[1:50] For 23rd meeting of the Durham Plain Bush, I'll come to order. We'll start with a roll call, Peter, Peter Houd, Peyton McManus, Michael Barrett, town planner.

[2:04] Rob Sullivan cannot make it, and I believe I'm a Hollander, also cannot make it.

[2:09] and Heather Grant as well, and Gary.

[2:12] Oh, and Gary.

[2:14] Gary?

[2:15] Paul Rasmussen.

[2:17] Sally Tobias.

[2:18] Mike Lerman.

[2:21] Jill, you understand?

[2:23] All right.

[2:24] So Mike Lerman will be seated as the council rep.

[2:28] And Jillian Smith will take Rob Sullivan's seat.

[2:32] And Peter, if we don't have Richard,

[2:35] your original Richard shows.

[2:40] Actually, Peter, you're Gary.

[2:44] Okay,

[2:47] and I need to update, hold on while I update my notes here.

[2:58] There we are.

[3:01] Approval the agenda.

[3:03] It looks good to me.

[3:04] Anybody else?

[3:05] I move a window.

[3:07] Second.

[3:08] On favor.

[3:13] Oh, are there any planning board members on Zoom?

[3:17] Nope.

[3:18] All right.

[3:19] Just in case.

[3:21] town planners report.

[3:23] We're meeting next week, September 30th, as one of the months when there are five Wednesdays,

[3:33] and the items on the agenda poll consented to my putting together sort of my last

[3:39] to raw miscellaneous zoning changes.

[3:42] So I'll have a document for you to look at, which is mostly smaller things, but suggest

[3:49] to change us all through the zoning ordinance.

[3:52] And then the second item on the agenda

[3:53] will be the continued discussion of downtown adjacent zoning.

[3:59] Our October meetings are the 14th and the 28th,

[4:03] and then we're having one meeting in November

[4:05] and one on December, because of the holidays.

[4:08] The board usually has just one meeting in those months.

[4:11] And I think we did tell you about our prospective new town plan

[4:20] Matti Diano, who the council was going to hear her vote on her appointment at the meeting

[4:29] last week, and forks on there wasn't a quorum at the council meeting, so that's back

[4:34] on the agenda for the 28th.

[4:36] I'm confident that the council will approve it, but it's not official until that happens,

[4:43] But she's tentatively starting work pending the council's action on Monday, October 5th.

[4:50] So that's in less than two weeks.

[4:52] And we will have about two months overlap for me to train her and orient her.

[4:59] And then I'm certainly going to be available after I retire on November 30th to help

[5:04] in any way her or anybody.

[5:06] As I'm a Durham resident, I'm only 20 minutes walk away.

[5:11] And Maddie will be able to join us for the October and the November meetings as well.

[5:20] And that's it.

[5:22] All right.

[5:23] Any questions, comments, or Mr. Bernt?

[5:29] Reports from board members who serve on other committees.

[5:35] I do have something that's initially related.

[5:37] of the state has just opened up another grant program for type 2 EV charges, charging infrastructure

[5:49] at travel and tourism oriented locations across New Hampshire.

[5:54] So if anybody has any thoughts about a place in town that might qualify, let the energy

[5:59] committee know.

[6:00] Yes, Jackson Rink, while they're redoing everything.

[6:03] Jackson Rink.

[6:04] All right.

[6:05] Let me, um, visitors transit lots of people going by.

[6:11] Let me try by reporting.

[6:18] Excellent rank for, uh, you tell them all would be good too.

[6:23] I think it's hard to witness here.

[6:26] I think a wagon hill.

[6:28] That's good.

[6:29] I think a wagon hill is the only place I was thinking of, but real sleep.

[6:36] All right.

[6:37] Thank you.

[6:40] And any other committee reports

[6:44] that town council did not have a forum so did not conduct any official business at the last meeting.

[6:50] But we did have a nice chat.

[6:53] I gave a the planning board report.

[6:58] Since they didn't have to vote on it, they accepted it.

[7:04] So on the town council, what's the status of the five story downtown?

[7:08] That was continued. Well wait, we didn't have the quorum with the last meeting, so that was continued to the 28th.

[7:16] The 28th of September.

[7:19] Okay.

[7:21] Thank you.

[7:25] All right, review of old minutes of August 12th.

[7:34] I don't have anything.

[7:39] I gave Michael some small corrections. I assume they're in this.

[7:44] They will not, but they will be. All the ones that are straightforward.

[7:48] Then I move where you adopt these as presented.

[7:53] Second.

[7:54] Anyone else?

[7:57] On favour of acceptance.

[7:59] Aye.

[8:00] Opposed.

[8:02] All right.

[8:03] Public comment.

[8:05] Public comments.

[8:06] anyone here with public comments?

[8:11] We'll move on to our next item, Mr. Barry? No, you're not

[8:15] Mr. Barry. Oh, you're, oh, you're, he actually is. I thought you were, you know, you're just

[8:20] like our fire department folks. Okay. And I thought, so I thought you're here for the CIP. Okay.

[8:29] Public hearing for 73, Piscatico Road subdivision, formal evocation for a three-lot subdivision

[8:34] of 20 acres at Lott 73, the Scatical Road,

[8:38] construction of new private road to access lots.

[8:41] Will you go to the steam property owner,

[8:43] Chris Barry of Barry Servane,

[8:44] an engineering surveyor, Matt P209,

[8:47] Lott 42 in a residence coastal district.

[8:50] And you are a different Mr. Barry.

[8:54] That is correct.

[8:55] Joe Barry, Barry Servane.

[8:57] Chris couldn't make it his might,

[8:58] so he asked me to step in from.

[9:01] I know you guys have seen this project

[9:06] So I guess if you want to let me know, should I start with the waivers or how was it left off last time?

[9:13] Actually, the waivers is what I have my question mark next to.

[9:17] I wanted to make sure that the list of waivers was complete.

[9:22] Right, it's only the above ground for the above ground utilities in the first section of the site.

[9:33] So, for item 19, we have numerous requirements of road regulation, oh, I'm sorry, plus all the

[9:39] waivers for the road, right, as well as the requirement to vary existing overhead electric

[9:43] clients.

[9:46] And so, is that, is item 19 correct as written, oh, yes, okay, then yes, please, let's go over

[9:57] the waivers first.

[9:57] Okay, one by one, they're going to, 10 of them are all for the road.

[10:01] You're going to wrap them all into one, or yeah.

[10:05] Okay, so wait, number one is to the road regulation section four item 4.02 to have minimum 20 foot wide pavement.

[10:17] The second one is road regulation section four item 4.03 shoulder width.

[10:22] The third one is item 4.07 shoulder base core steps,

[10:31] the fourth is item 4.08 base and top

[10:34] core spaving requirements, number 5 is 4.09 gravel shoulder required.

[10:42] Let me pose for you.

[10:44] So basically the road is going to stay as it is at this point.

[10:48] So they're just in driveway.

[10:50] They don't want to have to meet the road standards impact wetland buffers, potentially

[10:54] Well, and the fire department, they looked over this, they don't have any issues.

[10:58] They, yeah, none of the departments had concern.

[11:00] No issues for many other departments.

[11:02] All right.

[11:05] Does anybody on the Plainy Board have questions about these road waivers?

[11:11] All right.

[11:12] We're good with the road waivers.

[11:15] No.

[11:15] Now, the...

[11:17] Overhead electric lines.

[11:19] And again, we basically just want to keep the site the way it is.

[11:22] Correct.

[11:22] Yeah, this is an existing utility pole just past I believe it's pronounced near my air driveway

[11:28] And it goes overhead from the square to car road to that utility pole and then underground at the rest of the site

[11:34] And they want to leave it as is

[11:37] and not run underground from the road

[11:44] And yes, like one question going back to the road. Okay, I'm sorry, but I remembered what at the site walk

[11:51] there was some discussion about making a wide spot in the road for cars and vehicles to pass.

[11:58] That was, and that just got let go or it was being sent to the fire department for review.

[12:05] All right.

[12:05] And that was amazing to be okay.

[12:07] Okay.

[12:07] All right.

[12:09] Thank you.

[12:10] Okay.

[12:11] So yeah, through the overhead electric, they want to leave this side as is.

[12:15] and not disturb the overhead power going to the site or the abutting lot in that's the reason why.

[12:24] And that's the final waiver.

[12:26] Right.

[12:30] And so the main reason for that is that that pulse actually servicing an adjacent property that's not part of the subdivision.

[12:40] And changing it to underground from the road would require giving them, making a headache for that.

[12:50] What do people think?

[12:54] I mean, all the net new will be underground, right?

[12:56] It's just going to use that existing above ground, and then you're going to come down,

[13:01] and then the rest is going to be run underground.

[13:03] Correct.

[13:03] So from that poll, everything that's existing is underground,

[13:06] and if they were to build a new structure, they would go underground as well.

[13:16] So we need to approve these waivers, correct?

[13:22] Like, yeah, you can approve them separately or as part of the whole thing.

[13:28] It's wrapped into it.

[13:29] It's wrapped into it very good.

[13:30] I wanted to clarify that.

[13:35] Let's see.

[13:38] Then

[13:45] we need to hold a public hearing, don't we?

[13:51] We haven't, right? This is not a continued public hearing. We start the public hearing tonight.

[13:57] Right. Yeah. All right.

[13:59] You want a motion built of a public hearing?

[14:03] I'm short. So moved.

[14:06] Second.

[14:06] Second, all in favor?

[14:08] Hi.

[14:09] All right. Is there anyone here for the public who'd like to speak?

[14:19] My name is Jack Rosenberg, and I'm about 50 directly adjacent to the proposed new lot

[14:28] why this issue matters to my family.

[14:29] Before moving to Durham, we lived in Massachusetts

[14:32] and had a difficult experience with a tear down

[14:34] and rebuilt immediately next door to us.

[14:36] The existing houses were placed

[14:37] with a new house built essentially

[14:38] to the setback limit.

[14:40] A significant tree between the houses was removed

[14:42] and windows in the new house ended up

[14:44] directly aligned with windows and ours.

[14:46] There was always a very substantial

[14:47] and permanent loss of privacy.

[14:49] That experience directly influenced our move to Durham.

[14:52] One of the things we value about this community

[14:54] is it's what a character mature trees houses

[14:56] with separation from another

[14:57] development that generally feels integrated to the landscape.

[15:00] President maximizing every available setback. That's why the proposed garage slot concerns me. I understand that the subdivision

[15:06] would create a separate billable residential lot directly beside our property. I'm not objecting to the fact that a house may

[15:13] eventually be built there. What concerns me is approving that bill that a lot now without knowing where the future

[15:17] houses anticipated to go and without addressing what happens to the substantial existing vegetation between that lot and ours.

[15:24] Once those trees are removed and the house is built, there is no practical way to restore

[15:28] the privacy of the Incist today.

[15:30] I spoke with my club about this, my understanding is that the town's position is that the

[15:33] planning board can not simply impose a permanent no buffer along our property line and the

[15:38] landscaping provisions do not apply here.

[15:40] Suggested, I raised the issue with the board and asked the property owner whether he would

[15:43] agree voluntarily to a buffer that could then be recording.

[15:46] I would very much like to do that.

[15:48] The struggle since not here, but I would ask whether he would agree to preserve a reasonable

[15:52] of vegetated buffer along with a lot of 50 boundary

[15:55] and have that protection recorded

[15:56] in this part of the subdivision.

[15:58] I'm not asking for an area in which no tree

[15:59] could ever be touched with reasonable restriction,

[16:01] could allow removal of dead or hazardous trees,

[16:04] management of invasive species,

[16:05] necessary utility work while preserving

[16:07] the basic screening function and existing vegetation.

[16:10] I'd also like to raise one related question

[16:12] about Article 22 of the zoning ordinance.

[16:16] Section 175-114 says that the landscaping article

[16:19] applies to subdivisions where a new street is involved.

[16:21] And the town zone materials described me my redrives a new private road and described these

[16:26] existing driveways being proposed for uses that new private road.

[16:31] Article 22 also speaks about retaining healthy forest cover and contemplates landscaping

[16:34] and reforestation plants that can provide screens and buffer strips and critical locations.

[16:40] I understand the town police that's provisions to not apply here because the physical driveway

[16:43] always already exists.

[16:45] I don't want to turn tonight's hearing to a legal argument about that interpretation,

[16:48] but I'd appreciate clarification of its basis.

[16:52] More importantly, whether the protection comes from Article 22

[16:54] or through a voluntary agreement with the applicant,

[16:56] I think the underlying planning objectives, the same,

[16:58] preserving the wooded character of the area

[17:00] and addressing a foreseeable impact of creating a new residential building lot.

[17:05] I also think it would be helpful for the applicants

[17:06] to show where a future house on this lot is reasonably anticipated to be located.

[17:11] The subdivision regulations for step design process,

[17:14] calls for a potential building site to be tentatively located

[17:17] before streets and lot lines are finalized.

[17:20] I'm not suggesting the owners should be necessarily

[17:21] be permanently bound to one exact footprint,

[17:23] but without even a tentative building location,

[17:26] it's difficult for the board or the above to understand

[17:28] how this new lot may actually affect the neighboring properties.

[17:31] My concern is that these questions are left entirely

[17:33] until later, they may not be another meaningful opportunity

[17:35] to address them.

[17:37] Once the subdivisions recorded,

[17:38] another wise conforming single family house

[17:40] may proceed through the building permit process

[17:42] without returning to the planning way.

[17:45] So I'm asking for three things.

[17:46] first clarification of weather article 22 applies, and if the town believes it does not,

[17:50] the basis for that interpretation. Second, identification of at least a tentative future building

[17:55] location on the garage lots, so that its impacts can be understood now. And third and most importantly,

[17:59] I'm asking the applicant to agree to a reasonable recorded vegetative buffer along our common

[18:03] boundary with appropriate exceptions, so the existing screening and willing character of this

[18:07] part of Durham are not unnecessarily lost. I think that would allow the property to be developed

[18:11] for also providing some predictability and reasonable protection for the existing neighborhood. Thank you.

[18:16] All right, well, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I missed your name in the very beginning, I apologize.

[18:26] I'm sorry, Jeff Rosenberger, and in terms of in relation to the lot, which exact property are you on?

[18:41] So, do you see where the proposed new line between the rear house and the one, the garage?

[18:52] So, you're on share water.

[18:54] And so, you back up your lot, back from share water, back up onto the back of that.

[18:59] Yeah, sure, share water is over here.

[19:07] And I'm looking at it, and I'm looking at it.

[19:12] It looks like you're only the corners meet between you and the garage lot.

[19:21] It's more like it's not just the corner, there's a battery.

[19:33] Yeah, sir.

[19:34] Can you take the microphone?

[19:36] It won't reach, it won't reach.

[19:38] I see that, but that property is

[19:45] that's for the existing house is going to be a butting your rear line.

[19:52] That's not what I see on the map.

[19:55] Where the garage is?

[19:58] Yeah, it's the lot that the existing garage is on that it butts my property.

[20:04] Right, so this is Michael.

[20:06] Right, that's the new proposed line, right?

[20:10] I think that's the soil line.

[20:15] Let me.

[20:17] So we're going to have to show us the new property line.

[20:22] She too.

[20:23] She too.

[20:24] So it does extend further off.

[20:26] All right.

[20:26] Very good.

[20:27] Very good.

[20:35] And

[20:38] right.

[20:39] So the.

[20:46] Do do do.

[20:55] It's there.

[20:56] Or it's there.

[20:57] So she.

[20:57] She shows the 50 foot setbacks.

[20:59] It shows the 50-foot setbacks which effectively creates two potential areas for a house.

[21:05] There's the one back there, where the garage is now, and then there's one down near on the other side of the wetland, at the corner.

[21:21] So those do, do, do, do,

[21:28] do.

[21:28] And that's what I would consider to be a potential field, you know, you build a

[21:32] hilarious,

[21:35] with regards to that five and a half acre lot.

[21:44] Now, we put sheet two up on the screen, maybe, so that, and maybe even two.

[21:51] Yeah, yeah, we're discussing Mr.

[21:57] Rosenberg and see it as well as what I'm talking about.

[21:59] Yeah, so this is sheet two.

[22:01] All right.

[22:02] Yep.

[22:04] So in terms of the...

[22:06] I think that will be nice.

[22:08] I think that will be nice.

[22:08] Just to let us see the whole lot.

[22:10] Yeah, so you can see the whole lot.

[22:12] All right, OK.

[22:13] So this view shows the two potential areas where a housing house

[22:18] could be built.

[22:23] And we generally do that to ensure that setbacks and such

[22:28] are capable of being...

[22:40] So we have on sheet three, which is up on the screen now. We shall propose well location, just down hill towards Piscate Corps, road at the garage, and we've done two test pits, showing suitable soils for a septic system.

[23:00] That's not saying that it has to go there, but that's the biggest area to build and most likely that

[23:07] house would be uphill to have the septic go-gravity to a reaching area.

[23:14] Yeah, that's the stoic that's the soil line cutting through a little not the long way.

[23:22] Which direction, you said uphill, but I can't read that.

[23:27] So there's a little mound, so the garage sits on a little knob, and so they can go uphill, slightly towards the existing house on not 42.

[23:41] So there's a couple different places they could build.

[23:44] They could add to the existing garage.

[23:47] It's all within the setbacks, and they could make the sewer work with the test pitch shown.

[23:54] So, it would most likely be either towards the existing house, or towards the garage, and not towards the back.

[24:03] Like, am I about to go online, or it would.

[24:06] It would.

[24:07] It's hard just, it would be unlikely.

[24:13] It's just field could go elsewhere, too.

[24:15] The leech field could go elsewhere.

[24:16] If it could go down, it could probably slide down the hill and build it up a little bit if they wanted to.

[24:21] correct the house. We did two test pits to prove for the subdivision that it's

[24:26] suitable soils. They could put the septic closer to a lot of 42's house and

[24:31] build right behind the garage. They could build a house right where it says

[24:35] proposed for a leaching area. So there's a pretty substantial building envelope

[24:41] there and with no plans to build at the moment it's hard to say this is where the house

[24:46] So we're going to go

[24:57] and thought to people.

[25:00] So Michael, that's Michael Barron.

[25:05] Just refreshes all or particularly at least me anyway,

[25:08] with regard to the 50 foot setback there.

[25:11] What are the provisions in terms of maintaining

[25:14] any vegetative buffer that's there now?

[25:15] No, there's none.

[25:16] It's not only a setback from structures.

[25:23] And areas is vegetated now.

[25:25] Yeah.

[25:25] Where's that here?

[25:27] There's lots of trees.

[25:28] Yeah, I have the plan overlaid on a satellite photo if it's something that

[25:37] existing garage that's there.

[25:39] Can you see that from your property right now right now now in the winter. Yes, right when the leaves drop. Yes, but yeah

[25:48] I didn't know is there or are the existing house for that matter until the first one's over here. Yeah

[25:55] at least, Travis, like, where's the driveway for that?

[26:10] You're not, you haven't really had discussions

[26:13] with the owner regarding a vegetative buffer.

[26:17] No, this is the first time it's come up.

[26:23] I don't want to necessarily agree to leaving the buffer,

[26:27] but I assume anyone who builds here also

[26:29] doesn't want to look at the back of Mr. Rosenberg's house.

[26:32] People moved to Durham for the natural state

[26:36] the land. So no one, I don't foresee someone building a house there, clear-cutting the

[26:41] lot to look into his backyard. That's just the way I see it.

[26:47] Yeah, it's not, I would agree with you, that building what there in that kind of middle area,

[26:55] you would see it, but you already see the other existing homes for other existing buildings,

[27:01] But that vegetation it would be highly unlikely and not very logical for somebody to take it down in it great expense to I mean they couldn't just as I'll be clear cut it, but

[27:12] How would we deal it? There's no way we can guarantee that and

[27:18] and even

[27:19] I mean what is the what is the abilities of the owner of

[27:24] a lot to

[27:26] that. This falls into that.

[27:33] The applicant, if Mr. Goldstein, the owner, agreed to, he could

[27:38] agree to anything, as part of something. The owner can make that a condition. The planning

[27:42] board cannot require this. That becomes a question whether or not the owner would want to

[27:51] do that on their own, which they could also simply do within the deed.

[27:57] Yeah.

[28:00] And in fact, it probably is stronger if it's done the other deed.

[28:09] But it goes back to that statement of, you know, we can't buffer single family houses from single family houses.

[28:19] That's not within, as much as it sounds like,

[28:24] we should be able to have the authority for that, we don't.

[28:30] So my only point on that regard is whether the article 22 of the zoning ordinance.

[28:37] I was going to move on to that next.

[28:41] So with regards to the private road being a new road.

[28:48] But in Article 22, that applies only to the common open space that a conservation is something to use.

[28:56] But there's landscaping provisions there, but they don't apply to a conventional.

[28:59] Okay.

[29:00] Single family line.

[29:01] So those are for conservation subdivision.

[29:03] That's a different group.

[29:04] That's not the article.

[29:05] It doesn't say that.

[29:20] I'm fully do it up as well.

[29:27] It says, this is the landscaping.

[29:36] It's a speedy surgery.

[30:00] Yeah, I mean, all of it, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's a common area as you, it would not be legal to impose these things on individual single family laws.

[30:11] But it's like, can we impose on something land, trees of special interests?

[30:16] I mean, theoretically you could if there was, if there was, for example, trees of special number four trees of special interest,

[30:30] For example, if there was a great tree on an individual lot, and you could specify that that tree be protected.

[30:41] If there were, as part of a subdivision, if you identify specific resources on individual lots,

[30:50] stone walls, archaeological resources, you could require that specify those be preserved on individual lots.

[30:59] But not, you know, broader natural areas be preserved, is wooded areas.

[31:10] Yeah, I understand where Mr. Rosenberger is.

[31:15] Rosenberger is confused because the opening paragraph

[31:22] does blend itself to be misinterpreted.

[31:24] It does, you know,

[31:33] that's one of the things I'm going to show you next week if revisions.

[31:36] It's kind of clean this up.

[31:38] All right.

[31:40] So I'm a procedural question for Michael, please.

[31:45] If Mr. Rosenberger wanted to contact the current owner and talk about creating some sort of buffer that might be recorded in a deed,

[31:54] is that if the applicant now was agreeable to that, could that become a part of the condition

[32:04] of the variance?

[32:05] Yeah.

[32:06] I would suggest including a condition on this that, you know, I would suggest approving it

[32:11] if there's no significant concerns and including a condition on here under plan modifications

[32:18] that in the event that this gentleman works out some arrangement with the property owner

[32:26] and the property owner is willing to include that as a condition of approval.

[32:30] That will be identified on the final plans.

[32:35] So that might be an option before you to pursue.

[32:38] Yeah.

[32:38] If you approve the plans with the condition of maybe doing that in the future?

[32:43] that? No, but I was asking the question as a procedural question is if you spoke with the current owner

[32:49] of the applicant and he was agreeable to put in some sort of buffer for 30 feet or whatever

[32:58] along the property line near your house, that could be conveyed to the planning board by the applicant

[33:05] and that could become then a condition of the variance being granted in the future, if I

[33:13] application tonight and include that contingent condition.

[33:17] So, say you approve it tonight and in a week or two or a month, Mr. Goldstein tells

[33:24] me, I'm okay with a 50 foot non-witted buffer, I'm okay with that being a condition.

[33:30] Then Mr. Barry includes it on the recorded plans.

[33:36] But if he says, no, then he never gets back to you.

[33:40] We have a contingent and we don't know what is nothing.

[33:46] Somebody who picks us up five years from now,

[33:48] there's nothing for the person to know what the answer was there.

[33:52] So you could give it like a time of month if nothing is agreed to,

[33:57] within say a month after approval.

[33:59] that it, you know, nothing happens. It just goes away because we can't require it. No. No.

[34:06] But I know Mr. Goldstein. I mean, I'm sure he would give us an answer.

[34:14] So does that mean we would take action on it tonight? Or we would take action on it tonight?

[34:19] There would be this effectively a contingent, a precedent condition of Mr. Goldstein

[34:27] getting back to us telling us whether or not there's going to be a buffer.

[34:30] Yeah, I mean, he could just tell me, and I would let Mr. Barry know on your final plans, show

[34:36] the spuffer or not, you know, the way they are.

[34:40] So it's pretty, it's pretty soon.

[34:42] So you would, in the warning, you would say, if that arrangement does happen that said situations

[34:50] shall be put on.

[34:51] Show it on the plan accordingly, and be a critical part of the deal, right?

[34:56] Or do we want to be that presumptuous that that's agreeable or simply ask for the

[35:04] a butter and the applicant to have a conversation and get back to the board within two weeks before the next meeting?

[35:11] You could do that if

[35:13] But it's ready to be approved and if Mr. Barry wants really wants action tonight

[35:21] It would not be, I don't think it would be appropriate to delay that, but maybe if they're not in any rush, maybe they'd be willing to do that.

[35:29] I mean, we were like action tonight, and we can have that conversation.

[35:34] It's unfortunate that it looks like the trees were cut on the budding lot all the way to the lotline.

[35:40] So then now we have the buffer on our lot.

[35:44] I'm guessing Mr. Goldstein might be willing to do something.

[35:46] If you look at the existing House on Lot 42, there's 150 feet worth of trees still left, fully wooded.

[35:54] So I don't anticipate that area to be cut.

[35:57] But I would leave.

[35:58] I would be willing to leave that, work it out with the landowners.

[36:02] We can put it on the final record of plan.

[36:04] If a buffer was agreed to.

[36:08] Yeah.

[36:09] My preference would be, let's wrap this up tonight with that intent.

[36:16] So, the neighbors can work out what it's going to be.

[36:21] Mr. Barrett will write up the contingency item, whatever you think.

[36:27] Yeah, it would be along the lines.

[36:29] I would add this as a condition for under plan modifications.

[36:32] In the event that this gentleman, this gentleman has the option if he wishes to speak with the property owner

[36:39] and request some sort of buffer on this lot in the event that the property owner agrees to that and agrees to make that a condition of approval this will be incorporated into the final recorded plans.

[36:54] If Mr. if the applicant if the owner does not agree to anything then nothing will be no changes will be made and you could put a time limit if you wish.

[37:04] But by the time, even if we, if I don't hear otherwise from Mr. Goldstein that it's assumed

[37:10] it's not happening and then they would just give us the final plans and a month or two

[37:15] when record them.

[37:17] This pretty calm is no, I don't see any issues with this.

[37:22] But just to speak to that just for one second, this is, it seems like this is the point of

[37:29] a public conversation.

[37:30] Government, which is to raise a concern, and an abutters raise to concern that seems like a real concern.

[37:41] And that if we move forward in the manner that I think being proposed, it seems like sort of all the wind is out of the sale, if you will.

[37:49] And so the time to have the concern dealt with seems like it would be now, while there's a public concern that's raised in violence in front of us.

[37:58] before it moves forward and sort of becomes not existent.

[38:04] So I would seem to me that we may want to pause on that

[38:08] for a brief period of time and see if the two parties

[38:12] can sort of work something out that then is,

[38:15] let's say, codified in some language,

[38:18] or then that we can look at and know that something's taking place.

[38:23] So I would sort of pause, I think, on this level,

[38:27] And say that we've heard a public comment, the public comment seems to me to be real, and that we may want to pause on that and not move forward.

[38:38] That's just the thought.

[38:39] And I guess given the fact that we have a meeting in one week, this could be dealt with further rapidly.

[38:47] If the board is willing to say, okay, we can take five minutes at the beginning of the next meeting.

[38:53] And if they've got an agreement submitted, it gets voted on as approved to one week delay.

[39:01] If they don't, then go ahead and approve it anyway.

[39:05] My only concern is the only reason for us to delay would be because of something that we don't have to curve you over.

[39:14] We don't have the right to stop anyways.

[39:15] And that's my only point of contention in waiting is that we don't have the right to stop, to acquire it.

[39:27] And we don't have the right to tell anybody they can't cut up to their boundary line if they want to.

[39:38] So, I just feel that, I think the scenario that Michael point, you know, kind of laid out is probably the best way to go that way.

[39:48] They can get it taken care of, and we're not holding them up for something that we don't really have the right to hold them up for.

[39:57] I agree with Sally, and I think we should move on to see if anyone else has anything of this public hearing.

[40:06] I agree.

[40:08] Thank you.

[40:09] Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg.

[40:12] Are there any other public comments?

[40:19] Anybody that I know if we close the public yet?

[40:22] Second.

[40:26] All in favor?

[40:28] All in.

[40:30] All right.

[40:32] So I'm with Sally and Julian.

[40:34] I think that we don't have a reason to not take action tonight.

[40:41] But we can set up the set the table for the neighbors to have a discussion and to come to an agreement that can be included within the action.

[40:56] Is that acceptable to everybody?

[40:58] Just a question for Michael first.

[41:00] And I agree with this.

[41:02] But could you clarify deed versus dealing with this in the deed that is outside the planning board process as opposed to the subdivision plan?

[41:11] That's not an option.

[41:14] That's not involved.

[41:14] That's right.

[41:14] If you didn't want to deal with this at all, then Mr. Rosenberg could still talk to Mr. Goldstein and they could do that.

[41:22] They could do that in the deed.

[41:24] Independent of the board.

[41:28] But there is an advantage.

[41:29] I mean, if they do come to agreement, there's a benefit to showing up in the last.

[41:33] But yeah, understatement.

[41:38] Discussion?

[41:39] Is this making noise?

[41:45] All right.

[41:45] So any further discussion?

[41:48] Oh, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.

[41:50] Just one other item I realize should be added, under plan notes, condition 8, that should

[41:59] say any new electric lines serving the lot shall be placed under brown.

[42:03] We'll plan notes.

[42:05] Just so there's no question about that.

[42:07] Which would be the vacant lot a lot with a garage plan notes on this school in packed fees number eight

[42:15] Yeah, just added in there anywhere under planned notes.

[42:21] Okay

[42:21] Yeah, do we have to have a separate motion to approve the waivers you can if you want or you can just we can do it

[42:29] It's part of the full approval. Okay

[42:36] All right, so the modification to

[42:40] would be the

[42:42] Electrical you just mentioned and this

[42:47] Planned modification note

[42:49] With the regarding a boss guarding in the

[42:53] Yes, amenable all right, so those are the two modifications

[42:58] To the notice of decision tonight

[43:01] You're okay with the notice of decision otherwise. Yep, I mean I'm okay with those two new ones

[43:09] Okay, and

[43:10] And I

[43:13] will move that we approve a three-lot subdivision with a private road at 73 of

[43:23] the Scatico Road, property owner William Goldstein, map 209, lap 42 in the residence,

[43:29] Coastal District, per the modified notice of decision of September 23rd, 2026.

[43:39] Second, any further discussion?

[43:44] All in favor?

[43:45] Aye.

[43:46] Opposed?

[43:48] All right.

[43:49] I'll abstain.

[43:50] One abstention.

[43:52] All right.

[43:53] Thank you.

[43:54] All right.

[43:54] When you've read time tonight?

[43:56] Yeah.

[43:57] Good luck with your conversation.

[43:58] Mr. Rosenberger.

[44:00] It makes sense.

[44:01] You should make sense.

[44:09] You'll probably succeed or I'll just do that.

[44:12] Yeah.

[44:12] Next item will be a public caring for 121 technology drive, light industry buildings, site

[44:18] plan application for two light industrial or warehouse buildings, each with 160,000 square

[44:23] feet, 450 parking spaces and other improvements.

[44:27] Conditional use application for activity within 75 foot wetland buffer, lot line, just

[44:32] been application.

[44:34] RJ Kelly has Sean Smith owner, Bidget Susan Matt Peterson, for Keats Nordstrom engineer, Matt

[44:42] in the Office Research Light Industry District.

[44:46] The focus of the discussion will be on stormwater

[44:49] and the conditional use request tonight.

[44:59] Just one.

[45:00] One minute, Mr. Chair, we'll get some. All right, we're definitely going to want to see your drawings.

[45:09] Data.

[45:22] So Matt Peterson is not with us this evening.

[45:25] What we do have, burning quickly and bridge it here, and for the record, Shonsmith,

[45:31] RJ Kelly-Co, you're on behalf of ownership,

[45:36] as I pull up my PC here, we'll be going in.

[45:40] Mr. Chair, as you stated, we'll be focusing on the conditional use permits and the storm

[45:45] water, the seeming to give a little bit more color on the storm water specifically and have

[45:54] a conversation about the two conditional uses that we have proposed here to discuss and have

[46:01] a conversation.

[46:01] So,

[46:20] with the board prefer to start on any particular item, or other words, I think we probably start with the storm water piece, storm water, please.

[46:42] So, show us where the water goes.

[46:48] Okay.

[46:51] Thank you for your patience.

[46:58] Alright, so, original, do most of the talking on this one.

[47:02] She's the one who designed everything here, so she can give you a good rundown of how things are working,

[47:07] and I'll just try to keep up by guess.

[47:09] And we can send this to you guys after this meeting so that the entire board can take a look at it a little more detailed.

[47:16] But essentially, this is the Great and in drainage plan.

[47:21] I did a full site overview for you guys for readability.

[47:25] In the green lines, those are the subcatchment areas that are a part of the drainage analysis.

[47:33] So it's like the area breakout that goes to each drainage structure, whether that's a roof

[47:40] drain or a catch basin, or directly to a pond.

[47:44] In the purple, we have the actual drain lines, and then I also circled all of the catch

[47:53] basin locations in red, and the roof drain locations in orange.

[48:01] And then I included some flow arrows on here, so if you want to just zoom into any section.

[48:07] So the dash arrow line, that is also taken from our drainage analysis, and it just shows,

[48:14] I got to adjust them a little bit, but it just shows the flow path to the catch basins.

[48:19] And then I have a directional arrow on all the purple drain lines just showing the flow of direction.

[48:28] You want to zoom in to this area.

[48:31] So we'll start with the catch basins, right?

[48:34] So when it rains out, soil water is directed to one of many catch basins on this property.

[48:43] The entire perimeter is curved.

[48:46] So any storm water that hits pavement within this new proposed area is captured by a catch

[48:54] basin.

[48:54] The catch basins are equipped with a snout and that snout's purpose is to prevent floatables

[49:03] like trash leaves, debris, as well as hydrocarbon, so any oils, petroleum that might come

[49:11] off of a car or a truck would be on the surface of that standing water in the catch basin.

[49:19] And then any heavy sediment would fall out in that structure.

[49:25] So in our operation and maintenance plan, we include a schedule for the structures to

[49:30] be inspected.

[49:32] And then the standard protocol is once the deep sum is approximately a third full, that

[49:40] requires it to be cleaned out, so that it can continue to capture some of that sediment prior

[49:45] to moving downstream to our treatment structures.

[49:50] The snouts actually have a vent on them as well.

[49:53] I think it's important to point out.

[49:56] So it just prevents siphoning in larger storms.

[50:02] It removes that transfer vacuum so that those hydrocarbons in the trash stay on the surface

[50:08] of that water where the inlet comes in.

[50:11] So, from the catch basins, it moves through a series of pipes to drain manual structures and

[50:18] eventually to one of four ponds on a site.

[50:22] If we could just pause, remember.

[50:24] Are there any questions on how this catch basins sort of functions as its first step?

[50:30] One question.

[50:30] Yeah.

[50:31] That presentation.

[50:31] Thank you.

[50:32] Just curiosity questions.

[50:34] So, in terms of the capacity, I assume it's like a typical catch basin.

[50:37] But if there was a spill from, say, a truck diesel tank, 80 gallon or so spill, what's the capacity of one catch basin to hold 80 gallons of fiber carbon?

[50:50] I don't have the exact number off the top of head, but typically the snouts are about 12 inches below the outlet, so you're talking about a foot within a four or five foot structure.

[51:07] Quick math in my head, geez.

[51:10] I do think it's, I do think it's a point to note on an event

[51:15] such as that, the first step is spill response, right?

[51:19] Every single user of that nature would be required

[51:25] to have spill response gets on site, adequate to manage

[51:29] something of their larger nature, right?

[51:33] So absorbed with pads, some people throw kidding

[51:36] that are not really really does that anymore, but, you know, anything that would soak up the

[51:40] oils and prevent it from running off and then be able to collect it in a way that it would

[51:44] keep it from getting here at the first place, right? So a spill like that is normally handled

[51:48] immediately on site in that particular location, before I guess to one of these any sort of residual

[51:54] would be the point in this space. How many calculations will there be for these two new buildings?

[52:01] I don't know the exact number off we can zoom out. There's quite a few.

[52:07] You can see every, I'm sorry, I'm bounced around here, every single one of these red dots is a catch piece and they all have a snout, right?

[52:16] Yeah, they would all be equipped with one, so especially in the lines that are sequential from a catch piece into a catch piece and there'd be more capacity to

[52:30] Collective and more hydrocarbons.

[52:34] Do what percent of catch basins installed on projects to have that snow feature?

[52:41] Nowadays, most of them, it's pretty much a requirement or something that engineers just

[52:50] automatically include now. Whether a town has that requirement or not, it depends

[52:55] town to town, but it's pretty much an engineering standard practice now to always include one of

[52:59] those.

[53:00] I would say in New Hampshire specifically, because we do work in both, like Massachusetts

[53:06] New Hampshire or other areas in New England,

[53:10] sometimes you have like an area during our

[53:12] catch basin that does not collect runoff from a paved surface or something that would be

[53:16] exposed to vehicular runoff or the potential for light amounts of oils that just so happen

[53:22] fall off as people's outbreaks is what they do, sometimes those don't come with the sound.

[53:30] But in general, in this sort of application, you almost always see them.

[53:35] All right.

[53:36] Any more questions?

[53:37] Well, we're on the wheel.

[53:38] Do most of the spill response plans start at those catch basins?

[53:44] Or do they wait until the oil has migrated to the retention, detention?

[53:50] Oh, no.

[53:51] Those are immediate.

[53:52] It's like there's there's there's something on the pavement we got to soak it up in your

[53:56] banks.

[53:57] Yep.

[54:00] And a lot of those businesses like they're required to have that prepared and it's reviewed

[54:05] and submitted to either the state or federal.

[54:09] All right.

[54:10] So for the upper parking area and the lower parking area so the north and the south.

[54:18] And then the drive aisle around the perimeter.

[54:22] Those series of catch basins, pipes and manholes, they are directly connected to one of three

[54:32] gravel wetlands.

[54:34] The parking court for the tractor trailers in the middle, that first goes to a dry detention

[54:42] So it comes into a sediment four bay, a sediment four bay allows more time for

[54:50] sediments to fall out. It slows the velocity of storm water coming into the pond.

[54:56] So those larger storms where you're seeing a larger volume of water, it dissipates

[55:01] that velocity of the water. From there it spills over into the storage area. I just

[55:08] included a picture of a typical dry detention.

[55:12] You can see the inlet area.

[55:15] There is some stone rip wrap there.

[55:17] R is more of what would be required for a full pond.

[55:22] Even though a dry detention pond doesn't provide treatment

[55:27] per New Hampshire standards, we wanted to make sure

[55:30] we included an actual structural sediment for bay

[55:34] to allow more time for sediment fallout.

[55:39] So once it collects in the four bay,

[55:41] it makes its way through the pond into the outlet structure.

[55:45] And then that outlet structure is directed

[55:47] to the third gravel wetland on the site.

[55:53] So once we get to a gravel wetland,

[55:55] we have a four bay in each one of the three.

[56:00] Sean, there's an image further down,

[56:01] we can take a look at it too.

[56:03] So starting on the left hand side, that would be an overflow from the four bay.

[56:11] They're not always built with a pipe.

[56:15] This is just an image taken from the new hamster stormwater handbook.

[56:22] So your four bay would be off screen to the left.

[56:25] So it's built over from the four bay.

[56:27] It goes into a ponding area, the first treatment cell for gravel wetlands, and inside those gravel wetlands there would be some stand pipes.

[56:39] You'd have a larger typical two-foot and then you'd have a series of eight-inch diameter pipes that are perforated.

[56:47] It allows that storm water to go into the gravel underneath a wetland layer that is vegetated.

[56:55] So, this area, the gravel wetland area, excuse me, the gravel area underneath that substrate,

[57:03] that area is in an aerobic area, so it allows a breakdown of between oxygen to break

[57:12] down nitrogen in phosphorus, your two biggest concerns for your pollutants, to break them

[57:19] to a level where the vegetation above them can actually pull them up those nutrients into

[57:25] their from their roots and provide nutrients for that growth, right? Your water, gravel wetlands

[57:35] is more of a horizontal motion for treatment, so it makes its way through that treatment cell

[57:41] and then it goes into an underduring within the gravel and it makes its way into a second treatment cell.

[57:49] where it gets more time for those nutrients to be absorbed.

[57:54] Eventually, it makes its way to the outlet control structure,

[57:59] where there's an underdrain connected to it,

[58:01] and then your lowest orifice, your smallest hole,

[58:06] coming out of that structure before it's out of a pond,

[58:11] is located at that substrate area,

[58:17] the vegetation grows.

[58:20] So you're always, your gravel layer is always saturated,

[58:24] so it's always promoting treatment of any water

[58:28] that's in there.

[58:31] So in your low flow storms, there's small ones,

[58:34] whether it's one inch or two year storm,

[58:38] you'd have flow out of the outlet control structure.

[58:42] And then in your larger storms, these ponds were sized

[58:46] to hold up to a hundred-year storm.

[58:50] So you're talking about, I believe it's approximately eight inches of rain over 24-hour

[58:54] period.

[58:56] So we're holding all that water in that pond, and then the outlet structure is equipped with,

[59:01] you know, larger holes or offices in order to let some of that water out for the largest

[59:06] storms so that we have a full draw-down with the exception of that gravel layer to allow

[59:16] the pond to drain within 72 hours, and that's per requirements you have sure.

[59:24] It's more and more manual.

[59:27] Any questions first before I continue?

[59:31] We're good.

[59:36] Okay.

[59:37] on this site. As we know, UNH is very big and determining and studying and doing analysis of stormwater throughout the state.

[59:50] The State of New Hampshire DES has worked with UNH to develop the most recent stormwater manual which came out last year, 2025.

[1:00:00] And in that, they actually rated treatment options for stormwater, as well as updating kind of their regulations for alteration of terrain when you disturb more than 100,000 square feet, what your options are, depending on what your downstream receiving waters are.

[1:00:23] So as you guys know, Oyster River is very important to you.

[1:00:29] It's a classified as a Class A surface water.

[1:00:33] And in the regulations presented by the state,

[1:00:36] there's only two options for treatment on a site

[1:00:42] that drains to a receiving water that's designated as a Class A.

[1:00:45] And gravel wetlands is one of them.

[1:00:47] A buyer retention with additional internal storage is the other.

[1:00:54] They both operate in a very similar manner.

[1:00:56] You have an area where you're allowing vegetation

[1:01:00] or a filter media to grab some of those nutrients

[1:01:05] and remove them from a water before discharging downstream.

[1:01:11] Actually, where this regulation is pointed out

[1:01:14] In the AOT regulations, is under a pollute and discharge

[1:01:19] minimization requirements.

[1:01:21] It's not even listed in a separate section,

[1:01:25] like a treatment swell or an infiltration chamber system

[1:01:30] would be.

[1:01:31] It's actually listed for the record, 1507.03 is the section.

[1:01:37] And it's directly listed for phosphorus removal for nitrogen removal, and for any stormwater

[1:01:49] within a quarter mile of a class day surface water, which we are.

[1:01:53] And grab a wetland is right at the top of the list for those.

[1:01:56] So that's why we chose that option.

[1:01:59] It's one of the best treatment options out there, especially on properties where you cannot promote

[1:02:06] infiltration like this one. We have any more questions.

[1:02:12] What happens when a gravel went land becomes clogged with silt?

[1:02:20] So we put those upstream treatment trains in

[1:02:26] in for a reason, right? So as long as you are taking care of your scheduled

[1:02:32] maintenance so that's you know every every spring and every fall there's you know

[1:02:39] requirements and then within the first five years for gravel wetland especially

[1:02:42] there's additional so it's a quarter a year and you're inspecting these so as long as

[1:02:47] you're doing those things you shouldn't have a problem but in in that case the

[1:02:53] underdrain could be disconnected to those perforated pipes, stamp pipes that

[1:02:57] allow. It would allow some opportunity to clean that out. Worst case scenario, you have to

[1:03:05] remove gravel and then replace the gravel. But there's been some studies done by UNH that

[1:03:11] show a great life span for gravel wetlands. I think the last one that I just read was 20 years,

[1:03:19] and the pollutant removal loads were practically identical, 20 years apart. So it's a very good

[1:03:26] And so much so that New Hampshire DOT almost all their projects now, when they're doing renovations or needs to put in new stormwater treatment trains, they're including gravel wetlands.

[1:03:40] So there is a few, I know right off of Route 4 as you go up towards 16 in Dover. There's a few cells there.

[1:03:50] And there's some off of 93 when they did all the road work for the expansion of adding that lane on 93 in the winter maria.

[1:04:00] So if you look around they're all over the state, but it's a very vital option, especially when you're trying to remove pollutants like nitrogen, phosphorus and even zinc.

[1:04:10] And when these contributions are cleaned out, where does the material, but as we move, go?

[1:04:18] So they're vacuumed out, and then those companies that have that contract dispose of that material with

[1:04:26] in regards to how the state and federal requirements make them handle that.

[1:04:32] So whether it's a designated dump site or if they have to do some treatment,

[1:04:36] whatever the federal regulations and state regulations require.

[1:04:41] And just a question, you mentioned its design for 100 years event, which I think you said was like got eight inches in a 24-hour period.

[1:04:50] Yeah, roughly.

[1:04:52] And so what I just know anecdotally, it seems like recently the storms, many storms that I see are more severe.

[1:05:03] And if we were to look forward, I guess, is that a realistic hundred-year estimate looking forward?

[1:05:08] And then what happens in the event that you get ten inches in a twenty-four-hour period?

[1:05:13] What does that mean to all of the capacity that you've played out?

[1:05:18] So, in terms of a larger storm event, first, it would depend on the intensity and timing.

[1:05:26] So we kind of look at eight inches, you can look at eight inches being done for, you know, within two hours over, you know,

[1:05:35] say 20 inches and then four inches in the rest, right? But the, the ponds are equipped with an overflow, great, right?

[1:05:47] It's 4x4, every single pawn is designed with that.

[1:05:51] And in our modeling, we're not utilizing that overflow

[1:05:56] as the orifice, right?

[1:05:57] We're trying to get all of the stormwater out

[1:05:59] through the holes in the cycle structure,

[1:06:02] so in the event of a larger storm, it would overflow via that rim

[1:06:07] first.

[1:06:09] And then if that doesn't meet the capacity,

[1:06:12] like if it's over capacity, you would install a berm

[1:06:16] Well, on that berm that pulls all that water,

[1:06:18] you have an emergency spillway,

[1:06:20] and that's just how a majority of stormwater funds are constructed.

[1:06:27] So, in a larger storm event, that would be utilized.

[1:06:31] We don't model anything more than 100 years,

[1:06:34] because I know, in recent times,

[1:06:36] we have seen larger storm events,

[1:06:39] but we're still coming up from a time in the 80s and 90s,

[1:06:43] you were lucky if something was sized for a 25-year form.

[1:06:47] So we're trying to mitigate storms up through the 100-year,

[1:06:52] but requirements, even at the state level,

[1:06:55] are only until the 50-year.

[1:06:58] And I'll tack on a little bit there.

[1:07:00] I'm sorry.

[1:07:01] I spent a good part of my career when I was an engineer

[1:07:05] studying these things and understanding how we're

[1:07:13] When it comes to calling something a 100 year storm, it's important to understand that it's a 1% chance of occurrence in a year.

[1:07:24] Based on measured rainfall that people have taken gages for from Noah, right?

[1:07:30] Ironically, is doing a lot of work here in town out here. So it does change, right? We have to expect

[1:07:39] that it will change. The issue becomes where, it almost becomes a question of economic

[1:07:46] viability. If we start requiring all our basins to deal with a point, the next stage, which is

[1:07:55] really a 500-year storm, most of these people will model for us and show us what those

[1:08:00] rainfalls will be. You end up with situations where it's almost non-viable. It's really

[1:08:09] difficult to build to that in terms of storm water management.

[1:08:15] It's all overlaid with insurance

[1:08:16] and how all that stuff operates, but at the end of the day where the crossing of sustainability

[1:08:24] which is not gested environmentalism.

[1:08:27] We can talk about environmentalism all day,

[1:08:29] but the crossing of sustainability,

[1:08:30] which considers social environmentalism

[1:08:35] and economic viability,

[1:08:37] because we have to continue to meet our needs currently exist

[1:08:41] at that 100 years norm this location.

[1:08:43] And so that's why, as engineers,

[1:08:45] we continue to model to that number

[1:08:48] until such time as it would change.

[1:08:50] Because at the end of the day,

[1:08:52] I'm from Indiana.

[1:08:52] I'm not sure if anybody knows what happened in that state this year, but there were areas that got 16 inches of rain.

[1:09:01] You know, you can't deal with that.

[1:09:03] It's what it is.

[1:09:04] It's widespread studies to make sure that regions are okay.

[1:09:09] Not individual sites.

[1:09:14] Could you address, so you talked about your spillways?

[1:09:18] If the spillways become active, do those follow the pattern down through your system?

[1:09:26] or did they bypass the lower stages?

[1:09:30] It would be more of a bypass situation,

[1:09:33] so for the top gravel wetland to the north.

[1:09:38] A bypass, excuse me, of spillway for that,

[1:09:42] would spillway into the roadway,

[1:09:44] and then it would just make its way down that existing drive.

[1:09:50] It's curved to a certain point,

[1:09:52] and then it would just run over land

[1:09:54] because it's not curved anymore.

[1:09:55] So, it would make its way into that existing fire pond and it would follow the existing

[1:10:03] contours out there.

[1:10:05] So the existing slope out there.

[1:10:06] So, your new systems though, each of those spillways down through your gravel wetlands,

[1:10:15] that looks like there's those spillways there, and maybe I'm misinterpreting the red and

[1:10:23] corner there and how that all works. Well yeah I know there's still always there.

[1:10:31] So

[1:10:31] this is still late from the first treatment part of the gravel wetland into the second,

[1:10:37] going to the second or does it fly past? It looks like it just flies past. So the second stage.

[1:10:42] So I know it's two cells. Those two cells are more for your treatment portion, right? So that's

[1:10:50] your one-inch storm, your water quality volume, that's what the state has determined is one-inch.

[1:10:57] And then your two-year storm, I'd have to check the numbers, maybe even your 10-year storm.

[1:11:01] But that would naturally make its way through those cells, through that train that I discussed.

[1:11:08] For your largest storms, you're 25, you're 50, you're 100-year.

[1:11:12] You're automatically, you're above those cell elevations in the high point of those cells that disconnect them from each other, and you're into another two to three footwear additional storage.

[1:11:28] And then if you had anything above that, that's where your whole storm arm, you have one continue to burn around the outside, and then that burn that separates the cells in the middle is a little bit lower.

[1:11:38] So, your spillway is on that outside burn, and then so, like I said, for the top one,

[1:11:47] without existing dry.

[1:11:48] So, you fill both people before you hit the spillway?

[1:11:52] Yes, absolutely.

[1:11:54] And I think one thing I'd like to highlight when it comes to separating the concepts of quality

[1:12:00] and water quantity, right?

[1:12:03] When we start talking 1% storms, even 25 year storms, we're talking about quantity.

[1:12:08] management. We're preventing this site from discharging more water in those

[1:12:14] events than it would today. Okay, and that helps with downstream flood

[1:12:19] protection, right? When it comes to quality, the storm events that we're

[1:12:25] concerned with are actually much smaller because we deal with what's called the

[1:12:29] first flush all the time, and I'm not sure if you've heard that concept. But that's

[1:12:33] typically the first inch of rainfall will typically be your quote-unquote dirty rainfall.

[1:12:39] So these come with certain sizing mechanisms that Bridget's gone through and calculated

[1:12:44] to understand what that volume is to make sure that water gets treated to the level it

[1:12:50] needs to be treated to.

[1:12:51] And then anything above that is generally quote-unquote clean water much cleaner than that first

[1:12:57] watch because we've washed off everything that's sitting in the payments.

[1:12:59] Right, so now you're just managing the quantity of water.

[1:13:08] Any more questions?

[1:13:11] Do you have more shows on this?

[1:13:14] I think the one thing I would like to discuss,

[1:13:17] you know, we have a couple of conditional uses out there.

[1:13:21] But one waiver that kind of goes,

[1:13:25] you know, discussing with Michael a little bit by email today,

[1:13:27] maybe we want to discuss now are the slopes.

[1:13:30] We're asking for a waiver on the slopes.

[1:13:34] And the town requires three to one or less, so three horizontal, one vertical, something like that.

[1:13:44] We, in many other locations throughout New England, have gone to two to one slopes with slope protection.

[1:13:49] The reason we do three to one is not only from a mate, that's perspective, but from a roadability perspective.

[1:13:55] Once you put an erosion protection on a two-to-one slope, the erosion concern typically goes

[1:14:07] away.

[1:14:07] Once you get it all stabilized, you can do that with erosion mounting, which we're proposing

[1:14:13] stone rip wrap, which, you know, angular rip wrap locks things in.

[1:14:17] There's a lot of different ways to accomplish that.

[1:14:19] Typically, you put them mounting down, you'll let the seed grow and it's pretty stable,

[1:14:24] right?

[1:14:24] But unless you have a location where you're

[1:14:28] discharging water fairly consistently, which

[1:14:30] we're capturing all our water.

[1:14:33] So only the water that lands and runs off

[1:14:35] will really be exposing us to erosion in these locations.

[1:14:39] And even if there is a mild amount of erosion,

[1:14:41] it's captured by our gravel limits.

[1:14:45] So something that we'll be asking for as a part

[1:14:48] of the decision, I think we've adequately addressed it.

[1:14:51] If there's any questions there, I'd like to discuss that too.

[1:14:57] Where are those two to one slopes?

[1:14:59] The patient.

[1:15:00] We can see them here, the contour lines where they're much tighter, right? These are two to one. You can see the difference to the three to one slope.

[1:15:08] So, yeah. So, you can see other just a little bit tighter.

[1:15:13] We have on the north side as well, another location of two to one slopes. We're finding, through some investigation, that a lot of this will likely be exposed ledge face though. So, the erosion concerns sort of go away.

[1:15:26] But we'll do some more investigations when we come back again.

[1:15:30] We're looking at ways to modify the northern side

[1:15:34] to help us out with some of the work we're doing up here.

[1:15:37] Now that the legislature has been discovered.

[1:15:41] So, other than that, along just where you see these sort of tighter

[1:15:45] contour lines, that's where you have the two-to-one slopes.

[1:15:49] And as soon as you get into the pond areas,

[1:15:51] we transition to a three-to-one, that's a state requirement.

[1:15:55] you can't have anything steeper than a three to one slope and design of your

[1:15:58] stormwater pond. So we have three to one of those locations. And to speak to

[1:16:05] what Sean was saying, the main purpose of the two to one slope and why we

[1:16:09] utilize that and ask for the waiver is to shrink our impact footprint. So we're

[1:16:15] not so much into the buffer and avoiding any disturbance to existing wetlands or

[1:16:21] buffer area. So the maximum is that possible with this design. And thank you for that's a good point.

[1:16:29] So if we if we went to three to one right we basically have to add a foot every single one of these

[1:16:34] contours of core. So you have about 15 feet max of your adding 15 more feet of disturbance into

[1:16:42] the woods of the wetland buffer in a really in a way that's unnecessary because we have ways to

[1:16:47] manage it. And similarly down here although we're not right against a wetland buffer

[1:16:51] If you push this out, the road gets pushed out, the pond gets pushed out, or the wetland gets pushed out.

[1:16:57] So we have the same consequence, even though in essence it's not right against the edge.

[1:17:02] So this was, as Richard said, a way for us to reduce our footprint a little bit.

[1:17:07] What's the landscaping plan?

[1:17:09] So you said you're going to put down that and see long-term.

[1:17:13] Is that something you're going to have to mow at a two to one slope, or is that going to be

[1:17:19] some other stable, you know, vegetated surface.

[1:17:22] Yeah, typically in Motu to one, I don't.

[1:17:25] Yeah, I mean, you know, our landscape, guys,

[1:17:27] of methods of taking care of that.

[1:17:29] A lot of times that we'll just let it grow in, right?

[1:17:33] And handle it a couple times a year.

[1:17:37] You know, there are native species that we can use

[1:17:38] on these slopes and things.

[1:17:39] I just worry about tires, thinning on steep slopes,

[1:17:43] and cutting, you know, developing a stream.

[1:17:47] Yeah, I mean we've, personally I've even done one-to-one slopes, I mean typically I

[1:17:52] armor those with rip rep because it is so hard to mo but two-to-one we've

[1:17:56] seen being able to manage so and you just go through the technical advantage of

[1:18:05] having three-to-one versus two-to-one if I understand at the town to request

[1:18:12] or likes at the C3 to 1, is there a technical reason that a 3 to 1 is better than a 2 to 1?

[1:18:22] And then we'll be asked for a waiver, so I just want to have some technical discussion on what is the advantage or disadvantage of that?

[1:18:31] So maybe you could just speak to why would we want a 3 to 1?

[1:18:35] I think the best analogy I've ever heard for this is, you know, you cook chicken to 165.

[1:18:42] Right? You cook chicken to 165. If you look at the FDA guidance for it, you can cook way less than that.

[1:18:49] It's kind of wild, but you cook chicken to 165. You only have to keep it there for three seconds, and then you kill anything.

[1:18:57] If you cook chicken to 155, you keep it there for two minutes, you're fine.

[1:19:01] Right, and this matters to me because I like to smoke me, right? I don't want to dry it out, but at the end of the day, it's kind of the same thing

[1:19:10] 3 to 1 is the default

[1:19:12] Safe way to go. You publish it for everybody. You try to follow that methodology where you can and where it makes sense because it's just

[1:19:19] It prevents the erotability of the soil naturally when you start getting steeper than 3 to 1 you start to see soil

[1:19:25] road a lot more easily, right? That is the real technical reason for it. The maintenance, the

[1:19:34] mowing, the maintenance definitely gets easier on a on a shallower slope, but you can go to

[1:19:39] two to one if you handle it appropriately and you do it the right way. It still operates just the same way

[1:19:45] as a three to one slope. So is this purely an erosion control or is it a pollutant control or

[1:19:52] some combination.

[1:19:55] Well, if you have erosion, you're basically taking sediment in water and throwing it down

[1:20:00] a hill, right?

[1:20:01] So when we talk about sediment capture in our catch basins, that's what we're talking about.

[1:20:05] We're talking about grabbing the dirt that lives on the pavement, gets picked up by the water

[1:20:09] and flows down hill to our catch basins.

[1:20:12] So it's the same thing, right?

[1:20:16] A erosion has water that picks up dirt and washes it away with itself, right?

[1:20:21] So the concern is a rotability, but that's why we put the erosion mounting not to prevent

[1:20:26] that from happening.

[1:20:28] By putting the erosion mounting down, you're basically making it operate as a 3-to-1 slope

[1:20:32] from an erotability standpoint.

[1:20:35] Most communities I see try to do the 3-to-1, but you don't have to do those extra measures

[1:20:41] on a 3-to-1, right?

[1:20:42] So we're adding those extra measures to make it operate in the same fashion.

[1:20:47] And then on the top portion of that, you're requesting 2 to 1 as well, but there are no catch

[1:20:57] basins or anything on the other side of that 2 to 1. On the south side, it looks like

[1:21:02] there are, but on that side, they're not. This is like a magic eye picture for me, actually,

[1:21:09] because you look at this and you think, oh, we're going downhill. You're not. This is sloping

[1:21:14] from the top to the bottom by this plant.

[1:21:17] And it's confusing because you would think it would go to the well.

[1:21:20] But the natural course right now is we have a knob here that we're knocking down and

[1:21:25] we're bringing this gray down to, you know, these, these, these grades we show here.

[1:21:31] You know, it's about a 20 foot cut at its highest part, so we're bringing this all down.

[1:21:37] So on that, it's actually sloping like this, correct, towards the cause there is sloping

[1:21:42] this way into your catch basins. Correct. So this is the total top of the bottom at the

[1:21:47] bottom. Yep. And you actually end up with sort of a a ridge line here. This is hard to see.

[1:21:54] But you zoom in a little more essentially that green line that follows the contours. That's the

[1:21:59] ridge line. And you can see the contour levels right there. One 25, one 30, one 35. So you can see

[1:22:07] It's uphill coming into the down into the side right out there right now is like this and then this is our proposed site right and we're down here right

[1:22:21] That's

[1:22:22] Does the town have any thoughts on this? I mean I

[1:22:30] Our on-board experts are absent tonight. So, if you have caution, I would say let's hold the discussion to another meeting with regards to that.

[1:22:41] Yeah, I think the one thing, the two-to-one slope put in a non-stabilized system, that's right at angle, we're very near angle of repose, for sediment, where it'll self-abelange.

[1:22:51] So that's why the stabilization is really important, some kind of erosion, adding to protect

[1:22:58] the rainfall from really just triggering those good down-slope, natural down-slope movement.

[1:23:06] So that's why most towns look for something better than two to one.

[1:23:09] It's right at that sweet spot where sand will just handle it, and then, how long does the erosion

[1:23:19] Madden last. Depending on what you specify, but anywhere from 18 months to three years, it's

[1:23:28] fire degradable. So, Green American North, I believe, is the company, and they have different

[1:23:35] levels that you can install, and it would be something typical we do at 18 to two month

[1:23:44] and that's a two years, excuse me, and that's enough time to get the seed to germinate

[1:23:49] and really stabilize that slope before it disintegrates.

[1:23:53] Yeah, that's the critical component, right?

[1:23:55] The emotion of adding exists for the plants to take hold.

[1:23:59] Once the plants take hold, the roots hold everything.

[1:24:02] So it's a temporary need, and once it grows in, we're in good shape.

[1:24:10] It's not something you have to replace every 18 months or three years in other words, right?

[1:24:19] I think what we want to do, though, I don't think we want to make a decision on this one tonight.

[1:24:27] We don't expect a vote by any means.

[1:24:29] This can all come when we're prepared here.

[1:24:32] We don't have a peer review back yet, right?

[1:24:33] I'm sure that'll speak to it as well.

[1:24:35] Those two particular people would be very upset.

[1:24:39] Yeah.

[1:24:39] And so with regards to the two conditional uses,

[1:24:45] we had one for activities in the wetlands.

[1:24:49] I actually have one too, but.

[1:24:52] And that one, we're still waiting to hear back

[1:24:54] from the Conservation Commission on.

[1:24:58] So unless all I want to do with this is,

[1:25:01] if there's anything that folks think

[1:25:03] the Conservation Commission would not be looking at

[1:25:05] that they are interested in, make it known now.

[1:25:09] All

[1:25:12] right, for that in the wetland fill, now the warehouse use, we can, that is a can, by

[1:25:21] conditional use, anybody had, I mean, do we, what are people's thoughts on, on the warehouse?

[1:25:31] Julian, can we establish firmly that we're not talking or they're not talking about the

[1:25:37] of the possibility of artificial intelligence data setter?

[1:25:47] We were talking about putting in an exclusion.

[1:25:56] Well, they have...

[1:25:58] Do you do do do do?

[1:26:00] Where is it?

[1:26:00] Where is it just only that?

[1:26:01] No, that's not it.

[1:26:03] There was a water usage limitation

[1:26:08] that if they go over, they need to come back to us, right?

[1:26:15] Would they go to a committee and they make a recommendation to the town council so that

[1:26:23] will, if the council hasn't addressed that, that will be a precedent condition?

[1:26:31] I'm not sure, I'm not a dancer.

[1:26:32] Well,

[1:26:35] when it comes to an AI data center use that you're talking about, you don't die.

[1:26:48] They're not set.

[1:26:50] They're not.

[1:26:50] Yeah.

[1:26:50] That was our heat.

[1:26:53] These buildings are not set up for, really.

[1:26:55] What do you send out there?

[1:26:57] They're not structurally, because that's to do that, the cooling systems you need and everything else.

[1:27:05] Not set out.

[1:27:06] I have a different type of building, but, and my comment about the site planary view regarding

[1:27:18] water usage is that there will be, if there is a certain, when we were talking about

[1:27:28] a use like that, you're thinking about what's the impact, right?

[1:27:32] Yeah, and so what impacts are you concerned about

[1:27:38] that the many possible, but this would be a small.

[1:27:42] I admit this would be a small possibility for a data center.

[1:27:50] But this is a bigger issue than tonight.

[1:27:55] I'm responding, I'm asking this part partly in connection with Michael's response to

[1:28:05] Mr. Calderwood, who asked whether it was possible or impossible to have a data centre

[1:28:15] at the technology lab site.

[1:28:18] So, I think it would be useful for the board to get some clarification on this.

[1:28:26] Whether, and I think there's different kinds of data centers, there's different scales of data centers.

[1:28:33] But I think it would be, and I'm not sure whether any of those would be allowed under our current zoning.

[1:28:39] As I had mentioned, the three sort of uses that might encompass it are office, light manufacturing, and warehouse.

[1:28:49] And I don't think office would, light manufacturing, might arguably.

[1:28:54] So, but I do think it would be useful for the board whether tonight or another time to be clear about what a data center is, the different kinds of data centers, and if it would be appropriate or not, and I think you may want to have a condition on an approval that would prohibit them.

[1:29:18] We'd have to have a good reason, and we'd want to have a discussion with the applicant.

[1:29:24] But I suspect that the kind of data centers we're thinking of would not be appropriate.

[1:29:31] The applicant probably would not entertain that.

[1:29:34] And I suspect that we could come up with some language that would work.

[1:29:38] I disagree.

[1:29:39] I don't think we could come up with some language that would work.

[1:29:43] Because it's a way too complicated, it's a very, very complicated issue.

[1:29:49] It's best handled as from the viewpoint of not treating it as a data center, but treating it as a...

[1:30:00] They use, because we're going to say you can't do a greater data center than we'd also want to say you can't do a greenhouse, because a greenhouse, which I believe is allowed in that zone, would have potentially just as much water usage and electrical usage as a moderate data center.

[1:30:18] I think could I make a suggestion which is why my point of it's the impacts you want to look at and restrict not the use

[1:30:30] It would probably be intelligent for this board to become more educated on data centers, but I think that is completely separate from this

[1:30:41] I think there's a lot of fear about data centers, but when you look at this site, you're

[1:30:46] not even investing in anything that would, what you're investing in, wouldn't be needed

[1:30:54] by the data center. And you're not set up for it. And to really make money data is these things

[1:31:00] a huge, these things are huge. And so that site is really not set up for that anyway, so I don't

[1:31:08] I think it's going to help us if we add a fear of something we're not really educated in.

[1:31:13] And so I think when it comes to data centers, it's very hot right now.

[1:31:16] It would probably do this for a lot of good if we could have some kind of presentation.

[1:31:20] We could do some research to understand what it is and what the true impacts are.

[1:31:25] So that we can create in zoning allowed or not.

[1:31:28] I was going to bring this up next week.

[1:31:32] Okay.

[1:31:32] Because it doesn't belong to an applicant's degree.

[1:31:36] discussion. But the New Hampshire Association of Regional Planning Commission has put together

[1:31:44] their first draft of what planning boards need to do regarding data centers. It's in the process

[1:31:53] of getting signed off, but I'm hoping I could have it in our hands by next meeting. That would be great.

[1:32:00] Okay, but I don't think it's any good to do it this way.

[1:32:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[1:32:05] And that said, I hope other members of the board will read the white paper.

[1:32:11] You said last week, and you should all have it.

[1:32:18] It's worth reading.

[1:32:19] It is very one-sided.

[1:32:24] So, let's move on.

[1:32:25] and it will be the first of many because there's another eight there'll be part of next

[1:32:31] week.

[1:32:32] The next thing.

[1:32:33] Oh, we're about to have the open the public hearing and then continue it till the next

[1:32:39] time.

[1:32:41] We public hearing is already open for this.

[1:32:43] Has it been open?

[1:32:45] Well, this didn't we have it?

[1:32:48] It's continued.

[1:32:49] It's continued.

[1:32:49] I mean, does anybody have one?

[1:32:51] I'll speak.

[1:32:52] I'll open the public hearing.

[1:32:53] Yes.

[1:32:53] I will open the public hearing.

[1:32:54] Is there anyone who would like to speak regarding this?

[1:32:59] Does this pick the specifics?

[1:33:01] Do we have anybody on Zoom?

[1:33:05] No hands up.

[1:33:06] No hands up.

[1:33:07] All right.

[1:33:08] What I was hoping to do is though is to talk about building height and the warehouse uses,

[1:33:12] conditional uses to see if we have any besides the idea that is that a warehouse

[1:33:20] or could be a data center.

[1:33:21] Are there other issues around the warehouse use?

[1:33:26] I mean, I'm really not sure why we restrict warehouse use.

[1:33:32] Oh, I think the reason that in some of those zones,

[1:33:39] that light manufacturing office use is a lot by right

[1:33:43] whereas warehouses are conditionally used.

[1:33:46] It's probably the general, the town would prefer light manufacturing high technology, R&D,

[1:33:55] office use, to wear house use.

[1:33:57] It employs fewer people, probably has less value, may generate more truck traffic.

[1:34:03] So there probably is a general preference, for light manufacturing, overwear house.

[1:34:09] We'll see how this plays out.

[1:34:12] It's probably going to be a mix.

[1:34:15] But I think that's the reason it's conditional use.

[1:34:19] My request.

[1:34:21] So on the use question, the only thing that's sort of haunting

[1:34:26] me from the presentation we had previously

[1:34:28] with regard to the travel, which I know

[1:34:30] where you have a consultant that's going to give us a report

[1:34:32] and review all that relates, though, to the issue in terms

[1:34:36] of what the use is, that the use code, I think,

[1:34:40] was 10 that they, or maybe was 1-10 that the traffic engineer picked, so she said that the time

[1:34:46] that was the maximum. But the question is sort of still in my mind, I asked this question

[1:34:51] at the site walk, is whether or not it might wind up and when I would call a retail distribution

[1:34:57] level as opposed to a wholesale, and my verb, you know what else is, if it's tractor-trail or

[1:35:03] tractor-trailer, that's one thing that's limited number tractor-trailer is going to come

[1:35:06] go because they're so big. If a tractor trail comes in and small vans going out to deliver,

[1:35:11] it can be a whole lot more vans than you would have if it was just all tractor trails

[1:35:15] in and out. And that's question still in my mind. In terms of how it, the bearing would

[1:35:21] have on the actual traffic counts and what that might mean with that.

[1:35:24] Which I realized is going to be addressed in the future, but I'm just related to the use that

[1:35:29] was a question I just want to put on the record right now as a concern.

[1:35:34] And I second that as well, only because no matter where that traffic goes, it's all going to go down

[1:35:40] technology drive. And you do have 600 students living right there on technology drive. And when I look at that road and I imagine traffic going all day back and forth there, I think pedestrians could be better served in terms of some access.

[1:35:56] And it may not be all day, it may be a burst in the morning and then a burst in the afternoon.

[1:36:00] quite possible either way a lot of trucks I know you know I'm not pre-supposing anything but I know

[1:36:05] Amazon's delivering things at my house at four o'clock in the morning and you know they're so so there's a lot of

[1:36:11] activity depending on what what goes in there yeah all right what about building height

[1:36:21] are there any

[1:36:22] issues with building just building going to be higher than any of the trees around there

[1:36:29] 50 feet probably, no. I don't think everybody's got to see it.

[1:36:34] It's hard to see that site.

[1:36:36] Yeah, you are.

[1:36:37] Unless you're in it.

[1:36:39] And you better remember there's a significant cut for those barons too.

[1:36:45] Because we're short handed and we require five days for addition use.

[1:36:51] I don't recommend you go for an action.

[1:36:54] No, that's all you.

[1:36:55] I think it's a big action.

[1:36:57] On condition of use is what I have seven votes,

[1:36:59] voting members.

[1:37:04] So we regards to that to reiterate,

[1:37:10] we're waiting on a conservation commission.

[1:37:12] We're guarding the two wetland-related ones.

[1:37:16] There's some concerns about,

[1:37:18] and I believe the term that was always

[1:37:20] by a traffic study person was Amazon style warehouse.

[1:37:27] And...

[1:37:28] That's it.

[1:37:30] But building height looks to be not an issue.

[1:37:34] I will say, you know, I'm happy to provide our knowledge to this board regarding data centers at

[1:37:42] what point that you choose to explore that item. With respect to last mile distribution or all the

[1:37:50] different types of facilities that Amazon uses, we've had experienced developing Amazon facilities before.

[1:37:55] They are extremely particular about how they operate and there would be immense changes to this site in order to accommodate anything that they would want to do in particular.

[1:38:07] And I know I'm citing them specifically.

[1:38:10] They're also, you know, we got to talk about how this board would qualify FedEx or DHL or those types of delivery companies as well.

[1:38:21] Because, essentially, they do operate in a similar fashion, they're not sending out fleets of vans, right?

[1:38:28] But they do have, you know, you can picture your PS track, leaving you in the facility.

[1:38:33] So, I will have our traffic engineer speak to that when we come back and we return to have the traffic conversation.

[1:38:40] I do know that light industrial is very close and mimics those from my understanding, but I don't want to miss speak.

[1:38:47] So I think when it comes to data centers,

[1:38:54] the only one thing I'll say, we have no intention of doing that here.

[1:38:58] At this time, however, it's time has a way of changing things,

[1:39:05] and it could be a very long time away from when we even

[1:39:08] on the building, or I'm even alive, that this site could be repurposed.

[1:39:11] So I fully understand the question.

[1:39:13] It's something I do suggest the board get front of.

[1:39:15] But the good news is these facilities require a lot of water and not only does this board

[1:39:22] have to weigh in, but the city council will have to weigh in on that as well.

[1:39:25] So the town retains a ton of control when it comes to that sort of thing.

[1:39:30] Per Mr. Charibely, if you mentioned something about restricting the water here, so if that

[1:39:36] becomes a condition, there's a lot of certainty for this board in the public about what

[1:39:40] can go here without further conversation.

[1:39:43] All right, thank you, was there anything else that we were going to cover to?

[1:39:51] Well, you have the wetland scientist here, and the conditions for the WCD includes both your

[1:40:01] purview over filling of the wetlands, which is there's some proposal there, as well as activity

[1:40:09] within the wetland buffer.

[1:40:11] So I know, you've spoken before, but it's probably a good time to ask, you know, for you to explain a little more and respond to any questions.

[1:40:22] Mr. Chair, does that make sense?

[1:40:23] I, if there are any particular questions.

[1:40:28] I mean, we've been shown the two fingers, I believe it was two fingers, that we're going to get filled in.

[1:40:40] Yeah, my plan, if I was asked to do so, would be to first ask.

[1:40:48] If there was any questions from the site walk, as has been noted, we still have conclude

[1:40:56] our work with the Conservation Commission next Tuesday, I believe,

[1:41:04] where I think when maybe

[1:41:05] get a little bit more detailed with some of the things that came up during the site walk.

[1:41:13] Generally, we saw almost all of the impact areas. I don't believe we walked up to the

[1:41:21] tiny little triangle in the northern edge of the site.

[1:41:27] But generally, I hope it was clear

[1:41:30] was my intention to demonstrate that these areas where impacts are posed, well, wetlands

[1:41:40] and certainly important in context of water quality given the proximity that oyster river,

[1:41:47] were not, in fact,

[1:41:52] significant in a lot of other, for a lot of other function.

[1:41:57] And the importance of that would be some of what's discussed here with respect to storm

[1:42:04] work controls.

[1:42:07] And the level and quality of what's being proposed will mitigate any small potential effects

[1:42:17] from impacts to these, you know, fingers and edges that are well upgraded from the core

[1:42:25] of wetland, where it's wetter, and which are likely performing the bulk of that function.

[1:42:37] That really is the key point.

[1:42:39] There was some other discussion regarding the possibility that the well into the north would be a

[1:42:57] more detailed conversation with the Conservation Commission. I think that's probably appropriate.

[1:43:06] But I and I understand the concern, but the soils, the nature of the soils here,

[1:43:12] is demonstrated by the soil survey, the site specific soil survey that was done for the project,

[1:43:23] It indicates that the soils in this area are such that the water table in that wetland

[1:43:32] is perched and that below that is very, very low permeability for those soils.

[1:43:40] They are just poorly drained, dense mineral soils.

[1:43:45] So that is really just a run-off area and it's really not connected to groundwater in a way that would

[1:43:55] pose a risk of having to be de-watered by cutting into that slope.

[1:44:01] In addition, there's a burn on top which would prevent it from actually spilling over.

[1:44:06] So that's sort of the gist of, you know, that concerns what really wanted only concerns

[1:44:17] it was voiced at the site walk.

[1:44:18] So again, I guess I'd ask if there was any specific questions I could answer and I will

[1:44:25] likely be back to ask again.

[1:44:32] Peter?

[1:44:32] I ran into the yellow jacket before I made it down into the room, and I bought it at that point.

[1:44:41] Is there any, so I didn't see this for myself? Is there any indication that there is a femoral, you know, intermittent flow into any of those fingers, spring run off kind of thing?

[1:44:53] Or is it all just, you know, forced to let them, so is it all based on soils? Are there any indication of fruit?

[1:45:02] You mean as far as like a viral pool? No, you know, these are all, all these fingers are upslowed from

[1:45:13] Yeh, whatland is. And I was just wondering if there is any indication that the topography was controlling

[1:45:19] any small channelized flow that is showing up on your wide art data.

[1:45:25] Is this a question about stream presence?

[1:45:28] Yeah, you know, it's a well-streamed, very ephemeral runoff kind of streams that are

[1:45:36] better feeding down through there.

[1:45:38] Yeah, I think, you know, and you can probably speak to this question.

[1:45:40] And this may be a con-con question.

[1:45:43] Well, it's your question, too.

[1:45:45] So we're happy to answer it, but you know, when it comes to perennial intermittent stream measurements

[1:45:51] and all those things, I mean, an intermittent stream usually exists in sort of a springtime

[1:45:56] season where it flows pretty consistently during those, those, those seasons, right?

[1:46:02] When it typically rains a little bit more, water isn't going to go into the ground as much

[1:46:06] because it's still falling out, things like that.

[1:46:08] These are more water happens to just use this path of flow to get to where it needs to go,

[1:46:15] those wetland systems, and it's not anything that I've seen in the, I don't know,

[1:46:24] that are just, you know, can you see it?

[1:46:26] Yeah, there's water is flowing down through wheat litter.

[1:46:29] So the only place where,

[1:46:34] so when we, it's sometimes not that helpful

[1:46:38] to talk, well, perennial stream to maybe stand out.

[1:46:43] The obvious difference is that they exist all the time.

[1:46:50] Other streams interment in a femoral,

[1:46:52] You know, those are basically all different ways of describing something that has a flowed enough

[1:47:03] on the surface to create a channel,

[1:47:08] you know, which could, usually specifically excludes

[1:47:11] the concept of Rosen, like we were talking about earlier, but essentially that's the same thing.

[1:47:19] The large finger in the south west corner, there's no channel there.

[1:47:28] I was, we were down there trying to explain that I probably went up about as high as you could bring that as far as soils and vegetation.

[1:47:42] Besides hydrology there, would be very slight indications of surface saturation,

[1:47:57] probably during

[1:47:58] the limited spring season.

[1:48:01] The other areas are, there's no room for a stream really to exist in any of those areas.

[1:48:07] That impact is essentially caused, or that triangle, which is constitutes the impact area was essentially created by a couple of large trees which are blown down and taken a lot of soil with them, thereby lowering the grade enough where that area is now wet.

[1:48:35] There is, yeah, in this area, which is the small isolated area, is by definition, there's no flow in or out of that area,

[1:48:47] there is a channel not anywhere near to our impact in that northern wetland, but it does, as it gets down on the steep proportion of that hill,

[1:49:03] as it approaches the Oyster River wetlands.

[1:49:09] It did, that does create a channel in that area.

[1:49:12] That's a very mainstream impact there.

[1:49:16] And of course, we're well-weight from that.

[1:49:26] Any other questions?

[1:49:40] I'd like to come tonight, right?

[1:49:41] Yeah.

[1:49:43] I'd just like to commend the applicant for the presentation on the stormwater.

[1:49:46] I thought that was very coherently presented.

[1:49:48] Thank you.

[1:49:49] Thank you.

[1:49:51] Totally agree.

[1:49:52] That was excellent.

[1:49:53] Thank you very much.

[1:49:55] So Mr. Chair, I think it'd be helpful to talk a little bit about scheduling.

[1:50:03] This is on the agenda for the Conservation Commission next Tuesday.

[1:50:08] But the Commission has a very busy agenda.

[1:50:11] And I'm probably only have 20 minutes or so.

[1:50:14] I think it's very unlikely they're going to make their recommendation for the conditional use,

[1:50:18] but hopefully that will happen at the October 26th meeting, so the planning boards up coming

[1:50:25] meetings are in two weeks on October 14th, October 28th, and then you have one meeting in November

[1:50:33] and one meeting in December, and I'm retiring November 30th, but if this is not completed before I go,

[1:50:42] I will have a draft notice to the board and the my successor. So you'll be able to

[1:50:49] finalize details.

[1:50:54] So I'm not seeing any real significant obstacles but there's a

[1:51:00] lot of small things and my sense is that it's probably useful to continue to the

[1:51:07] 14th, go over miscellaneous issues, and then depending on the timing of the stormwater consultant

[1:51:16] and the traffic consultant, you might be ready for final action, maybe November.

[1:51:23] If not, hopefully December.

[1:51:28] I'm hoping that we can start taking action on some of the conditional uses by October 28th.

[1:51:34] you

[1:51:37] know, if we get all emissive, you know, so you said missile, so we have missile

[1:51:42] any stuff and then traffic and stormwater, um, I think that's, I think that's it.

[1:51:50] Third party reviews, and, um, and after that we should be able to be coming to a

[1:51:58] decision, and if we're only waiting, I would say, let the conservation commission know

[1:52:06] we really need their response on October 20th.

[1:52:08] Well, I think they know that because

[1:52:13] I'm not sure I'm going to want a week for them after

[1:52:16] that.

[1:52:16] No, I think they understand that.

[1:52:21] So do you want to continue to recognize and there's four more meetings for the rest of

[1:52:29] 2020?

[1:52:30] Six, is it useful to continue to the 14th?

[1:52:33] I'd like to continue to do the 14th, just to keep them.

[1:52:36] You know, we can tie up everything that we're not waiting on somebody else for.

[1:52:41] That's good. That's the general idea.

[1:52:44] Tie all that up so that as people come in and finish their reviews,

[1:52:49] we're ready to take a money immediately.

[1:52:53] I think that makes sense.

[1:52:56] That work for you?

[1:52:57] Yeah, I was going to suggest that it's always better to be on the agenda than off, right?

[1:53:01] If we fall off, then you guys just have a shorter meeting.

[1:53:04] I do know we're also chasing down the exact process of presenting our water usage to town council as well.

[1:53:13] So we'll be working towards that.

[1:53:16] Hopefully we'll have some resolution on that.

[1:53:17] I'm not sure of the timing on that yet, but Kees Nordstrom and Bridget and Matt will be reaching out to set that up.

[1:53:26] But I believe Rich Rhine also wanted to review the water against their timeline model, so that's another thing that's in play here that we need to lock up, but I don't know Michael if you've heard back from him on that question.

[1:53:40] We just talked about it today, so.

[1:53:42] Yeah, I mean that was one of the things that Board asked that be looked at, so we'll have to check with Rich.

[1:53:49] Look at all this.

[1:53:50] Because at the end of the technology drive there was work down a couple of years ago, and was that for a new water pumping station or was it sewer?

[1:54:05] It was either water or sewer, and I'm just trying to...

[1:54:08] I believe it was water, but I should be able to tell you that.

[1:54:12] I know that because we have that fairly new main by water standards that comes down through our property by easement.

[1:54:20] So it would make sense that. Oh, there's rich right there.

[1:54:25] I mean, can you help Rich?

[1:54:27] Yeah, that was unrelated to this project.

[1:54:30] That was the technology drive, water pump station,

[1:54:35] and that had to do with the additional capacity and Lee extension that we had to go be circle for the MTE.

[1:54:43] I don't know.

[1:54:43] Funny that we received the DES, but we are working with,

[1:54:47] with engineers. We have a third party consultant doing the review of the water demand. We need

[1:54:53] to get more information from Sean and his team to be able to complete that, but it's moving

[1:54:59] along. And just real quick, on the stormwater piece, we believe we'll probably have draft comments

[1:55:06] from the ours, our third party reviewer at the end of next week, and we're expecting final review

[1:55:13] letter by the fifth of October, barring any unusual circumstances that we see in the storm

[1:55:20] order review and based on what we've seen so far that probably will not be. Traffic,

[1:55:26] engineering, review, the impact study that's in the process of developing a scope and

[1:55:31] fee proposal right now with apex and done and it will be presenting that to Sean and

[1:55:37] his team probably over the next student probably early part middle part of next week.

[1:55:41] So if that review comes back by the fifth, we might be able to have that on the night of the 14th as well.

[1:55:49] Yeah.

[1:55:51] All right.

[1:55:54] Just one other point.

[1:55:56] I'm not sure that you've clarified.

[1:55:59] So there will be certainly a fair amount more traffic on technology drive including truck traffic.

[1:56:07] Are there any concerns for use of technology drive by the 600?

[1:56:13] So, students at the colleges of their safety of any kind of improvements that might be needed

[1:56:20] along there for pedestrians and bicyclists?

[1:56:24] Well, I'm more concerned about the parking that's on there being a problem to the pedestrians

[1:56:29] and cyclists.

[1:56:31] It's the combination of everything there is an issue.

[1:56:38] But I think the problem is right now and there is no effectively, there is no bike lane,

[1:56:45] there is no, there is kind of a walking lane between the parked cars and the curb.

[1:56:54] So, Rich, are you still there?

[1:56:57] I am. I was just going to say as part of any project of this nature, just like the rivers,

[1:57:03] what's project is ongoing right now. We will have a robust traffic management plan as part

[1:57:09] this and we'll ensure that there's safety for pedestrians, cyclists, other vehicles on the roadway,

[1:57:16] and we'll be working with the GC and any of their own folks during that whole process.

[1:57:22] So I don't anticipate that as being a major hurdle to get over, but we'll have to talk with the team

[1:57:28] and the RJ Kelly team to make sure that happens. Well, I'm wondering not during construction,

[1:57:34] But, permanently, if there's any concern about a conflict there with pedestrians and bicyclists on a technology drive, what kind of space there is for them to use.

[1:57:51] Yeah, I think that will all come out during the traffic impact study where third party review will have the full of comments on that.

[1:57:58] Thank you.

[1:58:00] Question?

[1:58:03] in the traffic review from Apex. Will there, is that, is it a normal thing or is it something

[1:58:12] it's within the scope to actually look at pedestrian traffic along 21-tech drive as it

[1:58:17] exists currently? Oh yeah, they would do a pre-construction and post-contruction review of that,

[1:58:24] so that wouldn't be an unusual occurrence and that's what we intend on scoping you know within

[1:58:30] within that third party review.

[1:58:33] So there would be an idea in terms of actual body count going up and down tech drive now.

[1:58:38] It's going to be, you know, we don't have, you know, a pedestrian counter out there to determine exactly what we have for numbers,

[1:58:47] but there will be trip generation numbers likely that they'll be a little, I don't imagine it will be from ITE,

[1:58:53] but it'll be for some source to understand what we have.

[1:58:57] I know there's a bus stop there that's used quite frequently, so we'll have to take all of

[1:59:01] that into a counter in our scope development with APEX.

[1:59:07] Because to the issue of the pedestrian safety, it would seem like having some sort of empirical

[1:59:10] data might be a whole...

[1:59:13] I don't believe we have any pedestrian data for that route.

[1:59:17] But I don't think it takes a whole lot to get pedestrian data either for a few days worth of

[1:59:23] counts.

[1:59:24] It's not a high tech.

[1:59:27] The only difficulty I would see with that is that when I'm looking at that, there's no sidewalk there.

[1:59:32] There's no managed way for pedestrians to get up and down that currently.

[1:59:38] So even in the best case right now, I would say it's dangerous.

[1:59:43] As more traffic is there, it becomes more challenging, I think, for pedestrians to navigate that in the small, you know,

[1:59:51] bike lane sort of walking area that's there not including the addition of the current

[1:59:57] parked cars.

[2:00:00] It's a very wide shoulder there, you're right, and that's something that will take into account during the review.

[2:00:09] And just to that point, like typically in the traffic studies, I don't see mention of the pedestrians.

[2:00:17] I see a lot of vehicular analysis, but I don't typically see what's it look like for pedestrians navigating that same space.

[2:00:25] But that's why I asked what not that could be something as part of it because if you're concerned about

[2:00:29] and I don't maybe there's really no pedestrians walking up and down the street.

[2:00:33] Maybe they come out and they go to their cars or something.

[2:00:35] I don't know.

[2:00:36] I'm not sure that anybody knows it.

[2:00:37] It's very few.

[2:00:38] Where's the bus stop?

[2:00:40] Is it?

[2:00:40] That's not technical.

[2:00:41] It's internal.

[2:00:42] It's internal.

[2:00:43] It's internal.

[2:00:46] The bus stop.

[2:00:47] There are two.

[2:00:49] Yeah.

[2:00:50] Three internal to the colleges.

[2:00:51] Because then there's one, as you're leaving, tech drive just before you get to Main Street.

[2:01:00] And the one that inbound that matches that has floated up and down the hill a little bit,

[2:01:06] but the last year was at the top of the hill of tech drive, as you're coming up and

[2:01:11] it bubbles off.

[2:01:13] But I don't, that would be, that one's a mess, and then they would, and you drop people

[2:01:18] off there, who are trying to go to a real review of apartments back on Main Street, so they

[2:01:23] would be walking down the hill to get back and now, at this point in time, there's not even

[2:01:29] in the current conditions, there's not no space there for them to get off the bus walk down

[2:01:34] the Main Street. Because of the park cars. Because of the park cars. Yeah.

[2:01:45] All right.

[2:01:49] So when they

[2:01:50] We're talking about adding parking spaces on tech drive.

[2:01:54] I didn't realize they're how far down the hill they were going to go with them or

[2:02:00] I would have said something.

[2:02:06] All right, but thank you.

[2:02:08] Thank you.

[2:02:09] We'll see you on the 14th floor.

[2:02:25] And item 10 is the capital improvement program review of proposed 2027 to 2036 CIP with

[2:02:31] the town administrator and Gail Jablansky that business manager.

[2:03:00] Good evening. It's great to see you all.

[2:03:02] Good evening.

[2:03:04] So I am Todd Salig, the administrator here in Durham, and I am a company in person by David and

[2:03:10] Manuel, and then virtually by Richrain and Gail Jablansky.

[2:03:15] Hopefully, Gwyneth can bring up from the screen in some way.

[2:03:20] Okay, great. Thank you.

[2:03:23] So, we are here tonight to talk about the Capital Improvements Program.

[2:03:27] You all have a copy.

[2:03:31] The Capital Improvements Program is a big document.

[2:03:34] Here's the hard copy version of it here for the viewing public who might be interested.

[2:03:39] We have a copy here at the Business Office, and of course you have a copy in your packets.

[2:03:46] These represent items submitted by departments, boards, committees, and commissions for

[2:03:50] consideration as part of the FY2027 budget, if it's an item proposed for 27, or as part of our long-range plan.

[2:04:02] Our town charter requires a look ahead of six years for capital projects, but we go

[2:04:08] one step beyond that and look out ten years to get a better sense of our collective capital future.

[2:04:13] The CIP includes items that have a value of $10,000 or more in a lifespan generally of five or more years.

[2:04:22] I want to note that this is a draft, this is what Gale and I have received unedited from the departments,

[2:04:29] and I'm in the process with Gale of meeting with the departments to talk about all of these proposals.

[2:04:34] and as part of the annual budget process, we'll be betting them in changing the order

[2:04:42] as needed as part of the formal budget presentation, which would go to the Council for

[2:04:49] the last four November 1st. And they'll be presented to the Council at the Council meeting

[2:04:53] on November 2nd. Let me just see. Just want to lead you through some of the highlights here.

[2:05:04] The first is, if you look at the first page, you'll see that

[2:05:10] Gail has very ingeniously aligned, the spreadsheet and the far left side.

[2:05:15] You'll see a page number, so I'm looking under the fire department right now on page 19.

[2:05:21] There's an item to replace the F, the 2007 Ford F350 Forestry Truck for $300,000.

[2:05:29] And just as an example, if you were to look at page 19, you'll see the specific sheet

[2:05:37] of the fire department created, which provides a justification for the project, the description

[2:05:43] of the project, the cost of the project, the purchase price of the project, in this case,

[2:05:49] the request is for $300,000. There's next, the financing section, which talks about how

[2:05:55] that specific item would be funded.

[2:05:58] And in this particular case, the proposal from the fire department

[2:06:01] is to bond the item and to share the cost of the bond 5050

[2:06:06] with the UNH.

[2:06:07] So specifically, during we cover $150,000, you

[2:06:11] need to recover $150,000.

[2:06:14] And so on, that's how the program is put together.

[2:06:19] I try to give some thought each year about specific CIP items

[2:06:24] that you as a planning board might be interested in, although we could talk about any of them

[2:06:28] if you want.

[2:06:29] But the first that I think is particularly relevant is on page 30, replacing the 2015 Ferraria

[2:06:36] aerial ladder truck for $2.2 million dollars in year, 2020, and that is a project again

[2:06:46] And if you look on page 30, that would be shared 5050 with UNH based on our municipal services

[2:06:54] agreement we have with UNH.

[2:06:57] So the cost for each would be $100,000.

[2:07:02] I thought maybe Dave Emanuel could just speak briefly to how a fire truck is valuable, a

[2:07:09] ladder truck in particular for Durham, because on one hand it's necessary for UNH to reach

[2:07:15] of top buildings, but in essence it is used more in fires for Durham off campus buildings

[2:07:22] than it is on campus.

[2:07:25] So could you just speak to that information?

[2:07:30] Thank you, Dave, Emmanuel, I serve as your fire chief and our area apparatus. When we look at how frequently

[2:07:41] we use it, it's over the past three years, it goes around 60 times a year, it goes out to different buildings.

[2:07:51] And because of the nature of the university's buildings, we have 10 story buildings or up to 10 story buildings. On the fully alarm, they're fully sprinkled.

[2:08:00] We generally aren't using a lot of truck on those buildings.

[2:08:05] We're usually using one residential structures that burn wood and have chimneys that we need

[2:08:10] to get to the roof for to work on a chimney fire.

[2:08:13] So there's a need for this apparatus for both the town and the university, right?

[2:08:18] Answer your question appropriately.

[2:08:19] It does.

[2:08:20] I think for the planning board perspective, sometimes I've observed the board getting

[2:08:23] questions about a project that is tall and residents will ask, well, do we have

[2:08:30] the equipment to access that, and this ladder truck is

[2:08:34] the top of our tens of or buildings on campus, right?

[2:08:36] Yes, so building less than 10 stories,

[2:08:40] if we can place it appropriately, we should be good.

[2:08:43] And so two, a five-story building height and downtown,

[2:08:47] let's say, it would be able to reach that the top of that building

[2:08:50] or whatever access you would need if it was, say, five-stories.

[2:08:55] So

[2:08:59] again I'm going to I'm going to fly and any time jump in or we can backtrack.

[2:09:05] So next I was going to jump ahead to page 58 which is yes yes.

[2:09:11] All right.

[2:09:12] New fire station.

[2:09:13] Great.

[2:09:14] Okay.

[2:09:16] That's being budgeted now in 29.

[2:09:19] Yes, the proposal from the fire department was to include it in fiscal year

[2:09:28] So in the budget discussion with the fire department, which included UNH representatives, we had a lengthy conversation around this proposal, and the fire department is anxious to move ahead the project.

[2:09:42] At the same time, in terms of our budgetary conversation, on the town side, I recognize

[2:09:50] Durham has some significant fiscal constraints, and we're not really in a position to

[2:09:55] bring on an additional $10 million in debt at this near term period of time.

[2:10:00] Nor as UNH, the UNH people expressed to us.

[2:10:03] So our consensus was that we should push this project out to about 2,031 at the earliest,

[2:10:10] And the location we're targeting now is B-Lod.

[2:10:15] Previously, B-Lod, B-Lod.

[2:10:19] Previously, for the last 10 years,

[2:10:22] we had been targeting waterworks road.

[2:10:26] There was a pad there that was reserved

[2:10:28] for joint fire department, UNH Police Department, EMS structure.

[2:10:35] But we believe Bela is actually a better location, we've always felt that it was a better

[2:10:43] location and it appears to be open for conversation at this time.

[2:10:47] The UNH has outlined that as a potential site in its master plan.

[2:10:51] So for planning purposes, I would likely propose moving this out to 2,031 at the earliest subject

[2:11:00] to further conversation.

[2:11:01] And the next logical question is, is 20 million really the number, and I can say that 20 million

[2:11:06] was the number like 15 years ago for that large facility, we know that our initial

[2:11:14] thoughts of combining UNH police and term fire did not impractice result in many economies

[2:11:20] of scale, because particularly the police operation desires to have everything cordoned off

[2:11:27] from fire, which did not really allow us to jointly use locker rooms, shower rooms,

[2:11:34] conference rooms, things like that. So we're really not seeing a benefit per se of

[2:11:40] a joint facility like that, but we also know the cost of fire departments have gone up quite a lot.

[2:11:47] So $20 million is probably a good, very general planning number, but it is not a specific

[2:11:52] proposal right now. And to the extent we can eliminate big pieces of equipment or consolidate,

[2:12:01] a few obeys we need, which means the less expensive the project becomes. So we're

[2:12:07] reducing our square footage. Right. So one concept we talked a little bit about during the budget

[2:12:13] discussion for this item was whether it might be possible to combine two pieces of equipment

[2:12:20] and to move away from a stand-alone area ladder to what's called a quint, which is a multiple

[2:12:29] used vehicle that has a ladder function as well. But I will note that we've been very disappointed

[2:12:36] in this 2015 vehicle. It has been out of service for about 25% of time. Yeah, about a quarter of the

[2:12:46] since we've had it, and typically we like to keep these pieces of equipment for about 20 years,

[2:12:52] and as you'll note, this is replacing it like in 12 years.

[2:12:58] So, we're having conversations around.

[2:13:05] Good, so page 58, the vehicle replacement at the police department.

[2:13:14] I won't get into this in any depth, but basically we had set a goal

[2:13:20] about five or six years ago to transition our 100% gasoline-powered fleet to a hybrid fleet

[2:13:29] at the police department, and with the most recent vehicle, we've just completed that

[2:13:35] transition, which is positive news.

[2:13:38] So now all of the frontline vehicles that the police are driving are hybrid, and they've

[2:13:43] had great luck in terms of maintenance and fuel economies and fuel savings with that hybrid

[2:13:48] technology. So that's positive news. And we have a program where those police vehicles move from

[2:13:57] frontline marked vehicles to command slash detective vehicles that are unmarked to eventually

[2:14:06] they're downshifted to this lot and are public works and are used for the assessing vehicle or the

[2:14:11] code enforcement vehicle or the vehicle or the public works directed drives around in and we try to get

[2:14:16] most out of those vehicles. And typically, when we're done with them, they work like $250

[2:14:21] and they go to a judge card because we've just used them as long as we can. So this typically

[2:14:31] would be a year where we would replace two vehicles rather than one, but for cost savings

[2:14:36] reasons, and because we've had good performance from the hybrids, the police department

[2:14:43] is comfortable recommending just one vehicle for the

[2:14:46] 2,027, which is positive.

[2:14:52] Let me see, moving ahead, page 65 is the

[2:14:56] courthouse old town hall renovation that's targeted for

[2:15:00] 2020. And rich rain, if you are there in cyber land, if you could please come up. As you know, we've just completed renovations at the BIC for Chessley Farmhouse at Wagon Hill Farm. That was the first historic building on our list of renovations, repairs, refurbishment that was needed to maintain that building, the courthouse is next.

[2:15:25] And we had the same individual do a very preliminary review of both the BIC for Chessley and the courthouse about 10 years ago.

[2:15:34] Aaron Sturgis.

[2:15:35] And so Rich, could you maybe just touch this on the plans for the courthouse?

[2:15:39] Sure, Todd.

[2:15:41] Thank you.

[2:15:42] So we're not asking for any funding in 2027 for the courthouse.

[2:15:47] We do have some funding in place from previous years as Todd had mentioned.

[2:15:52] Aaron Sturgis did a review and evaluation structurally as well as other components to determine

[2:16:00] what would be needed for the BIC for Chessie House as well as the as well as the old courthouse.

[2:16:06] I would call that kind of a maybe a 25,000 foot view of that assessment.

[2:16:13] We then really got down into the details on the BIC for Chessie House and we're able to

[2:16:18] design the project that we just recently completed. We haven't done that on the

[2:16:25] courthouse over the next year or so. We plan on getting into that and trying to

[2:16:31] get a better understanding of what the cost would be today to maintain and

[2:16:37] rehabilitate that building. Another important question of before we do that is

[2:16:42] what will be the long-term use of that building. We're the process of trying

[2:16:48] to get an understanding of what components would be necessarily be replaced, but long term

[2:16:56] uses is a question. We've done a fair amount of work on that building over the last

[2:17:02] couple years. We replaced the second floor each fact system. We converted the oil-fired boiler

[2:17:09] for the first floor to natural gas. We replaced the flooring in the multi-purpose room with

[2:17:17] historically accurate oak flooring. We did some work on some of the

[2:17:22] the doors and in our operational budget that we'll be presenting.

[2:17:27] We do have some requests for continue to work on some of the other components,

[2:17:31] the ADA door. We did some mortar work previously, so this year, 27,

[2:17:37] we're not requesting any funding. We've pushed out a request to 2000 and 30.

[2:17:42] that might be pushed out even further, as we evaluate the building and determine what the

[2:17:48] long-term use would be.

[2:17:50] And I'll just note, the Sturgis Report had outlined some structural issues at the higher parts

[2:17:55] of the building and we've had an engineer evaluated, he determined the volume of the building

[2:18:01] and safe, but as part of the HVAC work, we've also removed some very heavy HVAC duct work

[2:18:07] that was hanging on the beams and that weight was not intended and was having an impact on

[2:18:12] building, so that contributing problem has been eliminated, which is good news.

[2:18:19] Next is peach 67, the purchase of solar panels at the Packers Falls Gravel Pit.

[2:18:26] This is an example of where we tried to use town owned asset, in this case in the town of

[2:18:32] Lee.

[2:18:33] Our Packers Falls Gravel Pit, where we installed a 650KW solar ray with revision energy that

[2:18:40] and also IGS solar, it's owned by IGS and Durham has a set rate for electricity that

[2:18:50] we purchased from IGS, which is competitive, and we have the opportunity over a 20-year

[2:18:56] period of time to purchase that array at a depreciated cost. The original idea was to

[2:19:02] purchase that array at some point in the future. But what we found is that all of the arrays

[2:19:08] that Durham has on our buildings or at this pit have experienced pretty significant problems

[2:19:15] over time that from my perspective fortunately the owner had to deal with rather than us.

[2:19:24] And so I'm really not particularly enthusiastic about our moving on these and buying this array

[2:19:29] because we're just, you know, public works is so amazing.

[2:19:33] Yeah, none of us are really versed in solar power management and maintenance, and we don't, we're not staff for it either.

[2:19:42] So, at least for now, this is just a placeholder in case at some point in the future, it makes sense to move on it and purchase the property, the panels that are then depreciated rate,

[2:19:55] but at least at this time, my working thinking is that we would not.

[2:20:00] We just simply roll along every year.

[2:20:02] Can I just just on that because that's very interesting so those are 2016 so I guess that's ten-year-old technology

[2:20:10] It's probably changed quite a bit and I guess when they fix that do they replace it with the sake the sort of the similar

[2:20:17] category of panel that was there before did they when they swapped that out?

[2:20:20] Do they kind of do an upgrade on that and we get kind of get the benefit of that without having to sort of pay for all that

[2:20:27] Or do we know I honestly don't know because

[2:20:30] We let energy goes into do the service for IGS solar and public work floods them in, but they're not building us.

[2:20:42] So our concern is producing power that then we're purchasing from them.

[2:20:49] I don't have an answer for you.

[2:20:53] I would say on that if I can,

[2:20:56] is, most of times, it's not the panel that fails.

[2:21:00] It's a inverter that fails.

[2:21:03] And those are very expensive through a place

[2:21:05] and they've replaced one of those inverters

[2:21:08] at the legal gravel pit over the last five, six years

[2:21:12] that I've been here.

[2:21:14] Yeah, and for example, at a certain point in time,

[2:21:18] revision owned the panels on the library.

[2:21:21] We subsequently did buy those out.

[2:21:24] So during those those now.

[2:21:25] But when revision did own the panels, that was the year we had like squirrel topia, and there was this explosion of squirrels.

[2:21:34] You may remember like there were dead squirrels on the road everywhere.

[2:21:37] And the squirrels got into the wiring in the library, and just really caused significant problems.

[2:21:43] And that was all fully covered by revision at their cost, and they put up squirrel protection.

[2:21:50] So anyway, just an example.

[2:21:53] All right, moving ahead to page 77, the road program, and rich, would you mind just giving

[2:21:59] it over view of the road program, please?

[2:22:01] Because it affects everybody and as you're looking at subdivisions and project zoning, it's

[2:22:07] important for you to have a sense of how we deal with roads, I think.

[2:22:11] Right.

[2:22:12] So we utilize, if you don't mind, can I just share a quick slide?

[2:22:16] It'll be easier to talk to this if that's okay.

[2:22:18] No problem.

[2:22:19] Okay.

[2:22:20] Let me see if I can do this real quick.

[2:22:35] Let me know when you see that.

[2:22:38] You're on. Okay, great. Can you zoom in on it a little more?

[2:22:44] Yeah, I can do that. Give me one sec.

[2:22:50] How's that?

[2:22:52] Yeah, or maybe on the presentation mode?

[2:22:55] Okay, sorry about that.

[2:22:57] Go down, little bit.

[2:23:03] There we go.

[2:23:04] Yeah, that's better.

[2:23:04] That easier to see.

[2:23:05] Yeah.

[2:23:06] Okay, all right, great.

[2:23:08] So, I mentioned before, we utilized a software program call on the city logics, pavement management system,

[2:23:17] and that allows us to really manage our full 59-60 miles of roadway network in a very methodical way,

[2:23:26] along with kind of coordination with other utility replacement, water mains, sewer lines, gas lines, if necessary,

[2:23:32] and that gives us the, oh, I just went, oh, there we go, that allows us to coordinate

[2:23:40] all that, what we try to do, we just recently did a full assessment and evaluation

[2:23:46] of our road network, and our goal is to try to keep that at an ADPCI, that ADPCI

[2:23:52] gives us the ability to manage that and hit some of these deteriorating roads before

[2:23:57] they come very expensive to maintain and rehabilitate.

[2:24:03] So I'm happy to say that our PCI is hovering right about 80.

[2:24:07] It's just under 80.

[2:24:08] The evaluation is for this last time, late summer early fall is still under way.

[2:24:14] They're under doing the post-processing work on that.

[2:24:17] We hope to get that back over the next couple of weeks.

[2:24:20] But we have been holding our own right around that 80 PCI.

[2:24:24] This, what we've observed lately is that some of these roads that were treated with

[2:24:31] a drag shim, which is a very thin overlay of pavement about even less than a half an inch

[2:24:38] at times, based on the the running of the roadway. We're seeing some accelerated deterioration

[2:24:45] of those roads and some of those roads are some of the major collectors that we have in town,

[2:24:50] Durant Point Road, Mill Road, Bennett Road, and Packers Falls Road.

[2:24:56] So we developed this five year action plan on our roadways to address that, but also address some

[2:25:02] of these residential roads. So you'll see in the book a very detailed five-year plan for the

[2:25:08] for the road program. This upcoming year we hope to be able to, we've requested about

[2:25:16] $734,000, which is a little more than we typically request, but really that's the figure somewhere

[2:25:24] between 600 and $750,000 that we'll need to invest in the roads to maintain that VVPCI.

[2:25:33] The program for this year will consist of during-point road, both east and west, and you can see that.

[2:25:41] this figure right here where my cursor is, those two roads, and it will be an inch and a

[2:25:46] quarter so basically a shin and overlay on that roadway. And which, could I just just clarify

[2:25:53] because this is a question I had, when Rich says East and West, he means the whole road. There's

[2:25:59] not an additional center section that's not being done, and it's the whole road. That's right.

[2:26:05] And then it will also include Bay Road. That's in a little bit better condition than

[2:26:10] during point road, but it also is showing some pretty significant signs of deterioration.

[2:26:17] Ideally, we would like to go in there, you know, it's the base of the roadway is really

[2:26:21] what fails, you know, first and then the rest of the road could show signs of distresses.

[2:26:27] We would love to go in there and box out that entire roadway, 24 inches, put good gravels

[2:26:34] in there and build it from the bottom up.

[2:26:37] but it just cost prohibitive to do something like that.

[2:26:41] So this treatment will give us that, you know,

[2:26:44] five to seven, nine years worth of,

[2:26:47] worth of, you know, good driveability of the roadway

[2:26:51] while we continue to look for grant money

[2:26:53] to do this in another fashion,

[2:26:57] possibly a reclaim of the roadway

[2:26:59] or maybe a cold in place for cycling.

[2:27:02] So I'll stop there for a second

[2:27:04] to see if there's any questions on that.

[2:27:09] Could you just touch on the efforts we've made to bring in federal grant money which not been successful and what that grant money would have allowed that we're not planning to do at this point in time?

[2:27:23] Yeah, that's a great comment.

[2:27:25] So what we've tried to do, we've looked at this in a way that would allow us to really build this road in a complete streets fashion,

[2:27:33] very similar to Mad Bear Road, but a different application, since it is a different type of roadway.

[2:27:39] We've applied for a couple large grants. The most recent one was the safe streets and roads

[2:27:46] for all. And that is a highly competitive grant round. It's a federal grant. And we put together

[2:27:55] what we thought was a very solid package. It would have allowed us to do safety improvements on the

[2:28:00] way cycling, improvements for cyclists on that roadway, maybe some geometric changes in the road.

[2:28:08] And unfortunately, we were unsuccessful to getting any grants for that.

[2:28:13] There's some other grants that we applied for smaller, but also we're not successful.

[2:28:18] So we're going to continue to do that over the next half dozen years and try to get full funding for

[2:28:24] some of these improvements that I think we would all like to make on that roadway.

[2:28:28] But at this point, we're trying to balance the road going into a complete failure mode as well as those other roads that I mentioned and being able to maintain it at the level that we think it's necessary.

[2:28:45] Which do anticipate any changes to the scenic road other than resurfacing?

[2:28:51] that Peter show you where else concerned about?

[2:28:56] No, you know, we'll be looking at the main concentration when we're doing a

[2:28:59] shipment overlay, go be some shoulder gravel work that we do, maybe some

[2:29:04] some other areas that we might be looking at some failing culverts on the roadway.

[2:29:10] There's some what we call CMP or coordinated middle culverts that may have some

[2:29:15] significant kind of deterioration in their inverts, so we wouldn't want to

[2:29:20] roadway without addressing some of those so we have a sense of which ones are failing so we

[2:29:25] may do that with our own internal forces to replace those but there won't be any significant

[2:29:31] changes you know as far as the scenic road goes so I'll stop sharing and the rich I was hopeful

[2:29:40] in terms of there are a lot of projects for public works public works is the main part of the

[2:29:50] You might talk about, you could touch upon the water system improvements in wastewater

[2:29:56] facilities plan, but I didn't know if there are other projects.

[2:30:00] I said, you think it would be helpful for the planning board to hear about.

[2:30:12] Did you hear that rich?

[2:30:14] Yeah, I did. I was just waiting. Was there anything else that we wanted to talk about before I get into that?

[2:30:20] No, no.

[2:30:21] Okay.

[2:30:22] All right, so we have a water main replacement program that we started. It was about four or five years ago that addresses the

[2:30:32] 99 miles of water main that we have. When we look at the miles or of water

[2:30:39] main and the condition, the type of material and the age, you know, we look at

[2:30:46] break history and we want to avoid breaks whenever possible, especially on

[2:30:50] these newly-caved roadways. So what we try to do is combine our roadway work with

[2:30:57] utility work and in this case that utility work is water main. We also look

[2:31:02] at sewer, you know, mains at the same time and work with the gas companies, but we accumulate

[2:31:08] money over a period of time, typically this $75,000, we should be, you know, a lot of

[2:31:14] Steve, when we look at all those components of a water main and what a replacement plan should

[2:31:20] be based on age of a water main, we should be putting much more in than $75,000, hundreds of

[2:31:27] thousands of dollars into that. But it's unrealistic to do that. So what we do is accumulate

[2:31:32] money over a period of time and we target a specific roadway. When we have enough of that

[2:31:39] funding, we then go ahead and do the water main typically the year before, do a temporary

[2:31:45] patch, and then come back the next year with the road program and reclaimed and paid that roadway

[2:31:51] typically. So in this case on the town of water system proven for $75,000, that will be used with

[2:32:00] So the FY27 funding will contribute toward a $200,000 project that we anticipate will be replacing

[2:32:08] the cast iron water mean on the first section of Davis Avenue.

[2:32:13] If you look down where the edgewood and Davis intersection is and you glance toward your

[2:32:18] right as you're going to or campus, you'll see at that early section there's three pavement

[2:32:23] And those three pavement patches are there because we had three water mean breaks that needed to be repaired.

[2:32:32] So that will be our concentration in 2000 and 30 road program will be Davis Avenue and we'll be doing the water main just before that work in conjunction with that project.

[2:32:45] Any questions on watering?

[2:32:50] And that just has one question.

[2:32:53] I think.

[2:32:55] You sort of touched on it, which is the public works department as a large portion of the budget.

[2:33:02] And when we think about planning, it would seem that we would want to try to consolidate

[2:33:08] or use these resources to the maximum amount that we could, which I guess when I think about that,

[2:33:14] I would say that you would want to almost start to try as best as you can

[2:33:19] to consolidate density, where you have these services,

[2:33:23] where you get the biggest bank for your buck when you implement

[2:33:26] an updated road or updated fix. In other words,

[2:33:30] it seems obvious that when you update a rural road,

[2:33:33] a few people benefit from that, but if you have greater density

[2:33:36] and you update a road that's in a dense area,

[2:33:39] you get a bigger bank for the buck.

[2:33:40] So I guess from a planning perspective, it would seem

[2:33:43] that we would want to try, I think, to consolidate

[2:33:46] And increased density where we have these services and where you can get a two-for-one or three-for-one, you know, benefit versus a slider smaller benefit down on the rural area.

[2:34:00] I don't know if there any thoughts about that, but in terms of the capital outlay for these things, it would seem that the denser we go in certain areas, the bigger bang we get for the buck.

[2:34:11] That maybe is both a question in a statement, I think.

[2:34:14] I would agree, I mean, if you look, a good example would be comparing the state of New Hampshire

[2:34:20] to the state of Maine, Maine is significantly larger state in terms of geographic area,

[2:34:27] and that means they have huge networks of roadways to very small populated areas that

[2:34:33] they have to maintain that significant cost.

[2:34:36] Where New Hampshire is a smaller geographic area, and we can put better economies of scale in terms

[2:34:42] of those investments. But what I can say is where we don't have any money targeted toward building

[2:34:48] new roads in Durham, we're simply maintaining what we have, and I don't know which is

[2:34:53] there, if a road is more rural, are you likely to see less wear and tear on it and therefore

[2:35:03] a need to get in and repair it a few or times over time than a more frequently traveled

[2:35:11] rotor has that work? Yeah definitely I think you know certainly you know average daily traffic on roadways

[2:35:19] and the type of traffic plays a big part in the degradation of that roadway and I touched on

[2:35:26] the city logics you know software platform that we use and developing a PCI or a pavement condition

[2:35:32] index but from there we also have another another kind of data point that comes out of that and

[2:35:41] it's called a benefit value index.

[2:35:43] And it's exactly what you just said, hey,

[2:35:45] and we're, we look at average daily traffic,

[2:35:48] cost of repair, longevity of the repair,

[2:35:51] all these different components go into this algorithm

[2:35:55] that then allows us to prioritize some of these,

[2:35:58] some of these on roadways.

[2:36:00] And it'll come out with a plan that is recommended.

[2:36:04] And we then look at that and we use other engineering

[2:36:07] judgment and timing to say, OK, maybe it came out

[2:36:10] with this roadway, but we also have a water management or a sewer replacement, or we know

[2:36:16] the gas company wants to come in there, so we would defer that, so there is a lot of

[2:36:22] the additional analysis that goes into it, it's not just PCI, it's the BVI benefit

[2:36:27] value index that helps drive some of the decisions that we make.

[2:36:31] I think sidewalks is more where we might see that stretch, and like Riverwood is a good

[2:36:37] example where our sidewalk previously did not go out as far as riverwinds. It was on the

[2:36:42] Durham side of the route for overpass. And once riverwinds was constructed, the residents

[2:36:50] there said, well, we want a sidewalk. So, Durham's response is, well, riverwinds if you want

[2:36:54] the sidewalk, you build the sidewalk. So, they paid to build the sidewalk, but we accepted

[2:36:59] the sidewalk. And now, over time, we're going to have to spend text to all this to maintain

[2:37:04] that sidebar. So it does make sense to consolidate development in areas where there are already

[2:37:12] sidewalks. So we don't have to extend infrastructure and maintain it and have additional

[2:37:17] staff to take care of it, etc. Water and sewer lines might be the same scenario. You know,

[2:37:24] it's best to keep it compact rather than long lines going out to very real areas.

[2:37:30] So while we have rich here, I don't know if you're watching the earlier segment of the planning board meeting or not before this.

[2:37:38] Okay. So we're talking about tech drive.

[2:37:41] Yes.

[2:37:42] Do you have a schedule that indicates when tech drive might be on the list of things to read?

[2:37:49] We do. We do.

[2:37:51] It's not in the five-year plan, but we have mentioned to, you know, two Sean and the group at RJ Kelley that

[2:38:02] predominantly the wear and impact of the roadway currently is with the 90 tractor trailers that that road sees each day.

[2:38:13] So, so we are going to have further discussions with them about potential exactions on that roadway to allow for the condition to be improved after their major construction takes place because the truck traffic on that roadway is only going to increase over time.

[2:38:34] So we want to make sure that we have that discussion early on and the same thing goes with the sidewalk that, you know

[2:38:41] You guys keyed in on earlier, you know, we we have those same concerns and that's why we are including that in the the scope

[2:38:49] You know that we'll be working with a pex on

[2:38:53] to look at the traffic impact study that was done and a third-party review

[2:38:57] So I think those are all things we we don't have tech drive in the five-year action plan

[2:39:03] So you won't see that, you know, come through this existing capital plan, but you know, it will need to be, um, it will need to be addressed and we hope that we can work with our Jay Kelly to come up with a, um, reasonable, you know, kind of approach on that.

[2:39:18] Okay. Thank you. One more question also because the other thing is that as you know, we're starting to look at the issue of zoning in the around the central business district area in the built up areas.

[2:39:30] And a question that caught up in an earlier planning board meeting, at least two or three maybe four meetings ago, about what studies exist and part of my ignorance on water and wastewater capacities in those areas.

[2:39:45] So as we're starting to think about what might happen to those in terms of densities and stuff, are we facing limitations or are we all good to go and sort of what what what's the knowledge base that exists that can be shared with the planning board.

[2:39:57] Yeah, it's a great question, Michael, and I think the other thing that we need to think about is not only capacity to collect and treat wastewater or distribute and distribute water, but it's condition of those infrastructure that's there now and can it can support additional capacity, either a collection or distribution and the same thing goes with storm water.

[2:40:25] week we certainly in the downtown area, we do have some constraints on storm water in our closed

[2:40:34] training system and we've addressed a bunch of that with the Madbury Road Project but on the

[2:40:41] other side basically the Teddy Brook side where the Teddy Brook parking lot is and the

[2:40:46] collection system on that side that flows toward Teddy Brook that still has some challenges as far

[2:40:53] is available capacity. In fact, it doesn't have available capacity at this point. It search

[2:41:00] arches, you know, in ten-year storms and floods. You know, it just doesn't have the capacity,

[2:41:06] the pipe capacity for additional flow. So it's not only just, you know, overall the capacity,

[2:41:14] you know, to distribute or collect, but it's also conditioned. We do have, you know, some

[2:41:23] pretty good sense. We had a grant that we received from the state $100,000 to do a West

[2:41:30] and sewer study to determine what type of capacity constraints do we have from the edge

[2:41:39] and this technology drive development and we know that there are some choke points leading

[2:41:47] to the interceptors. So that's the college book interceptor. There's a very small pipe that

[2:41:54] actually under the fire department underneath the railroad and under the building itself. So that's

[2:42:01] something that we have to take into account as we look at, you know, taking on more flow and what the

[2:42:08] you would type of upgrades might be necessary from, you know, the developer over those applicants are.

[2:42:14] So all those things I come into play as we do I get a review of a project that might come in front of the planning for

[2:42:22] Okay, but is there a study that looks at the supply of water and sewage capacity for the areas around downtown?

[2:42:30] Yeah, we have a we have a hydraulic model that we have that underwood engineers is basically has that and we work with them.

[2:42:40] So for example, the RJ Kelly you've heard him ask about the, oh, I'm sorry, I just wanted

[2:42:45] to know if something exists.

[2:42:46] Okay.

[2:42:46] I just don't know how to draw my eye.

[2:42:48] Thank you.

[2:42:51] Rich, so just getting into the wastewater facilities plan, we're asking for $425,000

[2:42:59] to continue to implement some of the components of the wastewater facilities plan.

[2:43:05] This is a plan that this is a request that is split two thirds one-third by UNH and the

[2:43:13] town.

[2:43:14] So we pay for one-third of that UNH pays for two thirds of that.

[2:43:18] All the capital projects are allocated that way.

[2:43:21] You can imagine the wastewater treatment plan and the whole collection system is very,

[2:43:27] very complex.

[2:43:28] it has many, many large pumps, blowers, motors, tankage,

[2:43:33] chemical, equipment, skita, electronics, PLCs,

[2:43:38] you name it and all of these things have a certain useful life.

[2:43:43] We have a master of facilities master plan that allows us,

[2:43:47] in fact, we're in the process of updating that right now.

[2:43:51] That is something that allows us to predict what needs to be replaced,

[2:43:56] what's approaching the end of its useful life, what we need to upgrade from a regulatory standpoint

[2:44:02] to meet our permit conditions and one of the things that is coming down the pike and you'll

[2:44:09] see that I would encourage you to read there is two documents that included this year in the capital

[2:44:16] plan on both the roads and the approach that we're taking in the recommendations, but also on the

[2:44:26] of the upcoming challenges that we have on treatment within a new permit that was issued for

[2:44:32] our wastewater treatment plan having to do with copper and treating copper and managing that

[2:44:39] pollutant. So a lot of this funding that we get the one-third of the 425,000 and the

[2:44:47] two-thirds of the UNH portion goes into that regulatory compliance and upkeep in of the wastewater

[2:44:53] question system and punstations and things like that.

[2:44:58] Just to know that.

[2:45:00] Unlike the fire department agreement with UNH, where we split the cost for operation and capital

[2:45:06] 5050, with the water and wastewater department's capital is 2,3rds UNH, 1,3rd Durham. That's the

[2:45:14] cost here.

[2:45:18] So the last item I just wanted to briefly touch on was the Rink renovation and recreation

[2:45:23] Center project, which is on page 147, you'll see that's targeted for construction in

[2:45:30] 2021. That would be, as envisioned, all fundraising, whether that's viable or not.

[2:45:39] I don't know at this point in time, but I just wanted to flag that for you so you could

[2:45:45] there's a funding in 27 which comes from the Rink Fund 28 requested and then 29 for the major project.

[2:45:56] And I'll note that following Bill's presentation to the planning board last month, we received a call from the

[2:46:15] 20 to 30 thousand dollars to build a trail system at Wagonow Farm. And as part of that

[2:46:22] at the Rink at a Jackson, I'm sorry, at the Rink at Jackson's Laney. And as part of that

[2:46:29] agreement, we committed to relieve everything there, open air and external. So that would,

[2:46:38] It seems preclude us from covering and not covering,

[2:46:44] but making the rink and indoor facility.

[2:46:47] So we're following up with the Division of Parks

[2:46:49] and Recreation just to learn more.

[2:46:53] So stay tuned.

[2:46:56] Or ever?

[2:46:57] Well, that's what they're asserting.

[2:47:00] So we'll see what that, in fact, means in practice.

[2:47:04] But beyond that, we are happy to answer

[2:47:07] And you know, all the questions that you may have.

[2:47:12] Yes, yes.

[2:47:14] Just one.

[2:47:15] I noticed that a lot of the bonding is through

[2:47:17] the New Hampshire and the Municipal Bond.

[2:47:20] I guess that's a bank.

[2:47:22] And it was tagged at 2.9% which seems low to me right now.

[2:47:27] And it seems like I would,

[2:47:29] if you're getting that, that seems like a good right.

[2:47:31] This was wondering what the,

[2:47:33] any ideas of what the rate would be.

[2:47:36] It feels like it would be more

[2:47:37] like mint threes, but I'm not sure.

[2:47:39] And then if that rate changes how much does it impact the ability

[2:47:43] to do these projects?

[2:47:45] Yeah.

[2:47:45] So we will fluctuate between going out and issuing a bond

[2:47:50] ourselves or participating with the Napier Municipal

[2:47:53] Bond Bank.

[2:47:54] The benefit of working with a Bond Bank is it's easier

[2:47:57] on the business office, there are fewer steps

[2:47:59] because they handle most of it.

[2:48:01] And they aggregate the bonding needs of towns and cities

[2:48:04] in school districts and counties to get a better rate.

[2:48:08] And so the rates that you see cited

[2:48:11] are the actual rates from the last issuance,

[2:48:14] and that's the best information they have for us.

[2:48:16] Now, the Federal Reserve just did increase rates

[2:48:19] by the quarter of percent, so that would flow down

[2:48:22] to the bond bank when they issue their next set of debt.

[2:48:27] But this is the best information we have.

[2:48:30] So it's an estimate.

[2:48:36] Just want to recognize and thank Gail Diplomsky. This is her final CIP presentation for a few years of service and great work on behalf of the town.

[2:48:49] Thank you.

[2:48:50] All right.

[2:48:51] Thank you.

[2:48:52] All right. So more to come in the next month and a half will be really vetting all of this much more.

[2:49:00] And finalizing a document which would go to the council for review there and eventually approval and some for.

[2:49:10] Thanks for all that you all do for everything you all do. It's amazing all the details behind the scenes that are not always seen

[2:49:21] But that are taken care of so it's I think you do a terrific job and the details outstanding and so thank you

[2:49:30] The Durham steam is small, but maybe great job

[2:49:43] I want minutes on the agenda, where are we going to move back?

[2:49:49] But I couldn't find it.

[2:49:50] That was a question.

[2:49:51] Go back and pack it.

[2:49:52] Okay, we'll, we'll.

[2:49:55] We'll send them.

[2:49:56] They're not on any work.

[2:49:57] Oh, okay.

[2:49:58] We'll have them for the next meeting then.

[2:50:00] All right.

[2:50:02] Is there any other business?

[2:50:05] I was interested.

[2:50:06] So Mr. Chairman,

[2:50:07] we're not going to give the touted administrator any suggestions or advice.

[2:50:15] Do you have...

[2:50:16] Do we have some suggestions?

[2:50:19] About three or four hours, but so...

[2:50:23] I'll pass it on to him, private.

[2:50:26] Okay.

[2:50:26] That's great.

[2:50:27] I don't mind.

[2:50:28] I really appreciate all the work you put into this.

[2:50:34] But my reaction to this budget from the one last year, the CIP, the last two years before this,

[2:50:43] It's that so much has been pushed off and pushed back.

[2:50:48] We may not be able to afford to do the things we really need to do unless we have a

[2:50:58] lot of millionaires settling here and building back mansions and paying huge taxes and

[2:51:05] not putting any kids in the school system, etc., etc., but I don't see that happening.

[2:51:13] And so I think we're in danger of being an unaffordable community for many people, so.

[2:51:28] But that's the result of having been here when the town offices were in the old courthouse.

[2:51:39] We had a town clerk, we didn't have a town administrator,

[2:51:46] the police station was in the

[2:51:48] courthouse, public works, had a little building in a parking lot, so we have really built

[2:51:57] a wonderful community with many departments, with many employees providing wonderful services,

[2:52:10] but we're going to have to find some way to have more revenue coming in, so I think

[2:52:19] you all know that.

[2:52:21] Thank you, Todd.

[2:52:22] I would just say that with the projects in the CAP that have been

[2:52:31] Again, what you have before is not the final version, but in the initial that evening, the vast majority of them

[2:52:39] are simply continued investment in the infrastructure needed to provide the services that we currently provide in a reliable way.

[2:52:49] There's not a lot of extra in here.

[2:52:53] There's really not any extra in here other than the link.

[2:52:56] The link would be an example.

[2:52:59] That would be something new, something different,

[2:53:02] something better, bigger, providing more services.

[2:53:06] That's a new thing.

[2:53:09] But in replacing the ladder truck or the dump truck

[2:53:12] at public works, the new truck would replace

[2:53:16] And all the truck that really should be replaced because we rely on it, you know, as a frontline vehicle during the most critical times, you know, and for pieces of equipment like that, we've carefully valued whether it would be possible to go electric or go hybrid versus the traditional diesel type vehicle we use and there's not a viable option.

[2:53:40] So we're doing it, we believe in the most efficient way to do that basic important public safety task.

[2:53:51] So anyhow, the Medbury Road can play a street project.

[2:53:56] Much of that was required to do the water needed to be done.

[2:54:00] The wastewater needed to be done. The storm water needed to be done.

[2:54:03] It needed to be repaved.

[2:54:04] for a modest additional investment during got something really special. And could the council

[2:54:13] have chosen not to take that extra step, it could have, but it opted based on a lot of feedback

[2:54:19] from the public to move ahead without enhancement. So we have an enhancement. The Milpine

[2:54:24] Dam is another example. It's a project that we had to do something, it's a big change, there's a cost,

[2:54:31] It's not free, but we had to take action in some way.

[2:54:36] And the council, the town, made a decision.

[2:54:40] So I am just a bit...

[2:54:41] Just a bit.

[2:54:42] If I had one benefit advice to give,

[2:54:46] is that take the very last item in the CIP.

[2:54:51] The item is to purchase Samy's lock from the university

[2:54:55] in 233 for one and a half million dollars.

[2:54:59] I suggest we work to acquire that lock now sooner rather than later so the town would be

[2:55:11] in a better position to negotiate with potential developers who want to take the large

[2:55:20] amount of property on Main Street and the business central business district that backs up

[2:55:26] and he's locked and be able to work out a development plan that will

[2:55:38] integrate that town property with the private properties facing Main Street.

[2:55:44] And frankly, I think the university has taken so many things away from us.

[2:55:49] or a library,

[2:55:52] the pool, which used to be a town pool, et cetera, that it might be time for

[2:56:00] the university to give us something back, to give us Sami's lot.

[2:56:06] I don't know.

[2:56:07] I don't know.

[2:56:08] It would be great.

[2:56:10] I don't know.

[2:56:10] OK.

[2:56:10] Of the projects in the CP, there's a lot to unpack with each of them, but I would just say in terms

[2:56:16] of the samis, also called the store 24-lit, also called the tideski lot.

[2:56:23] We now call it the Bobcat lot, it's the lot behind what is, yeah, was young, is now Clark's.

[2:56:31] That's right.

[2:56:31] It's that lot.

[2:56:32] So Southside.

[2:56:34] So just so people know we're talking, that lot was part of one of the original Thompson

[2:56:40] be quests to the university or to the state, and it literally takes an act of the state

[2:56:46] legislature to sell pieces of that. And the university does not have an interest at the

[2:56:55] present time in going to the legislature for such a request. And my guess is it's unlikely

[2:57:02] the legislature would provide it. And when never knows what they might do with the idea if it's

[2:57:09] to them with the current composition of this or future legislator, so I agree with you, I think

[2:57:16] Durham should own that lot and have tried to move in a way that would allow us to acquire it.

[2:57:23] And in fact, the year ago, I had a serious conversation with the planning team at UNH and the

[2:57:31] finance team at UNH to see whether that might make sense for UNH to sell it to Durham as part of

[2:57:39] the broader edge of West End Project, which would enable Derm to acquire the parcel, you

[2:57:45] would need to receive some cash from Derm that it could then use toward the edge at West

[2:57:51] End Project. But after we go review and put a review, it was determined by you in each

[2:57:58] there was no interest. So that is simply a placeholder. And then I would just note that

[2:58:05] former UNH outdoor pool built during the works project administration was never owned by the

[2:58:12] town of Durham ever. It was always a university of New Hampshire facility owned and operated by

[2:58:18] UNH. Durham made a modest contribution to subsidized the cost of passes for that. But.

[2:58:28] Well, actually, that's an old argument we've had. For a long, a lot of reasons it's time came and

[2:58:34] And we have a new pool, and I would argue, one of the best pools in the state of New Hampshire that's available to Durham residents at no cost, whatever, in terms of building construction or maintenance, Durham got such a deal.

[2:58:50] And we don't have residents swimming in a pool that did not meet any of the modern health and safety standards.

[2:58:59] So, there's that too.

[2:59:01] Thank you, child.

[2:59:03] I'm sorry.

[2:59:05] Great.

[2:59:06] Thank you.

[2:59:08] Motion to adjourn?

[2:59:09] Second.

[2:59:11] All the favor?

[2:59:13] Aye.

[2:59:14] That was a motion to adjourn?

[2:59:16] Yes.

[2:59:16] It was.

[2:59:17] Yes.

[2:59:20] So I'll just say an outside of the room.

[2:59:24] So to join.

Planning Board Meeting 9∕23∕26

Agenda

Transcript