Planning Board

CITY OF LACONIA PLANNING BOARD 6:30 PM City Hall - Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber Accepted Nov 1, 2022 10/4/2022 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Peter Brunette called the meeting to order at 6:30pm 2. ROLL CALL Members Present: Charlie St. Clair, Bruce Cheney, Stacy Soucy, Rich MacNeill, Michael DellaVecchia, Louis Joseph, Scott McWilliam, Brett Beliveau, Peter Brunette 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Taylor Daigle, Conservation/Planner Technician 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Dean Trefethen, Planning Director 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Acceptance of September 6 minutes Chair P. Brunette declared the minutes of the September 6 meeting as accepted, with no objection. 6. PRESENTATIONS 6.I. "Watershed Based Plan for Lake Winnisquam" by the Winnisquam Watershed Network Cindy O’Connell, program manager at the Winnisquam Watershed Network, presented the Watershed- Based Plan for Winnisquam and discussed its findings and goals. She discussed the land use in the watershed and implications that can have on water quality of the lake. She notes that phosphorus is the major pollutant of concern, and the build-out analysis suggests the phosphorus load could increase by 54% if fully developed. The goals laid out in the plan are meant to serve as a road map moving forward and focused on water quality. One of the highest priority sites, Gale Ave, is in Laconia. There is a stormwater runoff management project planned for the site to mitigate erosion issues. P. Brunette asked how the planning board can use this plan in their work. C. O’Connell discussed its relation to land use regulations and master planning. B. Cheney asked if the state school property was considered in this report. Yes, there are some sites identified there but not of the highest priority. B. Cheney suggest that the Winnisquam Watershed Network stay aware of the development plans for the site, as the process continues. 7. EXTENSIONS Note: The purpose of this agenda section is for the board to consider requests from applicants with previously approved projects to extend the deadline dates. The board may also deliberate the request, decide and conduct a final vote at this time. PUBLIC INPUT IS NOT TAKEN ON EXTENSION REQUESTS. 7.I. Woodvale Drive, MBL 166-357-5; request to extend the approval to construct garage within the wetland buffer The applicant, Richard Homsi, discussed the reasoning for the extension. They are still experiencing  REQUESTS. 7.I. Woodvale Drive, MBL 166-357-5; request to extend the approval to construct garage within the wetland buffer The applicant, Richard Homsi, discussed the reasoning for the extension. They are still experiencing issues with the building costs. They are working on getting a contractor to start in the spring. P. Brunette asked about what is currently being stored on the site. The applicant provided the board with a list of materials there and what will be removed when the building is constructed. There are a number of building trusses to be used in construction on site. R. MacNeill asked about other people using the site for storage. The applicant explains there are three owners, and they are the only ones using the site. It is not a commercial site. S. Soucy asked about any outside storage after the building is constructed. Applicant explains that only the current pallets of firewood would be outside and once they are used, they will not be replenished. B. Cheney asked where all of the inventory to be removed from the site will be going. Applicant explains that the storage units there and a number of trailers will be sold or moved inside the building. P. Brunette asked if the applicant is aware of the abutter’s concerns. Yes. S. Soucy asked why the discussed fence/guardrail was not on the initial site plan. P. Brunette notes that would need a site plan amendment in the future if it is to be constructed. D. Trefethen says it will depend on the height and location of the fencing. P. Brunette reiterates that any structures should’ve been on the original plan and the fencing/guardrail should be an amendment. S. Soucy asked about the lighting for the site. Applicant indicated that it will not be a lot. B. Cheney asked if they have a commitment from someone to construct. No C. St. Clair asked D. Trefethen for the staff’s opinion. D. Trefethen notes that the site concerns have been addressed in the conversation tonight and enforcement will be easier when the building is constructed. M. DellaVecchia motions to grant the extension request to October 3, 2023. C. St. Clair seconded. The motion passed 6-3 with C. St. Clair, M. DellaVecchia, S. Soucy, L. Joseph, S. McWilliam, and B. Beliveau for and B. Cheney, R. MacNeill, and P. Brunette against. 7.II. PL2014-0158CUPamd2; 61 Pendleton (205 Wentworth Cv); Request to extend the approval to construct a single family home within the wetland buffer The applicant, John Remington, discussed the need for an extension of the CUP. The extension is necessary to keep the lot buildable based on the changes to wetland buffers since the original approval of the development. This lot is hoping to begin work in 2023. D. Trefethen discussed the original approval and the relation of this lot to the wetland buffer and overall development. M. DellaVecchia motioned to grant the extension request to November 7, 2023, C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. 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. PL2022-0087SP; 39 Messer Street; Proposal to convert single family dwelling into multifamily The applicant, Lisa White, or 39 Messer St. addressed the board. She is looking to convert her home to a multifamily 3-unit. Previously there were issues with the parking spaces and driveway that needed to be resolved. D. Trefethen discussed the requirement of 5 parking spaces for 3 units. The owner is within 500 feet of  The applicant, Lisa White, or 39 Messer St. addressed the board. She is looking to convert her home to a multifamily 3-unit. Previously there were issues with the parking spaces and driveway that needed to be resolved. D. Trefethen discussed the requirement of 5 parking spaces for 3 units. The owner is within 500 feet of the city parking lot on Church St. and therefore qualifies for an alternative parking CUP for two spaces allotted in the municipal lot and three on her property. P. Brunette asked if the staff is satisfied with this arrangement. D. Trefethen states, yes. There is no additional effect on the abutter or need for legal agreements. Staff recommends approval for the site plan and alternative parking CUP. C. St. Clair discussed the general issue of parking on Messer St. The applicant discusses that it has always been a problem and you can’t always tell that you are over the curb. C. St. Clair asks how the city can address this. P. Brunette notes this isn’t the applicant’s legal issue, and it is an issue of police enforcement. B. Cheney notes he will speak to the Chief and DPW about this. C. St. Clair motioned to grant approval of the site plan and alternative parking cup with the findings stated in the staff review. The findings included: the site plan regulations have been met, the use is allowed in this zone, and the additional housing units are needed. L. Joseph seconded. All voted in favor. M. DellaVecchia asked D. Trefethen about the alternative parking situation in general. The alternative parking CUP formalizes the permission of the applicant to use the lot. S. McWilliam asked if the applicant is agreeable to this. Yes. He also asked about the driveway widening. Applicant states that happen years ago. D. Trefethen notes that this project requires impact fees with the increase to housing. It is an infill and reuse situation, and D. Trefethen recommends that the board approve a waiver for 80% of the impact fee. C. St. Clair motioned to approve a waiver for 80% of the impact fees for the site. R. MacNeill seconded. All voted in favor. M. DellaVecchia abstained. 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. PL2000-010su amd4; 61 Pendleton Road, Beechwood; Proposal to amend the cluster development: Lots 9 & 10 boundary adjustment and create shared driveway, recreate lot 5, addition of lot 12, extend shared driveway to lots 5 & 8, extend sewer line for lots 9 & 10 R. MacNeill motioned to accept the application. B. Beliveau seconded. All voted in favor. B. Cheney abstained. The applicant, John Remington, discussed the amendments to the site plan. Most of the lots are under contract. He is proposing a shared driveway for lots 9 and 10 with a fire-approved hammerhead turnaround at the end. The roads will be 12 feet wide, but the subbase will be built to city standards, as requested by DPW. The right of way will also be extended to provide access to all the lots. Lot sizes are listed on the amended plan and all open space requirements are met. R. MacNeill asked about the roads remaining 3 seasons. The applicant says yes, and the HOA understands the costs associated with the private roads. Owners do not want cross traffic on the road, and they will be adding a gate at the wetland crossing. The public hearing was opened at 7:54 pm. With no one to speak for or against the application, the public hearing was closed at 7:55 pm. D. Trefethen discussed the staff report. Some of the lots have already been developed. The cluster subdivision requires that each lot have frontage on a public or private road or a right of way, which is why the applicant is extending their right of way. He notes the road is intended to remain private. There was a lot of work done on this with Fire and DPW and both are satisfied with the amendments. P. Brunette noted that this is a decrease in density from the original approval of 15 to 12. All of the lots  D. Trefethen discussed the staff report. Some of the lots have already been developed. The cluster subdivision requires that each lot have frontage on a public or private road or a right of way, which is why the applicant is extending their right of way. He notes the road is intended to remain private. There was a lot of work done on this with Fire and DPW and both are satisfied with the amendments. P. Brunette noted that this is a decrease in density from the original approval of 15 to 12. All of the lots are subject to the 75-foot wetland buffer, except for lot 8 which has a CUP for the buffer. C. St. Clair motioned to approve the amended site plan with the findings and recommendations from the staff report. R. MacNeill seconded. All voted in favor. 9.II. PL2022-0078SU; 13 Opechee Street; proposal to convert the form of ownership to condominium S. McWilliam motioned for the application to be accepted. L. Joseph seconded. All voted in favor. The applicant, Jon Rokeh, presented the application for condominium conversion. The propject has an approved shoreland permit from the State and was granted building permits. It was later found that the site needed an equitable waiver from the Zoning Board for the dimensional standards related to the waterfront. The equitable waiver was granted. In order to sell the units as the intended condominiums, they need subdivision approval from the board. P. Brunette asked about the need for Attorney General approval. The applicant says it does not meet the requirement for this since it is only 2 units. S. Soucy asked for clarification about the parking area and walkways on the plan. She also noted the conservation commissions earlier concerns about erosion controls. D. Trefethen noted that those issues were addressed. The public hearing was opened at 8:06pm. With no one to speak for or against the application, the public hearing was close at 8:06pm. D. Trefethen recommend approval and reminded the applicant that the planning department will need condominium documents. The applicant states those are ready to be submitted. D. Trefethen also discussed the situation with the equitable waiver and building permit for the property. P. Brunette asked about any impact fees. There are none, B. Beliveau motioned to approve the application siting that it meets all of the subdivision requirements and findings stated in the staff report. B. Cheney seconded. All voted in favor. 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. 11. NEW BUSINESS P. Brunette asked the staff if they are aware of the site status at 59 Clinton St being a gravel lot with fencing. He asks if that is allowed to be used as parking until the building is constructed. Yes. B. Beliveau notes the fencing is probably a site security situation. Staff will look into this. 12. OLD BUSINESS S. McWilliam asked about the grant funding for the Blueberry Lane apartments recently approved. The applicant did receive the grant and have gotten their building permits from the city. C. St. Clair asked D. Trefethen about the last master plan steering committee meeting and the height discussions. No consensus on height was reached. D. Trefethen recommends not changing the restriction for now but reminds the board that can deny an application if there is sound reasoning for why the height is not suitable. C. St. Clair reiterates that a change in the ordinance would be more effective and not doing so could bring up court issues with a future denial. The next master plan steering committee meeting will be scheduled for the end of October. D. Trefethen also reminds the board that they can request 3D renderings with projects to assess the height changes on a property.  C. St. Clair asked D. Trefethen about the last master plan steering committee meeting and the height discussions. No consensus on height was reached. D. Trefethen recommends not changing the restriction for now but reminds the board that can deny an application if there is sound reasoning for why the height is not suitable. C. St. Clair reiterates that a change in the ordinance would be more effective and not doing so could bring up court issues with a future denial. The next master plan steering committee meeting will be scheduled for the end of October. D. Trefethen also reminds the board that they can request 3D renderings with projects to assess the height changes on a property. 13. PLANNING DEPT REPORT D. Trefethen discussed the meeting scheduled for the state school property on 10/5/22. He will be attending, and they will be reviewing the applications for purchase and development. They may make a recommendation to the Governor’s Counselor then. It is not a public meeting. P. Brunette asked if the board could voice any issues with the nonpublic process. B. Cheney suggests not doing so at this time. He noted that the project will eventually come to the board for approvals and considerations but it is not the city’s decision at the moment. D. Trefethen shared that the department is looking for a new conservation/planner technician. He anticipates filling the assistant planner position soon. 14. LIAISON REPORTS 15. OTHER BUSINESS Russ Poirier, a resident at 375 Endicott St N, addressed the board. He is a real estate broker and is working with someone on the Drive-in property. He discussed the historic use and size of the property. P. Brunette stopped him and reminded him that a site-specific conversation like this should be formally presented to the board after a buyer is secured with a conceptual review through the planning department. 15.I. Conceptual Review: 492 Endicott N; proposal to construct 155 site RV campground with associated utilities, welcome center, play ground and laundry and game room 16. ADJOURNMENT B. Cheney motioned to adjourn at 8:42pm. R. MacNeill seconded. All voted in favor.