Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We will open the meeting. First item on the agenda is DMV repair registration permit for Premier Towing and Auto Repair, 25 Commercial Drive, Unit 9. And we have an application or a letter from the state in our packets. and some condo docs related to the property. Is there any background, Glenn or Mark, that you had before we dive in?

Thank you. Background, as in information about this application? Yes. So it's an application for, a building that has a similar activity in it already. It's a series of condo units on Commercial Drive, and this particular plate being requested is the same plate that another unit has in the facility. That unit is a double unit, I think. I'm not sure, but it's in a 2,000 square foot area. So I'm assuming it's in the double unit. is in a single unit. The entire site is challenged by parking. It's from, nearly from its inception. We set a standard that at the time we thought was appropriate, not so sure that that's the case.

And this is, but it's an allowed use. It is an allowed use. In the development. And the current use in this unit?

I don't know. I'm sorry.

The current use in this unit?

The current use? I mean, he's currently using it. The applicant is currently using it right now.

As?

as a towing and storage yard. I mean, you can clearly see by the condo docks that the 1,000 square foot unit is allowed two parking spaces. And a 2,000 square foot unit is allowed three parking spaces.

I know. We just have the paper. You don't have it in there.

Oh, I do. I was waiting for your cue. So this is sort of standing in a private way or a private road not on their property and I'm going to work my way around to the front to the front of the building.

Okay, so is there that building one unit, or is it?

This would be unit nine, corresponding going down, so 9876. Now the condo docs say that the limited common area is 15 feet from this bay door. So when you read the condo docs, that's what it's referring to, is 15 feet from each bay door. The rest is considered common area between all the units. This roadway that seems to be created is not part of the site plan. Paul does have the site plan if you guys want to take a look at that. I apologize, I do not have it electronically, just in physical form. So this roadway right here, if you look at the site plan, this is actually the leach field underneath the roadway. So the pictures will just keep going right around to the front of the building. You might want to just kind of put it at the table and if any board member wants to come and take a look at them They're more than welcome to do so. I think that's the best course of action So by my brief count there's 17 vehicles or trailers that are not in designated parking spaces

There are, I think, 29 approved parking spaces.

Yeah, I do have the complete file. At one point, the BMW added on one.

Beyond what is shown on that plan.

Thank you, Mr. Marino.

So what we're looking at is showing an end unit. There are one, two, three, four parking spaces behind designated.

And it sounds like there's one more than that.

And the leach field is adjacent to the unit. And now there's a road. through the leach field.

Is that right?

By condo document, yes.

And you're 100% sure about the numbering? Backwards?

Yes.

Okay. So in the...

They're sort of parked everywhere.

You know, and most alarmingly, right over the septic field.

So when this was developed and the uses were determined for the site plan, was it specific to units or it was here are the allowed uses in this development?

That's exactly what the case was.

And I can't tell you I didn't look at this septic plan. If they have a chambered system that can handle the weight of vehicles, which lots of commercial septic systems can, that isn't an issue other than it's not a designated parking area at all on the site.

Well, that's it. I mean, the approval runs with the landowner or the property owner. really has nothing to do with the tenants. So the property owner is responsible for adhering to the approved site plan period full stop. So I would think that we would defer any action on this until we requested the code enforcement officer, which I guess pre or post approval, it's the code enforcement officer that would have the jurisdiction to go up and make the determination of whether or not the site plan was being adhered to. And we should defer action on any greater use of the property until we understand where we are.

Is there anyone here representing the owner or the business? Do you want to, if you can come up to that microphone and introduce yourself.

And thank you for your patience.

I know it's weird, kind of like we're talking about you like you're not.

I know.

Thanks. I'm Matthew. I've been in town for like eight years now, so it's nice to meet you guys. So, yeah.

Sorry, can you just introduce yourself for the record?

Matthew Trop, T-R-O-P-P.

Thank you.

Yeah. So, yeah, I'm in agreeance that the parking structure is a little bit chaotic over there. We have four units in total on... 25 Commercial Drive is both of those buildings on the left and the right. But units six through nine is on the left side, so.

You have all four of those?

No, no, I'm in, so we share it. For the second building, two of the end units are owned and then the end two units are rented myself and we have another gentleman who rents it. But we've all been there for like over five years now. But as far as the parking situation is concerned, A lot of it is not actually our cars, believe it or not. I actually don't even, if you look at a lot of the, obviously the tow trucks and stuff are responsible for, but we don't store or keep junk vehicles there for more than maybe a day or two because I get them and then I'll bring them to the salvage yard. But we're very much aware that this is not a facility that can maintain a ton of vehicles. So when we look at a lot of these vehicles, And it doesn't really depict it well in these pictures, but like behind the building, there's like a ton of junk that's accrued. And I speak to, it's not mine. So I speak to the neighbors and they own it now. They own the outside of their building. So like when I speak to my landlord, He's like, well, we're not really responsible for it anymore. He has to keep up with his junk. So there's a ton of all those vehicles that we can barely see the fronts of on the rear. Those are all owned by the end unit. Those are all unregistered cars that have been there for five years. And then there's some cars alongside the building that have been owned by the end unit too. So we're- By six, the other end. Six and seven. yeah that he owns those units so and he's uh the trailer is not mine um that camper that you caught me at a bad time that was that was there for like under 12 hours i picked it up and then i just i we we couldn't bring it to a campsite at that time so and this was like a week and a half ago and then we we dropped it off so but we don't store any long-term things there i i personally don't there's been cars from neighboring units that have stored stuff there um But I'm also not requesting to kind of change anything as far as like that goes. This is more or less just for like vehicles that get towed in from people's residences and things along those lines that are unregistered, just so we can test drive. And that's essentially, that's basically what the RSA depicts as well. It's more or less just to test drive vehicles that aren't registered, make sure repairs are completed. It's not like it doesn't really change any of the usages that i'm doing it's just more or less to allow us to drive vehicles that aren't registered to make sure repairs are completed and to make sure everything is good like that. But it's not going to like change the volume of cars or anything in the area it's going to be, if anything, less because you know we can get cars in and out expeditiously.

So what do you have right now from the state?

In regards to what?

What registration or what type of business do you have right now registered with the state?

So, I mean, it's an auto repair and towing operation, but I mean, realistically, 90, I would say, percent of our work is done off-site. So we're a AAA provider for the town here. We're a AAA provider for all of these neighboring communities. So 90% of our work is done out on the roadway. This is more or less based on, we do, we've kind of structured the business to do like emergency repairs. So we've been doing like a lot of alternators, starters and things of that nature for our customers and for AAA members that are kind of stranded. But essentially that is what the operation is like consisting of right now.

Yeah. So how many toe tucks do you have?

Three.

Do you park anything inside or is that?

We have the capabilities to park things inside, but with the unit being a singular bay, there's, we need access to that essentially in order to get cars in and out. So there's really no long-term projects or anything like that because we only have a single bay, so I need to get things in and out quickly. But I mean, I agree, if it was up to me, the place would be landscaped and look beautiful. I'm super OCD, and I don't like the look of the place at all, but unfortunately, our neighbors don't share the same objective in regards to.

And I get what the landlord, I guess, said about it not being.

Yeah, because I see him, because he has a unit down in the first building next to the BMW repair shop, so he's down there, and I see him through passing, and I'm like, I'm like, what is it? And he's like, he really has no say in it any longer. But yeah, I mean, the last thing I want to do is have a bad presentation to the community. That's absolutely not the objective at all. But I'm just looking for basically approval for a singular, it's not like a bunch, but just a singular plate that we can apply or affix to vehicles that are being repaired and then it gets removed when it goes back to the customer. But it's not going to facilitate like a whole.

Right. What's your understanding right now of how many spaces you have?

Um, from the, from the jump, uh, we have been, uh, informed that it's, it's, it's kind of a free for all. Uh, so, uh, and we all, uh, we all coexist very well. There's never, ever been a debate, uh, internally about the parking situation where I'm aware that it's, it's horrible. There's like three spots in the rear, like depending on the overgrowth of brush and whatnot, there's like maybe three or so spots in the rear for four units is tough. So, I mean, as far back as I can remember, I've been in town since 2018. And even prior to that, you know, they've been kind of utilizing any of the other open areas in the yard to try to stick vehicles. I know the septic tanks, I'm not super familiar, I'm not a septic installer, but I know the septic tanks are in the front and myself and anybody else close to me are very mindful not to go anywhere near the tank. So I'm not sure if that is, in fact, a leach field or not.

Those are distribution tanks. Those distribution tanks run to the leach field. So it's very easy to see. I think I'd like to see the board come back to the question at hand here. The request from the state of New Hampshire Department of Motor Vehicles was, if you want to read that mark, I believe it was, does this site conform to Town of Brentwood site plan and zoning regulations? So I think we're getting ahead of ourselves to start talking on the tangents.

Just wanted to get the facts.

And I just wanted to clarify that this This plate you do not have at this point. This is a first application for this plate?

Yeah, I've never applied for it before. We had gotten to the point where we were fixing cars for people that were unregistered. I started kind of going over the criteria required for the repair play and I kind of looked into it and realized that, oh, this should probably be something I could pursue to help us with vehicles that are unregistered that we're repairing currently or actively. But no, I've never applied for one before and we have no experience with the process. So this is all kind of new.

I think Doug's had his hand up for a while.

So just to kind of give my thoughts here, because I do agree with Bruce. I think it would be premature for us to take action tonight before we get more guidance on these compliance issues. First of all, thank you so much for coming. It's really helpful having you here. I really sympathize with the position you're in, because I recognize that it sounds like you're not responsible for a lot of what's going on here. But I don't necessarily think that that changes the compliance issues that we're faced with necessarily, which isn't the most fair thing to you. But sadly, it is the position that we're in, and we still have to evaluate that.

Yeah, it's certainly not a bad use of a property. I mean, there's a couple options for you. You could request sometimes we do addendums to site plan. I guess the board would have to determine how extensive the change to the original approved site plan is based on what's there now to determine if you need, the owner would have to do a complete new site plan. Or perhaps it could be an addendum to a site plan that was small enough. But The Planning Board, once we approve and record a site plan, is what you have. That no longer is the jurisdiction of the Planning Board say anything other than does this conform to the plan. The code enforcement officer reporting to the Board of Selectmen, which will request that he do, he reports to the Board of Selectmen, the Board of Selectmen then can take action.

They're the only enforcement body in town.

And if you get the site cleaned up or the, it's not your responsibility, it's the owner of the property.

They're all stakeholders. We need to keep that in mind, that this is a condominium. So if it's a one and nine, everyone is a stakeholder there.

If everyone's a stakeholder then, in the planning board, which we have done before, vote to revoke the site plan. In other words, revoke your business license. That would apply to all people, and probably that's a great thing, because if the people have a financial stake in the property, Probably they're going to band together and maybe hire you with your tow truck to start hauling these junk cars or unregistered vehicles or vehicles in excess of the number that are allowed by the site plan. Haul them somewhere. We don't care where you haul them.

Bruce, you said, stay on point. So I'm going to, Paul had asked if he could say something. and then all of them after. And then Doug will have them all.

Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out where it says, and maybe I'm missing it, that we're being asked to determine site plan compliance, because as I'm looking at this, it just seems to, you can point it to me.

Complies with local ordinances or requirements.

Okay, so you're reading the local ordinances broadly. Yeah, okay.

Compliance with the site plan. Yeah, okay.

Well, yeah, I mean, I'm not disagreeing with the reading. I was looking for something that said site plan compliance.

That's why I brought it to you guys. I mean, I read that, and that's what I interpreted the way Glenn did, but I did see your viewpoint.

It's why they send this to the town.

Okay, all right, because I was looking at it more narrowly, frankly, which was just passing on whether or not this particular business is within its ability or rights to operate, but I understand what you're saying.

Before you make a motion, can I just ask a question?

Yeah, well, I mean, making a motion doesn't stop discussion, but yeah.

I'm just wondering what our options are. Obviously no one's thrilled about the excessive parking and whatever. Are we, our options are vote no and then they have to redo the site plan?

I was gonna make a motion that I think might help.

Okay.

So, and maybe this is not the most expeditious way to move forward, but I'm going to give it a shot.

Go for it.

I'm going to make a motion that we table this request pending guidance from code enforcement.

I'll second that.

Can I have further discussion? I'm just curious with the applicant, like, how much of a headache would that cause you to have to wait?

It's not necessarily the waiting is an issue. I'd like some understanding of things. So obviously, I can only be responsible for what I possess. So with the neighbors having cars, What I'm getting at is I'm only applying for a repair plate for my business, for my operation, right? If you are part of it, it improves overall site. Right, but so is Derek at Precision BMW, and he's actually at the same address as us. So I'm just trying to figure out what differs his operation, which is essentially the same as mine. Is it because he has more parking in his area?

No, we're going to deal with the entire site compliance.

I'm wondering is there a way we can, because if I'm understanding his presentation, him getting this license or whatever it's called isn't going to change what he's doing. He will just kind of have official paperwork. Can we... approve his request so he can keep operating his business and in parallel pursue the code enforcement route and try to- I'd say a big no, because the state of New Hampshire is asking you a question.

It's a very simple question. Does this site comply with Town of Brentwood land use and zoning regs?

No, it actually complies with local, just to be precise. Okay, precise. We want to do that. Complies with local ordinances or requirements or has a variance to operate in. One way of interpreting that, Bruce, and I understand what you're saying, but one way of interpreting that is that it really is narrowly focused on on the business, and I think what Stephanie's trying to suggest is that we're really dealing with separate and distinct issues here. So I think there are two ways of looking at it.

Yeah, I completely disagree with you, but I've said it once, so I won't say it again, but you said it three times, so I feel like I need to say it.

I think the connecting issue here, though, is that in the site plan tied to this particular condo is two spaces. And he's got three trucks plus whatever vehicles. And I know they're in and out fast, but it's going to be more than one. At a time, couple at a time.

Like I said, a lot of them are long-term, but they're not mine.

No, no, but for your business.

Yeah, for my business. Well, that's the thing, and I think a couple of you are kind of agreeing with me that it's really not going to change the day-to-day operation whatsoever. We're still going to be fixing cars. It's just to allow, if the event arises that one is unregistered, I can test drive it and then get it back to the customer. I'm totally in favor of addressing the parking and doing all that stuff, but I think that the state, you know, the state is kind of focusing on am I allowed to operate there, which we've been there for eight years. We've been in front of the board before. I think that we are allowed to operate where we're at. I don't think, I think that we're kind of bringing two separate issues up versus kind of, separating them and addressing them individually.

I tend to agree with Steph on this one. And when you think about it, if he parked two tow trucks in his two parking areas and one in the garage, he's in compliance. And he's driving the tow truck back and forth to his house.

But again, the site plan approval is for the site. Everything is encumbered on that reported site plan. In Brentwood's historical, we've not had any aberration to enforcement we always consider the site as the site. I mean, Glenn is saying absolutely. And part of what this does, you don't wanna be chasing nine different people, not that we have to anyway, but by encumbering the whole site and viewing it as one project, which it is, one project.

The noncompliance letter will be sent to the association. They're all stakeholders in an association. That's who owns the property is the association.

And I think, you know, if somebody came in tomorrow who has a different unit and wants to do something, you know, we have to, again, look at the whole thing.

Would it be the same argument?

I think one of the issues is, and I was sort of... Sidebar? Sidebarring with Glenn on this, and this is correct, is that it says the applicant... whether the applicant complies, and you being the applicant, and there's an issue because the parking for your particular unit is limited to two, so you're beyond that, so if you focus narrowly on that, that actually becomes a problem. We can't represent that there's compliance specific, and I know there are broader issues that people are talking about, but with regard to that specific issue, we can't represent that there is compliance.

So Paul, if he packs two in his parking spots and one in the garage, he complies.

But he's saying he's bringing cars there to repair as well.

In the whole site, I mean, it's obvious. Part of the reason we have regs is to protect abutting landowners. It occurs in a residential zone for junk and the way we set out driveway locations and what we allow on the property. And so our regulations protect the greater community. And I would be PO, to tell you the truth, if I owned a commercial lot on that road. And most of those guys are well into compliance. I mean, this basically looks like a junkyard to me. Oh, it does. There's no question. Right, yeah.

But that's a broader issue. I think if you're dealing narrowly with the applicant, and that's what this permit is asking us about, but we still have a problem because it goes beyond the two.

What if he hypothetically had an agreement with one of the other units to rent a space? Would that solve it?

So then it would be four? Is that what you're suggesting?

No, I mean, if his unit only comes with two, but he needs three, could he rent one from one of the other units?

But if they're not in compliance either? Yeah.

So the BMW dealership only has three spots also?

I think the letter from the state gives you a physical address, and they are saying, does the activity at this address, and they tell you what that number is, Greg.

No, it's specific to the applicant.

Okay, but it gives his address as?

Unit 9, legal address.

What's his legal address? 25 Commercial Drive, Unit 9, that's the applicant.

But it's a condo.

Yeah, it's part of a group.

Development. And I would say, and you can tell me if I'm wrong, but the person that you asked, the owner, and he said, it's not my problem, there's nothing I can do, I would say it's everybody's problem who's got a stake in this development.

Right, but he doesn't own those units. But he owes...

He owns some of that. There's a condo association.

Yeah, no, I agree. He owns the land where all those other vehicles are parked. Who, the landlord? Yeah. Well, I don't know. We're splitting hairs. I don't know exactly.

Yeah, we should probably, should we, Glenn, is there anything else that we need to consider this evening? Or do you recommend tabling it?

And if I can just clarify, my intention with the tabling motion is for us to eventually get to a place where we can give you what you need because I want you to be able to operate truly. But the reason why I think the best way to do that is the tabling motion is because I just don't feel like we have what we need right now to sign off and say, yes, you're actually in compliance at this point. But I think that we can get there, though.

Yeah, so I guess my two questions are, what would that process consist of? And how does somebody at that address, not a neighboring address, at our address, how did you guys already approve one? But what's the difference exactly? But it's at the same address. And you're talking, it's all a big condo and we're all responsible. How is somebody else in this address approved and we're not? I don't know how long.

Your two vehicles in these pictures are not parked in a parking space. I mean.

And is the BMW place, is it a towing place?

But they're not my, so I'll put all my vehicles in a parking space and then can we reschedule?

Is the, I mean.

The BMW, the BMW shop, and again, I don't want to try to throw anybody under the bus.

Are they a towing operation? Did they take,

They get vehicles towed in and out all day, yes, but they don't do the towing. But he has far more than three spots. They don't. Yeah, exactly. And we're trying to, but we don't have paper.

My understanding is also that the units don't all have the same number of spots, depending on where they are.

Yeah, do you see all those vehicles? That's the first time we're looking at this.

If we were to consider a denim to a site plan or a new site plan, then that's where you could make all these changes. You could define... what lots or how many parking spaces there are, not necessarily who was attached, but this is all one big ball of wax here. And I think, I mean, it's going again.

I think everyone, the BMW place created painted lines in the driveway for these two parking spaces.

They are not on the site plan. So I would even suggest we go further to, I would take Glenn's word, but to confer with the town attorney to see how a site plan that was, the applicant was one person who owned the property at the time, I still think someone's responsible.

If you read the condo docs provided, I sent you an email, it has these condo docs in its entirety.

Yeah, we don't need an attorney to tell us.

It clearly states.

It's pretty clear and unambiguous.

It's like a homeowner's association for residential.

Right, it clearly states that each unit is a stakeholder.

but the association itself, as in this case, is the one that is responsible.

Yes, they all are responsible, all nine of them, and they all get an equal vote per unit.

So trying to be the good guy like we've done before, we always get kicked in the teeth. I mean, I've been at this for many, many years. Not always. Well, generally speaking, the way to get compliance is to enforce the site plan on record, period.

But I think to answer your question. But the state's asking about are our units responsible

operation i don't think they really want to know what they're asking about compliance with our ordinances which is the whole site plan correct they their their perspective is we're not going to get into any sort of um involved argument over local ordinances we're going to ask the town whether or not somebody applying to us complies with zoning if a town responds that they comply with zoning they are happy as a clam because they're not going to, that's not their battle. Their battle is to ask us if we have a battle about the way the local ordinances are either being met or has a variance been granted. And in this case, the answer is a variance hasn't been granted and the ordinances are not being met. And that's all they care about. That's all the state cares.

And I think to answer your question, this is, this is the first time that I can recall in many years that this has been brought to our attention via this request.

It would be more, I still haven't had an answer, but I just don't understand. With regard to that property. How we don't.

They may, yeah.

That's hard to comprehend. It may have been years ago. I haven't gotten any answer, but I mean.

But we'll look at, we'll ask through the select board. for compliance of the entire property we looked at.

Okay, and then what, because again, so in order for me to get approval for this particular license plate, everybody at 25 Commercial Drive from both buildings needs to be in compliance for me.

With the site plan? The overall site needs to be in compliance.

Yeah, yeah, so all nine tenants or whatever.

How you deal with that is your responsibility.

It should be self-policing as a condo.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong. You wouldn't have to. I'm more or less just trying to understand. Because it's really not even a big deal. Because there's no way we're going to get all nine stakeholders on board with helping me out.

The nuclear option that Bruce mentioned is that we look at the entire compliance and the entire site plan. And extreme situations can revoke a site plan, in which case everybody would need to do something.

Do you know if there's a condo association that exists there, or is there just nine? No, there is, yeah. Okay.

Absolutely. All right. So as far as my responsibility, what is the next step that I can do? I would go back and tell the landowner.

No. The head of the condo association. Well, the condo association is the landowner. The taxes go to a condo association.

But let's just stick with our next step is to request that the code enforcement officer go out and take a look and make recommendations about how to bring the plan into compliance as a whole, and then that information should be shared with whoever's on record for the property, all nine.

If all nine people ask you, you say, hey, buddies, we already have a template. You already have the answer to your question.

I'm not part of the condo association. I am just attending. So I don't really.

As I believe, but read through your condo docs that if you are a renter of a unit, you are a stakeholder.

Well, I'm not, I'm not an owner. No? The owner of the unit.

The owner of the unit would be the stakeholder?

I have no condo docs, I have no connection to the condo association.

So because you rent, you lose a right of voting? Yeah. Yeah?

It's not your property. Of course you need that. You have no right.

All right, well, let's... I guess that's not our problem, is it? Step by step, let's do... Doug's motion to table this, and let's do another motion to ask Code Enforcement to follow up. Does that work?

Now to answer, maybe give him some guidance on his question, what does he have to do? Because he only has two spots right now, yet he has three vehicles. He probably needs one more spot. So what's his alternative?

We're dealing with the association. That's who this board is dealing with, is the association. So we don't need to tell them anything. They can go down to registry for $3. They can get a copy of that approved plan right over here at the courthouse on North Road, and you'll see exactly what you're allowed on that site plan, where the parking spaces are. You can check your, the town maintains a copy of septic design approvals, or you can get one from DES, and we can find out if that is a chambered system where you can drive over it. I think where you're seeing those tanks, those tanks are probably Distribution tanks one for each unit or multiple units that come out That's your distribution tank where all the solids settle and then the liquid runs to a field and probably that's what they're driving over is the field Long-term solution may be renting a spot from somebody else it may be the site plan being amended to create more parking spaces and

Or going to ZBA for a variance.

I know it may seem discouraging, but truly our goal is to make this work. Truly.

Right. I don't think any, I think we're just kind of throwing stuff at the wall, and I don't really know what I can do as just a tenant in this building.

Right, you may not be in a position to do anything as a tenant in the building, but unfortunately, we're being asked to make a representation as to whether or not there's compliance with the local zoning ordinance, and unfortunately, we can't say yes on that, and that becomes problematic

Well, I mean, as I said, it doesn't really change anything. Tomorrow, the same operation is going to happen. Understood. You're not really opening a can of worms by saying yes, but I get you don't want to say yes.

Well, we can't. We can't legally say yes.

But you did to the neighbor.

No.

In the same building.

Not today, though. Not today, okay. Current conditions. Right. Right. Yeah, relatively recently. Could be. Yeah.

Well, I don't know what year the site plan was recorded, but it was probably 15, 18 years ago. Right, so it wasn't yesterday or the week before.

Exactly, exactly. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But again, just because a mistake's made one time doesn't set a precedent.

Well, at least we're addressing there was a mistake.

Well, I don't know that for sure, and I don't remember this in recent times.

Yeah, and I have no idea. When they came in, they came in for a repair plate And we didn't question that they had enough spaces, knowing they were a unit that had more spaces. So I can't tell you that they are in compliance or aren't.

We've got to take each situation as it comes before us. The facts are always different from what may have existed at some previous point in time. Right, right.

But as members, we take an oath when we're elected. We take an oath to uphold the rules and regulations of the town to the best of our ability. And so to vote approval tonight on something we know is not what it should be is a violation of our oath of office.

So what can I do? Yeah, we're going to vote on, so Doug motioned, Steph seconded, tabling a vote on the permit request from the state. All in favor for tabling? Aye. Any opposed? All right, and then can we have a motion to request, do we request directly or do we have to do it through the select board for the compliance officer?

I'll take care of it.

Okay. Yeah, I think that's fine.

Do we need to vote?

No. Okay, all right. I would say stay in contact with Mark and he can give you an update on where that stands. And if you want more specific information like Bruce was talking about, Mark has a lot of that, so you don't necessarily have to go to the courthouse.

If you send me an email on Monday, I will give you the plan number, the D number. I will send you an electronic copy of the condo docs. Anything that I have, I will give you. I don't have the site plan electronically because it was created before I was expecting to see a memory stick in there, but I don't have it. I just have it in physical form.

If you give him the D number, the recording number.

Yeah, he can go down to the registry and get it, and I'll provide you with all that information.

Round trip about four miles. And I'm not dissing Mark at all, but I just think we're thinking about how this process works. The Select Board is the only enforcement body in town. So I think to keep them in the loop and to keep a progression of actions being taken, that this board, through our motion, should be to ask the Board of Selectmen to... you know, basically to send the building inspector, code enforcement officer, who works under the purview and the authority of the Board of Selectmen, just to keep it cleaner so there's a track of... Is that a motion? That's a motion.

Okay, we have a second.

So what exactly was that motion?

The motion would be to request of the Board of Selectmen a site visit by the code enforcement officer of the property involved. Now, I'm talking about the... the property as defined by the recorded site plan. So maybe before we talk to Chuck, I'll even go over and get you a copy over at registry.

Bruce, it's a code enforcement issue, I mean.

Well, it is, but you guys are the next step.

I know, but you know. If you'd like to make that. It really starts to elevate form over substance and require that we take a vote at the next select committee. Well, no, no, no, no, no.

No, no, we're just voting.

the planning board request.

To request the selectmen to send out the code enforcement. I know, but he's not asking, he's not saying. It can go either way.

It's not uncommon for us to vote to ask the select board to do something, so I'm perfectly happy to entertain a motion.

A motion's been made.

And do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Who was my second? Thank you, Mr. Vance.

Opposed? No, I'm not opposed. I just, you know, I think we can, you know, proceed.

It's not, yeah.

No, I understand.

Did you vote no?

I haven't voted no.

I'll abstain. Okay, thank you.

As a member of the select board. Yeah. Okay. So your other contact is the select board because they do handle enforcement. Okay. So you can also talk about that.

So moving forward, though... In my, well, I know the answer to that, but I can only be responsible for my unit and my two parking spaces or whatever. So if I have two vehicles and the parking space and all of the other things are not belonging to me, which could very easily be done, then I and my unit am in compliance. However, are we worried about what the neighbor's units are doing to approve my repair play?

Because it's all part of one approved site plan, and it's a condo.

But the state is specifying Unit 9's operation. Is it allowed? That's really what they're asking. I assume that's how the other neighbor got there. They're not asking, is everyone on this property allowed to do what their all respective businesses are?

So can I just ask directly? Can you do your operation using two spaces? You're going to have customer vehicles there. You're going to have employee vehicles there. And you're going to have your tow trucks there. And you have two spaces. Until you can address that issue, we are not going to change the response to this letter from the state. Now, you've stated this is you're asking for this application for the first time. So the assumption of this board, I believe, is, You're going to tomorrow act in your business the exact same way you've been acting in your business for the last five years that you've been here. If you were doing something illegal then or that you felt is more legal if you get this permit from the state, that's something for you to pursue. But we're not going, there's no difference in the opinion of this board as to what you're doing this morning from what you're going to do tomorrow morning. and this board and the town are going to look at the overall site. It's as easy as that. I mean, until the board is comfortable that you have the spaces required to do the activity that you want as far as this repair plate goes, they're not going to change the decision.

No, no, and I'm not trying to necessarily change anybody's opinion. I more or less just want... Guidance. Guidance, yeah, moving forward. Because when I walk out of the door, I would like to have some sort of process in my head that I can be like, OK, I can do this. or the complete opposite, hypothetically, and I'm like, I really don't have a lot of say because all of the neighbors are not.

I think we've told you all that we can tell you from a legal basis or something from a basis of authority of this board.

But in the interest of being helpful, though, because I do want us to be helpful to you. I think that, and I think you're probably getting some mixed messages here. So going back to what Kristen said, and this may not be the most satisfying answer, but it might be the best one right now because we're also looking for guidance in terms of next steps on our end too. basically is kind of what's happening. I really think that being in touch with Glenn and Mark, and then Paul is the select board rep for the planning board. As this process moves forward, as we're looking at these enforcement issues, keeping in touch with them, about potential next steps. I know it's frustrating that we don't really have concrete steps necessarily to give you tonight, because I know that that would probably be the most helpful thing for you. And I recognize that. And I know that it's frustrating. And you're being very patient with us. And that's very appreciated. So I do think that probably the best next steps is to just keep these lines of communications open while this process moves forward. And sincerely, our goal is to make this work. Okay. Maybe that's kind of an answer?

A little bit, sort of, kind of? It certainly is. I mean, the best advice I could give you, sir, is fix your stuff, and we'll fix everyone else.

Right, right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you so much. No problem. Thanks. Thanks again.

All right. Next on the agenda, we have a letter from our fire inspector, Robert Tuttle. You wanna come on up?

Good evening.

Do you want, do you want, thank you. If you want a chair, if that, you know.

No, I'm okay.

Join us, okay. Yeah, introduce yourself and give us a little background on the letter. I'm Robert Tuttle.

I'm with the fire department. You're a fire inspector now. I've taken over Jason. I'm coming to you guys because working with local businesses and places coming into town, there seems to have been a lot missing, and I'm surprising people a lot. So I'd like to come to you guys and present some requirements that we're going to need as far as when commercial and industrial places come into town. that we're gonna be requiring. Some of it is required by NFPA. Some are gonna be required by the fire department having jurisdiction.

Okay, but you're going to be, when you ask these requirements, BMAT, you're going to cite the codes to support those?

Yes, so some of them are already in there. Like the first one, there's a specific table that is used for water flow requirements when fighting fires. Unfortunately, this town has no municipal water, and we are extremely limited on water supply in general in this town. There's a few fire ponds around town, but most of the time it's like, I guess the old standard was like a 30,000 gallon cistern, which actually doesn't even meet code in the first place. So...

Well, those early cisterns and fire ponds were approved by Redburn and Old Chief.

Bruce, before we do back and forth, can you walk through Sure. The letter and all the recommendations that you have.

Yeah, so basically the first one is the fire flow requirements. That's the table that requires specific fire, the water we need to fight a fire for a minimum of two hours for commercial buildings. That table is in NFPA and depending on the size of the building depends on the size of the amount of water. Is there any questions on that from you guys?

Is that also dependent upon use?

It does depend upon use as well. But just in general, the code basically states that any building other than a one or two family home is required to have a two-hour, 1,500 gallons per minute for two hours. you're looking at 180,000 gallons of water that we need on site.

You're speaking, I don't want to get up to my attorney, but these points or details is the all-important aspect of how this board relates to applicants. So when you're saying that specific amount for a home, you're talking about as part of a development.

This is specific to commercial?

When you said home.

Other than one or two family dwellings. Because other than. other than one and two family home. Okay.

So multifamily and commercial.

Multifamily and commercial. And industrial. Industrial.

I'm sorry, where in the letter does it speak to that two hour requirement? I didn't see that.

So the NFPA, I have it under, right under the Paragraph under bold says, NFPA code section 18.4.5.3 states buildings other than one and two family dwellings shall be provided with required fire flow and duration in accordance with table 18.4.

Is that, okay, so we don't have the table?

No, no, the table is very long and big and it depends on the size of the building. Okay. And then if you sprinkler the building, that changes things as well.

can you just educate a little educate us a little bit on nfpa one fire code versus what other what else could apply like is that the only thing that could apply here so unfortunately i deal with all nfpa codes not just one and 101. um so there's a there's a lot we can dive into more than well i mean i guess what i'm asking is is this saying all commercial industrial structures remain subject to fire flow requirements established under NFPA 1 fire code. Is that a state law? Is that a Brentwood ordinance?

So the New Hampshire just always adopts into law NFPA 1 and 101. And they actually, I believe, just adopted the 24 or 26 year recently and has been given a six month grace period for current applicants that have already applied.

Can you get me the RSA site on that when you get a chance? Thank you.

I think, yeah, I think throughout it would be helpful for us to have that reference to, if it's a state law or if it's something we already have in our ordinance.

I have it on my email, I just. So that we, yeah. My tablet won't.

I think that'll help clarify.

We get a little technical.

That's fine.

But that'll help clarify what is what you're recommending as a professional and what's in state law or what we've already, you know, what we have in our ordinance.

You might be aware, you probably are aware that in our zoning code, it says the town adopted it to the town meeting a town meeting quite a number of years ago, it was probably 15, 20 years ago, that all structures, be it residential or commercial, have to comply with New Hampshire fire code and the national fire code and electrical code. We don't actually, as a planning board, we view a commercial structure. Multifamily is probably different. But in a commercial structure, we're approving a footprint on a plan. We're not sure at the time, generally speaking, we're not absolutely sure what the application is, what the fire load of that is. So as a condition, one of the conditions on the recorded registry is a statement that says that a whole building because building permits haven't been issued yet. All buildings will comply with just what our town zoning ordinance says. It's the NFPA, the national code, it's the state code.

Yep, and I've just, like I said, I've since taken over from Jason, diving into the files, diving into everything, talking with new business owners that have already come through you guys and have had things approved. There has been a lot of disconnect and a lot of, anger because they weren't giving information up front. So I guess I was looking to build something to give people when they come to you guys that say, hey, this isn't going to catch you off guard. This is what the fire department aspect is going to be looking for specifically.

Just one thing, and I'll let you talk.

I really get into this because we've had some major problems with the fire department who were making I wouldn't say uneducated, but less than factual demands in the past. So because of that occurrence, and obviously infuriated a lot of people, the town hired, in this case, it's SFC Engineering. We're credentialed fire engineers. And so we take, of course, your input goes to them. They make the final ruling on that. understanding that if you go out on a site and there's some use being made that wasn't part of the building permit, you know, you have jurisdiction. But I think that, you know, this board has done what we need to do by having FSFC write a letter confirming that what the applicant is proposing will meet, you know, these codes to a degree. Then once the building permit is issued and the construction starts to take place, then there may have to be changes based, again, on the fire limits.

All right, I'm going to let Doug say his piece, and then we're going to let Robert finish.

That was part of what I was going to say. I just had one brief question here, and then I think it might be prudent to allow Robert to kind of go through. For the hydrant placement, so this is more of just a clarifying question, you know, given the water infrastructure in Brentwood or lack thereof, are we typically talking about dry hydrants when we're talking about?

So dry hydrants are a little bit different. Dry hydrants are usually connected with like an open water body of water.

Okay, as opposed to a hydrant that's connected directly to? A tank that's on the ground.

I mean, it's still a dry hydrant, but usually when you talk in the fire service, when we talk about dry hydrants, we're usually talking about it's attached to a pond or a lake. Got it. As opposed to being attached to a cistern, which we call it a cistern, and then you have your pressurized hydrants.

Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that, thank you. Yep.

Okay, sorry, we're gonna stop interrupting you. We got through fire flow requirements. Number two, automatic fire sprinkler system. So this looks like this is encouraging.

Yeah, it was just more of a, like we would love to see in buildings, but based on certain codes in building, international building code in MPA, certain buildings don't require them.

Yeah, okay.

But sometimes, depending on the size of the building, it could benefit them to put a sprinkler system in it because we'll just go with what kind of what was discussed tonight, with people make a plan, for that building, but they don't know what's coming into the building. And that can be restricted based off if there's a sprinkler system or not in the system or in the building.

So that's more of just a wish.

I think that's gonna help the sport a lot because we ask for uses all the time. What are you gonna be using this for? What are you gonna be using this for? you'd be shocked at the fire suppression level is needed when you don't know a use. But if you know the use, it can bring that fire suppression level way down to a manageable level. So I think this is gonna be good for them and also beneficial to us to know the uses ahead of time.

Number three would be the fire alarm systems and monitoring systems. We would like to require them as the AHJ in all commercial and industrial buildings moving forward into town. It's just for simple notification of us if something goes wrong in the building, when they're not there, or if they are there. It's faster, safer for them, and it notifies other people out. I do know that there are commercial buildings around this area that don't have them. It's just moving forward, as the AHJ, we'd like to have those.

Okay, so let's come back to that one, because that's one of the general questions I had was, again, what's required by state law, what's already in our ordinance, and what are you saying you want to require that we might need to change an ordinance to actually implement? Okay, number four.

Number four is just Knox box requirement as well. This is a small box that gets put on the side of the building. only the fire department has a key to it and this will hold all the keys and access to gain access to those buildings so we're not breaking down doors and breaking in windows because some alarm or something's happening that may be a false issue in the middle of the night costing the building owners thousands of dollars in insurance to repair their building.

Could you bring us a list of the businesses where you've had an issue with this because for at least 30 years a Knox box we have another term for it that Knox is a brand name but Every commercial business that we've approved the last 30 years requires a Knox box.

It's just I'm putting it down on paper. Yeah, that's fine. For us as a fire department, for when somebody comes to us.

I guess I do have a question, is it? Sure. The shall be installed in big bold letters.

When I wrote it, I will gladly take red pens on these and rewrite this.

Okay, it almost seems like you're being heavy handed versus giving advice or giving guidance. And it's that way in a couple of other spots.

It should be in there as this needs to happen. There's a lot of business that they'll skirt that line.

So just a personal opinion. I think before you come back for this board.

I'm going to turn your microphone off. Turn it down? No, let him finish. Let's get through number six.

I think this is really important. I think before you come back to a lay board, you should contact, go over to your list here and go over and talk with SFC. They are the credentialed, licensed engineers hired by this board, so we're gonna take their recommendations.

So I, and I appreciate that. So you're not skirting them. I have a lot of years missing with nothing from them in my files, and I've digitized. Point of order, point of order.

Yeah, this is a separate issue. We'll come back to other things we need to deal with, but let's talk about number five and number six.

Fire Department access roads, there is NFPAs that require what we need in there. So again, you guys, if you guys have adopted the NFPA rules, that's already in there. And then plan review and coordination is just something in there as a, if you could come talk to us.

So I guess, and this is maybe where it would be helpful to have, and I don't know, Glenn, if you've already looked at this, like what's in here that is, already covered by state law or ordinance and it's just putting it all in one place making it easier for applicants to see and what if this is new that maybe we don't currently have authority to require and we should have a discussion about potentially requiring something new most of this from my perspective we already do it's already

if it is truly within the jurisdiction of the planning board, because post-approval by us is where most of the site-specific activity on the inside of the building happens, and we're not authorized worry about the internal building. We're authorized to worry about how it appears on the site. But we had several meetings over the last five years with Joe Bird and Jason Grant to add things to our site plan review regulations to ask for many of the things in this letter.

Do we require the monitoring alarm and monitoring system?

It's been our practice for 40 years to have fire monitoring on site.

I do want to come back to number one, but on the whole it sounds like this is consistent with what we require currently. This is trying to make it easier for applicants so they know from the get-go like we take this very seriously and we're calling things out. I think it would be helpful to put in parentheses, you know, Brentwood site plan regulation X, Y, Z, just for the cost reference. So it's clear that this, you know, what is a recommendation and, but this is, you know, non-negotiable.

Yeah. Ordinances and also if there are any applicable RSAs.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It's a New Hampshire RSA 153 right now that.

Number one.

Is for, no, that's the NFPA 1 and 101. That's the RSA that New Hampshire has adopted, current NFPAs.

Thank you. I think our book says as amended. So we started out, we had a year date, 1972. For a number of years, the regs by the state didn't change. And so the question came up, and I'm sure it was Glenn who brought this to our attention, our regs say 1980 said comply with 1972, state of New Hampshire, NFPA, whatever. So Glenn simply added the phrase as amended so that every time a state code or an NFP code changed, then the fire department and SFC had full authority to request compliance.

So can you talk a little bit about the gaps that you've seen? Either, like, what is it? Is it that things were approved in recent years that didn't have, that didn't meet these standards?

Yeah, basically. Do you know? It's this person did that, so why can't I do that type deal? Or... People feel like we're picking on them when we're trying to force the code. It's not just me. Even with Chuck, we've been at the same site at the same place, and they're like, well, and they feel like we're picking on them. We're not, because code is code. And is it that? I will tell you, just sorry. There's one business up the road on 125 I haven't seen plans for. They already have a foundation going in. I have no clue, any information on it. It's not in any of the files.

Are you talking about the Brentwood surplus site? They have an approved site plan, and I'm sure Mark can give you a copy of that. It's been about two years ago.

Where I can do better is number six. So as of late, I've been sending Robert all our design reviews. I've tried to include him in an early stage and work in it. better unison between the applicant and himself. I recognize the issues that may have happened in the past, but I'm optimistic for a better day. I think we should be coordinating with them better and being a better conduit between the Brentwood Fire Department and applicants. And part of that is getting them involved early. I think we've done a poor job at that And I think we could do better in that. Now, your questions are certainly relevant and you're on the right track, but

Yeah, I'm trying to build a bridge between those.

What we're trying to do is mend fences and create a better relationship between two departments, and I don't think that's a controversial thing to do.

I don't think, at least from my perspective, I knew that the fence was broken.

And always remember, if there is any controversy in it, we have a great contact with SFC. They've mitigated these things before, and if we run into that situation again, then they... certainly are able to mitigate again.

Yeah, I guess I was under the impression that typically we have a site plan review and one of the conditions of approval is a letter from the fire department signing off.

Which I just worked with Johnson Beach on one of them and we've been emailing back and forth and working with some of these requirements that are already in here and have gotten them, they're okay with doing these things.

So are you saying there were some before that but that didn't happen?

Yeah, I had to go reach out to some other people in other departments for more knowledge, because they've been doing it longer, to say where can this be approved for the code, even though it's not

So one thing that we could consider is not doing conditional approvals when it comes to fire, but waiting to vote to approve when that's... I mean, conditional approval on a state driveway permit, it's with the state. We'll get it when they get it. But if it's within the town, we could wait.

And I understand that talking about that you guys are under certain RSAs and have to approve things at certain times. Exactly, yeah, we only have so many days. Right now I'm only limited to a few days inspector-wise at the fire department because it's a very small budget line. Unfortunately, Jason was only there eight hours per week, like one day a week. Everything in that one hour, in that one day.

And that was one of the issues. And I think if we can get the applicant involved early enough, then we may get that letter. But if we don't, that's okay too. We can always approve it with a conditional of approval as that letter being mandated. And that's okay. But it's the communication between the two departments I think that.

I think the confusion.

Hold on, wait. Doug, and then I wanted to say something.

So just in the interest of kind of like moving the discussion forward. So it seems to me like we don't really need a motion or anything because it seems like things are moving in the right direction in terms of increased coordination. Really appreciate your work on this. I think this is a big step in the right direction. Really appreciate Mark's work on this. Definitely seems like things are moving in the right direction.

Yeah. Yeah. I think the only note I would have for you is if you can just cross-reference with our town ordinances and the RSA is just Yep. Makes it super easy. The developers should really, they know our ordinances, and they should really be telling the applicants, too, what's going to be required so there isn't a big surprise later on when there's something that they didn't expect. Glenn, did you have any other issues?

I just want to say, let's not confuse conditional approvals with conditions of approval. So the instances that the gentleman was talking to, where we have it, given an approval and a condition of the approval that's right on every single front sheet that's recorded of any commercial enterprise says that all fire suppression issues will conform to New Hampshire and NFPA code. So I'm just telling you, as one person, I may seem argumentative, but I probably am to some extent. But any time you come and you represent to this board that SFC, as a credential engineering firm representing the town, agrees with you on something, I'm never going to ask another question. But I think, speaking for the business community, it's very important not to come up in the skin. It's not you, sir, at all. But other times in the past, the fire department's come up with what I call unreasonable and unsupported demands. And so we shut that down by hiring SFC. Once SFCs came along, they'll write a letter. They'll talk to you. You can talk to them. And I think that will really resolve all the issues here.

Okay. Like I said, I just haven't seen much in the files from that company of any approval letters with any of the...

When you say in the files, the fire department files?

So I went through and I scanned, electronically scanned every individual file I had in the inspector's office. So it is all now digitalized in case I need to look for something.

Right in this room here.

There's a gap of stuff that I have.

Okay.

Of just years.

But for site plan reviews and for approvals, I mean, that FSC could be in our files.

Yes. That's not required by us to have SFC look at anything. It's what Bruce is saying, and it's true, that on every site plan within the notes, it says that must comply with NFPs. The applicants may be. Ignoring that, maybe, I don't know what they're doing.

Well, that could be picked up when the building permit is issued. But all that documentation is in the file. If I may.

So I'm not sure what's going on there. So what the better course of action would be is to get these applicants talking to the Brentwood Fire Department right off the bat.

And with our town engineer, too?

Well. We have had an incident recently where the Brentwood Fire Department required something from an applicant and the applicant went, whoa. Okay, so they independently went out and hired SFC for them to peer review. Well, the Brentwood Fire Department was right. SFC concurred with the Brentwood Fire Department. So we very well could intake more money to cover that review from applicants, but I'm not sure if that's completely necessary yet. If an applicant isn't happy with the review of the Brentwood Fire Department, they can definitely get that reviewed and pay for that themselves independently reviewed. So I'm a little like, does that really need to happen right now? You know what I mean? I think by getting them involved early, starting that conversation early, these applicants won't be able to fall through the cracks. So that's where I'm kind of on the fence.

Because if it's a bandwidth issue, we could require a fee that, you know, and have that help with third-party costs to be things up.

Yeah, and that third-party cost is actually, I believe, in an NFPA as well, that we can, even as a fire department, require a third party if something doesn't look right or so forth.

Okay.

Yeah.

All right.

I think we can accomplish this simply through better communication. They're aware of our timelines. We shouldn't be afraid to approve plans without their letter, but make it very specific that that letter is required and that they need to meet these standards.

It sounds like part of the issue has been after the fact, too, that it says on their plan they're supposed to meet a standard and they're not doing something, which would be post-planning board.

It's not passing the straight-face test.

They should get a certificate of occupancy until those conditions are met. I agree with you on that.

They're not communicating with the Brentwood Fire Department when they should be. I need to foster that communication. I need to be better at sending them plan sets, getting them involved early, getting those comment letters back from them, incorporating their comments, perhaps into plan sets.

I'm trying to throw you a lifeline here. I don't think it's all, it's just some of this is, I appreciate that we can do better at our end, but then some of it is during the building process part, it sounds like there are things falling through the cracks. And Mark is very good at helping all the different departments communicate. So it's great. And again, I didn't realize the fence was broken.

I designed something to maybe go with the initial application.

Yeah.

Basically, just to say, hey, when you come to you guys, somebody's looking to do something in town, this gets kind of added into that application process.

This could be on our website with application materials, perhaps.

That letter?

Yeah.

That was more the intent of this letter is to, and like I said, we can red pen this, come back to this letter. But it's just more of an information. I wanted to get an informational thing to you guys to add to the process Yeah, there's no we start closing that gap.

Yeah, I guess is the it's sending them the application and completion Because on that application it has the applicant it has an email address it has a phone number And I think what the Brentwood fire department if they're proactive would reach right out to the applicant right away Don't wait for them

And I agree, and I'll honestly shut up after this, but I have no problem putting this on our website, on the planning board website, but before we do that, I'd like to see a review of this material by SFC.

I can do that.

And have some concurrence, and then.

Yeah, what I would suggest, if the board agrees, is that you make a motion that I send this letter out to SFC and have them peer review the letter.

And then I think, you know, to Brett's point, maybe find that balance between this is a serious, you know, life-threatening kind of situation. You need to follow these rules, and we're here to help you through the process, you know.

We're really truly not asking for much from the fire department aspect, right? It's notification, fire protection. and access is our biggest things when it comes to the commercial.

We usually have, we have an alternate who's been very focused on the access part and making sure that we always really look at truck access.

hi i'm liz free i'm an alternate to the planning board and this is great good work i just kind of thought it was a lot you know and what i would really like um sort of delineated is what as i think kristen was sort of going in this direction what is required here's the rsa is you know what's required maybe just tightening it here's what's required and we would also like you to consider these other recommendations So it's really clear that this is the, you must do, and we would love you to consider these other recommendations. And I think it needs to be tightened and a lot smaller, because I think this is daunting for somebody who, I'm not talking about the people who are trying to avoid stuff, but this is daunting for anybody. But I commend you on all this great hard work.

Yeah, so sort of delineating what's a regulation versus what's a best practice. Right, right. Yeah.

Like I said, I bring it to you guys.

But must be done in order to get your letter.

Also consider. Yeah.

Sound good?

Yeah. Great. Like I said, just start building.

Yeah. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

We're very detailed oriented and very active. So I appreciate you coming in. All right. Before we do the consent agenda and other business, I had a, I guess it's a compliance question. We have a property that we approved site plan for recently that has a large banner on a 40-foot truck or 30-foot truck, whatever, a large 18-wheeler trailer that sort of appears to be permanent. And I'm wondering, it doesn't really recommend it.

I think if it's a legally registered trailer, we don't have control over that. I think if it's registered by state, I know Kingston had this issue down at Landscaper's Depot. It had a ton and a half trucks there with the A-frame on it, and it was all It was all advertising. It was an A-frame built on the back of the truck.

So it was a huge- But we have signage rules. I mean, to me, that's a sign.

I don't know. But I would suggest you check legally to see what's enforceable on a motor vehicle that's properly registered. I mean, look at all the tractor trails that go up and down the road. They all have signage on them.

Right. This is a nylon banner that would not drive down the road. It's a sign.

That sounds like a sign.

It's a sign. A very, very large sign.

This town took issue for years with the oil company because their trucks all had Gipio oil or whatever oil company was there at the time splashed on the side of their trucks. And when they had five trucks there, it looked like five signs. But there was nothing you could really do about that.

Yeah, this isn't a painted truck. This is a truck that appears to be sitting there as a storage unit that I also don't know if it's on the plan with a banner on it that is the entire side of the truck. What side is it? Are you trying not to say it? It is One Smith Road.

It's been there for a while, and you can apply for what's called a temporary sign permit, but it's only good for 30 days. Right.

And it's a permit that Board of Selectmen offers.

We do have a Board of Selectmen rep in the room that could.

It's a slippery slope that we. There's nothing you can do.

Yeah, but it is a banner strung up on a tractor trailer. I was getting from you whether it's painted or a banner, there's a difference.

Now that we identified what we're talking about, I think I know what you're talking about. To me, that's a sign.

Okay.

Yeah.

And if I could just say one thing about this, and then not to pile on too much, but I do feel compelled to just say that this board, we really have bent over backwards for this applicant. And I I'm a pretty patient person but like we really went out of our way to make this work for them, and for them to not even talk to us about this, it's like... Well, and after we asked them to take down the... Yeah, it's... Put it on something else. I don't know if they're trying to break me, but I really try to give people the benefit of the doubt, but it needs to stop. This is absolutely... Like, we can't just have anarchy here where we're allowed to do whatever we want.

OK, thank you.

Thank you.

All right. So I've raised the issue. It's an enforcement issue.

Anarchy's a strong word, but you get the idea.

It's an enforcement issue. And Paul's taking notes on said enforcement issue.

To Bruce's point, if they just took that and painted it on that truck, does that take care of the issue?

Well, but is that if it's registered, if it's sitting in the same place, which it has been for probably at least 30 days, it looks more like storage, which I don't believe is on the site plan.

The recently approved site plan.

The very recently approved site plan.

The site plan that we spend so much time working on.

Okay. We will not talk about it anymore this evening.

Should we talk about the sign or something different now with storage?

Well, the truck, I haven't stopped to see if that is a registered vehicle or if it's become a... You mean the truck which the sign is on. The truck which the sign is on. Is it...

I think you're right, Kristen. I think a good test is that that truck would be driven down the road and the thing didn't blow off. And if it's legally registered... Yeah.

Okay. So my consent... Wax like a duck. That's why I bring it up and I brought up some other things like this because it... We wind up writing more ordinances when people find creative ways around the ordinances and I would prefer us not to have a 500 page ordinance because people keep finding.

Yeah, locks only keep honest people honest.

Kristen, would you amend that and just add a little bit to that request that the code enforcement officer check that out and put down the fact that there are three containers on that property that are not part of the site plan approval and could those be checked along with the trailer?

He's taking notes and I'm working on my container ordinance. A consent agenda? Yes, I have a consent agenda.

Awesome. While that's going around, I'll make a motion to approve the June 4, 2026 meeting minutes.

I'll second. Are they in our back? Did you send them around?

They were emailed out, I believe. I think I saw them, unless I dreamed it.

No, they were in an email.

Yeah. You seconded? OK. All in favor?

Aye.

I'm gonna abstain because I honestly did not.

I'm honest with you, so I'll have to abstain.

RPC, congratulations.

Oh, thank you. No, very exciting, very honored, and really excited to be doing this work with Brett. Really want to praise Brett because he has really jumped into this headfirst and has just been terrific. A couple other RPC updates, and obviously I'll turn it over to Brett for anything that I'm missing. On the legislative side, some interesting news. And at our next meeting, I'll have some more information because I'll try to get some more guidance on what exactly, how exactly this will be enforced. But the Turnpike bill around tolls and out-of-state easy passes that we've been talking about for several meetings now, it appears that that will, in fact, happen despite the governor's opposition to it. And the reason for that is because And as we talked about before, this turned out to be very bipartisan. Obviously, because Republicans control the House and Senate, and it turned out to become pretty bipartisan. The governor opposes it. However, the Senate put the easy pass bill into the 10-year transportation plan. So what is likely to happen, although I try not to speculate too much on what the governor will do, because she can change her mind at any point. She's a human being. but what I suspect will happen is that she will veto Senate Bill 627, which is the standalone bill, and then she'll sign the 10-year transportation plan to law and kind of just say, look, my hands were tied, you know, so she can kind of, have that political cover there. I don't see her vetoing the 10-year transportation plan. The last governor who did that was Craig Benson, and it worked out pretty poorly for him. So I think that this probably will happen. Like I said, I'll come back next meeting with some more information in terms of how not only how this will be enforced in terms of what this means for easy pass holders who might have an out-of-state easy pass, but also I'll get some more clarity on which tolls are being raised by what amount because that did change throughout this process. The original bill had, you know, there were a lot of compromises and a lot of changes to that and not each toll is being increased the same amount, which makes sense because they're not all used the same, obviously.

At the end of the day, should this help? I know they wanted to try to take some local money and use it on toll roads or off ramps or something. Should this

So I'm not 100% sure on the funding mechanisms, but I do know that some projects were added back into the 10-year plan as a result of the EZ Pass measure. So that leads me to believe that these funds are able to be earmarked for at least some of these projects. And one of the projects that was added back in was the Plastow project, which was one of the RPC priorities. We were a little bit frustrated that the Senate, they didn't ask any of the planning commissions what projects we would like added back in, which was frustrating, but it's still better that they at least did something. But so I'll do some more digging in terms of the specifics of that. The other one that got signed into law by the governor, I don't think I reported this here yet. I think I may have told the select board about it. But another RPC priority was around the distracted driving bill. Governor Ayotte did sign that into law a few weeks ago. And that is the one that stiffens penalties for distracted driving. It increases the fines for the first two offenses and then specifies that I believe the third offense is an automatic suspension of your license. I could be mistaken, but I believe that is correct, that it's sort of like a three strike sort of thing. But I can double check on that as well. But that was another RPC priority that was signed into law.

Awesome. Thank you. A quick RPC update too. They have a stream crossing capacity pilot project that they're rolling out, where basically it's an opportunity for communities to get assistance evaluating and prioritizing culvert crossings that may be aging or deficient. And it's a tool. basically geared towards helping you get to a point to reconstruct or repair or whatever you need to do, find funding, find technical assistance. So right now, it's in early stages, but they said reach out to your local RPC to learn how you can get involved. So I told Jen Rowden, like, Renwood is interested.

Do we have, so this is not Bridges, but Colvert.

Yeah, I think it's bridges and culverts, but probably more focused on culverts. We'll see. But... Never mind, I'll talk with you all.

Sorry. UNH, I think, did the study.

They got a grant to kind of get some model made. And they have a consultant helping them. And they're drafting a stream crossing grant program that will come out in theory in fall 2027.

Because the commission had a three year project about five years ago that had our employees wading through the outlets for culverts for three years.

Maybe it might be part of the data.

Why isn't this information already available? I think I remember a huge delay in getting the results from that work getting out to town.

I think that data is in their Sadie's database. That's like the first step. Now they have the data. And now it's work with the communities to digest the data and prioritize. And then figure out what funding sources will work for their priority projects and steer them towards next steps. That's my interpretation. But we have a TAC meeting next week. They're going to give a presentation on it. So I'll get more info and report back.

Talk to you, Bobby.

about a year ago there, because we thought there was a UNH study that identified by GIS where the culverts were in Brentwood. We thought that would be a great thing to give to the highway department so they could see where these culverts were and maintain them.

I tried to initiate that. I actually went down to the Rockingham Planning Commission and asked them for some maps that they could send us so I could talk to Wayne. And I talked to Wayne about how to label them. But they never sent me the maps. I mean, I really had a long conversation with them about it. I'm shocked that they never followed through. So.

Yeah, we'll check in on that. Thank you so much. I just want to give a brief.

When this gets actually going, I'll loop in Wayne. I won't work in his side.

Yeah, Mr. President. In the consent agenda, you'll find a check for the recording of the affidavit for Sig Sauer, but then you're going to find another sizable check that's going back to Jones and Beetz Engineering as a refund for that application. When that application first came in, it came in as a site plan review, and you guys sort of downgraded it. So all that engineering money never got spent. So I thought you wanted an explanation before you saw it. Thank you. Makes perfect sense. I can't remember his name. I think it might have been. But he knew my... He knew my father, and he actually worked with my brother on designating some snowmobile trails. He recognized me when I walked in. But he's been there a long time, and I'm a little surprised that they didn't follow up. It's unacceptable.

Doug, another RPC question that you were going to follow up on was a presentation

on impact be kind of a model presentation yeah yeah yeah i need to follow up with dave on that i broached the subject with him very generally and he and he was intrigued by the idea but we didn't get any like actual like date you know dates going or anything like that yeah just so we know a little bit in advance because i think this

I think that, okay, I think the select board would be interested in coming, and I think there are other boards in town that would be interested.

Yeah, he was definitely intrigued by the idea, so we can start to nail down more actual details and dates and stuff, so.

What is that, what is the goal of that?

To learn.

Because there has been some confusion about our process because, in part, because our Or it doesn't seem to. It conflicts with state law. And so I think that there is a desire for some guidance on how other communities handle that. How other communities in the region handle this.

How does it conflict with state law?

How does it conflict with state law?

I believe the question was, the conflict with state law was when the impact fee is supposed to be collected.

That part I'm not worried about. It's more the process of developing them, just going through that whole, what are they and how should they be spent? What's our role?

So when I follow up with Dave, I'll talk more about that because I was under the impression that it was more around like State statute and the timing of the collection of the fee so I can clarify that was yeah I think it's more on the front okay very clear because we have it in our ordinance

Right, it's supposed to be at the time of the building, the occupancy permit.

Yeah, but I think the state law says otherwise, I believe.

Unless you make other arrangements ahead of.

I think you missed that meeting, Glenn, but there was a whole issue here for the last six or eight, 10 months. Nobody knew what funds were in the impact fee accounts. That's a separate issue.

That's not true. That's not a true statement.

Now they're up to date, right.

I thought we resolved this at, because there's language in there that's like or, that we're okay, we can look at it. But I thought the RPC thing was more just general education about the process.

I'm glad we clarified that.

Yeah, what is it all about? What is the planning board's role versus other?

Okay, I misunderstood that a little bit.

How often does it have to be updated? That was another question.

There isn't a statutory requirement, but if you don't update it around a 10-year point, then you're missing lots of information that's been generated by your town.

We must be damn close to a 10-year point now.

No, we had it done in 2021. Okay. Yeah, my first year on the board.

Yeah. It's 22. I think it's 22. I mean, look, Paul.

And...

After talking with the municipal group that supplies planners when planners disappear, I can't remember what their name is, MRI? MRI. MRI, Municipal Resources, Inc., maybe? I thought perhaps, because I've been looking for someone who will do it.

It's Marc Legere.

It is Marc Legere. I talked with him.

I think he did a webinar, or there's a webinar next week.

I talked with him before I went on vacation and told him that a number of my towns would like him to come and talk with them. And he said that he would be willing to do that. It was 2022, sir. So if in fact we do, we either do that in conjunction with the Planning Commission?

I think part of it too is asking the Planning Commission. are there any free resources available? Does the RPC offer anything that would be helpful to our town? What are other towns doing? Where are we in comparison? That's what I had in mind anyways, just more education for the board and the town. Steph, anything from Plan New Hampshire?

No, I'm the hold up there. to revise our application and send it to on my to-do list for this weekend.

We met last, was it last week?

I think last week.

Wouldn't we have to appropriate the money in order to update our impact fee ordinance?

Or expand it, which is some of the discussion I've heard prior, but is the town still thinking about expanding it?

By adding another category?

Mm-hmm.

And we would have to consider that. I think you advised against it. That could be another question for RPCs. Are other towns doing that in our region? Have you had a chance to look at site plan, Ray? I have.

I wanted to pass out tonight a first shot at landscaping and lighting for a multifamily. And we're, we are up against, I'm sorry, why don't I just, yeah. Instead of one at a time. I'm just looking, we don't have time to notice it for the July 2nd meeting, because you don't work tomorrow because the town hall is closed, right? Yes. For Juneteenth, for Juneteenth, yeah. Correct.

I thought we were canceling that one anyway.

We were, unless we. needed it, but.

No, that's fine.

We could notice it for.

For the 19th.

For the 19th and vote before we do anything else.

Correct, correct.

So let's do that. So what else were you, what else were you gonna work on?

The only other thing was do we want to do some sort of mandatory design standards for the buildings themselves? I guess I'd like to know the degree we want to involve ourselves with that. If we could do something minimal that requires that there be shifts in the front planes so that you're not just doing straight two-story buildings with no sort of, but I don't know if we wanna get too far in directing them how to make their buildings look. But if that is what the board wants to do,

For example, the building on the corner driving into Exeter right now, if they had just made that white clapper, it would fit in with the other buildings, but as it stands, it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Like a what?

A sore thumb. Oh. But yeah, I don't know how much the board wants to...

dictate that would we have to like have some sort of professional do peer reviews or something if we get too prescriptive i don't not usually not on visual we can we could either use photographs or just describe in text what we're expecting yeah that there be a