Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, the light is now on. Well, welcome everyone. The hour of 6.30 p.m. having arrived, I will call to order this regular meeting of the Planning Board. This meeting is being broadcast live on the City of Keene YouTube channel. The video will also be available for streaming on the city's website and is posted on the website by the end of the next business day, barring any technical difficulties. Anyone wishing to view a copy of the agenda and supporting materials will find it also on the city website. To receive electronic copies of future agenda packets, please go to the home page and subscribe to the city meetings email list. The public and other board members will be recognized to ask questions and make comments on the agenda item under discussion. After being recognized, all remarks are to be made through the chair.

So we'll start with the roll call.

Will staff please conduct the roll?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Paul Andrus, Community Development Director, filling in for Mary Brenner, Senior Planner. Okay, so Harold Farrington.

Here.

Roberta Mestru-Giovanni.

Here.

Jay Kahn. Here. Molly Ellis.

Here.

David Bergeron Here Michael Hafer Here Kenneth Kost Here Andrew Madison Stephen Mayhew Present Timmy Adams and Joseph Kosevera Here I think that's it So Megan do we have just one slot open

Sorry this is Megan Fortson Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Kosevera can be invited to join as voting members tonight because we do have extra room

I'll invite Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Kosovera to become voting members for this evening, if that's all right with you. All right. I think we only have one, but that's all right.

No, we do only have one. You're correct. I apologize.

Well, I'm left-handed, so I'm going to go to Mr. Mayhew. Mr. Mayhew is a voting member tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your graciousness.

Okay. First item on the, or next item on the agenda are the minutes from the July 27, 2026 meeting. I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes.

I'd like to move to approve the minutes from the July 27, 2026 meeting.

Thank you, Mr. Giovanni. Second?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any questions, comments, corrections? I have just one. On line 428, the word forum is used, and it should be form. So just a Scrivener error. Okay. Having dispensed with that, I'll call, let's see, we can just do a voice vote. All those in favor of approving the minutes? Any opposed? Unanimously approved. Great. Extension requests this evening?

There are no extension requests this evening, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Final vote on conditional approvals. This is a standing agenda item. So any approvals ready for final approval tonight?

Yes, this is Megan Fortson planner again. We have four applications that are ready for final approval tonight. Is it okay if I just hop right into the first one, Mr. Chair?

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

So the first one is project number PD-26-10, which was a cottage court conditional use permit for Habitat for Humanity involving their Grove Street property. There were four precedent conditions of approval for the application. including having the owner's signature appear on the final plans, the submittal of five full-size paper copies and a PDF version of the final plan set in elevations, the submittal of an updated proposed conditions plan showing the ZBA approval number, and then the submittal of draft written documentation of any easements or other legal instruments necessary for the application. The applicant has met all of those conditions precedent, so staff recommends that you issue final approval.

Thank you, Ms. Fortson. I'll entertain a motion now for final approval.

I'd like to move to issue final approval for PB-26-10, the Cottage Court CUP Habitat for Humanity on Grove Street and Water Street.

Second. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any discussion? Okay. All those in favor of final approval for PB26-10? Any opposed? All right. Unanimously approved. Final approval.

The next application, Mr. Chair, is PB-26-12, which was a major site plan and cottage court conditional use permit application. for Elm City Commons, which is on Elm Street and Carroll Street. The applicant had six conditions pressed, and I believe, no, seven that they had to meet, including having the owner sign the final plans, the submittal of full-sized copies of the final plan sets and elevations, the submittal of a recorded voluntary merger for the four subject parcels, the submittal of a security, the submittal of draft written documentation of any easements or other legal instruments necessary for the application, This is the middle of an updated plan set showing a native replacement for the Callery pear trees and the completion of a sewer flow study to demonstrate that there's adequate capacity in the city sewer line. The applicant has satisfied all of those conditions precedent, so staff recommends that the board issue final approval for PB-26-12.

Ms. Fortson, may I ask you a question?

Yes.

Do we know the results of the sewer study?

Yes, Mr. Chair. So the applicant is now proposing to actually upgrade the sewer infrastructure within the public right-of-way. Sorry, I'm waiting for the motorcycle to go by. Yeah, the applicant has now said that they will upgrade the actual sewer infrastructure in the public right-of-way, and so that negates the need for the completion of a sewer flow study.

Okay, good. And that's a condition subsequent?

That was a condition precedent. Okay.

No, no, but the actual upgrade of the sewer?

Yes, the actual upgrade of the sewer will take place once work has started on the project. And then the applicant will need to get initial approval of the infrastructure from city council. Then they can construct it. Once it's been constructed, it's going to need to be inspected by the public works director to make sure that it's met all of the necessary city standards. And then they can go back to city council for final acceptance of the utilities and infrastructure as public infrastructure.

Thank you for that explanation.

You're welcome.

All right. I will entertain a motion for final approval.

I'd like to move to issue final approval for PB-26-12, Cottage Court CUP for the Elm City Commons, Elm Street, and Carroll Street.

Second. I'll second that. Mr. Mayhew, thank you. Any discussion? Seeing none will call the vote. All those in favor. Any opposed? Unanimously approved. Please continue.

you mr chair um the third application is pb-26-15 which was a major site plan and a surface water conditional use permit for changes to the eversource l-163 transmission line they had four conditions precedent which included having the owner's signature appear on the final plans this middle of five color copies of the final plan sets this the middle of documentation of all necessary permits and approvals, including an NHDS statutory permit by notification, an alteration of terrain permit, a US Army Corps of Engineer permit, and an EPA 2022 general construction permit. They also needed to update the proposed plan set to include a note stating that Old Gilson Road will be returned to pre-construction conditions. All of those precedent conditions of approval have been met, so staff recommends that you issue final approval.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion for final approval.

I would like to move to issue final approval for PB-26-15, surface water CUP for Eversource L163 transmission line.

Thank you. A second?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any discussion? All right, let's call the vote. All those in favor of final approval? Any opposed? Unanimously approved. And you have one more. Ms. Fortson?

Yes, Mr. Chair. There was one more application ready for final approval, and that was PB-26-18, which was a boundary line adjustment involving the parcels at 35 and 39 Kendall Road. There were three precedent conditions of approval, including... the owner's signature appearing on the final plans, the submittal of paper and mylar copies of the final plans, and the submittal of a check to cover the cost of recording fees. The applicant has satisfied all of those conditions precedent, so staff recommends that the board issue final approval.

Thank you. I will entertain a motion for final approval.

I'd like to move to issue final approval for PB-26-18, boundary line adjustment for 35 and 39 Kendall Road.

Thank you. Second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any discussion? All right, let's call the vote. All those in favor of final approval on PB-26-18? Any opposed?

Unanimously approved.

Thank you, Ms. Fortson. I do not believe we have any boundary line adjustments or continued public hearings for this evening. So we'll move to agenda item G, single public hearing. And this is PB-26-21, Major Site Plan Bensonwood Parking Lot Modifications, 25 Production Ave. Applicant Bensonwood, on behalf of owner LIDA Realty LLC, proposes to construct a new 46-space employee parking area and make associated site improvements on the parcel at 25 Production Ave. tax map plat number 110-007-000 the parcel is 6.87 acres in size and is located in the industrial district okay at this time i will ask staff if they have a recommendation for completeness of this application

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Fortson, planner again. The applicant has requested exemptions from submitting a separate landscaping plan, elevations and renderings, a traffic report, a soil analysis, a historic evaluation, a screening analysis, and an architectural analysis. Planning staff have made the preliminary determination that granting the requested exemptions would have no bearing on the merits of the application and recommend that the board accept the application as complete.

Thank you, Ms. Fortson. I will entertain a motion for completeness of the application.

I would like to move to see that the application PB-26-21 is complete.

Thank you.

Second?

Second.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Any discussion or questions regarding completeness of the application? Seeing none, let's call the vote. All those in favor of finding this application complete. Any opposed? Application is considered complete. OK, at this time I will invite applicant to present.

Liza Sargent, SVE Associates. This is a rendering of the existing conditions at the site. This is the existing facility, manufacturing panels for Unity Homes. Currently they're being stored in the parking lot. There is an existing gravel roadway along the north side of the building. There's a tack stitch along the border with Eversource and to the south, to the southern border. Ashwant Brook is along the west side of the property. And Production Ave ends roughly where the North Arrow is. It's a dead end street. Bensonwood has an excellent problem. They are making a lot of product and don't have enough space to store. The current employees try to fit wherever they can on site with their personal vehicles, but it makes it a challenge with the delivery trucks, tractor trailers backing in, trying to pick up product and raw materials and whatnot. Along the north property line there is a city water main in the water main easement and there's also overhead power lines. There's no proposed change to employees, number of employees. We're trying to make a better, safer situation for the facility. The proposal is to store product down here. The existing ADA access is in the front of the building. So the ADA parking in front of that accessible route. And a proposed employee only driveway along the north side with the parking along the face of the building. The existing doors, there's about five doors on that side of the building and an overhead door. Those will not be for the public. General public can come through the main entry. The alignment is such that fire trucks can make it around the building, but general public will not be driving back in that area. This requires a shoreland permit, which we've applied for, and we can submit a copy to the city once we've received it. The existing stormwater, there is a series of catch basins in the southern parking lot that discharge to the front, as shown in the 93 approved site plan. That discharges to the tax ditch, or it should, but it needs maintenance right now. This is silted in, is the outlet to the parking lot. Both tack stitches, they have culverts that outlet to Ashwant Brook, both the north and the south. The north one is 28 inches, the bottom one is 30, excuse me, 24. Lighting will be along the face of the building. And there will be no light trespass. And for screening of the parking lot, we are really limited on the north side. The power line easement and the water main, there is existing vegetation along that tack stitch that we're going to try to maintain. But an alternative would be to put plantings in the front of the building to try to shield the existing parking and the face of the building. which is enhancement. Along Production Ave, there's a lot of parking lots that don't have very much vegetation to screen the building, so it's not unusual of a neighborhood. As far as drainage, we are capturing the storm water that runs off from the parking lot along the curb line. There's a series of catch basins, deep sump catch basins that'll discharge to the cleaned out expanded storm water pond in the front. Speaking with the city engineer, he asked for some improvements like drainage, excuse me, a rip-rap apron to the outlet of that pipe along the storm drain, or excuse me, the tax ditch. other alternatives we proposed in dealing with stormwater include porous asphalt but in this climate it's a challenge to maintain I know other facilities nearby our where our office used to be on near keene state had issues and ended up making modifications because of the close proximity to the property line we can't functionally do any vegetated swales or things of that nature hence why we're trying to capture along the curb line and expand in the existing stormwater basin Do you have anything to add about the functionality of the facility? Any questions?

Okay, thank you, Ms. Sargent. Board members have questions for Ms. Sargent? I don't know if it's the right time to address stuff. Go ahead, Mr. Bergeron.

I was just going to ask about, there were some questions from Public Works about the water and sewer, some things that they want to be clarified.

Can you turn on your microphone, please?

There were some questions that Public Works wanted to get clarified regarding the water and sewer lines along that side. Did you have a chance to take a look at that?

Yes, we have, and we made those modifications, and the city engineers reviewed them.

Okay. And it is accepted?

Yep.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

That's what I was going to bring up. Other questions? Okay. Thank you. So at this time, I'll ask Ms. Fortson to provide staff comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So the subject parcel, it's approximately 6.87 acres in size. And as Ms. Sargent has stated, it's located at the end of Production Ave on the southern side of the road. The site is developed with an existing approximately 104,428 square foot building that houses Bensonwood and Unity Homes. People who are from the area might remember that, once upon a time, Smith's Medical had a facility here. And so that facility changed hands and has been used by Bensonwood, I think, since 2017, you would say. The parcel currently has site access via an existing curb cut along Production Ave. So it's near the southeastern corner of the site, if you look at the proposed conditions plan. There are light industrial uses to the north and the east and then to the south and west is undeveloped land as well as residential uses. So this parcel itself is located in the industrial district and then the parcels to the west are located in the rural district. The applicant is proposing to create a second curb cut on the property and construct a 43-space parking area that would consist of approximately 22,970 square feet of asphalt. This is all going to be done along the northern portion of the site, which is just currently grassed with a small gravel access road and some trees. Under section 26.12.3.A.1.E of the land development code, the installation of new impervious surfaces exceeding 10,000 square feet of contiguous area meets the threshold for major site plan review by this body. So this is why you're looking at this application today is because of the amount of impervious surface that's being added. During our review of the application, staff did not feel that the project had the potential for regional impact, but as always, you'll need to make that determination as part of your deliberation. In regards to staff comments on the application, the zoning administrator did note that the proposal typically would have to comply with the landscaping standards for 50 or more parking spaces. In this case, the applicant is proposing an alternative landscaping design due to the site constraints. and the proximity of the northernmost building facade to the northern property line. The fire department made some specific comments related to signage and parking spaces not blocking the way of their connections to the building. So the applicant has addressed those comments. And then as was mentioned by Mr. Bergeron, there were some comments from the city engineer related to the proposed infrastructure and the potential drainage on the site. I'm happy to go into further detail on that, but I'll also address it under the drainage section of the staff report. The applicant has submitted a revised grading and drainage plan and also submitted a revised drainage narrative, and those materials were reviewed by the city engineer, and he has approved them. So now moving on to the application analysis, all of the standards relevant to this application are under your regulations in Article 21 of the LDC. For drainage, currently stormwater from the existing paved parking and storage area is directed into a detention basin at the front or the eastern end of the site. The basin discharges into a city tax ditch along the southern property line that connects to Ash Swamp Brook. And Ash Swamp Brook actually makes up the entire western property boundary of the parcel. Runoff from the north side of the building goes into a tack stitch along the northern property line and then into Ash Swamp Brook. Stormwater from the new parking lot on the northern side of the building is proposed to be collected in deep sump catch basins and piped to the existing stormwater basin which will be expanded to handle the additional volume of runoff. And again, as stated, the city engineer had questions regarding the post-development stormwater runoff rate. Say that five times fast. As well as specifications regarding the design of the new drainage infrastructure. Again, we have received updated materials from the applicant, and those have basically addressed all of the comments and questions that we received from the city engineer. Planning staff do recommend that as a condition of approval, you include the submittal of a security to cover the cost of asphalt plans just so that once the project is done, we have a record of the exact depths and specifications of pipes and everything else that's installed for the city's records. The next standard is related to sediment and erosion control. The applicant is proposing to install silt fencing along the northern and northwestern portions of the site to protect the city tax ditch to the north from siltation during construction. Again, planning staff, as is pretty typical with your applications, recommends that the applicant submit a security to cover the cost of sediment and erosion control measures. And we also recommend that you include a condition related to community development staff inspecting these measures prior to the start of construction or site work. So that standard appears to be met. In regards to snow storage and removal, snow storage areas are shown in the proposed conditions plan to the west of the proposed parking lot area. And the applicant has also added a note on the plan stating that snow cannot be pushed into or stored within the 30 foot surface water buffer. So because this parcel is located in the industrial district, they have to maintain a 30-foot buffer from the edge of Ash Swamp Brook. The proposed changes are well outside of that 30-foot buffer. As Ms. Sargent had mentioned, they do still have to go to NHDES and obtain a shorelands permit. So we do recommend that the board also include the submittal of that approved permit as a condition of approval. But they've added the note related to snow not being stored within the surface water buffer just to make sure that there are no issues in Terms of landscaping the applicant is proposing to remove nine existing trees along the western side of the north building facade To allow for the creation of the new parking area under section nine point four point four point a of the land development code perimeter landscaping area is required to be created if a new on-site parking lot will be visible from the public right-of-way and or is located to a residential zoning district so the proposed new parking area on the portion of the site northern portion of the site is going to be minimally visible from production ave to the east and then on the western side the travel aisle is going to be technically adjacent to our rural district So screening applies not only to the northern property boundary, but a portion of the eastern property boundary, as well as the western property boundary, even though that's the rear of the building. The applicant is proposing to install 13 lowbush blueberries and 12 inkberry hollies along the eastern portion of the site to screen the parking area from Production Ave, as well as soften the transition between the building and the public right-of-way. To screen the rear portion of the site from the adjacent rural district to the west, the applicant is proposing to maintain a 25-foot wooded buffer. And they're allowed to satisfy that requirement to screen this industrial use from an adjacent residential zoning district. There's a little provision carved out in our parking lot landscaping standards that says you can maintain that 25-foot wooded buffer. So that's what they're proposing to do. Um, during the review of this application, planning staff noted that, um, there was some aerial imagery that I included, which you can see in figure one on the first page of the staff report. It shows that on the Southwestern portion of the site, there's a little area that's been used for parking. And so that goes into that 25 foot wooded buffer. So in order to be able to provide that buffer fully, they're going to be rototilling the soil in that area. and then installing some new trees. And the goal of that is to prevent future parking in that area, and then also to make sure that any runoff coming from that portion of the site going into Ash Swamp Brook isn't going to have any discharges from vehicles, basically. The applicant is, yeah, so it's going to be four juniper bushes that are going to be installed in that portion of the site. The applicant is also required to install one tree for every 10 new parking spaces and create interior parking lot landscaping areas. So they're proposing to install five red maple trees on the eastern portion of the site adjacent to their large detention basin. And again, we have the specific provision carved out that under section 9.4.5.B.5 of the land development code that the planning board may approve an alternative design for interior landscaping of parking lots as part of a site plan review if they determined that the proposed design generally meets the intent of this article. Planning staff recommend a condition of approval related to this in the middle of a security to cover the cost of landscaping. And again, just to reiterate that section of the code and what the applicant is proposing, there's five red maple trees and a series of inkberry bushes and hollies that are proposed to be installed along the main facade of the building. The existing city tax ditch vegetation is proposed to screen the parking lot from the property to the north. And then on the western side, the property owner is proposing to maintain that 25-foot vegetated buffer with one small area of remediation. So really, as a board, when you deliberate, you need to make a determination if what the applicant has proposed meets the intent of your parking lot landscaping regulations. Because they're not meeting the regulations to a T. They're meeting them as best as they can. or I should say the applicant feels they're meeting them as best as they can. I've already addressed screening. In terms of lighting, the applicant is proposing to install four new wall-mounted light fixtures. They're all going to be full cut off. They're going to have a color rendering index greater than 70 and a color temperature of 3,500 Kelvin or less. So that standard appears to be met. For sewer and water, the narrative states that there are no changes proposed to the existing utilities other than raising the grade of the rims, clean outs, curb stops, and gate valves. to match the new finish grade as necessary. So that standard appears to be met. In regards to traffic and access management, again, there's going to be a new curb cut on Production Ave to access the northern parking lot, and that is going to be identified as an employee-only entrance using a sign. So there's going to be no truck traffic going around the site from that northern curb cut. The north and south parking and storage areas are going to be connected via an existing concrete pad and drive aisle located to the rear of the building. However, circulation around the building will be limited to use by emergency vehicles only. The southern portion of the site will be reserved for delivery vehicles picking up finished product. And the proposed conditions plan shows that a 22 foot wide travel aisle is going to be maintained between the outdoor storage areas and also shows the installation of a bike rack near the northeastern corner of the building. near the employee entrance. So that standard appears to be met. In regards to filling and excavation, the narrative states that there will be minimal filling and excavation and notes that the proposed employee parking lot will require stripping of the topsoil and installation of gravel and asphalt, which will result in proposed finished grades that are close to the existing site grading. That standard appears to be met. As I mentioned earlier, in regards to surface waters and wetlands, the applicant is staying further than that required 30-foot buffer away from Ash Swamp Brook. So they do not require a surface water conditional use permit under our regulations, but they are subject to the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act. So they have to get a shorelands permit. For hazardous and toxic materials, there are none proposed as part of this application. So that standard is not applicable. Same thing with noise. Noise levels are not going to be changed. So that standard is not applicable. And architecture and visual appearance do not apply because there are no changes proposed to the outside of the building. And the parking lot under those architecture and visual appearance standards has to be located to either the side or the rear of the building. This parking lot is located to the side of the building, so it complies with that standard. To quickly run through the conditions of approval for conditions precedent, we recommend the submittal of an approved shoreland permit and the inclusion of the approved permit number on the proposed conditions plan. Another one is having the owner's signature appear on the final plans, the submittal of full-size paper copies of the final plans, and the submittal of the security for the sediment and erosion control landscaping, and as-built plans. For subsequent conditions of approval, we have the sediment and erosion control inspection that staff recommends be done prior to the commencement of site work, and then the completion of initial and final landscaping inspections when the applicant is at that point. So I know that that was a lot, but I'm happy to answer any questions that the board may have.

Thank you, Ms. Fortson. Board members have questions for Ms. Fortson?

Mr. Coste Thank you Mr. Chair I just wanted I think everything you said and I understand it and the landscaping issue since there's the tax ditch and there's a lot of natural vegetation there that's going to screen it from the other parking lot across the way which is also industrial But occasionally, I think, the city cleans out the vegetation from the tax ditch. So that will not always be there. So at some point, it's going to be open between the two. So just sort of everyone understands that that's not going to be there. And I just want to get my mind around the idea of an alternative landscape plan. Because the new landscaping is great. It's nice to have it. But it's not going to do anything for the parking lot, right? So it's sort of, well, we can't do anything about that, but we'll put some trees over here because we can do that. So in a sense, it's not really an alternative to solving that problem. It's just we can't do that, so we're going to put some other trees in. Is that kind of how it works?

Mr. Costa, I kind of hold that for deliberation. Is there a question for Ms. Fortson? No.

Yeah, I guess I'm asking for the definition of alternative landscaping, because to me, this is can't do that. So here's some other kind of landscaping. But when I hear alternatives, we can't exactly meet the screening, but we could do something that kind of meets the screening. And I just want to make sure I'm understanding it right. Is that a question?

Yeah, I think the alternative landscaping plan is what they've proposed. So that is the definition of it for this application. I don't think there's a general definition.

If I may mr. Chair, um, so really what it says and the LDC is what I had quoted earlier Which is that the Planning Board may approve an alternative design for interior landscaping of parking lots as part of a site plan review if they determine that the proposed design Generally meets the intent of this article. So there's sort of two sections that this relates to there's interior parking lot landscaping that would need to be installed in terms of landscaping islands and within the parking area. And then there's also the perimeter parking lot landscaping standards. And so they're requesting an alternative landscaping plan for both of those categories. And the board has that provision carved out in your regulations to be able to approve that. But yes, during conversations when this application was being reviewed, and staff are speaking with the applicant, we did say, if you look at the 1993 or whatever it is, other plan, there was more landscaping once upon a time along the eastern portion of the site, right where Production Ave is. So it was a concerted effort for the applicant to install some extra landscaping there to sort of make up for the fact that there is the lack of landscaping along the northern property boundary. That was the intent. Okay, thank you.

Seeing no further questions, we will let you go. Thank you. Is there anyone from the public here who would like to comment on this application?

Please come forward.

For the record, I'm Kevin Thatcher, resident at 28 Evans Circle in Keene, and I'm here tonight to speak in opposition to this project as it is currently proposed. The primary reasons for that are related to stormwater management. and that this project does not comply with Section 21.2 of the Keene Land Use Code titled Drainage and Stormwater Management. Specifically, Section 21.2.1 regarding runoff volume and velocity. I understand from staff comments at the start of this meeting that the issue of velocity has been addressed with a revised drainage narrative with the city engineer. except that I haven't had a chance to review that so I can't speak further on it, but the original application did not provide enough information for that determination. Regarding volume, this project does not comply as it increases stormwater runoff volume from the site. because it represents a significant increase in impervious area of about half an acre, and it also proposes no infiltration of stormwater. So by that, there's no way it can comply with reducing volume from the development. Section 21.2.2 regarding low impact design. It doesn't appear that there's enough information in this application to show that these methods have been appropriately vetted for this site. Specifically, fire retention, porous pavement, and vegetated swales all seem like they could be possible in some capacity. And to that, I think their requested exemption regarding soil analysis is not warranted. as that would give more data towards the potential design of LID practices on the site. uh... lastly section twenty one point two point three regarding discharge ups stormwater to surface waters uh... mass that that discharge be treated uh... to the standards of the federal uh... clean water act the stormwater treatment proposed currently on the site is an existing dry detention basin with limited detention associated with with it a dry detention basin is not not an approved stormwater quality measure it is primarily for volumetric control of stormwater and at the very least to enhance stormwater quality should be modified beyond its expanded grading to include an outlet control with extended attention on the possibility that any of the LID methods are not feasible or possible. Some other issues related with this application. They did state they've applied for a state shoreland permit. That said, the plans do not depict the wetlands on the site. They identify setbacks associated with Ashwant Brook, but they do not identify the wetlands associated with Ashwant Brook. And they may or may not correlate to the center line of Ashwant Brook. Likewise, it should be clarified that the tax ditch areas, as well as the existing stormwater basin, have been evaluated in the field as to whether they themselves have wetlands present within them. And if so, then the grading of this project represents wetland impacts. As far as some more specific design comments regarding sediment and erosion control, uh... the existing stormwater basin which they're looking to use on the southeast side of the building also received stormwater from the unchanged stormwater system on the south side of the building uh... the proposed erosion controls for this project do not address separating that stormwater from the construction activities associated with this project uh... I would suggest that it's feasible to either create a temporary bypass for that stormwater system or at the very least create a separation, a diversion with proposed erosion controls to allow the stormwater from that system to discharge from the site without disturbing the grading revisions necessary for the stormwater basin. With the gist of my opposition to this, I ask that you consider continuing this application so that the applicant may provide more information regarding these topics. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public? seeing no one else i'll close the public portion and move to deliberation so deliberation we start with a motion so if we could have a motion miss master giovanni

I'd like to move to approve PB-26-21 as shown on the plan set identified as employee parking 25 production Avenue Keene New Hampshire prepared by SVE associates at varying scales on July 10th 2025 last revised on August 11th 2026 with the following conditions Number one, prior to final approval and signature of the plans by the Planning Board Chair, the following conditions shall be met. A, submit 11 approved NHDES shoreland permit and the inclusion of the approved permit number on the proposed conditions plan. B, owner's signature appears on the plan. C, submittal of five full-size paper copies and a flattened PDF version of the final plan set. D, submittal of a security to cover the cost of landscaping, sediment, and erosion control measures, and as built plans in a form and amount acceptable to the community development director. Two, subsequent to final approval and signature of the plans by the Planning Board Chair, the following additions shall be met. A, prior to the commencement of site work, all sediment and erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the Community Development Director of their designee. be following the installation of landscaping the Community Development Department shall be contacted to perform an initial inspection and See one year following the installation of all landscaping the Community Development Department shall be contacted to perform a final landscaping inspection Thank you second Second Thank You mr. Mayor Okay

Comments, opinions? Well, in particular, I'd like to hear from the board on two items. One, the landscaping slash screening for the parking lot plans, the alternate plan provided. Is that something that you find acceptable? And secondly, I'll just call it stormwater-related issues that were raised by Mr. Thatcher. I'd like to hear your comments on those two things at least. Mr. Hafer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, certainly in regards to landscaping, I think it seems like the alternate plan is... Appropriate for the site. I think the applicant is Somewhat lucky that the tax Basin is there with vegetation that the property next to it is not day is a further, you know another industrial type location with parking and storage happening there, so the the need for the need for that screening is Minimized and in my opinion the addition of a tree used to the to the west and east of the building will be a nice improvement to the local, to that particular area of Production Ave. Looking back, Ms. Foreston said there used to be some additional trees, but looking back through some of the 2003 and 2010 aerial photos, I don't see any of that, so I think this will be a nice nice addition to have some additional trees from blocking the the building from production half so in my opinion i would find the alternate landscaping plan appropriate for the site

I agree with that. I think the alternative plan does address the screening and detractiveness of the east side of the building for sure. Yeah.

Okay. Mr. Coste? Thank you. So the discussion we just had on stormwater, there was a lot there. I could use maybe some help understanding it, maybe from the engineer, if that's appropriate, or some other way. But everything that was said, I don't know that that's actually all the situation. So is it appropriate to get a little bit of help from the engineer from what we just heard?

Ms. Sargent, would you like to address some of the stormwater related items that were raised?

Regarding the soil analysis, This is a pretty disturbed site that has had modifications since the 90s. So it's mostly important fill. Regarding the alternative stormwater practices, like I mentioned earlier, we did look into other alternatives other than expanding the existing basin. the porous asphalt or concrete, we would need to modify the base, remove material, and import good trading soils. Something else to point out, which hasn't been mentioned yet, this facility is currently in the 500-year flood. We don't require a flood permit, but we're really limited in depth for any stormwater practices. Regarding the wetlands, we did have a certified wetland scientist review the tack stitches in the stormwater basin and if the board would like us to provide a stamp plan with that so they understand that we're not having any wetland impacts that can be refined. Regarding the sediment and erosion control for the existing stormwater parking lot, those modifications could easily be added to the plan and approved by the city engineer if requested by the board. That's not a problem at all.

Thank you.

Mr. Cost. So one other thing I heard was it's a dry retention. And Mr. Thatcher was saying that's not appropriate or adequate. Can you help explain that, the actual retention? And is it appropriate and adequate?

the classification of the stormwater basin AOT specifications are very specific on what sort of stormwater infrastructure you use I would argue that the city of Keynes is is less descriptive and hence why we proposed what is currently shown on the plan If Mr. Thatcher was looking for a wet stormwater basin, like going into the detaining water, having it wet all the time, additional modifications would be done to the site in order to make that happen.

Anyone else have questions on the stormwater?

All right.

Mr. Mayhew.

At a minimum, I would love to see the wetland scientist data that was collected or require that as a...

Sorry, is your mic on?

Sorry. The data collected by the wetland scientist, I would love to see that. as a condition subsequent.

OK. We can certainly, if you'd like to raise that as an additional amendment to the motion that's on the table.

Mr Bergeron yeah and I guess I would echo what everybody else has been saying and that I think you know getting back to the landscaping I think it's the best plan based on the size and the condition of the site from the site visit it was pretty clear that there was little else that could be done as far as the property goes the amount of work that they have on the other side of the building this is a much improved layout based on keeping the the workers cars separate from the area where trucks are being loaded and materials moved around I think this is a great plan for that I also think that As Mr. Mayhew said, having the wetlands review would be good, knowing that there's no wetlands impacts. They're not working near the brook, so I think there's nothing there, and that there's no wetlands being impacted from the drainage ditch. around the drainage ditch because the drainage itself is probably wouldn't be would be exempt because it's this man-made structure and the same with the retention pond they're usually exempt from what the wetland regulations because they're man-made structures so those it would just be anything that's an additional as far as as far as that goes for as well as impacts um that's that's it

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So what would the additional work by a wetlands consultant, what would it yield us beyond what's been presented?

Go ahead, Mr. Mayhew.

To my understanding, this is data that's already been collected. It's just I want to see it illustrated.

I believe that's true. She said that they already have a wetland delineation done. It's just not shown on the plan. So you're adding an additional plan showing the wetland delineation that's already been done. OK. OK. Mr.

Cost? So, I mean, I'm thinking if this has already been looked at by the city engineer and they agree that it works and it meets whatever requirements it's supposed to meet, then I think that's, although there are some comments, interesting comments about it, the stormwater. if our city engineer agreed and approved this then I would think there is a more to ask for if we want for the record the wetland that sounds like that's easy to do because it exists but perhaps no additional work because if it was needed then I would think the city engineer would be discussing that so so I'm comfortable with that knowing that we have that professional coverage.

Councillor Ellis Thank you Mr.

Chair I just echo Mr. Kost and Mr. Bergeron I think since they and Mr. Mayhew I think since they have the they have the stormwater assessment they may as well provide it you know subsequent but it sounds like the city engineer has signed off on it, so I don't have any. Oh, and I think that the constraints of the site, it makes sense, the alternate that they provided. I don't know what else they could have done given that they're so close to that property line. So as far as I'm concerned, it seems like they did a good job.

Thank you. Ms. Fortson, the shoreland permit, what Can you kind of explain what that's affecting?

I will do the best that I can. So in the state of New Hampshire, there are certain water bodies that are subject to the Surface Water Quality Protection Act. That's within 250 feet of the edge of the surface water buffer. Certain water bodies, depending upon what the activities are, you need to obtain a permit from DES showing that you're not going to be negatively impacting any of the land within that buffer. So it's a pretty typical permit that's applicable to sections of the Ashulet River. I think it's areas outside of the urban compact in Keene. I'm not going to pretend to know exactly everything about it. But I believe that it is more restrictive than our local regulations here. And we as planning staff, I really want to emphasize, we rely on the city engineer when it comes to the review of the drainage and stormwater infrastructures. Because I'm not an engineer. I don't have the knowledge base or background to be able to review a plan and know whether or not what's proposed for grading and stormwater measures, if it's going to be sufficient or not. So all I can say is that as staff,

we've worked with the city engineer throughout the review process for this application and he felt like all of his comments were addressed all right thank you and what ashbrook swamp is the the body of water we're talking about here yes ash swamp brook yeah okay more uh Mr. Hafer?

I'd just state for our notes and our meeting records that I don't believe the addition of employee parking meets regional impact for this, our decision here.

Thank you for inserting that. Okay. Do we want to ask for an additional plan showing the wetland outline?

I would request that, yes. I can make that amendment if you'd like.

So why don't you make a motion to that effect, please?

I'd like to amend the motion to include the delineation of wetlands on the site plan.

OK. So this would be precedent or subsequent?

Do we have to continue if it's precedent?

No. No, we don't.

No? Well, I would say a condition precedent.

Precedent just means that it has to be completed prior to final approval. So it would make, I mean, I'm not going to put words in your mouth, but to me it makes sense to be a precedent.

I would say it should be a condition precedent, yes.

Okay. Okay. Well, we're just looking for a second at this point. Second. Thank you, Mr. Hafer. Discussion of the amendment to the motion?

Think it makes sense that it will give the city's Enforcement Something a basis on which to observe The final design prior to approval, so I think that this is an appropriate Amendment I'll vote in favor

Okay.

All right. So let's, uh, let's call the vote on the additional, uh, on the amendment to the motion. So all those in favor, any opposed. Okay. So now our, uh, motion on the table includes this additional condition, uh, condition E I guess, Mr. Cost.

don't know where thank you I don't know where to put it but there was another idea that I heard that the engineer said isn't difficult to achieve and it was something to do with separating the stormwater from the construction work from the stormwater that's happening now on the existing pavement that's south of the site. I believe that sounded like something that's not difficult to do. I don't know if it's important, but it's something that Mr. Thatcher brought up. Again, I don't know if that's something that should be added, but it sounded like it's an easy to do or something to do. Maybe you could ask the engineer again?

I think in the staff report there is a the applicant proposes to install silt fencing along the northern northwestern portions to protect the ditch during construction is this what you're talking about well I think I understood it to be into the into the storm drainage facility that

that the water's already draining into that from the south and now there's going to be new water draining into from the north and there was some discussion of maybe that should be separated maybe during construction am i understanding any of that right yeah please mr sergeant yes so um mr thatcher pointed out that the existing southern

basins discharge to the stormwater basin here so having some erosion control prevention or modification so when this area is being worked there's no stormwater discharging to the area that's being worked so sandbags or something of that nature to separate the construction area from the stormwater discharge from the existing parking lot that's a plan we could an ad we could put on the plan and coordinate with the city engineer as part of construction if the board so thought to do that as a condition of approval Is that feasible without a lot of expense So there is a SILT barrier already proposed. We're showing it on the outlet of the stormwater basin, but adding another one to where the stormwater discharges from the existing parking lot would be just another silt fence sandbag in this general vicinity. Or making this what encompasses the whole discharge path would be a possibility.

The possibility is to add... To expand what's already shown.

To accommodate the outlet to the southern parking lot.

During construction.

During construction. Thank you.

So that would be an additional... Catch basin?

No, no. Is it just sandbag or silt fence along the outlet of the culvert pipes? Yes. To separate the stormwater during this area being constructed. So no structures per se, no catch basins.

And has that been proposed in your plan?

Right now we've got the silt fence right here, sandbags, but we're not showing it encompassing the outlet of the pipe that comes out of the existing parking lot.

So the modification would be additional silt fencing?

Correct.

To separate runoff from the construction site and the existing runoff?

Correct.

All right. Is that your amendment?

Thank you. If it's a problem and that solves a problem, then it sounds like it's something that isn't hard to do. I don't know how serious a problem it is if we don't do it, but I heard from the speaker that it was a concern. So if it's something that could be addressed without, I don't know, again, like what cost is, but if it's not a significant thing, maybe we can add it as another item subsequent.

Well, I think it would have to go as a condition precedent because it would be... Yeah, precedent. Mr. Hafer.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have some concerns with that addition just based on... I would think if something like that was required or needed or prudent, it would have been addressed by the city engineer and planning staff. It, to me, doesn't feel like it raises to the concern of us taking further action on it.

All right. So we're at a point where we can make another amendment and see what the board wants to do regarding adding it. So if you would like to.

I would like to add an amendment that is precedent that would indicate additional silt fencing that would separate the existing stormwater runoff from the construction runoff.

Second. Going once, going twice. All right, no second. So the amendment is off the table. All right, so we're back to the original amendment with the original motion with the amendment of the wetland site added to the site plan. Any further discussion? All right, so let's call the vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. Motion is a proposal. Application is approved. Thank you. Thank you for your patience on that and your answers. We'll give you guys a chance if you wanted to clear out. Otherwise, you can stick around for more planning board business.

Mr. Chair, may I just interject real quick regarding the shoreland permit? Yes. So I did a little bit of Googling to kind of refresh myself, and... basically any water bodies in the state of New Hampshire that are greater than 10 acres in size or if they're year-round flowing waters such as streams or rivers that are of the fourth order or higher, certain designated rivers and streams and coastal waters, Those are all subject to the Shoreland Water Quality Protection Act in the state of New Hampshire. And so DES has a list of consolidated water bodies on their website. And so within the city of Keene, there are certain water bodies that meet the criteria that I just mentioned. So in our case, it would be, there's a long list. It's certain portions of Ash Swamp Brook, the Ash-Wheelit River, the Mini-Wawa River, or is it Mini-Wawa Stream? Something like that. So basically, yeah, any time that there's development, excavation, removal of vegetation proposed within that 250 foot buffer, and it's one of those specific segments of the river that's identified in this list, that's when a shoreland permit is required.

Thank you for that, Ms. Fortson, because honestly, the first time I've heard of it in my time on the planning board.

Yes, designated segments of the Ashwili River, the Branch River, Otter Brook, Ash Swamp Brook, and Mini Wawa Brook.

Okay, great. Okay, next item is the Opportunity Zone 2.0. Thank you Mr.

Chair members of the board my name is Rebecca Landry I am a member of the staff and deputy city manager I've been here for a long time I served on this board more than 10 years ago I see things are no less interesting today than they were back then. So I'm before you tonight to ask for your support in the form of a letter from the chair of the planning board to the state. It will go directly to the governor for the nomination for two census tracts to be nominated as Opportunity Zones. This would be the second round of the Opportunity Zone program. It's a federal incentive. Just read to you briefly what the designation is. An Opportunity Zone is a federal program that encourages private investors to put their capital gains into long-term community projects. So it's basically a capital gains tax shelter. The designation is limited to census tracts. This is important. that meet federal low income criteria. This is why not every census tract is eligible. So specifically where median family income is no more than 70% of the state average or poverty is 20% or higher. It draws private money into areas that might otherwise get passed over and we have two eligible tracts in Keene including the current OZ 1.0 tract which was the inaugural opportunity zone program. I think you have some material in front of you that shows the existing tract, which is the southernmost tract in Keene. There is another tract that is now eligible that is the smallest of five tracts in Keene and is generally downtown Washington Street-ish to about routes 9 and 12 along West Street. I can provide more information on that if needed. Endorsing the nomination costs the city of Keene nothing. It requires no matching funds. It grants zero tax abates abatements locally. This is not a local tax incentive. This is all federal in fact because the I should also mention that the local zoning and planning processes remain a hundred percent in effect So nothing is bypassed there either because opportunity zones are a federal tax incentive transactions take place privately between investors funds and property owners and the city may never know where specific developers use the incentive on a given project we are not involved the by supporting the nomination the board is helping put keen on the map so our local properties and projects are competitive for private investment capital another big difference between the OZ original and OZ 2.0 is this specifically gives rural communities some more, it makes them more appealing to investors who are looking for this capital gains tax shelter because there is a 30% forgiveness of the tax obligation in a qualified rural opportunity zone as opposed to others who don't qualify for that. So one of the limitations of the first Opportunity Zone program was that a lot of those dollars were going to the bigger cities, Boston, for example, that size city, and there wasn't much of an incentive to invest in the rural communities, and so that has changed. The deadline for the nominations is actually this Friday. I should mention also that MEDC is very much assisting in the preparation of the supporting materials. They have a lot of information on what has been done recently, what is in the pipeline for development projects, and their assistance has been key in helping to prepare the nominations. I have a lot of information. I can answer any questions that you might have.

Do we know if anything, I realize you said we may never know, but do we know if any projects have happened in the opportunity zone that exists?

If there have been, I'm not aware. But again, they just don't have to file with the city. We're working very hard on trying to make sure that we can collect as much information as possible for the governor's consideration. There is no guarantee that both tracks will be approved. There are more than 50 eligible in New Hampshire, and the governor can only approve of 25. So there is some competition there. The current Opportunity Zone has areas like Optical Ave, where we might see some development in the future. The newer track that is eligible goes along West Street and there are areas from there over to Court Street over to Washington Street that definitely could be we could see some development which we would like to see unfortunately it's on the wrong side of Marlborough Street so I would love to say that the Kingsbury property is in an opportunity zone I don't know what the future of that property is but that that area is not eligible for this particular program great board members have questions mr. cost

Thank you. So we have one opportunity zone, and then we're going for the second one. Is the first one going to continue, or does that have to get renewed and maybe not renewed?

The first one is effective through December of 28. So our nomination will actually be submitting two nominations, one to extend the current opportunity zone, and the second one would be to add the new, excuse me, one to extend the current tract, and then another nomination for the new tract.

And they both get the 30% credit?

Correct, yes, after five years. It's important also to note that people who get this tax shelter cannot sit on a property and let it simmer. There's a two and a half year deadline for them to make renovations that are equal to or greater than half the current value of the property that they're investing in.

Just one more question on how it works so a developer would say want to do a project they would let investors know that it's in an opportunity zone and then these people who have capital gains would then come and invest so someone's organizing all of that to let the world know that there's

Yeah, that's a good question, indeed. And when people come to me and say, we're interested in developing in Keene, what type of incentives do you have? This can be on my list, right? And MEDC as well. And I'm quite confident that people who have a good amount of money to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in development are aware of these programs almost 100% before they even come to my phone or my office.

Sounds great to me.

Yeah. Mr. Chair, no questions. Just support for great idea.

Do we need a motion? I guess we need a motion. Yeah, all right. So we'll get a motion for this as well.

I'd like to move to direct the Planning Board Chair to submit a letter of support for the City of Keene's Housing Opportunity Zone 2.0 expansion nomination.

Second.

I'll second that.

Mr. Mayhew, thank you.

I would simply add, Mr. Chairman, that the mayor was asked by the city council to endorse this, and I did. And I think those endorsements are being asked of other groups that have an interest in development in the city.

Great. Thanks for sharing that. Any further deliberation? If not, let's call the vote. All those in favor of the motion? Any opposed? All right. Unanimously approved. Thank you, Ms. Landry. So, any staff updates?

No staff updates this evening, Mr. Chair.

Any new business? Okay. So, the following dates are upcoming and of interest. Joint Planning Board and PLD Committee, September 14th at 6.30 p.m. Planning Board Steering Committee, September 15th at 12 noon. Planning Board Site Visit, September 23rd at 8 a.m. to be confirmed based on the applications we receive. And then finally, the next meeting of this body is on September 28th at 6.30 p.m. And I will at 7.54 adjourn. Thank you.