Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Zoning board rules Endicott Street parking appeal untimely, denies challenge
Summary
The Laconia Zoning Board denied an appeal by Pine Hollow Campground challenging the planning board’s site‑plan approval at 604 North Endicott Street, finding the parking issue was not timely raised after prior planning‑board action and appeals. Attorneys for both sides disputed whether off‑street parking rules applied to the entire property.
The Laconia Zoning Board of Adjustment on April 20 denied an administrative appeal from Pine Hollow Campground challenging the planning board’s handling of parking at 604 North Endicott Street, finding the challenge untimely and outside the board’s jurisdiction.
Attorney Tierney, representing Pine Hollow Campground, told the board it must “determine the meaning of the zoning ordinance” and read section 23545 aloud, including that “off‑street parking spaces shall be provided for the entire higher use consistent with the parking requirements established by this article.” Tierney argued that a proposed new building would be placed on a pre‑existing parking area, reducing existing spaces and triggering a full site parking calculation.
City counsel Laura Spectre Morgan countered that the board first must decide whether it has jurisdiction. “I contend that you do not,” she told members, citing a 2023 planning‑board decision and subsequent appellate and mediation activity that, she said, limited the 2026 planning‑board review to storm‑water issues and placed parking beyond the scope of a new appeal.
Owner Bob Heavey, an abutter, told the board he had repeatedly raised parking concerns at prior proceedings and said the on‑site signs and longstanding practice indicated parking that should not be counted toward the applicant’s requirements. “They’re trying to make this look like it’s okay and they’re breaking the law doing it,” Heavey said.
Board members pressed both sides on whether the matter had been decided in 2023 and whether the issue had been properly appealed within the administrative timetable. Several members said record evidence and the prior superior‑court and Supreme Court filings weighed against reopening the parking question at this stage.
After discussion the board voted to deny the appeal on timeliness/jurisdiction grounds. The board did not record a roll‑call tally in the public transcript for that specific motion; the hearing record notes the motion passed and the board moved on to the next agenda item.
What happens next: The denial leaves the planning board’s site‑plan approval in place. Parties who believe the board erred retain any statutory rights of appeal under state law, subject to local and state deadlines.
