Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 1048 Watson Height Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ZBA grants height variance for Watson Road condominium project after debate over ordinance intent
Summary
The board approved a variance allowing buildings up to about 52–53 feet at 1048 Watson Road for a previously approved 52‑unit condominium/townhome project, finding the site constraints support modest additional height though one member opposed based on ordinance fidelity.
Get email alerts on the 1048 Watson Height Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a variance to permit building heights up to roughly 52–53 feet at 1048 Watson Road for a 52‑unit condominium/townhome development after the applicant argued that the residential height cap of 35 feet is ill-suited to this commercial-resort parcel and that the extra height is necessary to deliver marketable unit sizes on a constrained site.
Attorney John Arnold for the applicant explained that the design team had originally proceeded under the belief a 60-foot nonresidential height allowance applied; later, during building‑permit review, the city clarified the zoning code treats the development as residential for height purposes and therefore subject to the 35-foot limit. Arnold said the project had already received prior variances for density and green-space reductions and that the final design requires taller façades because unit footprints cannot be expanded horizontally on the under-4‑acre lot.
Broker Jeremy Avery told the board that lowering the buildings to meet a 35‑foot cap would force smaller units, lower ceilings and flat roofs that would make the homes less marketable. "In order to get them lower, we're really going to have an effect on their desirability and marketability," Avery said.
Board members discussed ordinance consistency versus design quality and housing supply. After debate, the motion to approve the requested height variance passed; the board recorded three votes in favor, one opposed and one abstention. Staff reminded the applicant that building permits and any necessary plan revisions will be reviewed by city departments, and that if the board had denied the variance the applicant would need to redesign to the 35‑foot cap.

