Planning Board

CITY OF LACONIA PLANNING BOARD 6:30 PM City Hall - Armand A. Bolduc Council Chamber Draft Minutes 4/2/2024 - Minutes 1. CALL TO ORDER L. Joseph called the meeting to order at 6:32 PM. 2. ROLL CALL The following members were present: Amy Lovisek, Stacy Soucy, Richard MacNeill, Mark Haynes, Gail Ober, Louis Joseph, Michael DellaVecchia, and Scott McWilliam. S. McWilliam and G. Ober decided that S. McWilliam would be the voting alternate. 3. RECORDING SECRETARY Savanna Brunelle, Administrative Assistant 4. STAFF IN ATTENDANCE Rob Mora- Planning Director, Tyler Carmichael- Planning Assistant Director, Scott Pelchat- Zoning Technician, and Savanna Brunelle- Administrative Assistant 5. ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETING S. McWilliam motioned to accept minutes, seconded by M. DellaVecchia. Unanimously approved. 5.I. MARCH PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Minutes were accepted as written 6. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS, CONSIDERATION, AND POSSIBLE VOTE 6.I. PL2024-0001CS & PL2024-0002CUP; 492 Endicott Street North (141-252-1); Moose Ledge Estates The applicant has since revised the plan and resubmitted. Jeff Burd spoke with DPW and per Rob Mora there were no issues reported. Mr. Burd did reach out to the Lakes Region Conservation Trust to see if they were interested in back conservation land holding the easement. No response back from them yet. Mr. Burd mentioned he and the abutter to the north investigated having the sewer on the other side of the road. This could simplify the project. Otherwise, still need to talk about waivers and conditional use permits. S. Soucy asked who “they” is regarding interest in land. Mr. Burd confirms its Lakes Region Conservation Trust and they have expressed interest in the 10 acres. R. McWilliam ask if each unit will have two parking spaces. Mr. Burd confirms yes. Mcwilliam also questioned if there is garage parking. Yes, single car garage. G. Ober expressed that Conservation Commission had no issues with the plan. L. Jospeh opens public hearing at 6:40pm. L. Joseph closed public hearing at 6:41pm. R. MacNeill ask R. Mora if this is going to be a private street, R. Mora confirms yes it will be. The applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the right of way. L. Joseph reopened the public hearing at 6:43pm due to an abutter coming in. Mike Foote represented two different properties. Mr. Foote said that he supports the project if it does not inhibit the extra driveway he has, and they are amendable to share an apron. L. Joseph reclosed public hearing at 6:45pm. M. DellaVecchia to R. Mora is the city opposed to private settlements, no the city just wants the developer to be aware when you request a reduction and right of way it then becomes difficult to become a city street. M. DellaVecchia expressed concern that the developer in the future could want  applicant has requested a waiver to reduce the right of way. L. Joseph reopened the public hearing at 6:43pm due to an abutter coming in. Mike Foote represented two different properties. Mr. Foote said that he supports the project if it does not inhibit the extra driveway he has, and they are amendable to share an apron. L. Joseph reclosed public hearing at 6:45pm. M. DellaVecchia to R. Mora is the city opposed to private settlements, no the city just wants the developer to be aware when you request a reduction and right of way it then becomes difficult to become a city street. M. DellaVecchia expressed concern that the developer in the future could want city rights. S. McWilliam asked R. Mora if the application fit within the zoning of the Commercial Resort. Yes, it does. R. Mora highlighted that the applicant had requested three waivers. S. McWilliam asked for clarification about the waivers. R. Mora states they are requesting a waiver for the right of way, perimeter buffer and then additional waiver for the sidewalks. S. Soucy to R. Mora has there been history of subdivisions asking to be taken over by the city. Yes, there is history of subdivisions asking to become city streets. It is difficult and sometimes impossible. A. Lovisek noted that it is not a requirement to be private. R. Mora states it is the developer’s choice if they want to be private or not. M. DellaVecchia mentions that in the future they may want to be on city streets, and they will not be able to. R. MacNeill states it would be in the condominium docs and as a buyer beware. R. Mora expressed that there is a private road issue in the city and to be transparent in the approval that in the future these will not be city streets. S. McWilliam motioned to accept the waiver request that the minimum buffer requirement be 50ft to 25ft. A. Lovisek seconds, unanimous. S. McWilliam motions to accept the waiver for the reduction of the right of way from 50ft to 40ft. R. MacNeill seconds with the understanding that it will not be a city road. All in favor, none opposed. M. DellaVecchia motions to grant the sidewalk waiver as read. S. McWilliam seconds, unanimous. The finding of fact was that housing is sorely need and the conservation land was going to be donated. S. Soucy motions to approve application PL2024-0001CS & PL2024-0002CUP; 492 Endicott Street North; Moose Ledge Estates. S. McWilliam seconds, unanimous. 7. NEW PUBLIC HEARINGS, POSSIBLE CONSIDERATION, AND VOTE 7.I. PL2022-0057SP & PL2022-0058CUP; 141 Water Street (441-223-9) R. Mora mentions this is an extension of an approval to July 2027 . Ted Roy was the previous owner of Water Street Café. Mr. Roy is looking to extend the opportunity to build the apartments if his nephews decide to do something different in the future. L. Joseph opened the public hearing at 7:07pm. L. Joseph closed the public hearing at 7:08pm. S. McWilliam asked if this would be a three-year extension and asked if that is abnormally long, referring to R. Mora for an answer. R. Mora mentions that applications are safe for changes of the zoning ordinance for five years. There is no benefit to the city to not approve it. City staff support the project and the extension to July 9 th , 2027. S. Soucy asks the applicant if his nephews plan on continuing. Mr. Roy expresses that yes; it has become their family. S. McWilliam makes a motion to accept the application PL2022-0057SP & PL2022-0058CUP; 141 Water Street for an extension to July 9 th , 2027. S. Soucy seconds. All in favor. 7.II. PL2022-0025SU; Lucerne Avenue (154-545-1); Leisure Time RV Park Rusty Bertholait is asking for an extension. The reason for the extension is Mr. Bertholait is not ready to sell the condominiums and wants to give the tenants who live on the property ample time to find someplace else. L. Joseph opened the public hearing at 7:13pm. S. Soucy asked how many people were on site, Mr. Bertholait responded there are twelve units. The tenants stay there year-round. L. Joseph closed the public hearing at 7:14pm. R. Mora explains the staff review and suggests the board extend it out to the five-year mark. The city has no issues with the project. R. MacNeill notices a misspelling under documents. S. Soucy there is an ordinance that states one year for extensions. R. Mora refers to the RSA and matches it to the state stature. R. Mora also mentions this topic would be beneficial to talk about further down the agenda. S. Soucy motions to approve PL2022-0025SU; Lucerne Ave; Leisure Time RV Park extension to April 2027. R. MacNeill seconds. Passes unanimously. 7.III. PL2024-0016SP; 546 Main Street (442-142-4) G. Ober recuses herself due to fiduciary relationship with applicants. R. Mora confirms the application is in order and complete. Jorge Dudek and wife Heather Dudek. The applicants want to change use back into retail. L. Joseph opens public hearing at 7:19pm. L. Jospeh closed public hearing at 7:20pm. S. McWilliam emphasizes it being positive to bring retail to an empty structure. R. Mora mentions the board needs two motions. 7.III. PL2024-0016SP; 546 Main Street (442-142-4) G. Ober recuses herself due to fiduciary relationship with applicants. R. Mora confirms the application is in order and complete. Jorge Dudek and wife Heather Dudek. The applicants want to change use back into retail. L. Joseph opens public hearing at 7:19pm. L. Jospeh closed public hearing at 7:20pm. S. McWilliam emphasizes it being positive to bring retail to an empty structure. R. Mora mentions the board needs two motions. S. McWilliam motions to accept application PL2024-0016SP; 546 Main Street as complete as submitted. A. Lovisek seconds, all in favor none opposed. S. Soucy asked since the applicant has recommended addition of approval does that mean they have not gone through the process. R. Mora says this is all that is left for the applicant to do. S. Soucy to the applicant if they are okay with the sign permit. The applicant responded yes; they are following necessary directions. R. Mora says need to relook at site plan regulation how that governs sizes of changes of use internally. This is regarding this applicant being sent to the Planning Board. S. Soucy asked why it was brought to the board. R. Mora explains that it was moved here because of the square footage it was affecting. It is stated in the site plan regulation that over a certain square footage it must come before the board. L. Jospeh thinks that regardless of size it should be brought to the board to see. S. McWilliam made a motion to approve application PL2024-016SP; 546 Main Street change of use from bar/entertainment and be consistent with the city’s desire to redevelop downtown and consistent with land use regulations. R. MacNeill seconds. Motion passed unanimously. 7.IV. PL2024-0017SP & PL2024-0018CUP; Union Ave (391-220-18); Taylor Community A Lovisek motions to accept application. S. McWilliam seconds. Passed unanimously. Kirk Beswick, Sarah Whearty, and Seth McClellan were in attendance. The applicant is proposing a small kitchen and two car garage on the oldest cottage on the property. Asking for a small wetland buffer waiver. They are going to impact a small buffer. Mrs. Whearty clarifies that there are no wetland impacts but the construction is going to impact the wetland buffer. With the addition and drainage improvement there is approximately 932sq feet of impact to the buffer. The applicant is proposing to be mindful of the buffer and silt fence to protect from erosion. Additionally, proposing draining improvements to collect storm water. Reducing some of the impervious area by removing the existing driveway and the existing walkway. A. Lovisek asked the applicant if they had already gone to the Conservation Commission. Mrs. Whearty confirmed they did and that it was a challenging evening due to wrong buffer measurements. R. Mora recommended they go to the Planning Board. R. Mora explained that Con Comm had difficulties at the last meeting. S. Soucy asked if the 30ft was new. R. mora confirmed no. Even though Con Comm thought it was 50ft. S. Soucy asked if they were opposed to using silt sock instead of fence. Mrs. Whearty corrected herself and assured Soucy it’s a sock not a fence. S. Soucy asked what is going to be replaced from the driveway being removed. Mr. Beswick answered that loam and grass will be planted. R. MacNeill asked if there is concern with the bump out going toward the ledge, what kind of foundation and could there be ledge. Mr. Beswick assured them they were not going to blast it and take it out mechanically. It could be possible that it is fractured ledge. S. Soucy questioned if the proposed deck was high. Mr. Beswick says that it is low, lawn height. G. Ober refers to the Conservation Commission meeting and the number of trees that needed to be cut down. The applicant was asked if they would relocate or plant saplings. G. Ober asked if they were still amendable to doing that. The applicant replied yes, the site is tight, but they will find a place. R. Mora confirms it is in the staff report. Concerns about the corner of the garage being closer to the bank line than it seems. Mrs. Whearty expresses that moving the garage would be a safety concern. She approximated that it was about 10ft. The stream is intermittent, and it does not fall into the category of the perennial stream, and it is not mapped on the USGS maps. M. DellaVecchia questions about a light post. Mrs. Whearty confirms it is on the plans just West of the proposed driveway. S. McWilliam asked about the interior and plumbing. Mrs. Whearty confirmed they have been in communication with DPW. The applicant is not changing any service to sewer or water. The site plans the board was looking at was questioned by S. Soucy, it is not a floor drain in the garage. L. Joseph opens to the public at 7:49pm. Jeanne Cox at 487 Union Ave and is an abutter to Taylor Home. Mrs. Cox speaks on the drainage that is currently flooded. She is not sure why the drainage from Taylor Home goes onto her side of the road. Mrs. Cox is worried about cutting down those trees and planting saplings as they are the only thing protecting her property. S. Soucy asked Mrs. Cox if she had been in communication with Taylor Home. She had not. Mr. Beswick gave Mrs. Cox a card and was in communication. L. Joseph closed the public hearing at 7:57pm. R. Mora explains that for the garage addition and impacts to wetland buffer the only conditions were additional plantings and the water dept had concerns about the water box. S. McWilliam sympathetic to abutters concern regarding storm water management and snow storage. The request from the board with plantings and help remediate storm water concerns. No opposition to the application. G. Ober voiced opposition from Conservation Commission that there is too much of an  Mrs. Cox is worried about cutting down those trees and planting saplings as they are the only thing protecting her property. S. Soucy asked Mrs. Cox if she had been in communication with Taylor Home. She had not. Mr. Beswick gave Mrs. Cox a card and was in communication. L. Joseph closed the public hearing at 7:57pm. R. Mora explains that for the garage addition and impacts to wetland buffer the only conditions were additional plantings and the water dept had concerns about the water box. S. McWilliam sympathetic to abutters concern regarding storm water management and snow storage. The request from the board with plantings and help remediate storm water concerns. No opposition to the application. G. Ober voiced opposition from Conservation Commission that there is too much of an encroachment. S. Soucy asked the applicant if there was a way to find out how many trees are going to be cut down. Mr. Beswick confirmed six or seven large trees. Mr. Beswick wanted to clarify that Taylor Home is sympathetic to abutters. There was a misconception of this project to the abutter that spoke up at the public hearing. This project does not affect the abutter who spoke. The water being displaced by this project goes underground into a storm system into the retention pond. R. MacNeill questions the storm drain on provided plan. Saying it should manage any runoff. M. DellaVecchia to G. Ober asking if the Conservation Commission was worried about the runoff or the wetland buffer. G. Ober clarifies Con Comm was more worried about the wetland buffer and trees being cut down. L. Joseph asked Mrs. Whearty how many feet of the encroachment is affected by the corner. Mrs. Whearty approximated about 20ft. S. McWilliam motions to approve application PL2024-0017SP& PL2024- 0018CUP for the construction of a garage, new driveway, deck/porch with the condition that new plantings be replaced. Finding of facts, the application needs current land use regulation and would result in the result of upgrade and improvement of an existing structure. L. Joseph also notes that the stream is intermittent and not a permanent stream. R. MacNeill seconded the motion. All in favor. 7.V. PL2024-0019SU, PL2024-0020CUP & PL2024-0021BLA; White Oaks Road (235-241-4); Lady of the Lakes Estates L. Joseph recuses himself from chair because his firm is involved with the project presented. M. DellaVecchia becomes chair. Mario Forcareto is present to represent. S. McWilliam makes a motion to accept application PL2024-0019, PL2024-0020CUP & PL2024-0021BLA. R. MacNeill seconds, unanimous. Mr. Forcareto is asking for a conditional use permit to impact the wetland buffer and a waiver for construction of the sidewalks. There are going to be a lot line adjustment and a lot line merger. The parcel lot will go from 42.81 acres to 79.15 acres. The site was previously approved back in 2001 for a different subdivision. The site is currently wooded with scattered wetlands throughout. The sight is sloping at about 5%. The soil on sight is not great draining soil. Mr. Forcareto proposed a 46 lot cluster subdivision with a playground, pickleball court and trails. The required amount of open space is 60% but this project is proposing 80% undeveloped/undisturbed. It is going to be designed to City specs for future use or acceptance by the city. There will be no impact to the wetland and no dredge and fill permit will be necessary. They have submitted an Alteration of Terrain permit. They have proposed storm water management devices such as a storm water wet pond, retention system, subsurface gravel wetland, and grass line treatment swale. Has been in contact with Ben Crawford at the Water Department. The original plan was to tie Gilford with the sewer, which has now changed. They have been working with DPW to split the cost of a pump station with Paugus Woods. A. Lovisek asks where Paugus woods is in relation to this project and where sewer is. Mr. Forecareto explains the closest sewer is ½ mile away due to it being a low point. The applicant has been working with the appropriate departments to get municipal utilities down White Oaks Rd. There is some ambiguity regarding the sidewalks. R. Mora touched on Water and DPW are working closely with these developers to make the best project. G. Ober notes that the Conservation Commission is impressed by this project and in support of it. S. McWilliam sees only benefits to approving this. M. DellaVecchia opens to the public at 8:35pm. Belknap County Sportsmen Association is the first to speak. They have no opposition to this project. The concern is going to be the noise of the gunfire. It is going to be buyer beware on the developer. S. Soucy asks the speaker about the playground regarding the gun range, and it is not on the same side. Steve Doody is an abutter speaking regarding the entrance of this project. Mr. Doody is concerned about the headlight wash on his house from his driveway. G. Ober explained the reason they have not adjusted the entrance and exit to do with concern from DPW on site line. Mr. Forcareto spoke about how they have investigated this. Both the board and Mr. Forcareto gave Mr. Doody different solutions to help alleviate his concern. Troy Mahomey also spoke as a butter. Mr. Mahomey has his reservations about traffic and issues on infrastructure on White Oaks Rd. Mr. Forcareto spoke regarding Mr. Doody and is willing to work with him to alleviate his concerns. S. McWilliam motions to approve PL2024-0019SU, A. Lovisek seconds. M. DellaVecchia raises concern about waiving the sidewalk. T. Carmichael points out that DPW is also in favor of waiving the sidewalks. R. MacNeill confirms they are putting sidewalks in the development. No further discussion, five in favor one opposes, the motion passes. S. McWilliam motions to include the 24 conditions that previously outlined and now number 25 to address the abutters concern, also amends motion to include the other two applications—PL2024-0020CUP & PL2024-0021BLA. Findings of fact are extending the water and sewer would be beneficial to Laconia. It also adds to the housing stock in Laconia. A.  and is willing to work with him to alleviate his concerns. S. McWilliam motions to approve PL2024-0019SU, A. Lovisek seconds. M. DellaVecchia raises concern about waiving the sidewalk. T. Carmichael points out that DPW is also in favor of waiving the sidewalks. R. MacNeill confirms they are putting sidewalks in the development. No further discussion, five in favor one opposes, the motion passes. S. McWilliam motions to include the 24 conditions that previously outlined and now number 25 to address the abutters concern, also amends motion to include the other two applications—PL2024-0020CUP & PL2024-0021BLA. Findings of fact are extending the water and sewer would be beneficial to Laconia. It also adds to the housing stock in Laconia. A. Lovisek seconded the motion, all in favor. 7.VI. PL2024-0022SP; 144 Valley Street (368-221-23) R. Mora speaks to the board asking for them to accept the application as complete but continue it for public hearing at the next planning board meeting so the applicant can attend. A. Lovisek motions to accept, S. McWilliam seconds, all in favor none opposed. A. Lovisek motions to move it to the next Planning Board meeting, S. McWilliam seconds, unanimous. 7.VII. Official Zoning Ordinance Amendment R. MacNeill motions to move agenda item 8 PRESENTATIONS first before this topic. M. DellaVecchia seconds. All in favor. L. Joseph opens to the public at 10:13pm. L. Jospeh closed public hearing at 10:14pm. G. Ober thinks six months is a brief time. R. Mora spoke to the Fire Chief and he suggested six months as well. It is not six months from the structure down this when the demo permit is submitted. A. Lovisek motions to move this amendment forward, S. McWilliam seconds, unanimous. 8. PRESENTATIONS 8.I. Paugus Place Conceptual Review Sam Foises with Meridian Land Services is speaking on behalf except for those in the audience. They went before the board last month. The comments given by the board were that there were too many parking spaces, wanting more green area, and wanting it in writing about it being a workforce rental property. The applicant is upping the density to 50 units and upping the height of the building to above the 60ft requirement. The project added a rooftop area, and the bulkhead of the elevator shaft goes above the height ordinance. The increase in height is 26ft. S. Soucy asked what the total height is now. Mr. Foises confirmed it goes to 79 ft now. L. Joseph asked why the stairs are in the front. Mr. Foises says that it is because of the parking underground. The applicant is asking for utilize performance zoning per R. Mora. They just need the board’s acknowledgement and feedback. The applicant will come back to the Planning Board once they move forward. This property is in the Urban Commercial District, which is exactly for properties like this to bring in Workforce Housing. A. Lovisek asks if they are all set with parking. Yes, they were over parked, but not as much now. They are proposing 172 parking spaces, which 30 of those are underground. Also, have a 10ft green space around the sight. This property is not a waterfront property. L. Joseph expresses concern about the street side elevation. L. Jospeh proposes to remove some parking below the building. The owner of Tbones spoke up pertaining to the parking spaces. None of the employee’s park on site and that restaurants most of the time do not have enough parking. Mr. Boucher emphasizes that employees would love to be able to park on site, making it safer. S. Soucy questioned if the new building would shadow over the restaurant making it look out of place. Mr. Boucher confirms it will not overshadow or look too large. Mr. Foises asked if it is worth moving trees around to prevent the public from seeing the building. M. DellaVecchia is concerned with the height and the number of apartments. He also commented on the local population not being able to afford to but there. It will not help the housing crisis. The owner disagrees that the cost is going to be affordable in the low 6’s. Mr. Boucher adds that the height of the building from the lake isn’t going to be as noticeable as it may seem. G. Ober notes she is in favor of and likes the concept. S. McWilliam also notes he would support this concept. S. Soucy asks if a rendering would be possible for the restaurant with the apartments in view. The new rendering would help, and it could potentially sway the public and make it, so the building does not seem as tall. No further comments. 9. PLANNING DEPT REPORT 9.I. Planning Department Monthly Report Tabled until next month. 9. PLANNING DEPT REPORT 9.I. Planning Department Monthly Report Tabled until next month. 10. LIAISON REPORTS Due to time restraint these topics we're not touched upon. 10.I. CITY COUNCIL Due to time restraint these topics we're not touched upon. 10.II. LAKES REGION PLANNING COMMISSION Due to time restraint these topics we're not touched upon. 10.III. CONSERVATION COMMISSION Due to time restraint these topics we're not touched upon. 10.IV. HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION Due to time restraint these topics we're not touched upon. 11. OTHER BUSINESS Due to time restraint these topics we're not touched upon. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:16pm