether it was satisfactory to them. Neither had any issues with the proposal. History: the subdivision was part of the overall development of the Taylor Home that started in the late 1980s. The Taylor Home had multiple applications with the Planning Board simultaneously for various projects. In preliminary applications, there were discussions about the two lot subdivision and building a cul de sac then deeding that to the City. He noted that the Cottonwood Ave right of way ends before the cul de sac. At the meeting in the 1980s for the subdivision the Planning Board gave the applicant preliminary approval of the two lot subdivision with conditions. His understanding is that it’s not the Planning Board’s jurisdiction to approve a street, but rather Council. The subdivision was never recorded. The lots were eventually sold and the deeds stated based on the Planning Board approval for meets and bounds. The Taylor Home recently purchased one of the lots and Ms. Ettelson owns the other. Currently there is cul de sac. At the meeting in the 1980s for the subdivision the Planning Board gave the applicant preliminary approval of the two lot subdivision with conditions. His understanding is that it’s not the Planning Board’s jurisdiction to approve a street, but rather Council. The subdivision was never recorded. The lots were eventually sold and the deeds stated based on the Planning Board approval for meets and bounds. The Taylor Home recently purchased one of the lots and Ms. Ettelson owns the other. Currently there is a gate where the cul de sac ends to include the new lot, and continued to be used strictly as emergency access. The proposal is and move the gate down after the cul de sac is removed for continued emergency access. Taylor Home will give the abutter (Ettelson), the public and the City an easement for turnaround access. Taylor Home does not want to maintain the entire cul de sac but will maintain the T-turn around. There was clarification on the gate and the location and access points to the gated community. The public hearing opened at 6:45 PM Abutter input: Atty Steve Nix, representing Nancy Ettelson of 79 Cottonwood Ave addressed the board. He has researched this project and handed out a packet of his findings for the board. He went over the document. The main issue is the ownership of the road. He explained the state law on roadway dedication and acceptance. He feels the Taylor Home does not have legal authority to do what is proposed. He showed some plans that showed the cul de sac not part of the Taylor Home property throughout past years since the 1980s. The position is that the Taylor Home doesn’t have the legal authority to do what is proposed based on the private property interest in an easement for the cul de sac as well as the dedication of the cul de sac and the implied acceptance of the cul de sac and it being a public road. B. Beliveau asked how to legally roll back the implied acceptance and S. Nix said it would have to go through a discontinuance process which would be to discontinue the highway through a public hearing along with a vote of Council. B. Beliveau noted that if the City put up a sign stating where the public right of way ends, prior to the cul de sac, he feels it a sign that the City doesn’t want that part of the road. S. Nix noted that putting a sign up doesn’t legally discontinue the highway. C. St. Clair noted that several of the streets around the city have been abandoned and been before Council with spirited debate. He added that even if the City hadn’t officially accepted the cul de sac, they have been treating it like a city road by maintaining and plowing the road. Chair P. Brunette asked if the City Council could vote to reconsider the road and S. Nix said that Council didn’t originally designate it. The Planning Board has the jurisdiction to approve the which creates the dedication. The Planning Board can’t accept the road, but they can dedicate it. In this case, there was a preliminary approval. The Planning Board process back in the 1980s was a two step process: preliminary approval then a final plan that gets reviewed to make sure meets those preliminary approval as well as final approval. In this case, there was an express condition in the preliminary approval that required the cul de sac to be constructed. Many applications were going on at once with the project. There was one public hearing for both applications and were approved at the same time. The argument would be that the Taylor Home would be under the obligation to provide that deed under the subdivision conditions. S. Nix finished by stating from planning stand point, this is not a better solution. The cul de sac is a better situation because people don’t have to turn around. If there is a large truck or trailer, backing out will not work. Atty Matt Lahey stated that prior to the November meeting he had handed packet in to Staff for the board. In addition to that he handed out a supplement to that. Cover letters to both packets addressed to the chair dated October 30 and December 3. M. Lahey addressed the board. From a planning stand point, he is a 60-year resident of Cottonwood Ave and lived in the same house and very familiar with the history of the street. All week long there are delivery and utility trucks up and down the street that use the cul de sac. He feels it would be a disaster to take the cul de sac away. He went back through the regulations and the cul de sac is required per the city ordinance and regulations. For over 30 years it has been there and the city has plowed it. He has spoken with the neighbors and there would’ve been at the November meeting that had concern. He doesn’t understand what the easement is for if everyone is going to be allowed to use the road. There is a question under the City’s rules as to whether this application can be considered. As recently as June 2019, there was an accepted deed with the same deed description showing the boundary lines and abutting the cul de sac. After reading the document from Public Works Director Wesley Anderson to City Manager Scott Myers, clearly the City's position was that Taylor Home was obligated to convey the property. M. Lahey stated that he was disappointed that instead of enforcing the 1987 Planning Board’s order, the City chose to kind of abandon the people on Cottonwood and put a sign up that says “no city maintenance”. Lastly, the tax map shows that the cul de sac is part of Cottonwood Ave. C. St. Clair asked M. Lahey who at the City he was disappointed in and was told administration. Chair P. Brunette asked M. Lahey if he agreed that the public has a right of way as the cul de sac is currently and was told yes. Chair P. Brunette asked if City Council from Public Works Director Wesley Anderson to City Manager Scott Myers, clearly the City's position was that Taylor Home was obligated to convey the property. M. Lahey stated that he was disappointed that instead of enforcing the 1987 Planning Board’s order, the City chose to kind of abandon the people on Cottonwood and put a sign up that says “no city maintenance”. Lastly, the tax map shows that the cul de sac is part of Cottonwood Ave. C. St. Clair asked M. Lahey who at the City he was disappointed in and was told administration. Chair P. Brunette asked M. Lahey if he agreed that the public has a right of way as the cul de sac is currently and was told yes. Chair P. Brunette asked if City Council could modify that and was told no. M. Lahey said it can’t be modified legally because if it gets modified, it would be breaking the ordinance of the city. The public hearing closed at 7:37 PM but reopened at 7:38 PM for the applicant to respond to abutter comment. S. Smith responded to the comments. He will not be speaking to legal issues, that is for the courts to decide, not the Planning Board. The applicant did meet with the Fire Dept and had no problem with the design. He noted that there are other roads in the city that aren’t cul de sac designed. S. Smith stated that tax maps are not used for property lines, they are general information for taxation. His interpretation on the plan that was brought to the board’s attention, that was part of an exhausted survey and they are required to note anything and everything relative on a title survey. It is up to the title attorneys to take it from there. He stated that just because someone says they are going to turn a road over to city doesn’t mean they will. Roads are private until petitioned to be turned over, there is a process for that. All roads are built to City standards regardless of being turned over, by requirement. C. St. Clair pointed out that the road has been maintained by the city since 1987, going by what the residents say. S. Smith said that in his research he hasn’t seen anywhere where the applicant is supposed to convey the cul de sac, he only saw that the applicant said they would convey it to the city. Chair P. Brunette asked why the representation to the board aren’t binding to the applicant and S. Smith responded. Typically there are conditions in approvals by the Planning Board. He also stated that the City has had over 20 years to ask the Taylor Home to deed it over if it was supposed to be done. S. Smith introduced Margaret Probish, Taylor Home attorney from Sheehan Phinney Bass & Green. She pointed out the minutes approving the cul de sac in 1987 the statement by the applicant that the cul de sac would be deeded over to the city there was also a statement in those minutes by the city that the cul de sac would be maintained by Taylor Community. There was more discussions after those comments. Factually it is not as straight forward as some would believe. She agrees with both parties regarding the law in NH that roads can be made public by dedication and acceptance. Her and the applicant’s position is that neither dedication nor acceptance has occurred. When dedication occurs, it is very clear in NH law that there has to be an intent by the owner to dedicate. There is no clear intent in the minutes and evidence to the contrary. She reminded the board that a plan was never recorded. Chair P. Brunette asked if the Taylor Home has indeed been maintaining the road as per noted and was told the only thing the City has done was to plow. Taylor Home has not snow plowed but unsure of maintenance. Matt Lahey addressed the board. He noted the point that keeps being made about the sign going up and the City not wanting to plow because it wasn’t ironed out. Respectfully, that should not be the Planning Board’s concern. If there is a lawful order of this board, and the City is not enforcing it, that shouldn’t change what the board does. The Planning Board’s job is to defend the ordinance and regulations. Chair P. Brunette clarified that eh board lacks the power to modify the approval and M. Lahey agreed. S. Nix addressed the board. He noted the city plowed in the last storm, then the Taylor Home truck came out. The public hearing closed at 7:53 PM Chair P. Brunette asked if Staff had checked with the city solicitors on the matter. Planning Director D. Trefethen responded by stating he would have appreciated the legal arguments presented to staff prior to the meeting so staff could have gone to legal council for advisement. He reminded the board that all that legal opinion doesn’t amount to anything for this board to consider. Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. It is true that in certain circumstances property owners own to the center line of the road. He gave the example of Union Ave and Linny Lane. Chair P. Brunette asked if the original letter from Atty Lahey was forwarded to legal counsel and was told no. Planning Director D. Trefethen talked about the city maintenance. He has had several discussions with DPW director concerning the issue of the cul de sac and there are a number of other streets in the city that Council and DPW together have been and are still taking action to do multiple things. One is ceasing maintenance on multiple roads. Other streets have been declared emergency  Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. It is true that in certain circumstances property owners own to the center line of the road. He gave the example of Union Ave and Linny Lane. Chair P. Brunette asked if the original letter from Atty Lahey was forwarded to legal counsel and was told no. Planning Director D. Trefethen talked about the city maintenance. He has had several discussions with DPW director concerning the issue of the cul de sac and there are a number of other streets in the city that Council and DPW together have been and are still taking action to do multiple things. One is ceasing maintenance on multiple roads. Other streets have been declared emergency lanes and part of that is because there is city infrastructure on those streets like pump stations and the other is public outcry. The council does respond to that. Other streets are still being determined. The issue isn’t to cut off homeowners but is liability. The state law says if the city has not accepted a street the city can’t spend money maintaining that street. The second part is the insurance company says if the city is maintaining an unaccepted street and any damage occurs, the insurance company will not pay for it. The response is more toward the liability of the city. With Cottonwood, there is an agreement between city and Taylor home allowing the city on the cul de sac to turn around. He noted there are several places in the city with similar T-turn arounds with no issues. The way the cul de sac has been used may or may not constitute a legal situation, but doesn't know the answer. He reminded the board that it is not for this board to decide legal issues. He also added to an abutter comment that countless subdivisions and site plans have been amended throughout the years and doesn’t agree that this plan couldn’t be amended. There are provisions to amend site plans in the regulations. The only thing we do know is the plan was never recorded, regardless of the loss of records. Chair P. Brunette asked about enforcement. There was a conditionally approved plan so shouldn’t the board and staff’s job to see that it’s enforced/complied with. Planning Director D. Trefethen was unsure but stated the plan was never recorded so therefore it leaves doubt as to what Taylor Property now intends to do. He thinks the applicant is entitled to change their mind. Chair P. Brunette feels the board shouldn’t take action tonight. Reasons: the board doesn’t have the city attorney opinion, there have been legal arguments made by attorneys on the record, the board received documents at the meeting, there were representations made on the record in reference to the extensive packet that was handed out, without the time to be reviewed by legal counsel and he is disappointed that the board doesn’t have that information. He thought the applicant continued the application from last month in part for that purpose and now the application could be continued again. He is unsure why it wasn’t referred to counsel. Planning Director D. Trefethen noted that continuing is an option. If the application is continued he suggested the board make some kind of recommendation to the parties involved to come to an agreement. At some point a decision will need to be made but regardless of the decision, this may end up in court. Chair P. Brunette would like legal opinion as to what posting the city should take. Planning Director D. Trefethen can take all the documents to legal counsel and can confer an come back with better advice. Chair P. Brunette wondered if it would end up in litigation, no action should be taken until there is legal advice. C. St. Clair agreed with Planning Director D. Trefethen regarding the litigation. His concern was the moving of the gate. Motion to deny the site plan application made by C. St. Clair, M. DellaVecchia seconded. M. DellaVecchia said it seems like Taylor Home is trying to get back a quarter acre of land after giving it away for 32 years. We have to consider the residents of Cottonwood Ave. Chair P. Brunette asked why a continuance wouldn’t work because the question is did or does the Taylor Home have the obligation to convey the cul de sac. The board has to decide whether to allow Taylor Home to maximize their use of the property to the disadvantage of the abutters or not. He has said many times that the property owners have a right to the highest and best use of their property that is allowed by law, with in the law and he is unsure what that law is. C. St. Clair feels he property owners on Cottonwood also have a right to the best use of their property and they want the what has been there and put there for the development of that area. Looking at the minutes the applicant must have thought it was a good thing to do. He understands that things change but making a change like this will affect all the property and he doesn’t feel that is fair or right. The cul de sac has been treated by the city as city property for many years. No matter what legal says, the board will still need to vote and that decision may be taken to court. B. Beliveau doesn’t see how the board can make a decision until legal has an opinion. The question is who has control over the property and understands the liability issue. C. St. Clair argued by saying they could've done something a long time ago. The motion passed 3-1: S. Jenna, C. St. Clair and M. DellaVecchia for and B. Beliveau opposed. Chair P. Brunette abstained. His reason is that he is upset with staff because he requested, by email, prior to the November meeting, that the October 30th letter be forwarded to legal counsel for legal advice. 8.II. PL2019-0128SU; 11 Sonia Drive/ 157 Massachusetts Ave; Proposal for boundary line adjustment between the two lots Applicant: Dave Dolan, representing both applicants addressed the board. Both lots are developed residential properties. The adjustment would convey about 18,000 sq ft. At the November meeting a  8.II. PL2019-0128SU; 11 Sonia Drive/ 157 Massachusetts Ave; Proposal for boundary line adjustment between the two lots Applicant: Dave Dolan, representing both applicants addressed the board. Both lots are developed residential properties. The adjustment would convey about 18,000 sq ft. At the November meeting a sidewalk waiver was discussed which has since been withdrawn. The public hearing opened at 8:31 PM Abutter input: No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 8:32 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. He explained the sidewalk waiver and that one is not needed. He added that Paradise Drive and the adjacent part of Jefferson Street are not developed or accepted streets and cannot be used for frontage unless they are developed. Motion to approve the boundary line adjustment with dates and conditions as stated in the staff review made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGS, POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE Note: The purpose of this agenda section is for the Board to have a presentation from the applicant and open a Public Hearing for the public to provide input. The Board may also deliberate the application, decide and conduct a final vote at this time. 9.I. PL2019-0122CUP (wetland buffer); 40 Carriage Lane; Proposal to add a deck within the 50 foot wetland buffer Applicant: Ken Brunelle, the property owner addressed the board. He explained he is building a house with a deck. When he purchased the lot, he was told it had a 30 ft setback from the water. He went to the Concom meeting and they had no comments. C. St. Clair asked the applicant if approval would’ve changed mind on buying the lot if he knew the proposed budding and deck wasn’t going to fit without a conditional use permit and was told yes. He would not have bought the lot. The public hearing opened at 8:37 PM Abutter input: No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 8:38 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. When the lots were created the buffer was 30 ft. Originally, the wetland was the drainage pond but over the years it has become an official wetland. There has been multiple request since the 50 ft buffer was put in to go to the 30 ft buffer. Motion to approve the conditional use permit with the dates and conditions as stated in the staff review made by S. Jenna, C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. 9.II. Pl2019-0124SU; 55 Bay Street/6 Winnisquam Ave; boundary line adjustment Motion to continue the application to January 7, 2020 at the applicant's request made by M. DellaVecchia, C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. 9.III. PL2019-0108SP,0115CUP(alt parking); 903 Union Ave; proposal for alternative parking Motion to continue the application to January 7, 2020 at the applicant's request made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 9.IV. PL2009-00110SP; 05-0020SU;05-028CUP(cluster); 198 Endicott St North, Weirs Beach Village; proposal to amend the 2009 Notice of Action items: 3 “The use of the areas above all garages (excluding ‘drive under garages’ that area part of a house) is restricted to unfished space and either not used or used only for storage” & 5 “Units may have no more than two bedrooms”  Motion to continue the application to January 7, 2020 at the applicant's request made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 9.IV. PL2009-00110SP; 05-0020SU;05-028CUP(cluster); 198 Endicott St North, Weirs Beach Village; proposal to amend the 2009 Notice of Action items: 3 “The use of the areas above all garages (excluding ‘drive under garages’ that area part of a house) is restricted to unfished space and either not used or used only for storage” & 5 “Units may have no more than two bedrooms” Motion to accept the application as complete made by S. Jenna, C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. Applicant: Tom Furtado with Impact Development Advisors Inc addressed the board. He noted that they are now developing the final handful of homes from that existing project. 73 out of the 85 have been completed and transferred to individual owners. They are requesting the space over the garage instead of only being for storage be finished as living space. Another amendment would be to change it so more than two bathrooms be allowed. Some designs have a powder room on the fist floor which would be added as a bathroom. The last amendment would be to have the 12 pitch roof requirement eliminated. He noted an error on the agenda that states 5 “Units may have no more than two bedrooms” and that should be bathrooms. The public hearing opened at 8:49 PM Abutter input: No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 8:50 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. Motion to approve the amendment to the notice of action from 2009 made by C. St. Clair, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 9.V. PL2019-0134SU; 50 Lighthouse Cliffs, Meredith Day Development; proposal to adjust boundary lines between lots 115, 116, 117, 163 Motion to accept the application as complete made by C. St. Clair, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. Applicant: Chris Duprey agent on behalf of the applicants. He explained the proposal. The public hearing opened at 8:57 PM Abutter input: No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 8:57 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. Motion to approve the boundary line adjustment with the dates and conditions as stated in the staff review made by C. St. Clair, M. DellaVecchia seconded. All voted in favor. 9.VI. PL2019-0142SU, 0145CUP(performance zoning); 111 Church Street; proposal to convert office building into 12 residential units and construct 4 unit residential building and associated garage for 16 paces Motion to accept the application as complete made by S. Jenna, C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. Applicant: Steve Smith representing the applicant addressed the board and explained the proposal. Kevin Morrisette, property owner, was also present. This lot has a 13,000 sq ft building with 66 parking spaces. The proposal is to convert the offices to 12 residential units and construct another 4 units in the rear of the property as well as construct two garages with 16 parking spaces. All existing pavement will be taken out and new sewer and water will be put in as well as increase stormwater drainage. Green space will go from 30 to 32%. C. St. Clair asked about porous pavement and S. Smith said that  Applicant: Steve Smith representing the applicant addressed the board and explained the proposal. Kevin Morrisette, property owner, was also present. This lot has a 13,000 sq ft building with 66 parking spaces. The proposal is to convert the offices to 12 residential units and construct another 4 units in the rear of the property as well as construct two garages with 16 parking spaces. All existing pavement will be taken out and new sewer and water will be put in as well as increase stormwater drainage. Green space will go from 30 to 32%. C. St. Clair asked about porous pavement and S. Smith said that is a maintenance nightmare. S. Smith noted they use it where it is possible and where it makes sense. The public hearing opened at 9:10 PM Abutter input: Joe Alexander, owner of 108-112 Church Street addressed the board. He mentioned that a similar proposal was before a board recently and was denied and questioned why it is back with more units proposed. He also has concern that his property values will be decreased with the addition of residential units. Condos would have better success than apartments with less turnover and higher level of tenant. K. Morrissette noted that there will be one and two bedrooms and will be condominiumized. S. Smith mentioned the property went to the ZBA at the beginning of the year and since then, the zone has changed and performance zoning has been added as well. J. Alexander’s main concern is the impact to his tenants with added traffic and noise. Another concern is with the garages. He wouldn’t want them being rented out and Chair P. Brunette said a condition can be put on and noted on the plan that the garages go with the units. J. Alexander is also against the reduction in impact fees as that many added bedrooms will impact the city. C. St. Clair brought up that the Brickfront is right down the road and is a busy and noisy area. Chair P. Brunette noted that when the board discussed the zone change it was to have more infill development. There are a lot of properties in the zone that are vacant or underutilized. The public hearing closed at 9:26 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. He gave a brief background on the property. Staff would like to add under section ‘Miscellaneous: d, staff to review and approve the proposed condominium documents.’ For the impact fees, staff supports granting the waiver for the units in the existing building only. The waiver talks about infill and reuse vs the new structure. The applicant is ok with staff recommendation. Motion to approve the site plan and conditional use permit with the dates and conditions stated in the staff review made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded with the addition to have staff review and approve the condo docs and to ensure the garage are conveyed to unit owners only. C. St. Clair thinks more housing is great and feels this is a good use for the property. All voted in favor. Motion to waive up to 80% of the impact fee for only the existing building for infill and reuse totaling to $8355.60, made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. M. DellaVecchia noted there are impact fees for a reason and did not agree. Chair P. Brunette agreed but.. The motion passed 4-1 with M. DellaVecchia opposing. 10. APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE Note: The purpose of this agenda section is to publicize that a Planning Board application has been submitted AND for the Planning Board to determine if the application is complete enough to begin the review process. PUBLIC INPUT IS NOT TAKEN AT THIS TIME. If the application is accepted the Planning Board will schedule a Public Hearing at which time the application will be heard and public comments will be accepted. Information about applications can be obtained on the city’s web site or by calling the Planning office. 10.I. PL2018-0037SP amd1; 55 Bay Street; proposal to amend the previously approved site plan Motion to accept the application as complete and schedule the public hearing for January 7, 2020 made by S. Jenna, B. Beliveau seconded. All voted in favor. 10.II. PL2019-0137SP, 0138CUP(wetland), 0139CUP(Alt parking), 0140CUP(boat storage); 129 Channel Lane, Winnisquam Marine; proposal to replace a 16,000 sf boat storage building with a 22,800 sf 42 ft height with associated site work to improve the site Motion to accept the application as complete and schedule the public hearing for January 7, 2020 made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor.  10.II. PL2019-0137SP, 0138CUP(wetland), 0139CUP(Alt parking), 0140CUP(boat storage); 129 Channel Lane, Winnisquam Marine; proposal to replace a 16,000 sf boat storage building with a 22,800 sf 42 ft height with associated site work to improve the site Motion to accept the application as complete and schedule the public hearing for January 7, 2020 made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 10.III. PL2019-0142SP, 0144CUP(performance zoning); 781 Union Ave/ 27 Clinton St; proposal to rehab first & second floors, convert third floor to two residential units, remove structure at 27 Clinton for parking and merge the two lots into one Motion to accept the application as complete and schedule the public hearing for January 7, 2020 made by C. St. Clair, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.I. Capital Improvement Committee (CIP) recommendations to Planning Board Assistant Planner R. Mora noted the committee had completed the task. Rules and regulations have been followed and it was a good process this year. Chair P. Brunette explained the process to the board. Motion to accept and forward the CIP recommendation to Council made by M. DellaVecchia, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 12. OLD BUSINESS 12.I. 781 Union Ave; Conceptual Review to merge 781 Union & 27 Clinton properties, remove the structure on Clinton and construct parking area, refurbish 1st floor as commercial space, 2nd floor restore Opera House and 3rd floor to be rehabbed as two residential units Applicant: Steve Smith representing the property owner addressed the board. They are asking to redevelop the site on using performance zoning. Details are still being worked on. The applicant has an administrative approval to rehab the bottom floor. There are new water and sewer lines. The applicant proposes to demolish the house on Clinton Street, to make parking, and merge the lots. The plan is to restore the opera house and make the top floor for residents. The demo is under review with the Heritage Commission. The proposal is to move the access away from Union Ave. A fence will be put up between the neighboring parking lot. The storage oil tank located on the plan is inside the building and not outside. That is an error on the plan. Performance Zoning is being applied because setbacks would not be able to be met. Chair P. Brunette thinks the city needs more off-street parking in Lakeport Square. Motion to accept the concept plan as presented made by B. Beliveau, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. 13. PLANNING DEPT REPORT Planning Director D. Trefethen pointed out 111 Church was the first performance zoning approval and that is exciting. Staff has found some potential issues with new setback requirement in the new UC zone and is looking in it. 14. LIAISON REPORTS Chair P. Brunette noted that the LRPC meeting was postponed to Monday due to the storm. 15. OTHER BUSINESS C. St. Clair mentioned the waivers for sidewalk bugs him. He feels there are areas that really need it, but getting neglected. He gave the example of Weirs Blvd and is surprised no one has been injured there. He also feels the City has responsibility to do something there, for the residents and visitors. B. Beliveau noted that he has sidewalk in his area but it’s not maintained and people are in the road anyway. Planning Director D. Trefethen said staff could take on the task for a specific line item for sidewalks for the next CIP 15. OTHER BUSINESS C. St. Clair mentioned the waivers for sidewalk bugs him. He feels there are areas that really need it, but getting neglected. He gave the example of Weirs Blvd and is surprised no one has been injured there. He also feels the City has responsibility to do something there, for the residents and visitors. B. Beliveau noted that he has sidewalk in his area but it’s not maintained and people are in the road anyway. Planning Director D. Trefethen said staff could take on the task for a specific line item for sidewalks for the next CIP cycle to be looked at. 16. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn made by C. St. Clair, S. Jenna seconded. All voted in favor. The meeting adjourned at 10:19 PM Respectfully, K. Graham