Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Good evening. We are starting tonight with a public hearing for site plan review regulation changes, which are in a separate packet. So these are design standards for multifamily developments, landscape design standards, parking areas, lighting, facade, Thank you, Glenn. I know this was a lot of ground to cover. We had one comment letter from Lisa McNaughton. So the requirements section right now says that the development has to be stamped by a licensed landscaped architect or New Hampshire certified landscape professional And she would like to add, I thought it was landscape certified landscape professional. Yeah, I'm trying to see it because she wrote that it's either a licensed landscape architect or a New Hampshire, oh, should be revised too, I see. Okay, so she's asking us to add New Hampshire certified landscape professional. Sorry, that took me a minute.

Can we just add licensed landscape architect?

Yeah. So I will open it to the board for any discussion, questions, recommendations.

Well, there's certainly a lot there. So our next step would be to just to post for public hearing. No, this is it. This is it. Posted through podcast. Do we have any written responses to? Just this. Just the one?

Just the one about.

No, we've just had one letter from lease, which is in the back of your packet.

I just have a clarifying question on the lighting issue. I know that this is addressed in our ordinance, but I was just looking to see, concerning the dark skies ordinance, if that, maybe I'm missing it. Is that addressed in here? I know it's part of our ordinance, but obviously, but.

Yeah, I did put it in.

I may have just missed it.

A note about uplighting.

I believe.

No, it's only in our site plan review. Ah, okay.

Yeah. It's already gone. I put it in here, though.

I did have a question on the design standards. So garden-style apartments seem more like the block housing. This calls for different styles of roofies and so forth, roofs and roof lines. So... Does that mean that we will never have a garden style apartment that looks like a box with this type of stipulation?

Where in particular? That would be the goal. Okay. Site plan review regulations are intended or are actually created in a way that provides the planning board the flexibility to wave standards with them, unlike zoning, because it's understood that every development is different. And so these standards are what developers should design to, but if they have other design aesthetics they wanna offer, it's perfectly legitimate for them to do so. They would have to convince the board that they either met the intent of our regulation or were a reasonable alternative to it. And that's why these are proposed as regulations, not as amendments to our zoning ordinance.

Can you say that again? So are regulations guidelines, or do they have?

Our regulations are regulations, and they are what a developer should design to. But as a matter of state law, even regulations have to provide a waiver process, because every case is different. And so if a developer can propose or does propose to the Planning Board a development that doesn't strictly conform with these regulations and can give reasons that the alternative is appropriate, the Board can waive the regulation? And that's a process that happens not infrequently, that the board is asked to waive either subdivision or site plan review regulations. Right now, with the regulations we currently have.

If it's part of zoning, then ZBA is their remedy. Correct. This is for non-coordinates. This is for just site plan. and subdivision regs, the Planning Board has the authorization to waive in particular cause.

That's why we can change them through the public hearing process. You cannot change a zoning ordinance using a public hearing process. They need to be voted on by the townspeople at Brantwood.

So while we're on facades, I have another question, then we'll come back to lighting. So I understand the intent here, but material variations designs must use at least three distinct building materials. I'm just wondering if there's an unintended consequence of that, if anybody's familiar with the new buildings going up on the way into Exeter, and there's just like a random partial wall with fake brick.

So, I'm not a... Why isn't that acceptable?

Well, I'm just saying, I think they probably did that just to meet some standard and it looks weird.

Silly to you?

It looks a little silly. So, I mean, I don't know if it necessarily has to be building materials, but, you know, it can look nice to have some siding that's going vertical and some that's going horizontal. You know, you could use wood in different ways. So I don't know how, or we can just leave it and that's one of the things that a developer can ask.

This is also new, we're gonna learn, this is also fluid, we're gonna learn as we go along. You look over at River Run and they have a lot of that imitation stone. It's a recented stone. Maintenance is near zero. It's a great product.

Yeah. No, I'm not saying they shouldn't use it. It's just that right now it says they have to use at least three different ones.

Where did you kind of come up with that? Is that a standard?

No, that one might have been. I looked at four regulations, and I think that that might have been in Milford's or... It was not within our county. So I wasn't incredibly familiar with it before I found it online.

Yeah, not to put you in the hot seat, but if that's like, oh, this is industry standard.

No, I don't think it's industry standard. I did see reflected more than once the concept that it's probably smart to guide a developer to use more than one material in order to get some variation in the building.

Speaking from working in the industry, some other things. The hardy board, that's a cement board. That's a big building product now that everybody is using, which I don't know if that would come under any of this. And also plastic board and batten. You know, because that's a big design feature now, too.

I'll ease that, trim components. Right. But then people would have, most of them have granite stairs. That would be another. I don't see it as any impediment to beginning. I don't know why we wouldn't just go ahead and adopt this now. We're going to find a few ways.

Is it a variance process?

Well, not a variance. It's a waiver process.

It is within our site plan review regulations right now.

We can just do that in a meeting. We don't have to publicly notice a waiver to site plan and subdivision rights. Yeah, that can be done within any site plan review proposal. This seems like the whole ball of wax that covers everything. I'd be in favor of just adopting this. It's something we can work with.

Let's figure out the dark skies thing. So I see fostering enjoyment of the nighttime sky.

That's what I see. And that's where it should have been. Right in the purpose and intent section. Okay. So I can either add it there or we can we do have it in our present lighting ordinance that would act as a, in coordination with this, but this really is for multifamily development, so it would be better to state it.

Yeah, can we just add it?

Yeah, I think so too, especially because here and there, there have been issues with- And we dance around it. Yeah. Yeah.

Question, so what does that mean with respect to a multifamily, because- I envision people coming home late at night, a good amount of people, and you may need to have lighting.

But it's on the sidewalks and parking lot now, not pointing out to 1.5 and blinding drivers.

The end result of dark sky lighting is that it shields downward instead of just being open illumination that goes in all directions.

Yeah, it's a design standard really. It's not saying we're not going to have illumination where we need illumination. It's just a design standard to the illumination so it's not light pollution.

A good example of all is Three Ponds. You drive in there some night after dark and drive around the roads. Within the Three Ponds development, you'll see all the dark skies.

I mean, I'm against a lot of regulation, but that's a pretty sensible one.

I think about every town and probably every state in the country employ that dark sky standard.

Maybe not Nevada.

I think it's tractor supply that has parking lot lighting that is shielded. And a pretty clear example of that. And then there's some others that are not.

Because you clearly always want to have safety being the prime motivator there. I appreciate the clarification. Yeah.

all right so do you want a motion to add one thing that maybe we could add is maybe preserve historic rock walls on properties and i don't necessarily think it's you know one lot they're probably not going to but if it's a combined lot is there anything that's part of the landscape design right right if they if it could be incorporated and if it is shifted

That's not a bad idea. It wouldn't be applicable to all fossils of land because some of them may have a stone wall running through part of the fossils. So it wouldn't be, where feasible maybe. Where feasible, but.

So let's do a motion to add the dark skies and then we can do that.

Yeah, so I'll make a motion that we add language that is reflective of the existing dark skies regulations in Brentwood. Seconded.

And that'll go on the purpose and intent section?

Correct.

Any discussion? Any public comments specifically on dark skies? All in favor? Aye. Okay, so rock walls.

I just think it kind of. Yeah.

It's part of a landscape feature.

In the rural character, you kind of keep a little bit of that. It does.

So we're not going to say all stone walls, but stone walls that could be incorporated into a landscape design plan. Tasteful. Brentwood so if the person was putting a center line of a road through there's a stone wall Your idea wouldn't preclude him obviously from something that would be practically minded But it could be if it could enhance the landscape design plan overall to be beneficial And they make that multi-family unit unique versus The same

It seems like language of that sort would fit well in the general requirements section because we talk about keep being mindful of what the landscaping on abutting parcels looks like and if it's been done well to coordinate that, it seems like that would be a good area to say the integration and maintenance of existing stone walls should be a goal of the developer, or should be expected to be maintained, or something along that line, so that they're, it's clear that we want them to keep those features. It seems like a good wordsmith.

Can someone write that down?

Chair of GPT. Thankfully it's being recorded.

Okay, so can we have a motion to add to the general requirements section a statement regarding the development preserving existing historic rock walls to the extent feasible.

Moved. Seconded.

Any discussion? Any public comment on rock walls? Doug?

Sorry, Mr. Fennin, could you?

Doug Fennin, Alternative Planning Board. Is there not a state regulation already on rock walls being historic?

It's part of the scenic road RSA. No, there's a state RSA that protects and prohibits the destruction of stone walls if they are monument walls. So if they are actually part of the boundary for a property, then you can't mess with them. And there's added protection if they're on a scenic road that a planning board actually has to review any attempts to alter them at all.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. All right. And then can we have a motion also in the general requirements section, the first statement, all applications for site plan review shall be accompanied by a landscape plan that is stamped and signed by a licensed landscape architect. So the motion would be to add or, let me get this right, landscape, oops. I, New Hampshire certified landscape professional.

I would like to discuss that a little bit. I've just been looking it up. I think that there might be some, and maybe Glen would have a better sense on this, but I think, there might be state law that requires landscape architects to stamp those plans. I don't, my understanding, and I'm not trying to cause hardship to this business owner, but just my understanding is that their certification is intended more for implementation, not design and official stamping of official site plans. It might be worth a little more investigation. Unless you've seen otherwise in other communities, I could be wrong.

I have not seen it in other communities, but I have seen many, not many, I've seen several towns that have landscaping requirements that don't require they be done by a landscape architect.

Are they stamped by a licensed civil engineer?

They're not stamped by anybody.

We could ask Lise, apparently she's part of, there must be some fairly new state program going where they, some sort of accreditation based on some educational requirements. that Lisa's speaking to, and I don't know all the particulars, but I infer that that's something that's come along in the last decade, that the state has developed, or a state association has developed some criteria to be a licensed landscape designer. We could defer that to our next meeting, and we'll get a hold of her and have her come in and explain that.

Yeah, to Bruce's point, just correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think there's anything that would preclude us from further amending these regulations going forward.

You'd have to do it as another, unless you want to continue it.

You'd have to notice it again.

Exactly, exactly. I think Lisa's point here was, is that it precludes a lot of really good, experienced people from doing landscape design.

I could see that.

Where it really isn't needed when you have a really qualified person who is certified, just not to that next level.

Depending on the complexity of the application, this board could require, go further and require a licensed person.

Yeah, I just don't want us to kind of conflict with any state law.

So if that's the concern, we could just write it to say, or landscape professional, unless precluded by state law.

That would probably cover us. I'm good with that, yeah.

Moved. Any public comment on landscape architecture certification?

We get a second? Second.

Any more discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay. Anything else before I open the whole thing to public comment?

I think so.

All right. And any public comment on the proposed, yep, come on up.

Liz Faria, South Road, also an alternate on the planning board. I wanted to go back to the material variations, because when I read it at home, three distinct building materials, I said the same thing, at least three. I would suggest you make that at least two. It doesn't preclude you from having three, but it just, I sort of did the same thing as you did, Kristen, said three sounds like a lot.

It's not that it sounds like a lot, I just don't want it to, Something put in just because. Somebody to add it just to meet the standard. Right. But it winds up looking weird. The other thing is a lot of things might have the look of a different material, but actually be the same material. That would just be my suggestion, not critical. How do folks feel about

I think we see that application in the most recent developments. You see stone, you see wood, you see all the new, I shouldn't say Azek, it's just a brand name, but what's the word for that? Plastic. Plastic. And then, of course, you have asphalt shingles. So I don't see any reason not to require the three.

Not to put you on the spot, Brett, but I am curious your opinion as a professional in this space.

And really, most places that we work on do incorporate some number of the three things, because right now it all depends on what the hot trend is. And like I said, board and batten with plastic is a hot trend. For a set of stone, hot trend. Hardy board, hot trend. So everyone's going for the maintenance-free look. And when you stop putting cedar shakes on or cedar clapboards, you gotta paint.

But does that standard preclude you from doing that? Say you wanted to have that look.

No, it's a minimum.

Does it preclude us?

From doing a Cedar Shake building?

No.

No.

No.

Okay.

That could be component four, five, or six. Right. Cedar Shake, so.

Glenn, does this, I'm not seeing it jump out, and I don't remember if this was in the ordinance, that we require drawings. I can't think of the word.

Like an elevation view?

Yes, thank you. Well, just our standard site plan review regulation requires elevation views for all commercial facilities. So they'd have to do that anyway.

But if this is, well, I guess there's commercial in it, but I don't think it hurts to add it.

It doesn't hurt.

And detailed elevation, because I feel like we've seen things that you don't really get a sense of what they're going to look like.

Well, a typical section, not to have to draw the whole house.

And now, yeah, now they can use a computer rendering. It should be pretty easy.

Are we getting micro? These are design standards for multifamily buildings, but we also have site plan review regulations that also apply.

It's kind of double coverage.

I think that's what I'm saying. Yeah.

As long as it's clear, it's required somehow.

The more you say it, the more clear it is.

it also can be more difficult in the future to change your regulation book because now you have to fish out all the redundancy.

It's not a hard thing to add.

Yeah. Question. It says side and rear facades and these design standards shall be applicable to all sides of the building. Let me see where I'm reading.

Would building elevations just cover the whole scope? I'm sorry, what was that? We just said building elevations. We covered it all.

Yeah, we could add in that first section that says building elevations will be supplied to the planning board that meet the requirements listed below. Very simple, straightforward.

Okay. Do you see where I mean though, where it just says side and rear facades by itself?

Mm-hmm.

Well, that's supposed to lead into the design standards shall be applicable to all sides of the building, but it's really superfluous.

Yeah.

We could remove that right now.

Yeah, because I looked at it and said, what about the front?

All right, let's do that.

Okay, so we can do a combined motion to remove the sentence that just says side and rear facades and add a statement requiring building elevations that reflect the following standards.

To be added to the first paragraph. So moved.

I'll second. Any public comment on facades? OK. Any more board discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Sorry, who made the motion? Who seconded? And staff seconded. Again.

OK. Additional public comment?

On the whole thing.

On the whole thing.

Any part? Yes, hi, thank you. Letty Bedard, Middle Road, speaking as a private citizen. Two things that I just wanted to get clarity on. Are these intended for brand new developments, not reworkings of existing buildings, or would these apply to existing buildings as well?

You can't hold this standard to existing.

Well, I think you're saying adaptive reuse. Yes, so like if there was a large barn that you wanted to convert into multiple units, how would that work?

Can I take a shot of that? Yeah. I've seen very few examples of adaptive reuse for multifamily that didn't require wholesale change of structures.

What about if it went from like a one family to a two family? I'm not thinking about like large, like four or five, six units. I'm talking about like if there's a big farmhouse on 125, you could probably put two smaller units in that.

Well, multifamily only applies to three or more, so.

Okay.

But I also do think if somebody did have some sort of reuse of a structure that was in good enough shape to get renovated without lots of exterior changes, they'd simply ask for the right not to meet these standards.

The waiver?

Yeah. OK. Yeah. Because I think that's going to be really unlikely.

Sure. The other clarification I was looking for is buildings must have offsets, dormers, and roof heights, all three? All of them must have all three? Or is it an or?

It's a must have.

All three, okay. And then the last sentence in the first paragraph of building materials seems to prohibit use of plastic on the exterior, which would eliminate composite, unless vinyl means something different than plastic.

I'm sorry, where are you, Leti?

Sorry, under building materials, that first paragraph, that last sentence, vinyl siding and standing seam metal are prohibited.

Oh, yeah, there we are. It doesn't preclude it. It says you just have to use three distinct building materials.

No, we say vinyl siding and standing seam metal are prohibited for use as exterior building materials.

So I don't know if in light of the fact that there are different types of plastic now, then kind of, or not, especially.

So you couldn't have any vinyl siding on a... That is what this is saying. Does anybody do that? I mean, is that right through Exeter or out on Hampton Road there? Like Don Hughes' office, those buildings have a lot of vinyl. OK, I'm sorry. I don't know. I think we ought to really look at that. I mean, vinyl siding today is a pretty standard approach durability-wise. Do you think that, just from your experience, that towns preclude vinyl? I mean, so that would preclude Brett's vinyl board in Batten, for example.

And plus, you know, you've got architectural vinyl siding now. It looks just like Shakespeare's.

Shakespeare's. We ought to strike that.

Then I think we should strike that because this is a preclusion. Right, right. So where did that come from? it was in one of the standards that I derived this from. And I tried to only look at ones that were relatively new, hoping that they'd incorporate whatever the most recent building uses are.

Yeah, what do you think the goal is with that? Do people feel like it looks less attractive or something? It had to be. Because I feel like on the other end of the argument, you could argue if you force them to do wood and paint it and they don't maintain it, that's going to look crappy too. Even worse, yeah.

It's much more costly when there really is no viable reason for it.

Yeah. Final sign has come a long ways. Your high-end vinyl siding now is more expensive than cedar siding.

Well, then let's delete that.

I'll make a motion that we strike the sentence vinyl siding and standing seam metal are prohibited for use as exterior building materials.

What's what's standing well before what is standing scene metal that's different than vinyl they use that for trim we just got a quote for final setting at our house and I know i'm an expert now like often they use it for trim like they wrap it in metal.

The vinyl siding?

No, like your corner pieces and fascia boards. Yeah, the regular clapboards are vinyl, but the trim.

Many people use standing seam metal roofing.

That's not what is the goal here, but if it is still a building standard, for us to preclude it seems short sighted.

Was that something people use for exterior?

Well, roofs, that's a high-end standing seam roof.

No, I know, but this is not talking about roofs. It's talking about exterior. Is that something people use?

Roof is exterior, so just to preclude issues coming up. Yeah, that's true. Nobody says that you can't put a standing seam roof on, and they are the most expensive. Right, that would qualify as an exterior building. Yeah, maybe in parentheses, exempt roofing application.

Well, I think the motion on the table is to just delete that sentence.

yeah do we have a second i'll second well bruce bruce b yeah bruce got it bruce bruce okay thank you any public comments on vinyl siding not specifically but just you might want to look at the sentence at the beginning where it lists the permitted building materials to add the vinyl in there and then the sentence before That one talks about metal. So if you're removing that whole sentence, you might want to look at that one as well.

Sorry, where?

So the sentence before vinyl sliding says the planning board may allow metal. And it sounds like you're just going to allow metal. And then the first sentence in that paragraph makes a list of the permitted materials. So if you're going to allow metal. The vinyl or plastic or composite whatever you want to call it. I don't know if you want to add That or if that would fall under other durable building material Yeah, if it's if we have a list that's examples.

I don't think we need to add it if the Sentence above the one we're striking now

And it doesn't really conflict but and then the sentence before that also that strike that plane would may approve my list exterior building material blah blah blah Because if we strike that last sentence and that doesn't need to be in there at all either Yeah I'll amend my motion to the strike those those sections as well Okay clarify for me what you're striking I from the planning board may approve metal as an exterior building material to the end of that paragraph. Right. Okay.

Do we have a second on the amended motion?

Who was my first on the amended motion? Okay. Myself. And Bruce seconded the original motion. So he's no longer.

No more part of it.

No more part of that. We have Nate. Right. Who's second?

Any discussion?

I think they're good comments. We could accomplish the same thing through waivers, but why go through that?

Yeah. All in favor?

Aye.

Any more public comments? All right. Well, thank you again, Glenn. This covers a lot of ground. The intent is in there, so even if some of these issues, you know, people have, they wanna do something a little bit different, we've got the intent laid out, so.

Should we vote on the whole document? Yes. I'll make a motion to approve the site plan regulations as amended. I'll second that.

Any additional discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Aye. Any opposed?

OK. A quick question for the board. And I may be misreading the room a little bit, so let me know if I am. But I feel like a lot of folks might be here for our third agenda item, the barn at Crawley Falls. Am I correct in that, that a lot of folks are here for that? Or am I incorrect? OK, never mind. All right, because I was going to say, if everybody was here for that, maybe we would move that. But if it's not everybody, then we can just keep going.

OK.

I misread the room.

All right, so the next item is a public hearing for site plan review for granite trees at 323 Route 125. Do we have somebody here to present? And we need to consider invoking jurisdiction.

Come right up to the podium, Mr. Jones. Thank you so much for coming tonight. Absolutely, sir. Thank you. All right.

All ready to go? I'm Nate Jones from Lyford Lane, and I own Granite Trees, which is the LLC that owns the property at 323 Route 125. And so this is a fairly, hopefully, straightforward event. My neighbor, Austin, owns Simple Land Care and is looking for a place to basically store his truck, tractor, these pieces, and also to do some minor repairs, sharpens his mower blades, these sorts of things. Hence, we're going to want to put a small connex box for security and for containment of small tools for that kind of work. So it's a pretty lightweight event, we think, just basically somewhere to put trucks and then I think also plow in the winter, these pieces.

So Mark, this site had a previously approved site plan for it. Wasn't it a contractor building?

It did. It had a site plan. We purchased it in 12, I think. I forget. I mean, at that point, it had a site plan that was extensive to have a large building put out in the back area, and actually two separate buildings, Jones and Beach, a very drawn-out extensive site plan, which in this picture that you have is a cut from that entire site plan. That site plan has been revoked.

Oh, it has been revoked? It was revoked.

It was revoked.

Okay, that's clean then. Yeah. Right. I'll make a motion we accept application.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. I was going to say wait. So invoking jurisdiction is the motion. Yes. OK. Do we have a second?

Second.

And Glenn, you're satisfied that we have everything we need? Yes. Yes. All right. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right. Discussion? Questions?

Would there be a limit to the number of condenses on the property? You speak about one year.

At this point, I think we're only proposing one. I don't know if you have other thoughts on that, but I just...

Sorry, can you come up and introduce yourself?

Yeah, come introduce yourself.

Due to government cutbacks, we have no more batteries for the remote.

I'm Austin. I live on 125 now. Yeah, I think it's just gonna be one connex box, very small business. That's cool.

Could I have your last name, sir?

Crawley, C-R-A-W-L-E-Y.

So when the site plan was revoked, would they have to go back, get another state DOT driveway permit?

They would have to make sure, the DOT doesn't care whether or not our site plan was revoked. The grant is an access permit. You're right. They should actually make the DOT aware that this is the use that is going to be used there to let DOT either say, we think there's additional action that needs to be taken.

That might just relieve any issues going forward. That's State DOT Division 6 in the phone book. Okay. Okay.

I should contact my office and I'll give you an appropriate email when that is free for its worth and they're written the last repavement they did pave a driveway have into the property so they do receive it as a they do driveway because they put a little tab based upon the extent of the revoke site plan if they did apply for a DOT permit and were granted that permit what you want to do is extremely minimal in comparison to what that site plan showed. So I don't see any problem with that whatsoever.

I can provide you that email and you can send this off to them and they'll review it. Any other questions before I open it up?

Any abutters? Would you like to comment? No, okay. Any other public comment? Simple? All right.

I'll move approval.

We have a second.

Would you like to talk about any conditions at all? Like a DOT? Yeah, condition on the DOT approval.

Were you going to say something?

Well, Austin's done some work at my property, so I don't know if that's a conflict per se, but probably I think there's enough people here that I'll just withdraw myself from this. I've got to push it forward.

And just to, I guess, to clarify before the vote, just with the motion. So in terms of the DOT approval, so do we need something in writing? Is it simply I talk and then I'll tell Mark, is that OK? Or like, what's the extent? Should be something written that I can provide to Mark. Or an email from them. Yeah. Or an email. Right, exactly. Something that I can. Yeah.

To be clear, I've just received a new email from the gentleman who just took over on the DOT permits. Okay. Helped him on another application. So I have an appropriate email to get right to the right source. You can send an email to him with your intent and ask him what he needs from you and he'll reply. And you can send it off to him what he needs. What you have in this application, will probably suffice. We're talking about a connex and a landscape.

Yeah, I just want to make sure in terms of R that I want to provide him back to satisfy the motion.

Yep, this is not a, and I'll help you out with that.

So the motion is to approve with the condition that we receive confirmation from DOT that the driveway permit is still in force and that this plan is acceptable. What's that?

Public comment? Come on up. Liz Feria, alternate to the Planning Board. I just noticed something about an easement. Is there any stipulations for the easement? Can you explain the easement? Yeah.

So there is an easement. I think it's for Jim Michaud, but it's eased for that property, that next door where the DOI trailer guys are and Jim is. So if you look on it where line A is, that's behind. Jim has it based as an accident easement that comes through the property in case he ever needs it. Never has. But this would all be occur. beyond that to allow for the easement to be unaffected.

Yes. Yes, I did have a conversation with Jim and he had no objections.

Yeah. Yeah, no, it's again, we always, that's hence the placement of line A is to be, which you can see if you, that's what the little half is above line A.

This is his, that's his access right there. This is far beyond his access. And as I previously stated, I had a conversation with Jim. He came in and I showed him what wanted to happen. And he said, ah, good kid.

All right.

Any other public comment?

Was there a second on the motion? No.

We have a motion on the table. We have a second.

Yeah, I couldn't remember if I did or not.

Any additional discussion before we vote? All in favor? Aye.

And that was Mr. Marino, and who was the second?

Staff.

Staff, thank you.

Abstentions?

Mr. Kleinman.

All right.

And you just want to abstain, correct?

Abstain. Yeah.

You just want to abstain for the vote? Okay.

Yeah. Thank you. I withdrew his amendment.

Yeah, I want to make sure. You're not voting at all, so I don't have to put you down as abstention in the vote if you stepped back from the application.

Yeah. That's probably appropriate.

Out of it.

Stepping back from the application. You got it.

Accused yourself. Okay.

Okay. All right. Appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good luck.

Next up, we have a public hearing for a site plan review for the barn at Crawley Falls. We have somebody here?

Corey McDonald, 159 Crawley Falls Road for the barn at Crawley Falls, LLC.

Sarah Nielsen.

All right, so we made a presentation last time that we were here, and I think the result of that was to have this meeting after notifying the abutters. So our intent, again, just to reiterate, sprung from the Brentwood gathering that we had at the barn, and it was the idea of bringing back, and I say bringing back because Brentwood used to have a farmer's market, not sure where, the farmer's market to our small parking lot. which is part of our antique barn there. And so the intent, as you can see in the letter that we submitted, was to have, I think the original intent was five. We're down to three. August 22nd, September 19th, and October 3rd, three-hour farmer's markets with probably about 10 vendors, maybe 12, somewhere around there. We're not exactly sure. But we have 28 parking spaces by town ordinance that meet the measurements. And this would take up, or it would leave 16 parking spaces if we blocked off that back side of the parking lot, which is closest, just to orient yourselves, closest to the Little League baseball field, and then beyond that, the library. Our thought is that this would be pretty cool thing to bring back to Brentwood as I mentioned last time it's obviously the oldest form of trade in New Hampshire and we've gotten a lot of verbal support I don't know if anybody sent anything in or there's any any concerns or drawbacks that abutters or other people have provided but none to us thus far I spoke with the chief of police, gave him our proposal, the rundown. He was in favor of it. I'm not sure what your process is to get that sort of official opinion. But he was in favor of it. And he was not concerned about the parking. And he was specifically not concerned about the likelihood that there would be some overflow of people parking on Crawley Falls Road. He had said that he would have likely officers monitor the area the first couple times we did it and then we would sit down and figure out if anything needed to be tweaked. One of the issues and concerns that came up last time, I don't think there was an issue or concern but I think I brought it up last time so I'll reiterate it, is insurance. We would obtain event insurance and we would need, it would be on us as the host to ensure that anybody who's there who's selling food or anything else is licensed and insured and we would register with the Department of Agriculture which is a requirement under RSA 349. And they have their own inspection requirements, to my understanding. But I've never run a farmers market before, so we shall see. But the idea is to do three of them this year, see how it goes, see if it works, see if it's something that the town embraces, and see if it is something where there's any concerns raised. And as I said at the end of my last presentation, we're committed to being good neighbors. So if anybody has concerns or whatever, we're happy to address them.

Thank you.

Yeah, I have a couple questions.

Well, we haven't invoked jurisdiction. Ah. But they have an existing site plan, right? They do. So is this an amendment? I think you said in here we could do a letter of .

Be an affidavit, yep, an amendment to an previously approved site plan.

to get back to it at the register.

OK. And I guess I thought we had talked last time that there would be a drawing or something where we would see the original site plan so we could look at the number of parking spaces. Have you looked at it?

I have looked at the site plan within the last four weeks.

OK. So we have everything we need to invoke jurisdiction. OK.

I'll make a motion to remove the restriction.

Do we have a second?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. All right, you had a question.

Yeah, I have a couple questions about parking. So did I hear correctly that you're anticipating that you'll have 16 usable parking spots?

So my thought is if we block off, we've got a, if you're familiar at all with parking, well, you may not be, but the entrance to the barn, the walkway, I thought it's like, putting up cones there and everything closer to the baseball field in the library is blocked off, which would leave 16 spaces.

And how many of those would be accessible or handicapped spaces?

Right now we have one, but if we had two, we can have two. We have an ADA compliant bathroom facility there.

OK. Yeah, OK, that concerns me a little bit. So for the 16 spots, do you anticipate that vendors will be using those spots?

No. So our plan is that the vendors would either park at the park and ride, and then we would bring them back. Or if it's a situation where somebody had to have their vehicle nearby, they could certainly park on our property.

Okay, that makes more sense. Okay.

For those who aren't familiar, we've got a pretty extensive, like, long driveway and a short driveway, so we're not right about it.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you. Other questions?

This is a great idea, something I think the townspeople would support. Excellent. Excellent. Just a couple questions. So when the town, when the planning board approves the site plan application, that runs, people have heard me say this many times, that runs with the property. So we're not really just granting approval for three sale dates this year. this approval would run with that property forward.

Understood.

And then the other concern, this would be a little bit different, not that this is a bad difference, but just thinking about the parking issue. We've never, to my knowledge, approved the site plan with parking off site. And that road, this kind of scares me. You know, people, it's a very narrow road. I mean, I guess maybe you could have a trial, but it just looks like it's a dangerous situation. Kids get out of a car, dart out into the roadway.

Yeah, and like I said, I spoke to the chief about that. I have some background, pretty extensive background in that area as well, being in law enforcement for 18 years.

At least you would have a written comment letter from him or an email.

Yeah, so I thought there was probably an official process where he had to sign off on something that came from you. If it's on me to get that, I'll get that tomorrow.

It's something we would make as a condition, so it would be written down.

So if we call on street parking, and another business owner, say you sold the property, and somebody else wanted to come in and do something similar to the point where we didn't call it change use. We have definition of a change in use in our board, and it says if you're changing the commercial use of the property, then you need to come for a site plan again. But if it's something similar in nature, you don't have to do that. The board can just say, yeah, that's another use. I don't know what it might be, but the use similar to that. So that if we grant the offsite parking for the farmer's market, I don't think anything legally we can do to preclude anybody in the future.

So if I can just make sure I'm clear on what I was proposing. I'm not proposing for permission to park offsite. I'm saying we have 16 available spaces. I'm saying there's a strong likelihood, as we hosted the Brentwood gathering, there were people parked on the side of the road. Obviously, the police were there for that. They saw that. And so I think it's foreseeable. So I didn't want to hide the ball here and say, hey, I really think we'll only have 16 people there. You've been straight up. I think there could be some parking on the road. I also, I don't know if this is something you can do or not, but if you could grant us a conditional, like the condition to do this for these three, and it expires at the end of the year, and then we come back and People get to say what they thought of it, how it worked. We don't want to do anything where people feel like after, geez, we never should have done that. We're hamstrung here. So whatever works.

I'm just worried about talent liability or something.

Understood. No, I get it.

For what it's worth, I've experienced events at the library down the street, like occasional events, the Santa thing, where there was spillover and people parking on the road. And that's in the winter. getting my own kids out of the car. It's such a low volume, low speed road. I don't see it as a huge concern. I like respect your concern, it's worth talking about, but I feel like it's not the same as if people were parking on 111A or something.

Just in our regs, we don't talk about minor uses. A site plan requires, a book says it requires I'm just concerned about what another use, another owner of the property, another use. I tell them, does the town have any, it doesn't seem straight-faced to look at it, but it makes sense to give approval. If you want to say it's, maybe it doesn't have to be a site plan, maybe it's just a continued, but right now they have Is that a change of use over what they have now? It's sales.

It's a change of use. The approved use on the site is an antique store.

But isn't that retail sales?

Well, but a farmer's market is different than retail sales. Because what you're doing is you have an antique store where all of your goods are inside, and you're proposing a use where everything is outside in your parking lot on a temporary basis. So it's an absolutely different use.

Could you do an addendum for outside sales to preclude the whole issue of parking on the road? I don't know, it's a plain road. Do you think that's a good idea to allow parking on a town road? No. I'm just trying to understand how we're.

Just a second. We're not voting on approving

Parking on the street? Parking on the road. Well, you are, because he's saying right here in the intent that there will be on street parking. Is it? He's making that so public.

In the letter?

Well, he just said that there's a very high likelihood. Now, I saw this exact same scenario at the library today. And it is an unsafe condition. I have to say that it's an unsafe condition. You had people parking on both sides of the road. It turned the road into a one-lane road. with moms holding hands with small children, walking down the middle of that one lane road to get to their car. And to approve something that may produce that condition, I don't think it's a good idea. That's not what planning is about.

We've never allowed site plan to go forward without adequate on-site parking.

And just on the parking thing, I will be very upfront about the fact that having one accessible parking spot is not something that I can accept, having just the one spot.

So let's look at the letter, because the way, I didn't read that. So it says, we have ample parking spaces for visitors and would require vendors to park off-site I mean, that could be more specific. So I don't see on-street parking.

Well, you heard that. That was evidence that was given.

Yeah.

So to be clear, I've never run a farmers market. I don't know how many people are going to show up. In an abundance of caution, I said some people might park in the road because of doing that Brentwood gathering and seeing that result. I'm not asking for this planning board to approve off-site parking. Just, I want to make sure that's on the record. I'm asking for approval to have a farmer's market in our parking lot with the 16 spaces that are there. If it results in a whole bunch of off-site parking, if this board hasn't approved it, that would probably be a problem we would have to address.

I wonder if the IT parking generation tables have farmer's markets and we could go by those regulations. I don't know off the top of my head.

It's very popular. I've got to Your typical farmer's market isn't one where there's only 10 vendors. This is a very small proposal.

So that's what I was going to ask, too, is...

I mean, you look at Exeter's farmer's market. That is true. That's a farmer's market that is, I don't know, 70 vendors? Like a fair or something.

That's true. So your 10 vendors would be...

agricultural producers of some kind yeah are you planning any food trucks music no no we're gonna save our dance club proposal for a different night uh just kidding um no where our thought was and where this came from was right we used to live on pickpocket and grew corn and pumpkins and weed a corn pumpkin stand that i'm sure it's probably illegal and i've just incriminated myself but anyways we had that going on right and it it made us think about when we moved we're like it's a perfect place to get little farms around, like our neighbors on Pickpocket have their corn for sale, and it's pretty popular, to get a very small, unique, by keeping it small, we're not going to have a draw that's outside of this immediate area. And so the thought was, this is a way to get to know the neighbors. Selfishly, this is a way for neighbors to also go, hey, there's a big antique barn there, which is kind of cool. So I really don't foresee... Issues with it, having sat on one of these boards in the city of Portsmouth before as the police representative, I wanted to say it is foreseeable that somebody could park out on the road. If all 16 spaces are filled, it's foreseeable that could happen. It's not part of our proposal to have you allow that. I'm just a big fan of I want to put all the facts on the table for this exact type of discussion.

If we're going to, as a board acquiesce to that statement, thought or possibility if a car was parked on the road, you could ask the board to consider a waiver to on-street parking. But our regs specifically say, like one mentioned, all parking.

I don't want to do that. What I think, tell me what you think of this option, similar to what you said. We could do something that allows it temporarily this year, or we could say up to six or 10 or whatever events per year on one day for you know, four hours or whatever. Very specific and limited. And then if you want to, you know, if it's going well and parking isn't an issue.

That's what we want to try. You could also put in the conditions that the planning board has to review those times and days every year. That's the same exact way we handled the dragway. that the select board has to approve the days and times of the events.

But they have more authority. I think this thing has to be clean. An application has been made.

You have a microphone.

We have rules and regulations, and we're going to vote on the application. So I don't know. Maybe we don't have to say no on street parking, but our regs clearly state that no off-site parking will be allowed. And based on the evidence that was verbally given here that's on tape, I think that has to be part of the acknowledgment that there will be no off-site parking.

You could put that in the conditions.

I'd make that a condition.

Yeah.

Well, if they continued, if there were complaints within that off-site parking, there would be a violation of their site plan.

I don't want to be setting them up to fail. No, but not all pieces of property can support all businesses.

So we've put a number of ideas and questions on the table. I think if it's okay with everybody, we'll take a pause with the board and open it up for abutters and public comment, and then we can come back to our discussion. Abutters? Almost. Public comment?

Doug Finan, alternate on the planning board. Just a question in reference to this. I like the idea. If you were, and you're saying a farmer's market strictly, or if you were to be approached about small wedding or family reunion based on the location?

So as some of you probably know, When we initially bought the property, one of our thoughts was it would be a cool place to have small weddings. And that was quickly shot down because of the requirements for sprinklers and such like that. So we've fully abandoned any ideas of that type of thing. What we're looking for here is just the ability to have these farmers markets. We'll certainly, if there's events that we wanna have, like say, in November, a craft fair totally separate from this. We're gonna come back and see you all again and ask for an event permission for a day or something to do that. This would be strictly for dates that we would obviously advertise quite a bit to mostly our constituents right around here and say, hey, we're gonna have these local farmers. We wanna give the farmers also, the thought was to give them some exposure. For those of you who aren't familiar, we open up a section of the barn free to local artisans who don't have another shop to display all their stuff on more of a consignment basis so they can get exposure. The idea is keep it small, keep it local. There won't be any weddings. We won't have our own little dragway or anything like that going there. Happy to answer any other questions. Maybe I should stay up.

Jeff Donald Middle Road member of the library board of trustees. We saw the line about just the how convenient it is what it was that the ball field and the library are both right there. So for me I'm going to bring us right back to parking. I just don't want the library to be seen as satellite parking for the farmers markets. We do have our own events going on as we've heard and we have just our regular operating hours. So we don't want to lose parking at the library to your events at the bar. So I just want that taken into account.

Thank you.

That makes sense. And we don't have any problem if it's helpful to put up a sandwich board at the entrance that's like, this is where you can park. Do not park at the library or we won't be here anymore type thing. We're fine to do that. We don't want to aggravate the library. We love the library.

Other public comment?

Jason Gagnon, I'm the program coordinator for the town of Brentwood. Just a quick question. I saw in the letter that went out that there are several mentions of the ball field. Were there any intentions of utilizing that space at all? No one had approached our department, so I just wanted to follow up on that.

Yes, but not for this. The hope was to have a kickball tournament there one day, but it has nothing to do with our business or anything else. I think that's as interested as we get. You know, it's interesting living next to a ball field that has this cool path, honestly, right onto our property and then right off to the library and not seeing the ball field get a ton of use. We would love to, if there was any way to be involved with being helpful with that, that'd be great. But no, not for this project.

If you do have that plan in the future, of course you're gonna coordinate with the Brownwood Recreation Department, correct? It's on my list of things to do, for sure.

And that brings up an interesting Topic of discussion, Jason, Jason, correct? You know, BRC is a big place. You do rent that out. And it's really for the enjoyment of the townspeople in general. This seems like a great place to have a farmer's market on limited days if the space is available. You have all the parking there. You have, you know, bathrooms there. It would potentially be something that for minimal cost, I don't know what it costs to rent the space, I mean, just outside space, it might be minimal, and taking into consideration would be in the best interest of the townspeople.

Bruce, can we, I think this is an interesting topic, but it's probably a, you know, if we wanna go to a recreation board meeting and ask them about it.

All right, I'll cut to the chase here, and then I'll honestly try to shut up. Our regulations as it pertains to site plan says no off-site parking. I think that says it all right there. Now, if the board wants to vote, and contrary to my opinion, to waive that requirement, I guess you could. It just doesn't seem like a very safe. I wouldn't waive the requirement.

There's no request for off-site parking, Bruce.

That request isn't being made. Paul, this is an open public hearing. We've had evidence presented tonight by the applicant that there could be, we talked about the chief of police in town saying he had no big problem with it. So that's evidence as part of the record.

Not with off-site parking. He had no issue or problem with the presentation, which is seeking parking on site. I mean, the whole discussion is impertinent.

OK. Well, then we can go ahead and vote on it. My condition would be that we would adhere to our requirement that there would be no off-site parking.

So I feel like a lot of this is we don't know. Right? I mean, it's hypothetical whether or not.

If people parked illegally, then that's a law enforcement issue. Right, and that's cool.

I just don't want this board condoning something that's contrary to law.

No, we're not condoning anything.

We're condoning on-site parking. I think you may have missed the last meeting when this was discussed.

No, I was at that meeting.

Okay, but there was a lot of discussion about there could be parking when, I mean...

I know it's hard for Glenda to be in the middle of this. I'm not in the middle of this at all. We heard evidence. We do not allow off-street parking. The applicant is saying that they have provided on-site parking for 16 vehicles. I think it's very wise to look at this as let's see how the three proposed dates work and actually we might know on day one if it's a problem and they would have to immediately address that problem. It seems to me that we have a really, for most intensive purposes, a low impact request here. On a site that has a fairly large parking lot and the desire to do something that's community supported.

And we don't have any

I think this board.

Data to guess as to how many cars will be there. And it ain't given more than that. Right, yeah, that's fair.

beyond if there are available trip generation statistics from IT, which are not available for free online. I checked. No. But yeah, I like Glenn's suggestion. Let them try it, see how it goes.

You've been very clear that you do not want any off-site parking. I have written it down as condition number one. If they are in violation of that condition, you may revoke the amendment to the recycling plan. You can revoke it if they are continually uncompliant. There is a mechanism here that enforcement can be done.

And we can look at this over three dates here in the very near future.

Doug's had his hand up.

All right, so in the interest of moving the discussion along, I kind of want to express where I'm at and then maybe throw out a potential motion, if I may. So as I said earlier, I do have concerns about the parking issue. I don't completely agree with what Bruce is saying in terms of, because I acknowledge that I don't think you're asking for offsite parking. I acknowledge that. So I do have some concerns about the parking issue, but I also do like the idea of a farmer's market in principle. My preference would be, and I am interested what the board's thoughts would be, I would prefer having approving one trial date rather than approving three. So hypothetically, we could authorize it for August 22nd, and then at our next meeting, maybe kind of reconvene, see how it went. Rather than approving three at once, let's... preference would be to approve one trial date and then at our the following meeting we can kind of regroup and go from there that would be that would be my preference it wouldn't have it now if the board would prefer to do three trial dates it's not like a deal breaker for me but yeah it would probably be my preference my only thought is that's it's kind of like prime vacation time that's also whether or not that's a representative yeah but plus you got to be

The way the process works is we're going to vote to approve, sounds like, on a condition, approve this request tonight. So if we just make it for one... You're stumbling on the same thing. He's going to have to come back and reapply for the second time.

He's proposed dates. I think maybe we just stick with that, the remaining ones for this year and and base our motion around that.

I'd be OK with that, because we'll have a chance to meet after the first one, right?

And we have other mechanisms. We have police.

Exactly.

I just have one. We have the ability for the police to look at the site.

But before we continue discussion, I'll make that motion. And that won't end discussion, but it will maybe move things along a little bit.

So I'll make a motion that we conditionally approve

This request for August 22nd September 19th and October 3rd with the condition Of course that there's no off-site parking for up to 10 agricultural producer correct Stands all right.

I think we have Paul mark and Brett Was there a second on the motion?

Oh? Okay?

Mr.. Stevens you second? Oh

I guess I'm still flummoxed by the idea of putting the condition in for no off-site parking when they're only asking for on-site parking.

Why does that mean? But the evidence presented here tonight verbally.

Is that typically a condition?

No. Okay. All right. I kind of thought it would make Bruce feel better. I know, but I'm not here to make Bruce feel better. I know, but it's just a condition. You can put any condition on it. Are you okay with that as a condition?

I don't love it, but I'm okay with whatever moves this thing forward so we can give it a try. I will say, you know, just in response to your thought about just one condition, I think just one probably benefits us because it's going to be the first one very few people are going to know about it. I think if you do three, you actually get a flavor for how many people are going to this thing.

I've already moved on from the one.

Oh, OK. And so we're good with whatever works. My caveat is this. I don't know how this town enforces the offsite parking that happens at other events that I think we all see regularly in different places. I don't particularly want to invite some additional fund enforcement of offsite parking here. So while I'm not opposed to any type of, hey, don't park on the street, and we have no problem putting up signage that says that, I just want to be real clear that I'll expect to be treated like everybody else in town.

We also have beer truck parking right next to our house, right up Crawley Falls every single day. and Budweiser. We have people pushing dollies across that street. We just got the speed limit decreased.

The dumpster is emptied at five in the morning, slamming everything around. So I think the idea is, We're proposing a small farmers market, and it starts to feel a little bit out of proportion with the things that we also see going on. So it's kind of like we're happy to move forward with this.

So let me say a couple things. One is I get what you're saying, and I feel like our rule already is no off-site parking. So do we need that as a condition? Because it's already, and I understand what you're saying about evidence, but we've been talking about this for 30 minutes, and it's also on the record that we do not, except off-site parking, and if it becomes a problem, we can revoke the site plan, so.

The biggest piece on the way you're describing it for the record that that probably.

It's on the record. That's what we said. Mark, did you have something else?

I just have a procedural question for Mr. Greenwood. Can you do that with an amendment to a site plan? You can put an end date in it?

Yeah, we can do whatever we want.

Thank you very much. Make sure that was illegally.

Did you have something like 10 minutes ago?

It's a fair question. What's that?

Did you have a question like 10 minutes ago?

Oh, God, I've probably forgotten it. But I can say I'm in favor of not having the waiver. And I go with what you say. If we see a problem, we come back and we revisit. Because from what we've heard tonight, there are other events going on that this is happening. I don't know if we can revoke the libraries.

But the term what about is under. it doesn't, shouldn't apply.

It shouldn't.

Yeah, okay. Did somebody else hit their hand up? No, okay. Public comment.

Doug Finnen, alternate on the planning board.

I would not add a restricted parking to this gentleman's request. They're a small business just trying to make things started, and after three times, we'll have a very good idea of what's going to happen. But why restrict somebody right from the beginning? I understand your concern. No, no. Let them speak.

But Bruce, yeah, I think you've made your point. It's in our ordinance. We all agree if it becomes a problem, then we'll address it. I think we've

I won't use the colloquialism, but I think we've covered that. The library's overflow, Lindy's overflow is not this gentleman's issue.

Okay.

I'll amend by motion to eliminate the waiver part, but I think I've compromised a lot here, so I think that should be good enough.

So the motion is to approve three events, dates in the letter, for up to 10 stalls with agricultural producers.

I'm sorry, you wanted us to add, though, a second handicap space? or accessible.

I would love that, yes. I won't amend the motion against it, add it in. But we're on the record saying we'll do it. And I know you're acting in good faith. Happy to do it.

Not that I am against ADA accessibility, Per the law, it's only one space is required. And if parking's tight, do we want to get rid of another parking space?

It does not change my mind. And I'm not amending the motion to make it a condition. You're saying you'll do that voluntarily, right?

I'm happy to. I really want everybody to look at this and go, We don't feel trapped. If it doesn't work, we can get out of it. And we're doing what we can to make sure it actually looks like what I'm describing to you. And if it turns out that it attracts 150 people, well, then I guess that's the end of our small farmers market.

And so I appreciate you making that commitment. I won't make it part of the motion. I'm not going to do that, but I appreciate you saying that.

So do we have a second for Doug's amended motion? Second. Additional public comment?

No, we've got plenty. So the way you phrased it was 10 agricultural vendors. I would just change that so it just meets the state RSAs of a farmer's market, which requires three farmers. And then there can be other kinds of vendors as well. So having 10 ag vendors would be a stricter definition than what the state uses for a farmer's market.

I think what I was trying to do is say no band, no food truck, no other things.

And I appreciate that.

So 10 stalls that meet RSA.

Right.

Number?

I think it's 349, 349-1. I might have written it down.

OK. All right, so we have an amended motion. Final, last call to approve three dates per the letter for up to 10 stalls consistent with state law regarding farmers markets.

Yes. Moved. Yep. OK. Second.

Very well said.

Second. Second. OK. Last chance for comments. Anyone? Board? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Abstentions?

I love how it's unanimous after all that.

Well, that's what we do.

We reach consensus.

We find a compromise.

Okay.

You guys are great sports, by the way. We appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll make sure we come in shifts so we don't take up too much time.

Exactly, yeah.

All right, moving on. Public hearing for site plan review at 444 Route 125, property owner Peter Garisi, Jones and Beech are here. And this is, for those of you who are out there on a summer day that was 45 degrees and raining, this is a site walk that we did a little while ago. So do you want to give us an update?

Yeah, absolutely. I'll try to keep it as brief as possible on this one. I'm Nick Lorenz from Jones Beach Engineers, representing Peter Garisi, who is here with me tonight as well. We're here seeking approval to construct a 6,000 square foot building addition, as well as expand the existing gravel storage area. Stormwater will be handled through the use of a bioretention pond and a roof drip edge. We are asking for a waiver to provide building elevation plans at this time. The building isn't set to be constructed right away. And so we're still figuring that portion out and will be supplied to the building inspector when we go for a building permit. And with that, I'll open up to any questions that you may have.

All right, so this is another one we have not invoked jurisdiction, and I think the question I had is for Glen, is that, are we there? Because I know there were quite a few comments from both you and the town.

I mean, I have quite a few comments. A lot of them are administrative, so they're, you know, 10 of them are sort of editorial. Yeah. None of them preclude a challenge to the 65 days we have.

OK. That was my only question before we do that.

I'll make that motion to accept jurisdiction. Second.

All in favor? Aye. OK. So I have a couple of questions to kick things off. One of them, and we talked about this when we did the site walk, is about the road or driveway that goes to the back of the property that it looks like it's right on the property line.

Yeah, so we put it there mostly to stay out of that wetland buffer as much as possible. And we figured it would be better to sort of get closer to that property line that has some tree line over there versus getting closer to that existing wetland.

I mean, it's just the way it's drawn, it looks like there would be no trees there if you put the road there.

Yeah, the tree line's kind of hard to depict on these plans. It's hard to put it on paper versus actually in the real world. But that lot next to us is completely wooded and comes onto our lot, obviously. And so we believe that even with the construction of the road where it's proposed right now, we'll still have sufficient tree cover in that area.

I have a question about the waiver, but I'll hold on to that. Other questions from the board?

um do we want to go through your comments glenn he's actually gone through them yeah um so it seems like it would take a lot of time to state that they've really handled most everything i've asked anything not addressed or

I think one change that I see on here is that I think in the beginning, it looked like you were going to be putting all the storage trailers across there. Now I see it's only as needed, so it might only be none to start with, one or two. Do you see what you need and you add more as you need to?

Yes, I think that may be it. You're going to see the property owner. Adding these containers or these storage units is... It's kind of up in the air, to be honest with you, whether they're needed or not. And they wouldn't, I would, looking for the approval for 40-foot containers, but I feel that a 40-foot container is a lot of wasted, useless space that doesn't get used, as you probably know, being in the industry, that the 20-footers seem to be the better option. Same amount, using the same amount of space, basically, with wasted stuff in the back, so. Yeah, containers might be three or four to begin with, possibly. Depends on the affordability of it at the time. The same with the building. That's not affordable at the moment, so that would be a year or two before the funding's put in place or something like that. Thank you. That's really about it.

Other questions? There's one comment here about the 25-foot setback.

That should be discussed.

Yeah. I'm not super comfortable with, I mean, it is what it is. It's a 25-foot setback. So saying that the existing vegetation will be sufficient doesn't really address the setback.

Yeah, there's a diagram in the town regulations that stipulate the amount of trees and shrubs that are required within 50 or 100 foot distance along that 25 foot setback. What we could do is go out there and get diameters of trees to make sure that we are meeting that diagram that's in the regulation.

That would be helpful.

Yep.

It seems a little time-consuming, but it is the best way to ensure that the buffer yard landscaping is appropriate.

Absolutely, yeah. Just from eyeballing it, it seemed like we were meeting that, but we can absolutely get those numbers.

And the distance between the driveway and the neighboring property?

The existing driveway?

No, what you're planning in the back there.

Yeah, this area right here I think she's referring to.

Yeah, I'd like that to be more specific.

This gravel access road here should be 10 feet off of the property line. And do you meet that requirement?

Yeah, I can check that. And if we don't, would you rather us obtain more wetland buffer impacts? in order to get that separation.

Is there an abutter here? Any abutters here? I think we've had other situations where the abutter weighs in, and that gives us more information if they're OK with it. Those are, well, we'll talk about the building, but those are my initial questions. Other questions from the board? Public comment? Okay, so you asked for a waiver from having to have a building drawing, but it seems like it's pretty straightforward because you're saying it's pretty much gonna look like what's there.

Yeah, it's going to be similar to that existing structure height and material wise. And it's also going behind that existing structure. And with it being similar in height, I'm not sure how many people will actually see it from 125.

Would the detailed depiction suffice with some photographs?

Just yeah, I mean, just rather than giving you a waiver, it seems like it's if it's Like you said, going to look similar than just mocking up something.

So it doesn't have to be that detailed?

We have many times when people are going to build a Butler building, they give us the illustration of the Butler building that we're going to build, and that suffices as the building elevation. So if what is going to be added on is really important, there's no reason not to believe. You wouldn't want it to look similar to what your other building is. A photograph of your existing building can substitute for that building elevation. You've done that before.

Yeah, absolutely.

Board questions? So do we, we can do a conditional approval, but I feel like we don't have the answer on the, driveway.

Well, I think because the driveway and the buffer area, that's something you could do by our next meeting, which is two weeks away. Oh, is it more than two weeks? Well, yeah, I think there's.

Yeah, because there are five weeks.

Oh, because it's an odd, yeah, gotcha.

So it's August 6th.

Well, could a conditional approval be the motion conditional upon having that depiction of the

I'd rather that they either have the discussion with the abutter to see if the abutter signs off and they can leave the driveway in its place or find out if we're actually going to make them do some sort of conditional use permit for the driveway going in the wetland buffer.

I'd also like to see a response letter from Tara.

The final assignment.

Because I had just sent that response letter out to her in the new plan set. She hasn't had time to take a look at it.

So going to our August, was it 6th? I'm sorry. Yes, sir. August 6th meeting, is that, that gives you plenty of time to work on those three items? Yeah, I believe so.

And you're in direct contact with Tara anyway. Yep. Have you contacted the fire department yet?

Do you want to speak on that? The fire department came down with the facilities manager of the suburban propane property next door because they got struck by lightning a couple of weeks ago. And they went down and inspected. And I was there when they came. And I went and spoke with them on their property where that fire house that we went into where the sprinkler system is there is inoperable. and they are going to be in the process of taking care of that, what I was told by the facilities manager. And I did ask the fire inspector, I forget his name, who he was, I did ask him about, and he knows of this proposal and everything, and was stating that, and I asked him about the fire suppression in my building where it's inoperable because of this fire pond issue, and their system is not functioning. He said that if you put another building on here, it's just basically an extension of what you have in the existing building to incorporate it into the new addition, meaning just extend the system into that. That's what he told me verbally. I don't have anything, but that's what was said to me.

Part of the conditional use permit will be a sign-off letter from the Brentwood Fire Department. So if you could reach back out to them and get that letter, that'd be great.

Okay. We'll give him a call. We'll announce to him. Would a motion be in order to continue to August 6th? I move that we continue this hearing on tax map 201-007-000 to August 6th at 7 p.m. Second.

Any additional discussion before we vote to continue? All in favor? Aye.

Who's my second? I apologize. Thank you, Mr. Red.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll make a motion to approve the June 18th, 2026 minutes.

Second that motion.

Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All right. Any other business?

I have some RPC updates. So quite a few things have happened. So I'll start with something we were talking about actually before the meeting. I just want to make sure I have the right bill number here. So excuse me. I think that we have talked about this bill a little bit before. House Bill 1010 was signed into law by Governor Ayotte yesterday. This is the bill that provides a little bit of clarity on the new multifamily statute. It really is more around water and sewer infrastructure and specifying the town that boards do have the ability to deny projects if it doesn't meet those requirements. That was alluded to in the original bill, but this just spells it out a little bit more. So the governor did veto the 10-year transportation plan. I, at our last meeting, sat here very confidently and said, well, they put the toll thing in the 10-year plan, so that's probably gonna happen. And boy, did I make a you-know-what out of myself with that one. So a couple things on this. There, I can't predict what the legislature is going to do, obviously. I couldn't even predict what the governor was going to do. But there is a lot of bipartisan uproar over this. The deputy speaker of the House, Stephen Smith, who's a very conservative Republican, said that he thought the governor's decision was short-sighted and delays a lot of critical projects. So I do think that there is potentially an opportunity for this veto to be overridden, because there is a lot of bipartisan frustration with her on this. But even if that does happen, the legislature doesn't typically vote on overriding gubernatorial vetoes until September. So even if the veto is overridden, which I think is a real possibility, Everything is going to be delayed. So it is an issue. It's not over by any means. Like I said, I think that there is an opening there for the 10-year plan to be implemented anyway. But it is going to delay things for sure. So wanted to touch on that. And then... Let's see. What else? Oh, yes, Jen Rowden. So we had talked at previous meetings about having somebody from the RPC come in to talk about impact fees. Jen Rowden volunteered to do that. Jen has come to talk to us before. She's terrific. She actually did offer August 6th as a possibility. I could also propose to her August 20th, which I think is our second meeting in August. So I just kind of want to take the board's temperature in terms of if you're okay with me floating some dates to her and maybe august and september but i want to kind of get how the board is feeling i mean uh would the board be okay with august 6 i know that's our very next meeting yeah well i was going to ask as of right now do we have any thing on the sixth no no i have nothing scheduled for the six so far and i have not received

an application as of yet, but that could definitely change. There's.

Yeah, but that's, I don't think there's anything.

There's definitely time to accept an application and have that on the agenda.