Laconia Planning Board tables 14-unit White Oaks condominium after neighbor height, density concerns

The Laconia Planning Board on a preliminary vote agreed to table consideration of an application for a 14-unit condominium and performance‑zoning conditional use permit for property on White Oaks Road, giving neighbors and the applicant another month to address concerns about height, density, stormwater and emergency access.

The application, filed by Marquise Contracting Group and presented by engineer Justin Daniel of Granite Engineering, would subdivide Tax Map 163, Block 241, Lot 13 (about 1.7 acres) in the Commercial Resort district and build two three‑unit and two four‑unit buildings for a total of 14 condominium units, with 31 parking spaces provided by 17 garage spaces, 17 driveway spaces and 3 guest spaces. The plan shows underground power, a bioretention stormwater pond and three buried 1,000‑gallon propane tanks to serve the buildings.

Board members and abutters urged more time to review engineering reports and asked for clearer answers on several items. Ronald Stafford, who identified himself as an owner of the White Oaks RV Park that abuts the site, told the board he believes the project “seeks to overbuild a constrained site” and that the application violates the Commercial Resort zoning limits for density and height. Stafford told the board the underlying CR zoning allows “roughly 10 units on this property” based on a 6‑unit‑per‑acre standard and said the proposed buildings exceed the district’s 35‑foot height limit.

Planning Director Amy Lovisic and staff member Rob Mora presented recommended conditions of approval the board could impose if it chose to approve the application, including preconstruction requirements (plan revisions, condominium documents and recorded Mylar), water‑ and fire‑specification reviews, sprinkler and hydrant requirements, private solid‑waste service, payment of impact fees ($1,831.48 per new dwelling unit as listed in the staff report) and as‑built submissions. Mora said the application had been reviewed by the Technical Review Committee twice; the TRC reviewed an updated application at its Sept. 26 meeting and those comments were incorporated into the recommended conditions.

Board members pressed applicants on snow storage, propane‑tank setbacks and the turning geometry shown on the plan. Jeff Merritt, an engineer with Granite Engineering, said the applicant had located snow storage at the end of the driveway and planned private removal in severe winters. He also said the units that face the campground to the rear are “tucked into the grade” and that ridge heights measured relative to the top of the existing retaining wall are “just under 29 feet” on the downhill side of the buildings.

Board members expressed repeated concern about the combination of the site’s small size, the requested departures from the base zoning (height and density) and tight internal circulation. Several board members asked for more time for the abutter to review the applicant’s 126‑page stormwater report. One member said: “I feel for the neighbors. I feel that that’s exceedingly high and it’s exceedingly tight in there.” Another said the board has substantial discretion on conditional use permits and could require the applicant to reduce density or height as a condition of approval.

After discussion, a motion to table the application until the board’s next meeting carried; the chair closed the public hearing before the motion. The applicant will return next month with revisions and answers to the board’s requests.

The planning department’s written recommended conditions — which would apply if the board approves the project — require recorded condominium documents, assigned 9‑1‑1 addresses, submission of all needed municipal, state and federal permits prior to Mylar signing, water‑department inspections, fire‑department sign‑off on access and turnarounds, fire‑sprinkler installation to current New Hampshire fire code, private trash service, payment of impact fees and completion of required plan revisions at least two weeks before site work begins. The staff report also put a project completion deadline of Oct. 7, 2030, after which the approval would lapse unless extended by the planning department.

What’s next: The board voted to table the matter to the next regular meeting to allow further review and revisions. The applicant requested and the board agreed to additional time to respond to the abutter’s stormwater review and other technical questions.

Quotes in this article come from the public record of the planning board meeting and are attributed to the speakers who made them in the transcript.