Planning Board

CITY OF LACONIA PLANNING BOARD 6:30 PM City Hall - Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber Accepted Dec 5, 2023 11/6/2023 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER Chair Charlie St Clair called the meeting to order at 6:32 PM 2. ROLL CALL Members present: Amy Lovisek, Rob Mora, Tyler Carmichael, Rich MacNeill, Bob Soucy, Mike DellaVecchia, Louis Joseph, Gail Ober, Stacy Soucy, Charlie St Clair Absent: Scott McWilliam 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Kalena Graham 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Planning Director Kathy Menici 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS 5.I. October 3 Motion to accept the minutes made by R. Mora, R. MacNeill seconded. All voted in favor. Motion to rearrange the agenda items to have the two extensions go first made by M. DellaVecchia, T. Carmichael seconded. All voted in favor. 6. 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. 6.I. PL2023-0091SP, 0092CUP (park), 0093CUP(perf zon); 17 Bay Street; Proposal to construct 12 efficiency apartments with associated parking and utilities Chair C. St Clair noted that the application will be taken up where it left off October 3, and asked for any more comments from the Board. B. Soucy noted that it was nice to see that the developer working with the abutters. He noted the meeting with the attorney prior to the meeting for legal advice and thanked the Mayor and the Motion to table the application to have the applicant and abutters get back together to work on details made by B. Soucy. The motion failed for a lack of a second. M. DellaVecchia said it is time to approve the application. It has been before the board and discussed at length. The board has seen a lot of big proposals and never has the mayor been involved like this one. That says something. He feels the density and the parking excuses are not an issue. This proposal is good for the community and any perceived harm is miniscule. R. Mora’s concern is with parking. He feels though if it does go to court then it will be remanded back  M. DellaVecchia said it is time to approve the application. It has been before the board and discussed at length. The board has seen a lot of big proposals and never has the mayor been involved like this one. That says something. He feels the density and the parking excuses are not an issue. This proposal is good for the community and any perceived harm is miniscule. R. Mora’s concern is with parking. He feels though if it does go to court then it will be remanded back to the city and will be forced to deal with it. Housing is needed in the area but feels that the project could’ve been addressed better. Motion to deny the waiver request for a reduction of 60% of the impact fees made by R. Mora, B. Soucy seconded. M. DellaVecchia disagrees and feels this is where the fee should be waived. S. Soucy agreed with M. DellaVecchia. G. Ober feels the request is reasonable. The motion passed 5-3 with A. Lovisek, R. Mora, T. Carmichael, B. Soucy, L. Joseph for; R. MacNeill, M. DellaVecchia, S. Soucy oppose. Motion to approve the application with the dates and conditions stated in the staff review as well as the addition of a 99 year income restriction and a screened dumpster be put on the site made by R. Mora, L. Joseph seconded. C. St Clair noted that the application has had a lot to work and conversation and thanked everyone for the patience. The motion passed 7-1 with A. Lovisek oppose. On a motion by R. Mora, A. Lovisek seconding, the board took a 5 minute recess at 7:35 PM. All voted in favor. 6.II. Rules and Procedures review of 2023 draft K. Menici noted that it really isn’t a public hearing yet but just a draft and wanted to get board input. She explained what was updated to reflect current times. It was suggested that any revisions be emailed to K. Menici rather than going over the document again. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS, POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION AND VOTE Note: The purpose of this agenda section is 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. If the application is accepted as complete, the Planning Board may have a presentation from the applicant and open a public hearing for public to provide input. The board may also deliberate the application, decide and conduct a final vote at this time 7.I. PL2021-0099SP, 0100SU, 0101CUP, 0102CUP, 0103CUP, 0104CUP; MBL 164-72-1 Endicott St East; The Gardens at Weirs is requesting an extension for the completion of the project Applicant: Jason Hill from TF Moran addressed the board. He stated the project started late on construction but have been moving forward since starting last year. They have certificate of occupancy for a number of units already. He noted that the request is for 2028. S. Soucy has concern with possible changes to the wetlands and would rather not extend more than a few years. R. Mora would rather see the project done and noted that if they finish earlier than anticipated all the better. The public hearing opened at 6:42 PM Annmarie Sammarco of 155 Endicott St East addressed the board. Her concern is with the headlights shining into her house from the driveway that was supposed to only be for emergency vehicles. She also stated the water dept ripped up the sidewalk to install the water lines and have not redone it yet and her lawn has been torn up in the process. She had called the town but nothing has been done and is frustrated. B. Soucy will follow up on why the water dept has not fixed the sidewalk yet and took contact information from the abutter. The public hearing closed at 6:45 PM Staff Review: Planning Director K. Menici noted the RSA states the minimum of 5 years but the could can approve a longer time frame. J. Hill noted that there is a surety amount but will pass the concerns to the property owner. He remembers that during the site plan review the second entrance was only going to be for construction  Staff Review: Planning Director K. Menici noted the RSA states the minimum of 5 years but the could can approve a longer time frame. J. Hill noted that there is a surety amount but will pass the concerns to the property owner. He remembers that during the site plan review the second entrance was only going to be for construction vehicles then a gate would be installed and only used for emergency vehicles. There was suggestions on how to mitigate the headlight issue. One suggestion was to make the second access one way into the property. J. Hill will bring the ideas to the owner on a solution. He also mentioned the applicant has put a lot of time and money into the project and feels the request is a reasonable amount of time calculating the construction and time frame. Motion to add a condition to the approval that the applicant fix the sidewalk, torn up lawn and headlight issue with the abutter made by B. Soucy, R. Mora seconded. All voted in favor. Motion to approve the extension request to September 5, 2028 made by R. Mora, B. Soucy seconded. M. DellaVecchia would rather see the extension only until 2026. The motion passed 6-2 with A. Lovisek, R. Mora, T. Carmichael, R. MacNeill, B. Soucy, S. Soucy for; M. DellaVecchia, L. Joseph oppose. 7.II. PL2014-0158CUP amd2; 205 Wentworth Cove Rd lot 8; request to extend the approved deadline for completion of the project according to the notice of decision. Applicant: Jessica Christopher addressed the board. She has a purchase and sales agreement with the property. The house has been designed but she has had to push the builder out due to conflicts with the purchase and sales agreement. The public hearing opened at 7:10 PM and closed at 87:10.30 PM Motion to approve the extension request for completion to November 2024 made by L. Joseph, R. Mora seconded. All voted in favor. 7.III. PL2023-0084SU; 15 Brittany Ln; Proposal to waive the sidewalk construction on an approved 4 lot subdivision Applicant: Ray Spinosa, Bill Ratcliff, Paul Gillis were present and addressed the board. The request is to relook at the waiver request for sidewalks. R. Spinosa showed photos and explained the situation with the stormwater drainage that was just redone, the lack of other sidewalk in the area and the large trees that would need to be removed. Since the Public Works Director was in the audience the board referred to Wes Anderson for input. He would not be in support of a sidewalk there and gave a brief background on the drainage project. Staff supports the request. The in leu of sidewalk funds were discussed. Motion to approve the waiver for sidewalks made by L. Joseph, S. Soucy seconded. M. DellaVecchia agreed but noted the city could use the funds. The motion passed 6-1 with R. Mora oppose; M. DellaVecchia abstain. 8. PRESENTATIONS 9. NEW BUSINESS 10. OLD BUSINESS 10.I. Question and answers regarding sidewalks with Director of Public Works DPW Director W. Anderson handed out the recommendation slide from the PowerPoint from the previous presentation. The question of the overall sidewalk plan for the city and the response was there isn’t one. A. Lovisek asked how difficult it would be to have a plan. W. Anderson noted that a consultant would be needed. There would need to be enough support from the Planning Board to put the time and effort into it because it would need to be tied to the master plan as a subcomponent. He explained what he’d like to see as a process for sidewalks. He used Endicott Streets as examples.  DPW Director W. Anderson handed out the recommendation slide from the PowerPoint from the previous presentation. The question of the overall sidewalk plan for the city and the response was there isn’t one. A. Lovisek asked how difficult it would be to have a plan. W. Anderson noted that a consultant would be needed. There would need to be enough support from the Planning Board to put the time and effort into it because it would need to be tied to the master plan as a subcomponent. He explained what he’d like to see as a process for sidewalks. He used Endicott Streets as examples. R. Mora asked if there are any funds for the Master Plan development and K. Menici said that the budget is in process now and couldn’t answer that. R. Mora feels that a comprehensive plan for sidewalks and bike paths in the city are needed or wanted in the city. G. Ober agreed and used Europe as an example. W. Anderson stressed that in heavily urbanized areas you may not want sidewalks because you can’t park on it. And unless it can be enforced, don’t put sidewalks in. There is grant money but unless there is a match and willing to pay it’s not worth applying for. He added that in some urban areas, sidewalks are being removed but people have been parking on them so much and been told they would rather have the parling than the sidewalk. W. Anderson will work on a list of where DPW would prefer sidewalks and where they would not. 11. CORRESPONDENCE 11.I. Correspondence from Sundown re: 224 Endicott Street East development R. Mora asked if the Planning Board is the correct place for compliance and Planning Director K. Menici noted that this type of hearing should be at Council level. With that said the board heard the reason for the request. Mark Granoff president of Sundown Condos, abutters to the three units on 224 Endicott St East spoke. He was following up on correspondence and results of the final review from the third party engineering. He has not heard any resolution yet. Planning Director K. Menici said the third party review approved the drainage and the final inspection was received. M. Granoff said they are working on fixing the foundations that had been damaged and looking to see where they stood. 12. PLANNING DEPT REPORT 13. LIAISON REPORTS G. Ober mentioned that she would take one of the conservation meetings a month as liaison. 14. OTHER BUSINESS It was suggested that the performance zoning ordinance be looked at and revised. 15. ADJOURNMENT With no objection, the meeting adjourned at 8:33 PM Respectfully, K. Graham