Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Concord Zoning Board approves multiple variances, denies a fourth Raising Cane’s wall sign at April meeting

2873772 · April 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its April meeting the Concord Zoning Board approved variances for five property proposals — including lot line and frontage adjustments, smaller setbacks and additional signage area — and denied a request for a fourth wall sign for a Raising Cane’s restaurant. All contested items recorded the board’s findings under RSA 674:33.

The Concord Zoning Board at its April meeting approved variances for several property owners and applicants while denying one request for an additional wall sign at the proposed Raising Cane’s restaurant on Loudoun Road.

The board granted variances that will allow a lot-line adjustment and increased maximum lot coverage for a Granite Center LLC parcel behind the legislative parking garage; a reduced road-frontage requirement at 227 Garvin Falls Road for the McCarthy Family Trust; reduced side-yard setbacks and increased lot coverage at 64 Beacon Street for owners Alex and Rachel Woods; and expanded permitted sign area for a Raising Cane’s at 287 Loudoun Road. The board denied a separate request from the Raising Cane’s applicant for a fourth wall sign on the building. The board also denied a side-setback variance for a proposed house on West Parish Road.

Why it matters: Zoning variances change what property owners may build or keep on parcels that do not meet current zoning rules. Several approvals preserved existing uses (for example, an existing parking area and small changes to dense residential lots), while the denial for a fourth Raising Cane’s wall sign reflects the board’s stated concern about signage facing a residential neighborhood and driver confusion on Old Loudoun Road.

Granite Center LLC — lot coverage John Arnold of Warren Reno, representing the applicant Granite Center LLC, told the board the request is tied to a lot-line adjustment between two legal lots that currently operate as a unified surface parking area behind the legislative parking garage. Arnold said the change moves a dividing line about 30 feet to the south; no new paving or change in use is proposed. "We're not actually increasing the lot coverage here," Arnold said, arguing the total impervious area in the combined parcel will not change even though the coverage percentage on the Granite Center lot would increase to about 89.3 percent (the OCP district maximum is 85 percent).

The board approved the variance to permit 89.3 percent coverage on the Granite Center parcel, finding the applicant’s proposed findings of fact supported relief under RSA 674:33. The motion carried 5–0.

McCarthy Family Trust — frontage reduction Zachary Letourneau of Letourneau Land Management represented the McCarthy Family Trust and explained that a proposed subdivision of 227 Garvin Falls Road would produce one lot with about 50 feet of road frontage where 200 feet is required. Letourneau said similar properties in the immediate neighborhood already have short frontages and that the proposed lots would meet minimum lot-size requirements.

The board granted the variance to allow 50 feet of frontage at 227 Garvin Falls Road, adopting the applicant’s findings and concluding the RSA 674:33 criteria were met. The motion carried 5–0.

64 Beacon Street — side-yard setback and lot coverage Kevin Leonard of Northpointe Engineering spoke for property owners Alex and Rachel Woods. The applicants seek two variances at 64 Beacon Street in the RN (neighborhood residential) district: a side-yard setback of 2.5 feet where 10 feet is required, and a maximum lot coverage of 63.4 percent where 50 percent is allowed. Leonard said the lot is substandard and typical of the neighborhood; the proposed one-car garage would replace an existing deck and preserve two existing parking spaces.

Board members noted the dense, historic pattern of small lots and existing nonconformities in the area. The board granted both variances, adopting the applicant’s proposed findings and finding the criteria under RSA 674:33 satisfied. Both motions carried 5–0.

Raising Cane’s (Casada LLC) — signage requests (two separate votes) Counsel Christine Dieter of Hinckley Allen and Michelle Robinson, the project’s property development manager, presented two separate requests for the new Raising Cane’s at 287 Loudoun Road: (1) permission for four wall signs where three are allowed, and (2) an increase in total allowed sign area (the application requested 23 square feet of signage in the board’s terminology).

The board separated the two requests. On the number-of-signs request, board members said an additional illuminated wall sign facing Old Loudoun Road — which has no customer entrance to the Raising Cane’s site — could be confusing for drivers and would abut a residential area. Inspector Morgan (board member) moved to deny the request for a fourth wall sign; the motion was seconded and the board voted to deny that variance, 5–0.

On the sign-area request, after discussion about how building frontage and sign-area calculations apply on the site, the board approved the requested square footage (the board read a motion to permit 23 square feet as presented). The motion to grant that signage-area variance carried 5–0.

83 West Parish Road — side-yard setbacks (Parachute Properties) Kevin Cheney of Parachute Properties sought relief to reduce side-yard setbacks from 40 feet to 30 feet on both sides for a proposed house on a narrow portion of a lot at 83 West Parish Road. Neighbors spoke in opposition, citing proximity and potential view impacts. The board found there was not a demonstrated unnecessary hardship that would require the setback relief, and a motion to deny carried 5–0.

67 State Street — Christ the King Food Pantry sign Jonathan Holly of Warren Street Architects described a proposed identification sign for the new Christ the King food pantry building on State Street. The building is small and, under the zoning formula used by staff, it receives a modest sign-area allowance tied to its building frontage. The board found the requested increase to 60 square feet (where 38 square feet is the maximum allowed under current calculations) appropriate for wayfinding across the multi-use campus and approved the variance 5–0.

Votes at a glance - Case 4-1 (Granite Center LLC) — Variance to permit 89.3% lot coverage where 85% is allowed (Opportunity Corridor Performance District). Outcome: approved; vote 5–0. - Case 4-2 (McCarthy Family Trust / 227 Garvin Falls Road) — Variance to permit 50 ft frontage where 200 ft is required (RM/RO district). Outcome: approved; vote 5–0. - Case 4-3 / 4-4 (Northpointe Engineering on behalf of Alex & Rachel Woods, 64 Beacon St) — Variances: side-yard setback 2.5 ft where 10 ft required; lot coverage 63.4% where 50% max. Outcome: approved; vote 5–0. - Case 4-5 (Casada LLC / Raising Cane’s) — Variance to allow four wall signs where three are permitted. Outcome: denied; vote 5–0. - Case 4-6 (Casada LLC / Raising Cane’s) — Variance to allow the proposed sign-area allocation (applicant’s requested 23 sq ft allowance as presented). Outcome: approved; vote 5–0. - Case 4-7 (Parachute Properties / 83 West Parish Road) — Variance to allow 30 ft side yards where 40 ft required. Outcome: denied; vote 5–0. - Case 4-8 (Christ the King food pantry / 67 State Street) — Variance to permit 60 sq ft signage where 38 sq ft is the standard allowance. Outcome: approved; vote 5–0.

What the board said and next steps Board members repeatedly emphasized that the variances were judged against the statutory criteria in RSA 674:33 and the board’s findings of fact were adopted where the board concluded the ordinance’s intent would be preserved. For projects that were approved, applicants will proceed with permits and site-plan work already in process. For the denied requests the applicants may revise plans or seek further review.