[0:00] The Town of Dairy Planning Board meeting

[0:01] for June 3rd, 2026.

[0:04] We start our meetings with a pledge, so if you would rise

[0:07] and join, I would appreciate that.

[0:12] I pledge allegiance, allegiance to the flag

[0:14] of the United States of America in the two Republic

[0:17] for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

[0:22] with liberty and justice for all.

[0:30] For our lone member of the audience.

[0:32] Primary exit is behind you.

[0:33] If there's a an alarm activation.

[0:35] You may also use the exit to my right, to your left.

[0:38] At the front we will

[0:43] give the the ground rules.

[0:45] The planning board voluntarily consider continues

[0:47] to offer remote participation.

[0:49] If any member of the planning board participates remotely,

[0:52] vote shall be by roll call

[0:55] to come into the meeting remotely,

[0:57] you may use WW dot zoom us.

[1:01] You enter a meeting ID of 7 5 4 6 6 3 9 1 2.

[1:07] You may also come in by telephone for audio only.

[1:10] Phone number is

[1:11] (646) 558-8656.

[1:16] Same meeting ID 7 5 4 6 6 3 9 1 2.

[1:20] If you have technical difficulties getting in,

[1:22] please call

[1:23] (603) 845-5585.

[1:28] If you're on the phone and you wish to be recognized

[1:30] to speak, hit star nine.

[1:32] To raise your hand and once recognized, hit star six

[1:35] to unmute yourself.

[1:37] At this point, I will introduce the members

[1:40] and staff who are present tonight

[1:42] to my far right, our alternates, Mr.

[1:44] Mauzy and Mr. Appleton, our planning director, Ms. Rdo.

[1:48] Good evening, our new planning intern

[1:51] who's here for the, the summer.

[1:53] Ms. Burl at the back is our clerk, Ms. Wilson

[1:58] Town Council Liaison.

[1:59] Mr. Chase. Good evening, regular member Mr. Wood.

[2:02] Good evening, member. Mr. Minervini. Good evening.

[2:06] To my far left is Mr.

[2:07] Venture, who is the coordinator for Dairy Cam

[2:10] and makes all the remote coverage possible.

[2:13] We thank you Mr.

[2:15] Foli, who is the engineering coordinator from Public Works.

[2:20] Did I get that right? Member Mr. Fishman.

[2:23] Good evening everyone. Member Mr. Pelletier.

[2:25] Good evening secretary. Mr. Mallee. Hello.

[2:27] Our vice chair is absent. So it asked Mr.

[2:31] Appleton to sit for him.

[2:34] Mr. Church is also absent in the moment,

[2:36] but he has no alternate.

[2:38] So

[2:44] first item under administrative business is escrow.

[2:47] Item number 26 dash 18 for Beacon Homes Builders, LLC.

[2:53] Okay. The project name is subdivision of land

[2:55] for map 29 lot 46 developers, beacon Home Builders.

[3:00] The escrow type is cash escrow

[3:02] and this is for 46 High Street.

[3:04] It's a three lot subdivision.

[3:06] The request is to establish cash escrow in the amount

[3:09] of $71,597 52 cents for the above noted project.

[3:14] This escrow will be non-interest bearing.

[3:17] So moved. Second, moved by Malaby, seconded by Pelletier

[3:22] to approve the escrow as presented.

[3:24] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Mni? Yes. Mr.

[3:29] Appleton? Yes. Mr. Fisherman? Yes. Mr. Pelletier? Yes. Mr.

[3:33] Maby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[3:38] Next item under administrative visits is item 26 dash 19

[3:42] for High Meadows, LLC.

[3:44] Okay. This is also for subdivision of land

[3:47] for MAP 29, lot 46.

[3:49] The developer was High Meadows, LLC was also a cash escrow

[3:53] for 46 High Street.

[3:55] The request is to approve a final release

[3:58] of cash escrow in the amount of $71,597 and 52 cents.

[4:03] For the above noted project, the amount to retain is zero,

[4:06] So moved.

[4:07] Second, moved by ee, seconded by Pelletier

[4:10] to approve the release as presented.

[4:13] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr.

[4:17] Appleton? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Pelletier? Yes. Mr.

[4:21] Malaby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[4:24] And then finally we have item

[4:26] 26 dash 20 cinema properties. LLC.

[4:30] Okay. This is for CHI. Overhead doors.

[4:35] The developer's cinema properties. LLC.

[4:37] This is a letter of credit. The property is located at 10.

[4:40] Ashley Drive. That was the

[4:42] redevelopment of the former cinema.

[4:44] The request is to renew irrevocable letter

[4:46] of credit number 9 0 0 0 0 2 issued

[4:50] by the Millard Bank in the amount of $45,470

[4:53] and 16 cents for the above noted project.

[4:56] The new expiration date will be June 7th, 2028.

[5:00] So moved. Second. Moved by Malibu, seconded by Pelletier

[5:03] to accept the escrow as presented.

[5:06] Mr. Chase? Yep. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Minervini? Yes. Mr.

[5:10] Appleton? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Pelletier? Yes. Mr.

[5:14] Malaby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[5:17] So now we will move on to approval of the minutes we have

[5:20] before some minutes of May 20th, 2026.

[5:23] Does everyone have a chance to read them?

[5:25] Are there any errors or omissions?

[5:31] Mr. Chair here, no comments.

[5:33] I move to accept the minutes as written.

[5:34] Second, moved by Mby, seconded by Pelletier

[5:37] to approve the minutes of May 20, 20, 26 as written.

[5:42] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Minervini? Yes. Mr.

[5:46] Appleton? I was not present, so I'll abstain. Mr. Fishman.

[5:50] Abstain for the same reasons. Mr. Pelletier? Yes. Mr.

[5:53] Malaby? Yes. And the chair votes?

[5:54] Yes. Correspondence.

[6:00] Mr. Chair, we have one piece of correspondence tonight.

[6:02] It's from Alexander Mellow, the director

[6:05] of the community development

[6:07] department for the town of Wyndham.

[6:08] Just alerting us that the zoning board

[6:10] of adjustment is gonna be making a determination as

[6:13] to whether or not a proposed development,

[6:15] which is a sports dome next to Canopy Lake Park,

[6:20] could be a, a regional impact.

[6:22] They've enclosed the minutes from their May 12th meeting,

[6:25] and then they're gonna make a determination on

[6:27] Wednesday, July 1st.

[6:29] Okay. Thank you.

[6:30] So if they determine it's regional impact, then we get

[6:33] to go and have a say.

[6:34] Right? That's

[6:35] Correct.

[6:36] We'll have 30 days to review the proposed plan

[6:38] and provide comment back to the town of Windham.

[6:40] Excellent. Other business we have

[6:44] before us are policies and procedures.

[6:47] Since we had two clean readings we're it's up for a vote.

[6:52] We have a motion maker attached to the the package.

[6:56] If someone would like to make that motion.

[6:59] Mr. Chair, I move to approve the proposed changes

[7:01] to the planning board policy

[7:03] and procedures as presented this evening.

[7:05] Changes will be affected if as of this state second,

[7:08] So moved by intervening, seconded by Pelletier

[7:11] to approve the revisions to the policies

[7:14] and procedures effective this evening.

[7:16] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Menini? Yes. Mr.

[7:20] Appleton? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Pelletier? Yes. Mr.

[7:25] Malaby? Yes. On the chair of votes? Yes. Thank you.

[7:30] Next item. Under other businesses we have an architectural

[7:32] design review for a sign in the traditional

[7:35] business overlay district at Parcel ID

[7:37] 3 0 1 3 2 21 East Broadway.

[7:41] Once upon again bookstore.

[7:43] Okay, thank you. So as the board is aware,

[7:46] the zoning ordinance requires

[7:48] that all new signs in the traditional business overlay

[7:51] district be reviewed by the planning board prior

[7:53] to the issuance of a signed permit.

[7:56] Once upon, again, bookstore has opened at 21 East Broadway

[8:00] and the applicant has a signed permit pending

[8:02] with the building department.

[8:03] And you do have a copy of the decal

[8:05] that will go in the window

[8:09] and the board would be asked

[8:11] to vote upon the architectural pieces of it.

[8:14] And so they're having a, a window decal only,

[8:17] no external structural lines?

[8:19] That is correct. Okay.

[8:21] Any other comments, questions on this?

[8:24] If not, we'll have a motion.

[8:27] Mr. Chair. I move pursuant to the town

[8:30] of Dairy zoning ordinance Article 12 signs section 1 65 dash

[8:35] 1 0 1 0.5 signs in the TBOD to approve the sign design

[8:40] presented for once upon, again,

[8:42] bookstore parcel 3 0 1 3 2 21 East Broadway.

[8:47] As presented, the board finds the sign is compatible

[8:49] with the surrounding buildings,

[8:51] meets the regulations contained in the ordinance

[8:53] and compliments the surrounding architecture

[8:56] And moved by Malaby, seconded by Pelletier

[8:58] to approve the sign that's presented.

[9:00] Mr. Chase? Yes. Mr. Wood? Yes. Mr. Minervini? Yes. Mr.

[9:04] Appleton? Yes. Mr. Fishman? Yes. Mr. Pelletier? Yes. Mr.

[9:08] Malaby? Yes. Chair votes? Yes.

[9:11] Next item is a conceptual discussion

[9:16] for WRB District Parcel ID

[9:18] 0 5 0 3 4 84 and 86 Rockingham Road.

[9:24] Some of the members may not have actually seen a conceptual,

[9:27] there's really three levels of plan that can come

[9:30] before the board under state law.

[9:32] One is conceptual. It's anywhere from a drawing on a napkin

[9:35] to something less than fully engineered plans.

[9:38] The second is a design review, which is

[9:42] probably 95% engineered.

[9:43] Again for technical comment, neither of those are binding.

[9:47] We offer comments but in nothing we say either positive

[9:50] or negative can be set a precedent

[9:54] for the final application.

[9:55] Then, then the final

[9:58] informal application on which we have a public hearing.

[9:59] So this is the, the conceptual one.

[10:02] We require these in the WRB or,

[10:05] or encourage them one of the two.

[10:06] This, in this particular case, it is required. Yep.

[10:10] So pursuant to the RSA 6 76 4 2 A,

[10:15] which references the three levels of review

[10:18] that the chair just outlined for us

[10:19] and our LDCR section 1 70 52, applicants may come

[10:24] before the planning board at a regularly scheduled meeting

[10:26] to hold a non-binding discussion about a proposed project

[10:29] to obtain preliminary feedback.

[10:32] Additionally, in the West Running Brook District,

[10:35] any project which requires a use variance must first appear

[10:39] before the zoning board to seek the board's advice

[10:41] and comment, sorry,

[10:42] before the planning board to seek the board's advice

[10:44] and comment as to the suitability of the use

[10:47] for the lot in question,

[10:48] taking into consideration the effect

[10:51] of the variance on the character

[10:52] of the district in any other pertinent data with respect

[10:55] to the master plan, this project is located in the West

[10:58] Running Brook district on a lot

[10:59] that currently contains self storage.

[11:02] Self storage is now not a permitted use in the West running

[11:05] Brook district and therefore they will need a variance in

[11:08] order to expand on that use.

[11:10] The applicant is considering the addition of

[11:13] 11,675 square feet of additional storage space,

[11:17] which would be three buildings.

[11:19] So the recommendation would be to review the proposal

[11:22] and comment on the suitability

[11:24] of the additional self storage use on the lot.

[11:27] And then we would provide a minutes, a copy of our minutes

[11:30] to the zoning board for their consideration on when they

[11:32] deliberate on the request.

[11:35] So clarification, it's an existing

[11:39] storage facility.

[11:40] It is. And then when we adopted the,

[11:43] the WRB was no longer a permitted use?

[11:46] Correct. So are we determining that this is not a natural

[11:51] expansion of a grandfathered use?

[11:55] Natural expansions of grandfathered use?

[11:57] Usually there's a percentage tied to that.

[12:00] This would exceed that percentage.

[12:02] It's usually about 10, I think it's 10% or something.

[12:05] I think

[12:07] You, I'm not sure because I had the same question under,

[12:09] under 19 natural expansion

[12:11] of valid preexisting non-conforming uses existing as

[12:14] of deduction of the ordinance is allowed. So

[12:19] Yeah, I think, Well, I I suggest that,

[12:22] that there's probably a case law that addresses this,

[12:24] but the planning board is

[12:25] certainly free to give them feedback.

[12:27] Yes. And the zoning board is certainly free to look at

[12:30] what we suggest Yes.

[12:32] As to whether they actually need the variance.

[12:34] 'cause it, it either is or is not a natural expansion.

[12:37] We'll let them take that up with a zoning board,

[12:40] Correct? Yeah.

[12:42] So we can, we don't do we,

[12:46] we don't accept jurisdiction of,

[12:47] We don't.

[12:48] So Keith is here from bowler engineering

[12:50] and he can go over more of the details of the plan.

[12:54] We have a copy of the plan in the overhead.

[12:56] If you needed the different sheet, just let us know

[12:59] and we'll switch sheets for you. Great. Okay,

[13:01] Keith covered from bowler.

[13:02] Thank you Elizabeth. She touched on about half

[13:05] of the stuff that I wanted to discuss.

[13:06] As again, just preliminary.

[13:08] I had the recommendation to, you know, repair

[13:10] before you we're still gonna submit to the ZBA.

[13:12] We'll confirm if that's actually required.

[13:14] My understanding was that it is,

[13:16] that's not natural expansion as previously noted.

[13:19] It was, is existing self storage facility was

[13:24] allowed use Sony change no longer an allowed use.

[13:27] So therefore that's why I'm here preliminary.

[13:29] Obviously the idea is to go to ZBA grant,

[13:32] the variance if we need it,

[13:33] and then come back obviously provide full, you know,

[13:36] engineering site plans for, for approval.

[13:38] So as Elizabeth mentioned, the existing facility with,

[13:40] there's actually a fourth building down by closer

[13:45] to Rockingham Road.

[13:46] The survey didn't pick that up.

[13:48] The next plan it shows it

[13:50] and there's the three buildings that have the storage.

[13:53] As Elizabeth mentioned, we're only looking

[13:55] to expand 11,675 square feet.

[13:57] All one story building across three footprints.

[14:03] If you go to the next, the next plan,

[14:14] There were.

[14:18] Yes, next document please. Thank you. Sorry.

[14:25] Okay, so this is, this is the, you know,

[14:27] conceptual site plan.

[14:28] As you can see here in light gray, the proposed three new

[14:33] single story buildings.

[14:36] The idea is here they are kind of, you know, kind

[14:39] of filling in between the existing buildings.

[14:42] The setbacks remain all the same except for

[14:46] that one to the bottom right.

[14:48] The existing office building down

[14:50] to the bottom is about 26 feet.

[14:52] From that side setback we're proposing this new one would be

[14:55] only 19 and a half feet.

[14:57] Not much of a difference. So again, we welcome

[15:00] feedback on your thoughts as we move forward of trying

[15:04] to get this approved through the numerous

[15:05] agencies here at the town.

[15:07] But basically the idea is

[15:09] there's no additional parking needed.

[15:10] Again, the parking's up front with the office,

[15:12] it's all self storage to be utilizing the existing pavement

[15:16] drives that are already there.

[15:17] So the only additional impervious would actually be the

[15:20] footprint of the three buildings.

[15:25] Okay. And so the, the reason for the,

[15:29] the variant is a use variance.

[15:30] You're not looking for any dimensional waivers

[15:33] or variances regarding, you know,

[15:35] setbacks from lot lines or anything like that? No.

[15:37] So a according to the existing, you know, existing code,

[15:41] we are not, we're within the setback requirements from all

[15:43] three, I believe is 10 feet.

[15:45] So it's up in the top right as the zoning table.

[15:49] So we're not asking for variance from the setbacks.

[15:51] It's really just the use,

[15:54] I guess the things that the board might ask you to maybe

[15:58] go into more detail, potential, you know, increase in,

[16:01] in traffic might impact that

[16:04] section road in, in the district.

[16:07] You're saying the, the buildings are similar height,

[16:10] so you know, visual impact from the road

[16:14] and then are they gonna, in terms of architectural style,

[16:18] color treatment, are they gonna match?

[16:20] So maybe those the things I would like to hear

[16:23] and then we can ask the board for other ideas.

[16:28] Great. So as we come back, as we come back

[16:31] after the ZBA, we come back

[16:33] to the planning board would provide the footprints

[16:35] and architecturals and it,

[16:37] my understanding is the thought

[16:37] is there would be match, right?

[16:38] So it seemed like it's seamless,

[16:39] like they were always there.

[16:41] The traffic impact, if it's required we provide a memo

[16:45] showing the additional trips,

[16:46] but it would be, it would be minimal.

[16:48] We're not talking about a large amount of units.

[16:51] So if required we could provide

[16:53] a trip increase in trip analysis, I would expect that

[16:56] that wouldn't have any really impacts on the level

[16:58] of service on the, the roadway network.

[17:01] But again, at the request we could provide

[17:03] that information and we come back.

[17:06] Any other comments, questions from members

[17:08] of the board on this conceptual Mr. Chase?

[17:12] Thank you. So you're adding these buildings

[17:16] and you said you're using the existing pavement.

[17:18] Are you changing any of the turn radiuses

[17:22] to get in and out of the building areas?

[17:26] No, the idea is to keep the same, the same width that's,

[17:29] you know, on one side of bin down between the buildings.

[17:32] So it would not be actually be impacting

[17:34] or planning to add any additional

[17:36] pervious for the, for the drive.

[17:38] So the turning movements.

[17:39] Okay. So I guess what I'm asking is,

[17:43] is Mr.

[17:45] Foli so the same, it meets the requirements for

[17:50] emergency turn radiuses

[17:53] and such like that that's not changing at all?

[17:57] It shouldn't be, no. I mean it's, the existing

[18:01] roadway footprint is the same.

[18:03] It doesn't look like he's impacting any of the radio.

[18:04] I have the turns, so yeah, I mean

[18:09] I couldn't see anything from a truck turning template being

[18:11] altered by the location of these additions.

[18:14] No. Assuming the existing site is compliant,

[18:18] but I'm not sure about that.

[18:21] Yeah, I I have no prior knowledge of,

[18:22] of the existing site, so Right.

[18:25] This doesn't change anything about the existing site's.

[18:27] Accessibility of a fire apparatus. Okay.

[18:30] So when, when we come back, all that stuff will be there.

[18:32] This is really to determine do we think it's an

[18:35] appropriate use?

[18:37] Right. And would we either,

[18:39] If they were Going to cra

[18:41] Variance Be I I'd have

[18:43] Comments about Yeah.

[18:44] Acceptable use if they were trying to put, you know,

[18:48] 10 pounds in a five pound bag.

[18:49] Right. That's what I was getting at.

[18:52] Okay. Other comments,

[18:56] questions, Mr. Mousy?

[18:58] Yeah, I'm not sure if this is accurate

[19:00] to what's going on, right.

[19:02] If I'm actually allowed to say this or not.

[19:04] But this is, so these three new structures, they're,

[19:08] they're, they're abutting property owners, is that correct?

[19:12] So the one, yes.

[19:14] There's obviously property owners that abutting here.

[19:16] The, the only one, the bottom right one is the only one that

[19:21] any closer to an existing setback

[19:24] than present the present buildings are.

[19:26] Okay. I guess what I'm getting at here is,

[19:27] I'll just cut right to the chase is from

[19:30] what I remember from, from self storage units,

[19:32] there's quite a bit of lighting for security

[19:35] and for safety purposes.

[19:36] Is that lighting gonna be obtrusive I guess

[19:40] to any of the property owners?

[19:41] Is they gonna be like, oh my god,

[19:43] now all these lights are coming into my,

[19:46] As part of the submittal coming back we provide

[19:48] a, you know, a site lighting plan.

[19:49] But no, the idea would be obviously to make sure

[19:51] that we don't have spillage off the property.

[19:53] Okay. They may have to add a few additional lights

[19:56] on the new, the new buildings

[19:59] particularly maybe that one to the bottom right.

[20:01] But again, we'll have to evaluate that,

[20:04] but I wouldn't expect too many additional lights

[20:08] that the, the,

[20:11] Okay.

[20:12] Anyone else? Mr.

[20:16] Fazio, do you engineering department have

[20:18] any concerns about the use?

[20:23] Not at this moment, no. I think

[20:24] as the this progresses we would vet the drainage

[20:27] and things like the site circulation.

[20:29] But at this, at this point, I have no immediate concerns.

[20:33] No.

[20:34] Okay. So now we do, we have a, how,

[20:38] how does the wording of the motion on this read?

[20:43] We want to give them some feedback.

[20:45] We need something in the minutes

[20:47] that the zoning board can read.

[20:48] And I, I presume that should probably be in the form

[20:50] of some sort of motion.

[20:55] It wouldn't be, you wouldn't need to do a formal motion

[20:57] because it's not a hearing.

[20:58] But you could do a straw poll of the board just to kind

[21:01] of say, you know, do you feel if if you feel

[21:06] that the the additional uses would be appropriate

[21:09] or the additional storage would be appropriate on that lot?

[21:13] Okay. Yeah, because it may not be appropriate

[21:16] on another lot.

[21:17] If someone came in and wanted to use variance, you know,

[21:20] for maybe the lot, you know,

[21:22] a different lot in the west running Brook district,

[21:24] it might not be the same thing.

[21:26] True. Alright, Mr. Chase, I'll start

[21:29] Off if you want.

[21:30] Sure. Looking at this plan conceptually as, as for use,

[21:35] I do not see where it's in obsessive

[21:41] use of the property.

[21:43] It can be determined.

[21:45] I can't right off the top of my head as, as Ms.

[21:47] Rdo had spoken as to a percentage of it.

[21:49] But what they're proposing I do not see is

[21:54] overly done.

[21:55] I think it would be an appropriate expansion

[21:58] of their existing business without being

[22:00] overwhelming on the lot.

[22:03] Okay, great. Well we'll just go right down the,

[22:06] the line, Mr. Wood,

[22:08] This just feels like a natural expansion to me.

[22:10] And if there's no major changes to turn radiuses

[22:14] or no lot line adjustments

[22:17] or anything, I don't see how there's any issues.

[22:19] Mr. Menini? I, I would agree with Mr. Chase.

[22:23] I would also add that the distance

[22:28] from Rockingham Road

[22:29] to the proposed buildings does make me a little more

[22:33] comfortable with this expansion than I would otherwise be.

[22:37] Okay, Mr. Appleton?

[22:39] Yeah, I have a similar feeling.

[22:40] Obviously I'm not personally a huge fan

[22:42] of these self-storage facilities,

[22:44] but this is pretty well off the road.

[22:46] It doesn't seem like it's huge divergence from

[22:48] what the property already is.

[22:50] I don't see any problem with it.

[22:52] Mr. Fishman, I think it would be helpful

[22:54] to the sight line from the road just to,

[22:57] to understand the full impact

[22:59] and what's visible from the road, given the grade.

[23:01] But generally speaking, I I think it's an appropriate use,

[23:06] continued use of this site,

[23:09] Mr. Pelletier.

[23:11] I think it's An appropriate use of the site

[23:13] and I agree with Mr. Wood and Mr.

[23:15] Minervini exactly what they said.

[23:18] Mr. Maldy, That's the easy job going last.

[23:21] 'cause I can say, yeah, I agree

[23:22] with Mr. Chase, sort of like Mr.

[23:26] Mauzy said, I'd be curious to see the lighting plan

[23:28] and potentially a landscaping plan if there's any, you know,

[23:31] way to hide some of this.

[23:32] But it's already, like Mr. Appleton said, set off the road.

[23:35] So no, I'm comfortable with this.

[23:37] Okay. So some of the things we're asking about will come

[23:39] back on the, on the formal plan?

[23:41] Yes. We're really just considering the zoning use. Correct.

[23:44] So the landscaping, the lighting,

[23:45] the road curves are really technically outta jurisdiction

[23:49] for what we're being asked tonight.

[23:51] Based on that, I do agree that it is a,

[23:54] an appropriate expansion of an existing use

[23:58] on this lot. Great.

[24:01] Thank you. Hmm. Thank you.

[24:04] Great. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Yep.

[24:08] All right. Planning director chairman updates.

[24:12] I have some things today.

[24:15] First of all, just want

[24:17] to formally introduce all the board members to Abby Burr

[24:21] who is joining us for the summer.

[24:25] And do you wanna say anything about

[24:31] Hello, nice to meet you all.

[24:34] I'm Abby. I'm from Haverhill, Massachusetts, so not too far.

[24:39] And I go to UMass Amherst studying

[24:41] sustainable community development.

[24:44] Okay, welcome. Thank you.

[24:47] So you'll, you'll get a, a quick lesson.

[24:51] New Hampshire Land use law, which is, as far as I know,

[24:54] pretty different than Massachusetts land use law.

[24:57] So you'll be multifaceted. Welcome. We appreciate you.

[25:00] Thank you. Any other?

[25:03] I, yep, I do. So just wanted to remind the board

[25:07] of the summer schedule, so we'll meet on July 8th,

[25:10] which is actually the second Wednesday in July

[25:15] so that we're in line with the town council schedule,

[25:18] which will help out Owen's team so

[25:22] that they're not here every week during the summer.

[25:25] And also we will maintain our meeting on August 5th

[25:28] and then we'll go back to two meetings in September.

[25:32] I forwarded an email to everyone with regard

[25:36] to the NI Kappa conference in Manchester in October.

[25:40] It is the, it's the Northern New England

[25:46] chapter of the American Planning

[25:48] Association's fall conference.

[25:50] It is a great opportunity to learn

[25:54] a vast majority of things.

[25:56] It covers all, they touch on all aspects of planning

[25:59] and all the planning disciplines.

[26:01] The town will pay for your admission.

[26:04] You can go for all three days.

[26:06] You can go for one day, you can go partial day, whatever.

[26:08] If there's anything, if, if members would like to go,

[26:11] it's gonna be at the DoubleTree in Manchester.

[26:14] If you would like to attend, if you could let Caroline know

[26:17] so that we could sign you up.

[26:19] I know it's early, but it would be good to get that in.

[26:24] We still have a little bit of money left in our training

[26:26] budget, so if we can get that in this year that, you know,

[26:28] this fiscal year would be great.

[26:32] I have always learned and taken away a lot.

[26:35] You get very different perspectives

[26:37] because we are, we're, it's Vermont, Maine,

[26:39] and New Hampshire all coming together talking about our

[26:42] different experiences.

[26:43] Even though laws are different in the different states,

[26:46] we can still take some of those lessons and, and apply them.

[26:50] So it's, it's always a fun time

[26:52] and it's a great time to network with your peers.

[26:55] What I find when I go to these is the things

[26:57] that are going on in our community is happening

[27:00] in everybody's community.

[27:01] So we're never alone in our, in what we're dealing

[27:04] with at any given time.

[27:08] I think during one of the last meetings I had mentioned

[27:10] that Sylvia Van AK had was retiring from Southern

[27:14] New Hampshire Planning Commission.

[27:16] Sylvia is very well known for her

[27:20] plan reading workshop that she has

[27:25] provided for many years.

[27:27] I took that back

[27:28] as a brand new land use coordinator way back

[27:31] in the early two thousands.

[27:33] I did chat with Sylvia at her retirement party.

[27:35] She said she would be happy to come and do that for us.

[27:39] And if we would like to think of a few dates,

[27:42] we can set aside a portion of our meeting

[27:45] for Sylvia to come in.

[27:47] And it is, it's a, it's a really great training for those

[27:50] who are not as familiar with the civil plans,

[27:53] she will go soup to nuts.

[27:55] Show you how, like what that is on the plan.

[27:59] We get to, we get

[28:00] to indulge our inner child in color for a little bit.

[28:03] Like it's, it's a, it's a fun interactive workshop

[28:07] and you come away really being able to look at a plan

[28:10] and be like, oh yeah, I know what that is

[28:11] and what the real impact is of that.

[28:14] And so I would highly encourage us maybe finding

[28:17] a few dates for that.

[28:18] Okay. Okay.

[28:20] And then that was it.

[28:24] Alright. I guess the only thing I have is

[28:27] that we still have an opening for an alternate, so

[28:30] I'll again, make the marketing pitch for someone to

[28:34] decide they wanna come and have fun with us

[28:36] and sign up on the town's website to volunteer.

[28:40] Okay. Board member comments.

[28:47] Hearing none. I fish for a motion to adjourn. So moved.

[28:50] Second is moved by mbe, second by Pelletier to aurn.

[28:54] Those in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Stand adjourned.

Planning Board - 06/03/2026

Agenda

Transcript