City council knows when to hold ’em

LACONIA — Councilors tabled for a second time a proposed zoning amendment around the development of casinos in the city, uncertain how the interpretations of the zoning and planning boards — especially concerning the approval of special exceptions — could affect such projects as well as the city’s goals, at their meeting Monday night.

The proposed amendment adds regulations for games of chance, including definitions and performance standards, and would also add casinos to the city’s list of permitted uses. As currently written, the amendment includes standards a casino developer would have to satisfy, like regulations related to the environmental impacts of noise and traffic.

It also includes provisions preventing casinos from being located near places of worship, schools, day care and health care facilities, and establishes parking requirements — one onsite space for every 90 square feet of floor area. The city’s table of permitted uses would be updated to permit casino development only in the commercial resort district. This would require a conditional use permit through an application to the city’s Planning Board before operation.

“One of the questions that came up last time publicly was, ‘Can the planning board approve this contingent upon it coming back to the council for their approval?’” City Manager Kirk Beattie said Monday night. “They cannot. Planning Board has final say by RSA, as with anything — that’s their statutory agreement — this gives you the opportunity, timing, now, to be able to make some of those adjustments and changes.”

RSA refers to revised statutes annotated, which are the codes indicating state law.

Approving amendments to the zoning ordinance ultimately requires council approval, but some of the finer details of any development do not. 

The question of the zoning ordinance amendment has been ongoing. The planning board unanimously approved the proposed zoning ordinance amendment following a public hearing on Jan. 7. It was immediately referred to the city council for their review and approval. The council tabled it at their meeting Jan. 27, until May, to give seasonal residents a chance to have a say. 

Ward 1 Councilor Bruce Cheney asked Planning Director Rob Mora, a non-voting member of the planning board, on May 27 whether a stipulation could be added that any planning board approval on a casino would return to council. Mora asked Beattie to table the decision again to give the city’s legal counsel a chance to consider the stipulation and review language.

“They’ve made changes that haven’t come back to us,” Cheney said in asking if zoning board of adjustment decisions on casinos would also require council approval. 

“If you propose changes, it would have to go back to planning board, and planning board would make those changes, and it would have to come back to city council for final say,” said Mora on Monday night.

But Cheney pointed out that the ZBA could potentially approve zoning variances which aren't consistent with what councilors have in mind.

“Legally, I don’t think there’s any way that you can prohibit the zoning board from approving a variance,” Mora said. 

“I just have a hard time with this because, it’s not that I’m against casinos, I’m against the fact that, here we are — we’re the elected officials of the city — and we’re leaving it to the planning board, almost like they’re the decision makers,” Ward 2 Councilor Robert Soucy said. “We work for our constituents — the planning board members are not elected officials. I understand that statute controls this, I just want to make myself clear on that.”

Ward 4 Councilor Mark Haynes said he agreed with Soucy.

“There have been a lot of things that I’ve questioned but, you know, they pass it and that’s the way it is,” Haynes said. 

Ward 6 Councilor Tony Felch noted the council sets guidelines for land use boards, and appoints their members.

Councilors voted 4-1 to table the motion, with Felch the lone dissenting voice. Ward 3 Councilor Eric Hoffman was not present.

The council agreed unanimously that vehicular traffic to casinos must ingress and egress from Endicott Street East, Endicott Street North or Weirs Boulevard to minimize the impact of traffic.

Businesses in the city which already offer lottery, Keno or Bingo wouldn’t be impacted by the amendment.