Planning Board tables Endicott Street site plan amendment after contested stormwater hearing

The Laconia Planning Board on Jan. 6 closed a public hearing and voted to table action on an amendment to the previously approved site plan for 604 Endicott Street North after contentious debate over stormwater mitigation and procedural scope.

The amendment before the board would enlarge the development’s detention pond, route roof gutters into the pond and increase landscaped green space. Applicant representatives said the change was required by a mediated settlement tied to earlier litigation and that test pits dug in July 2024 support a deeper, enlarged detention area and updated hydrologic calculations submitted Jan. 13, 2025. Engineer Mario Focoretto said the revised plan increases storage from about 3,600 cubic feet to roughly 6,100 cubic feet and replaces a buried point‑discharge pipe with a riprap weir to spread out flow and reduce erosion.

Pine Hollow Campground’s attorney, Michael Tierney, told the board his client submitted written comments and argued the plan as presented does not comply with Laconia’s site plan review regulations. “You’re being asked to approve a site plan, and so you need to make sure that everything on that plan complies with the Laconia site plan review regulations,” Tierney said, urging the board to require a complete plan showing parking counts, marked boundaries and a lighting analysis. He also urged the board to treat existing grass shown on the plan as grass rather than gravel when calculating pre‑construction runoff, saying the applicant’s approach exaggerates pre‑condition runoff and understates any post‑construction increase.

Pine Hollow owner Bob Heavey testified the applicant never provided a 100‑year storm analysis despite requests and said overflow during such an event would reach campground property. “We’ve asked for [the 100‑year storm] every time we’ve had an opportunity. And they’ve refused to include it,” Heavey said.

Applicant engineers countered that their pre/post calculations show the development will not increase flows to downstream properties and that the amended pond is “oversized” compared with requirements and consistent with the settlement agreement. They also described the pond as a depression cut into the hill rather than an elevated dam and explained that moving the outlet south and installing a weir were measures intended to reduce erosive point discharge.

Board members repeatedly said they could not comfortably decide the scope of review without seeing the Superior and Supreme Court filings referenced by both sides and asked staff to provide the court decisions and to invite the city attorney to the next meeting for legal guidance. Planning staff agreed to post the relevant filings and recommended tabling the application until counsel clarifies whether the board must re‑examine items beyond stormwater. Rich McNeal moved to table the matter to the next meeting; Jake Roy seconded and the motion passed with seven votes in favor.

The board did not vote on the merits of the amended stormwater plan; it closed the public hearing at 7:36 p.m. and directed staff to assemble the court rulings and city counsel’s advice for the next session.

What’s next: The board requested copies of the Belknap Superior Court and Supreme Court documents cited during testimony and asked staff to invite the city attorney to explain the board’s scope of action. The application will return to the planning board after staff posts the documents and legal guidance is available.