[1:51] Number 23rd meeting of the Durham Plain Board. She'll come to order. We'll start with a roll call. Peter. Peter Howard. Peyton McBannis. Michael Barrett, town planner. Rob Sullivan cannot make it. And I believe Emma Hollander also cannot make it. And Heather Grant as well. And Gary. Oh, and Gary. Gary Whittington. Paul Rasmussen. Sally Tobias. Mike Lerman.

[2:22] All right, so Mike Lairman will be seated as the council rep and Julian Smith will

[2:30] take Rob Sullivan's seat and Peter, if we don't have Richard, you're a Richard

[2:36] Chair. Yeah, actually Peter, you're Gary. Okay. And

[2:47] I need to update. Hold on, I'll update my notes here. There

[2:58] we are. Okay.

[2:59] All right, approval of the agenda, it looks good to me.

[3:04] Anybody else?

[3:05] I move, we've announced it.

[3:07] Second.

[3:08] All in favor.

[3:09] Aye.

[3:12] Oh, are there any planning board members on Zoom?

[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.

[3:32] And the items on the agenda, Paul, 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 with just mostly smaller things.

[3:48] But suggested changes all through the zoning ordinance.

[3:51] And then the second item on the agenda will be the continued discussion of downtown adjacent

[3:56] zoning.

[3:58] Our October meetings are the 14th and the 28th, and then we're having one meeting in November and one on December because of the holidays, the board usually has just one meeting in those months.

[4:11] And I think we did tell you about the, our prospective Newtown planner, Maddie Deiano, who the council was going to hear her

[4:26] vote on her appointment at the meeting last week and fortune there wasn't a quorum at the council meeting, so that's back 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, but she's tentatively starting work pending the council's action on Monday, October 5th, 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.

[5:10] And Maddie will be able to join us for the October and the November meetings as well.

[5:19] That's it.

[5:22] Any questions, comments for Mr. Brant?

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

[5:34] I do have something that's energy to be related.

[5:37] The state has just opened up another grant program for type 2 EV chargers.

[5:48] Charging infrastructure at travel and tourism oriented locations across New Hampshire.

[5:53] So if anybody has any thoughts about a place in town that might qualify, let the Energy Committee know.

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

[6:03] Jackson Rank.

[6:04] All right.

[6:05] Tourism.

[6:06] Let me.

[6:07] Visitors.

[6:09] Transit.

[6:10] Lots of people going by.

[6:11] It's right by reform.

[6:13] Jackson

[6:18] Rank for.

[6:21] Town hall would be good too.

[6:23] Peyton could charge.

[6:25] I think wagon hill.

[6:34] All right, thank you, and any other committee reports?

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

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

[6:52] Yeah, I gave a planning board report 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?

[7:09] That was continued.

[7:10] Well, we didn't have the quorum with the last meeting, so that was continued to the 28th.

[7:17] So, yeah, it's been 20 minutes and it's coming one day.

[7:19] Thank you.

[7:21] Thank you.

[7:25] All right.

[7:25] Review of old minutes of August 12th.

[7:35] I don't know.

[7:35] How do you think?

[7:39] I gave Michael some small corrections.

[7:41] I assume they're in this.

[7:44] They do not, but they will be all the ones

[7:46] that are straightforward.

[7:48] Then I'll move will you adopt these as presented?

[7:53] Second.

[7:53] Anyone else has something?

[7:57] All in favor of acceptance.

[7:59] I.

[7:59] All right.

[8:00] Post.

[8:01] All right.

[8:03] Public comment.

[8:04] Oh, I skipped over public comments.

[8:06] Anyone here with public comments?

[8:11] We'll move on to our next item, Mr. Berry.

[8:14] No, you're not Mr. Berry.

[8:16] Oh, you're actually in the stock.

[8:18] I thought you were, you know, you're just like our fire department folks.

[8:21] Okay.

[8:23] So I thought you were here for the CIP.

[8:25] Okay.

[8:29] Public hearing for 73, Biscatico Road Subdivision.

[8:31] Formal application for a three lot subdivision of 20 acres at Lot 73 to Scaticle Road,

[8:37] construction of new private road to access lots.

[8:40] William Goldstein, property owner, Chris Berry of Berry Surveying and Engineering Surveyor.

[8:45] Matt, P209, Lot 42 in a residence coastal district, and you are a different Mr. Berry.

[8:54] That is correct, Joe Berry of Berry Surveying.

[8:57] Chris couldn't make it to the mic, so he asked me to step in from.

[9:01] I know you guys have seen this project a handful of times, so I guess if you want to let me know if 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, 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.

[9:32] Right.

[9:34] So for item 19, we have numerous requirements and road regulations.

[9:37] Oh, I'm sorry. Plus all the waivers for the road, right?

[9:40] Right. As well as the requirement to bury existing overhead electric lines.

[9:46] And so is that, is item 19 correct as written?

[9:52] Yes.

[9:52] Okay.

[9:54] Then, yes, please.

[9:56] Let's go over the waivers first.

[9:57] Okay, one by one or do you know what ten of them are all for the road?

[10:01] Do you want to wrap them all into one or yeah?

[10:04] All right, so waiver number one is to the road regulations section four, item 4.02

[10:12] to have minimum 20 foot wide pavement.

[10:16] The second one is road regulations section four, item 4.03, shoulder width.

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

[10:30] The fourth is item 4.08, base and top course paving requirements.

[10:36] Number five is 4.09, gravel shoulder required.

[10:42] Let me pause here.

[10:43] So, basically the road is going to stay as it is at this point.

[10:47] Right, so they're just in driveway.

[10:49] They don't want to have to meet the road standards impact wetland buffers, potentially wetlands.

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

[10:57] No, none of the departments had concerns.

[11:00] No issues from any other departments.

[11:02] All right, does anybody on the planning board have questions about these road waivers?

[11:09] Nope.

[11:10] No.

[11:11] All right.

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

[11:15] Now, the overhead electric lines, and again, we basically just want to keep the site the way

[11:21] it is.

[11:22] Correct.

[11:22] Yeah, there's an existing utility pole just passed. I believe it's pronounced neomire driveway

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

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

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

[11:44] Yes, Mike one question going back to the road. Okay. Sorry, but I remembered what at the site walk

[11:50] There was some discussion about making a wide spot in the road for cars and vehicles to pass.

[11:57] That was, and that just got let go or it was being sent to the fire department for review.

[12:04] Okay.

[12:05] And that was good.

[12:06] And they seem to be okay.

[12:06] Okay.

[12:07] All right.

[12:08] Thank you.

[12:10] Okay.

[12:10] So, yeah, with the overhead electric, they want to leave this site as is, and not disturb the overhead power going to the site or the abutting lot, and that's the reason why, and that's the final waiver.

[12:27] And so the main reason for that is that that polls actually servicing and adjacent property that's not part of the subdivision.

[12:40] and changing it to underground from the road

[12:42] would require giving them a headache for that.

[12:49] What do people think?

[12:53] I mean, all the net new will be underground, right?

[12:56] It's just gonna, you're gonna use that existing above ground

[12:59] and then you're gonna come down

[13:00] and then the rest is gonna be run underground.

[13:03] Correct.

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

[13:06] and if they were to build a new structure,

[13:08] sure they would go underground as well.

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

[13:23] Yeah, you can approve them separately or as part of the whole thing that's wrapped into

[13:28] it.

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

[13:30] I wanted to clarify that.

[13:34] Let's see, then we

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

[13:51] We haven't.

[13:53] Right?

[13:53] This is not a continued public hearing.

[13:55] We start the public hearing tonight.

[13:56] Right.

[13:57] Yeah.

[13:57] All right.

[13:59] Do you want to motion to open the public hearing?

[14:02] I'm sure.

[14:03] So moved.

[14:05] Second.

[14:06] Second.

[14:06] All in favor?

[14:07] All right.

[14:08] All right.

[14:09] All right.

[14:09] Wait, is there anyone here for the public who'd like to speak?

[14:18] My name is Jack Rosenberger, and I have quite a lot of 50 directly adjacent to the proposed new lot containing the existing garage.

[14:26] I want to start with a little context about why this issue matters to my family.

[14:29] Before moving to Durham, we lived in Massachusetts and had a difficult experience with a tear down and rebuild immediately next door to us.

[14:36] The existing house was replaced with a new house built essentially to the setback limit.

[14:39] A significant tree between the houses was removed and windows and the new house ended up directly aligned with windows and ours.

[14:46] There's always a very substantial and permanent loss of privacy.

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

[14:52] One of the things we value about this community is its wooded character, mature trees, houses with separation from one another,

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

[15:02] I understand that this subdivision would create a separate, buildable residential lot directly beside our property. I'm not objecting to the fact that a house may essentially be built there. What concerns me is approving that buildable lot now without knowing where the future houses anticipated to go and without addressing what happens to the substantial existing vegetation between that lot an hours. Once those trees are removed and a house is built, there's no practical way to restore the privacy that exists today.

[15:30] I spoke with Michael about this.

[15:31] My understanding is that the town's position is that the planning board cannot simply impose

[15:35] a permanent buffer along the property line and that the landscaping provisions do not

[15:39] apply here.

[15:40] He suggested I raise the issue with the board and ask the property owner whether he would

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

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

[15:48] Mr. Goldstein is not here, but I would ask whether he would agree to preserve a reasonable

[15:52] vegetated buffer along the lot 50 boundary and have that protection recorded as part

[15:56] of the subdivision.

[15:57] I'm not asking for an area in which no tree could ever be touched because the reasonable

[16:01] restriction could allow removal of dead or hazardous trees, management of invasive species

[16:05] necessary utility work while preserving the basic screening function of existing vegetation.

[16:10] I'd also like to raise one related question about Article 22 of the zoning ordinance.

[16:15] Section 175-114 says that the landscaping article applies to subdivisions where a new street

[16:21] is involved.

[16:22] And the town's zone material is described as a new private road and described the existing

[16:26] and try driveways being proposed for uses

[16:28] that new private road.

[16:30] Article 22 also speaks about retaining healthy forest cover

[16:33] and contemplates landscaping and reforestation plants

[16:36] that can provide screens and buffer strips

[16:37] and critical locations.

[16:39] I understand the town believes those provisions

[16:41] do not apply here because the physical driveway

[16:43] always already exists.

[16:45] I don't want to turn tonight's hearing

[16:46] to a legal argument about that interpretation,

[16:49] but I'd appreciate clarification of its basis.

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

[16:53] from Article 22 or through a voluntary agreement

[16:55] with the applicant, I think the underlying planning objective is the same, preserving

[16:58] the wooded character of the area and addressing a foreseeable impact of creating a new residential

[17:02] building lot. I also think it would be helpful for the applicants to show where a future

[17:07] house on this lot is reasonably anticipated to be located. The subdivision regulations

[17:12] forced up design process calls for potential building sites to be tentatively located

[17:17] before streets and lot lines are finalized. I'm not suggesting the ownership would necessarily

[17:21] be permanently bound to one exact footprint but without even a tentative building location

[17:25] it's difficult for the board or the abouters to understand how this new lot may actually affect

[17:29] the neighboring properties. My concern is if these questions are left entirely until later they may

[17:34] not be another meaningful opportunity to address them. Once the subdivisions recorded and otherwise

[17:38] conforming single-family house may proceed through the building permit process without returning to

[17:43] the planning board. So I'm asking for three things. First clarification of whether article 22 applies

[17:48] and if the town believes it does not the basis for that interpretation.

[17:52] Second, identification of at least a tentative future building location on the garage lot

[17:56] so that its impacts can be understood now.

[17:58] And third, and most importantly, I'm asking the applicant to agree to a reasonable recorded

[18:01] vegetative buffer along our common boundary with appropriate exceptions so the existing screening

[18:05] and wood character as part of Durham are not unnecessarily lost.

[18:09] I think that would allow the property to be developed to also provide some predictability

[18:12] and reasonable protection for the existing neighborhood.

[18:15] Thank you.

[18:16] All right.

[18:22] I'm sorry. I missed your name in the very beginning. I apologize. Jeff Rosenberger and in terms of in relation to the lot, which exact property are you on?

[18:38] So do you see where the proposed new line between the rear house and the one, the garage.

[18:51] So you're up on share water and so you back up your lot backs from share water backs up

[18:58] on the back of that. Yeah, sure, sure, water is over here. Yeah. Yeah. And I'm, yeah, I am

[19:09] looking at it and it looks like you're only the corner's meat between you and the garage

[19:17] lot.

[19:21] It's more than, it depends what you mean by corner. Like it's not just a corner.

[19:30] There's

[19:33] Yeah, it won't reach it won't reach I see that but but that property is that's

[19:45] for the existing house

[19:48] It's going to be a budding your rear line

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

[19:56] Where the garage is yeah, it's the lot that they just think garage is on that about my property

[20:03] right so this is Michael yeah right that's the that's the new new proposed line

[20:09] right I'm I look at that I think that's the soils line okay let me so we have

[20:18] to show us the new property line she to she to yeah okay does extend further

[20:25] All right, very good, very good.

[20:35] And,

[20:38] right, so the do

[20:46] -do-do-do

[20:54] is there or is there.

[20:56] So she shows the 50-foot setbacks.

[20:59] It shows the 50-foot setbacks, which effectively

[21:02] creates two potential areas for a house.

[21:05] There's the one back there where the garage is now,

[21:09] and then there's one down near on the other side

[21:12] of the wetland at the corner.

[21:21] So those do do do and

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

[21:32] buildable areas with regards to that five and a half acre lot.

[21:43] Now, can we put sheep two up on the screen maybe so that and maybe even so we're discussing

[21:56] Mr. Rosenberg, you can see it as well as what's on him.

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

[22:01] Right.

[22:03] Yep, there.

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

[22:07] You can see the whole lot.

[22:09] Yeah, so you can see the whole lot.

[22:11] Yeah, fine.

[22:11] Okay.

[22:12] All right, yes.

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

[22:18] A house could be built.

[22:21] And we generally do that to ensure that setbacks and such are capable of being done because

[22:30] they'll need to run sewer and well on this as well.

[22:38] Correct.

[22:39] They'll need a subsequent well there.

[22:42] Yeah.

[22:44] So we have on sheet three, which is up on the screen now.

[22:47] So we shall propose a well location just downhill towards the Scaticor road at the garage.

[22:54] 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.

[23:03] But that's the biggest area to build.

[23:06] And most likely the house would be uphill of that to have the septic go gravity to a leaching area.

[23:13] Yeah, that's the stoke it confused. That's the soil line cutting through a little not the lot

[23:21] Which which direction and you said uphill by I can't read that

[23:25] So actually there's a little mound so the garage sits on a little knob and

[23:32] So they can go uphill

[23:34] slightly towards the

[23:37] Existing house on not 42

[23:39] two, so there's a couple of different places they could build.

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

[23:47] It's all within the setbacks, and they

[23:50] could make the sewer work with the test pitch shown.

[23:55] So it would most likely be either towards the existing house

[23:58] or towards the garage and not towards the back.

[24:03] Like my abutting line, or it would be unlikely.

[24:12] I mean, at least field could go elsewhere, too.

[24:15] Leach field could go elsewhere, it could probably slide down the hill and build it up a little bit if they wanted to.

[24:21] Yeah, correct, in the house.

[24:23] We did two test pits to prove for the subdivision that it's suitable soils so they could put the septic closer to lot 42's house and build right behind the garage.

[24:34] They could build a house right where it says, proposed 4K leaching area.

[24:39] So there's a pretty substantial building envelope there, and with no plans to build at the moment, it's hard to say, this is where the house is going to go.

[24:58] Thoughts, people?

[25:00] So Michael, just refresh us all, or particularly at least me anyway, with regard to the 50 foot setback there, what are the provisions in terms of maintaining any vegetative buffer that's there now?

[25:15] No, there's none. It's only a setback from structures.

[25:22] In that area is vegetated now.

[25:25] Yeah.

[25:25] Where's that here?

[25:27] Is it lots of trees?

[25:29] Yep.

[25:30] Yeah, I have the plan to overlay it on a satellite photo if it's helpful.

[25:34] Yeah.

[25:37] That existing garage that's there, can you see that from your property right now?

[25:43] Right now, no, in the winter, yes.

[25:45] Right, when the leaves drop, yes.

[25:47] But yeah, I didn't know it was there or the existing house for that matter until the first

[25:52] winter we were here.

[25:54] Yeah.

[25:54] At least drop and say, where's the driveway for that house?

[26:10] You're not, you haven't really had discussions with the owner regarding a vegetative buffer.

[26:18] No, this is the first time it's come up.

[26:20] I don't want to necessarily agree to leaving the buffer, but I assume anyone who builds here also doesn't want to look at the back of Mr. Rosenberg's house.

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

[26:37] So no one, I don't foresee someone building a house there, clear-cutting the lot to look into his backyard.

[26:44] That's just the way I see it.

[26:47] Yeah, it's not, I would agree with you that building lot 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

[27:07] it down in it, great expense to, I mean, they could have just said something clear cut it,

[27:10] But how would we deal with there's no way we can guarantee that and even I mean what is the what is the abilities of the owner of the lot to create that this falls into that the

[27:32] applicant if Mr. Goldstein the owner agreed to he could

[27:38] We could agree to anything as part of something.

[27:40] Are you going to make that a condition of approval?

[27:42] The planning board cannot require this.

[27:44] That becomes a question of whether or not the owner

[27:48] would want to do that on their own,

[27:53] which they could also simply do within the deed.

[27:57] Yep, they could.

[28:00] In fact, it probably is stronger if it's done via the deed.

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

[28:17] single family houses, that's not within, as much as it sounds like as we should be able

[28:25] to have the authority for that, we don't.

[28:29] So my only point on that regard is whether the Article 22 of the zoning ordinance applies.

[28:38] I was going to move on to that next.

[28:40] 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 at a conservation subdivision.

[28:55] But there's landscaping provisions there, but they don't apply to a conventional single-family line.

[29:01] So those are for conservation subdivision, that's a different, that's not the article.

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

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

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

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

[30:10] But it's, it's like an imposed on a sudden land, trees of special interest. I mean, theoretically, you could if there was, if there was, for example, trees of special number four, trees of special interest.

[30:25] You know,

[30:31] for example, if there was a great tree on an individual lot, you could specify

[30:35] that that tree be protected.

[30:40] You know, if there were, as part of a subdivision, if you identify specific resources on individual

[30:47] lots, stone walls, archaeological resources, you could require that those, specify those

[30:56] be preserved on individual lots, but not, you know, broader, you know, natural areas

[31:07] be preserved as wooded areas.

[31:09] Yeah, I understand where Mr. Rosenberger is confused because the opening paragraph does

[31:21] So does blend itself to be misinterpreted?

[31:24] It does.

[31:25] Yeah.

[31:32] That's one of the things I'm going to show you next week.

[31:35] Revisions.

[31:36] I'm trying to clean this up.

[31:38] All right.

[31:39] So one more question.

[31:41] Procedural question for Michael, please.

[31:44] If Mr. Rosenberger wanted to contact the current owner

[31:48] and talk about creating some sort of buffer that

[31:52] might be recorded in a deed, is that

[31:56] And if the applicant now was agreeable to that, could that become a part of the condition of the variance

[32:05] painting?

[32:05] Yeah, I would suggest including a condition on this that I would suggest approving it if there's no significant

[32:13] concerns, and including a condition on here under planned modifications that in the event that this

[32:21] This gentleman works out some arrangement with the property owner, and the property owner is willing to include that as a condition of approval, that will be identified on the final plans.

[32:34] So that might be an option for you to pursue.

[32:38] Yeah, if you approve the plans with the condition of maybe doing that in the future.

[32:43] That?

[32:44] No.

[32:44] What I was asking the question, the procedural question is, if you spoke with the current

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

[32:57] or whatever along the property line near your house, that could be conveyed to the planning

[33:03] board by the applicant and that could become, then, a condition of the variance being

[33:08] granted in the future, if I understand.

[33:10] So yeah, I mean, that can you could take action on this application tonight and include that contingent condition.

[33:17] So you say you approve it tonight and in a week or two or a month, Mr. Goldstein tells me I'm okay with a 50 foot non-wooded buffer.

[33:27] I'm okay with that being a condition, then Mr. Bairry includes it on the recorded plans.

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

[33:40] We have a contingent and we don't know what there's nothing in it.

[33:46] Somebody who picks us up five years from now, there's nothing for the person to know what

[33:51] the answer was there.

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

[33:58] approval that it nothing happens.

[34:01] It just goes away.

[34:02] Yeah, because we can't require it.

[34:04] No, no.

[34:06] But I know Mr. Goldstein.

[34:07] I mean, I'm sure he would give us an answer.

[34:13] So does that mean we would take action on it tonight?

[34:16] Or would we would take action on it tonight?

[34:18] We would take action on it tonight.

[34:19] There would be this effectively a contingence,

[34:22] a precedent condition of Mr. Goldstein getting back to us,

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

[34:31] Yeah, I mean, he could just tell me,

[34:32] And then I would let Mr. Barry know on your final plans, show this buffer or not, you know, the way they are.

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

[34:42] So you would, in the wording, you would say, if that arrangement does happen that the said situation shall be put on.

[34:51] Showing on the plans accordingly.

[34:53] And, and be a condition.

[34:53] And recording is part of the deep way.

[34:55] Right, right.

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

[35:03] 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] and see what they work out.

[35:14] But it's it's ready to be approved and if Mr. Berry wants really wants action tonight,

[35:21] It would not be, I don't think it would be appropriate to delay that.

[35:26] But maybe if they're not in any rush, maybe they'd do only to do that.

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

[35:33] It's unfortunate that it looks like the trees were cut on the butting lot all the way to the lot line.

[35:39] So now we have the buffer on our lot, I'm guessing Mr. Goldstein might be willing to do something.

[35:46] If you look at the existing house on not 42, there's 150 feet worth of trees still left fully wooded, so I don't anticipate that area to be cut, but I would leave.

[35:58] I would be willing to leave it at work it out with the landowners, we can put it on the final recorded plan if a buffer was a creed to.

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

[36:17] can work out what it's going to be.

[36:21] Mr. Barrett will write up the contingency item, whatever you'd like to.

[36:27] Yeah, it would be along the lines, I would add this as a condition for underplan modifications.

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

[36:55] 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 I don't hear otherwise from Mr. Goldstein, then it's assumed it's not happening.

[37:11] And then they would just give us the final plans and a month or two and record them.

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

[37:21] But just to speak to that, just for one second, it seems like this is the point of a public

[37:29] comment, which is to raise a concern, and an abutters raised a concern that seems like

[37:38] a real concern, and that if we move forward in the manner that I think is being proposed,

[37:45] it seems like sort of all the wind is out of the sail, if you will.

[37:48] 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 and while it's in front of us, before it moves forward and sort of becomes non-existent.

[38:04] So I would, it would seem to me that we may want to pause on that for a brief period of time and see if the two parties can sort of work something out that then is,

[38:15] let's say codified in some language or then that we can look at and know that

[38:22] something's taken place. So I would sort of pause, I think, on this a little and

[38:27] say that we've heard a public comment, the public comment seems to me to be

[38:31] real and that we may want to pause on that and not move forward. That's just the

[38:38] thought. And I guess given the fact that we have a meeting in one week this could

[38:43] be dealt with rather rapidly if the board is willing to say, okay, we can take five minutes

[38:51] at the beginning of the next meeting and if they've got an agreement cemented, gets voted

[38:58] on and it's approved, so when we delay, if they don't then go ahead and improve it anyway.

[39:04] My only concern is the only reason for us to delay would be because of something that we

[39:12] We don't have the purview over, we don't have the right to stop anyways.

[39:16] And that's my only point of contention in waiting is that we don't have the right to stop,

[39:25] to acquire it, and we don't have the right to tell anybody they can't, you know, cut

[39:34] 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

[39:45] 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

[39:53] really have the right to hold them up for, might be.

[39:57] I agree with Sally and I think we should move on to see if anyone else has anything at

[40:04] public hearing. So I agree. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rosenberg. Are there any other

[40:13] public comments?

[40:19] Anybody that I know if we close the public hearing? Second.

[40:25] All in favor?

[40:31] So I'm with Sally and Julian. I think that, you know, we don't have a reason to not take action

[40:37] tonight. But we can continue, we can set up the, set the table for the neighbors to have a discussion

[40:47] and to come to an agreement that can be included within the action.

[40:56] Is that acceptable to everybody?

[40:57] Just a question for Michael first, and I agree with this, but could you clarify

[41:03] By deed versus dealing with this in the deed that is outside the planning board

[41:08] process as opposed to the subdivision plan.

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

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

[41:22] They could do that privately with the deed, independent of the board.

[41:28] But there is an advantage, I mean, if they do come to agreement, there's a benefit to

[41:32] on the plan.

[41:33] Yes, I understand.

[41:38] The discussion?

[41:39] Is this making noise?

[41:40] No.

[41:42] Okay.

[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 realized should be added.

[41:53] Under Plan Notes, a condition 8, that should say any new electric lines serving

[42:01] the lots shall be placed underground.

[42:03] Plan notes.

[42:04] just so there's no question about that which would be the vacant lot a lot

[42:10] with the garage plan notes on this school impact fees number eight yeah just

[42:16] added in there anywhere under plan notes okay now do we have to have a separate

[42:22] motion to prove the waivers you can if you want or you can just we can do it as

[42:29] Part of the full approval.

[42:33] All

[42:36] right, so the modification to would be the electrical,

[42:42] you just mentioned.

[42:43] Yeah.

[42:44] And this plan modification note.

[42:49] With the regarding a buffer.

[42:51] Regarding a buffer.

[42:52] In the event.

[42:52] Yes, amenable.

[42:54] All right.

[42:55] So those are the two modifications to the notice of decision

[42:59] tonight. You're okay with the notice of decision otherwise?

[43:03] Yep. I mean, I'm okay with those two new ones.

[43:08] Okay. And I

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

[43:22] Piscatical Road, property owner William Goldstein, map 209, lap 42 in the residents' coastal

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

[43:38] Second. Any further discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right.

[43:48] I'll abstain. One abstention.

[43:52] All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Good luck with your conversation.

[44:11] The next item will be a public carrying for 121 technology drive, light industry buildings, site plan application for two light industrial or warehouse buildings, each with 160,000 square feet, 450 parking spaces and other improvements, conditional use application for activity within 75 foot wetland buffer, lot line adjustment application.

[44:34] R.J. Kelly, here's Sean Smith, owner,

[44:36] budget Susan, Matt Peterson for Keach Nordstrom Engineer,

[44:40] Matt 204, lots one in two in the office research

[44:43] light industry district.

[44:45] Focus of the discussion will be on storm water

[44:48] and the conditional use request tonight.

[44:59] Just one.

[45:00] All in a minute, Mr. Chair, well, I guess you're right.

[45:04] We're definitely going to want to see your drawings or data.

[45:21] So, Matt Peterson is not with us this evening. But we do have Brendan Quigley and Bridgett here. And for the record, Sean Smith, RJ Kelly, co, you're on behalf of ownership.

[45:36] As I pull up my PC here, we'll get going in. Mr. Chair, as you stated,

[45:41] We'll be focusing on the conditional use permits and the storm water the

[45:46] evening to give a little bit more color on the storm water specifically.

[45:52] And have a conversation about the two conditional uses that we have proposed here to discuss and have a conversation.

[46:01] So

[46:19] would the board prefer to start on any particular item or otherwise I think we'd probably start with the storm water piece.

[46:27] Start water, please.

[46:42] Show us where the water goes.

[46:44] It's the name of the presentation.

[46:46] I'll have to be up here.

[46:47] This way.

[46:48] Yeah.

[46:48] Okay.

[46:51] Thank you for your patience.

[46:58] All right.

[46:58] So Bridgette will do most of the talking on this one.

[47:02] She's the one who designed everything here.

[47:04] So she can give you a good rundown of how things are working.

[47:07] And I'll just try to keep up, I guess.

[47:08] Yeah.

[47:09] And we can send this to you guys after this meeting so that the entire

[47:14] board can take a look at it a little more detailed.

[47:15] but essentially this is the Great and Endrainage Plan. I did a full site overview for you guys for

[47:23] readability. In the green lines, those are the subcatchment areas that are a part of the

[47:32] drainage analysis. So it's like the area breakout that goes to each drainage structure, whether that's

[47:39] roof drain or a catch basin or directly to a pond.

[47:44] In the purple, we have the actual drain lines.

[47:49] And then I also circled all of the catch basin locations

[47:54] in red and the roof drain locations in orange.

[48:01] And then I included some flow arrows on here.

[48:04] So if you want to just zoom into any section.

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

[48:13] 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 into this area.

[48:30] So we'll start with the catch basins, right?

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

[48:43] The entire perimeter is curved, so any stormwater that hits pavement within this new proposed

[48:51] area is captured by a catch 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 hydrocarbons, 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 these structures

[49:30] to be inspected.

[49:31] And then the standard protocol is once the deep sump 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.

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

[49:52] I think it's important to point out.

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

[50:00] It removes that chance for a vacuum,

[50:05] so that those hydrocarbons in the trash stay on the surface

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

[50:12] So from the catch basins, it moves

[50:14] through a series of pipes to drain manhole structures and eventually to one of four

[50:20] ponds on the site? If we could just pause for a minute. Are there any questions on how

[50:26] this catch basin sort of functions as its first step? One question, your presentation.

[50:31] Thank you. Just curiosity questions. So in terms of the capacity, I assume this is like a typical

[50:36] catch basin, but if there was a spill from say a truck diesel tank, 80 gallons or so spill,

[50:44] 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

[50:57] It is below the outlet.

[51:00] So you're talking about a foot within a four or five foot structure, quick math in my

[51:09] head.

[51:10] I do think it's a point to note on an event such as that.

[51:16] The first step is spill response, right?

[51:19] Every single user of that nature would be required to have spill response get the

[51:27] It's on site adequate to manage something of their larger nature, right?

[51:33] So absorb to the pads, some people throw kiddie litter and nobody really does that anymore.

[51:38] But anything that would soak up the oils and prevent it from running off and then be

[51:42] able to collect it in a way that it would keep it from getting here at first place, right?

[51:46] So a spill like that is normally handled immediately on site in that particular location before it

[51:52] gets to one of these any sort of residual would be the point of this basis.

[51:56] How many catchabasants will there be for these two new buildings?

[52:01] I don't know the exact number we can zoom out.

[52:04] There's quite a few.

[52:07] Now you can see every, I am sorry I'm about to run here, every single one of these red dots.

[52:12] Is it catchabas?

[52:14] Is it catchabas?

[52:14] And they all have a snout, right?

[52:16] Yeah, they would all be equipped with one.

[52:17] So especially in the lines that are sequential from a catch basin to a catch basin to a catch basin there be more capacity to collect even more hydrocarbons.

[52:33] Okay.

[52:33] Yeah.

[52:34] What percent of catch basins installed on projects do you have that snout 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 not, it just depends

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

[52:59] one of those.

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

[53:06] New Hampshire, other areas in New England, sometimes you have like an area drain or catch

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

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

[53:23] off as people's offerings is what they do. Sometimes those don't come with the sound, but in general

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

[53:35] All right. Any more questions?

[53:36] What were on the oil?

[53:38] Do most of the spill response plans start at those catch basins, or do they wait until the oil is migrated to the retention of detention?

[53:50] No, those are immediate, so like there's something on the pavement, we've got to soak it up and get ready.

[53:57] Yep.

[53:59] And a lot of those businesses, like they're required to have that prepared.

[54:03] and it's reviewed and submitted to either the state or federal all right so for the upper

[54:12] parking area and the lower parking area so the parking areas to the north and the south and then

[54:18] the drive aisle around the perimeter those series of catch basins pipes and manholes they are directly

[54:29] connected to one of three gravel wetlands.

[54:34] The parking court for the tractor trailers in the middle,

[54:38] that first goes to a dry detention pond.

[54:42] So it comes into a sediment for bay.

[54:45] Sediment for bay allows more time for sediments to fall out.

[54:52] 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 that velocity of the water

[55:03] From there it spills over into the storage area. I just included a

[55:08] picture of a typical dry detention. You can see the inlet area

[55:14] There is some stone rip wrap there. R is more of what would be required for a full pond even though a dry detention

[55:23] Pond doesn't provide treatment per New Hampshire standards.

[55:29] We wanted to make sure we included an actual structural sediment for bay to allow more time for sediment fallout.

[55:38] So once it collects in the for bay, it makes its way through the pond into the outlet structure.

[55:45] And then that outlet structure is directed to the third gravel wetland on the site.

[55:52] So, once we get to a gravel wetland, we have a four bay in each one of the three.

[55:59] Sean, there's an image further down, 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.

[56:14] This is just an image taken from the New Hampshire Stormwater handbook, so your

[56:22] 4-B would be off screen to the left. So it spills over from the 4-B. It goes into

[56:28] a bonding area, the first treatment cell for the gravel wetlands, and inside

[56:36] those gravel wetlands there would be some standpipes. You'd have a larger typical

[56:41] two foot, and then you'd have a series of eight inch diameter pipes that are

[56:46] perforated. It allows that stormwater to go into the gravel underneath a

[56:52] wetland layer that is vegetated. So this area, the gravel wetland area, excuse me,

[56:59] the gravel area underneath that substrate. That area is an anaerobic area, so it

[57:06] allows a breakdown of between oxygen to break down nitrogen and phosphorus, your two

[57:15] biggest concerns for your pollutants, to break them down to a level where the vegetation

[57:22] above them can actually pull them up those nutrients from their roots and provide nutrients

[57:30] for that growth, right?

[57:34] Your water, gravel wetlands is more of a horizontal motion

[57:37] for treatment, so it makes its way through that treatment cell,

[57:41] and then it goes into an under drain within the gravel,

[57:45] and it makes its way into a second treatment cell,

[57:48] where it gets more time for those nutrients to be absorbed.

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

[57:58] where there's an under drain connected to it and then your lowest orifice, your smallest

[58:04] hole coming out of that structure before it outlets out of the pond, is located at

[58:14] that substrate area where the vegetation grows. So, your gravel layer is always saturated

[58:23] So, it's always promoting treatment of any water that's in there.

[58:30] So in your low flow storms, there are small ones where it's one inch or two year storm.

[58:37] You'd have flow out of the outlet control structure.

[58:42] And then in your larger storms, these ponds were sized to hold up to 100 year storm.

[58:49] So, you're talking about, I believe it's approximately eight inches of rain over 24-hour

[58:54] period.

[58:55] So, we're holding all that water in that pond and then the outlet structure is equipped

[59:00] with, you know, larger holes, orfaces in order to let some of that water out for the largest

[59:06] forms so that we have a full, you have a full drawdown with the exception of that gravel

[59:14] layer to allow the pond to drain within 72 hours. And that's per requirements of New Hampshire,

[59:24] Stormwater Manual. Any questions first before I continue?

[59:31] We're good. Okay. So I want to discuss

[59:35] why gravel wetlands are chosen on this site.

[59:40] As we know, UNH is very big in determining and studying

[59:44] and do an analysis of storm water throughout the state.

[59:50] The state of New Hampshire DES has worked with UNH to develop the most recent storm water

[59:56] a 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

[1:00:11] of their regulations for alteration of terrain when you disturb more than 100,000 square feet,

[1:00:18] what your options are, depending on what your downstream receiving waters are. So as you

[1:00:25] There's no Oyster River is very important to you.

[1:00:28] It's classified as a Class A surface water, and in the regulations presented by the state,

[1:00:36] there's only two options for treatment on a site that drinks to a receiving water that's designated as a Class A.

[1:00:45] And Gravel Wetlands is one of them, a buyer retention with additional internal storage is the other.

[1:00:53] They both operate in a very similar manner.

[1:00:56] You have an area where you're allowing vegetation or a filter media to grab some of those

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

[1:01:11] Actually where this regulation is pointed out in the AOT regulations is under discharged

[1:01:20] minimization requirements.

[1:01:21] It's not even listed in a separate section, like a treatment soil or an infiltration chamber

[1:01:29] system would be.

[1:01:30] It's actually listed for the record, 1507.03 is the section.

[1:01:38] 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 A surface water, which we are.

[1:01:53] And gravel wetland is right at the top of the list for those, so that's why we chose

[1:01:57] that option.

[1:01:58] It's one of the best treatment options out there, especially on properties where you cannot

[1:02:05] promote infiltration like this one.

[1:02:09] We have any more questions.

[1:02:11] What happens when a gravel wetland becomes clogged with silt?

[1:02:20] So we put those upstream treatment trains in for a reason, right?

[1:02:26] So as long as you are taking care of your scheduled maintenance, so that's every spring and

[1:02:37] In every fall, there's requirements, and then within the first five years for gravel, wetland especially, there's additional, so it's a quarter a year, you're inspecting these.

[1:02:46] So as long as you're doing those things, you shouldn't have a problem.

[1:02:50] But in that case, the under drain, being connected to those perforated pipe stand pipes that allow, it would allow some opportunity to clean that out.

[1:03:01] But worst case scenario, you have to remove gravel and then replace the gravel.

[1:03:07] But there's been some studies done by UNH that show a great lifespan for gravel wetlands.

[1:03:14] You know, I think the last one that I just read was 20 years, and the pollutant removal

[1:03:21] loads were practically identical 20 years apart, so it's a very good option.

[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 a new storm water treatment trains.

[1:03:37] They're including gravel wetlands.

[1:03:39] So there's a few I know right off of route four as you go up towards 16 in Dover.

[1:03:46] There's a few cells there.

[1:03:48] And there's some off of 93 when they did all the road work for the expansion of adding

[1:03:55] that lane on 93 in the Windamaria.

[1:03:59] So if you look around, they're all over the state, but it's a very vital option, especially

[1:04:04] when you're trying to remove pollutants like nitrogen, phosphorus, and even zinc.

[1:04:11] And when these catchabasins are cleaned out, where does the material letters were moved go?

[1:04:17] So they're vacuumed out, and then those companies that have that contract dispose of that material with

[1:04:25] in regards to how the state and federal requirements make them handle that.

[1:04:30] So whether it's a designated dump site, or if they have to do some treatment,

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

[1:04:41] And just a question.

[1:04:42] And you mentioned it's designed for 100 years event,

[1:04:46] which I think you said was like eight inches

[1:04:48] in a 24-hour period.

[1:04:50] Yeah, roughly.

[1:04:51] And so what I just know anecdotally,

[1:04:56] it seems like recently the storms, many storms

[1:04:59] that I see are more severe.

[1:05:03] And if we were to look forward, I guess,

[1:05:05] is that a realistic 100-year estimate looking forward?

[1:05:08] And then what happens in the event

[1:05:09] that you get ten inches in a 24-hour period, what does that mean to all of the capacity

[1:05:16] that you've played out?

[1:05:17] So in terms of a larger storm event first, it would depend on the insensity in timing.

[1:05:26] So we kind of look at eight inches, you can look at eight inches being dumped within

[1:05:32] And then two hours over, you know, say 20 inches and then four inches in the rest, right?

[1:05:40] But the ponds are equipped with an overflow grate, right?

[1:05:47] It's four by four.

[1:05:48] Every single pond is designed with that.

[1:05:50] And in our modeling, we're not utilizing that overflow as the orifice, right?

[1:05:57] We're trying to get all of the stormwater out through the holes in the side of the structure.

[1:06:02] So in the event of a larger storm, it would overflow via that rim first, and then if that doesn't meet the capacity, you would install a berm along that berm that pulls all that water, you have an emergency spillway.

[1:06:20] And that's just how majority of storm water ponds are constructed.

[1:06:26] So in a larger storm event, that would be utilized.

[1:06:30] We don't model anything more than a hundred year, because I know in recent times we have seen larger storm events, but we're still coming up from a time in the 80s and 90s where you were lucky if something was sized for a 25 year storm.

[1:06:47] So we're trying to mitigate storms up through the 100 year, but requirements even at the state level are only until the 50 year.

[1:06:58] And I'll tack on a little bit there, I'm sorry, you know, I spent a good part of my career when I was an engineer studying these things and understanding how where we're heading and what the, you know, what, how climate change adaptation is going to impact us.

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

[1:07:23] here based on measured rainfall that people have taken gauges for from NOAA, right, which

[1:07:29] ironically is doing a lot of work here in town out here.

[1:07:33] So it does change, right?

[1:07:38] We have to expect that it will change.

[1:07:40] The issue becomes where it almost becomes a question of economic viability.

[1:07:47] If we start requiring all our basins to deal with a point, the next stage, which is really

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

[1:08:00] rainfills will be, you end up with situations where it's almost non-vival.

[1:08:08] It's really difficult to build to that in terms of storm water management.

[1:08:12] And it's all overlaid with insurance and how all that stuff operates, but at the end of the day where the crossing of sustainability, which is not just environmentalism, we can talk about environmentalism all day.

[1:08:29] But the crossing of sustainability, which considers social environmentalism and economic viability, because we have to continue to meet our needs.

[1:08:40] currently exist at that 100-year store on this location.

[1:08:43] And so that's why as engineers, we continue to model to that number until such time

[1:08:49] as it would change.

[1:08:50] Because at the end of the day, I'm from Indiana.

[1:08:53] I'm not sure if anybody knows what happened in that state this year, but there were areas

[1:08:58] that got 16 inches of rain, 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, 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 or

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

[1:09:29] It would be more of a bypass situation, so like for the top gravel wetland to the north,

[1:09:37] a bypass, excuse me, a spillway for that would spillway into the roadway and then it would

[1:09:44] just make its way down that existing drive.

[1:09:50] It's curbed to a certain point and then it would just run overland because it's not

[1:09:55] curved anymore.

[1:09:56] So it would make its way into that existing fire pond and it would follow the existing

[1:10:03] contours out there.

[1:10:04] 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] it looks like there's those spillways there.

[1:10:19] And maybe I'm misinterpreting the red in the corner there and how that all works.

[1:10:26] Well, yeah, I know there's still always there.

[1:10:29] So, does this fill away from the first treatment part of the gravel wetland into the second,

[1:10:36] go into the second or visit bypass?

[1:10:39] It looks like it just by the second stage.

[1:10:41] So you're, I know it's two cells.

[1:10:45] Those two cells are more for your treatment portion, right?

[1:10:49] So that's for your one-inch storm, your water quality volume.

[1:10:52] That's what the state has determined is 1 inch and then your two-year storm I'd have to check the numbers

[1:10:59] Maybe even your 10-year storm, but that would naturally make its way through those cells

[1:11:05] Through that train that I've discussed

[1:11:07] For your larger storms your 25 your 50 your 100-year

[1:11:12] You're automatically you're above those cell elevations and the high point of those cells that

[1:11:20] Disconnect them from each other and

[1:11:22] you're into another two to three foot layer additional storage and then if you

[1:11:28] had anything above that that's where your whole storm are you have one

[1:11:32] continuous burn around the outside and then that burn that separates the

[1:11:36] cells in the middle is a little bit lower so your spillway is on that outside burn

[1:11:43] and then so like I said for the top one it was a little bit dry so you fill both

[1:11:49] Well, before you hit this bill, yes, yes, thank you, absolutely.

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

[1:11:59] of water quality and water quantity, right?

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

[1:12:09] We're preventing this site from discharging more water in those events than it would today.

[1:12:16] Okay, and that helps with downstream flood protection, right?

[1:12:20] When it comes to quality, the storm events that we're concerned with are actually much

[1:12:26] smaller, because we deal with what's called the first flush all the time, and I'm not sure

[1:12:30] if you've heard that concept.

[1:12:32] But that's 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 needs

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

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

[1:12:57] that first flush because we've washed off everything that's sitting on the pavement.

[1:13:00] Right?

[1:13:00] So now you're just managing the quantity of the water.

[1:13:08] Any more questions?

[1:13:10] Do you have water shows on this?

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

[1:13:16] Just, you know, we have a couple of conditional uses out there, but one waiver that kind of

[1:13:23] goes, you know, discussing with Michael a little bit by email today, maybe we want to discuss

[1:13:28] now are the slopes.

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

[1:13:33] And the town requires three to one or less, so three horizontal, one vertical, something like

[1:13:43] that.

[1:13:43] We, in many other locations throughout New England, have gone to two to one slopes with slow protection.

[1:13:49] The reason we do three to one is not only from a maintenance perspective, but from a road abilities perspective.

[1:13:56] Once you put up an erosion protection on a two to one slope, the erosion concern typically goes away.

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

[1:14:13] stone rip wrap which, you know, angular rip wrap locks things and there's a lot of different

[1:14:18] ways to accomplish that.

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

[1:14:24] Unless you have a location where you're, you're discharging water fairly consistently which

[1:14:30] we're capturing all our water so only the water that lands and runs off will really be exposing

[1:14:36] us to erosion these locations.

[1:14:38] And even if there is a mild amount of erosion, it's captured by our grab allowance, right?

[1:14:45] So something that we'll be asking for as a part of the decision, I think we've adequately

[1:14:50] addressed it.

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

[1:14:56] Where are those two-to-one slopes in Asia?

[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. So, these are, yeah. Yeah. So, you can see how they're just a little bit tighter. 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. But we'll do some more investigations when we come back.

[1:15:29] again, we're looking at ways to modify the northern side to help us out with some of the

[1:15:35] work we're doing up here. Now that the ledges have been discovered, so other than that,

[1:15:43] along just where you see these sort of tighter contour lines, that's where you have the two

[1:15:47] to one slopes.

[1:15:48] And as soon as you get into the pond areas, we transition to a three to one, that's a state

[1:15:53] requirement. You can't have anything steeper than a three to one slope in design of your

[1:15:58] storm water ponds. So we have three to one in those locations. And to speak to what

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

[1:16:10] ask for the waiver is to shrink our impact footprint. So we're not so much into the buffer

[1:16:16] and avoiding any disturbance to existing wetlands or that buffer area to the maximum extent possible

[1:16:25] all with this design.

[1:16:26] And thank you, that's a good point.

[1:16:28] So if we went to three to one right,

[1:16:30] we basically have to add a foot,

[1:16:33] every single one of these contours occur.

[1:16:35] So you have, there's about 15 feet max,

[1:16:38] so you're adding 15 more feet of disturbance

[1:16:40] into the wood, it's the wetland buffer,

[1:16:43] and it really, in a way, that's unnecessary,

[1:16:46] because we have ways to manage it.

[1:16:48] And similarly down here, although we're not right against

[1:16:50] a wetland buffer, if you push this out,

[1:16:52] Well 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 Bridget said, a way for us to reduce our footprint a little bit.

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

[1:17:09] Oh, 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 bow at a two-to-one slope or is that going to

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

[1:17:22] Yeah, typically, you know, two to one, I don't.

[1:17:24] Yeah, I mean, you know, our landscape, guys,

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

[1:17:29] A lot of times it will just let it grow in, right?

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

[1:17:36] You know, there are native species

[1:17:38] that we can use on these slopes and things like that.

[1:17:39] Yeah, just worry about tires spinning on steep slopes

[1:17:43] and kind of get, you know, developing a stream,

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

[1:17:51] I mean, typically, I armor those with rip rep because it is so hard to mo.

[1:17:54] But two-to-one, we've seen being able to manage, so.

[1:17:59] And can you just go through the technical advantage

[1:18:05] of having three-to-one versus two-to-one?

[1:18:08] If I understand that the town's requesting or likes to see a three-to-one,

[1:18:16] Is there a technical reason that a 3-to-1 is better than a 2-to-1, and then we're being asked for a waiver, so I just want to have some technical discussion on what is the disadvantage or disadvantage of that, 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 right you cook chicken to 165

[1:18:44] if you look at the FDA guidance for it you can cook way less than that it's kind of wild but

[1:18:52] You cook chicken to 165 you only have to keep it there for three seconds and then you kill anything if you cook chicken to

[1:18:58] 155 you keep it there for two minutes you're fine right and this matters to me because I like to smoke meat right

[1:19:03] I don't want to dry it out, but at the end of the day, it's kind of the same thing.

[1:19:09] Three to one is the default, safe way to go.

[1:19:14] You publish it for everybody.

[1:19:15] You try to follow that methodology where you can and where it makes sense because it prevents

[1:19:20] the erotability of the soil naturally when you start getting steeper than three to one.

[1:19:24] You start to see soil rot a lot more easily, right?

[1:19:28] That is the real technical reason for it.

[1:19:32] The maintenance, the mowing, the maintenance, definitely gets easier on a shallower slope.

[1:19:38] But you can go to two to one if you handle it appropriately and you do it the right way.

[1:19:42] It still operates just the same way as a three to one slope.

[1:19:47] So is this purely an erosion control or is it a pollutant control or some combination?

[1:19:54] 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

[1:20:05] about.

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

[1:20:09] water and flows downhill to our catch basins.

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

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

[1:20:21] So the concern is a roadability, but that's why we put the erosion manning not to prevent that from happening.

[1:20:27] By putting the erosion manning down, you're basically making it operate as a three to one slope from an erotability standpoint.

[1:20:35] Most communities I see try to do the three to one, but you don't have to do those extra measures on a three to one.

[1:20:42] Right, 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 two to one as well.

[1:20:53] But there are no catch-based concerns on the other side of that two to one.

[1:21:00] On the south side, it looks like there are, but on that side, they're not.

[1:21:06] This is like a magic eye picture for me, actually, because you look at this and you think,

[1:21:11] oh, we're going downhill.

[1:21:12] You're not.

[1:21:12] This is sloping from the top to the bottom by this plan.

[1:21:17] And it's confusing because you would think it would go to the well end.

[1:21:20] But the natural course right now is we have a knob here that we're knocking down.

[1:21:25] And we're bringing this grade down to these grades we show here.

[1:21:31] It's about a 20 foot cut at its highest part.

[1:21:35] So we're bringing this all down.

[1:21:37] So on that it's actually sloping like this.

[1:21:40] Correct.

[1:21:40] towards the car is slipping this way into your catch basins. Correct. And this is

[1:21:45] looking at the two to top the bottom at the two to one. Yep. And and you actually

[1:21:49] end up with sort of a a ridge line here. This is hard to see. But you zoom in a

[1:21:54] little more essentially that green line that follows the contours. That's the

[1:21:58] ridge line. And you can see the contour levels right there,

[1:22:03] at 125, 130, 135, so you can see this.

[1:22:07] It's uphill coming into the down into the side.

[1:22:10] So it's great out there right now, it's like this.

[1:22:13] And then this is our proposed site, right?

[1:22:16] And we're down here.

[1:22:17] Right.

[1:22:21] Does the town have any thoughts on this?

[1:22:25] I mean, I,

[1:22:30] on board experts are absent tonight.

[1:22:33] So if you have caution,

[1:22:35] I would say, let's hold the discussion to another meeting with regards to that.

[1:22:40] Yeah, I think the one thing, the two-to-one slope put in an unstabilized system,

[1:22:45] that's right at angle, or very near angle of repose for sediment, where it will self-avalanche.

[1:22:51] So that's why the stabilization is really important, some kind of erosion

[1:22:56] matting to protect the rainfall from really just triggering those downslope, natural

[1:23:03] downslope a little bit.

[1:23:05] 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 have an inch down.

[1:23:17] How long does the erosion matting last?

[1:23:21] Depending on what you specify, but anywhere from 18 months to three years, it's biodegradable.

[1:23:30] So Green American North, I believe, is the company.

[1:23:34] And they have different levels that you can install.

[1:23:39] And it would be something typical we do at 18 to two month a year.

[1:23:44] And that's a two years, excuse me.

[1:23:46] And that's enough time to get the seed to germinate and really stabilize that slope

[1:23:50] before it disintegrates.

[1:23:53] Yeah, and that's the critical component, right?

[1:23:55] The emotional matting exists for the plants to tickle.

[1:23:59] Once the plants tickle, the roots hold everything.

[1:24:01] 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, you know, 18 months or three years,

[1:24:13] in other words, right?

[1:24:13] But I

[1:24:18] think what we want to do though, I don't think we want to make a decision on this

[1:24:25] one tonight.

[1:24:26] We don't expect to vote by any means.

[1:24:28] This can all come when we're all prepared here.

[1:24:31] We don't even 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 if we...

[1:24:39] Yeah.

[1:24:39] And so with regards the two conditional uses we had one for activities in the wetlands

[1:24:49] Actually, we have one or two, but and that one we're still waiting here back in the Conservation Commission on so

[1:24:57] Unless all I want to do with this is if there's anything that folks think the Conservation Commission would not be looking at that they are interested in

[1:25:07] and make it known now

[1:25:12] for that in a wetland field.

[1:25:15] Now the warehouse use, we can,

[1:25:20] that is a conditional use.

[1:25:24] Anybody hat, I mean,

[1:25:26] do we, what are people's thoughts on the warehouse?

[1:25:31] Julian, can we establish firmly that we're not talking

[1:25:34] or they're not talking about the possibility

[1:25:40] artificial intelligence, data center.

[1:25:47] We were talking about putting in an exclusion.

[1:25:55] Well, they have, where is it?

[1:26:01] No, that's not it.

[1:26:03] There was a water usage limitation that if they go over,

[1:26:09] or they need to come back to us, right?

[1:26:15] Well, they go to a committee and they make a recommendation

[1:26:19] to the town council, so that will,

[1:26:23] if the council hasn't addressed that,

[1:26:25] that will be a precedent condition.

[1:26:30] I'm not sure I got an answer.

[1:26:32] Well, the,

[1:26:37] it is, when it comes to an AI data center use

[1:26:45] that you're talking about, you don't know.

[1:26:48] They're not set, they're not, they're, yeah.

[1:26:50] Those are heat.

[1:26:51] They're, these buildings are not set up

[1:26:54] for really, they're not structurally,

[1:26:59] because that's, to do that, the cooling systems,

[1:27:03] you need and everything else, you require

[1:27:06] a different type of building.

[1:27:08] But, and with, and my comment about,

[1:27:15] the site plan review regarding water usage is that they'll be if they exit. There's a certain

[1:27:26] you think when we were talking about a use like that you're thinking about what's the impact right

[1:27:31] yes yeah and so what impacts are you concerned about?

[1:27:38] The many possible but this would be a small

[1:27:42] I admit this would be a small possibility for a date of center, but this is a bigger

[1:27:53] issue than tonight.

[1:27:57] I'm asking this partly in connection with Michael's response to Mr. Calderwood who asked whether

[1:28:09] that it was possible or impossible to have a data center at the technology to have sight.

[1:28:18] Right, 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.

[1:28:32] 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 our office, light manufacturing, and warehouse.

[1:28:48] 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,

[1:28:59] to be clear about what a data center is, the different kinds of data centers,

[1:29:07] and if it would be appropriate or not.

[1:29:10] 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.

[1:29:33] 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 if we're going to say you can't do a great data center, then 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. Which is why my point of it's the impacts you want to look at and restrict, not the use.

[1:30:29] It would probably be intelligent for this board to become more educated on data centers.

[1:30:36] But I think that is completely separate from this.

[1:30:40] I think there's a lot of fear about data centers.

[1:30:44] But when you look at this site, you're not even investing in anything that would,

[1:30:49] what you're investing in, wouldn't be needed by the data center.

[1:30:56] And you're not set up for it and to really make money data so these things are huge.

[1:31:01] These things are huge.

[1:31:03] And so that site is really not set up for that anyway.

[1:31:06] So I don't think it's going to help us if we add a fear of something we're not really

[1:31:13] educated in.

[1:31:13] 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.

[1:31:24] So that we can create in zoning allowed or not.

[1:31:28] I was going to bring this up next week, okay,

[1:31:32] because it doesn't belong to an applicant's.

[1:31:35] You're right, I agree.

[1:31:36] A discussion.

[1:31:37] I agree.

[1:31:37] But the New Hampshire Association of Regional Planning

[1:31:41] Commission has put together their first draft

[1:31:46] of what plan boards need to do regarding data centers.

[1:31:51] It's in the process of getting signed off, but I'm hoping I could have it in our hands by next meeting.

[1:31:59] That would be great.

[1:32:00] Okay.

[1:32:01] But I don't really think it's anything to do with this particular.

[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 you said last week.

[1:32:15] and you should all have it. It's worth reading. It is very one sided. So let's move on.

[1:32:25] And it will be the first of many because there's another eight.

[1:32:29] There'll be part of next week. The next thing.

[1:32:32] Oh, we're about to have the open the public hearing and then continue it till the next time.

[1:32:39] time. We public hearing is already open for this. Has it been open? Well, didn't we have it at it's continued. It's continued. I mean,

[1:32:49] if anybody wants to speak, I'll open the public hearing. Yes, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone who would like to speak regarding

[1:32:57] this specific specific issue? Do we have anybody on Zoom?

[1:33:04] No hands up. No hands up? All right. What I was hoping to do is, though, is to talk

[1:33:09] We talk about building height and the warehouse uses, conditional uses to see if we have any besides the idea that is it a warehouse or could it 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.

[1:33:31] I think the reason that in some of those zones that light manufacturing office use is allowed by

[1:33:42] right, whereas warehouse is a conditional use, probably the general, the town would prefer

[1:33:51] light manufacturing, high technology, R&D, office use, to warehouse use.

[1:33:56] It employs fewer people, probably has less value, may generate more truck traffic.

[1:34:02] So there probably is a general preference, for-line manufacturing,

[1:34:07] over-ware house.

[1:34:09] We'll see how this plays out.

[1:34:11] It's probably going to be a mix.

[1:34:14] But I think that's the reason it's a condition to use.

[1:34:19] My question.

[1:34:21] Yes, so on the use question, the only thing that's sort of haunting me from the

[1:34:26] presentation we had previously with regard to the travel, which I know we have a consultant

[1:34:31] that's going to give us a report and review all that, relates, though, to the issue in

[1:34:35] terms of what the use is that the use code, I think, was 10 that they, well, it was one

[1:34:41] 10 that the traffic engineer picked. So she said that the time that was the maximum, but

[1:34:48] the question is sort of still in my mind. I asked this question at the site walk, is whether

[1:34:53] and it might wind up in what I would call a retail distribution level as opposed to a

[1:34:59] wholesale.

[1:34:59] And my verb user, no one else, is if it's tractor trailer, tractor trailer, that's

[1:35:04] one thing this limited number, tractor trailer is going to come and go because they're so big.

[1:35:07] If it's tractor trailer coming in and small vans going out to deliver, it can be a whole lot

[1:35:12] more vans than you would have if it was just all tractor trailers in and out.

[1:35:16] And that's questions still in my mind.

[1:35:18] And in terms of how it, the variant would have on the actual traffic counts and what that might mean for that.

[1:35:25] Which I realize is going to be addressed in the future.

[1:35:26] But I'm just related to the use, that was a question I just want to put on the record right now as a concern.

[1:35:32] Okay, and I second that as well.

[1:35:36] Only because no matter where that traffic goes, it's all going to go down technology drive.

[1:35:41] And you do have 600 students living right there on technology drive.

[1:35:45] 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] Right, possible.

[1:36:00] Either way, a lot of trucks.

[1:36:02] I know I'm not presupposing anything, but I know Amazon's delivering things at my house at 4 o'clock in the morning.

[1:36:07] And so there's a lot of activity depending on what goes in there.

[1:36:14] Yeah.

[1:36:15] All right.

[1:36:17] What about building height?

[1:36:21] Are there any issues with building height?

[1:36:24] Is building going to be higher than any of the trees around there?

[1:36:28] 50 feet probably.

[1:36:31] No.

[1:36:32] I don't think anybody's going to see it.

[1:36:34] It's hard to see that site.

[1:36:36] Unless you're in it.

[1:36:38] And you had to remember there's a significant cut for those buildings too, so yeah.

[1:36:45] Because we're shorthanded and we require five yays for ignition use, I don't recommend

[1:36:52] we go for an action on the floor.

[1:36:54] No, that's you.

[1:36:55] Yeah, I'm going to take action.

[1:36:57] For unconditionally, this is what I have seven voting members.

[1:37:00] So with regards to that, to reiterate, we're waiting on a conservation commission regarding

[1:37:12] the two wetland related ones, there's some concerns about, and I believe the term that

[1:37:19] was used by a traffic study person was Amazon style warehouse.

[1:37:28] And the 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 what point that you choose to explore that item.

[1:37:45] With respect to last mile distribution or all the different types of facilities that Amazon uses, we've had experience developing Amazon facilities before.

[1:37:54] or they're extremely particular about how they operate.

[1:37:59] And there would be immense changes to this site in order to accommodate anything that they would want to do in particular.

[1:38:06] And I know I'm citing them specifically.

[1:38:10] There are also, you know, we got to talk about how this board would qualify FedEx or

[1:38:16] DHL or those types of delivery companies as well, because essentially they do operate in a similar fashion.

[1:38:24] and they're not sending out fleets of vans, right?

[1:38:28] But they do have, you know, you can picture a UPS truck

[1:38:31] leaving a facility.

[1:38:33] So I will have our traffic engineers speak to that.

[1:38:36] When we come back and we return to have the traffic conversation,

[1:38:40] I do know that light industrial is very close

[1:38:43] and mimics those for my understanding,

[1:38:46] but I don't want to misspeak.

[1:38:47] So I think when it comes to data centers the only one, the one thing I'll say we have no intention of doing that here at this time.

[1:38:58] However, it's, you know, time has a way of changing things and it could be a very long time away from, from when we even own this building or I'm even alive at 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 in front of,

[1:39:15] but the good news is these facilities require a lot of water

[1:39:20] and not only does this board have to weigh in,

[1:39:22] but the city council will have to weigh in on that as well.

[1:39:25] So the town retains a ton of control

[1:39:27] when it comes to that sort of thing.

[1:39:29] For Mr. Chair, I believe you mentioned something

[1:39:32] about restricting the water here.

[1:39:35] So if that becomes a condition,

[1:39:37] there's a lot of certainty for this board

[1:39:38] in the public about what can go here without further conversation.

[1:39:43] All right.

[1:39:45] Thank you.

[1:39:48] Was there anything else that we were going to cover?

[1:39:51] Well, you have the wetland scientists here.

[1:39:54] And your, the conditional use for the WCOD includes both your purview over filling of the

[1:40:03] wetlands, which is there's some proposal there, as well as activity within the wetland

[1:40:09] buffer. So I know the you've spoken before but it's probably a good time to ask you

[1:40:17] know for you to explain a little more and respond any questions. Mr. Chair is that

[1:40:22] does that make sense? I if there are any particular questions I mean we've been

[1:40:28] shown the two fingers 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 been noted, we still have concluded our

[1:40:57] work with the Conservation Commission next Tuesday, I believe.

[1:41:03] where I think we may be get a little bit more detailed with some of the things that came up during the site walk.

[1:41:14] Generally we saw almost all the impact areas, I don't believe we walked up to the tiny little triangle on the northern edge of the site.

[1:41:27] But generally, I hope it was clear as my intention to demonstrate that these areas where impacts

[1:41:37] are posed while wetlands are certainly important in the context of water quality given the proximity

[1:41:45] either oyster river, we're not in fact significant in a lot of other, for a lot of other

[1:41:56] function. And the importance of that would be some of what's discussed here with respect

[1:42:03] to stormwater controls. And the level and quality of what's being proposed will mitigate

[1:42:14] any small potential effects from impacts to these fingers and edges that are well-upgradient

[1:42:23] from the core of wetland where it's wetter and which are likely performing the bulk

[1:42:32] of that function.

[1:42:36] That really is the key point.

[1:42:38] I mean, there was some other discussion regarding the possibility that the well into the north would be de-watered somehow by that cut.

[1:42:55] We had probably planned a more detailed conversation with the Conservation Commission, I think that's probably appropriate.

[1:43:03] But I understand the concern, but the soils, the nature of the soils here is demonstrated by the soil survey, the site specific soil survey that was done for the project indicates that the soils in this area are such that the water table in that wetland is perched.

[1:43:34] and that below that is very, very low permeability for those soils.

[1:43:40] They are just poorly drained, dense mineral soils, so that is really just a run-off area,

[1:43:48] and it's really not connected to groundwater in a way that would pose a risk of having to be do water

[1:43:58] by cutting into that slope.

[1:44:01] So in addition, there's a burn on top, which would prevent it from actually spilling over.

[1:44:07] So that's sort of the gist of, you know, that concerns what really wanted only concerns

[1:44:16] that 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 likely

[1:44:25] be back to ask again.

[1:44:28] Yeah.

[1:44:31] Peter. I ran into the yellow jackets before I made it down into that we were headed for. And boarded at that point, is there any, so I didn't see this for myself. Is there any indication that there's a femoral, you know, intermittent flow into any of those fingers, spring, runoff kind of thing, or is it all just, you know, forced to wet them? So is it all based on soils? Are there any indication of freedom?

[1:45:02] You mean as far as like a rural pool? No, you know, these are all, all these fingers are upslope from what the wetland is. And I was just wondering if there is any indication that the topography was controlling any small, channelized flow that isn't showing up on your white art data. Is this, is this a question about stream presence? Yeah. Yeah. You know, if, you know,

[1:45:29] If, well, spring, very ephemeral runoff kind of streams that are feeding down through there.

[1:45:37] Yeah, I think, but, you know, and you can probably speak to this.

[1:45:40] And this may be a con-com question.

[1:45:42] Yeah, well, it's your question, too, so we're happy to answer it.

[1:45:46] But, you know, when it comes to perennial intermittent stream measurements and all those things,

[1:45:52] I mean, an intermittent stream usually exists, what, in sort of a spring time season

[1:45:56] and where it flows pretty consistently during those seasons, right?

[1:46:02] When it typically rains a little bit more, water isn't going to the ground as much

[1:46:06] because it's still falling out, things like that, these are more water happens

[1:46:10] to just use this path of flow to get to where it needs to go, those wetland systems.

[1:46:16] And it's not anything that I've seen in,

[1:46:24] I don't know,

[1:46:26] Yeah, there's water is flown down through wheat litter and so the only the only place where

[1:46:34] So when we

[1:46:36] It's sometimes not that helpful to talk well perennial streams maybe stand out

[1:46:42] The obvious

[1:46:44] differences that they exist

[1:46:47] all the time

[1:46:50] Other streams intermittent ephemeral

[1:46:53] You know those are basically

[1:46:56] different ways of describing something that has a flowed enough on the surface to create

[1:47:04] a channel, which could, usually specifically excludes the concept of Rosen, like we were

[1:47:13] talking about earlier, but essentially that's the same thing.

[1:47:19] The large finger in the southwest 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

[1:47:37] could bring that as far as soil as a vegetation.

[1:47:42] The science of hydrology there would be very slight indications of surface saturation

[1:47:56] probably during 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] is that that impact is essentially caused or that triangle which is constitutes the impact

[1:48:17] area was essentially created by a couple of large trees which are blown down and taken

[1:48:27] a lot of soil with them there by lowering the grade enough where that area is now wet.

[1:48:33] But there is, yeah, in this area, which is the small, isolated area is by definition

[1:48:43] of no flowing 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

[1:48:56] As it gets down on the steeper portion of that hill as it approaches the Oyster River

[1:49:06] wetlands, that does, you know, create a channel in that area.

[1:49:12] That's an inner mainstream impact there.

[1:49:16] And of course, we're well, well away from that.

[1:49:26] Any other questions?

[1:49:35] Okay.

[1:49:41] I 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] Yeah.

[1:49:49] Thank you.

[1:49:50] Totally agree.

[1:49:51] That was excellent.

[1:49:53] Thank you very much.

[1:49:54] So, Mr. Chair, just I think it'd be helpful to talk a little bit about scheduling.

[1:50:00] The, this is on the agenda for the conservation commission next Tuesday, but the commission has a very busy agenda, and I'm, they'll probably only have 20 minutes or so, so I think it's very unlikely they're going to make their recommendation for the conditional use, but hopefully that will happen at the October 26th meeting.

[1:50:23] So the planning board's upcoming meetings are in two weeks on October 14th, October 28th and then you have one meeting in November and one meeting in December and I'm retiring November 30th, but if this is not completed before I go,

[1:50:43] I will have a draft notice for the board and my successor so you'll be able to finalize details.

[1:50:54] So, I'm not seeing any real significant obstacles, but there's a lot of small things.

[1:51:02] And my sense is that it's probably useful to continue to the 14th, go over miscellaneous

[1:51:09] issues, and then depending on the timing of the stormwater consultant and the traffic consultant,

[1:51:17] and then you might be ready for final action,

[1:51:20] maybe November, if not, hopefully December.

[1:51:28] I'm hoping that we can start taking action

[1:51:30] on some of the conditional uses by October 28th.

[1:51:37] If we get all of them, you know, so you said,

[1:51:41] so we have miscellaneous stuff and then traffic

[1:51:44] and stormwater.

[1:51:48] I think that's it, third-party reviews and after that we should be able to be

[1:51:57] coming to a decision and if we're only waiting, I would say, let the

[1:52:05] Council, the Vation Commission know that we really need their response on

[1:52:07] October 20th. Oh, I think they know that, yeah, because

[1:52:13] I'm not sure I'm going to

[1:52:14] want a week form after that?

[1:52:16] No, no, I think they understand that.

[1:52:18] All right.

[1:52:20] So do you want to continue to the, because recognizing there's

[1:52:27] four more meetings for the rest of 2026, is it useful to

[1:52:31] continue to the 14th?

[1:52:33] I'd like to continue to the 14th just to keep them, you know,

[1:52:36] we can tie up everything that we're not waiting on somebody

[1:52:40] else for.

[1:52:41] All right?

[1:52:42] Sounds good.

[1:52:42] That's the general idea.

[1:52:43] a tile all that up so that as people come in and finish the reviews, we're ready to take them on immediately.

[1:52:53] I think that makes sense.

[1:52:55] Does 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] Also, 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,

[1:53:19] but Keish Nordstrom and Bridget and Matt

[1:53:23] will be reaching out to set that up.

[1:53:26] But I believe Rich Rine also wanted to review

[1:53:30] the water against their townwide model.

[1:53:34] So that's another thing that's in play here

[1:53:36] that we need to lock up.

[1:53:38] But I don't know Michael if you've heard back from him

[1:53:40] on that question, we just talked about it today.

[1:53:41] So yeah, I mean that was one of the things that board asked that we looked at so we'll have to check with rich

[1:53:48] Okay, that all is

[1:53:51] At the end of technology drive

[1:53:54] There was worked on a couple years ago, and was that for a new water pumping?

[1:54:00] station

[1:54:02] Or or you know, or was it sewer? It was either water or sewer and I'm just trying to I

[1:54:07] I believe it was water, but Rich will be able to tell you that.

[1:54:12] I know that because we have that fairly new main by, you know, water standards that

[1:54:18] comes down through our property by easement, so it would make sense that, oh, there's

[1:54:23] Rich right there.

[1:54:25] Great timing.

[1:54:26] 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, and that had to do with the additional

[1:54:37] capacity and the extension that we had to the lead circle for the MTBE funding that we received

[1:54:44] from the DEES. But we are working with Underwood Engineers. We have a third-party consultant doing

[1:54:51] the review of the Water Demand. We need to get some more information from Sean and his team to be

[1:54:57] able to complete that. But it's moving along. And just real quick on the stormwater piece,

[1:55:02] We believe we'll probably have draft comments from our third party reviewer at the end of next week, and we're expecting final review letter by the 5th of October, barring any unusual circumstances that we see in the stormward review.

[1:55:20] And based on what we've seen so far, there probably will not be traffic engineering review.

[1:55:26] the impact study that that's in the process of we're developing a scope in

[1:55:31] fee proposal right now with Apex and and it will be presenting that to to

[1:55:37] Sean and his team probably over the next year and probably early part middle

[1:55:40] part of next week. All right so if that review comes back by the fifth we might

[1:55:45] be able to have that on the night of 14th as well. Yeah all right you're right

[1:55:59] So there will be certainly a fair amount more traffic on technology drive, including truck traffic.

[1:56:06] Are there any concerns for use of technology drive by the 600 or so students at the cottages of their safety of any kind of improvements that might be needed along there for pedestrians and bicyclists?

[1:56:23] 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, but I think the problems right now,

[1:56:43] there is no, effectively there is no bike lane, there is no, there is kind of a walking lane

[1:56:48] between the parked cars and the curb.

[1:56:55] 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,

[1:57:01] just like the Riverswood Project as I'm going right now,

[1:57:05] we will have a robust traffic management plan as part of this,

[1:57:10] and we'll ensure that there's safety for pedestrian cyclists,

[1:57:14] other vehicles on the roadway, and we'll be working with the GC

[1:57:19] and any of their folks during that whole process.

[1:57:22] So I don't anticipate that as being a major hurdle to get over,

[1:57:26] but we'll have to talk with the team, the RJ Kelly team,

[1:57:29] to make sure that happens.

[1:57:31] Well, I'm wondering not during a construction,

[1:57:34] but permanently if there's any concern about a conflict there

[1:57:42] with pedestrians and bicyclists on a technology drive,

[1:57:46] What kind of space there is for them to use?

[1:57:50] Yeah, I think that will all come out during the traffic impact study.

[1:57:55] Third-party review, we'll have comments on that.

[1:57:58] Thank you.

[1:58:00] Question?

[1:58:01] Mike.

[1:58:03] Rich, in the traffic review from APEX, is it a normal thing or is it something that's within

[1:58:12] the scope to actually look at the destiny and traffic along 121 tech drive as it exists

[1:58:17] currently. Oh yeah they would do a pre-construction and post-construction review of that so that

[1:58:24] wouldn't be an unusual occurrence and that's what we intend on scoping you know within that third

[1:58:31] part of review. So there would be an idea in terms of actual body count going up and down tech drive

[1:58:36] now. It's going to be, you know, we don't have, you know, a pedestrian counter out there to

[1:58:43] determine exactly what we, what we have for numbers, but there will be trip generation numbers

[1:58:49] likely that there'll be a loophole. I don't imagine it will be from ITE, but it'll be for some,

[1:58:54] some source to understand what we have. I know there's a bus stop there that's used quite frequently,

[1:59:00] so we'll have to take all that into account during our scope development with, with APEX.

[1:59:06] Because to the issue of the pedestrian safety, it would seem like having some sort of empirical data might be helpful.

[1:59:13] I don't believe we have any pedestrian data for that road.

[1:59:16] No, but I don't think it takes a whole lot to get pedestrian data, either, for a few days worth of counts.

[1:59:24] It's not a high tech.

[1:59:26] One, 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.

[1:59:42] And as more traffic is there, it becomes more challenging,

[1:59:47] I think, for pedestrians to navigate that in the small bike lane sort of walking area

[1:59:54] that's there, not including the addition of the current park cars.

[2:00:00] It's a very wide shoulder there. You're right. And you know, and that's something that we'll take into account during the review.

[2:00:09] And just to that point, like, typically in the traffic studies, I, I don't see mention of the pedestrians. I see a lot of vehicular analysis, but I don't typically see what's it look like for pedestrians navigating that same space. That's why I asked why not that could be something as part of it, because if you're concerned about. And I don't, maybe there's really no pedestrians walking up and down the

[2:00:33] street. Maybe they come out and they go to their cars or something. That's it. I don't know. I'm not

[2:00:36] sure that anybody knows it. It's very few. Where's the bus stop? Is it? That's not technical. It's

[2:00:41] internal to the cottages. Right. No, it's down by the bus station. All right. The bus stop, there's

[2:00:48] there are two three three internal to the cottages. Then there's one as you're leaving

[2:00:56] tech drive just before you get to Main Street and the one that inbound that

[2:01:02] matches that has floated up and down the hill a little bit but it used to last

[2:01:07] year was at the top of the hill of tech drive as you're coming up and it

[2:01:11] bubbles off but I don't that would be that one's a mess now and then they would

[2:01:16] and you drop people off there who are trying to go to rear-view apartments back

[2:01:21] on Main Street so they'd be walking down the hill to get back and now at this

[2:01:27] point in time there's not even in the current conditions there's not no space

[2:01:32] there for them to get off the bus walk down to Main Street because of the park

[2:01:36] cars because of the park car yeah all

[2:01:45] right so I you know when they were

[2:01:50] talking about adding parking spaces on tech drive I didn't realize they're how

[2:01:55] far down the hill, they were going to go with them, or I would have said something.

[2:02:04] All right, but thank you.

[2:02:08] Thank you.

[2:02:09] We'll see you on the 14th.

[2:02:24] And item 10 is the Capital Improvement Program, review of proposed 2027 and 2036 CIP with Todd

[2:02:31] Selig, the town administrator and Gail Jablonsky, the business manager.

[2:02:59] Good evening.

[2:03:01] Great to see you all.

[2:03:02] Good evening.

[2:03:04] So, I am Todd Zellig, the administrator here in Durham, and I am accompanied in person

[2:03:09] by Dave Ramanuel, and then virtually by Rich Reign and Guelder Blonski, who hopefully

[2:03:15] Gwyneth can bring up on 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.

[2:03:30] First, the capital improvements program is a big document, here's the hard copy version

[2:03:36] 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 of your packets.

[2:03:45] These represent items submitted by departments, boards, committees and commissions for consideration

[2:03:51] as part of the FY 2027 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 one step beyond that and look out 10 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 and a lifespan generally of

[2:04:20] five or more years.

[2:04:22] I want to note that this is a draft.

[2:04:24] This is what Gail and I have received unedited from the departments and I'm in the process

[2:04:30] with Gail of meeting with the departments to talk about all of these proposals.

[2:04:35] And as part of the annual budget process, we'll be betting them and changing the order

[2:04:42] as needed as part of the formal budget presentation, which will go to the council for the last four November

[2:04:50] 1st, and it will be presented to the council at the council meeting on November 2nd.

[2:04:57] Let me just see, just want to lead you through some of the highlights here.

[2:05:04] The first is if you look sort of at the first page, you'll see that Gail has very ingeniously

[2:05:12] The line, the spreadsheet, and on the far left side, you'll see a page number.

[2:05:16] 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 F354 Street truck for $300,000.

[2:05:30] And just as an example, if you were to look at page 19, you'll see the specific sheet,

[2:05:37] 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 a financing section, which talks about how

[2:05:55] that specific item would be funded. And in this particular case, the proposal from the

[2:06:00] Fire Department is to bond the item and to share the cost of the bond $50, $50 with you

[2:06:06] So specifically, during we cover $150,000, you and H recover $150,000.

[2:06:13] And so on, that's how the project, the program is put together.

[2:06:18] I try to give some thought each year about specific CIP items that you as a planning board

[2:06:25] might be interested in, although we could talk about any and all of them if you want.

[2:06:29] But the first that I think is particularly relevant is on page 30, replace in the 2015

[2:06:35] Farrara Aerial Ladder Truck for $2.2 million in year 2028.

[2:06:45] And that is a project again, if you look on page 30, that would be shared 50-50 with

[2:06:50] UNH based on our municipal services agreement we have with UNH.

[2:06:56] So the cost for each would be $1,100,000.

[2:07:01] I thought maybe Dave Emanuel could just speak briefly to how a fire truck is valuable,

[2:07:08] a ladder truck in particular for Durham, because on one hand it's necessary for you and

[2:07:14] each to reach their top buildings, but in essence it is used more in fires for Durham

[2:07:21] off campus buildings than it is on campus.

[2:07:25] So could you just speak to that?

[2:07:31] Thank you, Todd.

[2:07:31] Dave Emmanuel, I serve as your fire chief, and our aerial apparatus,

[2:07:39] when we look at how frequently we use it, it's over the past three years,

[2:07:46] it goes around 60 times a year, it goes out to different buildings.

[2:07:50] And because of the nature of the university's buildings,

[2:07:55] we have 10 story buildings or up to 10 story buildings.

[2:07:58] They're fully alarmed, they're fully sprinkled.

[2:08:00] We generally aren't using a lot of truck on those buildings.

[2:08:04] We're usually using one of residential structures that burn wood and have chimneys that we need 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.

[2:08:17] I answer your question appropriately.

[2:08:19] It does, and I think for the planning board perspective, sometimes I've observed the board getting questions about a project that is tall and residents will ask well.

[2:08:29] Do we have the equipment to access that and this ladder truck is

[2:08:33] the top of our 10 store buildings on campus, right?

[2:08:36] Yes, so building less than 10 storeys, if we can place it appropriately, we should be good.

[2:08:43] And so two of five storey building height in downtown, let's say, it would be able to reach the top of that building or whatever access you would need.

[2:08:53] If it was say five storeys.

[2:08:55] Yes, that's exactly right.

[2:08:58] So, again, 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, a new fire station.

[2:09:13] Great, okay.

[2:09:15] That's being budgeted now in 29.

[2:09:19] Yes, the proposal from the fire department was to include it in fiscal year 2029.

[2:09:24] Does that mean we have a site that we think it's going to go at?

[2:09:29] So in the budget discussion with the fire department, which included UNH representatives,

[2:09:36] we had a lengthy conversation around this proposal.

[2:09:39] And the fire department is anxious to move ahead the project.

[2:09:43] At the same time, in terms of our budgetary conversation, on the town side, I recognize Durham

[2:09:50] has some significant fiscal constraints, and we're not really in a position to bring

[2:09:55] on an additional $10 million in debt at this near-term period of time, nor is UNH.

[2:10:01] 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.

[2:10:19] Yes.

[2:10:20] For the last ten years, we had been targeting waterworks road.

[2:10:25] There was a pad there that was reserved for joint fire department, UNH Police Department,

[2:10:33] EMS structure.

[2:10:36] But we believe BILA is actually a better location.

[2:10:41] We've always felt it was a better location and it appears to be open for conversation

[2:10:45] at this time.

[2:10:46] And 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 2031 at the earliest.

[2:10:59] Subject to further conversation.

[2:11:01] And the next logical question is, is 20 million really the number?

[2:11:05] And I can say that 20 million was the number like 15 years ago for that large facility.

[2:11:11] We know that our initial thoughts of combining UNH police and Durham fire did not in practice

[2:11:18] result in many economies of scale because particularly the police operation desires to

[2:11:25] have everything cordoned off from fire, which did not really allow us to jointly use locker

[2:11:32] rooms, shower rooms, conference rooms, things like that.

[2:11:36] So we're really not seeing a benefit per se of a joint facility like that, but we also know the cost of fire departments have gone up quite a lot.

[2:11:46] So $20 million is probably a good, very general planning number, but it is not a specific proposal right now.

[2:11:54] And to the extent we can eliminate big pieces of equipment or consolidate a fewer bays we need,

[2:12:02] which means the less expensive the project becomes.

[2:12:07] So reducing our square footage.

[2:12:09] Right. So one concept we talked a little bit about

[2:12:12] during the budget discussion for this item was whether

[2:12:15] it might be possible to combine two pieces of equipment

[2:12:20] and to move away from a standalone aerial ladder

[2:12:22] to what's called a quint.

[2:12:25] Is that right?

[2:12:26] That is correct.

[2:12:27] Which is a multiple use vehicle that has a ladder

[2:12:31] function as well. But I will note that we've been very disappointed in this 2015 vehicle.

[2:12:40] It has been out of service for about a quarter of the time since we've had it. And typically

[2:12:49] we like to keep these pieces of equipment for about 20 years. And as you'll note, this

[2:12:54] is replacing it like in 12 years.

[2:12:56] So we're having conversations around.

[2:13:05] Good.

[2:13:06] So page 58, vehicle replacement at the police department.

[2:13:14] I won't get into this in any depth,

[2:13:16] but basically we had set a goal about five or six years ago

[2:13:22] So, to transition our 100% gasoline-powered fleet to a hybrid fleet at the police department,

[2:13:31] and with the most recent vehicle, we've just completed that transition, which is positive

[2:13:37] news.

[2:13:37] 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.

[2:13:49] So that's positive news and we have a program where those police vehicles move from frontline

[2:13:57] marked vehicles to command slash detective vehicles that are unmarked to eventually they're

[2:14:06] downshifted to this lot that a public works and are used for the assessing vehicle or the

[2:14:11] code enforcement vehicle or the vehicle the public works director drives around in and we try

[2:14:16] to get the most out of those vehicles.

[2:14:18] And typically when we're done with them,

[2:14:20] they work like $250 and they go to a junkyard

[2:14:23] because we've just used them as long as we can.

[2:14:28] So this typically would be a year

[2:14:31] where we would replace two vehicles rather than one,

[2:14:35] but for cost savings reasons

[2:14:37] and because we've had good performance from the hybrids,

[2:14:42] the police department is comfortable recommending

[2:14:44] just one vehicle for the 2027 which is positive.

[2:14:52] Let me see moving ahead. Page 60

[2:14:54] following is the courthouse old town hall renovation that's targeted for

[2:15:00] Number 2,030, and Rich Reign, if you are there in Cyberland, if you could please come up. As you know, we've just completed renovations at the Bickford Chessley Farmhouse at Wagon Hill Farm. That was one, so the first historic building on our list of renovations, repairs, refurbishment that was needed to maintain that building. The courthouse is next. And we had the same individual do a very preliminary review.

[2:15:29] Did you have both big for Chesley and the courthouse about 10 years ago?

[2:15:34] That was Aaron Sturgis and so Rich could you maybe just touch me on the plans for the courthouse?

[2:15:39] Sure Todd, thank you 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.

[2:15:53] Aaron Sturgis did a review and evaluation structurally as well as other components

[2:15:59] to determine what would be needed for the BIC for Chesley House as well as the old courthouse.

[2:16:06] I would call that kind of a 25,000-foot view of that assessment.

[2:16:13] We then really got down into the details on the BIC for Chesley House,

[2:16:17] and we're able to design the project that we just recently completed.

[2:16:23] We haven't done that on the courthouse over the next year or so.

[2:16:27] So we plan on getting into that and trying to get a better understanding of what the cost

[2:16:33] would be today to maintain and rehabilitate that building.

[2:16:39] Another important question of before we do that is what will be the long term use of

[2:16:45] that building.

[2:16:46] So we're in the process of trying to get an understanding of what components would be

[2:16:53] necessarily be replaced, but long term uses is a question. We've done a fair amount of work on

[2:17:00] that building over the last couple of years. We replaced the second floor HVAC system. We converted

[2:17:07] the oil-fired boiler for the first floor to natural gas. We replaced the flooring in the multi-purpose

[2:17:16] this room with a historically accurate oak flooring.

[2:17:20] We did some work on some of the doors

[2:17:22] and in our operational budget that we'll be presenting,

[2:17:26] we do have some requests for continued work

[2:17:29] on some of the other components, the ADA door.

[2:17:33] We did some mortar work previously.

[2:17:35] So this year, in 27, we're not requesting any funding.

[2:17:39] We've pushed out a request to 2030.

[2:17:42] That might be pushed out even further

[2:17:44] as we evaluate the building and determine what the long-term use would be.

[2:17:50] And I'll just note the Sturgis report had outlined some structural issues at the higher

[2:17:55] parts of the building and we've had an engineer evaluated, he's determined that the volume is

[2:18:00] building is safe, but as part of the HVAC work, we've also removed some very heavy HVAC ductwork

[2:18:07] that was hanging on the beams and that weight was not intended and it was having an impact on the

[2:18:11] building. So that that contributing problem has been eliminated, which is good news.

[2:18:19] Next is page 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 a town-owned asset. In this case, in the town of Leigh,

[2:18:32] our Packers Falls gravel pit where we installed a 650 KW solar ray with revision energy that was

[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

[2:18:55] 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

[2:19:14] over time, that from my perspective, fortunately, the owner had to deal with rather than us.

[2:19:23] And so I'm really not particularly enthusiastic about our moving on these and buying this

[2:19:29] array, because we're just, you know, public works is so amazing, yet none of us are really

[2:19:36] reversed in solar power management and maintenance,

[2:19:39] and we don't, we're not staff for it either.

[2:19:41] So at least for now, this is just a placeholder

[2:19:44] in case at some point in the future,

[2:19:46] it makes sense to move on it

[2:19:47] and purchase the property or the panels

[2:19:51] at a then depreciated rate.

[2:19:54] But at least at this time, my working thinking

[2:19:58] is that we would not, we just simply roll along every year.

[2:20:03] Can I just ask just on that because that's very interesting.

[2:20:06] So those are 2016, so I guess that's 10-year-old technology that's probably changed quite a bit.

[2:20:12] And I guess when they fix that, do they replace it with the sort of the similar category of panel that was there before?

[2:20:19] Do they, when they swap that out, do they kind of do an upgrade on that?

[2:20:22] And we get kind of get the benefit of that without having to sort of pay for all that, or do we know?

[2:20:28] I honestly don't know because we let the energy goes in to do the service for IGS solar and public works that's the men but they're not building us so our concern is is it producing power that then we're purchasing from them right.

[2:20:49] I don't have an answer.

[2:20:52] I think I would say on that if I can is most of times it's not the panel that fails it's

[2:21:00] a very expensive to replace and they replaced one of those inverters at the Lee gravel pit

[2:21:09] you know over the last you know five six years that I've been here.

[2:21:13] And for example at a certain point time revision owned the panels on the library we subsequently

[2:21:22] did buy those out. So Durham owns those now. But when revision did own the panels, that

[2:21:29] 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. And the squirrels

[2:21:38] got into the wiring and the library and just really caused significant problems. And that was

[2:21:44] all fully covered by revision at their cost, and they put up squirrel protection. So anyway,

[2:21:51] just an example. All right, moving ahead to page 77, the road program. And Rich, would

[2:21:57] you mind just giving an overview of the road program, please? Because it affects everybody.

[2:22:02] And as you're looking at subdivisions and project zoning, it's important for you to have a sense

[2:22:08] of how we deal with roads, I think.

[2:22:10] Right, so we utilize, if you don't mind,

[2:22:14] can I just share a quick slide?

[2:22:15] It'll be easier to talk to this, if that's okay.

[2:22:18] No problem.

[2:22:19] Okay, 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.

[2:22:39] Okay, great.

[2:22:41] Can you zoom in on it a little more?

[2:22:44] Yeah, I can do that.

[2:22:46] Give me one sec.

[2:22:49] How's that?

[2:22:52] you know, or maybe go into presentation mode.

[2:22:54] Yeah, good presentation.

[2:22:55] Oh, okay, sorry about that.

[2:22:57] Go with that little, yeah.

[2:23:03] There we go.

[2:23:04] Yeah, it's better.

[2:23:04] That easier to say?

[2:23:05] Yeah.

[2:23:06] Okay, all right, great.

[2:23:08] So, I've mentioned before, we utilize a software program

[2:23:14] called CityLogix, Payment Management System,

[2:23:17] and that allows us to really manage our full 59, 60 miles

[2:23:21] of roadway network in a very methodical way,

[2:23:25] Along with, you know, kind of ordination with other utility replacement, water mains, sewer lines, gas lines, if necessary.

[2:23:33] And that gives us the, oh, I just went, hold on, there we go.

[2:23:39] That allows us to coordinate all that.

[2:23:41] What we tried to do, we just recently did a full assessment and evaluation of our road network.

[2:23:47] And our goal is to try to keep that at an ADPCI.

[2:23:50] that 80 PCI gives us the ability to manage that and hit some of these deteriorated roads

[2:23:57] before 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, it's just under 80, the evaluation

[2:24:09] is for this last summer, late summer early fall is still underway, they're doing the post-processing

[2:24:16] work on that, we hope to get that back over the next couple weeks.

[2:24:19] but we have been holding our own right around that ADPCI.

[2:24:24] This, what we've observed lately is that some of these roads

[2:24:29] that were treated with a drag shim,

[2:24:33] which is a very thin overlay of pavement

[2:24:35] about even less than a half an inch at times

[2:24:39] based on the rutting of the roadway.

[2:24:42] We're seeing some accelerated deterioration of those roads

[2:24:46] and some of those roads are some of the major collectors

[2:24:48] that we have in town, Durham Point Road, Mill Road,

[2:24:52] Bennett Road, and Packers Falls Road.

[2:24:55] So we developed this five-year action plan on our roadways

[2:24:59] to address that, but also address some of these residential roads.

[2:25:03] So you'll see in the book a very detailed five-year plan

[2:25:07] for the road program.

[2:25:10] This upcoming year, we hope to be able to,

[2:25:14] We've requested about $734,000, which is a little more than we typically request, but really that's the that's the figure somewhere between

[2:25:25] $650,000 that will need to invest in the roads to maintain that VVPCI.

[2:25:33] The program for this year will consist of

[2:25:36] Durham Point Road, both East and West, and you can see that in this figure right here

[2:25:42] where my cursor is, those two roads, and it will be an inch and a quarter, so basically

[2:25:47] a shin and overlay on that roadway.

[2:25:50] And Rich, can I just clarify, because this is a question I had, when Rich says East and

[2:25:56] West, he means the whole road.

[2:25:58] There's not an additional center section that's not being done.

[2:26:01] It's the whole road.

[2:26:03] That's right.

[2:26:04] and then it will also include Bay Road.

[2:26:07] That's in a little bit better condition than Durham Point Road,

[2:26:11] but it also is showing some pretty significant signs

[2:26:14] of deterioration.

[2:26:16] Ideally, we would like to go in there.

[2:26:19] It's the base of the roadway is really what fails.

[2:26:22] First, and then the rest of the road

[2:26:24] could show signs of distresses.

[2:26:27] We would love to go in there and box out

[2:26:30] that entire roadway, 24 inches, put good gravels in there, and build it from the bottom up.

[2:26:37] But it just costs prohibitive to do something like that.

[2:26:41] So this treatment will give us that, you know, five to seven, nine years worth of, you

[2:26:47] know, good drivability of the roadway while we continue to look for grant money to do this

[2:26:54] in another fashion, possibly a reclaim of the roadway or maybe a cold-in-place recycling.

[2:27:02] So I'll stop there for a second to see if there's any questions on that.

[2:27:09] Rich, could you just touch on the efforts we've made to bring in federal grant money,

[2:27:15] which have not been successful and what that grant money would have allowed that we're

[2:27:20] not planning to do at this point in time?

[2:27:23] Yeah, that's a great comment.

[2:27:24] And 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, very similar to Madbury 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 for All.

[2:27:46] and that is a highly competitive grant round.

[2:27:52] It's a federal grant, and we put together

[2:27:54] what we thought was a very solid package.

[2:27:57] It would have allowed us to do safety improvements

[2:28:00] on the roadway, cycling, improvements for cyclists

[2:28:03] on that roadway, maybe some geometric changes

[2:28:06] in the road, and unfortunately we were unsuccessful

[2:28:10] to getting any grants for that.

[2:28:13] There's some other grants that we applied for smaller,

[2:28:15] but also we're not successful so we're going to continue to do that over the next

[2:28:21] half dozen years and try to get full funding for some of these improvements that I

[2:28:25] think we would all like to make on that roadway but at this point you know we're

[2:28:30] trying to balance you know the road going into a complete failure mode as well as

[2:28:35] those other roads that I mentioned and and being able to to maintain it at the

[2:28:40] level that we think it's necessary.

[2:28:44] Which do anticipate any changes to the scenic road other than resurfacing that people

[2:28:52] should be aware of the concern about?

[2:28:55] No, we'll be looking at the main concentration when we're doing a shaman overlay.

[2:29:00] There'll be some shoulder gravel work that we do, maybe some other areas that we might be

[2:29:06] We're looking at some failing culverts on the roadway.

[2:29:09] There's some what we call CMP or corrugated metal culverts that may have some significant

[2:29:16] kind of deterioration in their inverts.

[2:29:18] So we wouldn't want to put money into the roadway without addressing some of those.

[2:29:22] So we have a sense of which ones are failing.

[2:29:25] So we may do that with our own internal forces to replace those.

[2:29:29] But there won't be any significant changes, you know, as far as the scenic road goes.

[2:29:33] So I'll stop sharing it.

[2:29:38] And Rich, I was hopeful in terms of there are a lot of projects for public works.

[2:29:43] Public works is the main part of the CIP project or plan.

[2:29:48] But Rich, I was hoping as part of what you might talk about, you could touch upon the water

[2:29:54] system improvements in wastewater facilities plan, but I didn't know if there are other

[2:29:59] Prud-

[2:30:00] Judge Exx that you think would be helpful for the planning board to hear about.

[2:30:12] Did you hear that, Rich? Yeah, I did. I was just waiting. Was there anything else that we wanted to talk about before I get into that? No, okay. No. No. Okay. All right. So, um, so we have, um, we have a, a water main replacement program that we started. It was about four or five years ago that, um, addresses the 209 miles of, of water main that we have. Um, when we look at the miles or of water

[2:30:38] main and the condition, the type of material and the age, you know, we look at break history

[2:30:47] and we want to avoid breaks whenever possible, especially on these newly paved roadways.

[2:30:52] So what we try to do is combine our roadway work with utility work and in this case that

[2:31:00] utility work is water main.

[2:31:02] We also look at sewer, you know, mains at the same time and work with the gas companies.

[2:31:07] but we accumulate money over a period of time,

[2:31:10] typically this $75,000, we should be in a lot of speed

[2:31:14] when we look at all those components of a water main

[2:31:17] and what a replacement plan should be based

[2:31:21] on age of a water main.

[2:31:23] We should be putting much more in than $75,000,

[2:31:26] hundreds of thousands of dollars into that,

[2:31:28] but it's unrealistic to do that.

[2:31:30] So what we do is accumulate money over a period of time

[2:31:34] and we target a specific roadway when we have enough of that funding, we then go ahead

[2:31:41] and do the water main typically the year before, do a temporary patch, and then come back the

[2:31:46] next year with the road program and reclaim and pave that roadway typically. So in this case,

[2:31:54] on the town water system improvements for $75,000, that will be used with, so the FY27 funding will

[2:32:02] contribute toward a $200,000 project that we anticipate will be replacing the cast iron

[2:32:09] water main on the first section of Davis Avenue. If you look down where the Edgewood and Davis

[2:32:16] intersection is and you glance toward your right as you're going toward campus, you'll see at that

[2:32:21] early section there's three pavement patches there and those three pavement patches are there

[2:32:27] because we had three water mean breaks that needed to be repaired.

[2:32:32] So that will be our concentration in 2030 road program will be Davis Avenue

[2:32:38] and we'll be doing the water main just before that work and conjunction with that project.

[2:32:45] Any questions on water mean?

[2:32:50] And that just has one question.

[2:32:53] I think you sort of touched on it.

[2:32:56] 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.

[2:33:07] 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 to consolidate density where you have these services.

[2:33:22] is where you get the biggest bank for your buck when you implement an updated road or updated fix.

[2:33:29] In other words, it seems obvious that when you update a rural road, a few people benefit from that.

[2:33:34] But if you have greater density and you update a road that's in a dense area, you get a bigger bank for the buck.

[2:33:40] So I guess from a planning perspective, it would seem that we would want to try, I think,

[2:33:45] to consolidate an increased density where we have these services and where you can get a two for one or

[2:33:51] a three-for-one benefit versus a smaller benefit down on the rural area.

[2:33:59] I don't know if there are any thoughts about that, but in terms of the capital outlay

[2:34:03] for these things, it would seem that the denser we go in certain areas, the bigger bang

[2:34:08] we get for the buck.

[2:34:10] That maybe is both a question and a statement, I think.

[2:34:15] I would agree.

[2:34:16] I mean, if you look, a good example would be comparing the state of New Hampshire to the

[2:34:20] state of Maine. Maine is a significantly larger state in terms of geographic area, and

[2:34:27] that means they have huge networks of roadways to very small populated areas that they have

[2:34:33] to maintain at significant cost. Where New Hampshire is a smaller geographic area and we can

[2:34:40] put that we have better economies of scale in terms of those investments. But what I can

[2:34:44] say is we don't have any money targeted toward building new roads in Durham. We're simply

[2:34:50] maintaining what we have. And I don't know, Rich, like, is there, if a road is more rural,

[2:34:57] are you likely to see less wear and tear on it and therefore a need to get in and repair it?

[2:35:06] Fewer times over time than a more frequently traveled road or how's that work?

[2:35:12] Yeah, definitely. I think, you know, certainly, you know, average daily traffic on a roadways

[2:35:19] and the type of traffic plays a big part in the degradation of that roadway and I touched

[2:35:25] on the city logic software platform that we use and developing a PCI or a pavement condition

[2:35:32] index, but from there we also have another kind of data point that comes out of that and it's called

[2:35:41] a benefit value index and it's exactly what you just said, Peyton, where we look at average daily

[2:35:47] traffic, cost of repair, longevity of the repair, all these different components go into

[2:35:53] this algorithm that then allows us to prioritize some of these some of these on roadways and

[2:36:00] it will come out with a plan that is recommended and we then look at that and we use other engineering

[2:36:07] judgment and timing to say okay maybe it came out with this roadway but we also have a water

[2:36:13] replacement or a sewer replacement or we know the gas company wants to come in there

[2:36:17] so we would defer that so there is there is a lot of the additional analysis that goes into it.

[2:36:24] It's not just PCI it's the BVI benefit value index that helps drive some of the decisions

[2:36:29] that we make. I think sidewalks is more where we might see that stretch and the riverwoods is a

[2:36:36] good example where our sidewalk previously did not go out as far as riverwoods. It was on the

[2:36:42] the Durham side of the route for overpass.

[2:36:46] And once Riverwoods was constructed,

[2:36:49] the residents there said, well, we want a sidewalk.

[2:36:52] So Durham's response is, well, Riverwoods,

[2:36:53] if you want the sidewalk, you build the sidewalk.

[2:36:56] So they paid to build the sidewalk,

[2:36:58] but we accepted the sidewalk.

[2:37:00] And now, over time, we're going to have to spend text

[2:37:03] others to maintain that sidewalk.

[2:37:05] So it does make sense to consolidate development

[2:37:10] in areas where there are already sidewalks,

[2:37:13] so we don't have to extend infrastructure

[2:37:15] and maintain it and have additional staff

[2:37:18] to take care of it, et cetera.

[2:37:20] Water and sewer lines might be the same scenario.

[2:37:23] It's best to keep it compact,

[2:37:25] rather than long lines going out to very rural areas.

[2:37:29] Yeah, Michael.

[2:37:30] So while we have Rich here,

[2:37:33] I don't know if you were watching the earlier segment

[2:37:35] of the planning board meeting or not,

[2:37:37] before this.

[2:37:38] Yes. Okay. So we're talking about Tech Drive. Yes.

[2:37:41] Do you have a schedule that indicates when Tech Drive might be on the list of things to

[2:37:49] read? We do. We do. It's not in the five year plan, but we have mentioned to, you know,

[2:37:58] two Sean and the group at RJ Kelly that predominantly the where and impact of the roadway currently

[2:38:08] is with the 90 tractor trailers that that road sees each day. So we are going to have further

[2:38:16] discussions with them about potential exactions on that roadway to allow for the condition to be

[2:38:25] We improved after their major construction takes place because the truck traffic on that

[2:38:31] roadway is only going to increase over time.

[2:38:34] So we want to make sure that we have that discussion early on.

[2:38:38] And the same thing goes with the sidewalk that you guys keyed in on earlier.

[2:38:43] We have those same concerns and that's why we are including that in the scope that we'll

[2:38:50] be working with APEX on to look at the traffic impact study that was done in the third-party

[2:38:57] review.

[2:38:57] So, I think those are all things.

[2:38:59] We don't have tech drive in the five-year action plans.

[2:39:03] You won't see that come through this existing capital plan, but it will need to be addressed

[2:39:11] and we hope that we can work with RJ Kelly to come up with a reasonable approach on that.

[2:39:18] Thank you.

[2:39:18] So one more question also, because the other thing is that, as you know, we're starting

[2:39:23] to look at the issue of zoning in the around the central business district area, in the

[2:39:29] built-up areas.

[2:39:30] And a question come up in an earlier planning board meeting, at least two or three, maybe

[2:39:33] four meetings ago, about what studies exist and part of my ignorance on water and wastewater

[2:39:42] capacities in those areas.

[2:39:44] is so as we're starting to think about what might happen to those in terms of

[2:39:48] densities and stuff, are we facing limitations or are we all good to go and

[2:39:53] sort of what what what's the knowledge base that exists that can be shared with

[2:39:57] the planning board? Yeah it's a great question Michael and I think the other thing

[2:40:01] that we need to think about is not only capacity to collect and treat waste water

[2:40:07] or distribute up and treat and distribute water but it's a condition of those

[2:40:13] that infrastructure that's there now, and can it support additional capacity either collection or distribution.

[2:40:23] And the same thing goes with stormwater.

[2:40:25] We certainly in the downtown area, we do have some constraints on stormwater in our closed training system.

[2:40:35] And we've addressed a bunch of that with the Madbury Road Project.

[2:40:39] But on the other side, basically the Petty Brook side where the Petty Brook parking lot is and the collection system on that side that flows toward Petty Brook, that still has some some challenges as far as available capacity.

[2:40:55] In fact, it doesn't have available capacity at this point.

[2:40:58] It surges in 10-year storms and floods.

[2:41:04] It just doesn't have the capacity, the pipe capacity for additional flow.

[2:41:10] So it's not only just overall the capacity to distribute or collect, but it's also conditioned.

[2:41:21] We do have some pretty good sense.

[2:41:24] We had a grant that we received from the state $100,000 to do a west end sewer study to

[2:41:32] determine what type of capacity constraints do we have from the hedge and this technology

[2:41:41] drive development.

[2:41:43] And we know that there are some choke points leading to the interceptors.

[2:41:50] So that's the College Book Interceptor.

[2:41:52] There's a very small pipe that is actually under the fire department, underneath the rail

[2:41:57] road and under the building itself.

[2:42:00] So that's something that we have to take into account as we look at, you know, taking

[2:42:05] on more flow and what the, you know, what type of upgrades might be necessary from, you know,

[2:42:11] 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

[2:42:19] in front of the planning board.

[2:42:22] But is there a study that looks at the supply of water

[2:42:26] and sewage capacity for the areas around downtown?

[2:42:30] Yeah, we have a hydraulic model that we have

[2:42:34] that underwood engineers basically has that,

[2:42:39] and we work with them.

[2:42:40] So for example, the RJ Kelly, you heard him ask about the,

[2:42:43] oh, I'm sorry, I just wanted to know if something exists.

[2:42:46] OK, I just know I hydraulic my.

[2:42:48] Thank you.

[2:42:51] So just getting into the lease water facilities plan, we're asking for $425,000 to continue

[2:43:00] to implement some of the components of the lease water facilities plan.

[2:43:06] This is a plan that, this is a request that is split two-thirds, one-third by UNH and

[2:43:13] the town.

[2:43:13] So we pay for one third of that UNH pays for two-thirds of that all the capital projects are allocated that way

[2:43:20] You can imagine the wastewater treatment plant and the whole collection system is is very very complex

[2:43:28] It has many many large pumps blowers motors tankage

[2:43:33] clinical equipment, scale electronics, PLCs, 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, in fact, we're in the process of updating that right now.

[2:43:50] That is something that allows us to predict what needs to be replaced, what's approaching the end of its useful life,

[2:43:58] What we need to upgrade from a regulatory standpoint to meet our permit conditions and one of the things that is coming down the pike and you'll see that I would encourage you to read those two documents that I included this year in the capital plan on both the roads and the approach that we're taking in the recommendations but also on the wastewater facilities plan that goes into a little bit of detail about some of the upcoming challenges that we have.

[2:44:28] on treatment within a new permit that was issued for our waste water treatment plant having to do with copper and

[2:44:37] treating copper and managing that pollutant. So a lot of this this funding that we get the one-third of the

[2:44:45] 425,000 and the two-thirds of the UNH portion goes into that regulatory compliance and upkeeping of the waste water collection

[2:44:54] and system and pump stations and things like that.

[2:44:57] And just to know that...

[2:45:00] Unlike the fire department agreement with UNH where we split the cost for operation and capital 5050 with the water and waste water department's capital is two thirds UNH one third Durham. That's the cost here.

[2:45:17] So the last item I just wanted to briefly touch on was the rank renovation and recreation center project, which is on page 147. You'll see that's targeted for construction in 2029.

[2:45:31] that would be, as envisioned, all fundraising, whether that's viable or not, I don't know at this point in time, but I just wanted to flag that for you, so you could see that there's a funding in 27, which comes from the Rinc Fund 28 requested and then 29 for the major project.

[2:45:55] And I'll note that following Bill's presentation to the planning board last month, we received

[2:46:04] a call from the New Hampshire Division of Parks and Recreation, because in the early

[2:46:11] 2000s, we received a grant for maybe $20 to $30,000 to build a trail system at Wagonhill

[2:46:19] Farm.

[2:46:20] and as part of that-

[2:46:22] At the rink? At Jackson's Laney.

[2:46:24] Yes, I'm sorry, at the rink at Jackson's Laney.

[2:46:27] And as part of that agreement,

[2:46:29] we committed to leave everything there,

[2:46:34] open air and external.

[2:46:36] So that would, it seems,

[2:46:39] preclude us from covering and not covering,

[2:46:44] but making the rink an indoor facility.

[2:46:46] So we're following up with the division

[2:46:48] of Parks and Recreation just to learn more. So stay tuned.

[2:46:55] Well, that's what they're asserting. Yes. So we'll see what that in fact means in practice.

[2:47:04] But beyond that, we are happy to answer any and all questions that you may have.

[2:47:12] Yes, yes.

[2:47:14] Just one, I noticed that a lot of the bonding is through the New Hampshire Municipal Bond.

[2:47:20] I guess that's a bank and that it was tagged at 2.9% which seems low to me right now and

[2:47:27] it seems like I would, if you're getting that, that seems like a good right.

[2:47:31] I just was wondering what the, any ideas what the rate would be, it feels like it would be

[2:47:37] more like mid-3s but I'm not sure and then if that rate changes how much does it impact

[2:47:42] the ability to do these projects?

[2:47:45] Yeah, so we will fluctuate between going out and issuing a bond ourselves, or participating with the New Hampshire Municipal Bond Bank.

[2:47:54] The benefit of working with the Bond Bank is it's easier on the business office.

[2:47:58] There are fewer steps because they handle most of it.

[2:48:01] And they aggregate the bonding needs of towns and cities and school districts and counties to get a better rate.

[2:48:07] And so the rates that you see cited are the actual rates from the last issuance, and that's the best information they have for us.

[2:48:16] Now, the Federal Reserve just did increase rates by the quarter percent, so that would flow down to the bond bank when they issue their next set of debt, but this is the best information we have.

[2:48:29] So, it's an estimate.

[2:48:31] I

[2:48:37] just want to recognize and thank Gail Jablanski.

[2:48:40] This is her final CIP presentation for her years of service and great work on behalf

[2:48:46] of the town.

[2:48:49] Thank you.

[2:48:50] All right.

[2:48:51] Thank you.

[2:48:52] All right.

[2:48:52] So I'm more to come in the next month and a half will be really vetting all of this much

[2:48:58] more and finalizing a document which would go to the council for review there and eventually

[2:49:06] approval in some form.

[2:49:07] So thank you.

[2:49:09] Have a great day.

[2:49:10] Yes.

[2:49:11] Well, thanks for all that you all do, for everything you all do.

[2:49:14] It's amazing all the details behind the scenes that are not always seen but that are taken

[2:49:22] care of.

[2:49:22] So it's I think you do a terrific job and the detail is outstanding.

[2:49:27] And so thank you.

[2:49:30] The Durham team is small but mighty.

[2:49:34] Great job.

[2:49:49] That was a question for the packet, okay, we'll send them for the next meeting then.

[2:50:00] All right.

[2:50:02] Is there any other business?

[2:50:05] So, Mr. Chairman, we're not going to give the town administrator any suggestions or advice.

[2:50:15] Do you have?

[2:50:16] Do we have some suggestions?

[2:50:18] About three or four hours worth, so I'll pass it on to him privately.

[2:50:25] Okay.

[2:50:26] That's great.

[2:50:27] I don't want to.

[2:50:28] Todd, I really appreciate all the work you've put into this.

[2:50:32] But my reaction to this budget from the one last year, the CIP, the last two years before

[2:50:42] this, is 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 lot

[2:50:58] A lot of millionaires settling here and building

[2:51:02] Mac mansions and paying huge taxes

[2:51:05] and not putting any kids in the school system,

[2:51:07] et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

[2:51:09] But I don't see that happening.

[2:51:13] So I think we're in danger of being an unaffordable community

[2:51:23] for many people. But that's the result of having been here when the town offices were

[2:51:35] in the old courthouse. We had a town clerk. We didn't have a town administrator. The police

[2:51:46] station was in the courthouse. Public works had a little building in a parking lot.

[2:51:53] So we have really built a wonderful community with many departments, with many employees

[2:52:05] these providing wonderful services, but we're going to have to find some way to have more

[2:52:15] revenue coming in, so but I think you all know that, so thank you, Todd.

[2:52:23] I would just say that with the projects in the CIP that have been requested, again, what

[2:52:32] What you have before is not the final version, but in the initial vetting, the vast majority

[2:52:38] of them are simply continued investment in the infrastructure needed to provide the services

[2:52:46] that we currently provide in a reliable way.

[2:52:49] There's not a lot of extra in here.

[2:52:52] There's really not any extra in here.

[2:52:54] Other than the rink, the rink 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.

[2:53:08] But replacing the ladder truck or the dump truck

[2:53:12] in public works, the new truck would replace an older truck

[2:53:17] that really should be replaced because we rely on it,

[2:53:21] as a frontline vehicle during the most critical times.

[2:53:26] And for pieces of equipment like that, we've carefully

[2:53:29] valued whether it would be possible to go electric or to go hybrid versus the traditional

[2:53:37] 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

[2:53:46] public safety task.

[2:53:50] So anyhow, there's, you know, the Medbury Road Complete Streets project, much of that was

[2:53:57] required to do, the water needed to be done, the waste water needed to be done, the storm water there needed to be done.

[2:54:03] It needed to be repaved, and for a modest additional investment, Durham got something really special.

[2:54:11] And could the Council have chosen not to take that extra step it could have, but

[2:54:16] it opted based on a lot of feedback from the public to move ahead without enhancement.

[2:54:22] So we have an enhancement.

[2:54:23] The Milpine Dam is another example, it's a project that we had to do something, it's a

[2:54:30] big change, there's a cost, it's not free, but we had to take action in some way.

[2:54:35] And the council, the town made a decision.

[2:54:39] So just to respond, yeah.

[2:54:42] If I had one bit of advice to give, is that take the very last item in the CIP, the item

[2:54:51] is to purchase Sammy's lock from the university in 2033 for one and a half million dollars.

[2:55:00] I suggest we work to acquire that lock now, sooner rather than later, so the town would

[2:55:10] be in a better position to negotiate with potential developers who want to take the large amount

[2:55:20] of property on Main Street and the business, central business district that backs up the

[2:55:26] semis a lot, and be able to work out a development plan that will integrate that town property

[2:55:40] with the private properties facing Main Street.

[2:55:43] And frankly, I think the university has taken so many things away from us, our library,

[2:55:52] the pool, which used to be a talent pool, etc., that it might be time for the university

[2:56:00] to give us something back, to give us Sammy's lot.

[2:56:05] Oh, all right. Well, just so like with so many of the projects in the SAP, there's a lot to unpack with each of them, but I would just say in terms of the

[2:56:18] Sammies also called the store 24 lot also called the to desky lot. We now called the Bobcat lot. It's the lot behind what is was youngs is now Clarks. That's right. It's that long.

[2:56:32] on the south side of.

[2:56:34] So just so people know what we're talking about,

[2:56:36] that lot was part of one of the original

[2:56:39] Thompson bequests to the university or to the state.

[2:56:43] And it literally takes an act of the state legislature

[2:56:48] to sell pieces of that.

[2:56:52] And the university does not have an interest at the present time

[2:56:56] in going to the legislature for such a request.

[2:56:59] And my guess is, it's unlikely the legislature would provide it.

[2:57:05] And one never knows what they might do with the idea, if it's raised to them,

[2:57:10] with the current composition of this or future of legislatures.

[2:57:14] So I agree with you, I think Durham should own that lot.

[2:57:18] And have tried to move in a way that would allow us to acquire it.

[2:57:23] And in fact, a year ago, I had a serious conversation with

[2:57:28] the planning team at UNH and the finance team at UNH

[2:57:32] to see whether that might make sense for UNH to sell it to Durham

[2:57:38] as part of the broader Edge at West End project

[2:57:41] which would enable Durham to acquire the parcel

[2:57:44] UNH to receive some cash from Durham

[2:57:47] that it could then use toward the Edge at West End project.

[2:57:52] But after legal review and political review

[2:57:56] it was determined by UNH, there was no interest.

[2:58:00] So that is simply a placeholder.

[2:58:03] And then I would just note that the former UNH

[2:58:06] outdoor pool built during the works project administration

[2:58:10] was never owned by the town of Durham ever.

[2:58:13] It was always a University of New Hampshire facility

[2:58:17] owned and operated by UNH.

[2:58:19] Durham made a modest contribution to subsidize

[2:58:23] the cost of passes for that but well action that's an old argument we've had for a long

[2:58:31] a lot of reasons it's time came and went and we have a new pool and I would argue

[2:58:37] one of the best pools in the state of New Hampshire that's available to Durham residents at

[2:58:42] no cost whatever in terms of building construction or maintenance. Durham got such a deal

[2:58:49] and we don't have residents swimming in a pool that did not meet any of the

[2:58:55] modern health and safety standards. Okay so there's that too. Thank you

[2:59:02] Todd. Thank you. Motion to adjourn. Second.

[2:59:13] That was a motion to adjourn it was yes, so I'll just say it outside of the me so to joy and

Planning Board Meeting 9∕23∕26

Agenda

Transcript