Planning Board

CITY OF LACONIA PLANNING BOARD 6:30 PM City Hall - Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber Accepted May 3, 2023 4/4/2023 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Peter Brunette called the meeting to order at 6:32 PM 2. ROLL CALL Members present: Amy Lovisek, Rob Mora, Brett Beliveau, Bruce Cheney, Rich MacNeill, Charlie St. Clair, Mike DellaVecchia, Scott McWilliam, Stacy Soucy, Louis Joseph, Peter Brunette 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Kalena Graham 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Planning Director Dean Trefethen 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. Acceptance of March 7 minutes With no objection, Chair P. Brunette declared the minutes accepted. 6. PRESENTATIONS 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. PL2022-0025SU(BLA), 0026(condo); Lucerne Ave 154-545-1/154-254-9, Leisure Time Rentals; request to extend the approval for boundary line adjustment AND Condo conversion Applicant: Dean Clark, representing Rusty Bertholet addressed the board. He noted that the boundary line has been recorded, it’s the condominium docs that still needs to be finished. Motion to approve the extension request to April 2, 2024 made by R. Mora, 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. 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. PL2021-0133SPamd2; 476 Scenic Rd, Hill's Trailer Park; a proposal to reconfigure sites 12, 13 & 22 and adding sites; total sites to go from 24 to 26. Motion to accept the application as complete made by M. DellaVecchia, B. Beliveau seconded. All input. The Board may also deliberate the application, decide and conduct a final vote at this time. 9.I. PL2021-0133SPamd2; 476 Scenic Rd, Hill's Trailer Park; a proposal to reconfigure sites 12, 13 & 22 and adding sites; total sites to go from 24 to 26. Motion to accept the application as complete made by M. DellaVecchia, B. Beliveau seconded. All voted in favor. Applicant: Barbara Palazzo and Scott Fagnant were present. B. Palazzo explained the directional changes in the site. All the manufactured homes have been removed but the owner’s and are being replaced with RVs, to make the site uniform. There is one home still on the site as it is in litigation and the changes will not affect that site. A majority of the sites will have newer RVs and will keep the site aesthetically pleasing. The site is seasonal; open from Memorial Day to Columbus Day, and has been since the 1950’s. Chair P. Brunette brought up an email from Kelly Dobins with her concerns. The applicant noted that is the site that is in litigation and in the court’s hands. S. Fagnant noted that most of the letter discusses and issue that was fixed years ago with the sewer. They are now tied in to the City’s system. S. Soucy asked about the fence around the dumpster. S. Fagnant explained the fence will be enclosed and match the existing fence. There are hedges that also hide the area. The public hearing opened at 6:51 PM No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 6:52 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review and highlighted conditions regarding the fence and the limit of 26 sites. Motion to approve the application with the dates and conditions stated in the staff review made by S. McWilliams, with the findings that the change will be less unsightly and more esthetically pleasing and orderly. B. Beliveau seconded. All voted in favor. 9.II. PL2023-0015CUP(wetland); 42 Woodwinds Hill Dr; Proposal to construct garage in a portion of the wetland buffer Motion to accept the application as complete made by S. Soucy, C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. Applicant: Bruce Campagna addressed the board. He explained the garage is to house his classic car collection. The garage will be accessible by the existing driveway. The new structure will match the existing house with a single garage door, seven windows and one man door. The Conservation Commission has looked at the application and gave their approval. There are six homes on the road and only two full time residents. There was discussion on the proximity of the structures and the rules. There was discussion on the right of way on the abutting property and if that was a road. The right of way is for the private residence in the rear of the subject property. Chair P. Brunette brought up the letter from the abutter at 32 Woodwinds Hill concerned with drainage issues with tree removal. B. Campagna noted the area is fairly flat and no large trees will be taken down. He feels that there won’t be any issues. The public hearing opened at 7:10 PM. No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 7:11 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. He noted that there was no proposed filling of the wetland and the encroachment was in the wetland buffer. There should be no change in the amount of water.  No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 7:11 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. He noted that there was no proposed filling of the wetland and the encroachment was in the wetland buffer. There should be no change in the amount of water. B. Beliveau suggested a gravel drip edge be put along the proposed structure. B. Campagna agreed and noted he will also have gutters. S. Soucy requested silt sock be used instead of silt fence. Motion to approve the application with the dates and conditions staff review adding drip edge and gutters added as conditions, with the findings to be the applicant is mitigating strategies as suggested by the Conservation Commission and the site is in a quiet dead end road with no additional living space being added, made by R. Mora. C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. 9.III. PL2023-0028SU; 171 Gold Street; Proposal to subdivide one lot into two Motion to accept the application as complete made by C. St. Clair, B. Beliveau seconded. All voted in favor. Applicant: Randy Otis of Dubois & King representing the property owner, addressed the board. The two lot subdivision is shop is off Belvedere St. he noted there might be a multifamily unit put on the proposed newly created lot but nothing is final yet. The subject lot has no water rights to Paugus Bay. The public hearing opened at 7:26.30 PM No one spoke for or against the application. The public hearing closed at 7:27.45 PM Staff Review: Planning Director D. Trefethen read the staff review. He mentioned that the green space calculations will need to be updated and if not the applicant will be back before the board or could be put as a condition. R. Mora asked about future buildings and setbacks. Planning Director D. Trefethen stated any expansion to the structure would need to adhere to the current setbacks or go before the Zoning Board. B. Beliveau noted the difference in the Map/Lot numbers. There was discussion about whether the lots would be buildable after the subdivision. Planning Director D. Trefethen noted that building on the lot is doable and a new structure would need to adhere to the new setbacks but if less non conforming proposal would be allowed. Motion to approve the application with the dates and conditions as stated in the staff review with the modification that the applicant will meet the 10% green space requirements and the findings to be that the plan meets the requirements and will not cause unwarranted density issues, made by B. Beliveau. R. Mora seconded. The motion passed with R. Mora, B. Beliveau, B. Cheney, R. MacNeill, C. St. Clair, S. Soucy, L. Joseph for; S. McWilliam, A. Lovisek against; M. DellaVecchia abstain. 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 11.I. Clarity on the Planning Board's role and action(s) related to "Impact Fee Waivers and Exemptions". S. McWilliam gave a brief history of the last few applications and their impact fees. His concern is the inconsistency with the board’s actions. He would like the Chair to ask the board on how to proceed in 11. NEW BUSINESS 11.I. Clarity on the Planning Board's role and action(s) related to "Impact Fee Waivers and Exemptions". S. McWilliam gave a brief history of the last few applications and their impact fees. His concern is the inconsistency with the board’s actions. He would like the Chair to ask the board on how to proceed in the future on the impact fee waivers. B. Cheney would like to see consistency and recommend staff propose a standard. B. Beliveau suggested deciding on a fee by looking at the actual impact of the proposal. Chair P. Brunette would like to have all that figured out before it gets to the board. The proof of burden should be on the applicant. He suggested the ordinance be tightened up. L. Joseph feels an automatic formula is not a good idea and the process should be looked at. He also feels not all the fees should be waived. A. Lovisek noted, as a dept that gets some money from the impact fees, it is vital for smaller items. M. DellaVecchia would like to make the fee reasonable and get rid of the waivers. R. Mora feels fees should be fair and consistent. S. Soucy brought up RSA 79:E. Planning Director D. Trefethen will look at the application and possible boxes to add to it. M. DellaVecchia asked if ADUs subject to impact fees and was told no, because under state law, state that ADU is not a separate unit of housing. 12. OLD BUSINESS 12.I. Waiver request for 686 Union Ave The applicant requested this be brought to the May meeting. 12.II. Waiver request for 8 Summer Street Randy Otis gave a brief background on the waiver request from his application in March. He believes that his proposal qualifies for the infill waiver. Motion to approve the waiver request for 80% of the impact fee made by C. St. Clair. He stated that a project like this is what the waivers are for. B. Beliveau seconded. The motion passed with R. Mora, B. Beliveau, R. MacNeill, C. St. Clair, L. Joseph, S. McWilliam for; B. Cheney, A. Lovisek, M. DellaVecchia against; S. Soucy abstain. 13. PLANNING DEPT REPORT Planning Director D. Trefethen discussed the City’s easement issue regarding the second access for the 90 unit apartment complex on Province Street. The city needs to find land for a swap and it is a lengthy process. He gave an option the city has been discussing in the meantime to get the ball rolling, called the boulevard concept which the Fire Chief has accepted. This would be temporary until the land swap is completed. Atty Phil Brouillard addressed the board and asked the board if they would approve a conceptual plan. He noted the board did something similar on the Langley Cove project. Chair P. Brunette noted that without notice the board can’t approve anything. Planning Director D. Trefethen clarified the request. If the applicant were to submit an application for a plan of the boulevard type temporary second access, would the board be amenable.  Atty Phil Brouillard addressed the board and asked the board if they would approve a conceptual plan. He noted the board did something similar on the Langley Cove project. Chair P. Brunette noted that without notice the board can’t approve anything. Planning Director D. Trefethen clarified the request. If the applicant were to submit an application for a plan of the boulevard type temporary second access, would the board be amenable. Motion for the board to agree that the boulevard concept plan when submitted would be amendable to the board made by S. McWilliam, C. St. Clair seconded. All voted in favor. Planning Director D. Trefethen updated the board on 1103 Union Ave parking in the right of way. 14. LIAISON REPORTS LRPC: S. Soucy reported the housing assessment is online and went over some aspects. ConCom: S. Soucy noted the state is no longer designating prime wetlands. She wondered if the ordinance should be changed for functions and values of wetlands rather than size. Council: There was nothing to report HDC: C. St. Clair said they are still waiting on Council on the revisions to the ordinance. There will be a joint meeting the Heritage Comm on April 12. 15. OTHER BUSINESS 16. ADJOURNMENT Motion to adjourn the meeting made by C. St. Clair, A. Lovisek seconded. The meeting adjourned at 9:13PM Respectfully, K. Graham