[15:00] I'm using plastic tubing, and that's what we're continuing to do down at the beach, other places where it's copper. Yeah, yeah, polyethylene, some type, yeah, plastic. That's what plastic is good. Classics my favorite metal.

[15:17] Something just slipped my mind. Thank you, sorry. I was going to go to a different question.

[15:22] Oh, I'm aware, or at least I'm told, that a lot of these streets have recently been paved over.

[15:31] Like recently.

[15:33] How do you handle recently pungos?

[15:35] Unfortunately, it seems to be something that happens every time in the utilities.

[15:38] I know, right.

[15:39] I can ask for an extension, but I do know on some of those streets, I've just learned this week that

[15:45] town has potentially some plans which would result in them digging up the same street.

[15:51] So we'll need to work with the town on it.

[15:54] A lot of these streets are pretty narrow and our trench plus services really end up impacting the whole street.

[16:02] So we would be repaying it anyway.

[16:04] So we're really going to have to work with the town on that and which order that we do these streets in.

[16:11] Okay.

[16:12] That's what I needed to know.

[16:16] How will residents and property owners be aware or how much notice will they have?

[16:22] I mean, we typically try to give them at least a month notice, send out notifications, let them know the work is happening.

[16:33] This work will be in most situations, we're digging the new main and then abandoning the old main.

[16:43] So it's like the very minimal impact of water service, so the impact's really the construction in and out of the street.

[16:49] So.

[16:50] Just

[16:55] curious.

[16:56] So in briar, you had a plastic pipe going in and ductalized.

[17:03] That's an error.

[17:04] It's all going to be ductile on briar.

[17:06] Okay.

[17:07] Yeah.

[17:09] With the choice of materials.

[17:12] The HTTP, the plastic pipe we use down at the beach, it's just because we have corrosive

[17:18] wetlands, soils down there, or just more concerns about the pipe degrading.

[17:23] And in general, we like working with the ductile iron pipe better.

[17:28] So that's what we use if we're upland.

[17:31] So at the end of Keith, you left some cast iron by the hunter.

[17:39] That's also labeled wrong.

[17:41] So that end of Keith is a fairly new development.

[17:44] So that's ductile in there.

[17:46] And that's one of the markups on the plants that changed that ductile.

[17:53] Some of the plans that we have seen recently show the water level, all of these streets

[18:00] of Ashworth are flood so often, show the water level at 2050, right, projected water

[18:09] levels, and we just show the boundaries.

[18:14] Now, the wetland permit says, what does this mean, a property-specific map showing M

[18:23] I'm HHW plus two feet, means high water.

[18:27] Mean high water plus two feet sea level, and the coastal viewer application that they can refer to for that, and that's what the links for.

[18:37] Is that supposed to be on the map?

[18:42] Seems they checked it, so it should be in the packet, right?

[18:46] Yeah.

[18:47] Yeah, M-H-H-W is mean high water,

[18:52] so it's like, it's the mean, but it's the highest it can get to be an average.

[18:58] It doesn't make any sense that I didn't see it in there anyway, I have to do two foot

[19:06] levels.

[19:08] They do have it in the back at this.

[19:11] What is that?

[19:13] Poor the end of the foot, the end of the foot, the end of the foot.

[19:16] So you

[19:25] want that on the plan, John?

[19:28] No, as long as it's a show and somewhere, okay,

[19:49] do you know where it is on the side lines?

[19:52] I don't think it's on, I don't think it's on the drawings, right?

[19:54] I don't think it's in wire, but it's just what you provided in the packets.

[19:57] So that was the requirement.

[19:59] Okay.

[20:01] Okay.

[20:02] It's in there.

[20:02] We may have an abbreviated packet.

[20:04] Yeah.

[20:05] Yeah.

[20:05] We'll be talking about flooding.

[20:06] My pile is hectic.

[20:08] Yeah.

[20:08] Yeah, it was in the file copy.

[20:11] It was all there.

[20:12] Twenty-fifty.

[20:12] And it would be, I believe there's a lot.

[20:14] Yeah.

[20:14] Two.

[20:15] So.

[20:16] Yeah.

[20:19] That's all I have.

[20:21] Any other questions on the board?

[20:24] Is anyone here from the public who would like to address this?

[20:28] Could you please go over to the podium and give us your name and address?

[20:43] Oh, including me.

[20:44] I name Stan Walczyk, live on Bragg Ave.

[20:47] I have a few questions.

[20:50] It says you're going to dig up the street and you're going to restore to existing

[20:56] conditions. Is that mean you're just gonna pave what you dig up or you're gonna

[21:02] pave the whole street? We typically work with the town to see what they

[21:08] require. In this case a lot of these streets are fairly narrow so by the time

[21:13] we're done we're torn up a lot of the street and we just repaved the whole of it.

[21:18] I'd have to double check the width on Brad to see exactly what I do there but we

[21:21] usually work with the town to see what's required. There's a town no now what

[21:26] So the requirements are, do we know?

[21:29] Well, I'm sorry, when I say town, it's the DPW, we usually work with them.

[21:34] Well, so you can't answer that question then.

[21:36] Well, I just want to check, I mean, we don't, I, yeah, I guess I can't answer that question right now.

[21:42] I mean, we definitely restore our trench, our, our trenches, but if the roads narrow enough, we just end up restoring

[21:48] whole paved width of the roadway.

[21:52] And also, is this going to be impact on a water bill?

[21:57] I mean-

[21:58] Oh, a water bill is going to increase because of this?

[22:01] Not immediately, but all the work that we do, right?

[22:05] And everything that goes into the water system ultimately someday goes into a rate case.

[22:10] But there's not one in the, you know, we don't know when the next rate case is going to be.

[22:16] I certainly don't.

[22:16] You don't know that question either, that's no.

[22:25] I think what she's trying to explain, if I can, I don't know if it's the right thing to do or not, but

[22:32] whatever construction they do goes into, it's out of the big budget, and at the end of the day they

[22:38] divvy up all those costs, every rate payer per squirt cubic foot or whatever our rate is correct.

[22:45] All right.

[22:46] Yeah.

[22:47] And they will not see an impact of an increase because they got into water line.

[22:51] Right.

[22:51] Yeah.

[22:52] No.

[22:52] Into your question.

[22:55] I just want to know if we're going to have an increase in the water bill.

[23:00] I mean, we used to get them once a year.

[23:01] Now they're every month.

[23:04] I mean, so in order to increase rates on water bill requires a rate case, right?

[23:10] And then that's a public hearing.

[23:12] and so that's a whole process, so.

[23:15] If I may, maybe a, is your question that you would specifically,

[23:22] your street, for example, be impacted,

[23:25] or are you looking at the rate at the general?

[23:28] Everybody as whole.

[23:30] Everybody, yeah, I think that's the point.

[23:33] No, I think the answer is, no, your specific street

[23:37] will not be impacted anymore than anyone else,

[23:40] But it will ultimately, as with everything else that the company would be doing, would be part of their ultimate rate that's charged to all rate payers.

[23:52] But that wouldn't happen until we went through a rate case and we don't have one planned.

[23:57] And I think what's what he needs to hear is a rate case aquarium is going to gather all their financial information.

[24:05] This is what it costs us to do this.

[24:08] The querian is guaranteed, I'm not sure what the word is,

[24:12] but they get a certain return on their investment.

[24:15] That goes to the Public Utilities Commission,

[24:17] which I believe is located and conquered.

[24:20] And they go to the Public Utilities Commission and say,

[24:23] we need a rate, we need to increase our rates

[24:25] to cover our costs.

[24:27] And it's up to the Public Utilities Commission

[24:29] to make that decision based on their input

[24:32] plus public comment.

[24:33] They may actually lower our rates.

[24:38] How about this?

[24:39] I want to go inside every house in Hampton.

[24:43] And I charge all the people to do it

[24:44] because it'll make Hampton look so much better.

[24:47] Same thing.

[24:49] The customer always pays.

[24:55] My understanding is that the reason they're replacing

[24:58] this water means is it's not some of you have water service.

[25:02] No. It's like maintenance.

[25:03] Now, you're going to replace just a main water line or you're going to replace them to the meters, I mean, to the curve some property line.

[25:15] So, we'll be in the water line.

[25:15] Right, into the property line.

[25:17] Yeah, we'll replace the main line and then the services to the property line.

[25:21] So, there'll be a new service up.

[25:22] You'll be digging up our front yards also.

[25:25] To your property line.

[25:26] To the property line.

[25:28] You'll have a valve in your front yard someplace.

[25:30] That's right.

[25:31] Is it going to go places out there?

[25:34] I hope it's a new valve.

[25:43] I really didn't get the answers I wanted.

[25:47] Again, may I...?

[25:48] I mean, I can give you my information and you can call me directly.

[25:52] And I can try to get you better, you know, get you the answers you want

[25:56] or any other questions you have, too.

[25:58] And is that going to do me any good?

[26:00] I mean, I want the public to know this, not just me.

[26:04] To know, what do you want them to know, can you?

[26:07] What is the concern?

[26:09] My concern is, you're going to dig up the middle of the street and

[26:12] you're going to, we don't know if we're just going to go and

[26:17] pay that, or pay the whole street.

[26:20] That's still up the grabs, okay?

[26:23] And now it's going to impact everybody's water bill.

[26:27] Not now, but it's going to know how much is that going to be.

[26:31] Those are my questions.

[26:33] So how much this particular project impacts the water bill is not,

[26:38] you're right, it's not something I can answer because water rate changes are not based on any one project.

[26:46] It's everything, every improvement that goes into the water system.

[26:50] So it isn't something that can be answered until a rate case is filed and

[26:55] We don't have one planned at the moment.

[26:58] Now, how about the storage lines, aren't they, right?

[27:00] Conjunctions with the water lines?

[27:02] The town.

[27:03] That's the town.

[27:04] The homes that you maintain, the sewer lines.

[27:09] Okay.

[27:11] Thank you.

[27:12] Thank you.

[27:17] Please.

[27:23] Thank you all, guys.

[27:24] We had issues.

[27:25] I'm sorry.

[27:26] My name is Pamela Ock.

[27:27] I live at eight breakouts.

[27:28] Thank you.

[27:29] This is just kind of small.

[27:32] One of the biggest issues we had when everybody did work

[27:34] on a street before.

[27:35] They put all the dirt down the marsh and they never removed it so now the water level is a lot higher on our street

[27:43] And I'm one of the low people in the street and I go on to water

[27:47] The other issue is if you guys can you avoid that putting on I mean, we're not allowed to put any

[27:54] They have on the paper in the in the wetland or in that, you know, we're not

[28:00] They have in the castle

[28:01] I just want to do the streets, they tend to put all the dirt in the marsh and then they go back and fill it back up

[28:08] They did do us three to about 15 years when they did all the pipings before

[28:13] Yeah, yes, and what happened was is they put all the dirt down the marsh and then they fill everything back in and now

[28:21] It's like you know we used to go on a cliff and now it's like it's higher

[28:26] So I was just wanting to take away

[28:28] We would not be doing any excess materials that will be taken off site.

[28:36] That was one of my concerns.

[28:38] But one more, when they tied the road, we had an engineer that came down and they went from house to house to make sure that some of us had a low.

[28:47] I'm going to slab to make sure the roads are tied properly and what happened as they came lower in front of my house, they made a mistake.

[28:55] And the engineer came down from the town and apologized to me and I said, so can you fix it?

[29:01] He goes, no, so now you have a big massive puddle in front of our houses all the time.

[29:05] It's not level.

[29:06] It's not leveled.

[29:07] So we're lower than most so when it rains, all the water puddles can maybe make sure they don't, I can add again.

[29:14] I mean, I can try, like generally speaking, we're going to try to restore things to how they are now.

[29:20] and not get into redesigning the drainage on the street.

[29:26] If I do that, it's that water is up somewhere.

[29:29] Whenever they tap, they can just make sure they do it right this time.

[29:34] Really, guys, I live in a house that,

[29:37] the second most house on the street,

[29:41] we have a slab like we told this gentleman about it,

[29:44] and it was all not our fault.

[29:47] You know the town the old town people really messed us up and we're living with it and we're dealing with it

[29:53] But if anybody makes any

[30:00] Major changes on the street. It could affect us majorly. Yeah, so we would intend to put everything back to your address. Yeah, break out. Yeah.

[30:10] Just thinking when they talk, they can just be careful not to make it at the well. You know, they try to help us. We feel in just so you know, they tried to help us, but a backfire on the engineer and said, oh, we screwed up and they came down lower on us to help us, but it actually that fired on us. Do you happen to know?

[30:29] No, if Bragg have is one of the streets in which the town will be doing some work time.

[30:35] No, I don't know.

[30:36] Not that I am aware of.

[30:38] Because perhaps I might be that if in fact they were, if you coordinated with them to reset.

[30:45] But I can check.

[30:46] Oh, we're on the list, so I didn't know.

[30:47] I can check, I can yeah, on our list, or you had another list.

[30:51] We're on you, yeah, you're on this list.

[30:53] I'm just saying the town is town's work is separate, so I don't know if they have any plans.

[30:58] But if perhaps, you know, they were going to be doing, you know, working the same timeframe,

[31:03] which you had mentioned earlier that some of the streets did have that, you know,

[31:08] perhaps there could be some coordination with the town and, you know, querian to remedy

[31:15] that particular, it doesn't sound like it would be a huge amount of work to do, you know,

[31:22] I'm not an engineer, I don't know the specifics of it, but it doesn't sound like it would

[31:27] be, you know, unreasoned.

[31:28] You just don't want to backfire on it like last time.

[31:31] And we're sitting there like, and the engineer goes,

[31:33] I am so sorry, you know, there's nothing we can do now.

[31:36] I'm like, well, yeah, they can't retire the whole street

[31:39] just because of our one house.

[31:41] That can do.

[31:42] Hopefully you'll be around when it's happening outside.

[31:45] I mean, around.

[31:47] Alive?

[31:49] Well, that is there, right?

[31:51] I know.

[31:52] Yeah, but that'd be great.

[31:54] I mean, no, we kind of get it.

[31:56] We're a site that you're going to replace pipes.

[31:58] We know there's going to be an issue just at the towering

[32:02] in the dirt thing.

[32:03] Just keep an eye on it.

[32:04] That's great.

[32:05] I can look at and talk to the town.

[32:07] It's one of those things where the water is an issue

[32:11] from one place that goes somewhere else, right, somewhere.

[32:15] So that's always a risk.

[32:17] OK.

[32:18] Could you perhaps make that note in your discussions

[32:22] that there is an issue with that particular address

[32:25] And if they're going to be working on the street for the same time if you could

[32:29] specifically coordinate with them to try to remedy that particular situation.

[32:36] One more thing, I know we're not allowed to do this, but a lot of us in Hampton, as you know,

[32:42] we know the town owns four or five feet in front of a house, but a lot of us did

[32:46] really pre-landscaping to make it look nice.

[32:50] Do I have to remove anything like the railroad ties that I have there?

[32:53] Do you guys do that?

[32:54] So there's, in the contract, they'll be required to restore everything back to how it was.

[33:01] So if it's really complicated, it's complicated and you know, hopefully they're not able

[33:07] to do that, you know, to match what you have there.

[33:10] But that's typically how the contract's written, if anything's damaged, they restore it back.

[33:15] You don't have to, yeah.

[33:17] You don't have to.

[33:18] Okay.

[33:19] So I'm just seeing like, do you do this, will it be removed from you guys, or do I have to

[33:22] remove it?

[33:23] I guess we need to have a sidebar right away and it's just easy enough to take off.

[33:29] So if I make a ribbon, take it away.

[33:31] All right, thanks guys.

[33:34] Thank you.

[33:36] Is there anyone else who would like?

[33:38] Please.

[33:40] All right, my name is Susan.

[33:42] I'm going to 12 Riverville Terrace.

[33:45] And I'm just curious about the timing of it.

[33:48] I mean, Hampton's becoming more of a year-round community.

[33:51] but is it going to be at the height of the season?

[33:54] No.

[33:55] So all of the streets that are off of Ashworth,

[34:00] we would plan to do that work.

[34:04] And it would be fall, so like after the seafood festival,

[34:08] and for Memorial Day.

[34:11] So when down at the beach, that's when we try to do all work.

[34:14] Okay, also, and I know this probably is nothing to do with you,

[34:17] but will this work impact and make flooding even worse than it is?

[34:21] in our street.

[34:23] No, I mean, this should, right, the idea is we dig out, put in the water main,

[34:28] and then everything goes back to the same grade.

[34:30] So we'll still the same flooding.

[34:31] So the same, it won't improve flooding, it's not going to be any worse.

[34:35] Is my concern?

[34:36] No, but it's, I mean, it can't get any worse, let's look at that way.

[34:39] Yeah, it shouldn't make it worse.

[34:42] Okay.

[34:43] I guess that's all I have to ask.

[34:45] Thanks.

[34:52] We'll definitely, especially on these streets that are narrow, we'll have to work with you guys to make sure you can get in and out.

[35:10] Yeah, we'll have to look and see how the contractor does their work.

[35:14] We certainly, if it we were asking you to park somewhere else, we would give you a heads-up.

[35:20] But generally, we contract and need to make provisions so that folks come in and out.

[35:27] Are there any other comments or questions?

[35:33] Seeing none, back to the board. Are there any remaining

[35:36] comments or questions on the board? At this time, is there no?

[35:44] Okay. All right.

[35:48] Is there any? I'll make a motion that we approve the town wetlands

[35:55] It's permanent for 26 to 026 office and have keep up.

[35:59] Maureen Drive Johnson and Riverview Terrace.

[36:01] Bragg Avenue, Total Avenue and Braya Road.

[36:04] There is no wetlands.

[36:05] There's no wetlands commission letter.

[36:07] There is.

[36:08] Yes, there is.

[36:08] August 27th.

[36:10] August 27th.

[36:10] August 27th, 2036.

[36:13] Second.

[36:14] Allen Thager.

[36:17] Thank you.

[36:18] Good luck.

[36:18] Thank you.

[36:18] All right.

[36:19] You have a good evening.

[36:32] Consideration of minutes of August 19th, 2026.

[36:34] So moved.

[36:37] Second.

[36:38] All in favor?

[36:40] One extension.

[36:42] Two extensions.

[36:43] Two extensions?

[36:44] Yes.

[36:45] Yes.

[36:46] Sharon wasn't here.

[36:47] I was not.

[36:50] Okay.

[36:51] On to.

[36:52] It's right over in Scotland, right?

[36:54] With the flood.

[36:56] Interesting video.

[36:58] No correspondence.

[37:00] No.

[37:00] Okay.

[37:01] Okay, then would you like to come up to talk about the coastal resilience road map?

[37:09] Yes.

[37:09] All the flooding that he's going to prevent should

[37:14] stop around for a minute.

[37:16] They've got an answer on that.

[37:21] Well, they probably have firsthand knowledge of the Actio app, they do usually handle super

[37:27] moons and King Tide.

[37:30] So, I wanted to come in today and talk to you guys a little bit about some of the things that are on the coastal resilience road map, especially in consideration of the compensatory storage draft amendment that is there because this is actually something that is on our road map, it's part of the agenda for completing the road map is to, I have it right here on the website, I actually have it pulled up,

[37:58] But as we have a number of different strategies that were developed as part of this and this actually kind of falls within several of them.

[38:08] Number one is, you know, conserving areas for potential marsh migration and flood storage.

[38:14] So, you know, by, you know, creating more flood capacity through compensatory storage,

[38:19] this is something that would, you know, actually look into, you know, many of these areas that we want to conserve for future marsh migration.

[38:26] So, you know, requiring that, you know, as part of development would actually help in advance and improve a lot of the storage capacity for future flood events in the future.

[38:40] I'm actually, you know, I'm not going to scroll through this whole thing because I actually made myself a fun little slide for it.

[38:46] So number six on our roadmap, actually, I should probably hit the

[38:53] big play button, is that we want to review zoning and land use regulations and look at how best we could improve the different ordinances and regulations within the town to make our flood capacity and our ability to be more resilient much better.

[39:12] And so doing these kind of reviews and looking at, these kind of amendments is very powerful in terms of making sure that when we are allowing people to build things within the special flood hazard area, especially when it's very adjacent to areas of the wetland or in areas that would traditionally flood during high tide events or storm events that what we're doing is ensuring that we have the capacity to place that water somewhere else, if not on that property, at least somewhere else so that,

[39:41] It's not stacking, it's not creating a larger problem as we move forward.

[39:46] So, that's another really important reason, I think that this should move forward, is we're doing number six on the roadmap.

[39:55] We're looking at number one for conserving areas, and then also, this actually provides a really interesting method for a funding strategy, which we've been trying to figure out great ways to bring in the kind of capital.

[40:11] to do larger projects, whether it be infrastructure-based projects, larger flood control programs

[40:20] and drainage programs, like we had over at Meadow Pond, which we recently celebrated,

[40:26] to larger projects that would hopefully hold back the flood waters or drain neighborhood's

[40:31] quicker or elevate roads, improve stormwater and stuff like that. So there's actually mechanisms

[40:37] within this, that Jason in the draft that he sent to me had brought up things like credits

[40:42] and stuff like that. Could it actually really help bolster that kind of revenue funding?

[40:47] That might help build a piggy bank for the future for that literal late rainy day fund

[40:54] that we would want to do these larger projects. So I think that this is something really important.

[40:59] And I wanted to come in and chat with you guys and answer any questions you guys might have.

[41:04] but you know, kind of give some commentary on it.

[41:07] So, you know, that's why I really meant

[41:09] I wanted to come in and talk about the roadmap today

[41:11] is I think this is something that since you guys

[41:13] were gonna talk about it today,

[41:14] I could come in and give some input on it.

[41:19] Can you go back for a second?

[41:21] And I think we knew, know what you meet,

[41:24] what you're storing and what you need by that.

[41:27] But I don't know if people are watching.

[41:30] if they understand the concept of storing what you're storing.

[41:35] Absolutely, so I made a couple other slides that are for this, so in general what we're

[41:40] talking about is when you build in a certain area you might do fill, so this could come

[41:46] in a lot of different ways, somebody might do something called slab on grade, they might

[41:51] put down a big piece of concrete and build a house there, or they might raise the area

[41:56] that they're building, and what this means is that when water comes into that area either through a rain event or a storm surge event or a title event, that water would normally like to be at that same elevation, but because there's now something blocking it has to go somewhere else, and so that can push water further into neighborhoods that can push water over into neighboring properties, you know, and so it creates what I like to call water stacking.

[42:24] where now water has to go somewhere else.

[42:27] It's like electricity, path of least resistance.

[42:29] So when we're talking about doing storage,

[42:33] what we're saying is either on the property site

[42:36] or at a secondary location,

[42:38] there needs to be a compensatory or equal

[42:42] or greater amount of storage created.

[42:44] So a way to think about it is, you know,

[42:47] if you're digging, you know, out on the beach,

[42:50] you're out on the beach and you want to build a sand castle

[42:54] And the waves are coming in, and you don't want the waves to come into that sandcastle.

[42:58] You might dig out a hole in front of it where all that water would go in.

[43:02] This is almost kind of like that, it's saying, well, we took up the place, what we want

[43:07] to do is make sure that the sandcastle is safe, so we're going to make sure that the area

[43:11] that the water would go, that was normally at the sandcastle, would go somewhere else.

[43:16] This can happen on the location or it can happen somewhere else nearby, usually we call

[43:22] like the hydrologic reach refers to the area

[43:25] that the water is influencing.

[43:27] And because Hampton has the salt marsh

[43:30] and also some riverine stuff,

[43:32] generally what is our hydrologic reach

[43:35] is the special flood hazard area when we look at it.

[43:38] It's a little bit more nuanced than that for the town,

[43:41] but that's a really good kind of boundary line

[43:44] to kind of think about what our hydrologic reaches.

[43:47] So if we were to remove the capacity to store water

[43:50] or in one location in the special flood hazard area,

[43:52] we want to increase the capacity to score water

[43:55] in another part of that special flood hazard area.

[43:59] So what if you had a house, the existing house

[44:02] that was at grade and you're gonna raise it up 10 feet

[44:08] and underneath is designed to flow right through

[44:13] the flood waters.

[44:15] And the house might be bigger than the existing house.

[44:18] Would that require compensatory storage?

[44:22] No, not necessarily. It really kind of depends.

[44:24] So if that house was just on stilts and there was no slab below it,

[44:30] so if that property was scraped clean, and it was just the dirt,

[44:34] and let's say it was in that like six to eight foot kind of range of elevation

[44:39] where we see flooding in that area, then the ground could absorb some of that water.

[44:44] This kind of goes into things like, you know, permeable surfaces and stuff like that.

[44:49] You know, some of the marshland that might be near it if there is any.

[45:00] And so if you don't have anything under there, there would be room for some martial migration. There would be room for that water to absorb into the ground. If you lifted the home and you put a big slab of concrete there, that might actually impact the storage capacity of the soil that's there. But in general, what we're talking about in these is larger, more in place projects than a lift. You're kind of standard for wall building that the water would have to flow around.

[45:29] rather than underneath.

[45:31] For example, the casino is approved by the new building.

[45:38] New casino is going to be a much larger building than the existing.

[45:42] Yeah, that would be an example.

[45:45] Many buildings that are in the special flood hatches are kind of in this category.

[45:52] Where if what we wanted to do was build something here to a certain size and

[45:57] degree, it would take up this.

[46:00] In general, when you look at these kind of things, what you're trying to say is, you know,

[46:04] we want to minimize increased footprint into this, you know, we're already at a certain

[46:10] footprint of building area that has been completed within the special flood hazard area.

[46:16] So there's already houses that sit on slabs that are a certain size, there's already buildings

[46:20] that sit on those, there's already paved streets and sidewalks and stuff.

[46:24] But what we want to do is make sure that as we move forward into the future, if somebody says,

[46:27] well, I want to expand on this site, and it would take up area that is already part of our flood capacity storage.

[46:34] So more, more land that could absorb that water or redirect it or do something.

[46:40] Then if they were going to take that up, they would need to create an equal or greater storage capacity somewhere else.

[46:47] Or on site preferable.

[46:48] By our flood storage capacity, that would include any permeable surface on someone's property, correct?

[47:01] Where they're looking at in-larging, raising in-larging whatever.

[47:07] It would be an impermeable surface, what we're concerned about is if water can't penetrate and

[47:13] get into the ground and be absorbed and go back in the hydrological system and do that.

[47:18] Because when we talk about things like the salt martian stuff, what we're talking about

[47:22] is its ability to absorb water and also the distance between where that water starts

[47:29] and the properties we're trying to protect and the elevation slope, the grade that that

[47:34] water then has to go up.

[47:35] So the more distance we have, the more elevation we have, the more soil that can absorb this

[47:42] water and then let it drain back out to where we want it to be is the building of that capacity

[47:47] or, you know, holding on to that capacity. How will people who are considering a project

[47:57] understand what they would need to do to have adequate storage of the store more flood water?

[48:06] So that would be, if past this would be something that they would need to coordinate with the floodplain manager and they would need to talk with Jason and myself, possibly Brianna from the Conservation Commission if it involved the salt marsher wetlands and stuff like that where we would walk them through this kind of thing because one of the things we want to really consider is that when we're talking about this, if we're doing projects and the fill is going to happen.

[48:36] happen at a place that's like eight to 10 feet in elevation.

[48:39] We don't want people going out and making, you know, increasing capacity in the six to

[48:44] eight foot category because that's not compensatory, that's not the same type of storage that

[48:50] they have removed from that system.

[48:52] So we want them to go and do that at eight to 10 feet, you know, which is why usually

[48:58] preferably you want to do this on site, you know, if at all possible and why sometimes

[49:04] Sometimes you need, you know, additional mechanisms so that, you know, if that's not a possibility,

[49:09] they're, you know, incentivized to go do it somewhere else.

[49:13] That would, you know, benefit the town, the, you know, the public good in general by increasing that storage capacity for what they removed from the system.

[49:22] Can you give us a better example?

[49:24] I mean, where's the level on that?

[49:26] I see four feet as your lowest.

[49:28] Yeah, so, unfortunately, this isn't really great for looking at that, you know, if we're talking 8 feet and 10 feet.

[49:36] Yeah, so for the purposes of right now, what's called four feet sea level in this?

[49:44] Just to kind of have the discussion, that's not truly that.

[49:48] Which would be like nine, yeah, which would be like nine.

[49:51] You know, what we want to make sure is that, you know, if sea level was at that grade,

[49:57] you know, we have land, you know, all the way from the beach all the way up to,

[50:01] you know, much higher elevations outside the special flood hazard area.

[50:05] But we tend to build in the special flood hazard area in this, actually,

[50:12] I bet it can pull up, we have the special flood hazard area.

[50:18] And when we go and we look at it, which is in pain, which is in pain, and right, if it's

[50:24] colored on this map, it's part of the FEMA firm panels and in this special flood hazard

[50:29] area.

[50:29] We can see, you know, areas that have elevations of 10, elevations of 9, elevations of 8, and

[50:36] so on.

[50:36] And that's when base flooding starts.

[50:39] That's when water is on the street.

[50:41] That's, you know, and permanently, not just from a little bit of rain and stuff.

[50:44] That's when it's starting to come up.

[50:46] That's where you would notice it.

[50:47] And so, when we're talking about this, what we're saying is, you know, if somebody wants to come and, you know, develop all of Island Path, let's say, you know, some point in the future, somebody wanted to do that.

[51:00] You know, then what we want them to do is recognize that there is a point at which they're going to be impacting the flood storage that is in a, you know, a 10-foot zone.

[51:14] You know, and so, you know, we don't want them to go and create flood capacity, increased

[51:19] flood capacity only in a six to eight foot zone because they're removing a 10 foot zone.

[51:24] So if we allowed that, then all the other 10 foot zones wouldn't get the benefit from this.

[51:31] You know, we're trying to do apples to apples here in elevations instead of saying, well,

[51:38] maybe we'll let them go do six foot elevations, well that only helps people at six feet, which

[51:43] It's just still helpful, but when you get a large enough storm or something, you want

[51:48] that maximum capacity.

[51:50] So can we zoom in where we're actually going to allow any increase in size?

[51:59] Because we have our wetland setbacks, right?

[52:03] You're talking about it down mostly along the coast or the riverway.

[52:09] So the light pink areas where there's buildings that exist currently, I don't want to go to the same dilemma, but the folks who are just in here for the water, they got it.

[52:23] So like if we went and looked at light looks sorry, didn't mean to single out a specific house.

[52:29] No, that's fine.

[52:30] We'll explore the map and go back.

[52:32] Wait.

[52:33] Because I'm thinking of like someone improving their property.

[52:36] We want to help them improve it, and it's just going to create a burden as well at the

[52:42] same time if they want to improve their property versus not improving it.

[52:45] So yeah, if we look off of like, you know, some of the side streets off of brown app, you

[52:51] know.

[52:51] Yeah, that's a great spot.

[52:52] Yeah, so if we were to choose one of those houses on the 100 by 50 foot a lot, that's probably at 70% house.

[53:07] And if they just want to do, raise your house, or not increase any sealed surface from the rain falling to the earth,

[53:17] they would have to do a mitigation.

[53:19] No, if they were raising their house and they weren't increasing the footprints of what they're already at,

[53:27] they wouldn't have to do any mitigation for this.

[53:30] Okay, so if they raised their house and brought it up floodplain,

[53:35] we'll say on a still type of structure of the car under,

[53:39] but wanted to bump out their impervious like,

[53:44] like put a portrait, screen portrait has a roof on it and it was clear underneath, you

[53:52] know, because it's all raised up, would that have to do mitigation?

[53:56] No.

[53:57] Okay.

[53:59] Really that the circumstances, I'm just trying to find circumstances because people are going

[54:03] to be like, we can't have this because everybody's going to have, it's going to cost a fortune

[54:06] to do this and we're not going to be able to break our house.

[54:08] I can see a lot of opposition, but not understanding.

[54:10] Absolutely.

[54:11] Absolutely, and so really the circumstances that would trip something like this would be if somebody bought both of these lots and said, I'm going to tear down both of these houses and build a really big gigantic expensive house.

[54:22] We take up both of these lots because now the area in between them would be filled with a building that is removing the flood capacity that would be found between these two homes.

[54:33] It might impact some of what is now their backyard could become a private pool or something like that.

[54:42] Any of those things that would increase the footprint of the house or

[54:46] the property in general by these margins that would remove a sort of asset.

[54:52] So what's stick with that scenario if these are not individual lots or not right now.

[54:58] But let's say they do a lot more or they create two lots.

[55:01] But they put the house up high above flood plain elevations or so

[55:07] it flows through like we were talking about before.

[55:10] But the house is larger than what's there.

[55:12] I imagine that out the difference if you put 2,000 square foot

[55:15] new build and you're replacing 1,000 foot you'd have a net of 1,000 feet increase.

[55:22] But if it's all elevated, the old 1,000 foot house and

[55:26] the new 2,000 foot house, is there any mitigation there because it's all

[55:30] Are they getting credit for lifting their house up?

[55:34] They would get credit under different programs for lifting their house up.

[55:37] The cost resilient incentive zone would do with those kind of things.

[55:41] In general, that would really affect it because what we're still doing is allowing that flood water to move underneath that property, soak into the ground, drain back out, we're not creating more impermeable surface.

[55:56] I think there's some fine-tuning to the language that could certainly be done that would address some of these things, but in general, if you're doing all of the other right things, elevating the home, you're mitigating a lot of what would create a loss of storage in the area.

[56:17] If he came in and he just said, no, I'm not elevating, that would be a different story,

[56:22] but elevating it would most likely, under most cases, keep the storage capacity that area

[56:29] possibly even approve it because now you've taken two houses that were on slabs on the ground

[56:35] up and off, so many arguments could be made created to the capacity.

[56:39] Okay. Thank you. Now, what about if I can't, I'm putting myself in a place. I can't,

[56:47] but we're adding, let's say we add a ramp, right? That we need to get up and the ramp

[56:54] has to be 20 feet long, 5 feet wide. So we're adding, let's say a couple hundred feet.

[57:01] I've been pervose service. And I don't have any place to create capacity.

[57:08] do I do a, what do you do? Do you do a, the divert 5,000 magic thing put under the ground and the water goes in and floods out?

[57:17] Where do I buy this? Where do I buy a share and something to cover my mitigation?

[57:23] So it's interesting that you brought that up.

[57:26] So, one of the things that what, you know, when we look at this is generally people talk about, you know, credits for doing this.

[57:37] And there's something that you have to be very careful with because it's an opportunity to address this very issue.

[57:46] I have developed something or designed something to be built in an area.

[57:49] We no longer on this lot have the capacity to mitigate this issue and create more storage or do that.

[57:58] So what's develop a method where somebody can go do it somewhere else where it is compensatory.

[58:05] It meets the same grade, it meets the same grade as where we're filling, it's the same footprint area, it does this.

[58:13] some places require it to be one-to-one, if this is an avenue that were to be pursued,

[58:20] some municipalities require one-to-one, some municipalities require two-to-one.

[58:27] As kind of, well, do you really want to do this?

[58:30] This is our requirement.

[58:32] If you wish not to do it here, it has to be still within the hydrologic reach, so

[58:37] So the special flood has various, so that storage that is being mitigated for is still benefiting

[58:44] the general area.

[58:46] So you can't say, well, I'm going to go, I can't do this here on this property.

[58:52] I'm going to go do this in the Amazon rainforest that doesn't help anybody here.

[58:57] So we want it to be in the same hydrologic reach.

[59:01] There's a lot of concerns usually around doing these kinds of things and they have to be

[59:06] carefully addressed when doing it, generally what you want to do is make sure that there is

[59:12] no storage curve, you know, so to go back to this slide, we want to make sure, you know,

[59:18] if somebody applies for a credit, then, you know, if they apply for one in the eight to

[59:24] ten-foot zone, they're doing work in an eight to ten-foot zone to do this.

[59:28] Hampton has a very unique opportunity in this because we are doing a lot of work out restoring

[59:35] our wetlands and restoring our salt marsh with ditch remediation projects, which is another

[59:40] road map item. And so, you know, we're looking at increasing that capacity all the time. And there

[59:48] could be opportunities to allow for the development of credits by helping us do that, you know.

[1:00:00] Or working on other sites that would increase this capacity along that same range, out in the salt marsh, would be a great way to do that kind of thing. But it has to be carefully done so that, like I said, nobody's doing it out in the Amazon, and it meets the same specs as where the work was done. First is getting a variance. Yeah, versus getting a variance. There's some other things that might have to be considered.

[1:00:28] You know, we have the coastal resistance incentive zone, you know, is stacking a thing, can one get a competitive storage credit and, you know, coastal resistance incentive zone, you know, tax abatement for that's generally not a huge issue in these things, you know, and might actually, you know, improve a lot of situations.

[1:00:52] And it could develop a funding strategy for a lot of these things, especially if the town were to look at the work that we're doing out in our wetlands and out in our salt marsh in these areas that we are currently working on and saying, you pay into the fund to help us do that, you get the credit to develop your thing in this area because we're already working on developing this capacity.

[1:01:17] So, help us fund these types of projects, and then you can develop here in this site, and then you've got your compensatory storage credit.

[1:01:30] A couple of questions following on here.

[1:01:33] You were talking about if somebody raised a structure that the area underneath, assuming it was not a cement slab,

[1:01:42] would count for this because water could be absorbed under there.

[1:01:47] I'm assuming that would not be the case if they park there, even if it's not cement?

[1:01:55] I don't, so, in a, in a very like geological position, it wouldn't really matter because the car

[1:02:05] probably isn't there all the time and what's the footprint of a tire on the ground, you know, water can still

[1:02:11] flow under a car. Unfortunately, you just wanted to flow through, not just flow through.

[1:02:16] So it would depend on the substrate as well.

[1:02:18] Yeah, it depend on substrate. You know, in order to do this type of thing, somebody would

[1:02:22] need to bring in an engineer, look at what they were doing, look at the ordinance and say,

[1:02:28] okay, we need to create compensatory storage is the substrate here, you know, compatible

[1:02:33] with doing that. Is our planning and design compatible with doing that on site? If not,

[1:02:39] But what are our next steps?

[1:02:42] So the compensatory storage and the credits and so forth would address the issue for

[1:02:49] Hampton, but not necessarily a butters or the specific neighborhood where this,

[1:02:58] let's say that somebody's buying up two or three lots ripping down and building something larger.

[1:03:05] It would not necessarily impact or aid the surrounding neighborhood of this project.

[1:03:14] So when we, when you look at these types of programs, there's generally two paths for it.

[1:03:20] There's the, like I was saying, actually I'll go back to the slides before I click over here.

[1:03:24] There's a one-to-one strategy where you say you, in order to meet your compensatory storage requirement,

[1:03:32] you make sure that there is the same amount of storage as what you removed.

[1:03:38] So if you remove once one, you know, Olympic swimming pools worth of storage,

[1:03:43] you create another Olympic swimming pools worth of storage.

[1:03:46] Many places go to a 1.5 to 2 to 1 type of scenario where you have to create, you know,

[1:03:55] a little bit more storage than what you removed from the system.

[1:03:59] And so, keeping that in mind, if we go back to the map of the flood hazard area, say

[1:04:05] somebody did by a large number of these properties and they, you know, removed that storage

[1:04:11] capacity in that area, what we're talking about is the special flood hazard area.

[1:04:16] And so, if they could do that storage at a secondary location that was still within it, it

[1:04:23] wouldn't be necessarily an immediate effect on the people right next to them, but it would

[1:04:28] would have a large effect within this area.

[1:04:32] So water has to flow somewhere.

[1:04:34] And so while there would still be flooding

[1:04:37] for their neighbors by increasing the capacity

[1:04:40] by 1.5 or two to one in those areas,

[1:04:44] you would be actually reducing the flood,

[1:04:47] how much flooding was happening over a very large area,

[1:04:50] which would have a net benefit effect.

[1:04:52] Okay, and what does assuming it is on site,

[1:04:56] What does it look like? Is this like a retention pond and people's vacuars?

[1:05:03] In some cases, they can be retention ponds.

[1:05:05] In some cases, it can be the creation of more wetlands space.

[1:05:10] So saying we're going to leave this area for future marsh migration in there.

[1:05:15] Another really good example is a project that we've been working with,

[1:05:20] A DES on the Department of Environmental Services out in our own salt marsh doing salt marsh ditch remediation.

[1:05:29] Making sure that those ditches got filled back up so that they're just actual soil to absorb that water.

[1:05:35] And help that marsh be the biggest and the healthiest it is.

[1:05:38] That would be another example of doing it.

[1:05:41] Some in some cases people do much more heavily engineered projects where they take out below where they were going to do work

[1:05:49] and put in certain types of fill and drainage systems and stuff so that they can absorb that water.

[1:05:55] You can see a lot of fantastic options underneath large parking garages sometimes where they build cisterns down there.

[1:06:02] That hold the water until the floods go away and then they pump it out through a specified system.

[1:06:07] So there's many ways to do this.

[1:06:10] The water table pretty close down there.

[1:06:12] Yeah.

[1:06:12] Yeah, yeah, that's cool.

[1:06:14] Can you drive in Phil?

[1:06:16] So let's say I have an idea that I'm

[1:06:18] going to build my whole lot up to 10, or 11, or 12,

[1:06:25] because I don't want any water around my house.

[1:06:29] And I buy offsite mitigation.

[1:06:33] I buy the 2 to 1.

[1:06:35] I can do that.

[1:06:39] So you lifted the house.

[1:06:40] I want to fill the land in.

[1:06:42] I'm going to reclaim more soil on the bottom of the bot.

[1:06:44] So, so right into the line of building the town right up your build the tower with soil. Yeah, and I'm going to build a new structure on top of that. Yeah, can you do that? If you do offsite mitigation, there's a lot of reasons

[1:06:57] I don't think that that would be a good idea, but, you know, I, you know, if you drive sheeding around and I'd be an island, if building would give you the permits. Yeah, you like, if you, if you, if that was

[1:07:12] Because otherwise allowable under all other conditions, then doing a two to one, you would

[1:07:20] have to build essentially to that amount of fill out somewhere, would have to be removed

[1:07:26] from another location so that water could fill in through another type of method, whether

[1:07:33] the program would offer me that out, it could, yeah, it would allow you to do that.

[1:07:38] How would this compliance and permitting and so forth be managed by, is this by the building requirements, if by the Conservation Commission, where and what's the mechanics of making this happen?

[1:07:56] So, it's something that the floodplain manager and planning and zoning would have to sign off on is generally what you want to do is you want to say we are doing a project here.

[1:08:12] Building permits, all the other permitting that we go through it, conservation might need to look at it if it involves wetlands.

[1:08:21] There's a slight argument for case-by-case basis in these.

[1:08:25] In general, most homeowners and residents would not be taking advantage of this unless they're building gigantic properties.

[1:08:31] It's usually much larger buildings.

[1:08:35] If Amazon would put up warehouse in the middle of the special flood hazard area and

[1:08:40] they didn't want to do it right underneath them, they would go and

[1:08:45] they would want to look at doing these kind of projects.

[1:08:47] That's usually what you're kind of targeting, is larger development scale that's removing a lot more of this capacity by filling in the lands in between things.

[1:08:56] So in general, it would be a planning board issue, would be to come in and say, I wish to, it looked like you're going to say something like that.

[1:09:04] Yeah, I was just going to say that it would depend on the application if there was something that required site plan approval from the planning board, then certainly it would be part of that application process.

[1:09:13] If it's not, then it might not come to the board because the floodplain administrator

[1:09:18] who is the building inspector is responsible for the floodplain ordinance.

[1:09:21] There might be other factors too, like you mentioned, where there could be wetlands

[1:09:25] of all, so it could be wetland permitting where the Conservation Commission would have a role

[1:09:29] there, too.

[1:09:30] I think we're all going to have some say in this, but I think that ultimately the floodplain

[1:09:34] administrator is where it starts, and then it kind of branches off depending on what

[1:09:37] the application is.

[1:09:38] That's all I was going to say on that.

[1:09:39] Yeah, absolutely, is that exactly what I'll say.

[1:09:43] So, this is one of those things where it has the capacity

[1:09:48] for ensuring that development and building in the town is making sure that we're not increasing the problem.

[1:10:00] What we're doing is we're ensuring that at least everything is at minimum the same status quo or getting better.

[1:10:06] and whether that be directly on site, it could also be somewhere else, but within the large

[1:10:14] pink area, what we want to be doing is making sure that we have capacity to absorb flood waters

[1:10:19] and allow them to drain out and leave our people and our property alone. So this has the capacity to

[1:10:26] do that. One of the things is, like I said earlier, this is really kind of a thing that is usually

[1:10:34] targeted towards much of your developments, less so residences because either they're

[1:10:39] doing the kind of renovations to the house that are either going to lift it out and therefore

[1:10:44] actually increase flood storage capacity underneath their property by allowing the land underneath

[1:10:51] the house to absorb some of that water, especially gets a larger flow through or they're keeping

[1:10:56] the same footprint more or less. It's usually for the removal of large parts of this.

[1:11:02] So building out entire neighborhoods into removing single-family homes and turning them into condominiums,

[1:11:09] building out large buildings,

[1:11:13] Amazon warehouses or something like that.

[1:11:16] Data centers.

[1:11:17] Data centers.

[1:11:18] But the permitting and the enforcement is not 100% clear with, it's going to be different for every project.

[1:11:31] Yeah, it's kind of ambiguous.

[1:11:34] Yeah, if they're close enough to the wetland buffers and

[1:11:39] they have to do that, they're going to have to work with conservation.

[1:11:44] If they're in the middle of Hampton Beach, they're going to have to do something else.

[1:11:52] It's going to be a little bit case by case, but

[1:11:55] But I think, you know, that's how a lot of these things go is it's very hard to make a cookie cutter option that actually fits, you know, everybody's preferences for what they want to do, but it has a great net benefit that I believe, you know, is well worth some of those headaches that might come down the line.

[1:12:13] We do have some large lots that could be developed that have nothing on about parking right now that are in the pink.

[1:12:19] So

[1:12:23] the parking lot, assuming it's paved, well, even Pax Oil is considered impervious.

[1:12:29] That's right.

[1:12:32] If somebody is going in and developing this impervious, currently impervious land, they are not increasing the amount of impervious surface.

[1:12:49] Yes.

[1:12:50] Right.

[1:12:51] They may in fact be decreasing it, if they want to, I don't know, lawn or something around this structure with the supply in that case.

[1:12:59] That would require an engineering feasibility study and looking at the other factors that are in this.

[1:13:06] It's not just whether or not the ground is impervious in these cases, that is a large factor.

[1:13:15] There are many other avenues by which we talk about these kind of flood capacities issues.

[1:13:21] So, if this also happened to impact a section of the salt marsh indirectly and we knew

[1:13:28] that going into it, we might say you need to make sure that you're mitigating that through

[1:13:35] this mechanism.

[1:13:37] Really what it is, is we want to ensure that we have a mechanism that we can point out and

[1:13:41] say, you're removing something we want you to put it back to the way that it was to a certain degree or add to the capacity here.

[1:13:49] We just want to make sure that, you know, it's not constantly taking away that we're at least keeping the status quo in capacity or increasing it.

[1:13:59] But if it's impervious, like, experiment, same thing, if it's impervious, and if the new thing is impervious, what's the difference is the same thing?

[1:14:08] Well, it depends on the volume of the building, an empty parking lot has no volume, but a building put on the parking lot, takes up flood storage.

[1:14:19] How?

[1:14:20] Because it has a volume that has to flow around it.

[1:14:24] And then you're pushing water into other properties.

[1:14:27] But it's not pushing anymore off property than when it was just completely paid.

[1:14:35] because it's going to be that high-level fur of one tide and that's what we'd be arguing.

[1:14:44] I'm just trying to ferret this out.

[1:14:46] Yeah, it's okay, it's it's it's uh, the same building up to be an L.A.L.A.D.E. flow throw, right?

[1:15:00] For the analogy, it's adding people to the pool. If the pool is at two feet deep, and you keep adding people into the pool, the water level goes up, even though, yeah. But if it's the surface is completely impervious,

[1:15:18] I assume where John was coming with what you put the building on it has to go around yet. But the roof on top of the, that's why imperviousness is not the only single definition.

[1:15:30] for flood flood storage capacity.

[1:15:34] I was going to say to Ben, that in the ordinance addressed ordinance under submission

[1:15:41] requirements, there is that reporting template and instructions that has to be prepared

[1:15:46] by an engineer that would probably help, that technical guidance might help to help

[1:15:53] advise that is what I'm thinking about.

[1:15:55] Yeah, would you agree with that?

[1:15:56] Yeah, absolutely, because there's imperviousness.

[1:16:00] Yes, there's, you know, area capacity, there's connectivity, so if one of these projects broke up where water would flow into another area that it could be stored, that would be another example of needing to have compensatory storage mitigation work done.

[1:16:17] If I just blocked off where the water flows into Meadow pond, you know, then you would have more water going into other parts of Hampton.

[1:16:26] And I wouldn't like your room to get the part where it comes in, but please.

[1:16:30] A couple questions.

[1:16:33] If I live next to an NMD law, that's gratis.

[1:16:38] Somebody comes in and builds there.

[1:16:41] And they mitigate, or they help restore some dishes in the marsh.

[1:16:48] It's going to affect me as their neighbor.

[1:16:55] We average it all out, it's not going to affect everyone in the same way.

[1:17:01] Is there something in the ordinance, or would there be something in the ordinance that

[1:17:06] says,

[1:17:11] I mean, we have the ability as a planning board to deny that

[1:17:17] if it's going to adversely

[1:17:20] effect.

[1:17:20] There is no way for you to be able to do that.

[1:17:32] My understanding compensatory, the ability to use compensatory storage for, I don't

[1:17:39] want to say, a condition of approval, but for what, as something you need to do to get

[1:17:44] a project approved does not, is not carte launch over all of the regulations, is my understanding.

[1:17:50] So, you currently cannot flood somebody else's property and make something worse.

[1:17:55] So, in theory, you can do offsite mitigation with compensatory storage, but not at the expense of other regulatory requirements in the town.

[1:18:06] And that would also apply to, for example, you gave with bringing in fill, that's not something you can really do.

[1:18:12] I was just curious.

[1:18:12] Yeah, yeah.

[1:18:13] Yeah.

[1:18:13] So it might be outside of the wetland's jurisdiction like on peace street.

[1:18:19] You can't really do that in the floodplain without loss of permitting anyway, bringing

[1:18:24] in fill requires oversight through FEMA in the floodplain generally, and especially that

[1:18:29] much fill.

[1:18:30] So the only reason I'm bringing that example back up is because compensatory storage is an

[1:18:35] additional regulation and it's just because you meet that requirement doesn't mean you don't

[1:18:40] have to meet any of the other requirements.

[1:18:43] Am I correct?

[1:18:45] You are correct.

[1:18:45] Thank you very much.

[1:18:46] That's what I was looking back here.

[1:18:48] So I just wanted to make sure I didn't miss a plan.

[1:18:52] So no, that's many of these stacked together.

[1:18:56] We have other building regulations, our free board regulation, things like that.

[1:19:02] When somebody comes to build a house or a property and we say, okay, here's what you need to

[1:19:08] do, you know, just because they elevated their home doesn't mean they don't have to put

[1:19:13] in smoke detectors and stuff like that, you know, they saw it to meet all other requirements.

[1:19:19] So follow up question, the parking lot, okay, somebody takes the parking lot and builds

[1:19:27] a small house and makes the rest of the parking lot permeable, can they then sell that credit

[1:19:33] to someone building a house elsewhere?

[1:19:36] As they're offset?

[1:19:38] Yeah, I mean, it's like covering the distance.

[1:19:40] So this is one of the things that generally,

[1:19:44] when you start talking about credits,

[1:19:47] there's this, this is one that the discussions get very

[1:19:52] interesting as we'll put it, because many times,

[1:19:56] when you look at crediting systems,

[1:19:58] what you have to start considering is,

[1:20:00] are their perverse incentives to doing things, you know?

[1:20:04] And so, you know, what you generally want to do is ensure that nobody is, you know,

[1:20:10] doing something, gaming the system and doing those things.

[1:20:14] So, generally, what you want to do is ensure that they're not a fungible item, really,

[1:20:20] and that the transfer of them is well regulated by the town itself.

[1:20:26] Usually, and that's why my recommendation would be, it would have to be essentially purchased into a town owned project.

[1:20:34] So, one homeowner couldn't say, I'll build a wetland so that you can build your big deck and give me $10,000.

[1:20:43] It's, no, we're going to give the town a hampton, what the amount of money to create the compensatory storage out in the salt marsh in the ditches or a drainage system project or something like that.

[1:20:54] Okay. Thank you.

[1:20:57] Thank you, thank you.

[1:20:58] Is there a rule of thought?

[1:21:00] I'm thinking about the people who were attending the earlier part of this meeting.

[1:21:04] And other similar properties, all throughout the beach area.

[1:21:10] Is there a rule of thumb for people to understand if they may have to go through this process?

[1:21:18] Or if they're free, other than an Amazon warehouse?

[1:21:23] So, to kind of go back to how eloquently Brianna put it and everything else is somebody

[1:21:29] would start to do a project that would possibly trigger this.

[1:21:34] And in that they would be going through all of the other steps.

[1:21:38] And because this is now, you know, if this was part of that, this would just be another one

[1:21:44] of those steps.

[1:21:45] So, during their engineering study, you know, that engineer would have to, you know, look at this and say, okay, we have an ordinance for this, this means that I have to look and see does this decrease capacity in the area that we're doing it, if yes, then we need to do compensatory storage, if no precedes of the next step in our project.

[1:22:06] And decrease capacity by a percentage or just period?

[1:22:15] Generally, what you're really trying to do is not lose any capacity, though,

[1:22:21] that's in reality that's very hard to do, right?

[1:22:27] So generally, what you want to do is set a threshold for that.

[1:22:31] And there are examples nationwide of different percentages

[1:22:36] of that kind of loss that really trigger that, but, you know, and that's something that we would have to be very specific.

[1:22:44] So, if I'm understanding you correctly, any project could be susceptible or this could apply to.

[1:22:54] So, that being the case, what kind of money are you talking about to purchase credits for some, I don't know, you pick whatever size you...

[1:23:05] So, you know, these things run a large game, but, you know, once again, we would have to decide on what would qualify as, you know, what's called compensatory storage credit work.

[1:23:21] What we're doing in the town that would, you know, meet the requirements for doing that.

[1:23:27] So if we're talking about salt marsh, ditch remediation and stuff like that, we might talk about it in a cubic footage sets and say, well, what does it cost us to do 25 cubic feet of a salt marsh, that's how much money you have to pay to, if they're taking out 25 cubic feet and we want 25 cubic feet put in, what does that cost us to do?

[1:23:52] So there's some discussions that need to be thought about in creating a credit system.

[1:23:58] I think they can be very useful in stuff, but these are some of the issues that have been traditionally run into is who can buy and sell credits.

[1:24:08] I would caution against that, it creates perverse incentives in gaming the system.

[1:24:12] And then also what is the value of doing this?

[1:24:14] As many of the examples I found are essentially what is the cost of doing the fill on the site.

[1:24:21] So if you are going to fill, I just kind of blanked on a number there, but imagine filling

[1:24:31] an average size basement, something in the size of this room.

[1:24:35] What did that cost you to do?

[1:24:37] Well, then it's probably cost you the same amount to do that, that works somewhere else.

[1:24:43] So there's not a perfect one for one to that, but traditionally places, other places across the U.S. have gone.

[1:24:51] You have to account for what your fill cost was and then double it for doing that somewhere else.

[1:24:56] Unless they've gone with the 1.5 ratio or the 2.5 ratio and they could say you might need to double the cost of your fill costs.

[1:25:05] So that's part of the process usually.

[1:25:09] And we would, one of the things we would be determining is the one to one or the one point five or two on.

[1:25:17] And as I, when you were going through this earlier, I, I was understanding on site is one to one off-site or credits is the one and a half or two to one.

[1:25:30] Okay.

[1:25:33] That would be my recommendation, because generally most people are not purchasing enough land to do anything over a one-to-one site.

[1:25:41] But which, the one-and-a-half or the two?

[1:25:43] I would prefer two, please.

[1:25:45] Let's get as much stored or pass any out there as possible.

[1:25:48] It sounds like the enforcement, the permitting,

[1:25:59] and the administration of this becomes an administrative nightmare.

[1:26:07] And Jason, you would be involved in something like that.

[1:26:13] I mean, how, it sounds like it's much of this is somewhat vague,

[1:26:23] it's all the right thing to be doing,

[1:26:29] but it's not clearly defined or can it be clearly defined in an ordinance or whatever.

[1:26:37] Well, I think of it differently.

[1:26:40] I think if you're raising your house up, you can probably prove that you don't need

[1:26:44] to, without hiring an engineer, just talking to the building inspector.

[1:26:49] But on a larger project, this is going to be a simple engineer.

[1:26:54] It's going to be a simple engineer, I can do that.

[1:26:55] Like I said, typical raising of a house, that's a pretty simple manner.

[1:27:00] But on a project, a simple engineer can design a plan for you.

[1:27:04] Yeah, I think there's some things still here and this is just the first crack at the ordinance really and I think there's some

[1:27:09] Still some things to refine here. Maybe what's the threshold type of project that trips it for example

[1:27:15] We talked about I know when we talked earlier the storage credit. We talked about maybe not doing it at all

[1:27:20] Yeah, but you know, but maybe there is some value of it structured a certain way

[1:27:25] So I mean there's some things still to be to be worked out on that, you know, there's there's arguments to be made for

[1:27:32] Or a lot of the minutiae of such an amendment and things like that, there's obviously

[1:27:41] fine tuning that needs to be done so that it works best for the town of Hampton and its

[1:27:46] residents.

[1:27:47] I would heavily argue that the benefits of doing one of these outweighs some of the headache

[1:27:54] and getting that move forward because there is the one, reducing a lot of flood risk or

[1:28:00] you know, at least not making flood risk worse through development.

[1:28:04] And then also the capacity potentially to do improvement projects that we traditionally have been struggling to do

[1:28:11] unless we find specific granting and stuff like that's real possible credit systems.

[1:28:16] Though once again, those come with a cost and a benefit.

[1:28:21] And when I had talked to Jason about it before, generally I have recoil a little bit at the idea of credit systems

[1:28:29] because they are so easily gamed and stuff like that, but if we do it correctly, there are plenty of examples out there of other people doing it correctly.

[1:28:39] There's a positive benefit out of doing it, and also it allows us to recognize that you can't do everything at one site.

[1:28:48] And you might not be able to find another way to do it, but we still want this project to go forth for other beneficial reasons.

[1:28:54] So here's an avenue to still allow this to happen.

[1:28:58] Yeah, it seems to me that the administration shouldn't be hard if we do the workup front

[1:29:04] to make sure that the ordinance is specific enough that an engineer doesn't have questions

[1:29:09] about what the ordinance means.

[1:29:12] So I think what we, you know, if we do the work now here before we submit the warning, it's

[1:29:19] not going to be a administrative burden.

[1:29:20] Can it be made specific enough to fulfill that, you know, thought?

[1:29:28] Absolutely.

[1:29:28] Okay.

[1:29:30] You say, I just, as I've listened to this, you know, there seems to be a lot of what-ifs.

[1:29:36] And if an ordinance could be drawn, that's reasonably specific.

[1:29:42] You know, it takes some of that subjectivity out of it, you know.

[1:29:46] And okay, this is what you have to do.

[1:29:48] A lot of creative minds are going to find our little poles and that's when we would come back and

[1:30:00] Change our ordinance to find what we may have missed. And that's kind of exactly. Could some of this be handled in the site plan regulations? No, this should be totally under the flood plan. A lot of this depends on the ethical strength of the professional engineers that are required to put a stamp on any plans and things like that.

[1:30:30] I mean, these are engineering problems that need to be solved, and as much as many people

[1:30:39] dislike experts, if you've got a stamp, it's more than your livelihood.

[1:30:47] We have to think about what engineers can and cannot do.

[1:30:53] It's a matter of putting in, maybe, I don't know what engineering standards would have to

[1:30:57] go in here, but if you're going to tighten anything up, it would have to be along those

[1:31:01] those lines because those physics is physics.

[1:31:06] And I said this is physics.

[1:31:08] Right. Plus we also have our engineers audit that to prove out there.

[1:31:13] Correct.

[1:31:13] Yes.

[1:31:13] And we have secondary engineers in both.

[1:31:16] Right.

[1:31:17] At Gommett.

[1:31:18] What's that?

[1:31:19] As a transcript verified.

[1:31:20] Absolutely.

[1:31:21] I mean, but much like an engineer submits like a drainage report for a project or whatever,

[1:31:25] there is this template here that has a spot on it for their stamp and signature.

[1:31:30] So I mean, they were much smaller scale, but they would complete this with their expertise and certify that.

[1:31:37] So I think that too helps alleviate some of that administrative burden that was being talked about.

[1:31:42] Right, and I would suggest that I mean, I think consult with some of those engineers, as we're putting this together and say to them, you know, where are the employees?

[1:31:52] Let's close the repuls before, so we don't have to come back and redo the ordinance next year.

[1:31:58] Any money in the budget to talk to CME?

[1:32:02] I would think that a number of engineers would be interested, you know, particularly those

[1:32:07] that work within this area, you know, would be interested in having their input heard.

[1:32:13] So I don't think that that would incur any cost.

[1:32:18] And it's got more spare time.

[1:32:20] I'm sorry.

[1:32:22] Assuming a credit system, how will those who pay into this credit system know that whatever

[1:32:32] they were buying was done and how long does the town have to achieve that?

[1:32:39] So what I would generally kind of advise is, the best methodology for doing this is essentially

[1:32:49] creating a fund that this we can see did too.

[1:32:53] That way we're not specifically saying you're paying for a certain linear footage of this project over here.

[1:33:00] But instead saying, okay, we have a separate fund that has been set aside built by this credit system.

[1:33:06] And then when we need to do great matching for a project or

[1:33:11] to, we find something that we can use that money for, that improves the special flood hazard area.

[1:33:18] It reduces what increases blood capacity and reduces blood risk.

[1:33:23] That's when that money would be spent towards it through this credit system.

[1:33:27] It's a mechanism to build the kind of funding that many of the projects in the road map need that would benefit this entire zone, this special flood hazard area.

[1:33:37] So that's where that would be going into.

[1:33:39] So they would pay into that and they would get a receipt for doing that.

[1:33:43] So, and then, you know, we would be announcing we're using this money for this project.

[1:33:49] It might not be that month, it might not be that year, but, you know, next time we need to come up with, you know, money for another mental

[1:33:56] Pontite project, we would be able to, we would be able to have access to that.

[1:34:00] So they would be assessed on a specific cube, I don't know, cubic footage or whatever the assessment mechanism is, but

[1:34:11] But that does not necessarily need to translate into the same amount of storage within

[1:34:19] experience of time it is contributing to solving this entire problem for Hampton.

[1:34:26] In general, what we want is to be using that money so that we're not reducing storage over a long term.

[1:34:35] So, I would not anticipate this fund to be building up, that's one of the ease of financial finances for us to use down the line.

[1:34:45] So it would be used fairly quickly, because what we don't want to do is let it sit there for two to five years.

[1:34:52] And then, while people decrease the capacity and we build up a large fund to do projects, but it is a very much an option for creating the type of funding for these things.

[1:35:03] as long as we're spending it wisely and we're using it frequently to make sure that we're not making the problem worse ourselves.

[1:35:10] But if we don't know the budget of the project we're trying to solve,

[1:35:14] how do you know what a share would cost to buy in?

[1:35:20] If I don't, if you don't know what we're not you, but if we don't know what projects we want to achieve and it has a dollar value.

[1:35:31] So Sharon's not going to know how many dollars she has to put in to offset her hundred units of how do you set a value for the trade off if we don't know what we're doing with the money.

[1:35:44] We know what marshaly mediation costs.

[1:35:47] But he said we might not do a marshaly.

[1:35:50] So what?

[1:35:51] That's what we would call it to be based on that value.

[1:35:54] Could be.

[1:35:55] today, and then change next time?

[1:35:57] I've just said these.

[1:35:58] There are numerous, there are numerous reasons.

[1:36:00] A great, but we need to determine, for how much an individual have to pay, what the pool is of the cost that we're trying to offset.

[1:36:14] But that could change, and that's my point, so it wouldn't it be better to base it on A.

[1:36:22] the mediation type that is, I don't know, I don't know,

[1:36:28] it's a median mediation type.

[1:36:31] Well, rather than putting a specific dollar amount in the

[1:36:38] ordinance, you know, say subject to the current standards

[1:36:45] established by the town, you know, be that, you know, you

[1:36:48] or the various, whatever department would be, you know, administering and overseeing it.

[1:36:55] How do you get that random number, though?

[1:36:58] Based on existing projects.

[1:37:03] And that will change over time, you know, and that's why, if the ordinance had something

[1:37:07] to the effect of subject to a standard established by the town, that doesn't need to be in the

[1:37:16] would, and it's the town could say, okay, this year it's $100 or for it.

[1:37:21] Next year maybe it's $250 for it.

[1:37:23] That may be the amount doesn't need to be in the ordinance.

[1:37:26] We have to understand how the fund and the amount is derived.

[1:37:29] But wouldn't that be based on projects that are currently on the way or or anticipated

[1:37:35] or in budgeted?

[1:37:36] There are some projects on this list that don't have dollar values.

[1:37:40] They have $3 signs, they have a single dollar sign.

[1:37:43] So those are remediation projects.

[1:37:46] Yeah, I don't know if you need to define the number I'm just saying in accordance with whatever other document that's being prepared.

[1:37:54] Right, that's among the things that I just talked about.

[1:37:57] No, to mention, if you're creating a report calling this a fund, okay, if this is a fund, any funds taken from the fund to pay for something are going to require one or an article.

[1:38:11] And you know, it has to be probably under the

[1:38:14] Gospels of the trustees of the trust funds.

[1:38:17] Yeah.

[1:38:18] I'm going to be.

[1:38:21] That's my point.

[1:38:22] Maybe probably.

[1:38:23] That's what I say.

[1:38:24] Yeah.

[1:38:25] Yeah.

[1:38:29] Let's just say that it's at the discretion.

[1:38:31] Well, I mean, this is this is the ordinance telling people you can do this and you can do this and you can do this and you can do this if you do the following.

[1:38:38] When you start going beyond the ordinance, talking about funds and credits and things like that, that's just like boards.

[1:38:47] Not necessarily.

[1:38:48] Not necessarily.

[1:38:49] But it's not something you can't set up something like that in an ordinance.

[1:38:53] Well, you can write the ordinance so that it sets up a fund just like the ambulance fund.

[1:38:57] Yeah, it would have to be separate from the actual zoning.

[1:39:00] But we know we're buying an ambulance.

[1:39:03] Right.

[1:39:06] We don't know when it's going for the ambulance or for other types of gear, but it's the limit

[1:39:10] into that.

[1:39:11] Right.

[1:39:12] Exactly.

[1:39:13] So it's limited to the remediation projects.

[1:39:16] Right.

[1:39:16] Well, he was saying that you would be buying remitting a ditch with this example he kept using.

[1:39:20] So that's our mindset we're thinking.

[1:39:22] That's wonderful.

[1:39:23] Right.

[1:39:24] But my point is easy to put your arms around.

[1:39:26] It's not a random number.

[1:39:29] It's an estimate across various projects.

[1:39:33] We don't know which project we're going to do first or second or which one we're going to get matching funds for what to do.

[1:39:40] But it's an estimate.

[1:39:43] I'd like to understand that a little better like what the estimate is.

[1:39:47] But I think this is all an angle that we had not considered prior to this kind of action.

[1:39:50] But we're talking about remediation.

[1:39:53] But we're talking about assessing a project for an item, not how we are, assuming they're buying a credit, not how we are making up for that loss of storage, right?

[1:40:10] Right, that second part would be up to, I don't know, you or whomever it's up to to wisely use those funds to achieve the additional storage that was lost, that other project.

[1:40:25] That climate ready Hampton would look at what that money could be used for for the best remediation type projects and stuff like that.

[1:40:37] So in general, something I mentioned a little earlier, in general, what most credit programs do is they pre-decide what the value of, say, a cubic yard or a cubic foot of lost storage is worth.

[1:40:53] Some places, as I mentioned before, do this based off of the cost of how much it costs to put in that fill.

[1:40:59] So if you put in a 100 cubic feet of fill, what did that cost you to do with a building company?

[1:41:08] And they say, you need to pay that amount into some of these credit systems.

[1:41:14] Other ways to determine it through various other means.

[1:41:16] But in general, what we're trying to say is that the cost should be associated at least with the minimum types of projects that we're doing.

[1:41:26] But one project doesn't necessarily need to be the one that does the remediation.

[1:41:33] So we have, for lack of a better term, a schmory sport of projects that we do that would do this.

[1:41:39] your example of gravel for gravel costs is very different than something that's more

[1:41:47] idealistic of what we're going to do this or we're buying some land you know

[1:41:52] because you know what your cost of your gravel is. That's very different than

[1:41:56] saying ditch remediation, buying land, or some of these other things that we could

[1:42:04] I agree with it because if I'm a developer, and I have the cost, and it's not attributed

[1:42:12] to something tangible, I'd be talking to my lawyer next, if I think it's obituary.

[1:42:21] If I were a developer, if I were a developer, and I knew what the cost was, I wouldn't care

[1:42:27] how it was spent as long as I knew it was going to be spent through that purpose.

[1:42:31] Right. Are there models, existing models of this that you may want to base aspects of

[1:42:40] your proposal on that we could see and that we could perhaps use to help communicate this

[1:42:47] to the people who will be voting on it? Yeah, absolutely. I can put those together.

[1:42:53] Nationally, there are several here in New Hampshire that have done it.

[1:42:56] Key New Hampshire is one that we have looked at as part of developing this ordinance proposal.

[1:43:03] I'm very happy to put those all together for you guys and produce this is how credit systems have worked in other states, other towns, and stuff like that.

[1:43:14] And as well as some of the ratio decisions that were made because I think that that's also part of this is.

[1:43:22] You know, do you do one-to-one outside of the area or do you do two-to-one, you know, or do we want them to do 20-to-one?

[1:43:28] That would be correct.

[1:43:30] I think that would be very helpful is how they calculated the costs or the cost of the credits.

[1:43:40] You know, and, you know, if we had some, not necessarily in the ordinance itself,

[1:43:47] But some sort of a standard or maybe a method of calculating what a credit would sell for.

[1:43:59] Yeah.

[1:44:01] As I don't want to speak for everybody here, though I suspect I may be, in saying that we don't want to do anything to discourage

[1:44:11] which landowners from taking some of the right steps and raising a property or whatever,

[1:44:17] but if they are totally flummoxed by this or it becomes something that prevents a beneficial

[1:44:26] project from going forward, that's not reason to trash this, but it would be good to think

[1:44:35] about at what point this could become onerous. And from what I'm hearing, it wouldn't because

[1:44:45] it's related to the project size and so forth. But I don't want people, voters in particular.

[1:45:01] We're looking for some slush fund for the town and we have no idea how they're going to use it or how much we're going to have to pay and I can't do this project now and so forth. Which sounds kind of like what's happened here tonight.

[1:45:17] To me, all of this makes great good sense and we need to achieve that we need to be able to communicate this whole thing in a way that is easy enough for people to understand and to follow.

[1:45:34] Absolutely. I think that there's some really good opportunities for advocacy and outreach through doing this.

[1:45:40] to before this goes up for vote that makes it very clear to people exactly how this works.

[1:45:49] Once we have a good draft decided upon and we've narrowed down some of these outline questions about like ratio work and costs and

[1:46:00] stuff like that to explicitly lay out exactly how it works, what types of projects would it would not qualify for.

[1:46:07] That's something I'm very happy to do.

[1:46:09] I love doing outreach projects with everybody

[1:46:11] and it's sharing those kind of questions.

[1:46:13] And maybe a good starting point now would be that and I can,

[1:46:16] and I think we've heard a lot of good information tonight

[1:46:18] from the board here.

[1:46:20] We could take back and go back and meet

[1:46:22] and discuss what we heard and kind of refine that.

[1:46:25] Maybe there's things we would include,

[1:46:26] things we wouldn't include and come back to you

[1:46:28] with another refined draft, some more information

[1:46:32] that Ben was talking about.

[1:46:32] He was going to compile and see how the board feels

[1:46:36] is about that at that point.

[1:46:37] I think that would be sort of a question to that.

[1:46:39] Yeah.

[1:46:41] Absolutely.

[1:46:43] Excellent.

[1:46:44] Great.

[1:46:46] I'm sorry.

[1:46:47] I'm wondering all the more homework.

[1:46:49] Oh, yeah.

[1:46:50] Absolutely.

[1:46:51] No, it's complex.

[1:46:53] No, it's complex.

[1:46:54] That better or worse than you thought, my big.

[1:46:56] Oh, no.

[1:46:57] This is exactly kind of what I was hoping for.

[1:46:59] I wanted a discussion about these things

[1:47:00] because there are many different ways

[1:47:03] that we can go with this.

[1:47:04] And I just want to make sure that it's what you guys want and what the town wants.

[1:47:10] And so, you know, I'm happy to do all this.

[1:47:12] I find it very interesting.

[1:47:14] So, you know, I'm happy to do all this.

[1:47:16] We just got to make sure that's the right way to do it.

[1:47:19] So, you know, I'm glad to get all this kind of input so we can make sure that's the best

[1:47:24] draft that goes out there to provide some most positive, yeah.

[1:47:27] Well, I mean, we're currently living in a town where people are experiencing flood damage

[1:47:32] and we're operating under a default budget, so not that either of us, particularly by themselves as anything to do with us, but concerns and suspicions, I think are, you know, to address.

[1:47:47] I think there's a lot of opportunities for the kind of outreach and transparency and exactly why these are created, how they work and who would actually affect and what triggers certain conditions that, you know,

[1:48:01] So that can be done through really good outreach programs that we know that those systems

[1:48:06] can work that will usually alleviate those kind of fears.

[1:48:10] Okay.

[1:48:11] Thank you.

[1:48:12] Absolutely.

[1:48:13] Thank you guys.

[1:48:14] Appreciate it very much.

[1:48:16] Thank you.

[1:48:17] We learned something over the day.

[1:48:20] You've started it every day.

[1:48:22] Wow.

[1:48:26] We're Jack Balltrade's master.

[1:48:28] Okay.

[1:48:29] Impervious surface.

[1:48:47] So, I don't have the agenda in front of me. We're sharing with Ampera Service.

[1:48:50] Yeah, we'll start with that one.

[1:48:58] So,

[1:49:03] this is the existing... No?

[1:49:06] Yeah, you don't have this in your documents. I had done an initial version and then Briana met with the Conservation Commission.

[1:49:13] And I don't think you've printed new copies of this.

[1:49:16] I didn't print copies of this.

[1:49:17] That's fine. It's on the screen.

[1:49:18] Yeah. All right.

[1:49:18] I just want to look at the board now.

[1:49:19] Okay.

[1:49:20] Yeah.

[1:49:20] So, this is the existing language for impervious surface, and I'm proposing just a little

[1:49:28] bit of a conversation about this, the conservation commission had some thoughts about it.

[1:49:33] And the reason that it's come up is because perviousness is a spectrum.

[1:49:40] Most things are not 100% pervious, or 100% impervious.

[1:49:45] And in the town of Hampton, we currently call DEX impervious.

[1:49:52] There are some conditions here, but generally DEX are considered impervious.

[1:49:59] And patios, pervious patios, if they are constructed using pervious pavers,

[1:50:06] and engineered subsurface layers are considered pervious.

[1:50:11] A pervious patio paver, most of the materials on the market, that paver in and of itself

[1:50:20] is not a pervious material.

[1:50:22] It has some permeability, but it's very minimal.

[1:50:26] It's called a pervious system because of the joint materials that are pervious and because

[1:50:31] of the subsurface, what's constructed underneath.

[1:50:35] And so if we're looking at it from that perspective, I'm having a hard time as an individual looking at this ordinance regularly calling DEX impervious and patio's pervious.

[1:50:50] Again, it's a spectrum. Some DEX might be a lot less pervious than some patios and vice versa.

[1:50:58] But I think, functionally, they are similar enough most of the time that it doesn't make sense to separate them, and I'm seeing more and more pushback from applicants with this definition.

[1:51:11] And rightfully so, the example, I mean, the times that I've gotten pushback from applicants, they had a really good point that their deck was probably more pervious than many patios.

[1:51:22] I think just to get ahead of some questions and some of the conversation from the Conservation Commission in previous years has been that, you know, it's easier to say that there's not going to be storage under pervious patio because in order for it to be a pervious patio, it has to be constructed properly.

[1:51:40] And you can take away some of the perviousness or permeability of a deck by putting storage underneath it or putting furniture on it.

[1:51:47] And you can put furniture on patios.

[1:51:51] So some of the caveats that were much more kind of prevalent in the conversation with

[1:51:59] the Conservation Commission over the past few years is starting to make less sense to

[1:52:03] me.

[1:52:04] And I brought this back to the Conservation Commission and they have, you know, agreed that even though

[1:52:10] permeability is a spectrum, and I really want to emphasize that because I don't, just,

[1:52:14] I know you probably all understand that for anybody watching at home and hearing this conversation it's really important to know that permeability is a spectrum and we have to draw these lines somewhere that makes the most sense.

[1:52:26] So in my mind, the most sense is that decks should be considered pervious.

[1:52:34] Now, the existing language, like I said, most of the time decks are considered impervious.

[1:52:40] There are some conditions here where a deck could be considered impervious, generally that's

[1:52:46] if it is more than six feet off the ground and constructed in a certain way, that those

[1:52:52] construction conditions come from the UNH Stormwater Center so that's a standard that's been used

[1:53:00] around the country. It also mentions a distinction with the aquifer, this actually,

[1:53:07] this language didn't get updated when the update happened, but it, the groundwater protection

[1:53:11] district and the wetland conservation district have additional criteria because those are generally

[1:53:16] more sensitive zones.

[1:53:22] I'm proposing to simplify this substantially because I think it makes

[1:53:27] sense, and I like when things are simple, you're easier to interpret.

[1:53:33] So, and Jason and I also talked about taking out standards from definition, so it might

[1:53:40] make sense to actually move this somewhere else in the ordinance, but I think just the

[1:53:44] message here is what we're talking about right now.

[1:53:48] So the first option here is the most simple one.

[1:53:51] So using the same construction conditions and requiring that DEX are built to those standards

[1:53:58] and requiring that they're not covered by a roof or enclosed above or below,

[1:54:03] and that the area below remains entirely pervious, meaning it's not used as storage.

[1:54:10] That's the first example pretty straightforward.

[1:54:13] Just eliminating the conditions about the groundwater protection district and the wetland

[1:54:17] conservation district, the height off the ground, the size, just keeping it like this.

[1:54:25] The second option is a little bit more involved because, again, the groundwater protection

[1:54:34] districts and the conservation district are more sensitive.

[1:54:38] So it might make sense to put an additional condition here, recognizing, again, I'm going

[1:54:44] repeat myself that permeability is a spectrum. And so in an area where we want to be more conservative

[1:54:50] with impervious surface, we have an opportunity to do that with restrict emphasize of the deck

[1:54:57] that we would consider to be pervious. So saying anything above 160 square feet in size

[1:55:06] would be considered would be subject to 100% of that total surface being considered impervious.

[1:55:15] which is reminiscent of the original language from this, anyway.

[1:55:21] So, just pulling that back in, but in a different, in a different way.

[1:55:27] I'll stop there if there are any questions.

[1:55:30] Why couldn't the definition be the same, but assuming that these two definitions offer a broader spectrum

[1:55:43] of permeability, not say that within groundwater protection or, you know, applicable districts,

[1:55:54] you have to also achieve or you are limited to, as opposed to having two different definitions

[1:56:03] of impervious service.

[1:56:06] I think I understand what you're asking, but correct me if I'm on the wrong track here.

[1:56:11] I'm just showing you two different options for this ordinance language.

[1:56:15] There wouldn't be two different definitions.

[1:56:17] So this option is just a simple definition that doesn't introduce that additional caveat.

[1:56:22] This second option has that additional caveat for the groundwater protection district.

[1:56:27] Does it really make that, is the spectrum of permeability really that difference between three and six foot high deck?

[1:56:38] I don't have the, we don't have science to back that up, really.

[1:56:47] I'm proposing to eliminate the height requirements because I don't think it makes a lot of sense.

[1:56:53] Right. I agree.

[1:56:54] So I'm proposing to take that link, in both definitions, that language about the height requirement is not there.

[1:57:00] The only difference between this definition, the simpler one, which is just saying all, basically all decks are pervious.

[1:57:08] And this one, which is all decks are pervious, but if a deck is less than six feet off the ground and it's in the ground water protection district or the wetland conservation district.

[1:57:18] And the deck is bigger than 160 square feet.

[1:57:22] any of that overage 161, so let's say it's a 200 square foot deck, that additional 40 square feet could not be considered pervious.

[1:57:31] So basically you're only allowed to consider 160 square feet of your deck to be pervious in these zones.

[1:57:40] Again, a deck doesn't stop being pervious at 160 square feet.

[1:57:44] It's just a method to introduce some some restriction here where we want to be a little bit more conservative with the impervious surface.

[1:57:55] I don't know how much it's going to matter in most scenarios, but sometimes people on small lots want to make the most of it and they want to put a huge deck.

[1:58:04] And a deck is not as pervious as ground, vegetated ground, even crushed stone that's not being driven on.

[1:58:15] So, it's very subjective and this is, again, the approach to kind of draw a line to make some clarity.

[1:58:23] Yeah, in our conversation, in our conversations, I'm just gravitating toward option one here.

[1:58:29] Thinking that, you know, let's just make it simpler and let's test it out.

[1:58:33] On the other hand, I think there's a valid point.

[1:58:36] I mean, somebody might try to deck their whole backyard.

[1:58:38] That was kind of the one thing that, you know, I was a little bit concerned, but I still gravitate toward one, but again, I open to the board, I'm sorry, just go ahead.

[1:58:48] No.

[1:58:48] If this is a definition, the definition of a pervious doesn't change depending on what disordered.

[1:58:56] Yeah, exactly. That's why I gave that note earlier. This is currently in the definition now. There's lots of standards here.

[1:59:05] So Jason and I spoke about removing the conditions from the definition.

[1:59:10] The definition will stay the same, but this condition might get added somewhere else in the ordinance.

[1:59:15] Yeah. Okay.

[1:59:16] That makes sense to me.

[1:59:18] Where's Patios?

[1:59:20] We're going to have 160 square foot of patio and then, okay, put it.

[1:59:24] So we're not really saying that.

[1:59:27] Right, so that's where I also gravitate toward option one because I don't think it makes any sense to treat these surfaces.

[1:59:35] is differently, and currently, and it is a concern. People are probably more likely to

[1:59:40] do 100% patio than they are deck, and people have. Yeah, I've seen that happen. So it's

[1:59:47] It's not restricted and I'm not proposing that changes.

[1:59:53] Explain that in another way.

[2:00:00] The way that this proposal introduces restrictions for decks in the Wetland Conservation District and the Groundwater Protection District. Those restrictions currently not apply to patios, and I am not proposing that any restrictions are added to patios in these districts. While the concern still remains, and I would, when people come into my office, I say it's not preferable, it's not a good use of your property.

[2:00:30] property, especially if you're an aerosol marsh, I'm very vocal about that, but that's

[2:00:35] the extent of what I can say, because we don't have anything that restricts the size of

[2:00:39] a patio, and I am not proposing that to change existing language about decks.

[2:00:51] So I guess

[2:00:52] they're still not defined? Defined?

[2:00:55] Cadiosis being the same. Okay, that's what I was curious about. Because we're changing

[2:01:00] this because patios are similar, but yet when I'm changing patios to be similar to that.

[2:01:06] Correct.

[2:01:06] Okay.

[2:01:07] So that's what I do.

[2:01:08] My circle is confused.

[2:01:09] Yeah, yeah.

[2:01:10] It is confusing.

[2:01:10] And I mean, again, I'm not, I like Jason, I'm not gravitating towards the second option, but

[2:01:17] I just wanted to introduce it for the conversation about potentially developing some language to restrict

[2:01:25] in the zones that are more sensitive.

[2:01:30] I'm

[2:01:41] just thinking about the potential for challenge.

[2:01:45] Who is she the number one again?

[2:01:51] Which one is recommended by conservation?

[2:01:55] They were split. They wanted to hear what you said.

[2:01:58] It was a spirited conversation.

[2:02:03] It has been for years.

[2:02:06] They were pretty split.

[2:02:07] But they were curious about your thoughts as a board and they generally agree that Dex and patio should be considered the same when it comes to herbiasness.

[2:02:24] So

[2:02:27] that would be number one, definitely not pervious.

[2:02:32] I mean, you can have pervious papers, but I don't believe that they're solid.

[2:02:40] I mean, you put water on it. I don't think it's going to sink down in any appreciable amount of time.

[2:02:45] It's going to evaporate faster, but I've never had one in my hand.

[2:02:51] It's not the papers.

[2:02:55] Yeah, I mean, yeah, six inches across, uh, uh, uh, uh, crushed on and then it's well,

[2:02:59] but it's all in sand, right?

[2:03:01] Yeah, and then you have to maintain it.

[2:03:04] The vacuuming, yeah, the vacuuming part.

[2:03:07] How many people?

[2:03:08] So the vacuuming.

[2:03:09] So, well, let me just clarify that pervious patios actually require a lot less maintenance

[2:03:14] than pervious asphalt.

[2:03:15] Okay.

[2:03:16] So pervious patios are a little, they have a little bit more longevity in terms of their

[2:03:21] permeability because they they it you can maintain them but it doesn't change that much about them

[2:03:28] unless something happens like unless there's a storm or you know some damage or something

[2:03:34] but porous asphalt is designed to be maintained regularly because those voids get

[2:03:38] filled pretty easily and yeah quickly certainly I'm not just curaging maintenance for papers and I

[2:03:46] some O&Ms require it per the manufacturer's specifications,

[2:03:51] but they are designed to function better without it.

[2:03:56] I have seen pavers that are kind of like a grid

[2:03:59] and it's just soil underneath and stuff grows up through it.

[2:04:03] I like those.

[2:04:05] Yeah, those are, you know, a different type

[2:04:07] they function very well.

[2:04:11] It feels a lot better.

[2:04:12] Pretty or too.

[2:04:13] I think

[2:04:18] arriving at a definition and a policy that doesn't just sound good and let people

[2:04:26] do what they want to do, but actually achieves what we're trying to achieve.

[2:04:32] And if we can't achieve what we're trying to achieve realistically, I think we need

[2:04:41] to rethink what we're talking about.

[2:04:44] Personally, I like one, more than two.

[2:04:48] I was at a Conservation Commission meeting where I don't

[2:04:56] remember what they called it.

[2:04:58] I think they called it a new type of paver.

[2:05:00] And then we discovered that the new type of paver was

[2:05:03] essentially granite strips with crushed stone or something

[2:05:10] around it.

[2:05:11] And the argument was that they were at least as pervious

[2:05:16] as other pavers with less space between the pavers, okay?

[2:05:27] So I think this is a huge challenge to get a permeable surface that people walk on

[2:05:37] and have various activities that are expecting like a solid floor under them that they don't want to be what.

[2:05:47] It's hard to do this.

[2:05:49] Yeah.

[2:05:51] And I wonder if some of the things that we've come up with in the past just don't work.

[2:05:57] So is there really no longitudinal research about what actually works?

[2:06:05] No, I mean, there is in terms of like certain products.

[2:06:10] Yes, but the products stay pervious.

[2:06:12] Yes.

[2:06:13] Yeah, there is research on it.

[2:06:15] So, they're grades, or is there anything that's good?

[2:06:18] I'm not sure if they're, if like the different products are graded against each other, because it's,

[2:06:24] you can't compare a product to a product.

[2:06:27] It's so dependent upon how it's installed and the ground water table and the type of subsurface material.

[2:06:35] So, you know, like I said, generally pervious pavers are more, they have a little bit more longevity than a poorest asphalt.

[2:06:44] But that's really the extent of how you could compare two products.

[2:06:50] I mean, the only way you could really do that is to do drainage analysis on every installation

[2:06:59] of these products.

[2:07:00] That's the only way you would ever know truly.

[2:07:05] Or it's significant sample under different conditions.

[2:07:09] But for example, somebody was asking me, they installed a wooden boardwalk over sand and

[2:07:21] And they had asked, it was originally proposed to be pervious payers.

[2:07:27] And I pushed back and I said, that's not what was on your plan.

[2:07:31] It needs to be removed.

[2:07:33] And they pulled up some of the boards and we dug down and it was feet of sand.

[2:07:37] That's the most pervious thing ever.

[2:07:40] So it was, in that case, I didn't need to look at the conditions of any of the standards in the ordinances.

[2:07:49] is because the definition of pervious is a surface that allows the infiltration of water.

[2:07:53] So I could interpret that situation to be pervious.

[2:07:58] And some of the situations are that simple.

[2:08:00] And it's easy enough to say, sand is pervious, and a wooden boardwalk over sand is always

[2:08:07] going to be pervious, that's actually what made me start thinking more about decks.

[2:08:13] Yes, the one fourth of the space between eight inch boards.

[2:08:19] Nope, yeah, like no longer, no wider than eight inch boards.

[2:08:25] Sharon, did you get to your point this, what you would, I think what you said about achieving

[2:08:32] the goal here, it's an important point but I've kind of, this is actually a step back from

[2:08:38] achieving a goal and being more common sense about the use of materials that should be considered

[2:08:46] pervious or not.

[2:08:50] It's challenging but I still stand behind the conditions that we put in

[2:08:56] for pervious hardscapes and requiring people to follow manufacturer specifications and photo

[2:09:08] the contractors that do driveways know those standards and they will submit to me the paperwork

[2:09:14] that in the forms and the information ahead of time. And when people are putting in a pervious

[2:09:21] patio as part of their town wetland permit or a subdivision plan 99% of them have those specs

[2:09:28] the details on their plan. So it's becoming these materials are becoming more ubiquitous and

[2:09:34] contractors are getting more comfortable with them.

[2:09:37] It doesn't necessarily solve the long-term problem, but I do believe that the town has taken

[2:09:45] a pretty strong approach to ensuring that the installation is done correctly.

[2:09:52] And again, I stand behind that today.

[2:09:55] This amendment, I actually don't think, has to do with achieving any goal other than just

[2:10:01] making sure we're being fair to residents and applicants and using the science

[2:10:08] that we know exists and again common sense when it comes to what material

[2:10:12] infiltrates water. I would just take for us to rely on all of this and put people

[2:10:20] through the trouble and expense of installing it properly and then to have it

[2:10:26] work. Right. And, you know, that's, we've actually, in some cases, with town

[2:10:32] wetland permits said, you know, you're proposing a pervious driveway, a

[2:10:36] pervious paper driveway, a pervious patio, you're on the marsh. The water table

[2:10:40] is so high, you might see adverse effects from that. So you might want to

[2:10:45] reconsider because it's not really benefiting anything on your property. And you

[2:10:50] You might see the, you know, damage from it.

[2:10:55] So I don't think this change, changes anything for most applicants.

[2:11:03] In fact, it probably makes things easier.

[2:11:05] And I think fairer.

[2:11:07] Right.

[2:11:16] Anything else?

[2:11:17] Are we?

[2:11:19] Oh, we don't have this.

[2:11:20] Sorry.

[2:11:21] Yes, sorry.

[2:11:22] Some last minute changes.

[2:11:24] That's okay.

[2:11:25] Okay, so this is a definition for zoning.

[2:11:29] So yeah, so this is a modification to the existing definition scaling it back.

[2:11:36] But what we would also like to do is further simplify the definition and take the standards and put them into another section to be consistent with what the audit had suggested.

[2:11:47] And I was trying to figure out where to put them.

[2:11:50] I think I found a section right after the dimensional requirements table, like a section 2.3 or something that we could include, but we could talk about that and we'll come up with something for the board to see that actually shows that if the board agrees with lip this option and pursuing that.

[2:12:06] Jason, you mentioned that you had your concerns about, I think, one over two because everybody would be decking out their promise.

[2:12:15] Well, that was, yes, the halls and all that.

[2:12:17] I, realistically, that probably wouldn't happen.

[2:12:20] But as we talked about it, it was something that at least crossed my mind.

[2:12:24] Okay.

[2:12:25] But I think we should test out option one.

[2:12:27] I was always gravitated toward option one.

[2:12:30] But, you know, just weighing them out and you'll pose in kind of sense where we're waiting that you.

[2:12:35] But there was nothing, no, there's nothing like explicit that I was trying to say there.

[2:12:38] Okay.

[2:12:38] Yeah, I can't see someone decking over 10,000 square-foot a lot.

[2:12:44] Yeah, I'd agree with you, option 1 that's an improvement over the existing kind.

[2:12:49] It's easier to interpret.

[2:12:51] Yeah.

[2:12:51] It's kids.

[2:12:52] Exactly.

[2:12:54] Yep.

[2:12:56] Okay.

[2:12:58] Moving on.

[2:12:58] I don't think that helps you.

[2:12:59] Yes, it does.

[2:13:00] Thank you.

[2:13:03] Okay.

[2:13:04] Okay, so this next one is, this is the existing language in the ordinance about replacement

[2:13:11] or repair of an existing structure.

[2:13:16] And recently, a few things came up that gave me a little bit of concern about how much

[2:13:22] leniency this language allowed.

[2:13:27] These are the, it lists the conditions that have to be met in order for a structure and existing

[2:13:32] the existing structure to be repaired or replaced without the use, without a new town wetland permit.

[2:13:39] So it's saying if the structure has been previously approved by a town wetlands permit and or a building permit,

[2:13:47] the square footage of temporary and or permanent impacts on the parcel is not increasing or encroaching further into the wetland conservation district.

[2:13:56] and the proposed work will not be contrary to the spirit or intent of the wetland conservation district ordinance,

[2:14:04] then a new town wetlands permit is not required and the repair or replacement of the existing structure can happen

[2:14:11] with just a building permit if the building permit is even needed.

[2:14:17] So, recently, last month actually, I think it was, there was a repair of a foundation

[2:14:30] and they had a previous town wetland permit for that project and they were claiming

[2:14:36] that it was the exact same project, they were just repairing the foundation.

[2:14:39] This all came before you as well, I just am refreshing everybody's memory.

[2:14:43] and so because of that oh I'm sorry I didn't come before you because it didn't

[2:14:47] have a town wetland permit it was only a state wetland permit because their

[2:14:52] claim was that they didn't need a town wetland

[2:15:00] Government, because it was the same work that was originally permitted when the project was permitted 10 years ago.

[2:15:07] Yes, they were replacing like for like.

[2:15:09] Correct. The structure was changing because it was going up, because the foundation needed to be repaired and it needed to come into compliance, but ultimately the footprint on the property wasn't changing.

[2:15:24] against their case with the existing language here.

[2:15:30] Similar situation, I've spoken, this hasn't come before us yet, but

[2:15:35] I've spoken to somebody who in 2016 got a town wetland permit approved to rebuild,

[2:15:43] to build a new home, to demolish their existing home and rebuild a home.

[2:15:47] They ultimately did not go through with that project and instead they just did part of the work and they just added an addition on to meet the footprint that they had gotten approved for the year prior.

[2:16:00] They got a new town wetland permit and did just kind of half the work and put an addition on their house.

[2:16:04] They now want to demolish the house and rebuild the house in the footprint that was

[2:16:11] approved in 2016, and under this language they can do that without a new wetlands permit.

[2:16:18] So generally those two projects, fortunately, don't really have any temporary impacts

[2:16:24] that concern me.

[2:16:26] But it does concern me that this leaves the door wide open for people to do that with

[2:16:31] the town wetlands permit from 2005 or for it doesn't even really say that the town wetlands

[2:16:41] permit has to be similar to what the proposed work is here.

[2:16:45] So I'm not opposed to keeping the process simple for folks, I'm not interested in making

[2:16:52] somebody jump through hoops to repair this foundation of a shed or replace a shed with

[2:16:59] the shred, that's the same size. That kind of thing doesn't really concern me, but this

[2:17:03] language is so lenient that many applicants could make the case that they don't need

[2:17:08] to come back for review. Even if the town's ordinances have since changed, or the location

[2:17:16] of the wetlands have since changed, or the description that they gave when their permit

[2:17:22] was originally approved wasn't very clear. So, you know, how do we know in 2026 that the

[2:17:29] work is actually what was approved in 2005? I think, you know, moving forward, we're pretty

[2:17:36] diligent in our minutes and in our reviews, so it might not be as much of a concern, but looking

[2:17:41] back, some of these permits don't have a lot of language in them. And so it does make me a little

[2:17:47] bit concerned. There's again two options here. Jason and I are trying to keep this simple

[2:17:53] and not change the intent. I still like the idea of keeping things simple like I said

[2:17:58] for somebody replacing, you know, a shed or, you know, footing on their deck. That, to

[2:18:05] me, doesn't require the same type of review as of wetland permit from 2005 to build a new

[2:18:11] house. So this version addresses limiting the time frame in which a permit can be, for lack of

[2:18:21] a better word, reused. This version ensures that the proposal is compliant with today's standards,

[2:18:28] and it ensures that the wetland delineation that's used is up to date. The state uses five years

[2:18:36] as a timeline for wetland delineations.

[2:18:39] Generally speaking, that's what the town uses,

[2:18:41] although we don't have a hard and fast rule,

[2:18:44] but I think there's no harm in applying

[2:18:46] the five-year time frame in this language here.

[2:18:51] So it's a look back here in Defenders.

[2:18:54] How would that be applied?

[2:18:56] So it would apply if you had a town wetland permit

[2:18:59] from 2021 to build a new house.

[2:19:02] You can replace that house

[2:19:05] in the same exact footprint or repair part of it up until five years later in 2026.

[2:19:13] If that permit was from 2019, that's no longer a permit that can be again for lack of a better

[2:19:19] word reused for that repair or replacement. So it puts that five-year time period on the lookback

[2:19:25] just to protect basically the wetland delineation accuracy.

[2:19:31] What has to be achieved within that five-year limit going back for a building permit or the project is complete and due of occupancy?

[2:19:43] If nothing happened in the time frame of the permit, generally speaking the permit, I mean my interpretation is that the permit would be expired, but this case that I mentioned as an example is arguing otherwise because this existing language doesn't say that.

[2:20:01] That's right, and they use the footprint to their modifications that they had in their application.

[2:20:06] Right.

[2:20:07] They did, let me clarify, they got a permit in whatever 2016 for a new house.

[2:20:12] They didn't tear down and rebuild, but the year later they got a new town wetland permit, and

[2:20:17] they just put an addition on the side, second permit, second permit in the same footprint.

[2:20:24] But now they want to go back to what they got a permit for in the first time.

[2:20:29] I see.

[2:20:33] But it's obvious that the language, the language in Section A is open to a few of you.

[2:20:41] This version seems to address it more in the copy we have, a little bit more in detail,

[2:20:49] more thoroughly than that.

[2:20:51] Right, absolutely.

[2:20:52] And that's from the Conservation Commission's discussions on it that they added to that.

[2:20:56] That was just to get us started.

[2:20:57] And that was done before the Conservation Commission met.

[2:21:00] Yeah, because I was looking at this one, come on.

[2:21:06] No, this bill is significantly able, I gave you.

[2:21:08] Yeah.

[2:21:09] I think it helps clear it off.

[2:21:12] Where would we add the five year concurrent would state permits or however the language would be?

[2:21:19] So this would say the structure shall have also received a town.

[2:21:25] What building permit, if one was required, and have been constructed in compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements

[2:21:30] at the time of the original application.

[2:21:33] This provision applies to town wetland permits

[2:21:35] that are not more than five years old,

[2:21:38] or if greater than five years old are supported

[2:21:42] by an updated delineation showing the wetlands

[2:21:45] in the same location.

[2:21:47] So the caveat there is if somebody's wetland permit

[2:21:52] is seven years old, but they hire a wetland scientist

[2:21:56] to re-delineate the wetlands, and that scientist confirms that they are the same in the same location as the seven-year-old permit,

[2:22:06] then they can still move forward with their repair or replacement without a new town wetland permit.

[2:22:11] And that's something that happens, so we're not making up that process that happens regularly.

[2:22:16] And wetland scientists are familiar with verification of a wetland delineation, so that would not be, you know, something that Hampton requires that nobody else has ever asked of them.

[2:22:27] Is there an option two as well?

[2:22:30] The option two is the same exact thing except it eliminates homes and only allows the replacement or repair of existing accessory buildings or structures.

[2:22:46] Why?

[2:22:46] The reason for that would be, well, I have a question about accessory structures can be barns.

[2:22:51] They can be very large, but the majority of them are not.

[2:22:55] the majority of them are Sheds, Decks, Fences.

[2:23:01] The reason for this is not just because of the

[2:23:05] footprint but the impact on the ground during construction for a home is a lot more invasive.

[2:23:14] Many Sheds are not on a foundation, they're on Cinder blocks or something very minor,

[2:23:19] that is not impactful to repair or replace if it even needs the foundation itself to be repaired or

[2:23:25] replaced. So this option says, yeah, you can repair a replaced, whatever small, I mean small generally, things on your property.

[2:23:35] But if you, you can't reuse a wetland permit, you had two years to use your wetland permit for your home.

[2:23:42] You can't reuse that.

[2:23:46] It doesn't make sense.

[2:23:48] The current definition of accessory building or structure exclude pay-to-use?

[2:23:55] Well, pay-to-use are an accessory dwelling.

[2:23:58] Right.

[2:24:00] I think the definition of accessory building is, just says not the primary dwelling structure.

[2:24:08] Right.

[2:24:09] So that's why this option I have two questions about, or your discussion, is allowing accessory buildings

[2:24:16] and structures too lenient because it could include ADUs, it could include barns,

[2:24:21] it could include pool houses that can be very large.

[2:24:25] So that's a question, not necessarily concerned just to, you know, I'm not sure.

[2:24:31] And then the opposite of that is restricting the repair and replacement of homes too restrictive.

[2:24:39] So I don't know if this is like a happy medium or if it hits the mark on both, it misses the

[2:24:44] mark on both ends.

[2:24:48] Again, the only thing that's different about this is that change

[2:24:51] at the top.

[2:24:55] Well, the permit was granted within five years, and things are the same, or the wetlands

[2:25:01] if it was seven years, as your example, and the wetlands are where they were, unless the

[2:25:10] why would it matter unless the policy changed? I mean, five years ago, they were given

[2:25:17] going to permit for all the disruption that goes along with constructing a house.

[2:25:22] Why would that be different now?

[2:25:28] I think the larger city of an accessory building that's from this thing here today, that's one size,

[2:25:38] say it's like ten times the size.

[2:25:40] It's an accessory building, it's not a dwelling or anything like that.

[2:25:44] No, I'm talking about temporary effect.

[2:25:46] The why?

[2:25:49] Okay.

[2:25:50] But the option to remove the house, the home, the primary dwelling.

[2:25:56] Can you go back to the office and want to please get

[2:26:00] it, let's see, oh, I see Dex and homes, okay.

[2:26:13] The option one seems to address the, you know, people, the abuse that could potentially occur in modifications to homes or anything out.

[2:26:27] If we don't change the language.

[2:26:29] We don't tighten up the language.

[2:26:33] Just

[2:26:36] a technical question.

[2:26:40] Does it have, this doesn't say that it has to be A, B, and C.

[2:26:45] Is that implied in ordinances?

[2:26:49] So, I believe that this was A, B, and C, wasn't it?

[2:26:55] I'm trying to understand what the appeal was.

[2:26:56] I think it was all three.

[2:26:57] Yes, I thought that was implied with provided that, but maybe that's an important thing.

[2:27:02] I don't know, maybe in the answer that's implied, but I've always interpreted it that way.

[2:27:11] Yeah, I have one last comment that could just throw wrench in this whole conversation.

[2:27:15] Sure, I'm pretty think about.

[2:27:16] It's time.

[2:27:20] This is a question that I don't have an answer to, but I don't know if it makes more sense

[2:27:27] to change the lifespan of a town wetlands permit to five years and allow for repair and replacement within that five years, and add these conditions into the section that talks about wetland permits, right now they're good for two years, and it doesn't talk about repair replacement within that two years, but I have always interpreted and have allowed repairs immediately after something has happened.

[2:27:59] or for like landscaping projects that needed certain replacements or changes in a short period of time.

[2:28:06] But it might make sense to just add this language into that and change the lifespan of the town wetlands permit instead.

[2:28:14] That makes sense.

[2:28:15] I don't know.

[2:28:16] You said that what happens every, usually every five years within the state, delineating where the wetlands are?

[2:28:24] No, the state requires applicants to have an update in delineation for their applications, and they will only accept a delineation that is less than five years old, the state, DES.

[2:28:41] Yes, so if, and that's a role, that's not 20, 20 through 20, 25, that's a rolling five years.

[2:28:57] But it's not, we don't have delineations for the whole state, it's per application.

[2:29:02] So I'm applying for a new house and I have a wetland in my backyard.

[2:29:05] I need to hire a wetland scientist to delineate the edge of that wetland.

[2:29:08] and I submit that on my survey plan with my application to the state.

[2:29:14] And then in six years, if I want to add a deck onto my house, the state,

[2:29:19] it's generally, we'll ask for a new delineation because that is not an updated and reliable delineation.

[2:29:28] So with marshland moving and such, it doesn't adhere to a five-year, that was a little

[2:29:39] snarky, are there areas or how vast is the area within our wetlands that would change

[2:29:48] more frequently than that or require testing more frequently than five years

[2:29:54] is still fully under.

[2:30:00] Stand where it is, where it's going.

[2:30:05] The marsh certainly is dynamic, but most wetlands are dynamic. This year, if somebody went out to get a wetland delineation for something near their backyard that's always been wet, I'm thinking of several areas around town, it might not actually show as a wetland because it's been drive for two years. But we have plant life that we could use.

[2:30:30] potentially, but it may not be surviving after a two-year drought. Right. And the

[2:30:36] plant life is more than that because we had some delineation done at my

[2:30:40] condo association. He came in with a, based on the color of the soil. If it's

[2:30:48] red, it's got oxygen in it. If it's not, it's anaerobic, in which case that's

[2:30:53] white lung. So yeah, I mean, so there's, there's soil, there's hydrology, there's

[2:30:58] physical presence of water, like hydrojemy by the soils, there is no answer to your question.

[2:31:08] All wetlands are dynamic, all wetlands are dynamic on different time frames.

[2:31:15] But five years seems to be a reasonable, or at least the state, that's right.

[2:31:19] Yeah, and I actually, I think the Army Corps of Engineers uses five years as well.

[2:31:23] OK.

[2:31:26] So then why wouldn't the permit be applicable for five years?

[2:31:32] Like I said, it made sense.

[2:31:37] I think that needs to be explored.

[2:31:39] It made it in two years when they've created the ordinance.

[2:31:43] I think it also is a little bit more in line

[2:31:45] with zoning like variances.

[2:31:48] And building permits are one year.

[2:31:50] But I don't know if they were ever two years.

[2:31:52] So I don't I don't think it was random and I also by throwing in this at the end of the conversation don't think that the discussion about this ordinance is for not because I think this language should still be applied wherever it ends up in the section and whether whether this just means this section gets eliminated and added into the section that talks about wetland permits, you know, I think all of this conversation is important and we can add it in there.

[2:32:20] But just for simplification purposes, like I said at the beginning, that's what I'm always in favor of.

[2:32:27] Can you call your op-how you would change it to be the five years and how you would take our conversation into a final draft?

[2:32:37] Yeah, I don't have the whole ordinance in front of me, the whole ordinance section.

[2:32:41] But wherever the ordinance section says that town wetland permits are good for two years unless it's a sea wall,

[2:32:47] All which is good for six years, I would literally probably just copy and paste this underneath that and

[2:32:54] say replacement or repair of structures that have been approved through the town wetlands permit can be done with these conditions.

[2:33:05] I really don't think this language would need to change at all.

[2:33:09] I think we just go right in.

[2:33:11] As the commission talked about this, Brianna, the five-year, the five-year idea of the commission, they haven't.

[2:33:17] Not the permit life, but I mean, I don't want to speak on behalf of them, but the reason I brought it up is because to me the intent is so similar, it doesn't really change anything.

[2:33:29] And like, application, not an application, but an application of the life.

[2:33:35] I mean, it makes good sense. I just would want their feedback.

[2:33:37] Yeah, absolutely. And they wanted to be back after this meeting anyway. So your lightbulb went on a little bit there and said, yeah.

[2:33:46] The sections on jumping out of me, but obviously it's in here. I think it's at the top towards the end.

[2:33:50] I thought it was too.

[2:33:56] If I think the five-year thing would solve it, I'm in favor of moving it in that direction.

[2:34:01] And let's move on that assumption and think about any reason that it shouldn't be right five year.

[2:34:13] I can't think of any LFN.

[2:34:15] We can also, I think the language is already in there, but we can also add something like the,

[2:34:22] this isn't how it would be worded, but like the bulk of the work has to be completed within a year or two years,

[2:34:27] which I believe that language is already in there.

[2:34:31] They found it 415-C two years.

[2:34:36] Does it say that the like the essence of the project has to be completed within one,

[2:34:41] or it has to be started?

[2:34:43] I see you like you frontload it like you have to really get started on this within two years.

[2:34:47] Yeah.

[2:34:47] You're five years to finish.

[2:34:49] Yes.

[2:34:49] If the work approved is initiated but not completed during that time,

[2:34:53] the owners may apply for two-year extension.

[2:34:55] That's all it says, okay.

[2:34:56] So it was two years and then applied for an extension if you did so.

[2:35:00] You've got to craft what, however, that bridge is made.

[2:35:02] Yeah, because I do think it's important that the bulk of the work is started or completed

[2:35:07] within two years.

[2:35:09] It could just be that, you know, that language stays the same and then it says you have three

[2:35:13] years for repair and replacement with these conditions.

[2:35:18] That would make sense.

[2:35:20] That would fit every year of thing, right?

[2:35:22] Yeah.

[2:35:25] I said I hope that they don't have to repair or replace within three years what they built in the first two.

[2:35:32] But for some, see walls.

[2:35:34] See walls, yeah, and that's that language has changed and they're already.

[2:35:39] But I do think I've seen it happen with Sheds and Decks.

[2:35:44] And fences can be knocked out in school.

[2:35:45] So those kinds of things I've seen.

[2:35:48] and replantings in the buffer.

[2:35:51] Yeah, yeah, okay.

[2:35:53] That makes more sense than a house.

[2:35:55] Yeah.

[2:35:56] So I think I can re-work based on this conversation.

[2:36:01] I can rework this option to into that other section.

[2:36:06] Kind of still capture the same essence of all of this.

[2:36:09] Allow the replacement and repair within reason

[2:36:14] and eliminate the leniency that kind of opened too many doors for too much gray area.

[2:36:21] Okay,

[2:36:25] that's all, I'm done.

[2:36:27] That's all, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you for your hard work.

[2:36:32] All right, yeah, have a good night, frontage.

[2:36:35] Okay, so

[2:36:39] this is something that I mentioned that a recent meeting that the building inspector and

[2:36:44] I had been talking about, that interpretation of the definition of frontage,

[2:36:48] that was never really clearly defined for corner lots, first of all, and especially.

[2:36:55] But also the definition we see includes some outdated references to.

[2:36:59] So all this does is adds a new, replaces the old definition of frontage with a new one that you see there.

[2:37:07] That talks about how it's measured, linear distance measured from a front lot line of joining class fiber better highway.

[2:37:14] on a plot approved by the planning board

[2:37:17] between the points of intersection with the side lot line.

[2:37:20] So that makes it much clearer to understand

[2:37:21] you have your front and then the sides.

[2:37:24] So point to point that's your front edge.

[2:37:26] So that defines it very clearly in a way

[2:37:28] that generally wasn't in there before.

[2:37:31] Then we talk about the corner lots.

[2:37:33] Front edge shall be the total length along the roadway

[2:37:36] which is the legal address of the subject property.

[2:37:39] Now this has been interpreted a couple of ways by different people

[2:37:42] And I corner a lot, does it mean just what this says or does it wrap around and include both streets?

[2:37:48] Well, it is just one side that has been traditionally interpreted, but that is absolutely not spelled out in the current language.

[2:37:56] So it's something that I talked to Greg.

[2:37:59] I believe he talked with his own Lord as well, and that's how it's been interpreted.

[2:38:04] And we want to make sure that that is how it's written into the ordinance.

[2:38:09] And then just, obviously, footage requirements are contiguous as defined in 1.5, but we also

[2:38:18] define contiguous because that was another point of contention.

[2:38:22] Some people saying, well, the line jogs like this and there's a corner like this, so that's

[2:38:26] not contiguous.

[2:38:27] No.

[2:38:27] If it goes straight across, it's contiguous.

[2:38:30] So I think that there's no breaks.

[2:38:32] Right, no breaks.

[2:38:33] So that single connected path, regardless of its geometric shape, is contiguous.

[2:38:37] this, having that in there eliminates somebody potentially suggesting that it's interpreting

[2:38:42] in other way.

[2:38:44] So this is just, really, this is a housekeeping amendment, but I wanted you to all to see

[2:38:48] it.

[2:38:49] And so how do you change your address, if you don't want to be on that one street, if you have

[2:38:54] more frontage on the other side?

[2:38:55] More sideage than frontage?

[2:38:57] So yeah.

[2:38:57] So you're saying, if you don't want to be the registry A, you want to change your address

[2:39:01] to street B, because I might have more frontage, to legal frontage.

[2:39:04] Right.

[2:39:06] I mean you have to make an interpretation somehow.

[2:39:09] OK.

[2:39:10] No, I know.

[2:39:11] No, I know the area.

[2:39:12] It's a double-sided question.

[2:39:13] It's a double-sided question.

[2:39:14] I have a valid question.

[2:39:15] Yeah, I can see somebody wanting to do that.

[2:39:17] The creative thing.

[2:39:18] There's the town established the address?

[2:39:21] Yes, yes.

[2:39:22] Yes.

[2:39:23] Which I find interesting because as you know,

[2:39:25] I've been walking around the town.

[2:39:28] And I have found some streets that absolutely confuse me.

[2:39:33] A street of this name has a house on the corner where its driveway goes out to this street, but it has an address of this street.

[2:39:45] Oh yeah, there's plenty on that.

[2:39:46] That is a bear to find one of those houses unless you realize that at home point this is really screwed up.

[2:39:52] I have to go look on 04 corners because there are some that are across the street across an intersection and they still have the same address.

[2:40:00] Yes, I think she just necessary it doors necessary in a way

[2:40:05] Number three

[2:40:07] I see I can't remember I could take you there it quite a time

[2:40:11] So I think yeah, but I think saying legal address of the subject properties of people is if somebody wanted to change their address

[2:40:18] They have to do it through the town anyway

[2:40:21] So so I think I think that that works

[2:40:30] So, but I think this will add a lot of clarification.

[2:40:33] It's obviously severely missing from the existing language.

[2:40:36] So, that's that one and if the board's good with that one,

[2:40:40] I don't know if you need to see it again before we get the public hearings.

[2:40:42] I think that it's pretty straightforward, but it's good to make sure you're good with that.

[2:40:49] So, next one?

[2:40:50] Next one?

[2:40:51] Yes.

[2:40:51] Next one was?

[2:40:53] So, yeah.

[2:40:53] So, in the interest of Alex being here and the time, I would really, I would like to talk about business seasonal and business seasonal one and leave the 10th Center for another meeting.

[2:41:13] Okay, that sounds good.

[2:41:18] So when we were going through the work with, we talked about why we have a different

[2:41:34] requirement for business seasonal and business seasonal one. And I think at the last meeting or

[2:41:42] well the last meeting that I was at probably two meetings ago, Keith was talking about the

[2:41:48] history behind that, right, business seasonal one. I noticed. Yeah, I just got big.

[2:41:58] And there being a desire, following a fire, I think, to encourage additional growth in the center of the beach.

[2:42:07] Correct.

[2:42:08] There are, and now we are left wondering why, and developers are wondering, a lot of people are wondering why that is.

[2:42:21] So my recollection is that when we were talking to the consultants, we said, let's just combine the two with 70 foot.

[2:42:34] At our last meeting, there was also a conversation about wanting to avoid looking like some towns in Massachusetts.

[2:42:42] So, what I was suggesting or would like to talk about tonight is the possibility

[2:42:50] of extending essentially business seasonal one south and maintaining the, okay.

[2:43:01] Jason and I talked about this earlier today, and I don't know, I'm tired or something.

[2:43:07] I'm losing track of some of the surveys that we achieved, yes.

[2:43:12] All right, I'll jump later.

[2:43:13] So one way that I thought of this could be what that is.

[2:43:17] The business seasonal one zone only has one difference

[2:43:20] from the business seasonal zone and that is high.

[2:43:23] Everything else is identical.

[2:43:26] So I thought, what if you eliminated the business

[2:43:30] seasonal one zone, you kept this reference

[2:43:35] to between nut and dust and that you have in here.

[2:43:38] So that's stretch of streets.

[2:43:40] And there's two ways you could handle this.

[2:43:42] There were two things, two scenarios I presented.

[2:43:45] One would be to change the stretch to 70 feet, but contingent upon a satisfactory shadow study.

[2:43:55] That's the one concern about the height is that you can have the issue of the shadows on the beach.

[2:44:00] And we asked for those studies during our applications that we hear.

[2:44:05] The other way it could be looked at could be change it to 50.

[2:44:09] and yes that brings a section of 70 down to 50 but for the whole stretch by

[2:44:14] conditional use permit you could go to 70 which puts it before this board rather

[2:44:20] than need for variance in some of those other areas so it's kind of a little

[2:44:23] bit of a trade-off so in our conversations those are basically the two scenarios

[2:44:27] that I thought I did want Alex's input on this though because obviously your

[2:44:32] experience of the beach and yeah so between the 50 and 70 that's when you would need

[2:44:37] the sun study in the first option. So in the first option both of these apply to the stretch

[2:44:42] between none and dust. Okay so on the ocean and ashwards side. Well even at 50 feet you have to have

[2:44:47] that. Yeah I don't think you I don't you wouldn't eliminate the shadow study from any of it

[2:44:52] any of the scenarios because I think that's super important.

[2:45:00] Anyway, the reason, you know, one of the things about the shadow study that I thought could allow you to go to 70 all the way down is think of how the casino approached this. They kind of wetting case, the bill, yeah. So they are lower in the front, but they were able to get that additional height and avoid casting it like that that's constructed. Other projects might follow suit in a similar way.

[2:45:29] and minimize that impact of the higher buildings

[2:45:34] that also are maybe a concern to some.

[2:45:37] Right, and that would be a kind of a

[2:45:38] big sense to the buildings all on ocean.

[2:45:41] So, it makes those middle blocks worth a little bit.

[2:45:43] So, that is one way to speak off higher.

[2:45:46] So, the shadow, an unsatisfactory shadow study

[2:45:51] eliminates your ability to go to 70 feet at the front,

[2:45:54] even if the requirement is 70 feet

[2:45:56] because you haven't met the shadow study.

[2:45:58] Right, okay.

[2:45:59] That kind of makes sense?

[2:46:00] Yeah.

[2:46:01] So that is one way of looking at it.

[2:46:02] The other one was just saying 50 across, which means the 70-foot section gets reduced to 50, but by doing that, by conditional use permit from the planning board, it all could be as high as 70.

[2:46:17] The current BS1 section plus further out.

[2:46:20] I kind of like the first scenario better, but I wanted to present both.

[2:46:25] We talked about both.

[2:46:27] The conditional use permit, I think, would be as a layer of complexity for the developer.

[2:46:36] It's on KISS.

[2:46:37] It's on KISS.

[2:46:39] Yes.

[2:46:40] But either scenario.

[2:46:41] We want a 70-foot high wall running down the whole coast of Hampton Beach.

[2:46:47] Well, we're not.

[2:46:48] Not Avenue to Dostin.

[2:46:50] Everything's 70 high.

[2:46:52] Well, there's significant business seasonal north of business seasonal

[2:46:57] sure and that is not addressed in this right now that's why it's just a

[2:47:05] continuation of this that would be the next argument right that we include that

[2:47:10] now too. I agree with you it changes the whole character of all that you know

[2:47:18] Dustin North. There's no beach there. There's no shadow study to protect the beach there. So you make a canyon there. Yeah, it's in Verde Canyon.

[2:47:28] Well, the streets could be adjusted too. Asher at that. On Asher at that, we have 70-foot story buildings.

[2:47:34] I used one right beside the dust and that's what you presented. I mean, I'm not saying the final amendment would be necessarily not the dust and I'm giving an example of that.

[2:47:44] But if you look at that banana shape, that would all be up in the air, 70 feet instead of four stories, three stories.

[2:47:50] Okay.

[2:47:51] I don't know what what do you want the beach to look like.

[2:47:54] Do we want it to look like Fort Lauderdale?

[2:47:58] Do we want it to look like Mertle Beach?

[2:48:03] Right.

[2:48:04] Where it's all just high buildings, they have a deeper beach.

[2:48:07] Their properties are on the sand.

[2:48:09] But I mean, there, there, I don't know, I just-

[2:48:14] This is also a part of the beach at a higher elevation, I believe.

[2:48:19] So it is more protected from flood and-

[2:48:23] I'm not worried about the flooding.

[2:48:25] I just the actual human element to the parents of everything.

[2:48:32] There isn't that bipedal movement around the beach because you've been in Atlantic City

[2:48:38] where they're all tall and you go down the narrow A-street or G-street and it's just a wind tunnel.

[2:48:46] What would you think about additional height there but perhaps considering a degree of setback

[2:48:55] that prevents the buildings from going right to the sidewalks?

[2:48:59] Are the lights big enough to have setbacks?

[2:49:01] No, we needed to build that study, right?

[2:49:05] Right. When we were initially talking about this, I was just thinking about the fact that

[2:49:08] pretty much every building proposed above 50 feet has been able to get a variance.

[2:49:14] So I was just thinking there must be a hardship that exists. We're already kind of at that point

[2:49:20] you know when something's getting that many variances, I think that's when you've got to go and look

[2:49:24] at the ordinance to figure out why it isn't working. That's what the audit told us. That's one of

[2:49:32] Well, some of the variances were originally given to put up a parapet to hide rooftop elevators.

[2:49:40] And that mechanicals and then the next application comes, well, they're at 70 feet.

[2:49:46] We're going into 70 feet, but we're not doing it for our mechanicals.

[2:49:49] We're doing it to get 70 feet.

[2:49:51] Then we're going to put the mechanicals on top.

[2:49:54] maybe, but I mean, that was how that kind of worked, like the one near Ron's leaning, right?

[2:50:06] Because if that's okay, it's just going to, because the president is set, so it should just be

[2:50:10] 70 feet thin, because you're going to say what someone else is going to, we should have it.

[2:50:13] But my hope would be that like the zoning board would look, you know, when they're talking about

[2:50:17] the spirit of the ordinance, and if we're saying 70 foot is your heart stop, that includes your

[2:50:21] Mechanicals that includes your elevator lobby were giving you that action would have to be added into the ordinance to make it clear.

[2:50:27] Oh, yeah. 50 feet was the stop. But, well, never.

[2:50:32] 50 feet was the extra for mechanicals, though, with the unoccupied affronts, I can never say that word.

[2:50:39] But if you think about it, 50 foot was the height of the building, of the building, not necessarily the, right.

[2:50:47] So, it just, it doesn't matter if the, how do you have a hardship 50, 50, 50, 50, 50.

[2:50:54] Right.

[2:50:56] What about the hardship?

[2:50:57] I'm going to take a look at it.

[2:50:59] But I don't, but look at the character from South of F street.

[2:51:03] That's what I'm looking all the way to Dustin.

[2:51:06] It's all significantly lower than 50 feet, I think.

[2:51:10] What if the presidential single-family residence?

[2:51:13] Now are lots.

[2:51:14] Yeah.

[2:51:14] but what if you took it further than the current

[2:51:17] as a seasonal one to whatever street before,

[2:51:20] I don't know what it is before I've had the map in front of you,

[2:51:21] but before the bend, kind of like, you know,

[2:51:24] I'm talking about what before my cable have.

[2:51:26] Somewhere around the end street.

[2:51:28] Yeah, yeah, maybe from mud to end street

[2:51:32] or whatever it could be that the stuff doesn't manage.

[2:51:34] And then after that, where I agree,

[2:51:36] it gets a little more narrow and you don't have the beach.

[2:51:39] Maybe that's the part that stays fit.

[2:51:41] maybe the area in a lot should be a certain percentage

[2:51:44] of the height than you have just have to have a bigger lot

[2:51:47] so you can have bigger setbacks.

[2:51:50] Yeah.

[2:51:51] What do you want?

[2:51:52] Well, just it's very, we're gonna have building

[2:51:57] 70 feet, eight foot from each other,

[2:52:00] four foot setbacks on each side.

[2:52:03] So we're gonna have just like,

[2:52:05] what do they call those in the city

[2:52:06] when you have air shafts?

[2:52:08] Yeah. So, the additional border there that I was originally proposing was Ashworth. So, we're not talking about going west of Ashworth.

[2:52:21] No, not into this.

[2:52:23] That's kind of the bananas.

[2:52:25] Yeah. This business seasonal one does extend, I believe, west of Ashworth. So, in this...

[2:52:35] Only were the parking lots in some of the levels.

[2:52:38] Not deeper than that.

[2:52:40] But some of those parking lots will be buildings.

[2:52:43] Right.

[2:52:43] Or made.

[2:52:44] But is there something about 50 feet off of Ashworth?

[2:52:46] There was certain something that we had certain,

[2:52:48] the ones that faced Ashworth, wasn't it?

[2:52:49] There was something in there that I'd have to deliver.

[2:52:51] Right.

[2:52:52] Because we were going to allow them to mimic across the street.

[2:52:55] It was probably fine.

[2:52:55] But it was further up that it was part of the BS1 side.

[2:52:59] I'd have to verify.

[2:53:01] Yeah, like we're chewing chat is and that's right, yeah, that's right

[2:53:06] Would the conditional use permit would that give the board more discretion about the overall design?

[2:53:12] Yes, we're doing a step back. So yes, so that when I have a conditional use permit

[2:53:17] They have to submit a letter with the findings of fact and the board would have to verify that those findings of fact have been met

[2:53:23] We'd have to decide what those findings of fact are, but that would be what one way of doing it

[2:53:28] So if you're designing a beautiful building, that's a little different and not a box and that kind of thing, we can give you that extra 20 feet.

[2:53:35] It would give you more discretion, yeah.

[2:53:39] But again, it's always, but it's also, yeah, but it's also tricky to deny things.

[2:53:44] I mean, we don't need a good reason for this.

[2:53:47] It's like, it's like re-slanders, like, now that's the actual way.

[2:53:51] So you could get into a little problem there. So there's a few ways of looking at it.

[2:53:56] It's all what we want for a beach.

[2:54:02] Yeah, I don't know if I like the 70-foot height, but it's already there.

[2:54:06] But I'm not going to do it.

[2:54:10] Oh, no, I didn't take it though, I was just saying.

[2:54:12] But I almost just wonder.

[2:54:14] I almost wonder if having all that aside, I wonder if having the BS1 layer is confusing.

[2:54:22] If you're going to allow 70 feet in that area, just saying the ordinance from A-street to F-street is 70 feet.

[2:54:29] Instead of saying we have this other zone, but everything is the same except for this one thing.

[2:54:34] You follow what I'm saying. So maybe you're not really changing anything, but you're

[2:54:39] pretty into using a layer of it. It's all just business seasonal, but this section of it is

[2:54:45] almost like an overlay. It is, it's almost a little required.

[2:54:48] So this started also with the Breckenridge project.

[2:54:53] And that was on G Street. It's a G Street, the Breckenridge.

[2:54:57] I'm trying to think the guy that came in and did it, there was a fire down there.

[2:55:04] I think it's G Street and I guess it's kind of where they all sold us.

[2:55:09] That's G Street and...

[2:55:11] Jane Kay.

[2:55:12] Jane Kay.

[2:55:14] And they were trying to wedding cake it, but they were trying to go really high in the back.

[2:55:23] And so that that got passed but didn't make it financially.

[2:55:29] Recession or whatever happened there.

[2:55:31] And of course what we have now is a straight building.

[2:55:38] Quantals I believe.

[2:55:39] Right.

[2:55:39] Or modern, modern cottages.

[2:55:46] So that's what started because that was the beginning

[2:55:50] And then when I looked at the first master planes we did a Hampton Beach.

[2:55:54] We were trying to keep it more of a seaside village feel.

[2:56:03] So then we got to 70 feet because a lot of other places stopped.

[2:56:07] But there were a couple proposals for the 70 feet and we had all those missing teeth.

[2:56:13] From the surf fire and then there were some other fires that were behind a playland.

[2:56:20] And then there were some fires and then the buildings couldn't earn their keep.

[2:56:25] So the chief got vacant lots and have parking.

[2:56:29] And you can see that's how all that parking happened on all the side streets, because a front business.

[2:56:37] For example, I know that the Lincoln House, but lots further down when they were just stressed to tear them down to have on street.

[2:56:46] They have their own Austrian parking because they couldn't afford the rents from the state to have deed at least land parking

[2:56:55] So that was their solution to

[2:56:58] solve their own problem for their hotels

[2:57:02] Because everybody still had cars then

[2:57:08] So that's how the beach has evolved

[2:57:10] And that's why you had, when we, I'm trying to think on G Street there was a new place

[2:57:15] put up.

[2:57:16] They were modulars.

[2:57:17] I'm trying to think guys that put that in on that.

[2:57:21] Data fire.

[2:57:23] Then they tore down that, the, uh, Roaming House slash hotel slash motel on that corner.

[2:57:30] And he did a deed to have the parking lots on a separate lot down that street.

[2:57:39] They were tied to the ownership of those units on that, as well, to prove that they provided one or two parking spaces for each unit so they could get the billing permit to create housing there.

[2:57:52] So it's a fine web we weave and here we are, but we should expect that the center of existing BS1 is going to be 90 feet, large building 90 feet.

[2:58:08] them.

[2:58:08] But I wait.

[2:58:10] Because casino's 90 feet, that's what will happen now, it's 90

[2:58:13] feet and 70.

[2:58:14] Even though ordinance is 70.

[2:58:16] They got a variance.

[2:58:18] Yeah, just 90 and achieved.

[2:58:21] What were we asking for with the cake?

[2:58:24] So why do we leave and change it?

[2:58:26] They're going to get variances.

[2:58:28] Because we're trying to avoid them.

[2:58:30] I don't know.

[2:58:30] They've got to be the double-side for a kid here.

[2:58:32] I agree.

[2:58:33] I don't need a lot because we have a hard job too.

[2:58:38] They do.

[2:58:39] They do.

[2:58:40] I'm not disagreeing.

[2:58:41] Part of what we should be doing is, you know, planning.

[2:58:46] Yeah, but planning would be to keep it lower.

[2:58:51] Okay.

[2:58:56] And 50?

[2:58:57] Yeah.

[2:58:58] Okay.

[2:58:58] If they're going to give variance, if they're going to seek

[2:59:00] variances and have legitimate, can justify their five reasons, that's different.

[2:59:07] but they are, right? I don't know. You're going up to half. Yeah. Have there been some of the

[2:59:15] denied? I don't know if any.

[2:59:20] Some of those variances are definitely not. Yeah, quite a few. Yeah.

[2:59:29] Most people will look like they're going to be denied with draw their application and try to figure

[2:59:33] something old, right? If you can't come back twice with the sample chart, unless a significant change.

[2:59:40] I think to me part of this is what is the best use for the town of, let's just talk about the

[2:59:48] South of or that little triangle of BS1 and

[3:00:00] What we are expecting, the demand, both development, demand, and people demand, maybe, for that area after the casino goes in.

[3:00:12] My expectation is it may be different than what we have right now.

[3:00:16] It may be.

[3:00:19] And generally speaking, my preference would be to have less zoning variances granted

[3:00:29] because the zoning is more in line with what we're actually looking for and is current

[3:00:39] with the demands and needs so that it would be more challenging.

[3:00:45] Good question.

[3:00:46] So I'm the business-seasonal, business-seasonal one here that we're talking about.

[3:00:50] I mean, the casino is still probably a few years from being completed.

[3:00:53] The project's not underway or that.

[3:00:57] I'm asking the board collectively here, what do you think about maybe thinking about this one more for 28?

[3:01:03] We already have 13 zoning amendments on the ballot, we talked about, not a ballot, but I mean 13.

[3:01:08] I predict torches and pitchforks.

[3:01:10] Because we have a number of them that we're going to talk about at another meeting from the RSA,

[3:01:15] from changes in the RSA, so not in a ballot, but it looks like as of right now, we'd be at 13, including this one.

[3:01:22] This seems like something that, in my opinion, it's all up to the board, doesn't necessarily need to be 27, but I'm putting that out to the board for your thoughts.

[3:01:33] I was thinking a lot of those lines were all the kind of things.

[3:01:36] If we've got 13 coming up, we're going to have to cut some more.

[3:01:40] We're going to have to cut some more.

[3:01:40] We're going to have to be a good thing.

[3:01:42] That's a lot of zoning amendments.

[3:01:43] But I mean, but I don't want to take that off the table.

[3:01:46] I want to make sure the board agrees that that's the plan for 28 for sure.

[3:01:49] So that's a good approach, but it seems like, and I think one is controversial.

[3:01:53] It's a real issue.

[3:01:56] He spent some time looking at the, yeah, the character of the neighborhood.

[3:01:59] And I'm only saying that based on the conversation that I'm hearing in this meeting,

[3:02:03] specifically, that it seems like there is a lot of difference in opinion.

[3:02:07] A lot of, we probably want to get a lot of feedback from people at the beach on this,

[3:02:11] that maybe we don't have that window right now.

[3:02:14] How do we, I don't know.

[3:02:15] How do we apply form-based zoning for the beach?

[3:02:18] because that is probably a better argument of figuring out how to future rise development

[3:02:29] in that commercial district.

[3:02:34] We've taken so many swipes at this to do it right once, but there's always change.

[3:02:44] But when in for for base housing start looking at this block, you're going to be up here this night that far back and we go a little bit more or we could do this or our expectations are how that is bill modeled.

[3:03:00] Well, I'm hoping that we will be able to discuss some element at least of for base housing at the next meeting.

[3:03:08] I think Ryan is pretty certainly a lot more familiar with it than I think most of us are

[3:03:16] But we won't have

[3:03:17] a

[3:03:18] representative from the beach here, which I had thought would be helpful to this conversation not to put too much on you.

[3:03:27] It's not that you can always talk about it because the name to Beach Village is strict, too. Right. He says on that as well, right

[3:03:32] because it is a big discussion.

[3:03:34] It is.

[3:03:36] Like less fighting for the height, but just more so,

[3:03:40] just the BS1 zone is just such a weird little space.

[3:03:43] Totally.

[3:03:44] Zoning.

[3:03:45] Yeah.

[3:03:45] You know, just making a uniform.

[3:03:47] Yeah.

[3:03:47] It makes sense.

[3:03:48] I think form-based zoning, we talked about this is something

[3:03:51] that would require outside consulting assistance,

[3:03:53] because it is much more complex.

[3:03:56] You know, maybe we'll get it for the town center, perhaps, too.

[3:03:59] So I mean, I think that's something that would require

[3:04:01] that assistance, but I think that is like you said Sharon, for a conversation for maybe even in two weeks.

[3:04:07] Getting some thoughts on whether we want to start thinking about that.

[3:04:10] Right.

[3:04:11] Because a lot of times we're just anxious to get something done.

[3:04:14] Yeah.

[3:04:14] We want to have that building built.

[3:04:17] We want to have that attraction.

[3:04:19] We want to have that, but it's not based around, if it was Disney, they would have a long term production on how they're going to develop it.

[3:04:28] We don't really have that because it's the individual rights on each piece of property.

[3:04:34] We aren't developing it ourselves but right now it seems as though it was pointed out

[3:04:39] as an issue by the consultants and I know that people around, we are a little confuzzled

[3:04:48] by it and others at the beach that I have talked to, too.

[3:04:53] So I think it needs attention but it needs proper attention.

[3:04:58] not just thoughtful consideration right I know from my previous community you know

[3:05:04] they did certain areas with some form based and it's it's not a quick and

[3:05:10] simple process right I think this is something that you know we should

[3:05:16] continue to talk about but but move down the road a little bit I mean you're

[3:05:21] changing your format of your zoning one area or two areas of town from one

[3:05:24] an entire format is something entirely different, right?

[3:05:27] That is not simple.

[3:05:28] That is something that is probably requires.

[3:05:30] That's something that's going to take years, probably.

[3:05:33] We're going to get together.

[3:05:35] I mean, you know, the consultant assistance may be a year,

[3:05:37] I don't know, but it's something that you know,

[3:05:39] start thinking about.

[3:05:40] What are you just going to do with this?

[3:05:41] What I'm suggesting is that 12 or 13 zoning is a lot,

[3:05:48] or that is a lot, but I think it's going

[3:05:51] to be the need normal.

[3:05:52] If you if you've got the state making all sorts of changes you know a lot of our zoning changes are

[3:05:59] Reactions to the state some of them are from the hot grant some of them are

[3:06:04] Well, it's time to be a zone but 79 east off is gonna be perceived as a zoning right so I yeah, so I would not say that

[3:06:14] You know, there has to be an absolute limit to the number of zoning

[3:06:31] I think it's the number of amendments. I don't know how many people were able to attend

[3:06:37] on the 20th of August the BEA session about the RSA changes that I'd like you all know

[3:06:43] about one of the things that was mentioned there that I mentioned to you sharing was about the number of amendments in communities start having 10, 12 plus amendments in the ballot.

[3:06:53] It gives its voters owning fatigue, basically, and it really can, they don't advise it.

[3:06:58] I know we're kind of in a position right now where we're naturally going to have some more because of where we are with our work on zoning.

[3:07:07] But I do also think that we have to balance that with not overwhelming the voter.

[3:07:12] with 15 amendments or something like that. I think that is a concern, and I think others

[3:07:19] would echo that, based on what I've heard.

[3:07:21] Well, some of this is housekeeping, but there is a number of them that have some substance

[3:07:26] to them. And I think we need to, you know, pick and choose a battle, so to speak.

[3:07:34] Oh, I think the majority of them have substance to them this time around.

[3:07:40] So it's just something for the board to keep in mind.

[3:07:43] I mean, we'll do what the board feels as far as the number.

[3:07:46] I know what this one's for me, too.

[3:07:48] Yeah.

[3:07:50] By the time he's in budget, people are asleep.

[3:07:54] I'm not sure the cost of the hall is going to be good.

[3:07:57] You're just kidding.

[3:07:59] Just kidding.

[3:08:00] I'm close to that anyway, so I don't know.

[3:08:04] Excel is my friend for the ballots.

[3:08:07] So do you want to talk about form-based a little bit?

[3:08:13] I think the public should be informed what form-based is,

[3:08:16] and if it's these are good applications of the two commercial

[3:08:24] commercial urban areas.

[3:08:26] A lack of a better term.

[3:08:30] Okay, that sounds good to me.

[3:08:33] And we'll talk about the

[3:08:37] I'm not tonight tonight.

[3:08:40] It is 10 o'clock and we're going to

[3:08:42] do the other item was the alternate seats.

[3:08:47] Do you want to take those up in two weeks?

[3:08:50] Or do you want to do it?

[3:08:50] Still now.

[3:08:51] Yeah.

[3:08:51] Let's do them now.

[3:08:52] So you have to be quick.

[3:08:55] So all right.

[3:08:55] So we do have two alternate requests that we received.

[3:09:01] You'd receive both of those.

[3:09:03] One of those I got a couple of weeks ago from a gentleman, you have that.

[3:09:07] And then there was another one that we received today.

[3:09:11] Any openings do we have?

[3:09:14] Technically, you can have up to five alternates.

[3:09:18] We only have two right alternates right now.

[3:09:20] So technically three openings.

[3:09:22] I was going to leave one seat open depending on other circumstances, you know, with my arise.

[3:09:29] But I think that we need to fill two seats, basically, and you have two requests here.

[3:09:37] They have interest, they have interest, and they both have nice resumes that they provided.

[3:09:44] I have the resume first, and I have the resume first, William and Thomas.

[3:09:51] Do we need to take these separately?

[3:09:53] Yeah, absolutely so and then I would just

[3:10:02] We could start with the one that we received a little COVID activity

[3:10:09] Does anyone want to make a motion on the one that we received two weeks ago Mr. Jones here?

[3:10:15] I'll make a motion that way to point Mr. Jones for a is it a two or three or a one?

[3:10:21] It's a

[3:10:22] So it's three, but actually the term, because we're appointing him now would expire in 2029.

[3:10:28] So it's a three for three year term.

[3:10:30] Effectively three year term.

[3:10:31] Yes.

[3:10:32] Second.

[3:10:33] All in favor.

[3:10:36] Let me just write the.

[3:10:37] Congratulations, Mr. Jones.

[3:10:39] We're going to work with him.

[3:10:41] Have we had the opportunity to review Mac the boy?

[3:10:57] He has interest, he's worked with some community development engineers.

[3:11:03] He lives in Hampton, he lives in the beach, I don't want to give out his address, but

[3:11:07] that brings a nice perspective from that neighborhood.

[3:11:11] And he's used to tell himself, yeah, municipal experience, that's it.

[3:11:15] That's right, yeah.

[3:11:17] I move that we accept Mr. McAvoy.

[3:11:20] A point.

[3:11:21] Is there a second?

[3:11:23] All in favor?

[3:11:25] Congratulations.

[3:11:26] And again, that's for a three-year term.

[3:11:28] Yeah.

[3:11:29] So we'll do, the planning office will reach out to them,

[3:11:32] let them know they're going to need to get sworn in

[3:11:35] if the town starts off as soon as we will.

[3:11:37] Okay.

[3:11:37] I'm sure they do that.

[3:11:38] Yeah, they have to.

[3:11:38] Nice meeting them.

[3:11:43] Are there any burning issues and updates

[3:11:46] from the Select Board or Conservation Commission?

[3:11:49] We really only talk trash.

[3:11:55] And we approve the order of the glider drops so far in front of you.

[3:12:00] Okay.

[3:12:01] Awesome.

[3:12:02] I think offline, can I communicate to the select board, that the CBE, I think everybody

[3:12:11] knows that community business engagement through UNH, we will be holding an initial conversation

[3:12:17] with Nate on October 7th.

[3:12:22] I believe it's at 10 in the morning and I suspect it will end up being virtual, so if that can go back to the select board and then communicate who from select will be joining us.

[3:12:36] That's awesome.

[3:12:38] Yeah, it doesn't mean no, but it means that we're continuing the conversation and I expect that we will.

[3:12:45] we may know at the end of that what the timeline is for finding out more, which then would go to Selective Board at the rate.

[3:12:57] Yeah, it was so.

[3:12:58] Okay.

[3:12:59] And one more thing, just a reminder for everybody, budget.

[3:13:02] So I had sent you the budget several weeks ago.

[3:13:05] It has to be submitted to the town manager by the 10th of September.

[3:13:10] I need so I need to know the comments by Friday so that I can finish it up and get it inputted in that I don't I don't know that

[3:13:17] I mean we're keeping it flat. That's that's what Jeff Prime knows this that's what's been talked about doing for the most part of this year

[3:13:26] If if there are increases we're gonna have to justify them pretty hard. So that's are there collars? I haven't looked at that that is separate

[3:13:33] So that's not that's not shown not to be addressed that would be addressed separately. Okay

[3:13:39] So you're really looking at the other numbers.

[3:13:41] So if you have no objection, you don't have to hear from us.

[3:13:44] Yes, if I don't hear from you by Friday, I'm just going to type it in Tuesday morning

[3:13:48] and get it submitted.

[3:13:49] I'm glad we're able to do our part to keep it flat.

[3:13:52] But if you do have comments, let me know.

[3:13:55] Have people had the opportunity to review the budget?

[3:13:59] It's like six lines long, it's not different.

[3:14:02] Right.

[3:14:03] Are we in a position where we could say tonight?

[3:14:07] Do you need a motion?

[3:14:08] No, I don't need any motion. I just can sense. I just want to make sure that the planning board has had a chance to comment on it twice a month.

[3:14:16] I'm good. Now, if we were to receive any grants or anything, that would be separate.

[3:14:21] There's a line that we would put that under the place. Yeah, that's a TBD.

[3:14:25] Yeah, that's right.

[3:14:27] It's not subtracted.

[3:14:29] So if you're all set with it, then I'll just work towards it.

[3:14:32] I have a question.

[3:14:33] I think we are.

[3:14:33] All right.

[3:14:33] We'll do.

[3:14:33] All right.

[3:14:34] We'll do.

[3:14:34] Kind of tickets for the agenda.

[3:14:36] More or less.

[3:14:37] I had comments on the Conservation Commission.

[3:14:40] They can wait till the next meeting.

[3:14:41] I figured you might say that.

[3:14:43] We interfere.

[3:14:44] Second.

[3:14:45] All in favor?

[3:14:48] The adjourned.

[3:14:50] 10-0-9.

[3:14:51] Thank you, 22.

[3:14:52] And anyone who's still with us.

[3:14:53] I think this.

[3:14:54] Thank you.

Planning Board September 2, 2026

Transcript