[0:03] Welcome to the Town of Dairy Planning Board meeting
[0:06] for April 1st, 2026.
[0:09] We promise we won't make any foolish decisions tonight.
[0:12] We normally start with Pledge
[0:13] of Allegiance if you would rise and join me.
[0:18] Aye. Pledge Pledge. The United States of America.
[0:22] America Republic stands one nation under
[0:28] indivisible with liberty and justice.
[0:35] I'll start with some administrivia.
[0:38] The playing board voluntarily continues
[0:40] to offer remote participation.
[0:42] If any member of the planning board participates remotely,
[0:45] the vote shall be by roll call.
[0:47] To attend this meeting remotely using a computer
[0:50] or smartphone, point your browser to
[0:55] www zoom us.
[0:57] Enter meeting ID
[0:59] seven five four six six three nine one two.
[1:03] You may also call in by phone for audio only.
[1:06] Phone number is (646) 558-8656.
[1:11] Same meeting ID 7 5 4 6 6 3 9 1 2.
[1:17] If you have problems on the technical nature,
[1:20] call (603) 845-5585.
[1:24] If you're on the phone and you want to participate,
[1:27] hit star nine to raise your hand to be recognized.
[1:30] And star six two.
[1:32] Unmute yourself once you have been recognized
[1:35] and if there is an alarm activation, please use the exit
[1:39] where you came in at the rear of the room
[1:41] or the exit to my right, to your left, which will
[1:44] unlock when the alarm sounds.
[1:48] I will now introduce the staff
[1:50] and members present tonight to my far right alternate.
[1:54] Mr. Mousy. Good evening, Mr. Appleton.
[1:56] Evening planning Director Ms. Du. Good evening clerk.
[2:00] Ms. Wilson Town Council Liaison.
[2:05] Mr. Chase. Good evening.
[2:08] Newly appointed permanent member, Mr. Wood, congratulations.
[2:12] Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Menini. Good evening.
[2:15] Our vice chair. Mr. O'Connor. Good evening.
[2:18] My far left is our Community Access media coordinator. Mr.
[2:23] Preventer. Good evening. Member Mr.
[2:25] Fishman, Town Administrator Representative. Mr.
[2:31] Ello. Good evening, Mr. Pier. Good evening.
[2:34] And and secretary. Mr. Alibi. I'm Dave Nelson.
[2:37] I'm the chair. So being our organizational meeting
[2:42] of the year, the first thing we do is,
[2:46] is election of officers.
[2:48] And I guess I, I should ask whether everyone who was,
[2:51] whose term was up, did everyone get their oath conducted?
[2:54] I was informed, Yes. Okay, great.
[2:58] So on the election of officers, let's start with the chair.
[3:02] Are there any nominations, Mr.
[3:04] Chair, for chair for this year,
[3:05] I would like to nominate yourself Mr. David Nelson.
[3:08] Second. Okay. Second.
[3:09] There've been a no nomination
[3:11] for Mr. O'Connor, seconded by Mr.
[3:13] Fishman for David Nelson as chair for the coming years.
[3:16] There. Any other nominations,
[3:19] if not Mr. Chase?
[3:22] Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes.
[3:27] Yes. Mr. Fisherman. Mr. Churchill? Yes. Mr. Paler? Yes. Mr.
[3:31] Malley? Yes. And I'll gladly accept and vote. Yes.
[3:34] Next we have the vice chair.
[3:37] I would like to nominate John O'Connor. Second.
[3:40] So nomination by Brian Ello. Seconded by Mr. Intervening.
[3:44] Was it? Yes. I wasn't looking for the position
[3:48] of vice chair for the coming year.
[3:50] Are there any other nominations? Not Mr. Chase.
[3:54] Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes.
[4:00] Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Chair Cello? Yes. Mr. Pier? Yes.
[4:03] And Mr. Maby? Yes. And chair votes? Yes. Thank you.
[4:06] And finally, for secretary, do we have a nomination
[4:09] for secretary for the coming year? I'd
[4:10] Like to nominate Mr.
[4:11] Maby. Second.
[4:13] Okay. So O'Connor moves Peir seconds.
[4:17] The nomination of Malibu for secretary for the coming year.
[4:20] Are there any other nominations? Mr. Chase? Yes.
[4:25] Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr.
[4:28] Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Ello? Yes. Mr. Pelletier? Yes. Mr.
[4:32] Maby grateful? Yes. Right. And the chair votes? Yes.
[4:36] Sadly, your correspondence folder is still empty tonight.
[4:39] They don't care about me.
[4:42] Let's move on to regular order of business. First is escrow.
[4:46] We have item number 26 0 8 to establish
[4:52] for durable trailers.
[4:54] Okay. So the project name is seven a street change of use
[4:58] for durable trailers.
[4:59] LLC. The escrow type is cash escrow
[5:02] and the property is located at seven a street.
[5:05] The request is to establish cash escrow in the amount
[5:08] of $22,626 and 25 cents for the above noted project.
[5:14] This escrow is non-interest bearing.
[5:17] Okay. What is the board's pleasure?
[5:20] Mr. Chair, please establish cash escrow in the amount
[5:23] of $22,626 and 25 cents for the above noted project.
[5:28] The escrow was in non-interest, barren and ISO move.
[5:31] Second, moved by O'Connor, seconded by Melanie
[5:34] to accept the escrow as presented.
[5:36] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. W. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Veni? Yes.
[5:41] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Ello? Yes. Mr.
[5:46] Pier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes. And the chair votes? Yes. Great.
[5:49] Next item on the agenda is item 26 dash oh nine.
[5:54] Annual review of our cash escrow balances.
[5:57] Okay. So these escrow balances are as
[6:00] of March 4th, 2020 sixth.
[6:04] Running down the list.
[6:05] There are some that you'll note are a little bit older.
[6:08] The T-Mobile northeast is a,
[6:10] that's a removal bond type thing.
[6:12] So that will kind of remain in perpetuity for a cell tower.
[6:17] The Kershaw escrow is for the completion
[6:21] of the, the little mini putt putt area.
[6:27] They haven't moved forward with with that.
[6:29] So we will hold escrow on that.
[6:31] And then the remainder are not quite as old
[6:35] and these numbers have been reviewed
[6:38] and the amounts deemed adequate for any remaining work.
[6:43] Okay. And I assume that all of these
[6:47] plans have met the criteria for active
[6:49] and substantial developments.
[6:50] So they are
[6:52] Not Meeting extensions.
[6:53] Correct? I know of prime storage. We looked at that one.
[6:56] The other, the other day.
[6:58] That one is just in June of this year.
[7:00] It will lose its vesting for
[7:04] any pretend any zoning changes that have happened.
[7:06] But they are, they're all able
[7:10] to be developed as is.
[7:12] Okay. And so your recommendation is to find the
[7:16] escrows adequate?
[7:18] Yes. What is the board's pleasure on that
[7:22] Mr.
[7:23] Chair? I move to find the list
[7:23] of the open cash escrows are held in the amounts which
[7:26] provide adequate security
[7:27] for the proposed length of the project.
[7:29] The amounts listed above are in the ending principle
[7:33] and interest amounts as of March 4th, 2026.
[7:37] Number 26 dash nine. So I so move.
[7:40] Second. Moved by O'Connor, seconded by Malibu to find the
[7:45] escrow accounts sufficient.
[7:46] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes.
[7:51] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Ello? Yes.
[7:54] Palantier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.
[7:59] And now we move on to minutes.
[8:02] We have before US approval of minutes
[8:05] for March 18th, 2026.
[8:07] Has anyone seen any errors or omissions?
[8:14] If not, what is the board's pleasure
[8:15] Seeing Nobody raise their hands.
[8:16] I move to accept as written. Mr. Chair. Second.
[8:20] Moved by O'Connor, seconded by Malibu
[8:22] to accept the minutes of March 18th as written.
[8:25] Mr. Chase, I will abstain. I was not present. Mr. Wood? Yes.
[8:30] Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman.
[8:33] I'll abstain. I was not present. Mr. Ella? Yes. Mr. Pier?
[8:37] Yes. Mr. Libby? Yes. And chair votes? Yes.
[8:41] Next item is annual review of non-public minutes.
[8:43] We don't have any. We released all of them. Wow. Last year.
[8:48] So nothing really to do on that other than announced
[8:50] that we don't have any correspondence.
[8:56] Sadly, the correspondence file is empty, so,
[9:02] so we'll move on to other business.
[9:05] We have Parcel ID 0 3 1 2 9 Parcel ID
[9:08] 0 3 0 7 6 8 Stark Road
[9:11] and 2 0 2 Rockingham Road.
[9:15] It is a voluntary merger.
[9:18] Okay. So Mr. Palmer owns two
[9:22] adjacent lots in common ownership.
[9:23] One front's on Stark
[9:25] and the other front's on Rockingham Road.
[9:27] The intent is to voluntarily merge the lots.
[9:30] Eight Stark Road is just over 10 acres
[9:35] and currently there's a garlic farm on it.
[9:39] The lot is also slightly encumbered
[9:41] with a billboard easement,
[9:42] but that does not affect the merger.
[9:44] 2 0 2 Rockingham Road is a little less than an acre
[9:47] and it's a triangle piece of land adjacent
[9:49] to the Rockingham Rail Trail.
[9:51] 2 0 2 Rockingham Road will be deleted.
[9:53] An eight Stark Road retained.
[9:57] These voluntary mergers are approved pursuant to
[10:00] RA 6 74 39 A and we do not require a public hearing.
[10:04] So the recommendation would be
[10:05] to approve the voluntary merger.
[10:08] Okay. Where's our minute maker here?
[10:15] So do we need to accept jurisdiction on this? No. No.
[10:19] Alright. Any questions?
[10:23] If not, what is the board's pleasure? Okay,
[10:25] Mr.
[10:26] Chair, move to approve the voluntary merger
[10:28] of eight Stock Road and 2 0 2 Rockingham Road.
[10:33] The parcel to be retained is PID
[10:36] 0 3 1 2 9 8 Stock Road.
[10:40] The parcel to be deleted is PID
[10:43] zero three zero seven six two hundred and two
[10:47] Rockingham Road. So move.
[10:50] Okay. It moved by O'Connor, seconded by Mallie
[10:52] to approve the voluntary merger.
[10:55] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes.
[10:58] Mr. O'Connor? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Chair Cello? Yes.
[11:02] Mr. Pier? Yes. Mr. Maby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.
[11:08] The, we have annual review of board policy and procedures
[11:11] and there were some items in our packet regarding that.
[11:18] We should review those. I don't know
[11:20] that we necessarily need to make a final decision tonight,
[11:22] especially if, if there are some things
[11:24] that maybe need some research.
[11:27] But maybe Ms.
[11:29] Roberta, would you please review the suggestions with us?
[11:33] Okay. I can. So there no legislative changes have occurred
[11:38] that would require any updates at this time
[11:42] when we were looking
[11:43] or kind of looking through what we have for language
[11:47] under section five, conduct of meetings.
[11:49] There's manner of voting.
[11:52] We have been doing roll call votes on almost all votes.
[11:56] We don't necessarily have to do that.
[11:58] So I thought it might be a good idea for the board to kind
[12:01] of take a look at that and see when it's
[12:03] appropriate to do roll call.
[12:05] Always. When we have a virtual a member attending virtually,
[12:08] then all votes are by roll call.
[12:10] But for things like, you know,
[12:15] things that are like open a public hearing or,
[12:18] or they're not substantive that are, could be appealable.
[12:23] We could probably do the, the, you know, eyes have it.
[12:26] But I would appreciative if the board could kind
[12:29] of take a look at that and gimme some feedback as
[12:31] to which way they wanna go.
[12:33] I don't know if we have to incorporate
[12:34] it into the procedures.
[12:35] We can if we want to. But at least take a look at that.
[12:40] One of the things in, I know some
[12:42] of you have Al also took the training
[12:45] under Section six Order of Business. Can we
[12:48] Go ahead and stop?
[12:49] Let's discuss these one at a time. Okay. Yep.
[12:54] So yes, my practice has been to always take a roll call,
[12:59] vote on anything that's an approval
[13:01] or decision that would result in a notice of decision.
[13:05] And then take eyes
[13:07] and nays on purely procedural things such as
[13:11] opening public hearings, closing public hearings,
[13:14] adjourning things that will not affect anyone's application.
[13:19] So if we wanna put that in the rules, then that's fine.
[13:22] But that has been my, my practice just
[13:26] to make them the meetings move more smoothly.
[13:28] Does anyone have any thoughts or concerns about that?
[13:33] No, I'm fine with that. Okay. Hearing none.
[13:36] Alright, let's move on to the next one. Okay.
[13:39] So one of the trainings that was conducted
[13:43] by New Hampshire, BEA, indicated
[13:46] that the planning board should vote on a waiver request
[13:49] prior to accepting jurisdiction.
[13:51] Their rationale was that if, if there are checklist items
[13:55] and you have to meet all of the checklist items in order to
[14:00] accept jurisdiction, if someone's asked
[14:04] for a waiver from one of those until the board votes up
[14:06] or down on that waiver, then that item is left open.
[14:12] It has not been the board's policy
[14:15] to operate in that manner.
[14:18] And I'm was a little confused
[14:21] and I had mentioned it to Mr. Nelson
[14:25] that I don't know how we are accepting jurisdiction
[14:28] and then we open the public hearing
[14:29] after that our decisions are made during a public hearing.
[14:34] So we're looking for guidance from the board.
[14:37] How you wanna, I suggest, proceed,
[14:38] Suggest that there are two valid sides to this, right?
[14:41] Yes. I mean, I think the point that the BEA is making
[14:46] is that if there is a waiver request
[14:51] that causes a substantial piece of information, a report,
[14:57] a compliance with a regulation to be missing,
[15:01] then it might be that the planning board would legitimately
[15:04] say, there's not enough information here
[15:07] for us to make a decision.
[15:09] And you would like them to come back with
[15:13] that information before you start?
[15:16] I think it's currently what, a 60 day clock? Yes.
[15:19] Once, once a plan hits our desk, we have 60 days to,
[15:22] you know, accept or, or, or,
[15:24] or deny, you know, it could be with or without prejudice.
[15:27] And, and so that's a that's a good point.
[15:31] The other thing that concerns me is, is what Ms.
[15:33] Robo points out that waivers are in the statute, we have
[15:38] to have a waiver process.
[15:40] They're expected to be granted as part of application
[15:44] deliberation and application deliberation is supposed to be
[15:49] during and after a public hearing.
[15:52] And so making substantive decisions on whether we would
[15:57] or would not grant a waiver
[15:58] before we even accept jurisdiction gets
[16:01] us a file on the other side of that.
[16:02] So maybe we try
[16:06] to split it in the middle and,
[16:08] and have the staff report that
[16:12] the waivers that are requested should cause the board
[16:16] to have some concern about whether
[16:18] there's sufficient information.
[16:21] And in that case we would
[16:23] not necessarily vote on the waivers
[16:26] 'cause I think we should do that in a public hearing.
[16:28] But we might say the absence of that information,
[16:31] whether it's requested a waiver
[16:33] or not, is not sufficient for us to, to proceed.
[16:37] I think we can maybe have it both ways
[16:39] and not get a foul of Okay.
[16:41] Of the law that way. Anyone? Yeah, so I
[16:43] I I'm just thinking it's almost backwards to me
[16:45] because when you accept jurisdiction,
[16:48] you're basically saying that the plan is complete.
[16:50] If I don't accept jurisdiction,
[16:52] you're saying there's something missing.
[16:54] So why would I approve a waiver on a, on something
[16:56] that's I feel is not complete doesn't make sense to me.
[16:59] Yeah. It's almost backwards to me. Well, so
[17:02] Waivers, we, we have occasionally gone against the advice
[17:06] of our, you know, I'll,
[17:07] I'll pick on the engineering department.
[17:09] They wanted X, Y, Z and the applicant requested a waiver
[17:13] and we heard the testimony
[17:15] and we decided, you know what,
[17:16] we're gonna grant the waiver even though the engineering
[17:18] department didn't support that because that's our function.
[17:22] So there can be things missing from the checklist,
[17:26] but that doesn't mean that the planning board should
[17:28] automatically reject the application.
[17:32] 'cause the, the applicant has a kind of constitutional right
[17:35] to have their day before the quasi judicial body
[17:37] of the planning board and ask for a waiver.
[17:39] Yeah. So, and then once we take jurisdiction,
[17:42] as you mentioned, the, the clock starts, correct?
[17:44] Yes it Does. Yep. So now, you know,
[17:47] you've gotta have everything, all your ducks in a row.
[17:49] That's why I'm thinking when, when I heard that,
[17:51] it almost sounds like everything was backwards
[17:52] There.
[17:53] Yeah. So I mean, for things, if we had a large
[17:56] large traffic user come to town
[17:59] and they submitted a waiver request to the planning board
[18:02] to not submit a traffic report,
[18:05] I would definitely in my staff report say,
[18:09] I would recommend you find the application incomplete.
[18:11] They've asked for a waiver to not supply a traffic report.
[18:15] That's, that's something you're really gonna need
[18:17] to make an informed decision.
[18:18] Obviously it's the board's decision whether they want
[18:21] to accept it as complete and then vote on the waiver late
[18:23] or, but things like that, those type of checklist items
[18:29] that have a big impact on your decision making process.
[18:32] I think you, we would, if they submitted a waiver request,
[18:36] we would bring it up, you know, ahead of time for you guys
[18:39] to look at when you accept jurisdiction.
[18:41] But things like ask for a waiver
[18:45] to not put a granite bound there
[18:47] because it's an existing iron pin on a corner
[18:50] or, you know, things that, or snapping Yeah.
[18:53] Even though technically bounds are part of the checklist,
[18:55] that's something that really should be discussed
[18:57] during a public hearing to see if it's, so there's that.
[19:01] Oh, but I wanted clear direction
[19:04] because when I attended the workshop I was like, oh no.
[19:09] Like I've been telling you wrong things all along,
[19:12] but I, I think, you know, there's an argument
[19:13] for both sides of it.
[19:15] Mr. Conan, you had a comment? Yeah.
[19:17] Most of it's administrative.
[19:20] One of the questions I have is that there's two divisions.
[19:24] There's the subdivision regulation
[19:25] 60, 74 36, which is optional.
[19:30] And then there's site plan regulation 6 74 44 is required.
[19:35] So we may have to need two explanations if we do decide
[19:39] to put something into the policy and procedures
[19:42] and need to break out which one is which
[19:45] and what do we have to fall to if we
[19:47] have a particular state.
[19:49] Well, it sounds like dairy require both
[19:54] subdivision and site plan.
[19:56] I I have a feeling that that BEA legal advice might have
[20:01] been more targeted towards smaller towns
[20:03] that don't have professional staff where, you know,
[20:05] you get five members of the planning board
[20:07] and they're trying to figure this out
[20:08] on a, on a Thursday night.
[20:09] Right. So we have the advantage
[20:13] of having professional staff
[20:14] and if it is a big plan, it will be subject to
[20:19] outside engineering peer review.
[20:20] Yes. So,
[20:22] Okay.
[20:23] So I, I think we're okay.
[20:24] I, I really wanted to have this discussion to get input,
[20:27] but I mean, I, I think we're okay proceeding
[20:29] the way that we have been. I,
[20:32] I prefer that.
[20:33] Okay. Alright. So
[20:34] Does anyone else have a different opinion than
[20:38] the consensus that we ought to continue the way we're doing?
[20:42] Except for if somebody comes in
[20:45] with an egregious missing piece, staff will flag that
[20:48] and we'll, we won't make accepting jurisdiction a gimme
[20:52] we'll, we'll abate it.
[20:54] Right? Okay. Because we, we, but I'll be honest,
[20:56] because we have such professional staff,
[20:58] because we have a TRC review process,
[21:00] we don't really get applicants that come in with
[21:03] big missing pieces.
[21:05] No. Sometimes they wanna waive TRC review.
[21:09] Well, We've had those. Okay. But, but that's okay.
[21:12] Alright, so moving on in the, oh, developments
[21:17] of regional impact.
[21:19] So this raises an interesting point about how,
[21:23] how we do no votes.
[21:25] Because technically if you make the emotion
[21:29] and the affirmative and everyone votes no.
[21:31] As we have been doing, it's not a,
[21:35] it's really not a negative.
[21:36] We're supposed to go and make another motion so
[21:40] we don't feel it has regional impact.
[21:42] And then you vote again to say, I move
[21:45] that this plan does not have regional impact
[21:47] for the reasons we just cited.
[21:48] Like that technically is the way it's supposed to. So
[21:51] Two, so you're basically doing it
[21:52] Twice.
[21:53] Yeah. So if there, it's, there's a no vote,
[21:54] it should be two votes.
[21:55] So the, the rationale behind this,
[21:57] 'cause I, I've actually heard this from lawyers in,
[21:59] in law lectures, especially on applications,
[22:04] Applications are almost always conditional
[22:09] and they're always abut our concerns and mitigations.
[22:13] And so it's not a binary thing.
[22:16] In other words, we may have members on the board
[22:20] who would vote for an application
[22:23] if it didn't grant this waiver
[22:25] and it had mitigation for that abut So it, it,
[22:28] it, it's a menu.
[22:29] It's not a an up or down.
[22:32] On the other hand, the way I look at
[22:34] regional impact either is or isn't.
[22:36] Correct. So I don't think it matters how we vote
[22:41] on that because there's no conditions that we could apply
[22:45] to a decision on regional impact.
[22:47] That was, that's the way I look at it.
[22:48] But, and I'm looking at
[22:49] how does everyone else think about it?
[22:51] Two separate motions doesn't really change the intent.
[22:54] I mean, we can vote a certain way and the intent explained.
[22:59] So to make a second motion just to, to vote yes
[23:02] after the no doesn't really, it just
[23:04] That that's what I, silly always the,
[23:06] that's always been my thought process.
[23:08] But I think technically, so if you had an application
[23:13] and it came down to
[23:19] it was like, you know, the majority voted no
[23:23] and a couple members voted yes for the application,
[23:26] the way we've been voting now,
[23:28] the application would be denied.
[23:30] But what
[23:34] We're talking about regional impact now,
[23:35] Right?
[23:36] I was using that as an example. Yeah.
[23:37] So for on applications, absolutely I believe that the,
[23:40] the correct legal, because you can't get a majority of folks
[23:45] who agreed to the motion with its set of conditions
[23:48] as it was presented, that basically is, is just a failure
[23:53] to reach a decision what you're supposed to do.
[23:56] If you have a no vote on a motion of conditional approval,
[24:00] you're supposed to reopen discussion
[24:02] and say, well how could we change the terms
[24:06] of the approval to get to Yes.
[24:08] And that's because you're supposed to protect the rights
[24:12] of developers and landowners.
[24:15] The fact that we, you know, did not get a majority
[24:18] for a particular package of conditions and, and,
[24:22] and, and factors that is, that is not the same as a denial
[24:27] that just simply means you didn't make the, the soup Right.
[24:30] And you didn't get to Yes.
[24:31] So I, I actually was on the planning board when,
[24:36] or we lost a lawsuit
[24:37] and it was explained to us that that's what we needed to do.
[24:40] So, okay, so
[24:43] for applications, absolutely.
[24:45] Okay. A failure to get a
[24:48] majority on a affirmative motion is not a decision,
[24:51] it's a failure to reach a decision. Okay.
[24:54] So moving forward will still do the development
[24:57] of regional impact is impacts will still be the No, no, no,
[25:00] no nos unless it is Yes.
[25:02] And then for applications, it'll be at the call
[25:07] of the chair if, if we get a series of nos to decide Yes.
[25:10] If we wanna reopen that,
[25:12] If that ever happens, you know, okay.
[25:13] Staff, please remind me. Okay.
[25:15] Or whoever is sitting in the chair at that time. Okay.
[25:18] Because we so rarely actually get to a a no. Okay.
[25:22] That we're maybe out of practice.
[25:24] But yes, if we fail to reach a majority yes.
[25:28] On an affirmative action, affirm affirmative motion
[25:32] for approval, then we need to open up the discussion
[25:35] and see if something else would get to Yes. Mr. Menini
[25:39] On, on a vote, like the regional determination
[25:44] of regional impact, is there any reason why a planning board
[25:47] member couldn't motion right from the start?
[25:51] No, this does not constitute a regional impact.
[25:55] We, we could, again, it it is different than other
[26:00] motions in in a sense.
[26:01] 'cause it, it, it's either yes or no. It it is or it isn't.
[26:05] But we have a longstanding practice
[26:07] that we always make motions in the affirmative is that,
[26:11] you know, gospel, I don't know, maybe not
[26:14] It's canon, but yeah, I don't, I guess we could, it, it,
[26:19] I kind of like the way we do it
[26:22] because it, it keeps that make it always make, I, I like
[26:27] that we always do it in the affirmative and then we vote no.
[26:30] And I'm afraid if we start changing that, if we fall out of
[26:34] that practice, if someone has a plan that comes forward
[26:38] and we're used to saying, well I don't agree with that,
[26:40] so I make my motion in that I vote to deny this application
[26:43] because then like we've, we've stepped outside the lines.
[26:47] But as always, this is at the board's call and pleasure.
[26:51] Yeah. And we're lucky we always have Mr. Chase sitting in
[26:53] that for seat and he, he sets us off with it.
[26:58] It's supposed to be yes or no. We just a lot of pressure.
[27:01] Yeah. You rely on your expertise Mr. Chase. Yeah.
[27:07] That's why he makes the big money over there. Yeah. Okay.
[27:10] Alright. So is everyone happy
[27:12] with that issue?
[27:17] We can move on to, okay.
[27:19] And if nobody has any suggested changes for the policy
[27:23] and procedures, then we could,
[27:26] we could vote at the next meeting to accept them, you know,
[27:29] or to not change them and just keep moving on with them.
[27:34] But if you do have some, please send them to me.
[27:37] Alright. So yeah, I mean we got the, we got the slide deck
[27:40] so I think we gotta wait till next meeting to
[27:44] make a decision so that we have a chance to look at this.
[27:50] Okay, thank you very much.
[27:51] Okay, thank you. Okay, next is
[27:57] plan planning director and chairman updates.
[28:00] Okay.
[28:01] So what I thought I might do is just
[28:08] fill you in because we don't have applications before
[28:11] and there can't be any pre-judging of applications,
[28:15] but I would like to let you know
[28:16] what staff is working on behind the scenes.
[28:19] I can let you know in a generic sense
[28:21] what we've been working on
[28:23] for technical review since the beginning of the year.
[28:26] It was pretty quiet. In January
[28:27] and February, March we have been slammed,
[28:30] we're doing two or three a week.
[28:31] So we had, we reviewed an application for redevelopment
[28:36] for about 3,800 square feet of commercial use
[28:40] with associated parking and draining drainage.
[28:44] A 12 lot subdivision redevelopment
[28:48] of over 12,000 square feet of mixed use commercial.
[28:54] We did review a site plan amendment involving 3000 square
[28:59] feet of commercial use,
[29:01] but the applicant decided they weren't
[29:03] gonna move forward with that.
[29:04] So that won't be coming to the planning board.
[29:07] There was another two lots subdivision.
[29:09] And then most recently we reviewed a new site plan
[29:13] for light industrial
[29:15] for about 20,000 square feet of new use
[29:20] with associated parking and drainage.
[29:23] Hmm. Nice. So yeah, so you've got,
[29:24] you've got a lot coming and,
[29:27] and I think, you know, this list kind of pinpoints what
[29:32] with TRC, not the things that we work on don't always get
[29:37] to the board because for some reason
[29:39] or another there might be land that is too,
[29:42] it's just not easily developed.
[29:44] And what they want to bring before us is they can't do it
[29:48] 'cause they can't, they just can't meet the regulations,
[29:50] they can't get the a OT or they can't do certain things.
[29:53] So not everything we work on comes to you,
[29:56] but you know, the more majority does.
[29:58] But I thought it might be nice like every couple of months
[30:01] to give you an update on, you know,
[30:02] what we've been working on.
[30:04] And so you can anticipate what's coming to you.
[30:08] Great. Any questions on that? No, no.
[30:13] In terms of the chairman update, the only I have is that
[30:15] with the elevation of Mr. Wood to a, a full member seat,
[30:19] we now have a vacancy for an alternate position to fill
[30:23] a three year term that he was expiring
[30:29] in in March 31st.
[30:30] So again, if you think we're having fun here
[30:33] or you'd like to help your community
[30:35] and invite you to go to the town's website
[30:37] and fill in an application
[30:39] 'cause we can get you added to our rank of alternates.
[30:45] Alright, next is a workshop to discuss goals,
[30:50] procedures, and policy, although we kind of discussed that
[30:52] and to set priority for future board actions.
[30:59] Okay. So I think a couple
[31:02] meetings ago I had asked if the board members had any goals
[31:05] that they were kind of wanting to put forward
[31:08] 'cause this is a good meeting to set, kind
[31:10] of set those priorities.
[31:12] But I did wanna note that
[31:15] as we've been looking at applications
[31:17] and how they conform to our, our zoning
[31:20] and our land development control regulations,
[31:22] there's some things that have come up
[31:24] that have been a little quirky.
[31:26] The code enforcement officer
[31:27] and I, we meet daily sometimes two or three times a day and,
[31:31] and we, we've been struggling
[31:33] with some things in the zoning ordinance
[31:34] or things have come up
[31:35] and we're like, oh, this doesn't really make sense.
[31:38] Anyone who's been in my office knows
[31:40] that I have a big whiteboard behind my desk
[31:43] and is completely covered with things
[31:44] and every time something comes
[31:45] up I put it on the whiteboard.
[31:47] So there's an ongoing do list of things
[31:49] that we could look at.
[31:54] So what I came up with, I sat down
[31:58] with Carrie Owen, our code enforcement officer,
[32:00] and we kind of looked through, there were some things
[32:03] that the chair and I had talked about,
[32:05] you know, over the last few months.
[32:06] And then Carrie and I had looked
[32:08] through the list on the board and things that had come up.
[32:11] So what I had pres what I'm presenting to you is kind
[32:15] of a list of things that I would like the board to consider
[32:18] and if you would agree we can, we can get them on a list
[32:21] and maybe prioritize them.
[32:23] And we are working on the CBD amendments with regard
[32:27] to medium density
[32:29] and low medium density residential Over the last 10 years,
[32:33] water has been extended to areas that
[32:37] previously didn't have it.
[32:40] And those lots with that particular zoning were designated
[32:44] with minimum lot areas.
[32:46] So we could accommodate septics
[32:47] and wells now that water is available to those areas,
[32:51] it might make sense to kind of look at maybe relaxing
[32:56] that area requirement, not necessarily frontage
[32:59] or any of that, but like the area requirement
[33:02] or the minimum lot area.
[33:04] And it would, where we have the,
[33:07] the municipal water available, we can, you know, kind
[33:10] of relax that radius that we might have needed
[33:12] and it would also allow for a little bit more density
[33:16] but not too much density in these areas.
[33:18] So I would ask if the board would maybe consider that.
[33:24] I mean, I think it's a good thing to review
[33:26] as we add infrastructure.
[33:29] I was always under the impression that I sewer or,
[33:33] or subsurface, you know, private septic was the kind
[33:37] of controlling factor for density
[33:38] because yes, there is a protective radius on the well,
[33:42] but that's fairly easy to,
[33:46] to me easier than the, the private septic system design.
[33:50] So I think it would be good to review that. Okay. I agree.
[33:55] I don't know that the water alone will necessarily make a
[33:58] big difference, but we ought to have that
[33:59] data in front of us, I think.
[34:00] Okay. Does anyone all feel differently or agree
[34:04] Or No?
[34:05] I, I think we have to because if you're in a particular zone
[34:07] and now you have water and sewer, as Dave mentioned, water
[34:10] and sewer typically meant you could build on, I dunno
[34:13] what it was, 10,000 square feet.
[34:15] Yeah. Because you have water and sewer.
[34:17] But if you're in a zone that has water and sewer now,
[34:20] but the zone itself requires X amount of land,
[34:23] but you've got water and sewer.
[34:25] So now you've got competing areas of of that
[34:29] that don't make sense together.
[34:31] Beyond that, I, I don't know, we,
[34:33] we were tracking this in the last legislative session.
[34:36] There was a bill that would limit the ability
[34:41] of towns to have I think what more than two acres.
[34:46] Everything was gonna be a maximum of one.
[34:49] Like it was a one acre zoning every time. Yeah. I
[34:51] Don't think, I don't think that's going anywhere, but
[34:53] No, it didn't. But that
[34:54] Was on there.
[34:55] But yeah, but it, it said everything was gonna be just,
[34:56] you know,
[34:58] soils, septic and soil.
[35:02] So that could come back
[35:05] and having done this review would probably put us in a
[35:09] good proactive position.
[35:11] Yeah, I I I'd rather see non conflicting areas.
[35:15] So if we do review it, we'll, we'll pick up on those.
[35:18] Now was there some survey of this already in process?
[35:23] Some somewhat in process? I'm sorry?
[35:25] Was there a study all already in process?
[35:27] I, I thought I heard maybe it was in the
[35:32] capital plan discussion.
[35:35] I don't know. Or maybe I dreamt it.
[35:37] Yeah, I think, I'm trying to remember where I, I know that
[35:42] we were looking at density stuff like that.
[35:44] I think that's part of our master plan thing,
[35:47] but I know water and sewer is being extended to areas
[35:50] that we didn't think we would get it in like the next 20
[35:53] years and they have it now.
[35:56] So, and you know, some developers are extending water.
[35:59] We you were part of that Southern
[36:00] New Hampshire water project.
[36:01] Yeah. So and oh that's what I was thinking. Yeah.
[36:04] The Southern New Hampshire Water project.
[36:06] So there's those we,
[36:08] I think we really need to just look at it.
[36:11] But I do think that you're correct on the CIP
[36:14] that was presented by Mr. Fowler.
[36:16] Was that the, like going down Ryan's hill
[36:20] that they're talking about putting sewer in there?
[36:22] Yeah. Yeah. And so, because a lot of that soils now is going
[36:26] to concur with you is most of the soils over there.
[36:29] You can't build anything but auto dealership.
[36:33] But if you can correct it
[36:34] and put septic in there, that mean that land opens up.
[36:37] And same thing with east der a lot of the soils there are,
[36:41] you need three acres Yeah.
[36:43] To justify a septic. So
[36:45] How would we do this?
[36:46] Is this something that can be done in house with engineering
[36:48] or do we need hire a consultant? We
[36:50] Can do it in-house.
[36:51] We can take a look at, it's
[36:53] In Doug Rathburn should have stuff on
[36:55] it. You're aware of all that stuff.
[36:56] I know the engineering department rep is not here
[36:58] while we're making that commitment.
[36:59] But yeah, that's okay. We can take a look at,
[37:02] we can take a look at our existing areas
[37:04] that are zoned MDRL in LMDR.
[37:07] We can look at where water
[37:10] and sewer is has either has expanded
[37:13] or is proposed
[37:14] to be expanded within the next five or six years.
[37:16] Yeah. And we can, we can take a look at that
[37:19] and see what we have available for land
[37:22] and that can help the board make a better
[37:24] informed decision on that.
[37:25] Yeah.
[37:27] Yeah. 'cause I know that's been a long town goal
[37:30] for Ryans Hill is to increase the marketability
[37:35] of those properties more commercially.
[37:38] So we, so the town can kind
[37:40] of bring in more val overall value.
[37:41] As someone mentioned the car lots, there's not a lot
[37:44] of value there, but if you bring water
[37:46] and sewer, you know,
[37:48] now you can do different things on that hill.
[37:50] It's just another area of town that we, they
[37:52] that could potentially be built commercially
[37:56] that will bring overall value to the town.
[37:59] So I think, I think Mike Fowl has mentioned last year we
[38:02] brought in $50 million worth of overall town value we did.
[38:07] Which really helped the tax rate.
[38:09] And I think this year he's got another 50,000.
[38:11] We're gonna need that because I,
[38:13] I know I'm going off on a tangent here,
[38:15] but come December there's gonna be a big tax
[38:18] bill increase coming up.
[38:20] And so the biggest tool that the town has is
[38:25] to bring in development to offset some of that.
[38:27] So to kind of put into the overall value of the town.
[38:30] So if we do look at these areas that have the water
[38:34] and sewer then, and we can make some decisions like Ryan's
[38:37] Hill and say, all right, we wanna do this
[38:39] bigger densities and all that. So,
[38:41] Okay.
[38:42] So I, I will reiterate, I think I said oh,
[38:45] long time ago when I, when we first convened last year,
[38:49] alternates who are not sitting to vote are able
[38:54] and encouraged to participate in these kinds of discussions.
[38:58] So Oh yeah. If you have questions
[39:01] or you have ideas, go ahead and chime in.
[39:04] Otherwise I might end up, you know, picking on you.
[39:06] You know. Anyone, anyone, anyone. Bueller?
[39:12] So are we done with We're
[39:13] Done with that one?
[39:14] That one. Okay. Let's move, move on to the next.
[39:16] So we have been talking for a little bit about creating
[39:18] our non-normative workforce housing index.
[39:22] We're supposed to have a workforce housing ordinance.
[39:25] We, we support all of the things in the RSA
[39:30] that speak to workforce housing, the types
[39:32] of housing we allow and
[39:33] where we allow it in the densities that we allow it.
[39:36] But it's scattered throughout our zoning ordinance.
[39:39] So that all kind of needs to be pulled together and,
[39:42] and put in and have an index somewhere so
[39:44] that people can look at it and, and see that we do conform.
[39:48] So that's something that really should be done this year
[39:53] and that's something that staff can work on
[39:55] and just bring to the board.
[39:56] But I just wanted to make sure
[39:57] that the board was in agreement with
[39:59] that goal. I'm seeing heads
[40:01] Nodding so it's not normative.
[40:02] 'cause we don't wanna actually change inadvertently
[40:05] change the, the zoning.
[40:07] Would this actually be part of the ordinance?
[40:15] I mean we can figure that out when we get there. Yeah.
[40:17] I guess I'm, does it have to go to the town council?
[40:19] If we add it to the ordinance, it would have to go
[40:22] to town council because it would be in addition to one
[40:24] of the articles and it would be a subsection. But
[40:26] Is that what we were thinking at this point?
[40:29] I'm not quite sure. I i,
[40:30] I maybe pull all the information together
[40:32] and see how we could Okay.
[40:34] Or where we would insert it
[40:36] and it, it, it, I don't know that it would, I don't know
[40:40] that we wanna have it as an appendix,
[40:41] but I think maybe when we pull all the data together
[40:45] and bring it to the board, we can maybe discuss
[40:49] where we think it best fits.
[40:50] I mean, my only thought was that the description
[40:54] of non-normative as being part of an ordinance is sort
[40:57] of an oxymoron, but Right.
[40:58] So we have to figure that out. But
[41:00] Okay.
[41:01] It could be that we, it's just an insert
[41:03] that we put at in our ordinance at the beginning
[41:06] or something after the table of contents. So
[41:09] We wanna clear on what we're, we're doing here rather than
[41:13] doing a massive edit of the zoning ordinance
[41:15] and pulling all the pieces that have to do
[41:17] with the workforce housing out
[41:19] of the districts in which they exist
[41:20] and putting 'em in, in one article.
[41:23] We're making an index that points to all the pieces so
[41:26] that if you're interested in
[41:27] workforce housing, you can find them.
[41:28] All right.
[41:30] Okay. Okay. Alright. So I'll work on that.
[41:33] And these are, I i,
[41:34] these are just other things that came up.
[41:38] Update the language regarding the ground in roof solar.
[41:41] I think I'd mentioned when we did the Abbott court,
[41:44] when we had the Abbott court discussion a little bit ago,
[41:47] we don't talk about how we regulate rooftop.
[41:50] So maybe we wanna look at that
[41:53] update the time limit on the non-conforming use provision.
[41:57] Right now we have language that says if the use lapses,
[42:02] you have a year to put a similar,
[42:04] exact same type use in there.
[42:07] Are I, I don't know that it needs
[42:12] to be a whole year for that
[42:16] and maybe we decrease that.
[42:19] Is there some case law on this though?
[42:22] I can look into that. I wasn't aware
[42:25] of any, but I'll double check.
[42:27] Okay.
[42:33] The only, Oh,
[42:34] I'm sorry.
[42:35] No, no, I I'm just thinking
[42:36] that there may be legitimate reasons financing
[42:39] insurance company dragging
[42:41] their feet. There could be a lot of reasons.
[42:42] That's what I was gonna say. If it's, if it's the fire
[42:44] issue, sometimes it
[42:45] Takes No, no, no.
[42:46] So it would be, so say say I have a,
[42:53] I have an ice cream parlor and it's in a residential zone.
[42:57] Yeah. Making this up.
[42:58] It's not a permitted use in the residential district. Right.
[43:01] But there's been an ice cream parlor there for 20 years.
[43:04] Well, Rosie's ice cream parlor closed
[43:07] and then on month 13,
[43:09] Shawn's ice cream parlor wants to come in.
[43:12] It's past 12 months. So Shawn can't come in.
[43:15] But if Sean comes in at 11 months in the 30th day,
[43:20] Sean can open the ice cream parlor in
[43:23] In the non-conforming zone.
[43:24] In the non-conforming zone. And what, that's
[43:26] what I'm saying is I think that having that, that year
[43:29] to bring back, you know,
[43:31] there we remove uses from districts for reasons.
[43:35] And I don't think we wanna promote non-conformity.
[43:38] So I'm asking that maybe we consider tightening up
[43:40] that window where you would allow a non-conforming
[43:43] use to go back in.
[43:45] I was following the same lines as the chairman thicken.
[43:49] If you're at the ice cream shop and it burns, oh
[43:52] That's different. That's different.
[43:53] Right. That's different. And you're in a nonconforming
[43:55] and you have six months to rebuild, but there's a fire
[43:59] and they're investigating
[44:00] and insurance takes forever. Yeah.
[44:02] They shouldn't Or supposing you, you are retiring. Right.
[44:06] Because many people who own
[44:08] small sole proprietor businesses on the only way they can
[44:12] retire is, is to sell their business.
[44:15] Not necessarily just the land and, and building,
[44:17] but sell the, the business
[44:19] with its customer base and whatnot.
[44:22] I'm just concerned that there might be legal concerns with
[44:27] confiscation of the value of the business
[44:30] and the inability of the owner to have a reasonable time
[44:34] to sell the business in order to, you know,
[44:38] realize their retirement.
[44:40] So yeah, I think we need to look at those things as well.
[44:43] Not just a fire, but hey, I've had it on the market.
[44:45] It takes me a year to find a new buyer. Yeah.
[44:48] But it's actively on the market.
[44:50] Yeah. The, the fire one is its own separate,
[44:53] has its own separate language in
[44:55] conditions that are attached to that.
[44:57] So if there's like a, a, a major, you know, act of God
[45:01] or something that happens with a
[45:02] or a fire on a property that has its own separate section.
[45:05] Okay. I'm talking about the abandoned uses
[45:08] and then the ability for someone to come back in with a use
[45:11] that we didn't want in the zone within 12
[45:14] Months.
[45:15] I think it's, it's almost very fact specific.
[45:17] 'cause if, if there's a fire, there's probably one set
[45:18] of conditions if there's a retirement
[45:21] and it's actively on the market with a,
[45:23] with a commercial real estate agent
[45:25] to sell the business, that's another one.
[45:27] If the owner has died
[45:29] and none of the heirs are interested in the business,
[45:31] then it's more of an abandonment. So I think it's,
[45:34] Or if they died and it's in probate
[45:35] and it gets hung up in probate.
[45:36] Yeah. I think it's very fa fact specific as to,
[45:40] you know, what would be fair.
[45:43] All right. We'll look at it. But okay.
[45:46] We, we've talked off
[45:48] and on about adding tiny home ordinances
[45:53] and I'm just gonna kind of,
[45:55] 'cause I don't wanna take up the whole night on
[45:57] for this. Yeah, go
[45:58] Ahead.
[45:59] I have a suggestion if I could, Liz,
[46:02] can you find out who's doing tiny houses right now?
[46:05] What towns are doing it?
[46:06] And maybe we do a, a field, a small field trip
[46:09] and take a look and see what's being done.
[46:16] We can do that. Okay.
[46:18] But not in the winter. I don't wanna do it though.
[46:22] The weather has to be nice before we take the field trip.
[46:24] All right. No, no winter trips.
[46:26] Okay. So no December 12th.
[46:28] Yes. I don't know if I heard to Dover's doing something
[46:30] or we're gonna go to Berlin or I,
[46:31] I don't know. There was some times,
[46:32] Yeah, Dover had a a,
[46:34] the cottages that we did hear about, right?
[46:36] Yes. So it would be nice to actually take a li
[46:37] like a field trip to see him.
[46:39] So yeah. So yeah, they, that's the cottage court design,
[46:42] which is, you know, honestly that's something I would,
[46:46] I would really like the, the board to consider.
[46:49] I think set us up. I think there's, there's merit.
[46:51] There's merit in that
[46:53] We still have the town bus. As
[46:54] Long as we don't call it cluster
[46:55] development, it's probably Okay.
[46:57] Yeah,
[46:59] Very true.
[47:00] And actually Dartmouth is doing it right now
[47:02] for their employees. Yeah.
[47:04] They saw that This started out for the benefit
[47:07] of employees and I think then it grew some legs
[47:09] and expanded Yeah.
[47:12] Also for veterans. Yes.
[47:13] They're doing it for veterans too. Yes.
[47:16] I visited the tiny homes for the veterans. Yeah.
[47:19] I was in Kansas as a state rep
[47:21] and it's, it's growing on leaps and bounds.
[47:24] Nice. We can look at some other places that are doing it.
[47:27] Right.
[47:29] Okay. And then, so
[47:33] Carrie Owen had asked me to look at requirements
[47:35] for travel trailers and temporary storage.
[47:39] So what's, what's your definition of travel trailer?
[47:43] So I don't have the zoning ordinance in front of me,
[47:46] but I think we do have a, a definition
[47:48] and it's like the length of state
[47:50] that they're allowed to be somewhere.
[47:51] Okay. She would like us to look at that. Yeah.
[47:53] Yeah. Without naming any names. I think there was,
[47:58] It, It's there was an area where people would
[48:03] park their recreation vehicles
[48:06] and stay for a long time
[48:09] and then they're not being properly taxed.
[48:12] They're being lived in, but they're being it's treated more
[48:16] as a vehicle. Right.
[48:17] Was it, would that be a campground?
[48:19] I I'm not gonna get into any names or anything,
[48:21] but I'm just saying, I mean is that what she's looking
[48:23] At?
[48:24] Well, there's no that, that's like the recreational use,
[48:26] but like there, there are the travel trailers and,
[48:29] and that is, that is an issue sometimes that we're,
[48:33] I know in other towns they have ordinances
[48:36] where you can have a tra travel trailer on the property,
[48:39] someone living in it x amount of days
[48:41] and then that it has to go away.
[48:45] And then with regard to the,
[48:47] the temporary storage in those trailers
[48:49] that are being stored on people's, in people's yards.
[48:53] I've seen, I've seen them How long those can stay.
[48:56] Yeah. I remember when I worked in Auburn, we had,
[48:59] we discussed both of those things
[49:01] and they put provisions in the zoning ordinance
[49:03] because people had these,
[49:05] those drop off big trailer containers.
[49:08] Containers, yeah. They look like, yeah.
[49:09] And they would just, they did trucking containers. Yes.
[49:11] So it looks like there's a, a truck sitting in the yard,
[49:13] but it's no wheels or anything, so.
[49:15] Right. She would like us to look at that. Yeah.
[49:19] And, and she can, you know, we, I can work with her
[49:21] and maybe draft some language
[49:23] and bring it to the board for review.
[49:25] Okay. But I just wanted to get that on your radar. Yep.
[49:29] So this is, this one's a fun one.
[49:31] We talk about town
[49:32] and we never say we mean the town of Derry.
[49:35] So when we talk about a, for example, a town road,
[49:41] your, your lot has to front on a town approved road.
[49:45] Well which town's approved road? Is it ours, is it?
[49:49] Alright, so I I I
[49:51] Well that's what definition, what common sense kind
[49:52] of comes in the definition.
[49:54] Correct. Correct. But we've been, we've been,
[49:56] it's been pointed out to us that it is not clear.
[50:00] So the definition of town is clear in state statute
[50:04] that governs municipal forms of government.
[50:06] Right. So I think I know what you're referring to.
[50:11] Where could it be an abutting
[50:14] town approved road
[50:17] If you Exactly.
[50:18] So if you have, maybe you have a lot that
[50:24] has it, it it, yeah.
[50:27] It, it, maybe it has land in Derry,
[50:30] but the public street is actually in an abutting town.
[50:35] If someone comes to pull a, a permit with us, they,
[50:39] we say you can't have a permit
[50:40] because you don't front on a dairy class five road.
[50:47] Oh, I hear. So do you do so we're not clear, clear.
[50:49] We don't have jurisdiction of other town roads.
[50:52] Right. But if it's a lot
[50:54] where they don't wanna put a driveway on this, you know,
[50:58] the other town's road
[50:59] and they wanna put a driveway on the dairy port.
[51:01] Yeah. So there, but there's it, it's, you're
[51:04] Just cleaning it up. It's become you
[51:06] Cleaning it up.
[51:07] Yes. It's become an issue. And
[51:07] It should Be for clarity.
[51:08] I think we need to look at the underlying Yeah.
[51:10] Reason for that restriction.
[51:13] And I suspect it has to do with the provision of,
[51:16] of reasonable access for visitors and,
[51:20] and the people who live there and, and fire
[51:22] and other emergency services.
[51:27] So I think we ought to be careful that if you have a, a lot
[51:30] that's subdivided between two abutting towns
[51:35] and you've got a road that is maintained by each
[51:38] of the two abutting towns to the scene standard
[51:43] and the driveway happens to be in the other town, could you
[51:47] with a straight face say, well
[51:49] that road in the abutting town is bad
[51:51] because it's not owned by us, it won't serve the same,
[51:56] the attic access requirements for life safety.
[52:00] I, I think that'd be a hard argument
[52:01] To make.
[52:02] Oh, you, you can't straight face that.
[52:03] But when you're talking about the way our language is
[52:06] with regard to frontage, if we,
[52:10] if we wanna be clear that it's frontage on a town of Derry
[52:15] Class five road, it should, we should define town
[52:18] as in our ordinance.
[52:20] We mean town of dairy.
[52:22] Yeah. I I I think generally that's true in that case.
[52:28] We'd have to look at the details, but, but yeah.
[52:30] Requiring the frontage to,
[52:32] or the driveway to be on the dairy section of the road
[52:35] before hits the town line to the other
[52:38] section. That seems a little
[52:40] Yeah, there's, there's more.
[52:42] But I, it's just, it it, for tonight's purposes,
[52:45] I just wanna point out that we say town
[52:48] and we don't say Derry, we mean town of Derry. Yeah,
[52:51] That's, that's fine. Yeah.
[52:52] That's all. And I
[52:54] Is there Oh, you've, I was gonna ask
[52:56] for one other thing if possible where we are,
[53:01] I'm seeing a lot of dumpsters
[53:06] in like high visibility areas that are not screened
[53:09] where they could be placed in, in a,
[53:12] a spot that's different.
[53:13] That's like not on the street type thing. So
[53:17] Are we talking about commercial or residential?
[53:20] I, I think I've seen it in
[53:21] both, believe it or not. So Yeah,
[53:23] I mean the, the, the problem is as far as I know,
[53:26] state law gives the planning board very little ability
[53:29] to regulate stuff on residential land
[53:33] because we don't do a site plan. Okay.
[53:36] That's fine. But, but
[53:37] So we could perhaps have a, a nuisance ordinance,
[53:41] but I don't even know if that would be a planning
[53:43] board thing or, or it would be a
[53:45] No, I wouldn't wanna do nuisance.
[53:46] I'm just, I've seen some businesses that have the locations
[53:50] of the dumpsters are like right there in Plainview.
[53:53] It just doesn't, they're 10. It
[53:55] Doesn't look like they're 10 feet from the travel
[53:56] way. Yeah. It, it,
[53:57] It underst they screen it.
[53:59] That's fine. If if there's no other place for it
[54:01] and you screen it, then we don't see it.
[54:04] But you're driving down these
[54:06] Understood. Yeah. So
[54:08] Guess and they're like right there. If
[54:09] You wanna, if you wanna take care
[54:10] of the existing conditions, you better make that a,
[54:13] a health safety code or police. It's a Yeah.
[54:16] Code. Yeah. Their code
[54:17] Issues authority code.
[54:18] 'cause I don't, because we can't go back
[54:19] and have, you know, second guessing no existing
[54:23] plans, but if we move
[54:24] Forward, Right.
[54:25] Yeah. But no,
[54:27] I understand especially on the commercial sites
[54:29] where things have kind of crept,
[54:33] like the use has crept beyond
[54:35] what was originally approved for the site.
[54:37] Yeah. It becomes a compliance issue
[54:40] and not that it's not on the town's radar, it's trying
[54:45] to go move through the enforcement
[54:46] actions committee. Yeah, yeah. Yeah.
[54:48] Hard and Can I just add one Oh go ahead.
[54:50] Well I got one and then you can go back.
[54:51] No, no, you go ahead. So I have one like that.
[54:54] I think it would be wise for us for health and
[54:58] and safety reasons to require residential
[55:03] parcels to have driveways with turnarounds
[55:05] because backing out into the street,
[55:07] especially on a busy street,
[55:09] is inherently a little bit dangerous. What do you mean
[55:12] By a turnaround?
[55:14] Well, you're a realtor, you must
[55:15] know what a, a turnaround is. No, but
[55:17] But on a private driveway, yeah.
[55:20] I'm just like thinking of my house.
[55:21] I have a, I have a wide driveway.
[55:22] I don't have, I can't turn around in it.
[55:25] Well, so I, I have a, you know, one
[55:26] of those little peas, it's called a turnaround.
[55:28] Yeah. So I, I never back out into the street
[55:32] For I, I'm, so I'm always backing out into the street
[55:36] like all the time because I just don't, yeah.
[55:38] So I, I'm A third of an acre. I
[55:39] Can't do it.
[55:40] This is a daveism I think it actually would be
[55:42] a, a safety feature
[55:43] For That we could discuss for new driveways.
[55:45] It may not, it may not get support
[55:47] For new driveways.
[55:48] Yeah, we do,
[55:50] we do have a provision if the driveway is over 150 feet in
[55:54] length, they must provide a turnaround.
[55:57] Yeah. I I think it should be irrespective of length.
[55:59] 'cause backing out into a busy road we
[56:01] Can look at That is dangerous regardless
[56:03] of how long the driveway is.
[56:04] Okay. But that's just one
[56:06] of my little pet peeves. You have another one, Brian?
[56:09] No, I'm just saying it's,
[56:11] I thought you had another suggestion.
[56:13] No, I'm just saying. Oh, okay. No, no.
[56:14] Yours. No, I was just saying my suggestion in my
[56:18] neighborhood where houses are very tight,
[56:20] it's not practical, that's all
[56:23] because all my neighbors are in the same situation.
[56:25] Yeah, yeah. Unless you're stop in the street, tie up traffic
[56:29] and back into it.
[56:30] So when you leave you can get out that way.
[56:33] But for instance, I have my two car garage,
[56:36] so when I park at night, I'm pulling in.
[56:40] But when I leave in the morning, I'm backing out.
[56:44] I don't really have a place to turn
[56:46] even though I have a big driveway. I
[56:47] Mean that could, that could obviously be de
[56:49] dependent on, on district.
[56:52] I mean, I, I have a, a one
[56:53] and a quarter acre lot in a three acre zone,
[56:56] so I have no excuse not to have one. Okay.
[56:58] We can look at it. Okay.
[57:01] So the last like kind of zoning type thing would be a review
[57:06] of the sign ordinance.
[57:07] Again, things like banner signs, off-premise signs,
[57:11] permitting of signs, like maybe take a look at that again.
[57:15] So other things I would like
[57:17] to maybe offer his work sessions.
[57:20] Just when we have time, when we're not inundated with plans,
[57:24] maybe take some time during a meeting to kind
[57:26] of go over the escrow process with the planning board.
[57:29] 'cause not everyone is familiar with, you know,
[57:31] what happens, you know, we get these,
[57:32] the sheets at the beginning and you know, so
[57:35] what is it like, what do we do with it
[57:37] and what happens on the back end of that?
[57:41] And I also would like permission to start adding
[57:47] to the actual suggested motion.
[57:49] Like precedent and subsequent. Yeah.
[57:52] So conditions precedent are all of those conditions
[57:55] that have to be met
[57:56] before the board can actually sign the plan.
[57:59] So establishing escrow, getting all the waivers on the plan,
[58:04] certifying the bounds are set, like those types of things.
[58:07] There are conditions that are subsequent, such as subject
[58:10] to inspection by the towns engineer recording
[58:15] of deeds and give us a copy of that.
[58:18] Or sometimes it's there.
[58:22] There's, there's other things that can happen
[58:24] after you approve the plan, but we still need you to do it.
[58:27] So make sure you erect the fence.
[58:29] Like when you're under construction,
[58:30] we said we want a fence here.
[58:33] They'll show it on the plan,
[58:34] but we wanna make sure it actually gets done.
[58:36] So that would be a condition, subsequent things like that.
[58:39] So I would, I would like to be able to start doing that.
[58:42] And then if you disagree with
[58:44] what you know has been the suggestion,
[58:46] you think it should be a before rather than an after or an
[58:49] after rather than a before.
[58:50] We could talk about that during deliberation.
[58:53] Yeah. What like plant like plantings. Yeah.
[58:56] Of avid trees
[58:57] or whatnot, right? Yeah. Yeah. That's something
[58:59] That, yeah.
[59:00] Yep, exactly. Okay. We can do that.
[59:03] And then long-term goal kind of revamp the zoning ordinance.
[59:07] It is, it is huge and it's clunky
[59:10] and it's not easy for the average person
[59:12] to navigate if you don't do this for a living.
[59:16] We made a really good start with the creation
[59:18] of those quick reference guides
[59:20] that Nick did for us last year.
[59:23] You know, things like that in the zoning ordinance make it
[59:25] easy for people to understand
[59:28] what the requirements are in the district.
[59:31] So we'd like to do more of that
[59:33] Have, I know, but people are gonna
[59:35] look at me like I'm strange.
[59:36] But have we taken maybe pieces of the ordinance
[59:39] and asking AI
[59:41] for certain suggestions?
[59:45] No. No, we have not. Okay.
[59:49] Yeah. And then the, the other thing was just kind of
[59:54] walk you guys through some, like the TRC process, like
[59:58] how it starts, what we do, what we're looking for.
[1:00:01] 'cause so much work gets done ahead of time
[1:00:04] before you see the plan
[1:00:05] and you know, kind of maybe give you some examples of
[1:00:08] what first comes through the door and then what you see.
[1:00:11] Because a lot of times the end result is very different.
[1:00:15] And then also it used to be back in the day that
[1:00:21] when you got your planning board packets,
[1:00:23] you would have all the TRC notes included.
[1:00:26] Yeah. In the packet.
[1:00:31] When I took this position, I kind of stopped doing that
[1:00:33] because in the staff reports, anything
[1:00:36] that hadn't been addressed at the TRC level
[1:00:40] was that was included.
[1:00:41] You know, I would make sure it was included
[1:00:43] and noted in the staff report so
[1:00:45] that you were aware this is still an ongoing concern.
[1:00:48] This is an issue. You guys should talk about this.
[1:00:51] What was happening.
[1:00:53] What I observed was that previously with the inclusion
[1:00:57] of the TRC notes in the packets, people would read them.
[1:01:01] So thank you for doing that.
[1:01:03] But things
[1:01:04] that had already been addressed were being
[1:01:06] brought up during the public hearing.
[1:01:07] They weren't an issue anymore,
[1:01:09] and it wasn't an efficient use
[1:01:10] of the board's time and resources.
[1:01:13] So I, I stopped doing that.
[1:01:15] But if it's something that you really want to see
[1:01:18] with your packets, you know, we can absolutely do that.
[1:01:22] Again, you know,
[1:01:23] I don't like making arbitrary decisions like that,
[1:01:25] but there was, there was a lot of thought behind
[1:01:27] why I did. Maybe
[1:01:29] The TS RRC notes could go to the chair and the vice chair.
[1:01:32] Okay. You know what I'm saying?
[1:01:36] And then if there's something there that,
[1:01:39] because I mean we all appreciate, TRC helps us get
[1:01:43] to where our decision is.
[1:01:44] They kind of, you know, streamlined
[1:01:46] and all the questions are asked up at that point, you know,
[1:01:50] all the safety questions and everything.
[1:01:51] So it makes our job a lot easier.
[1:01:54] But it is nice to see what they're looking at
[1:01:56] town officials, you know?
[1:01:58] Okay. So if you
[1:02:00] Would, but maybe the chair and the vice chair should get a
[1:02:02] copy just so they have 'em
[1:02:04] and they can, they can peruse them and
[1:02:06] Yeah.
[1:02:07] And, and then it would be in our packet.
[1:02:09] And if somebody had a question about, well,
[1:02:11] how did that, how did that go?
[1:02:13] We'll have the material here.
[1:02:15] But I, I think I, I support
[1:02:20] the planning director's thought that completely
[1:02:25] resolved issues we don't need to re-litigate.
[1:02:28] So it's probably the exceptional situation,
[1:02:32] which we've only had a few times when an applicant
[1:02:36] didn't agree with the TRC
[1:02:38] and wanted to come to the, the board for their day in court.
[1:02:41] Right. And we would Yeah.
[1:02:42] And therefore we might need more background. Right.
[1:02:44] And we would definitely, in a case like that,
[1:02:46] absolutely make sure that you had that backup
[1:02:48] so you could see what the discussion was.
[1:02:51] And the TRC, although they're not as exhaustive
[1:02:53] as your your minutes, Caroline does an amazing job
[1:02:57] of making sure that everything's captured.
[1:02:59] And in those TRC notes, we all,
[1:03:02] each department provides written comments that are shared
[1:03:06] with the applicant during those meetings.
[1:03:07] And all of those written comments are also included in the,
[1:03:10] in the TRC notes.
[1:03:12] So it's a pretty exhaustive list
[1:03:14] of things that they need to do.
[1:03:17] I have a question for you. Yeah.
[1:03:18] On the TRC notes, do they fall under 91
[1:03:22] A?
[1:03:23] They do not. TRC is a meeting of TRC is a meeting
[1:03:27] of staff, and the purpose of TRC is
[1:03:29] to help the developer understand the regulations
[1:03:33] and help them navigate some of the hurdles
[1:03:36] that they might encounter with the regulations. But if
[1:03:39] We were to give them to the chair
[1:03:40] and the vice chair, would they then become,
[1:03:43] If they are included in your planning board packets,
[1:03:46] they're subject to Right.
[1:03:47] To know, because that is a a
[1:03:48] Majority or just the two? If we just do the
[1:03:50] Two Yeah.
[1:03:51] No, we can't send 'em to the whole,
[1:03:52] we wouldn't send 'em to the whole board. Yeah,
[1:03:54] No.
[1:03:55] If we send it to two, then it's still covered. Right.
[1:03:56] It's not, it's not disclosed by 91
[1:03:58] A.
[1:03:59] Yeah. Yeah. But, but I wanna be clear, TRC is, it's a staff,
[1:04:02] it's not a meeting. Yeah. It's not a
[1:04:04] Meeting of A public body that's it's staff meeting.
[1:04:07] So it's not subject that way.
[1:04:08] It's fine, as long as the TRC is helping Yes.
[1:04:13] The applicant prepare their application
[1:04:15] and figure out all the things they need to comply with.
[1:04:18] Exactly. Yep. It is my understanding
[1:04:22] that maybe in the past the TRC has said, well,
[1:04:26] if you don't give me this that I want,
[1:04:29] I'm not gonna sign the plan.
[1:04:30] You can't go to the board. Oh. And that's a decision.
[1:04:33] No, that, yeah. And if it decisions are being made in
[1:04:35] the committee, then I think it's 91 a subject. Yeah, yeah,
[1:04:38] Yeah.
[1:04:39] B'S got a question. Yes.
[1:04:42] Yeah. The only thing
[1:04:47] I would question about all of this is a lot
[1:04:50] of times people are coming to TRC
[1:04:52] before they've finished their negotiations and their deals.
[1:04:57] And so a lot of times those things should never be known
[1:05:00] outside of that TRC group.
[1:05:03] So if there's some way to maybe, I don't know, protect,
[1:05:07] protect that stuff, I,
[1:05:10] I, I guess I'd have to have an an example.
[1:05:12] 'cause by the time they come to the planning board
[1:05:14] with an application for a public hearing, so
[1:05:17] Tupelo is a good example.
[1:05:19] We were working with Tupelo well before Mr.
[1:05:22] Hayward closed on that property,
[1:05:24] and we were navigating the site plan
[1:05:27] and he wanted that kept confidential before it came public.
[1:05:31] We did the same thing with the grind house. So
[1:05:34] This is, it seems to be that once it comes
[1:05:36] to the planning, planning publication, planning public,
[1:05:38] it's public is a public hearing,
[1:05:41] then there is no more secret sauce.
[1:05:43] No. But if the practice is that the TRC notes only come
[1:05:47] to one or two board members at the time of our meeting
[1:05:51] where we hold the hearing.
[1:05:53] Yeah. Then it's, it's should be a,
[1:05:56] it becomes somewhat in the public domain. Right. Okay.
[1:06:00] So, but this one I'm just gonna caution.
[1:06:02] Sometimes there's more than one TRC,
[1:06:04] sometimes they have to come back.
[1:06:06] So I would just say whatever we're doing with that,
[1:06:09] we have one now that they're,
[1:06:11] they haven't closed on their property yet.
[1:06:13] They're trying to make sure they can get permitted.
[1:06:15] So coming through the TRC process helps them learn that
[1:06:19] and make sure that they can do everything they need to do
[1:06:22] before they close on that property.
[1:06:25] In this case, they don't need to come back for a second TRC,
[1:06:28] but if they did and the notes had already been disseminated,
[1:06:33] that could become an issue.
[1:06:35] Well, my understanding is that coming to, they have to go
[1:06:38] through all the TRCs before they complete,
[1:06:40] before get complain scheduled to come to the board
[1:06:42] and the notes would only come
[1:06:44] to board members at the meeting.
[1:06:46] Right. Okay. So we're not gonna get 'em in
[1:06:48] advance. Right. Okay. That's
[1:06:49] Fine.
[1:06:50] Just wanna make sure we avoid unintended consequences.
[1:06:53] We have had things in the past where, where it gets out
[1:06:56] before the time,
[1:06:57] So Yeah.
[1:06:58] People in in town say, Dave, you're on the planning board.
[1:07:01] You must know all the people that are coming.
[1:07:03] I said, I'm the last one. Who knows better that
[1:07:06] Way, sometimes better.
[1:07:07] Me too. Yeah.
[1:07:09] Well, lemme ask a question. Thank you.
[1:07:11] The t on the TRC in addition to the TRC,
[1:07:14] unless we define what it is.
[1:07:16] I, I, I'll use Randy as an example.
[1:07:18] I believe he's also on the highway department,
[1:07:21] and a lot of those couple times over the years
[1:07:24] have been controversial.
[1:07:26] Yeah. There's some other, other committees
[1:07:29] that's well publicized.
[1:07:30] Correct. So I mean, once,
[1:07:31] once it hits, and that's my staff, right.
[1:07:33] Once it hits a public body such as conservation
[1:07:37] or highway safety, I mean, you know, then, then that,
[1:07:40] that project is obviously out,
[1:07:42] it's out in the wild and people know about it.
[1:07:44] But up until, you know, to Bev's point up in, if, if
[1:07:49] they're not ready to pull the trigger publicly,
[1:07:52] they may work through TRC and, and wait
[1:07:56] and get through all of their closings and things,
[1:07:58] and then go to conservation or highway safety
[1:08:00] and then come to planning board.
[1:08:02] Yeah. So I, I would be happy with if,
[1:08:06] if, you know, Mr.
[1:08:07] Connor and I had a folder with TRC notes in it, if we needed
[1:08:10] to refer to it, that we didn't get it in the electronic
[1:08:13] package, we just get it handed to us the night of
[1:08:16] and if we need to refer to it.
[1:08:18] Yeah. So there's no pre notice right before the,
[1:08:22] before the public hearing.
[1:08:23] Yeah. And our TRC stuff all goes into the planning board
[1:08:26] packet once the, once the planning board application
[1:08:31] is filed, so then it all becomes public.
[1:08:34] And we always have that with us at the meetings.
[1:08:36] So I think we're on this, I think
[1:08:41] Bev had a couple of requests.
[1:08:44] Oh yes. If you wanted to entertain that.
[1:08:46] Sure. Please come. Give us your suggestions.
[1:08:55] And thank you for all this input.
[1:08:56] This is super helpful. Helps me.
[1:08:59] Yeah, nothing too specific.
[1:09:02] I mean, we've talked, Liz
[1:09:03] and I, we've talked over the years about maybe expanding
[1:09:06] some of the uses in GC two.
[1:09:11] We've had several properties that have been for sale for
[1:09:14] 15 years or more.
[1:09:16] The, the uses just aren't matching what
[1:09:21] the investing public would care to do there.
[1:09:25] And I don't want to get into specific uses right now,
[1:09:29] but I think, you know, Dave, you and I talked about right
[1:09:32] before this meeting of maybe looking at some
[1:09:34] of the zoning in totality
[1:09:36] and looking at ways we can get rid of some of the uses
[1:09:41] that are no longer viable
[1:09:44] or Yes,
[1:09:47] Milliners.
[1:09:48] Exactly.
[1:09:50] There are some things in here that are pretty much,
[1:09:52] you know, obsolete at this point.
[1:09:54] Like TV broadcasting stations,
[1:09:57] we're probably not gonna see that.
[1:09:59] But then there are other things that are very sought
[1:10:03] after that we don't have, have, we can't accommodate
[1:10:05] 'cause we don't have those properties in town.
[1:10:08] And to Brian's point earlier, we really do wanna expand
[1:10:11] that commercial tax base.
[1:10:12] So, so I just, you know, we don't,
[1:10:15] not anything specific today,
[1:10:17] but maybe just review some of those zones.
[1:10:20] So my thought is that we kind of did that with the
[1:10:25] gateway rezoning, right?
[1:10:27] We looked at all the uses.
[1:10:28] We said some of these are silly, some of 'em need
[1:10:30] to be added, some of 'em need to be expanded.
[1:10:32] And I think we improved on the commercial viability
[1:10:36] of that district.
[1:10:38] And so if we, you know, want to in turn
[1:10:40] maybe even look at all the commercial districts in
[1:10:43] that light on a rotating basis as we have time to see
[1:10:47] how many, you know, hat shops
[1:10:48] and other antiquated things are in there,
[1:10:52] but are missing more important things.
[1:10:56] I think that would be a good idea.
[1:10:58] I mean, trying to, trying
[1:11:00] to do it on a tight schedule might be tough,
[1:11:01] especially if we have significant plans coming in
[1:11:04] and everything else on this list.
[1:11:08] I'm thinking we'll be lucky if we get through it in a year.
[1:11:10] But yeah, I, I think that's, that's a good idea
[1:11:13] because we did, we did learn something from
[1:11:15] that gateway exercise.
[1:11:17] Right? Yeah. Does anyone Yeah. Have any thoughts on this?
[1:11:21] No. And this is talking about data centers and stuff.
[1:11:24] I don't know if where looking at it, I don't, but, but,
[1:11:28] but also the governor's talking about small scale nuclear
[1:11:32] for, for energy.
[1:11:33] So Oh, these conversations are starting to come up.
[1:11:37] Lot of changes coming,
[1:11:39] You know, so that would affect planning Okay.
[1:11:42] To some capacity zoning. Right. Okay.
[1:11:45] Yep. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, we, we should, I think,
[1:11:49] I mean, it may be way ahead of our time here, but
[1:11:51] We should try to keep ahead of the times.
[1:11:54] Although I, I have to quote a very apocryphal quote
[1:11:58] that apparently was from
[1:12:01] Chief Justice John Roberts in the oral arguments today.
[1:12:05] And his, his quote was, yes, it's a whole new world,
[1:12:09] but it's the same constitution.
[1:12:11] Oh, I like that. I'm, I'm just saying
[1:12:16] that Yeah, it's good to, to keep up
[1:12:19] with the brave new world, but, you know. Gotcha. I gotcha.
[1:12:21] Yeah. Yeah. The more things change, the,
[1:12:23] Just, just because you brought it up, nobody has asked
[1:12:26] to build a data center
[1:12:28] and nobody has asked to have a detention center.
[1:12:30] And I know that's out there in the internet
[1:12:33] On social Media.
[1:12:34] Well, those things are not happening. Well,
[1:12:36] That happened in Merrimack and it came all of a sudden
[1:12:38] and everybody got all tied up.
[1:12:39] It's not even been discussed here. And
[1:12:41] The problem is the detention center is the governmental
[1:12:43] use, so we don't actually get to regulate that.
[1:12:44] Right. Because of this wonderful concept called sovereign
[1:12:47] immunity, so. Right.
[1:12:50] Okay. Lucky for us. No one's asking. Okay.
[1:12:52] Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:12:53] Rockingham 50 a day. Okay. So is that the,
[1:12:59] That was, that was my very exhaustive list all. So
[1:13:01] This is great.
[1:13:02] We have some ideas. I think maybe the next step is
[1:13:05] to actually try to prioritize them.
[1:13:06] Yep. Given that we don't have infinite time, but yeah. Okay.
[1:13:11] That was very helpful. Alright.
[1:13:13] Thank you. Thank you for indulging me.
[1:13:16] Alright, what's next? More
[1:13:19] Workshops? No, we have another workshop.
[1:13:21] Yes you do. No adjournment for you, Brian.
[1:13:28] I dunno. Alright, so
[1:13:32] this is the fourth workshop on the,
[1:13:36] the CBD revision.
[1:13:38] We did a, a district walk
[1:13:44] and we had I think the third workshop we discussed in
[1:13:47] general how we would address some
[1:13:50] of the issues that came up.
[1:13:51] And then three of us got homework
[1:13:54] that we eventually submitted
[1:13:56] and I believe that's in the package tonight.
[1:14:00] So I think maybe what we ought to do is review everyone's
[1:14:03] contributions and see which ones stick to the wall,
[1:14:06] which ones don't, what we think about that. Is that a good,
[1:14:10] I think that's perfect.
[1:14:11] Okay. So how do we wanna,
[1:14:15] you wanna just do it section by section or
[1:14:18] We, yeah, we could.
[1:14:24] So I think, so Mr. Nelson, I think you are,
[1:14:27] well you added some stuff to the purpose, but then Mr.
[1:14:31] Fishman's section came next. Alright,
[1:14:34] So this is on page one of our handout
[1:14:38] in section 1 65 33.
[1:14:41] And I propose that in the middle
[1:14:45] of the purpose paragraph we add in order
[1:14:48] to protect the predominant character
[1:14:50] and historical nature of this district,
[1:14:53] dimensional requirements shall be established
[1:14:55] to encourage a consistent street scape.
[1:14:58] Because I think that was a goal
[1:15:02] last time the district provisions were written,
[1:15:04] but it was never articulated as a purpose.
[1:15:07] And people only say, well, why are you doing that?
[1:15:09] I think it's always, these things are not,
[1:15:12] the purpose sections are not in
[1:15:13] and of themselves legally enforceable,
[1:15:15] but it gives guidance to people as
[1:15:17] to interpreting the rest of it.
[1:15:18] What it, why is it there, what does it mean?
[1:15:20] Yeah. And not having a purpose statement is not good
[1:15:24] that there have been towns, there's case law for towns
[1:15:28] who don't have purpose statements with their districts
[1:15:31] and it has not ended well. So it's good to have it.
[1:15:34] Yeah. I, I think my recollection how this evolved and,
[1:15:38] and again, I was away for a while,
[1:15:39] but we had originally just the central business district
[1:15:43] and then we did the traditional business overlay district,
[1:15:45] which was our quin
[1:15:48] quintessential old New England town.
[1:15:51] And then that was the, the core of, of quaintness and,
[1:15:55] and you know,
[1:15:56] pedestrian friendliness and shopping and whatnot.
[1:15:58] And then the central business was the next ring out
[1:16:03] that was slightly less quaint, slightly less protected,
[1:16:08] but still was part of our core downtown.
[1:16:10] That was kind of what I recall about the, the process. Yep.
[1:16:15] Okay. So does anyone have any
[1:16:21] comments, any suggestions on, on that
[1:16:25] one sentence added to the purpose?
[1:16:28] Okay, so where's the next red
[1:16:30] ink? So
[1:16:34] Under, under multifamily, same page B five A.
[1:16:39] So whose homework was that?
[1:16:41] That would be, I added the and conversions. Okay.
[1:16:44] 'cause and then the density is Mr. Fishman.
[1:16:47] Okay. I think my, my research showed that
[1:16:52] we're already pretty prohibitive, restrictive in terms
[1:16:55] of density and there's strong
[1:17:00] support for increased density, having
[1:17:04] an outsized impact on the ability for the downtown
[1:17:07] to develop more commercially,
[1:17:10] which will increase the tax revenue for the town.
[1:17:14] I looked at other factors like impact on crime traffic
[1:17:18] and all the research really indicated that it's,
[1:17:22] the concerns are, are overblown
[1:17:24] and that traffic is not gonna be affected.
[1:17:28] Impact on the schools is probably not an issue.
[1:17:32] So a lot, a lot of the items, I mean I,
[1:17:34] I could comprehensively or exhaustively go through this,
[1:17:37] but all the issues that we discussed in the board,
[1:17:41] I feel like the research shows that
[1:17:47] we shouldn't really be concerned about.
[1:17:49] And, and increasing the density
[1:17:51] probably offers the town a lot of, a lot of opportunities
[1:17:53] for economic development
[1:17:56] and likely, I mean, it's, it's maybe a question of taste,
[1:17:59] but I don't believe that will degrade the,
[1:18:03] the feel of the area.
[1:18:06] So my, my recommendation is to increase to 24
[1:18:09] At least.
[1:18:10] I mean certainly if we're looking for entertainment
[1:18:16] destinations and discretionary spend destinations,
[1:18:22] that's gonna be incentivized by a larger population
[1:18:26] of people, you know, on foot
[1:18:28] who can easily reach those places.
[1:18:31] So if we want those businesses to be successful, we need
[1:18:34] to supply them with customers. Right? Yes,
[1:18:36] That's right.
[1:18:39] I mean the, the fiscal impact on the town of per unit
[1:18:45] is of, of multifamily units is substantial.
[1:18:48] Right. And so providing
[1:18:53] more opportunities for more units in one area is only going
[1:18:57] to increase the ability for the town to
[1:19:00] drive economic revenue.
[1:19:02] I'm sorry, I'm looking for the exact reference point to
[1:19:05] what you just mentioned,
[1:19:07] but we, you know, we had a finding in there that the,
[1:19:11] the impact on the local communities, excuse me,
[1:19:14] the local commercial businesses is gonna be substantially
[1:19:19] increased by, by the density
[1:19:22] and our town can support it in terms of the
[1:19:24] infrastructural costs Doesn't seem like it will out,
[1:19:30] will have a negative impact either.
[1:19:32] So in terms of access to water,
[1:19:36] et cetera, sewer
[1:19:38] Yeah, I mean in terms of crime, it is true that most
[1:19:42] of the crime in America is in the,
[1:19:43] like the 10 largest urban centers.
[1:19:45] But we're talking about millions of people with high rise,
[1:19:49] you know, development, high, high density.
[1:19:53] So I don't think we're anywhere near that.
[1:19:58] Okay. Okay.
[1:19:59] Anyone have any questions
[1:20:01] or comments on those density changes?
[1:20:05] Yes, actually, So the, the impact on the school
[1:20:09] Totally makes, makes sense.
[1:20:10] The, the TFR of the entire country is low.
[1:20:13] I, I, I totally understand why
[1:20:15] that wouldn't impact the school increasing the density.
[1:20:18] You said you did research into it
[1:20:19] and said it, it wouldn't impact the traffic.
[1:20:21] Doubling the density doesn't impact the traffic at all.
[1:20:25] That's what the founding finding said.
[1:20:28] Let me pull it back up
[1:20:31] Because I mean the, the traffic is not awful in that area,
[1:20:33] but I I I would suspect doubling
[1:20:36] density page four would at least
[1:20:38] impact in some, some regards.
[1:20:39] So the estimate was it would increase about two
[1:20:43] to three additional car movements per hour at the peak
[1:20:47] going from the current density cap
[1:20:52] approximately doubling it.
[1:20:54] Right. Based on the trip generation manual.
[1:20:56] So I don't have enough information specifically to say
[1:21:00] what two to three additional trips per hour is going
[1:21:03] to look like, but it
[1:21:07] will have an increase.
[1:21:09] Yeah. And, and those two
[1:21:10] to three additional trips are at peak peak hours
[1:21:12] of traffic movement.
[1:21:14] Okay. So the seven ams and the five PMs.
[1:21:17] So you're just, you're just adding like two more, two more,
[1:21:20] two to three more cars in that time period.
[1:21:22] Yeah. That, that, that makes sense. Definitely.
[1:21:24] I mean, something else that came up during this, which I,
[1:21:28] I couldn't find a way to
[1:21:29] substantiate so I didn't include it.
[1:21:30] But, and you know, this is
[1:21:33] to an earlier comment about looking into the future,
[1:21:35] but modes of transportation may be changing, you know,
[1:21:40] certainly things like ride shares and whatnot.
[1:21:42] But if autonomous driving, you know,
[1:21:44] we're having national discussions right now on AV frameworks
[1:21:48] for autonomous vehicles.
[1:21:49] So 10 years from now it might
[1:21:52] be a totally different discussion.
[1:21:56] Yeah. That, that totally answers the question.
[1:21:58] That makes sense. You know, it's gonna increase it
[1:22:00] but not, not substantially.
[1:22:01] So.
[1:22:05] Okay. So our next red ink
[1:22:10] is on the, the next page where we're talking about
[1:22:15] minimum size of units
[1:22:18] and percentage of non-residential use.
[1:22:21] Who was that?
[1:22:24] I think that's also Brian for the size of the units.
[1:22:34] So based upon local comparisons as well as
[1:22:39] national standards, the 800 square foot
[1:22:41] minimums much larger.
[1:22:56] The affordability aspect I think was the most compelling
[1:23:00] argument while going to a smaller unit
[1:23:05] does tend to have a higher price per square foot
[1:23:09] for development and rental.
[1:23:12] The overall median rent
[1:23:17] of an 800 square foot unit is above the median
[1:23:21] affordability limit for New Hampshire.
[1:23:25] The affordability ability limit being 30% of annual income.
[1:23:29] So making, allowing
[1:23:34] for smaller units will allow developers to serve a market
[1:23:38] where income is, is limited
[1:23:42] and, you know, it'll provide more people places
[1:23:44] to affordably live
[1:23:50] is my takeaway from
[1:23:52] No, I I tend to agree that the,
[1:23:57] the unmarried person, professional, younger person
[1:24:00] that we kind of wanna attract into the state and,
[1:24:03] and the town affordability, you hit right on it.
[1:24:08] 400 square feet is a studio I think works
[1:24:11] for some people as a price point too.
[1:24:14] At least that gets 'em outta the parents' basement,
[1:24:17] you know, so I, I agree with you on all those.
[1:24:21] Any other comments, questions? Are we,
[1:24:26] I would say definitely put it on the line.
[1:24:28] 'cause a lot of the hospitals have
[1:24:30] what they call travel nurses
[1:24:33] and they're usually looking for a place
[1:24:35] for six to eight months.
[1:24:36] Hmm. And so they either follow the weather,
[1:24:39] they follow the skiing or the snowboards or whatever.
[1:24:42] But there's a lot of this coming in,
[1:24:45] I just mentioned earlier that,
[1:24:46] that Dartmouth is putting a bunch
[1:24:48] of these together up in the area.
[1:24:50] So I think it's something we ought to take a look at it.
[1:24:52] 'cause especially with Parkland being our number one
[1:24:54] Employee, actually Dartmouth is doing
[1:24:56] something pretty exciting.
[1:24:57] They're actually building their own housing as a way
[1:25:00] to bring in staff when they're understaffed.
[1:25:03] Yeah. Housing's the number one reason why
[1:25:06] people can't afford the, you know what I'm saying?
[1:25:08] So if they build their own houses, then now they can.
[1:25:11] Now Dartmouth Hospital can control the rent
[1:25:14] And that's free Job care.
[1:25:16] It keep low as part of the benefit package.
[1:25:18] That's smart, that's smart planning on their side.
[1:25:21] You know, I know there was some discussion in, in
[1:25:26] like Rockingham County where you're in the middle of,
[1:25:30] you're in Brentwood and you can't find nursing
[1:25:32] and you can't find LNAs
[1:25:34] and they have all kinds of open fields.
[1:25:36] And some of the discussion was is maybe
[1:25:38] that's something to look at.
[1:25:40] Now I don't know if they've continued that discussion,
[1:25:42] but that's been talked about as one way
[1:25:44] of bringing workers in.
[1:25:46] So especially younger workers,
[1:25:47] because we're New, Hampshire's the second oldest
[1:25:52] in the nation, so we need
[1:25:54] to find replacement workers critically.
[1:25:58] So I'd like to get everyone's kind of at least
[1:26:01] nodding yes or no on this.
[1:26:03] 'cause I, I think that
[1:26:05] whenever we propose increasing density, that's something
[1:26:08] that attracts a lot of comments from, from the public.
[1:26:11] And we may need to defend that when we get
[1:26:15] to public hear hearings on this.
[1:26:16] So we can kind of go down the line.
[1:26:18] Is everyone comfortable with this? Or
[1:26:26] I'm seeing some nods.
[1:26:28] I'll, I'll say I'm strongly in favor of this.
[1:26:31] Okay. Alright. Very good.
[1:26:35] Alright, what's next? We have we
[1:26:40] Removing the bedroom limits, Right?
[1:26:49] I don't think, I don't think we need that in there
[1:26:51] because think about it, you have 400 square feet,
[1:26:54] you're not gonna make five bedrooms on a 400 square feet.
[1:26:56] So no, it's just gonna naturally happen.
[1:27:00] So, so I, I guess the, the, the next one which
[1:27:04] I I think is Roman num
[1:27:09] little ii is that what it is?
[1:27:12] A minimum of 30% of the first floor shall be
[1:27:15] a permitted non-residential use.
[1:27:17] So this, this is in, in furtherance of our mixed use
[1:27:21] that we've always kind of applied in, in, in the downtown.
[1:27:26] I just wanna revalidate that we think
[1:27:27] that in the central business district,
[1:27:30] which is still has the word business district in it,
[1:27:33] that a mixed use requirement is, is reasonable.
[1:27:40] I'm seeing some nods. Yeah. Okay.
[1:27:42] So my only concern, should it be a minimum
[1:27:45] or should there be a maximum for
[1:27:48] the first floor permitted non-residential use? Well,
[1:27:52] I think the story is,
[1:27:54] and maybe Beverly, Beverly can, can,
[1:27:57] can fill us in from, from history.
[1:27:59] I, I believe the history is that in dairy
[1:28:03] it has been more profitable to build housing than it is
[1:28:06] to build commercial.
[1:28:09] And we have had had a history of vacant commercial space.
[1:28:13] So unless you force them to have at least 30%,
[1:28:17] they'll do 0%.
[1:28:20] Fair enough. You
[1:28:21] Want me?
[1:28:22] So yeah, I mean you can say you're, you're wrong
[1:28:25] or you're right or it's a different number.
[1:28:32] I think maybe Looking at downtown in years past
[1:28:36] and having that requirement for
[1:28:38] business on the second floor, we want to get rid of that.
[1:28:42] I'm not necessarily in favor of converting
[1:28:47] businesses that are already on first floors into apartments.
[1:28:50] 'cause once it's gone, it's gone.
[1:28:54] New construction, I don't really have an issue
[1:28:57] with a live work scenario for someone.
[1:29:02] I don't know if I would wanna be dictating a percentage
[1:29:04] because everybody's situation's gonna be different.
[1:29:08] Well see that's the, the thing about zoning, it's,
[1:29:12] it's not like gold election.
[1:29:14] The three bears you have to put numbers in
[1:29:15] because we're a quasi judicial body.
[1:29:18] We have to have rules and we have to try to enforce them
[1:29:20] as opposed to Well yeah, I like the part of your hair
[1:29:23] so you'll get, you know, this mount
[1:29:25] and oh yeah, you're not dressed nicely so you'll get this.
[1:29:28] We, we have to have it very objective, right?
[1:29:31] Yes. Especially in zoning.
[1:29:33] Yep. And we had talked about,
[1:29:34] like in the gateway district, one
[1:29:36] of the things we talked about was what if somebody wanted
[1:29:40] to do a townhouse kind of a situation for a business like,
[1:29:43] you know, restaurant here in a
[1:29:45] speakeasy upstairs kind of thing.
[1:29:47] Then, then you're talking about vertical versus horizontal.
[1:29:50] So I know you, you won't don't want to hear this part,
[1:29:55] but I almost think it's better
[1:29:56] to do like conditional use permit for the commercial piece
[1:29:59] of it and not be so specific on,
[1:30:05] you know, exactly percentages or whatnot.
[1:30:08] So could we kind of compromise
[1:30:11] and say we're we're looking for 30%
[1:30:16] permitted non-residential use,
[1:30:18] but we don't say whether it's on the first
[1:30:19] floor or wherever it is.
[1:30:22] IIII do have a problem with conditional use permits because
[1:30:27] unless it's written really well
[1:30:29] and the board adjudicates it very crisply,
[1:30:33] it becomes a Oh yeah, I I like what you're doing.
[1:30:36] Yeah, we'll give you that one.
[1:30:38] And the next person comes in gets a different treatment.
[1:30:41] So it, it becomes a constitutional equal
[1:30:43] protection issue. In my opinion.
[1:30:45] Other towns use it
[1:30:46] because it gives flexibility to do just
[1:30:49] what you're saying makes you nervous.
[1:30:54] 'cause you don't always know what,
[1:30:55] what the market's gonna demand
[1:30:57] or what somebody might wanna build for whatever reason.
[1:31:02] You know, it's kind of nice to be able to consider things.
[1:31:07] I I I'm not a hundred percent against it, it's just that
[1:31:11] I, I do see that inappropriate use
[1:31:15] of conditional use permits to just grant different rules
[1:31:19] to different people based on what they're doing at the time
[1:31:23] or who happens to be on the board has the potential
[1:31:26] to end us up in court.
[1:31:29] And one of the things i, I try
[1:31:30] to do on the planning board is head that off when,
[1:31:32] when I can, 'cause we have other reasons in the town
[1:31:36] that we're ending up in court
[1:31:37] and I don't, I don't think the planning
[1:31:39] board needs to contribute to that.
[1:31:41] So if you did a minimum of 30% of the
[1:31:45] structure shall be a permitted non-residential use,
[1:31:49] you could, you could do that.
[1:31:51] And then that allows some flex flexibility as to
[1:31:54] where it's placed in the building.
[1:31:57] I have a feeling that given the, the existing structures
[1:32:02] that are here, so if you have conversions, most
[1:32:05] of those businesses would end up on the first floor
[1:32:07] because there's no provisions
[1:32:09] to add elevators without major renovations
[1:32:12] occurring in the buildings
[1:32:14] 'cause of the life safety codes and things. So elevators
[1:32:16] Are Expensive.
[1:32:17] They're extremely expensive and they have to be really wide.
[1:32:19] So it, that's a big cost.
[1:32:22] So I would imagine a, you'd get a lot
[1:32:24] of business on the first floor with residential above.
[1:32:27] Not in all cases, but that I think
[1:32:31] what the structure is
[1:32:32] and what they're gonna do with it,
[1:32:33] what kind of drive where that goes.
[1:32:35] But I, I think you absolutely could allow some flexibility.
[1:32:38] So if someone wanted to put a business on this second
[1:32:43] or third floor, then they're allowed to do that
[1:32:45] and they don't have to go for variance. It's
[1:32:47] Mr. Chase. Yeah.
[1:32:48] So the only issue I have with that is, is a big difference
[1:32:52] between 30% of the first floor and 30% of the building.
[1:32:57] If you've got a hundred foot by a hundred foot building
[1:32:59] and you've gotta have 30% commercial,
[1:33:00] that's, that's a big chunk. Yeah.
[1:33:02] That was not Yeah.
[1:33:03] Where I was gonna go like 1500 square feet,
[1:33:06] a 1500 square foot building.
[1:33:07] I mean there's, they're bigger than that.
[1:33:09] The downtown is like
[1:33:10] 450. Rephrase the math calculation.
[1:33:12] The math would have to be, it would have
[1:33:13] to be rephrased a little more eloquently than just
[1:33:16] 30% of the entire building.
[1:33:19] Yes, correct. Something something to the effect of
[1:33:24] 30% of
[1:33:29] one floor placed wherever in the building
[1:33:34] Or 30% of the building's, you know, footprint,
[1:33:39] Footprint in on one floor.
[1:33:41] Yeah. And if they wanna do more, they can do more.
[1:33:44] This is just a minimum. If they wanna put commercial on
[1:33:46] three floors, they can put commercial on three floors.
[1:33:48] But you have to have this percentage somewhere in the
[1:33:51] building for, to qual qualify for mixed use.
[1:33:57] I think that's a, a good catch.
[1:33:58] And and we can, you know, staff can work on, on,
[1:34:01] on the math formulas without making it overly complicated.
[1:34:04] 'cause I think the intent was
[1:34:06] that 30% of a floor.
[1:34:10] Yes. Okay. Not specifying which one.
[1:34:13] Now could that mean that it's 15% on the first floor
[1:34:16] or 15% on the second?
[1:34:18] Probably. So we, we, we need to not be overly restrictive.
[1:34:22] Right? Yeah,
[1:34:24] Yeah.
[1:34:25] Yep. I see what you're saying. Yeah.
[1:34:30] Okay, so we're saying a minimum of 30%
[1:34:34] of the building footprint, that's
[1:34:36] Not The right word.
[1:34:37] I might, yeah. I don't know how to word this. Building area
[1:34:41] Footprints usually foundation size, which normal
[1:34:46] which is normal could say something like
[1:34:48] The, the combined, the combined commercial area
[1:34:54] is the equivalent of 30% of one floor.
[1:34:57] Yeah. That, that would might probably work
[1:35:00] Some or something.
[1:35:01] 30% of the usable floor space on whatever floor
[1:35:07] deemed not appropriate,
[1:35:10] but is desired by the applicant. Because
[1:35:13] If, well if the goal is to just let commercial
[1:35:17] wherever the developer decides
[1:35:18] to put it in the building Yeah.
[1:35:20] If you just make it like an additive thing,
[1:35:21] then they can put it wherever they want. And
[1:35:24] The split well where it's only a minimum they could go,
[1:35:27] you know, 30% on the first floor, your townhouse style
[1:35:30] and then if they wanna put another 20% on the second
[1:35:32] floor for your restaurant.
[1:35:35] Yeah. I think we don't want sty a minimum.
[1:35:37] We're not co we're not limiting them. Yeah.
[1:35:38] We don't wanna limit the commercial. They can,
[1:35:40] they can put whatever they want,
[1:35:41] but they have to have that minimum.
[1:35:43] Are we okay if on floor, are we okay if
[1:35:45] that means a building ends up being 100% commercial? Oh we
[1:35:48] Oh yeah, we love that.
[1:35:49] Oh we love that. Absolutely.
[1:35:50] Oh yeah. Yep. So I
[1:35:52] Mean I, I think that that might happen.
[1:35:55] I mean the history is that
[1:35:57] re residential sell better in dairy.
[1:35:59] Yeah. So I wouldn't be worried about
[1:36:02] that happening when doing in in excess.
[1:36:06] Okay. But so
[1:36:09] Mr.
[1:36:10] Chair Yes. So if we're going in that direction,
[1:36:12] like not restricting to a single floor, which
[1:36:15] I think I'm in favor of, might it be simpler
[1:36:19] to just pick a different number?
[1:36:21] So 10% of total floor area,
[1:36:26] whatever the number is, but kind of prevent having
[1:36:29] to do calculus when interpreting the, the ordinance
[1:36:32] and just pick a number that is a function of the total
[1:36:37] square footage total floor area of the building.
[1:36:40] So it scales with number of floors naturally.
[1:36:45] Yeah, I mean that might work.
[1:36:47] I mean you, you might want to use the, you know,
[1:36:49] net square footage just so that they're not counting attics
[1:36:52] and garages and things, but Right.
[1:36:54] Okay. Livable Combined commercial shall be the
[1:36:57] equivalent of Yeah, it simpler is better.
[1:37:02] So what are our words? Are we, are we going
[1:37:04] with like the combined commercial area shall be the
[1:37:07] equivalent of, are we saying like 10% of the net floor area?
[1:37:14] Yeah. I mean that works. That
[1:37:16] Makes sense.
[1:37:19] I, I suppose is 10% then I what we want to do.
[1:37:22] Yeah. And I, I admit,
[1:37:23] I didn't realize if I was supposed to, I apologize.
[1:37:26] I did not do any research on the precedent for
[1:37:28] that number. Yeah,
[1:37:30] No, that's good.
[1:37:32] That was, that was something
[1:37:33] that we had discussed at like the last workshop
[1:37:35] and that was wording that came out of that so
[1:37:39] Well, so it probably came out of the
[1:37:43] original kind of formula.
[1:37:45] Yeah. In, in urban planner school was in these areas, you,
[1:37:49] the first floor is retail,
[1:37:51] the second floor is professional office and the third
[1:37:54] and up is, is is residential.
[1:37:57] And so therefore if we only require the, the,
[1:38:02] the retail part, that would've been, you know, 30%,
[1:38:07] again, if it was only a three story building.
[1:38:09] But we're also upping the number of stories allowed.
[1:38:12] So that makes the map a little more complicated.
[1:38:16] But I I do agree that if we have a single number
[1:38:20] based on the total net square footage,
[1:38:22] applicable square footage of the building,
[1:38:24] that's a lot easier for people to deal with than
[1:38:27] So the net livable floor area.
[1:38:29] I mean how, what's
[1:38:30] I, I don't, I don't know what the correct word of art is.
[1:38:34] Okay. I'm sure there is a word of art
[1:38:37] that describes Yeah.
[1:38:38] 'cause I know in a,
[1:38:40] on our assessing cards we have like gross floor area
[1:38:42] and then we have livable area.
[1:38:44] Yeah. And so the difference is being in real estate,
[1:38:47] I know this so livable would,
[1:38:49] would have a heating source and flooring.
[1:38:52] So picture it as a first floor
[1:38:54] and you have some living space,
[1:38:58] but you also have where all your utilities are
[1:39:01] with the cement floor, the cement floor is not living space.
[1:39:05] So you can't calculate that in.
[1:39:06] That's the difference between overall square footage
[1:39:09] and livable square footage. Yeah.
[1:39:11] Right. And sta you gotta count your stairways
[1:39:13] or if there's elevator shafts
[1:39:14] that takes up square footage, you don't count that. Right.
[1:39:17] Okay. Flooring and heating source Yeah.
[1:39:19] Have to be considered for living space.
[1:39:25] Well, I mean, come back with some, whoever wants to,
[1:39:28] to take a swipe, come back at some, some numbers.
[1:39:30] We don't have to settle on the final tax.
[1:39:34] It's often easier to somewhere
[1:39:35] between judge it when we actually see it in front of us.
[1:39:37] Okay. Like somewhere between 10 and 30. Yeah.
[1:39:40] Okay. Alright.
[1:39:41] And, and you can also look at what other
[1:39:43] humanities are doing in their core business areas
[1:39:47] A lot.
[1:39:48] Yeah. Okay. A a lot of people are moving to form base.
[1:39:53] So I, I I wanna stay away from that.
[1:39:57] Haven't done that yet. Okay. We don't
[1:39:59] Want that.
[1:40:00] Yeah, I know. So that's why,
[1:40:00] that's why I was like, oh, okay.
[1:40:03] Alright. So yeah. Okay.
[1:40:07] We have changed a couple things.
[1:40:10] I think transportation spelled that got repel.
[1:40:12] That was the spelling. Yeah. Parking
[1:40:14] facilities got taken out.
[1:40:17] I, I have a question on that.
[1:40:18] What, why are we taking parking out
[1:40:22] of the central business district?
[1:40:25] If we're gonna add density, why are we eliminating parking?
[1:40:29] Well, it would be a, it would be a like
[1:40:31] a lot being converted to a, just a parking lot.
[1:40:36] That's what we're, we wouldn't wanna do that.
[1:40:38] So if Cumberland Farms went away
[1:40:42] and someone bought it and just wanted
[1:40:44] to put a parking lot there, I don't think that's
[1:40:46] what we would, that wouldn't be the best
[1:40:47] and highest use of that lot. Okay. So we, so
[1:40:49] We've gotta add something in there
[1:40:50] because by definition a parking facility is
[1:40:52] what we're building on Aport, which
[1:40:53] Is in the TBOD, which is okay 'cause this is the CBD.
[1:40:57] Right. But there are some opportunities in the CBD lots
[1:41:02] that we wouldn't, we walked past on our site walking in
[1:41:05] February that would be cohesive with mixed use in,
[1:41:10] combined with a parking garage such as Abbott court
[1:41:13] that are in the CBD and on the TBOD.
[1:41:16] I mean Mr. Chase has a, a valid point
[1:41:18] 'cause we're we're talking about increasing
[1:41:21] density that means more people.
[1:41:23] And one of the things I've noticed personally is
[1:41:26] if you've got four people living in a house,
[1:41:29] they have four or five cars.
[1:41:32] Yeah. And so on some of these smaller lots,
[1:41:36] if we increase the density there, we may need
[1:41:38] to think about where are those cars gonna go.
[1:41:40] Right. 'cause they're not necessarily gonna go on onsite
[1:41:42] and they're not necessarily gonna go on street.
[1:41:44] So, and I agree with that
[1:41:45] because one of, unfortunately I'm becoming known
[1:41:50] as the parking queen because I'm always
[1:41:52] asking about parking.
[1:41:55] If we do that can, is there a way to say parking facilities,
[1:41:59] but there it's not by itself.
[1:42:02] Like do we want an entire lot in the CBD
[1:42:06] to become a parking garage
[1:42:08] or do we want it to be connected with a use? Well, I
[1:42:11] Guess the question is, I guess that's
[1:42:12] what I'm asking. Yeah.
[1:42:13] If I'm a, an entrepreneur, what is my ROI on,
[1:42:18] you know, making a flat parking lot
[1:42:25] versus building a structure.
[1:42:28] I'm gonna think the natural tendency is to build a building
[1:42:32] that you can rent to people
[1:42:34] over a building on the parking lot
[1:42:36] where you can rent them a space just
[1:42:38] because the money issue. Right. But,
[1:42:40] And, and I guess a lot of
[1:42:42] where my question also comes from,
[1:42:43] besides what I've stated is if you look at the definition
[1:42:47] of parking facility, it's not just a parking lot.
[1:42:50] It's below ground. It's above ground,
[1:42:52] which is a parking garage.
[1:42:55] So, and there are some lots in the CBD that would
[1:43:00] be easily converted to a parking garage in association
[1:43:05] with the increased density that we're having.
[1:43:07] I mean it's, it's natural if you increase density, you, you,
[1:43:11] you increase a need for parking.
[1:43:12] So to eliminate a parking facility in the CBD is not,
[1:43:17] doesn't, to me it doesn't make sense.
[1:43:20] It can be, the definition could be changed
[1:43:23] or it could be changed
[1:43:27] in the non permitted uses.
[1:43:31] So that, as you stated, no,
[1:43:32] we do not want a building taken down such
[1:43:36] as we have had a couple, we had one on Central Street
[1:43:39] next to the house hand club.
[1:43:41] We had one on Burt Street.
[1:43:43] They tore down a building that was mixed use
[1:43:48] and it's a parking lot now.
[1:43:50] Actually two of 'em on Burt Street.
[1:43:52] So that's not what we want,
[1:43:56] but we should encourage the development of parking garage.
[1:44:00] I mean that's, any, any, if you look at any
[1:44:02] of the other towns or cities in the state, you know, Nashua,
[1:44:07] Manchester, Portsmouth,
[1:44:08] Portsmouth has built three parking
[1:44:09] garages in the last year and a half.
[1:44:11] Concord, Concord, same thing.
[1:44:13] There's, there's a need for it. We can't eliminate that.
[1:44:15] That's, that's my the point I'm trying to get across.
[1:44:17] We can't eliminate that with what we're trying to do
[1:44:20] with density and bringing people to the downtown.
[1:44:23] So if, if there's a concern about a single
[1:44:27] floor parking lot, I dunno what to call it, like an open lot
[1:44:31] would, we could, if that's actually a concern,
[1:44:34] I suppose we could add a definition parking lot as opposed
[1:44:38] to parking facility or whatever.
[1:44:41] And then that could be a, well not a prohibited use,
[1:44:45] but I,
[1:44:46] but I generally agree that parking facilities,
[1:44:50] especially if it's in a mixed use context, though,
[1:44:53] I'm not a hundred percent sure how that would work.
[1:44:56] Does this prohibit a multi-story building from
[1:45:00] Build?
[1:45:01] No. No. So if you had, if stand alone, yeah.
[1:45:02] If you standalone a big lot
[1:45:04] and you were putting up like multi-story building
[1:45:07] and it had some commercial and it had some residential
[1:45:10] and then you wanted to put a parking garage beside it.
[1:45:13] That's not, that's all part of that thing.
[1:45:16] I don't, I don't think we would look at that
[1:45:18] and say, oh you can't have the parking garage
[1:45:22] because that's an accessory use to the, on that one lot.
[1:45:25] It's an accessory use to the primary, which is
[1:45:28] that mixed use commercial
[1:45:29] Building.
[1:45:30] What if it's the primary use to another accessory use?
[1:45:32] If the primary use is, I'm gonna take this, you know,
[1:45:36] threequarter of an acre lot and I'm gonna stripe it
[1:45:39] and make it a parking lot
[1:45:41] and I'm going to privately charge people for, to park there
[1:45:45] or I'm going to, I, I don't, I I don't know.
[1:45:49] I mean we, we allow, I'm trying to, I'm working
[1:45:51] through this in my brain right now.
[1:45:53] We allow businesses
[1:45:56] and in the TBOD especially,
[1:46:00] we allow businesses to have on and off street, like public
[1:46:05] and private parking and they can make up their parking
[1:46:08] numbers if they have a private agreement with somebody else.
[1:46:11] But I think the whole goal is
[1:46:13] that we do not wanna promote on
[1:46:14] our vacant lots that we have.
[1:46:15] We don't wanna promote parking lots.
[1:46:20] Maybe we can do that with a definitional thing
[1:46:23] and say a parking facility is not a surface parking lot.
[1:46:27] It is a multi-story parking garage, which may
[1:46:31] or may not be in, in, you know, consort with some other
[1:46:36] development on, on top of it or, or or the side of it.
[1:46:39] But my concern is
[1:46:42] that if we're gonna increase the density in that district
[1:46:45] and we walk the most of the district
[1:46:46] and most of those parcels are small.
[1:46:48] So if we increase the number of people living in those
[1:46:53] places on those small lots,
[1:46:56] you can't increase the size of the lot.
[1:46:58] You can't shrink the cars
[1:47:00] and more people is gonna be in more cars.
[1:47:02] So they're gonna need some sort
[1:47:04] of private offsite parking arrangement.
[1:47:07] And there's gotta be the ability for somebody
[1:47:10] to put in a parking garage that could service all
[1:47:13] of the increased residential density
[1:47:15] that we just talked about.
[1:47:17] Okay. Can we, oh, go ahead.
[1:47:19] So if the concerns avoiding parking lots,
[1:47:21] could you just not change it to multi-level parking
[1:47:23] facilities so it avoids the parking lot?
[1:47:26] Yeah, I think we'd have to change our definition
[1:47:28] of parking facilities.
[1:47:30] Which right now I'm gonna borrow your books.
[1:47:32] Yeah. Okay. That's why I put it there. Thank
[1:47:34] You.
[1:47:35] A parking facility is a use dedicated to the outdoor storage
[1:47:38] of registered motor vehicles, which may be at ground level,
[1:47:42] below ground and or above ground.
[1:47:44] Such use shall be devoted to the parking of passenger cars
[1:47:47] and shall specifically exclude unregistered motor vehicles
[1:47:51] in trucks registered over one ton.
[1:47:55] I suppose if we wanted
[1:47:57] to retain parking facility in the CBD,
[1:47:59] we could amend the definition of parking facility
[1:48:03] and remove that at ground level
[1:48:05] and then add a parking lot definition.
[1:48:08] So my, my my suggestion is
[1:48:10] that might have unintended consequences based on where else
[1:48:13] that let's just add a new use and, and,
[1:48:15] and I think as, as Mr. Wood suggest,
[1:48:17] they call it multi-level parking facility.
[1:48:19] Okay. And make that have more requirements
[1:48:23] and then change this to multi-level parking facility.
[1:48:27] And that way we don't change
[1:48:29] uses in other districts by mistake.
[1:48:31] Okay. Would someone like to come up
[1:48:33] with a definition from multi-level parking facility
[1:48:36] or I can use the planner's dictionary, whichever you prefer.
[1:48:41] Yeah, I mean I think the, the idea is that, and,
[1:48:44] and tell me if I'm crazy if, if we increase the density
[1:48:49] and we don't increase the size of the lots and,
[1:48:51] and we're having redevelopment.
[1:48:53] Yeah. I, no, I yep, I agree.
[1:48:54] Where are we gonna park the cars?
[1:48:56] I agree. Because then becomes the problem that, you know,
[1:48:59] my daughter's always talking about in
[1:49:00] Dover, there's nowhere to park.
[1:49:02] Well I mean the, the, the apartments slash condos along
[1:49:06] Broadway, they were parking on the street
[1:49:07] and the town said no, no, no, no.
[1:49:10] I don't know. I dunno where they're parking now,
[1:49:12] but they must have found somewhere.
[1:49:14] Okay. This is where, this is where in redevelopment
[1:49:19] on certain areas of the town, you have smaller lots.
[1:49:21] This is when people start combining these lots
[1:49:25] and we may start seeing some of this already coming up
[1:49:28] where they wanna expand their business,
[1:49:31] they need more parking or whatever,
[1:49:34] so they're gonna buy up the next lot.
[1:49:37] Right? Yep. So that's what you're really kind of promoting.
[1:49:40] Okay. So, well it's, it's what we're promoting,
[1:49:44] but it's what we're trying to prevent too.
[1:49:46] We don't want what's happened in the past by the next lot,
[1:49:50] kick that business out, tear that down
[1:49:52] and put in just parking lot, just ground level parking.
[1:49:55] That's what we're trying to avoid.
[1:49:56] So we've gotta have a definition to prevent that.
[1:49:59] I agree with, with Ms.
[1:50:00] Roberto on that we, that that's what we're trying to avoid.
[1:50:02] So we have to have some kind of a definition so that
[1:50:05] that does not happen anymore.
[1:50:07] We've already lost a couple of prime lots to
[1:50:09] that we don't wanna lose anymore.
[1:50:12] So one of the kind of main concerns here is, is
[1:50:16] like the Cumberland Law, these kind of empty
[1:50:19] that are on the main road going down here,
[1:50:22] would it be huge issue if some of these back roads
[1:50:25] of a parking garage went up?
[1:50:26] Because if we, maybe 'cause in Concord was mentioned
[1:50:30] and Concord's parking garage specifically the one
[1:50:32] that is right by the State House.
[1:50:34] Yeah, that's a big parking facility,
[1:50:36] but it's kind of sandwiched between two buildings
[1:50:38] that are on the frontage of
[1:50:40] The main road.
[1:50:41] Yeah. So Cumberland was probably not a great example
[1:50:42] 'cause that's actually in the TBOD.
[1:50:44] But like as you move back, you know, behind.
[1:50:48] So if we go, you know, Pearl Street or Yeah.
[1:50:51] Those first couple roads we went down Yeah.
[1:50:52] In there or along Franklin, I, I don't think we would want,
[1:50:56] I don't think we would want someone to take down
[1:50:58] that beautiful gray house that's there,
[1:51:00] that's been there forever and, and, and take that down
[1:51:04] and make a parking lot there.
[1:51:06] Yeah. Yeah. That's not the best
[1:51:07] and highest use of that land.
[1:51:11] So I don't,
[1:51:12] but we do need parking if we're gonna,
[1:51:14] if we're gonna promote density and I agree with all of that.
[1:51:17] So if you're gonna live in the downtown, you need to be able
[1:51:19] to have a place to put your vehicle
[1:51:21] because let's face it, it's New England
[1:51:22] and we don't have public transportation here.
[1:51:25] So it's, you have to have a car
[1:51:28] And you know, not for nothing.
[1:51:29] We have parking vans on downtown streets in, in the winter.
[1:51:34] And so to the extent that people use on street parking,
[1:51:38] they can only do that for part of the year.
[1:51:40] Where are they gonna put the car in the winter?
[1:51:43] Okay. I mean in large cities.
[1:51:47] I've never lived in a large city.
[1:51:48] But my understanding is that when they have a snow emergency
[1:51:52] and you have to get your cars off the street,
[1:51:54] all the city garages open up for free parking,
[1:51:56] you're supposed to put your cars there.
[1:51:59] Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
[1:52:02] Yeah, I think we need two definitions.
[1:52:03] One for packing facility
[1:52:04] and one for a packing lot ground level packing lot.
[1:52:08] And I think that would clear it up
[1:52:14] until somebody finds some creative way to challenge it.
[1:52:21] Okay. Okay. Alright.
[1:52:24] We'll probably come back to that again. Yes sir. Okay.
[1:52:27] We added medical office. Anyone have any issues with that?
[1:52:31] No. And then on the one
[1:52:36] without public sewer, we removed a whole bunch of stuff
[1:52:41] and then said conversions
[1:52:42] and new developments must connect
[1:52:43] to the municipal sewer system.
[1:52:45] Yeah. Yeah.
[1:52:46] Right now the sewer ordinance says if you're within 125
[1:52:50] feet you have to connect.
[1:52:51] But in the CBD, water and sewer is everywhere.
[1:52:54] And if they're not connected, there's no,
[1:52:56] they're they're gonna be within 125 feet.
[1:52:58] Oh yeah. So there's no reason not to have them connect.
[1:53:01] I'm just recalling. And I don't know if it
[1:53:03] pertains maybe to the downtown.
[1:53:05] 'cause most of the downtown's got water and sewer anyway.
[1:53:08] But when I was on the council one time, we,
[1:53:10] we brought sewer down a certain road
[1:53:13] and then we required the residences to connect.
[1:53:16] And then at the time, I won't name any names,
[1:53:19] it was a senator that changed the law that says you don't,
[1:53:22] you're not, you can't force them to connect.
[1:53:24] Okay. Just check into that just to be sure.
[1:53:27] Because that, that,
[1:53:29] and what happened with that law is they said, yeah,
[1:53:32] you don't have to connect until your septic fails.
[1:53:35] Okay. Once that fails, then you have to connect.
[1:53:37] Okay. All right. We'll do that.
[1:53:39] I know for new developments,
[1:53:40] I'm pretty sure the sewer ordinance says within 125 feet.
[1:53:44] So I'll double check all that.
[1:53:46] I mean, I don't understand why wouldn't,
[1:53:47] people wouldn't want to connect
[1:53:48] because it, it's bringing more value
[1:53:50] but still there are people that Yeah. Don't wanna be told.
[1:53:54] Yep. And then you have all that
[1:53:55] additional air you can use.
[1:53:56] Now it's not encumbered by septic.
[1:53:59] Well again, you know, with with more, more density,
[1:54:01] you're gonna have more bathrooms and more Right.
[1:54:04] Water flow and you're probably gonna over stress the
[1:54:09] capacity of whatever septic you may have anyway.
[1:54:11] Yeah. Well, not to
[1:54:16] beat on this, but you're right about that law.
[1:54:21] But if they're converting
[1:54:23] or if it's a new development,
[1:54:24] it falls under this regulation that Ms.
[1:54:27] Robo was talking about. If they're converting it
[1:54:29] and especially adding density,
[1:54:31] then their original sew design is gone.
[1:54:34] Septic design, I mean, is gone.
[1:54:35] So they have to connect and if it's new,
[1:54:39] it falls under the regulations.
[1:54:40] They have to connect and then if they want greater density,
[1:54:45] they're gonna have to connect.
[1:54:47] Yeah. You can use that for the capacity.
[1:54:49] So if self regulates Yeah,
[1:54:50] I'll double I'll double check though.
[1:54:51] 'cause we don't wanna be contrary to any state law. Right.
[1:54:53] Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Good point.
[1:54:57] Okay, so, oh,
[1:55:02] the next one is, is is mine.
[1:55:04] So we, we we, we've wanted to figure out
[1:55:06] what we're gonna do about yard depth.
[1:55:09] 'cause the orig, the current re regulation is that can be
[1:55:15] eight, eight feet because we wanted
[1:55:17] to again, maintain the street scape.
[1:55:19] We didn't want bowling alley lots with buildings
[1:55:23] that way back next to one that's right up on the street.
[1:55:26] So it looks like a saw tooth.
[1:55:28] So I made some attempts at this
[1:55:32] and the numbers were ones that I literally picked out of air
[1:55:35] and I'm happy to have folks suggest alternate numbers.
[1:55:40] But basically the idea was that
[1:55:43] when the lot width at the front lot line is 75 feet
[1:55:48] or less, the maximum yard depth
[1:55:51] that was a typo shall be eight feet
[1:55:55] or the average of the existing yard depths
[1:55:57] for 100 feet in every direction along the street,
[1:56:01] whichever whichever's greater.
[1:56:03] And then b, when the lot width at the front lot line is
[1:56:06] greater than 75 feet,
[1:56:08] the maximum yard depth shall be 25 feet.
[1:56:10] So it basically means that you got a big,
[1:56:13] big walk wide frontage,
[1:56:15] you can be set back a little bit 'cause it's in scale.
[1:56:19] If you've got a narrow lot, we don't want you
[1:56:21] to like push the building to the back of a lot.
[1:56:24] And I think you did some artwork that goes along with this.
[1:56:28] I did. So if you, in your packet, there's a sheet
[1:56:32] that has, where'd it go?
[1:56:35] I just had it, it has the eight and 25 foot setback shown.
[1:56:41] So it, it's hard to see on the sheet.
[1:56:45] I do have it on the overhead if you guys feel the
[1:56:47] need to zoom in on it.
[1:56:49] But when you look at these,
[1:56:52] when you look at this like the West Broadway one, the black
[1:56:55] that you see, like the gray line
[1:56:57] with the red, that's the road.
[1:56:58] And then there's like white, which is probably still road.
[1:57:01] Then there's a black line, the red area,
[1:57:05] there's like a little yellow strip.
[1:57:08] So that yellow strip would be the eight foot setback.
[1:57:12] So if, if you, I dunno if you can zoom in on that, Owen
[1:57:15] or not, if you can make that bigger.
[1:57:19] Hmm. Oh, the yellows are very light yellow. Okay.
[1:57:21] Yeah it is. Yeah. They're light yellow.
[1:57:23] So, so when you look at it, so the buildable area
[1:57:26] with the eight foot maximum is the red.
[1:57:29] That's where you can put your buildings.
[1:57:31] The yellow would be the setback for
[1:57:36] the areas in blue it would be from the,
[1:57:40] the black line back to your buildable,
[1:57:42] your buildable area would be the blue areas
[1:57:46] from the black property line, if that makes sense.
[1:57:50] So black is your property line
[1:57:52] and then red is your eight foot building envelope.
[1:57:56] And then blue is the 25 foot building envelope.
[1:58:00] And you'll see on some of these lots, like if you look over
[1:58:03] where Grove Street is, you, some of the lots, like you,
[1:58:08] you couldn't, they're so small, you,
[1:58:09] there's no way you could have a 25 foot setback.
[1:58:12] The lot becomes unbuildable in the same down in the,
[1:58:16] in like in the Sawyer store court area.
[1:58:24] So this just kind of gives you an idea of, you know,
[1:58:27] in those areas you could put a structure.
[1:58:30] So I'm, I'm still a little confused
[1:58:31] 'cause the, you've got a, a key for blue,
[1:58:35] it says buffer 25 red.
[1:58:37] Yeah. Buffer eight. Yes.
[1:58:38] But there's no key for yellow. What is that?
[1:58:40] The yellow is the, that is, so when you're looking at it,
[1:58:43] so you've got the, you have the black property line.
[1:58:48] Yeah. So if you could look like just above South Owen,
[1:58:51] like just above the word south.
[1:58:53] So you've got the black property line.
[1:58:54] So that's your property line. Yep.
[1:58:56] The, that yellow distance between the black property line,
[1:59:01] the yellow between the black
[1:59:02] and the red, that is your, that's your eight foot setback.
[1:59:05] So the red area. So why,
[1:59:07] Why is the red called the buffer eight?
[1:59:10] Because that is the buildable area.
[1:59:13] That would be your buildable area
[1:59:15] with an eight foot maximum setback.
[1:59:17] You can build, you could put a structure
[1:59:20] anywhere where that red is
[1:59:22] Inclusive of the Inclusive of the blue, I would guess
[1:59:25] Inclusive of the blue.
[1:59:26] Yes. Oh, okay. Yes. Sorry.
[1:59:27] Because I couldn't, yeah, I, there was, if I tried
[1:59:31] to show like, here's your red, here's your blue.
[1:59:33] Yeah. It wouldn't have made sense
[1:59:34] and it, so you wouldn't have seen what I wanted you to see.
[1:59:37] Gotcha. So, and then where the blue is that is your,
[1:59:42] the blue is your buildable area at a 25 foot setback.
[1:59:47] Yeah. I'm guessing from looking at this, that there are
[1:59:51] there certain number of lots in that first quadrant
[1:59:57] of the map on, on your sheet that could really use a,
[2:00:01] an eight foot setback
[2:00:03] and then the other quadrant to the right.
[2:00:07] It's like, yeah, that's not gonna, that's not gonna happen.
[2:00:12] So again, that I guess my intent was that
[2:00:17] if it, if there's two standards, one for wide lots
[2:00:20] and one for skinny lots, the,
[2:00:21] the skinny lots over on the the right would
[2:00:23] just not make sense.
[2:00:26] The wider lots over on the left. Yeah.
[2:00:28] It, it might make sense depending on what you wanna do.
[2:00:34] This is a little misleading
[2:00:37] because we're only talking about front setback. Correct.
[2:00:40] Yeah. And unfortunately
[2:00:41] There's so the red on the side in the back
[2:00:43] Right.
[2:00:44] There's, there's way. So you're building on hope
[2:00:45] Is Really, there's no way to make it.
[2:00:47] Yeah. It is bigger. There's no way for me to make the,
[2:00:50] the GIS do what I want it to do. So
[2:00:52] When you look at this, you've gotta look at it from the
[2:00:54] street side only.
[2:00:55] Yeah. And look at your red envelope. Yeah.
[2:00:57] And then your blue on both sides in the rear,
[2:01:01] your blue would go all the way back.
[2:01:03] Yeah. To your eight foot.
[2:01:06] Yeah. But it gives you, So it's not that small
[2:01:08] on the sides and the back.
[2:01:10] It's only in the front, the red. Yeah.
[2:01:12] But I think it does point out that there's two
[2:01:15] classes of lots.
[2:01:16] Yes. The ones that it just doesn't make any sense, right?
[2:01:18] Yeah. And the ones it doesn't.
[2:01:19] And I guess the question is, is the the 75 foot un and under
[2:01:24] or the 75 foot and over, is that the right
[2:01:27] demarcation for this?
[2:01:28] Maybe in this district it might need to be 50
[2:01:31] because there's a lot of lots that are, that are like
[2:01:36] 50 feet wide or 60 feet, you know, 60 or
[2:01:39] One.
[2:01:40] So if it's 51 foot, you should have a deep setback.
[2:01:45] Maybe I'm just, I I'm thinking 75 might for this district
[2:01:50] might not be the right number.
[2:01:52] Maybe it's 60. I'm not sure.
[2:01:56] Again, the, the idea was to eliminate the, the sawtooth
[2:02:00] and, and fulfill the, the purpose of,
[2:02:03] of maintaining a somewhat uniform street scape.
[2:02:08] The, the other thing that we should probably look at,
[2:02:11] because I think it is not separable from
[2:02:16] this, is the parking.
[2:02:24] So that's over on page five.
[2:02:29] Right? So the proposal there
[2:02:34] was that number one,
[2:02:38] all off street parking areas shall be
[2:02:40] provided in such a way that no vehicle will be required to,
[2:02:44] or likely to back into the street access drive into the lot.
[2:02:48] That was text I stole from the TBOD. Yeah.
[2:02:52] We kind of agreed that. I don't know where that came from.
[2:02:54] Well, I have no, I, there's no record
[2:02:56] of why into the lot was added back in outside. Yeah. So
[2:02:59] I, I know that during our district walk we said, man,
[2:03:04] you know, having these cars parked here
[2:03:05] and having to back out into the street,
[2:03:07] that's, that's kind of dangerous.
[2:03:09] So we said, let's not do that.
[2:03:12] Number two, no parking, storage
[2:03:15] or display of vehicles shall be allowed
[2:03:17] between the front lot line
[2:03:19] and a line parallel with the front
[2:03:21] of the structure closest to the front lot line.
[2:03:24] So basically that means you can't
[2:03:25] park in front of your building.
[2:03:29] And I think that that will be self-regulating
[2:03:31] because in my opinion, the reason
[2:03:34] that somebody would most likely want a big 25
[2:03:38] or 50 foot setback is they want to have a parking lot
[2:03:42] for their tenants
[2:03:43] or their customers in front of their building.
[2:03:45] And we just, I heard everyone on the board pretty
[2:03:48] much say we don't want that.
[2:03:54] And then the final one says three, that parking shall
[2:03:58] otherwise be as
[2:04:00] provided in chapter one 70 land
[2:04:01] development control regulations.
[2:04:02] So it says, you know, don't design it so you have
[2:04:06] to back out in the street and you can't actually
[2:04:08] park in front of your building.
[2:04:11] At least in, in, in new developments,
[2:04:13] obviously existing stuff is grandfathered.
[2:04:15] Right? Yeah. So that in conjunction
[2:04:20] with the option to have a larger setback, if,
[2:04:24] if the reason people want it is not to put picnic tables
[2:04:27] and gazebos for outside dining, they wanna park cars,
[2:04:31] they're probably not gonna choose that option.
[2:04:37] Okay. What's on that
[2:04:41] Also not as, not as substantial as, as what you're saying,
[2:04:44] but shouldn't also the revised July 16th, 2015 be part
[2:04:49] of the element that struck out? Oh,
[2:04:52] It could be, yeah.
[2:04:53] When we get to the final draft,
[2:04:54] we'll make sure everything's accounted for.
[2:05:00] Alright. So I'm not, I'm not getting any comments here.
[2:05:02] So it's either good, very good or very bad.
[2:05:06] I, I like it.
[2:05:07] I was skeptical reading the, your proposal for the setback
[2:05:11] until we got to the parking
[2:05:13] because I, I think my issue with the,
[2:05:17] with allowing a larger setback was parking in front
[2:05:20] of the buildings and this park
[2:05:24] parking section really addresses that
[2:05:26] and alleviates my concern.
[2:05:29] Okay. Any other thoughts?
[2:05:31] Yeah, I, I, I absolutely concur with the, the goal
[2:05:35] of not having this parking in the front
[2:05:37] and the, the setbacks to accommodate that.
[2:05:42] You were saying that you kind of, you kind
[2:05:44] of pulled these numbers of what felt kind of right.
[2:05:47] Was that from our, our site walk or were you looking at
[2:05:51] Map or It, it was based on, on my memory of,
[2:05:55] of the sidewalk and,
[2:05:56] and the size of, of varying sizes of parcels.
[2:06:01] But there's, it was no scientific research behind it. Okay.
[2:06:04] Because that was the only, I just,
[2:06:07] We, I had to put some numbers in to show Yeah.
[2:06:10] What the, the structure was.
[2:06:11] I'm just not convinced that the numbers
[2:06:13] that are in there are the correct numbers.
[2:06:15] That, that's kind of what I was getting at that, you know,
[2:06:17] maybe it might be worth, I don't know if we,
[2:06:20] maybe not another site walk,
[2:06:21] but just, I dunno, another workshop in the future.
[2:06:24] Maybe we look into it a bit more or try to try to get
[2:06:26] Some numbers.
[2:06:27] Well, maybe, I mean, I'm no GIS expert either,
[2:06:31] but it might make sense to try to take two
[2:06:36] prototypical lots, one of the, the larger size
[2:06:39] that could accommodate larger scale redevelopment
[2:06:42] and then one of the smaller ones where yeah,
[2:06:44] you're really maybe gonna create another apartment or two
[2:06:49] and try to do a paper doll.
[2:06:51] Okay. Yep. Study on, on, on those. Okay.
[2:06:55] And, and figure out, alright, where, where,
[2:06:57] where is the threshold lot width,
[2:06:59] where it doesn't become an ugly saw tooth.
[2:07:02] Okay. And some of that is perceptional
[2:07:05] and aesthetic, so there's probably no hard answer
[2:07:09] to that. Okay.
[2:07:10] Alright. We can do that.
[2:07:12] So my only concern is with section A,
[2:07:17] with the average of the existing yard depths
[2:07:19] for a hundred feet in every direction, I get you're trying
[2:07:22] to go for uniformity, but in,
[2:07:25] Well, Ms.
[2:07:26] Ro thought that was a bad idea
[2:07:26] and that we should probably strike that part out
[2:07:29] because it just makes things more complicated.
[2:07:31] That's, and I didn't argue with that. So
[2:07:33] Yeah, that's kind of what I was thinking.
[2:07:34] Okay. I guess I, I'm concerned
[2:07:39] and the only way to show it out would be a GIS study,
[2:07:43] but there's probably several lots
[2:07:47] that are at least 75 feet wide
[2:07:49] but might not support a 25 foot yard depth
[2:07:56] due to depth limitations. So.
[2:07:59] Right. I, I did do a little bit of spot checking
[2:08:04] before the meeting to kind of give an idea.
[2:08:07] So in this section here, so the, the little insert
[2:08:12] to the right, the three lots that front on Birch Street,
[2:08:17] the one to the left is 74 feet wide.
[2:08:20] The one in the middle is 65.
[2:08:22] And then that narrow one is 66, believe it
[2:08:26] or not, for frontage.
[2:08:28] And then down in the
[2:08:32] central court area on the corner of Central Street
[2:08:37] and central court,
[2:08:41] that lot has 55 feet of frontage on Central Street.
[2:08:46] And then the,
[2:08:50] the 23 central court, which is the, the, in that area,
[2:08:55] it's the second largest blue area,
[2:08:58] I guess is the best way to put it.
[2:09:00] That has 67 feet of frontage.
[2:09:02] So it's narrow at the front, it gets bigger to the back.
[2:09:05] But that one is like, that has different characteristics
[2:09:10] 'cause it's encumbered by floodplain and all of that stuff.
[2:09:13] So that doesn't have as big a buildable area on it.
[2:09:16] But just to give you an idea of what some
[2:09:19] of the frontages were,
[2:09:21] I do think that that, that achieve what we want
[2:09:23] to achieve though, even though it has
[2:09:24] that larger area in the back, we wouldn't want that property
[2:09:27] to be, to be set back 25 feet
[2:09:30] 'cause that it would, it's surrounded
[2:09:32] by properties with less frontage.
[2:09:34] And so if they were all eight foot and then that one was 25,
[2:09:37] That one, I mean that particular one, the character
[2:09:40] of the neighborhood, the homes are, the homes
[2:09:42] and buildings are all set back further.
[2:09:45] So, you know, it, this one would be,
[2:09:49] what do we have it written?
[2:09:50] It's less than 75 feet. So it would be at the eight
[2:09:54] We're kind of imagining Yeah. Planning for redevelopment.
[2:09:57] Yeah. So it would, you'd have, you'd have
[2:10:01] everything set back
[2:10:02] and then this one would be right on the road
[2:10:06] or you know, at that maximum eight feet.
[2:10:08] So I don't, I don't know.
[2:10:10] And, and if, if this is just my, my angle, but
[2:10:12] Lemme know which, which supports his argument
[2:10:14] to have the average of, you know,
[2:10:16] the a hundred foot average. So
[2:10:18] I, this may just be my lack of familiarity,
[2:10:21] but anytime you're trying to make these kind
[2:10:24] of aesthetic changes and you're not just buying up a whole
[2:10:28] neighborhood smashing everything
[2:10:29] and rebuilding it all at once, you won't, you always kind
[2:10:32] of have these, you know,
[2:10:34] that building doesn't really look right right now
[2:10:35] because it's incrementally changing.
[2:10:37] Okay. Yep. You will. I
[2:10:42] it's been voiced, but I guess my only, my other concern
[2:10:46] with this is the hard difference between the two.
[2:10:52] So, you know, like you'll have one that's one foot over
[2:10:57] the width that we specify whatever width we specify,
[2:11:00] there's gonna be, you know,
[2:11:03] So I mean I, we could have three or four tiers.
[2:11:09] And I guess the question is, is that really better?
[2:11:13] It's certainly more complicated. It is more flexible.
[2:11:20] I, I think one of my problems is I'm, I'm trying
[2:11:23] to visualize the future state.
[2:11:28] 'cause we, we know what the current state is, right? Right.
[2:11:32] I'm trying to figure out why someone
[2:11:34] with an har lot would want a, a deep front yard.
[2:11:38] What's it gonna look like? And and what are the amenities?
[2:11:40] What's the, what, why would the, the jaggedness of,
[2:11:44] of the street scape be a good trade off
[2:11:47] for whatever they decide to put in their front yard?
[2:11:51] I just can't visualize it myself.
[2:11:54] We, we are operating on the presupposition
[2:11:57] that these developers will always take the massive maximum
[2:12:00] amount of setback that they can. Well,
[2:12:02] I, I I I, I don't think they will the,
[2:12:05] but the request was to provide flexibility
[2:12:07] because some would the parking thing I put in,
[2:12:12] 'cause I suspected most of them would
[2:12:13] do it 'cause they wanted parking.
[2:12:15] And if they couldn't have parking,
[2:12:16] they might choose to do something else.
[2:12:18] Okay. But I'm trying to figure out if it's not parking
[2:12:22] and it's not a, you know, blue house pizza
[2:12:24] with picnic tables out front, what's it gonna be?
[2:12:29] My, my vision, I guess is limited in, in,
[2:12:31] in, in thinking about that.
[2:12:33] All right. So it's after nine o'clock.
[2:12:36] So I'll admit my brain is not the sharpest,
[2:12:38] but if, if we changed the word maximum to minimum,
[2:12:43] so you could have a minimum of an eight foot,
[2:12:45] but you could go back further.
[2:12:47] Well, no, I think the whole, to preserve a streets scape
[2:12:51] as we do with the TBOD, it has to be a maximum.
[2:12:54] A maximum. Because a minimum means if it's a minimum of 25,
[2:12:58] the maximum could be to your back W line.
[2:13:01] Right. Okay. And that's not what we want.
[2:13:03] Yeah. Right. Okay.
[2:13:04] So for clarity, we're the intent here being proposed is to
[2:13:09] pull future development closer to the street.
[2:13:11] We, we want, we want the central business district to kind
[2:13:16] of look like the streets one block
[2:13:20] or two blocks off of Elm in Manchester
[2:13:22] or off of Maine in Nashua.
[2:13:26] That's kind of the vision in my brain. Okay.
[2:13:29] Alright. So one last thing though.
[2:13:32] We, I'm trying to find it.
[2:13:35] I can't, I used to know exactly
[2:13:36] where it was and I cannot find it.
[2:13:38] Now we also have
[2:13:44] a article in our ordinances that in older neighborhoods,
[2:13:47] if you are building
[2:13:50] or adding on, you are not required
[2:13:54] to meet the 35 foot setback.
[2:13:56] It says that you must be within the average of
[2:13:59] structures 100 feet.
[2:14:01] That's on either side.
[2:14:02] So we have to write this so
[2:14:04] that it does not run a foul of that.
[2:14:10] I think it wasn't, I don't think it's a separate
[2:14:12] section by itself.
[2:14:14] I think it's interspersed in some of the various
[2:14:17] Districts.
[2:14:18] It is. And I was trying to find one
[2:14:19] Of them that had it Real quick
[2:14:20] and I couldn't, I'd have to sit
[2:14:22] Mh MHDR might be one of them. Yeah.
[2:14:24] Or Over near, like
[2:14:26] In this area.
[2:14:27] OBD. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:14:30] Okay. In, yeah. MHDR.
[2:14:36] I know that we have that set in there so that, you know,
[2:14:40] if you're putting an addition on your house,
[2:14:42] you meet all the setbacks,
[2:14:44] but you can't meet the 35 foot, all you have
[2:14:47] to do is meet the average of the
[2:14:50] structures on the side of you.
[2:14:53] So we don't wanna run AFO of that with the language on this.
[2:14:57] I'll look for it. I, I have to say,
[2:15:01] I like the way this is written
[2:15:02] because I think if you make it smaller than 75 feet,
[2:15:06] it's gonna look, if, if you redevelop a larger lot
[2:15:09] and you've got everything else eight foot
[2:15:11] or you know, tight to the street, it would kind of give
[2:15:15] that crown molding sawtooth look.
[2:15:17] So I actually, I like the way this is with a 75 foot.
[2:15:21] Okay. All right. So I can, well
[2:15:25] We, we can set, you know, we can chew on this. Hmm.
[2:15:28] Okay. And,
[2:15:30] and maybe if we have some, a couple of paper dolls
[2:15:32] that are more Okay.
[2:15:34] Realistic than, than the JIS allows
[2:15:36] you, they have to be hand drawn. We'll,
[2:15:38] Okay.
[2:15:39] We'll work on that. Okay.
[2:15:40] Maybe we take a few minutes
[2:15:42] and look at a couple of the others.
[2:15:45] At least have a first discussion on them. Yeah.
[2:15:47] For example, but maximum building or structure height.
[2:15:52] Who, who, who was that?
[2:15:54] That was Jake. Yep. Can we do that for us
[2:15:55] Pd?
[2:15:56] Sure, absolutely. So I had maximum building
[2:15:58] and structure height.
[2:16:00] We had the GIS map that had the elevations
[2:16:03] of the properties in the district that was in our packet at,
[2:16:06] I believe that was two or three meetings ago.
[2:16:09] So the average structure, sorry,
[2:16:11] the average property was at 300 feet
[2:16:13] above sea level at its base level.
[2:16:15] And the district, the current ordinance said
[2:16:18] that it was 350 was the maximum for a structure height
[2:16:21] we had heard from the board
[2:16:23] and then from staff that
[2:16:25] that might not be economically feasible for developers
[2:16:27] that we needed to look at potentially expanding upward.
[2:16:30] I looked at some of the towns in the area that had
[2:16:33] the vision for the downtown that you had referenced,
[2:16:35] whether it was conquered, took some pieces from Nashua.
[2:16:39] From Portsmouth. So when I looked at this section,
[2:16:42] you're gonna see it's a little more
[2:16:43] wordy than what we had before.
[2:16:45] I'll go through that piece by piece.
[2:16:48] So it changed the structure height from 350 to 425.
[2:16:53] That allowed for another seven stories been assured
[2:16:56] by the fire department.
[2:16:58] Little link there. I've been assured by the fire department
[2:17:01] that it would meet any of the safety regulations,
[2:17:05] the fire code and our ladder truck is able
[2:17:07] to deal with that building.
[2:17:11] I put in here a section on performance and design standards.
[2:17:14] I took that from Concord to preserve a street scape
[2:17:19] and make sure that nobody was intimidated
[2:17:20] by a giant structure.
[2:17:24] Any building that's above six stories
[2:17:27] or 65 feet above the finished grade had
[2:17:31] to be set back by 10 feet.
[2:17:33] What that allowed for is maybe a walkway
[2:17:36] or a path on the higher levels,
[2:17:38] a rooftop bar or something like that.
[2:17:42] But it really prevented people on the street level from
[2:17:45] being intimidated by a bigger building.
[2:17:47] So that's in section B that you have there in section A.
[2:17:50] I took this one, this was from Portsmouth
[2:17:53] and London Dairy had similar language as well,
[2:17:55] that non habitable architectural features
[2:17:58] and appendages could exceed that limit.
[2:18:00] That's clock towers
[2:18:01] or just different design features to break it up so
[2:18:05] that you're not having just a flat roofed large building.
[2:18:09] We already have similar language in our ordinance
[2:18:12] for other areas in town that said
[2:18:14] that you can't have just a flat roof.
[2:18:17] And then one thing that had been mentioned at some
[2:18:19] of our other meetings
[2:18:20] and on our site walk as well is
[2:18:22] that there was no appetite really for just exposed hvac that
[2:18:26] that really, I'm not sure the word to to use here,
[2:18:29] but it really degrades the experience
[2:18:31] of people living downtown,
[2:18:32] walking downtown or working there.
[2:18:35] So there's a section in there that all HVAC
[2:18:37] and exterior equipment would need to be screened.
[2:18:42] So I mean, I like this
[2:18:45] from an organizational perspective.
[2:18:48] I noticed that there's some stuff in here that has
[2:18:50] to actually do with building heights
[2:18:52] and some of it has to do with architectural design.
[2:18:56] Related to that, we have a whole architectural
[2:19:00] design ordinance.
[2:19:01] And I know that in the neighborhood commercial district,
[2:19:05] we had a, a separate section that said,
[2:19:09] in addition to the architectural design,
[2:19:15] Chuck itself, these additional considerations shall apply
[2:19:20] for this district.
[2:19:23] My recommendation is to pull
[2:19:25] that out from the section on building height,
[2:19:29] structure height, and have it at, to be a supplemental
[2:19:32] architectural design requirements so
[2:19:35] that we're not mixing heights
[2:19:37] and you know, building features.
[2:19:39] Absolutely. But I mean it all makes sense.
[2:19:44] Okay. We can do that.
[2:19:47] So we'll add similar language, you know, refer everyone back
[2:19:50] to the architectural design regs
[2:19:52] and then move this into that.
[2:19:55] Okay.
[2:19:57] Is, is this percentage in the parentheses here at the end
[2:20:01] of six A, is that supposed to match the 15% written
[2:20:06] or am I misunderstanding that
[2:20:07] There was a typo from two different versions that
[2:20:09] We had in there.
[2:20:10] Okay. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't
[2:20:11] misunderstanding what it was saying.
[2:20:13] Oh, great catch. Absolutely.
[2:20:14] Alright. So 15 or 33. It was 33. Thank you.
[2:20:27] Okay. Okay.
[2:20:28] And then one last question, just going back to parking again
[2:20:32] that highlighted we're we're gonna take out or into the lot.
[2:20:36] Yeah, I, okay. I had no idea where that came from.
[2:20:39] I just neither stole the language, so I stole it in, in, in,
[2:20:42] in its entirety, but didn't make sense to me.
[2:20:45] Okay. Perfect. And I think that's everything.
[2:20:49] I have a question. I mean, I don't want to keep us here
[2:20:51] and I don't want to, well I'm jumping back
[2:20:54] to the street scape discussion with the yard depths just
[2:20:58] for, it's a question to put out for thought.
[2:21:00] Is there any precedent for establishing a, I don't know
[2:21:05] what you would call it, but like a facade line?
[2:21:07] Like if, if the intent is to get rid of the saw tooth, maybe
[2:21:12] for certain streets, we make a target line
[2:21:15] and it's like that's any new
[2:21:17] development, that's where it goes.
[2:21:19] Well, sure, I mean I, I I just refer to the TBOD
[2:21:25] in that entire district, the maximum front yard setback
[2:21:30] from the lot line is zero feet. Right.
[2:21:33] That's just CB. Yes. That's in the, in the TBOD
[2:21:39] Cvs.
[2:21:40] Which in all honesty, after c
[2:21:44] and i like CVS, don't get me wrong,
[2:21:46] parking is not the greatest in and
[2:21:48] Out there.
[2:21:49] Well that's, yeah. So
[2:21:50] If anything, you know, we, we worried shortsighted front
[2:21:53] that one, but the old town hall was there.
[2:21:56] I'm trying to remember, was the old town hall zero front?
[2:22:00] Yes. Zero Two. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:22:01] The parking was to the side. The
[2:22:03] Problem is the CVS is maybe a little bit too intense
[2:22:07] to use for that lot size.
[2:22:09] Well, I don't know if you,
[2:22:10] have you gone to this one in London?
[2:22:11] Dairy? Our parking, the,
[2:22:14] the parking at our CVS is a dream compared
[2:22:16] to the CVS in London dairy.
[2:22:17] Okay. Well anyway, so to address your point, Mr.
[2:22:20] Fisherman, yes. We have a precedent for enforcing a, a
[2:22:25] a hundred percent conformity of the streetscape.
[2:22:29] In other words, traveling on Elm Street
[2:22:34] in, in Manchester or or Main Street in Nashua.
[2:22:37] I'm not aware of maybe other than a few, couple exceptions.
[2:22:40] Everything is up to the sidewalk. Yeah.
[2:22:43] Now the sidewalks are maybe a little wider
[2:22:45] and the streets are a little wider,
[2:22:46] but everything's up to the sidewalk
[2:22:48] because it's, it's a pedestrian friendly environment.
[2:22:51] You get the big windows, you can see people,
[2:22:53] you know, having a good time.
[2:22:54] You walk by the, the thing that broke that
[2:23:00] is the, the CUBIES mini strip mall.
[2:23:03] And of course that predated the TBOD regulations.
[2:23:08] That was the kind of, maybe the emphasis for Yeah.
[2:23:11] That one. That's what We didn't want.
[2:23:13] Right. And that one, and across the street from, if you,
[2:23:16] you must remember Mr. Nelson across the street there was
[2:23:20] where the, what is it, super cuts
[2:23:24] or whatever it is over there now that,
[2:23:26] that little mall over there that used
[2:23:28] to be three triple deckers all mixed use
[2:23:30] right on the sidewalk.
[2:23:32] And they tore those down and they put that in there.
[2:23:34] I think Comey's was the start of it.
[2:23:35] And that one was the last straw.
[2:23:36] That's when the TBOD was when S was first.
[2:23:40] That one was second. And then,
[2:23:41] and then the board at the time said, enough is enough.
[2:23:44] And the TBOD came in. So we,
[2:23:46] We did attempt in the existing regulation to maintain
[2:23:50] uniformity with the eight foot,
[2:23:54] which has more leeway than the zero foot in the TBOD.
[2:23:58] 'cause we figured in the outer ring we
[2:24:01] could be less stringent.
[2:24:03] Right. But we have been requested
[2:24:08] to make it more flexible.
[2:24:11] And so we're trying to honor that request
[2:24:13] and it's, it's sort of a force fit
[2:24:16] because all that flexibility does not really comport
[2:24:19] with the, the goal of having the consistent street scape.
[2:24:23] And so we're, we're trying,
[2:24:24] we're trying to work around that.
[2:24:30] Now, personally, given that we're not allowing
[2:24:33] parking in front of the buildings,
[2:24:36] I don't see any great harm in just leaving it at eight feet.
[2:24:38] But that, that's, that's just my opinion.
[2:24:42] I agree with that opinion. Okay.
[2:24:49] 'cause as I've said several times, if it's not parking
[2:24:52] and it's not a couple of picnic tables, I can't imagine
[2:24:55] what a developer's gonna wanna do with that.
[2:24:59] Well And greater than eight foot front yard.
[2:25:01] Yeah. And, you know, we bring suggestions to the board
[2:25:03] and if the board doesn't feel they're good suggestions
[2:25:07] or they don't find merit in them, you don't have to, you,
[2:25:10] you, it can be what It's the board's decision.
[2:25:13] Well, yes,
[2:25:15] but it also needs to reflect the
[2:25:16] community consensus and values.
[2:25:18] Yeah. And it has to be such that the kind
[2:25:23] of economic development that we'd like to see can happen.
[2:25:25] So we, we we're trying
[2:25:27] to serve multiple requirements at the same time.
[2:25:31] Yeah. Okay.
[2:25:36] I'll keep thinking. Alright.
[2:25:37] So I don't know if you have a better idea on
[2:25:40] how to stage that.
[2:25:42] Right. I'm all open to, I mean,
[2:25:44] this was the best I could come up with.
[2:25:47] I, I won't admit it, I won't suggest that it's optimal,
[2:25:53] but it was what I can figure out,
[2:25:59] Nothing's coming to mind at the moment. But also
[2:26:02] The other thing we can do is at the risk
[2:26:05] of potentially spot zoning, we could take some
[2:26:08] of the bigger parcels over in the Sawyer court area,
[2:26:12] you know, where the automotive in industrial places are,
[2:26:17] where it's kind of a different streetscape
[2:26:20] and make that a, a subject to different rules.
[2:26:25] 'cause we're, we're trying to come up with rules
[2:26:26] that fit the higher, the whole district
[2:26:29] and the lot size is vary widely.
[2:26:32] Right. Is that something an overlay would do?
[2:26:39] Yeah. I mean, we could make it an overlay.
[2:26:41] We could make it another district.
[2:26:43] I, I don't know how small a district can be
[2:26:45] before it becomes problematic.
[2:26:47] But I mean, if, if you have an area of, of the town
[2:26:50] where the existing pattern
[2:26:52] of development is substantially different than another,
[2:26:54] I don't know whether it's a really a
[2:26:57] problem to do either of those things. But
[2:26:59] I think the overlay would be the easier if we,
[2:27:01] if we determined that there was an area big enough
[2:27:04] for an overlay, but too small
[2:27:07] for a separate district. I mean, overlay is the way
[2:27:09] To go.
[2:27:10] We believe that the eight foot for the CBD
[2:27:12] and then create a CBD overlay CBDO and,
[2:27:17] and that one would be the larger lots.
[2:27:19] And there we, you know, allow more setbacks. I don't know.
[2:27:22] No, it needs, it needs some more studying I think.
[2:27:27] Well that's the thing with zoning is the hardest part is
[2:27:30] envisioning all the unintended consequences.
[2:27:33] Yeah.
[2:27:38] So I'm happy with
[2:27:41] closing the fourth workshop at this point.
[2:27:43] If everyone thinks we've gotten all the ideas out and you're
[2:27:46] Okay.
[2:27:47] Kind, frazzled if you want
[2:27:51] to keep, when would you like working on it?
[2:27:53] I'm happy to do that too. 'cause we,
[2:27:54] we have technically till 10,
[2:28:00] I'm happy to take it away and make, update the changes.
[2:28:03] Yeah. And bring it back for a fifth workshop.
[2:28:06] When, when would you like to have that?
[2:28:09] Yeah, think on it. I mean, let's think on whether
[2:28:15] trying to come up with one formula
[2:28:16] that fits the whole district is the right thing.
[2:28:19] Or whether maybe creating an overlay that
[2:28:23] recognizes the differences in development patterns in,
[2:28:25] in lot sizes is the better way.
[2:28:29] I mean, from the outset, I'm more comfortable with that.
[2:28:32] My biggest takeaway from the, the site, the,
[2:28:35] the district walk was just how
[2:28:37] disparate different areas were.
[2:28:40] And, and I, I felt that at the time,
[2:28:42] it's gonna be really hard to do a one size fits all here.
[2:28:45] So maybe we could do another little map, figure out where,
[2:28:48] where those larger lots are, where it would make sense.
[2:28:51] And then take the kinda language that we have proposed
[2:28:55] that I proposed in terms of, of where you could do the, the,
[2:28:58] the bigger setback
[2:28:59] and just make that flexibility in that overlay district.
[2:29:04] That's, that's another idea
[2:29:07] Is, is it possible to make a GIS map
[2:29:09] that puts like a text label for like the frontage
[2:29:12] of each lot or something like that?
[2:29:15] We don't, we don't capture that in our GIS unfortunately.
[2:29:19] 'cause that would've made it so much easier
[2:29:20] because I could have just labeled it
[2:29:22] and then, you know, done a formula for it.
[2:29:26] But I wasn't, we're not able to do
[2:29:27] that in our, with our current system.
[2:29:29] Well I, I think, I think it's part CAD system.
[2:29:32] So you, you can actually, you know, point A, point B,
[2:29:35] have it, calculate the distance between them.
[2:29:38] But that may, that may be more advanced than
[2:29:42] Yeah.
[2:29:43] And then Yeah. And then trying
[2:29:44] to translate it into the actual ESRI system from ours.
[2:29:48] Yeah, that's a little bit, yeah,
[2:29:50] that's a little more advanced.
[2:29:51] I mean, we're still using arc GIS right?
[2:29:53] Arc GIS Pro. Yeah.
[2:29:55] Yep. Okay. Because it used to be that I had a laptop,
[2:29:59] my own laptop at, at these meetings
[2:30:02] and Doug gave me a copy of the town's GIS database.
[2:30:05] And then I would like do all those queries.
[2:30:07] We bring everything up we can Yeah.
[2:30:08] And that's what I, I mean the d the GIS database
[2:30:10] that is online, we absolutely, it's got a measurement thing.
[2:30:14] And I mean that's how I calculated the, the distances
[2:30:17] for those, you know, I, I sat and I measured them
[2:30:19] and just wrote it on my
[2:30:20] Hand up.
[2:30:21] Yeah. I think there are differences in the capabilities
[2:30:22] of the online web one
[2:30:23] And then the actual GIS pro where we create these,
[2:30:27] you know, layouts
[2:30:28] and things that we bring to the meeting's. Such a different thing. I had
[2:30:31] An executable on my hard disk.
[2:30:33] Yeah. It wa it wasn't a web thing. Yeah.
[2:30:36] But that was years ago, so.
[2:30:37] Yep. But I think that would help, you know,
[2:30:42] it's a great tool to visualize these sort of things.
[2:30:45] So if we could take advantage of that, that'd be great.
[2:30:51] Okay. Is everyone satisfied? Done for the night?
[2:30:56] Yes. Yes. Okay. I think we made some progress.
[2:31:00] We did. Thank you. Thank you for all the help. More
[2:31:02] Robert comments?
[2:31:04] I Motion to adjourn?
[2:31:10] Yes. So move second. Alright. Move by O'Connor.
[2:31:13] Second by Mali. Adjourn. All in favor say aye. Aye.
[2:31:16] For adjourned. Thank you guys.