Planning Board - Regular Meeting

The hour of 6:30 p.m. having arrived, I will call to order this regular meeting of the planning board. [snorts] This meeting is also being broadcast live on the city of Keen YouTube channel. The video is also streamed 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 on the city website. All actions taken during this evening's meeting will also be posted on the planning board web page. To receive electronic copies of future agenda packets, please go to the homepage 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. Will the staff please conduct the role?

Harold Pington here. Robera Master Giovani, Mayor Jay Khan, Councelor Mike Remy here, Sarah Vazani, Ryan Clansancy here, Armando Rangel here, and Kenneth Cost here. And then for the alternates, uh, Stfan Mayu, uh, Tammy Adams, Michael Hayer here, and Joey Kosa here.

Okay. So, uh, given uh, who's in attendance, I would, uh, invite Mr. Hayer and, uh, um, Mr. K. Yeah, I got your name all messed up. Kos, sorry about that.

No. Yeah, it's all right. I'm a little under the weather. Uh, Mr. Kos to participate as voting members in tonight's meeting. Okay, first item on the agenda is a review of the meeting minutes from October 27th, 2025. So, u at this time I'll entertain a motion to approve the minutes of the October 27, 2025 meeting. So moved. Thank you, Councelor Remy. Second. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Gale. Uh, any questions, comments, or changes? I didn't see any. All right. So, uh, let's call the vote. All in favor of the minutes? Any opposed? Okay. Minutes are passed or approved. [snorts] Um, next on the agenda is a final vote on conditional approvals. Uh, this is a standing agenda item. As a matter of practice, the board will issue a final vote on all conditionally approved plans after all of the conditions precedent have been met. This final vote will be the final approval and will start the 30-day appeal clock. Um, are there any approvals uh tonight that are ready for final vote? I didn't see any in the packet.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. No. Um, there was one item that was close, but they they didn't quite make it. So, nothing for this evening. Maybe next month. Okay, good. Okay, so really we have uh just um one public hearing tonight which are amendments to the planning board regulations. Uh this is a uh carryover from last last month. Planning board proposes to amend its subdivision regulations, site development standards, earth excavation regulations, and applications procedures in the land development code, including sections 20.2, 21.6, 25.3, 25.5, 26.10, 10 26.12 26.14 and 28 26 I'm sorry 26.19. The proposed amendments are intended to clarify language within the code, correct errors with respect to wording, and update submittal requirements to match current practice, and reflect recent changes to state law regarding the time frames for active and substantial development and substantial completion of subdivision and site plan applications. In addition, the proposed amendments would modify the board's site plan review thresholds to create new thresholds for commercial and multifamily street access permits, modify the threshold for new additions, and establish thresholds for proposals to create new residential drilling SW drilling sites. And that's just about the end of voice I have left. So, Mary, I'll turn that over to you now.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Mary Brunner, senior planner. And, um, I know that was a long list, but a lot of these changes I I hope are really just straightforward, minor fixes. Um, so I do have a presentation tonight to just go through everything. I'm going to start by just giving a little bit of context and background about where the land development code came from and what the goals of that project really were. um because they're very much aligned with um long-standing economic development goals that the city has had and um the city council goals that get adopted every two years. Um so I just want to review that. I'm going to go through the proposed amendments, talk about um how they're consistent with the master plan and in my view at least and then open it up for discussion. Um so I'll just jump in.

Great.

Great. So, um, I know not all of you were here when we did this project, so I apologize for those of you who were [laughter] have to live through this again. Um, but several years ago, I think it was actually in 2017 that this project started, the city, um, this was really the main implementation that came out of the 2010 master plan was to go through all of our land development codes and regulations and zoning and um, clean them up and put them all into one place. So, the land development code, which we have today, is still relatively new for the city. Um it was uh formally adopted in 2021. Um took several years to develop and prior to that code we had um our regulations were sort of scattered all over the place in different locations sometimes contradicted each other. We had like five different definitions for gross floor area. So as you can imagine it was um cumbersome and difficult not only for staff to use but for developers. So, this was identified as the top priority in the 2010 comprehensive master plan to clean this up and make sure that our regulations are actually serving um the community's goals. The main goals of this project um the the tagline was building better uh together and then um the three sort of messaging words were efficient, simple, and thoughtful. So that was kind of like the overall guiding theme and really the project goals were to make our regulations easier to navigate um reduce confusion and then increase efficiency and streamline um wherever possible. And part of this came from uh prior to the project we had been hearing pretty consistently that um our regulations can be a barrier to development. And then throughout the land development code process, we actually held a developer

roundtable monthly um did a lot of one-on-one outreach to developers to try and understand um for those of the for those of them who have developed in Keen, for those of them who haven't, what are the main barriers, what would help them um to actually do projects in Keen and uh I think one of the biggest themes was that anything that increases the time increases the cost. And almost more importantly is anything that increases uncertainty will make or break whether they decide to even pursue a project. And so that was something that we really had in the forefront when we were um working on these regulations. Um, so the idea here was that by putting all of the regulations into one place that's easy to navigate, um, you know, pretty user friendly as far as codes go, uh, will both reduce confusion, make it easier, simpler, help developers understand exactly what's expected of them. And then in addition, we did things like create the minor project review committee and raise the thresholds for projects that go to the planning board. Um, and the reason why I bring that up is because the minor project review committee is a topic that I'm going to be talking about tonight because it's related to your site plan review thresholds. Um, the minor project review committee was really intended to be a middle tier of review. So, previously projects that would have had to go to the planning board could theoretically go to this minor project review committee have a shorter turnaround time. Um, thus reducing the cost of the project and um and kind of incentivizing developers to come up with projects that meet our regulations so that they can go through this quicker and um cheaper process. In reality, what we've found is that very few projects can qualify to go to the minor project review committee

based on the thresholds that we currently have. Um the the folks that have gone through the process, we've heard really great feedback. They really appreciate it. It's, you know, they can go to um a meeting during the day, which is a huge convenience factor, but also a a cost savings for them. There's still a public hearing. There's still notice to the public. um but it's just faster, more straightforward, less um uh daunting, I guess, for the developer. So, this is especially beneficial for um folks who maybe aren't as sophisticated. Like, we're not talking about, you know, big developers who do projects in Boston. These are sort of like mom-and- pop shops that are just doing a one-off project and keen. So, they it's really helpful for them to be able to go through a simpler process. Um, and so that's one of the thing that was one of the goals of looking at the site plan review thresholds. Um, so I'm just going to jump into the proposed amendments unless there were any questions about sort of the goals of the land development code project. Okay. So I had mentioned earlier that a lot of these are more cleanup things. Um, so this first one, uh, so I'm going through in the same order that's in the memo in your packet. So number one is basically taking this statement that we found in the public improvement section of the land development code, which is um, basically I think of it as those are the public works regulations in article 23. And in that article, it has a requirement for subdivisions that's not mentioned in the subdivision regulations. So, we just want to build that connection in so that, you know, somebody who's wondering what the requirements of a subdivision are will figure them out by reading the subdivision regulations and not have to just know that they're supposed to look in another spot. Um, and basically all

it says is that in accordance with article 23 of this LDC, um, the owner or developer shall provide permanent reference monuments and final subdivision plans shall not be assigned and signed and recorded until after the monuments have been installed by the developer and verified by the public works director or security an amount deemed satisfactory to the public works director is posted ensuring the monuments will be set. So you may notice that that is very identical to many of the conditions that you've seen. Um, and we've been making those conditions so that developers are aware that this is a requirement. Um, because it's not actually in the subdivision regulations. So, this will add it to the subdivision regulations. Uh, Council Remy,

thank you. Um my [clears throat] only thought would be to in the interest of simplicity and not having to track this in two locations at any given time because theory that happens and this what's happening right now, right? is if it all should be in the subdivision or location or subdivision regulations, should we strike it out of the section 23 or article 23 and that way that it's only in one place so if we go back and change it in 23, we don't have to go change it again in section 20.

Yeah, that's a great point. So, um, we'll be bringing a second ordinance forward to city council that changes the portions of the LDC that are, uh, so that aren't within the planning board's perview. So, article 23 is outside of the planning board's purview. It's not part of your regulations. So, the planning board can't change it, but city council can. So, we will be bringing a separate ordinance through to city council that's kind of a companion to this um, that will address that. But yeah,

then my only comment would be should we not include the language in accordance with article 23 of this LDC? Because if you're about to strike it out of article 23, otherwise we're going to have to come back and do this again to just I'm I'm good either way, but I just if assuming that the council was to get the rid of the cleanup language, then this they'll say it and then it won't be in there. Yeah, I think um it it's kind of Yeah, I I don't know if that's putting what's the saying? The cart before the horse. I don't know. Um it's presumptive that the council will get rid of it. Yes.

But it doesn't it is still legally binding even if the council doesn't. It's just repetitive. It doesn't have to refer to itself and say that in 23 I also say this. Okay. So, um yeah, we could change it to just say the owner. the owner. Yep. Yeah. Okay.

And that way if you eventually change article 23, you don't have to go back and change this again. Okay. So number two is to define a term that we use in the site development standards uh multiple times but we don't have defined anywhere within the land development code which is primary entrance. And this came up during uh site plan review a couple years ago and it just created confusion exactly everything that we didn't want to do with this project. So we figured it would be helpful to just include a definition. Um because it's sort of a niche definition and it could potentially have unintended effects if we made it a definition for the whole document. we opted to just keep it a definition for this specific section which um is the screening uh standard in your site development regulations. Um and so basically today the screening regulations already state that you can't have a service area or drive-through windows and lanes etc on a facade with a primary entrance but it doesn't define what a primary entrance is. And so what uh we're proposing to do is under the general standards for screening add a new section E that says wherever possible service areas, drive-through windows and lanes, mechanical equipment, parking areas, and other areas likely to generate noise, dust, traffic, or other disruptive conditions shall not be located adjacent to a primary entrance. For the purposes of this section, primary entrance shall mean the front andor street facing points of ingress and egress to a building. Um, so it doesn't really change anything. It just creates that definition of what we think primary entrance means or what was

intended with that. Mary, what uh I'm just thinking of McDonald's and Wendy's on on Winchester. They don't really have a their front facade is doesn't have any doorways. I mean, I guess the doorways face the street, but they're on the side of the building.

Yes. Which I think would be allowed with this because it has to be a street facing facade. So, as long as the drive-thru window and lane isn't like in that instance, as long as they're not along or parallel to Winchester Street, they would be allowed. No, I understand that part. There's I mean could you could read this and say that McDonald's has no primary entrance. I'm sorry I'm aligned to what you're saying. It seems like this would say that McDonald's has no primary entrance.

So it's it's an interesting example and I'm sure there are other use cases like that where there is not a street facing entrance. Yes. And that's why we wanted to define it because you could interpret primary entrance to mean the entrance that the main entrance to the building, which I don't think is what was intended with this standard. Otherwise, saying that you can't have a drive-through window or that you can't have service areas adjacent to it would be pretty restrictive. Um, and so we had this come up with I think it was with 310 Marorrow Street where the main entrance to the apartments was going to be on the side of the building set like 200 feet back from the road. Yeah.

It's the that elevator on the side with 310 that they were going to have the dumpsters visible from where the people were going to be coming in and out. They're like, "Yeah, but this is a residential and people want their dumpsters nearish to where they're coming in out of the building and not having to go to this really far away spot." That said, I do think the intent of this was to say that the main in-n-out, we don't want your stuff visible from there. But the question I think we're trying to ask is, is that an overstep? And we don't really care as long as it's not street facing because that's how I like I read this is the prim. We don't want that stuff near a primary entrance. And if the building looped around and the main entrance is on the back away from the street, we don't want your dumpster right next to your main entrance. That's how I read the language. about the LC here too is like it's screen it so your main entrance doesn't have that but I think that's us overstepping until like they're further into their aesthetics than I think we need to.

So can I ask are you agreeing that the primary entrance should be narrow to just entrances along a street facing? I think we should get rid of the word primary entrance and say that entrance it should be screened from entrances along the street facing

and get away from calling it a primary if there are entrances along the street facing or what was the phrasing you along the street facing or um the front and or street facing points of ingress that entrances along those shall be screened but get away from the word primary entrance because it does imply the main entrance and if the main entrance isn't street facing the point McDonald's main entrance is on the north side of the building. I think we're over like analyzing it, but yeah, the there would be a few sections that we would have to change then because there's multiple uh specific sections that refer to a primary entrance.

Yeah. Goes back to what are we trying to do with this? We're trying to keep drive near primary entrance and your the concern was a couple years ago there was Can you turn on your microphone please?

Sure. Thank you. Um, so there's primary entrance sounds like it's used throughout the code. So we shouldn't get rid of that term. And though if that's the case, then what the goal of this change was to why do we need to define I guess is it is it making it harder? Maybe there's like nice flexibility in an undefined primary entrance. So buildings with like McDonald's have the primary entrance off the parking lot. That's the primary entrance and you wouldn't want a drive-thru right there. Um so I guess is it worth the the change here or

Mr. Clante?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh is there a distance for located adjacent like is there a specified distance for a dumpster? Okay. No. Yeah. So, that was part of the reason for this is just to make it clear to somebody when they're trying to design their site what we mean so they're not trying to guess and then having to rework their design after getting feedback from staff or the board, you know. So, um I think I'd be open to So, the the term primary entrance is used several times in this section of the code. I would say it's also used elsewhere in the code in a different way. So, [laughter] I would be open to changing the term using street fa like I I'm fine with whatever um you all think is is best to do. Um, but it would be I think helpful just to clarify for developers what it is exactly that you're looking for here.

Council Remy. Oh, okay. Mr. Cost, go ahead. First. Thank you.

Um, yeah. Yeah, I mean I think the whole idea is street facing where we want you whether it's ends up being on you know out on west or downtown having entrances that look like entrances and you walk in them and not having dumpsters right in front of them. But I mean, I'm thinking of McDonald's that the the drive-in and the there is a primary entrance, I think, and the and the cars line up kind of in front of that primary entrance to go through the drive-in because the drive-ins after that. And and all I think all kind of fast food, you know, standalone buildings are like that. So, I I don't think that really matters. And um but I I think street facing is what we want to protect. And so if there was a way to emphasize that

and and not so much the in because if we start to get a site where there's entrances say around corners and courtyards and stuff um on say some kind of development again what would be most important is the street facing and what happens in those courtyards maybe not so much I mean it might be important to the residents and people that live there but I would think the developer or the architect would think about that to make it a good experience. erience and it would be hard to control. So, if we could, yeah, if we could focus on the street facing bits. Um, and the other thing I do have trouble with if we're serious about it,

or we care about is wherever possible is really melee mouth. I mean, well, you know, I'm a developer. No, it's not possible. I can't do it. You know, it's because I can't do it. And I'll come up with a million reasons. Is there I don't know if that's needed. Um, we've used other language like undo hardships and things like you really can't do it, but wherever possible sounds like you're starting with you can get out of this pretty easily.

Yeah, that's um Sorry, can I respond to that really quickly? just uh so I think with specifically service areas and drive-thru areas and parking areas, there's already other sections that are stronger that would prohibit that without a waiver or variance in some cases. Mechanical equipment is probably the one here where it's not a hard and fast rule. And I think that's a good thing. Um just because there are times when like due to just the feasibility and technical constraints um it may have to be located on a street facing facade. I'm especially thinking like in the downtown where some parcels have three street facing facades or you know so it makes it harder um for those properties. So honestly of that list, uh the only one that would actually be subject to the wherever possible is just the mechanical equipment.

Councelor Remy,

thank you. So I only see two places in this chapter where we call something else a primary entrance. And one of them is to your point like it says waste collection, waste compaction, recycling collection and other similar service areas shall not be located along the business frontage, building frontage or along a building facade with a primary entrance and shall be screened from view from adjacent property. It seems like it's pretty clearly trying to So this is 262A1. It's also in 26B 262B1. um talking about drive-through businesses, drive-through windows and lanes shall not be located along the building frontage or any along a building facade with a primary entrance. And both of them seem to try to clearly differentiate between frontage and primary entrance and say that the frontage is one thing, the building facade with a primary entrance is another thing, and you can't do it on either. So I think if we want to go after this and say that we only care about frontage or street facing points of ingress, then we need a broader change than just inserting that because these are pretty clearly trying to say that if there's a main entrance, whatever main entrance is, that we don't want this stuff near it. Yeah, I um sort of interpreted that slightly differently where when we talk about frontage, we always identify one frontage and then you might have a streetf facing facade that's technically not the frontage. It's like the side of of the lot technically. So that's kind of what I was where I thought that was going, but I definitely think it could be either way that you look at it. And that's where I think

any gray like that is where we get in trouble with friends to come in and try to figure out ways to get around it. And the way the planning at the time that 310 Marorrow Street came through, the way the planning board interpreted it was that the dumpster could be next to that door without a waiver because they didn't feel like that door was a primary entrance. And so that's a sort of where I took my cue for this. So that building, the primary entrance [clears throat] is right along the street and that is a residence only entrance. And that's a big main entrance in the front right on the main street. And that's why I think that is different that the main entrance is there. This is a resident only access. Um, so yeah, Mr. Her,

thank you. Um, yes. Is there no do we have a list of definitions that go along with this stuff versus building this into a section E like very short definition. Primary entrance entrances are the principal entrances to a building utilized for day-to-day pedestrian ingress and egress. other entrances solely used for freight service emergency eress shall not constitute a primary entrance like if if we're it feels like a lot of words to describe what if the I'm reading your goal add a new section and to clarify the definition of primary entrance why can't we just describe primary entrance someplace and then leave it the same as it is today

yeah we discussed that possibility um and I think there's one other location in the land development code where the term primary entrance is used and we didn't want to accidentally cause complications elsewhere in the code by creating a definition that's codewide that might conflict with what they meant in that section if that makes sense. So we do have a list of definitions at the end of the LDC that's those are like universal definitions that apply throughout.

Okay. Yeah, I think we could change this to street facing entrances um along a street. I I'm I think really the intent here was just to try and get some clarity. So I don't

and I'm not sure you think about it much more Mari so I trust you but feels like it's adding confusion versus clearing it up maybe uh and if it's if we don't come AC if this is an issue that comes before you multiple times a year does it need to be fixed I guess yes it comes before us every time we do a site plan review because every time someone doesn't know what a primary entrances. Every time we do a site plan review,

well, we have to look at every site. So, for any new building, um, when staff does their review, we go through our development standards to make sure it meets all of them. And so, we will look to see, you know, where is the dumpster located? Now, normally they locate the dumpster sort of in the back of the parcel, so it doesn't usually come up, but there have been instances where it's come up and we've asked them to move it. It also has come up with drive-throughs. Um, I don't know if you remember Aroma Joe's, they wanted to do like a lane in front and there was discussion about is that a drive-through lane or [laughter] not. Um, yeah. So, it does come up. I think it would be good to clarify it either way, but I'm definitely open to, you know, however you think would be most clear, we can do that. Councelor Remy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Maybe it's

I think it would be easier just to strike or a bu or along a building facade with a primary entrance from 2162A1 or where so it would just say waste collection waste compaction if if our intent is to say that we don't care as long as it's not along the frontage then waste collection waste compaction recycling collection and other similar service areas shall not be located along the building frontage and shall be screened from view from adjacent property or public rights away not including alleys. and it would remove a section where it says and along a building facade with a primary entrance and just strike that out of there and that would be one way to handle it. Same word drive-thru business drive-through windows and lanes shall not be located along the building frontage. That'd be the end of the sentence.

And it would get it would bring us back to instead of saying or along a building facade with the primary entrance and that would accomplish I think what you're trying to get to. we would eliminate the language from here where you need to define primary entrance because it wouldn't exist anymore in this section. Um, if our intent is to say we're okay with that, then I think that's the right way instead of creating new language to define something only in part of the code. I actually Yeah, I think that would be cleaner.

It just depends on if we're okay with that. If we're if we as a group are okay with the idea of we don't care about having it really is only referenced in form of waste collection in areas and drive-throughs. We're okay with a primary entrance having those things near it that isn't along the frontage and that would be my recommended change. Mr.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, yeah, I think I mean I'm thinking of the sick of a fictitional uh uh fast food place that that might be modeled after the one we have uh McDonald's. Now, their primary entrance is off that parking lot. We wouldn't want them to have a drive-thru directly a you know neighbor right behind that, right? So, I think there's there there's some safety issues here, too. It's not just about right. We we want we're not just worried about looks. We're worried about pedestrian safety and and good layout and maybe that's where the Aroma Joe's I can see that being a challenging thing where there's windows on both sides there. So I guess I'm not sure about the front facing bits. I just I think primary entrance shall mean the main points of ingress and egress to me like yeah

that's what is that are we working on that what's that if if we went with councelor Rey's idea we wouldn't need to define primary res primary entrance yeah okay yeah in my world I would strike it from the code where it exists except for that one in section 9, which I haven't read through to figure out what it is. The or what it's referencing, it's like remote parking or something. It's the distance where a remote parking lot can be from the entrance of the building and how far away it can be. Um, which I think also requires the same entrance for principal primary entrance. But, um, the intent of this, I think, is pretty clear that it meant to be where most people go in and out of a building. Mhm.

I think that's the clear intent of what this meant to be, whether that's on the front or the side or the back or whatever. And if our if we're saying that we're okay with it not being restricted, then I think we strike it. If we don't want it um if we don't want it restricted, sorry, if we do want it restricted, we do want to say that we don't want drive-throughs there and we do don't want trash cans there, then I think this is the wrong definition. And to your point, it needs to change to say for the purpose of this section, primary entrance shall mean the entrance where uh just get rid of un like unaware patrons would enter and exit the building, right? Like somebody who just wears the big sign. Um like to some extent it's

it goes to a more general concept and say, "Yeah, I don't want them near the main entrance regardless of what side of the building it's on." In that case, I would recommend just saying service areas. Strike wherever possible and just say service areas and drive-thru windows and lanes um shall not be located adjacent to a primary entrance. For the purposes of this section, primary entrance shall mean the main point of ingress or egress for uh pedestrians entering the building or patrons entering. I don't know.

Mind on the definition. I think we might disagree on which way we want to go with it. I'm okay with taking it out and just saying like we'll figure it out, but I think I get your point of like the safety issue on the drive-throughs. We got to be careful of that. But I think that's where I think it'll come to a poll for the board of like which way we'd want to go with that because it's a I think we understand both pieces. I think mo most people understand both pieces. It's like either you want it or you don't and there's not a right answer to that. So it's whatever people want. Would it be appropriate, Mr. Chair, to take a quick straw poll?

Sure. Um, so how many of you right now are leaning towards um just striking primary entrance from this alto together and just talking about the frontage? So saying that I'm just going to rephrase it a little. How many people want to allow service areas and drive-through windows and lanes to only be restricted from the front? Yeah. And the alternative vote is to say that they are restricted from the front and primary entrances.

Yes. So right now, how many of you want to remove primary entrance and say that you can have dumpsters and drive-through lanes next to a main entrance to a building? When can I ask when you say front that you're meaning street frontage? Street front. Yes. Which is what's already in the code. street building frontage is already going to code separately. Is anybody in favor? Okay. So, [laughter] I'm I'm okay with Yeah, I'm okay with that. I I'm voting for a street facing uh version. Yeah. Okay. So, we've got three. And then I assume that means the other one. Do do the other view care or does everyone else

[laughter] uh think that the main entrance shouldn't have a drive-thru or a dumpster next to it? Yes. I think to me the the spirit is you don't want a drive-thru right next to your main door in and out of your your fast food shop. I'd agree. So I think we need to somehow keep primary interest. I don't I'd almost give up the front and street facing instead of, you know, if you had to, but um I understand the architectural concerns and and quality of of viewscape concerns there, but the primary entrance is important to protect as well as as as important as the front and street facing is, I think.

And I guess for um Ryan and Joey, do I do you have a preference at this point or uh Thank you. Uh I'm I'm just trying to figure Is this section for staff purposes or for our purposes? And it's your site development standards. So when you're doing site plan review and you're reviewing for screening, this is one of your requirements. Yes. Well, I'm just trying and

does it need to be defined here or with what councelor Remy is saying defining it in the alternative spots? We c we could define it in the definition section. Um I would just have to look at that other section of the code where it uses that term to make sure it won't mess with anything. Um because I I haven't actually looked at it other than to do a quick word search to see if that term actually ever shows up anywhere else. It actually it's saying that it needs to be within a th00 sorry it needs to be within a thousand walking distance a remote parking spot for a building needs to be within a th00and ft walking distance from the property where the principal use is located. The distance is measured from the nearest point of the remote parking area to the primary entrance that you use served.

Okay. So it's the same definition of prim primary entrance is where do most people go in and out? Mr. cost. So, I just I was just thinking of a shopping center and like um Hannerfords, right? And it's parking. There's lots of parking by the main entrance and it's hazardous as can be. I mean, you got to park, you got to back out, you got to not run people over when they're crossing. Um this can't do anything about that, right? I mean, the that's the only way to design those things. those probably. So when we say no parking by the primary entrance, is that even like something doable?

So that's why if we are going to keep primary entrance and have it mean the main entrance into the building that most people use, I would just keep it to service areas and drive-th through windows and lanes and remove the other items. the right now in the code it already says that you can't have parking between the building and the street essentially. Um it has to be either to the side or behind the building. So that's why I added the parking in there because it's already um in this what we have on the screen. It's talking about a a street facing facade. Right. Okay.

If we change it to just mean the main entrance, I would remove parking. I would also remove mechanical equipment and just keep it to the service areas, drive-through windows and lanes. Okay. Well, that's why I still I like the street facing because it's the one that so that we can control.

Yeah. If I was going to So, if we went with the way of like we're okay with it, I would strike this whole language and then just strike the other piece from the other areas and then it would just basically say that the existing code stands except for those pieces. But I get the argument of like a drive-thru specifically, like having it go by the main pedestrian entrance into a business is not ideal. But I think I'm trying to think of one in town where it doesn't. Most of them don't. So um Wendy's wood or that would the one for Titos wraps around the building. The

So well, okay. So, this is how um the drive-thru lane. I guess it depends on how you define the drive-through lane. So, I'm thinking of like the Burger King and the Tito's building. I'm not considering the part that goes by the entrance to be a drive-thru lane. That's a drive aisle in the parking lot. The drive-thru lane is the lane that's just for the cars to go around and has the window and the um the menu boards and and the microphones for people to talk into. Um the parking lot area then in that definition, none of them have it in front. Even McDonald's is only in the back technically there. There is a door there, but

Oh, sure. Yeah. But you wouldn't we wouldn't want a new we wouldn't want a new fast food place saying we want the the drive-in window right next to their door. I guess

that's what the sort of my use case I'm thinking about is in the future a new building. Um I'm not worried about the existing one there but we wouldn't want code that would encourage someone to put a that's where the squawk box in the menu board is. Then I would recommend we strike this and we define primary entrance in the code and put it in the definitions as the main entrance where people go in and out of the building because it applies to both this section and a section 9 pretty cleanly and that way it's not we're not putting a drive-thru right there. It also would restrict having dumpsters right there. But even in the example of 310 that wasn't the primary entrance was the reason we eventually made the decision to do it that way is the primary entrance was on the other side that was residents only.

So that is great. So we can just remove this entirely from the planning board's changes and then we can add the definition to the def to the definition section which is technically not in your purview but we'll be bringing an ordinance forward to city council and we'll include it in that. Does that work for everyone? I like it. Sweet. Okay. Thank you for your input on that. That was extremely helpful. We made it through two and two out of 18. [laughter] All right.

Um, moving on. Um, [snorts] number three is to amend the earth excavation regulations. And this is really just to reflect a vote that you've already taken. So, you at your meeting several months ago voted to delegate enforcement authority to staff and this is just codifying it. Questions? Great. Perfect. This seven copies were required before.

So, we have never um that changed with CO. So, number four, yes, the code still says that we require seven full-size copies. The reason is that the way we used to do things is we would interdep departmentally mail the copies of the plans to the various departments that review them. And yeah, so uh co put an end to that. We haven't done this in practice for since 2020. And whenever applicants bring in seven copies, we're always like, "Oh, so sorry you didn't have to do that." So I think that this is just we use digital copies now. Um yeah, that's that's the main thing. And the other thing is that sometimes we'll get PDF files that are just massive with all these different layers turned on and all the comments and it makes my computer crash. So we're saying um a flattened PDF file, which is also a best practice because it means that we can't accidentally

turn off a layer tamp tamper with their plan or turn off a layer. Exactly. Um, so it's it's just a good practice. [snorts] And so that would be for both the site plan and the the subdivision. We would only require two copies. Uh, I'm I'm good with all this. Where do myars come in? I remember we asked for myars on certain things. Do we still ask for myars? Yes, but that is not in the submittal requirements in the it's in the filing requirements at the end of the process because the myars don't have to be submitted until everything is final and approved. Okay.

Um and that's for recording. They need one copy to record and one copy that we send to public works because those are much more durable and hold up over time.

Okay, so those two are fast. Um, so number five, this is another submitt requirements one. Um, this was actually a request from one of the planners because they often have to request this information and they would prefer that it's just in the submittal requirements so that when folks are going through um, they know that we are going to need the zoning zoning information on the plan. It's usually pretty standard that people will put a table on the plan that says here's the zoning requirements, here's how we meet them. And it's really helpful when you're reviewing to just do a quick check. And it's also very helpful for applicants in making this because then they might catch something and realize, oh, I have to modify this design or request a variance or whatever. So, um, we are finding that we have to occasionally ask for this and it would just be easier to put it in there as a requirement.

What if they get it wrong? They're just pulling it from our code. I just get nervous that somebody's going to put in the wrong numbers and then Well, we So, we do have a zoning review of all of the applications, but it's easier to start with. I mean, usually when somebody submits like a subdivision plan, we're not calculating the lot area. We're relying on the surveyor to calculate the lot area for us. But we can definitely check to make sure that they got the right number from our zoning code. Um, we're not checking the lot area. We're relying on their surveyor to give us the right number. I'm fine with it. I just

And this is this is about Sorry, Mr. Chair. Are we permitted for sort of free Go ahead, Mr. Hayer. Free discussions here. Thank you. I was trying to save your voice. I just kept going. Um, this is about lot sizes and thing, not not bedrooms or bathrooms or this is just the the big the big things of, you know, this is what's allowed in commercial. This is and we're changing it to this. So, it's great. Yeah. The zone dimensional requirements typically include the lot size, frontage, uh the lot width at the building line, setbacks, um impervious coverage, building height, already impressed me. So

yeah, I I can't think of I'm sure I've missed something, but um those are the main things. So it's really just compare the numbers, make sure they meet everything, and it's

Yeah. Um, number six is one that I'm really excited about because this is just a weird thing. So, basically in our uh in your application procedures, applicants have the ability to request an exemption from a submittal requirement, but everything else they have to request a waiver. We have a requirement for just boundary line adjustments uh that in the filing section which is not in submittal requirements that they have to submit an updated survey showing the meets and bounds of the revised parcels. And so it's weird because if let's say one lot is 50 acres and the other lot is a quarter of an acre, you know, and they're just adjusting the lot line between them, all we really need to see is the meets and bounds for anything that's changing. And the expense of surveying that full 50 acre lot is prohibitively expensive. So we what we're finding is that applicants want to request an exemption. they technically can't because this isn't in their the submittal requirements. So, we just want to make it clear here that it it's just the portions of the parcel boundaries that are changing that we need the information for. Okay, great. Um All right, so this one is one of the changes that was necessitated by a change to state law. um HB14 413 which was signed into law and actually is retroactively effective. So it applies to anything from July 1st 2023 forward. Um basically just changed the time frame

for active and substantial development to be three years instead of two and then substantial completion went from 5 years to seven years. So basically what that means is that once an applicant gets final approval from you, they have three years to start the project [snorts] and then seven years to complete the project. And if they meet those, then their rights are vested. Future changes to zoning or subdivision or site plan won't impact them. we our current code refers to two years. Um and so this is just updating it to refer to three. And then we also wanted to clarify because it currently states um within two years starting the day following the board's decision to approve or conditionally approve. Now that the board always does a vote on final approval, we wanted to make it clear that it's the vote on the final approval that starts these clocks.

That makes sense. Okay, Mr. Cost, just just for [clears throat] what is the reason to go from two to three years? Just it's state law. Oh, it's a state law. State law. Yeah. The state uh preempted us here, but I believe the reasoning was to be That's the short answer. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, but the the rationale was really that with the cost of development going up so much and all of the economic uncertainty recently, it's taking a lot longer to do projects. And I think we've seen that just here in Keen where we've seen a lot more extension requests than we have in the past. So, I think it it's they're reacting to the reality of development right now. Okay.

Yeah. Thanks, Um so this one is to add a new section D uh called substantial completion. Um and so the reason for this is that currently we don't define what substantial completion means. And so we've had that question come up before and so we thought it would be helpful to include something so that it's clear, you know, kind of cut and dry what it means. Um, I basically combed through other communities definitions and stole them. So, this is plagiarized, but um it's a it's basically it's um the same language at the top as the active and substantial development, but then the items for substantial completion. Um you know, roadways would be installed and paved through the base course. And then it doesn't necessarily have to be accepted by city council, but it has to meet the conditions for acceptance, which would be determined by the the [snorts] public works director. Um, and then the utilities have to be installed and ready for hookup. Lot monuments, driveways, other site features are installed or completed. All the permanent on-site storm water management, erosion control, etc. are installed. um buildings and structures, off-site improvements if they they are required. So, this does leave some leeway for like, you know, we've had some situations where everything's installed except for the bike rack and the gate on their dumpster enclosure because they have they're like waiting

for the the materials to get delivered. I don't think something like that would hold up substantial completion. This is really about like the hard infrastructure and the major site features being installed. Mr. Cost, so this is about phases. So like a three-phase project, you know, I'm going to do this first, second, third. So my first phase, I could leave the phase two and three just land. Don't do anything to them, right? And the first phase has to meet all of these conditions. Yes. So in the case of a phased plan because the word phased is up on top here.

Yep. So mo probably like 90% of the plans that you approve are not in phases. So this would just be one determination. In the case where there are phases, you actually have leeway to determine what the time frame for active and substantial development will be for the subsequent phases. And so then substantial development would be based off of that time frame that was set by the board. Our version in the packet is different than what you're showing. Oh, really? Yeah. Number three doesn't exist in our packets and we have a different it's shifted up and number five includes all major on-site improvements shown on the approved plan including landscaping, lighting, screening, on-site pedestrian, bicycle infrastructure and parking areas are completed.

Unless I'm in a different section. Oh, I'm off by one. Yeah, you're I'm off by is a me problem, not a U problem. I'm on the next one. Yeah, I looked to Oh, yeah. Because there it's very similar. So this is for the subdivision and then the next one that you were just looking at is for site plan, [snorts] but that one does include bike infrastructure. That's why I picked it up because you happen to have the example that you used of not having a bike rack installed. Um, this one does not. Oh yeah.

Um, this is I generally am fine with But I think the only thing you want to make sure that we're accounting for is that sometimes there are staff amendments to the plan that are approved that don't need to come back to planning board, right? There are things, small things that are changed after the fact. And this doesn't at least seem to contemplate that. It says that it has to meet what was approved. Um, [snorts] and maybe doesn't include those or appropriately amended by staff for minor site plan changes, but maybe that is going. Yeah, I guess that didn't occur to me, but I'm not sure that would be an issue because we would hold them to whatever the most recent approved version of the plan is. If an applicant wants to modify their plan before they've gotten final approval, we make them come back to the board. So,

this would be after final approval. After you started construction, there's a I was going to have the driveway go this way, now I'm going to have it go this way. It doesn't really If anything staff goes, yeah, that's fine. Yeah. So, we would hold them to whatever the most recent plan was. Yeah, I'm good with this one. And Mary, just uh remind me this would be compliance that would be checking these. I mean, the planning board doesn't go audit. Not the planning board. So, um planning staff go out and do inspections. Yep. So, we uh it's kind of like built into actually the building [clears throat]

inspections. We do inspections um at certain points during construction. There's a pre and post landscaping inspection that's done. And then we probably won't do inspections for substantial completion to be honest unless we're concerned that a project isn't like normally a project would be built well before the deadline for substantial completion. But in a case where a project isn't being built and it's just sitting there, I think that's the only time where we might go out. Okay. Yeah. So really the the entire intent behind the substantial completion was just to give developers some guidance about what that means.

Mr. chair. Um, if I could

back to um almost to Mike's point, the very first item the of the topics tonight that the idea of defining this thing this multiple times within the same document sort of just goes against my my software programming thing where you just want one definition of what this means and you refer to that one versus having to multiple times in the document. So, is there a reason why you need to to mention all that stuff twice. I guess I guess I don't know the term of art or the the requirements of the document, but again it's to me it feels like there should be a definition of what substantial completion is and then all sections refer to that definition versus having to define it multiple times throughout the code.

Yes. So the um active and substantial development and substantial completion are specific to whether it's a site plan or subdivision. Um you could come up with one definition for both. Um there are some slight differences like for a subdivision it includes the lot monuments. Um, for site plans, it includes some other site features that you wouldn't normally see in a subdivision.

Those are slightly, you know, they're they're minor differences. So, I could see us, you know, you creating one definition if you wanted to. Um, I just kind of followed the current format. So, right now, active and substantial development is defined within both the subdivision regulations and the site development regulations. And so I just followed that. But I think you could come up with just one definition if you wanted to be consistent across both. So section 2610 11 C is a different than 2612 11C.

Yeah. So 2610 is are your subdivision application procedures and 2612 are your site plan application procedures. Um Ken [laughter] there there is Mr. Cost

there is um to me an idea on using a document that if I'm doing a subdivision or site plan I only care about say subdivision because that's what I'm focused on. So I want to go to subdivision place and see the things that apply to subdivision. If I go to subdivision and then it refers me back over somewhere else where something else is held that gets sort of frustrating. So I mean in a way I understand it's repeating it kind of but you know this isn't for a user I think is probably easier to say everything I need to know about mostly for subdivisions is going to be my subdivision section. I don't have to now refer to some other

list of other things. So I think it for user friendliness it makes sense the way it's structured.

Does anybody else have a an opinion? [laughter] I mean that's I mean every you could republish this every six months and then a developer would say this is right not easy to navigate. So, I don't know. That's your call as to how often you update it just for navigation. Yeah. And if if the differences between subdivision and major site are different enough that it warrants two different definitions, I think what you how you've done it is is great. Okay. So,

um Okay, I'll go on. Uh did I yeah did we want to talk about nine or do you feel like we've covered this? This is the definition of substantial completion for site plans. Difference five. Yeah.

And it doesn't include the lot monuments. Yeah. Deletes that and adds in you got to put in your bike rack. So as long as that's as you intended, right? You intended it to be different between the two. Yes. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Great. Yeah.

Because normally with site plans, you're going to have required landscaping, required lighting, required, you know, if you have to put in walkways or you want to make sure that's all installed. So the logic of all that a subdivision is a larger development where you want to make sure the roads and utilities and the infrastructure in and then maybe builders would build houses or build something or manufacturing buildings in that subdivision. Right? So that's why you don't care about bike wrecks so much. But if it's a site plan, that's I guess could be a smaller scale, but generally you want that more complete,

right? Yes. Is that sort of the logic of why it's different? Yes. Exactly. So the subdivision regulations don't necessarily require lighting, screening in certain circumstances, but usually it's just creating lots and then the development comes later. Okay. So yeah.

All right, I'm going to move on to the next one. Um, so these are the site plan review thresholds that we reviewed last month. Um, I did make some of the change actually I think there's only one change if I recall correctly from last month. Um, which was to split out the additions between downtown districts and all other districts. Um, so this doesn't go through exactly how it's shown in the memo, but I thought it might be easy to see them side [clears throat] by side. So the site plan review thresholds right now for a new principal building or structure is greater than 5,000 square feet of gross floor area as major site plan. Between 1,000 and 5,000 is minor site plan. And then for additions, um, in the downtown district, it'll basically stay what it is today, which is anything greater than 15% of the gross floor area of the principal building would be a major site plan. Between 10 and 15 would be a minor site plan. But then outside of the downtown districts, that threshold would be raised up a little bit to hopefully increase the number of projects that can go to minor project review committee.

Okay. Yep. I think that's reflects what we said last month.

Um so new residential units 25 or more would go to major site plan. Between 10 to 24 would go to minor site plan. Vehicle trips is increase of 100 per day or 50 per peak hour would be major site plan which is what it is today. Um new impervious surfaces is again what it is today. um didn't propose any changes to that. Uh land disturbance didn't propose any change. The street access though is um a new proposal. So right now pretty much all street access we send to the planning board and we want to have the flexibility to send some of those to the minor project review committee or in instances where they're removing a street access or narrowing it maybe even reviewing administratively. Um, and so what we're proposing is that anytime an exception is requested from the street access standards, that kicks it up to planning board. But if they're meeting all of the street access requirements, they can go to um minor project review committee. If they're creating a new um driveway or they're widening an existing driveway, but they're still staying within the requirements, they can go to minor project. And then if they're um reducing the number of curb cuts or narrowing them, it could be reviewed administratively with the caveat that we would have the city engineer review it um as well.

Okay,

Mr. Cost, I still have a question about the acre thing, the land disturbance of an acre. I I keep going back to downtown. An acre is huge downtown. I mean, it's really big. And and so 0.9 of an acre is really big. And I mean, I'm just thinking, say somebody wants to develop um I don't know, a tire dealership that happens to be downtown into something that that's maybe I don't know half an acre, something like that. So that would not go to planning board even though it's on Main Street, it's downtown. And then you guys made me comfortable because formbbased code would kick in and save the day. But I'm I'm still confused that we don't see anything big like half an acre, 3/4 of an acre right downtown because it's a big impact. It's a huge impact.

Yeah. So with these thresholds, a project that meets any one of these. So it's whatever like if you met any of the thresholds under major site plan, you would have to go through major site plan. Same thing with minor projects. So in the example that you provided of the tire warehouse, let me go back. Uh sorry, not tire sorry [laughter]

the the what you said. I can't remember what you said. Um, if they've met, you know, any of these, you know, 10,000 square feet or more of new impervious surfaces, the vehicle trips, and then there's also, if we go down here, modifications to the building or site, such as facade alteration, landscaping, or lighting. that's basically at the discretion of the community development director to say, "Yeah, this warrants like review by the planning board. Um, and also change of use is another sort of catch-all." So, there's two opportunities for staff to use some discretion and and push things to the planning board. Usually what we do in those situations is we'll um email Harold or call him [laughter] as the planning board chair and be like, "Hey, what do you think?" um just to get another uh opinion on it. Um but we tend to be pretty cautious like if we get something that we're like, "Yeah, we think the planning board would want to see this," we'll tell them like, "Hey, we think this needs to go to planning board." And if they push back on it, we'll say, "Okay, well, why don't you go to them for advice and comment and then they can tell you if they want to review it or not?" And that's worked pretty well in the past. So, I don't know if that addresses your concerns, but that is there as a kind of fallback if they don't meet any of the other thresholds, but we kind of know that there would be a big interest from the community. Um,

yeah, because there there is a tire place right on Main Street. Um, but it is a tire place. If another tire place bought that and decided to keep it as a tire place, you know, I don't know why they'd have to go through major sight plan unless they, you know, tripped one of these other thresholds. Yeah. My example was if they they decide to locker and turn it into a we don't want to sell tires anymore. We're going to sell the business and someone buys a property and they want to build something there, you know, threetory something building or housing. Um, and it's a half an acre. It doesn't have to come to the planning board except except this at the discretion. Yes. Again,

am I am I just missing the I don't know. Just Yeah, I think so. There I think there's plenty of uh trip wires here that would set off a major site plan review. Councilor Remy.

Yeah. If if it if it in order to not come before us, it would have to meet formbased code. It couldn't be an addition of more than 10% or 10 to 15% of the uh site, the existing site. It couldn't be a new building of u more than 5,000 square feet. It couldn't affect previous services by more than that much 10,000 square feet. To your point, the land acre disturbance one is not for downtown. It the downtown is for is where the square footage and the is going to come into play. downtown, you're not going to disturb an acre to your point. Like that's not that's not realistically for downtown. But for out in rural district, if somebody was going to dig up an acre and do something, then that's where there's a line of like, okay, that's the line we're choosing to draw. Um, my lot in downtown, you'd have to it'd be three times the size of the lot, right, to hit the threshold. But it's really about the square footage here. And you'd have to meet forbased code. So, if they wanted to turn the tire place into a six-story residential, if it met formbbased code and didn't require this and didn't add more than 24 units and it then it wouldn't have to come to us. You're right. But the odds [snorts] of that happening are slim. But if it did happen, I'm okay with it. It met all the things we've put out for him and we put a gauntlet out there to say here's all the things that would trigger it.

Okay, that's my feels a little bit like you're worried about a lenient CDD director and I'm counting on a a I don't know the right word a uh a person a person in that role that's going to understand when the planning board needs to be involved with things. So I guess I'm I think maybe you're trying to protect against somebody who just said, "Yeah, that's fine. It's at my discretion. You don't need to come here." Yeah. I don't And I'm say [clears throat] I'm thinking the other way. I'm thinking, okay, if there's these gray cases, we're going to see it because the planning staff know the nature of the town and uh

as long as long as everyone feels that downtown is protected and things. So, say there isn't different planning a different director, CDD director who says, "Oh, I I yeah, you know, do whatever you want. I don't care." Um, I it just seems just that downtown has is just to me so sacred and you know I would hate to see any any way to weasle through and not have it be looked at by the planning board. I So, but it sounds like we're they wouldn't be employed here very long if that happened. I know, but something could happen. Yeah. And Mary will call me anyway and then we'll bring it here. So,

yeah. And I I will say um one other layer of protection for the downtown, at least for historic buildings, is the historic district commission. So you can't demolish a historic building that's been ranked as contributing or primary unless you meet really specific conditions like your building burned down. Yeah. like Ted's and Athens and the old block with um you know where the what is it the the resale antique store is and tie garden. None of those are historic. I don't think the

I don't think the well I don't think the tire store is historic. So um there's lots of stuff that and it says those are not historic and so those wouldn't even come in the purview of that. Yeah. So, the yeah, the historic district only applies to buildings that are 50 years or older and are ranked as contributing or um primary. I believe there are some buildings down there that are older than you would think and and fit the age,

but then they're not ranked as primary or contributing. So they so if they were they could be demolished but then what gets rebuilt there would most likely end up coming to planning board unless it's a pretty like cut and dry not a huge building meets all the formbbased code but yeah I think most development downtown is probably going to end up at planning board realistically then I'm probably okay

okay I'm trying to think of situation where it might not happen. I think the biggest situation where um we might not send something to the planning board is where someone's doing like an adaptive reuse of an existing downtown building where maybe they have offices on the second and third floor and they're converting them to apartments, but the uses on the bottom floor are staying the same. You know, the community's experience of the building isn't really changing in that respect. So, we probably wouldn't send that to you unless it met one of these thresholds. Yeah. And I'm fine with that. Yeah. Okay. All right. Cool. Yeah. And to Mary's point, I think McDonald's is 50 years old already, isn't it? Okay. I don't know. [laughter]

It's definitely here when I was in high school. Yeah. That Wow. The McDonald's was here when you were in high school. Wow. I think so. Yeah. Okay. Um All right. So that's the end of the site plan review thresholds. Good.

Okay. Number 11 is to [sighs and gasps] this is basically to give the minor project review committee a little uh explicit authorization to refer projects when things come before them that um doesn't meet zoning or if they find out partway through the process that they need a waiver or something like that. that it kind of puts developers on notice as well as the minor project review committee members that they then can refer the project to the appropriate board. They would have to do that anyways because if it if it doesn't meet zoning or if there it requires a waiver, it's not within their jurisdiction. Um but it's it's just language to help clarify that. Um seemed like a good best practice. Um, number 12 is basically to specify that final plans um need to include all professional stamps for anyone who [snorts] helps prepare the plan. That's something that we require today. This is just making sure that our code reflects that. It's required in our submittal requirements, but not in our filing requirements. And so, we're just restating it in the filing. Um, so these are the final plans that they submit at the very end that either get recorded or are filed as the final approved site plan. Um, any questions on that one. Okay. Number 13 is to uh basically to require the submittal of [snorts] a flattened PDF copy of asbuilt plans in addition to the paper and electronic file formats. Um

and to specify the number of paper copies. Um yeah. So right now what we do they submit an asbuilt plan. We keep one copy, one paper copy with our department. We send one paper copy to public works. We um planning staff will do a review of the PDF to make sure that it reflects what is [snorts] supposed to be there. And then engineering does a more detailed review of the actual um electronic file that they submit to look at all of the the specifications especially where what they're really concerned about is where it um interacts with the public utilities in right of way. Um and so this is just clarifying that we need that PDF file as well as the paper and the geo database file. Okay. Um, number 14. This this is a funny one. Um, so right now this is our conditional use permit application procedures. And right now basically it says that applicants um for a conditional use permit that are seeking a waiver from conditional use permit standards shall apply to the zoning board of adjustment for a variance. However, in the telecommunications cup, there's actually built into that a process for the planning board to issue a waiver. And so, we just wanted to put unless otherwise specified in this LDC, this is the process you have to follow because there is that one instance where the planning board has been authorized to grant waiverss. Um, so that's kind of a weird one. The 15 and 16 are we're proposing to remove the requirement from both the subdivision regulations and the site plan regulations that waiverss must

follow the same process as the application. So what this means today is that if we're so you know an applicant submits their application and staff is doing a review, it's a pretty tight timeline. We have a goal to get applications through in one planning board meeting whenever possible because that is um much more development friendly. And if we're going through the review and we realize that they needed a waiver and we find that out too late in the process, then that delays the application because now they have to notice the waiver within the required noticing time frame. um in state statute which comes out to 14 days before the meeting. So we're proposing that you know any waiverss that are are identified up front and that we know about we would still include in the legal ad language. But if a waiver is required and we discover that after the legal ad goes out or if it's discovered during the planning board meeting because that has happened before, um you could still have the ability to weigh whether or not to grant a waiver without having them go through the notice process. And I should mention this is a specifically a keen thing. I don't think that other communities require waiverss to be noticed um the way that we do. Um so that's what we're proposing because it it would just make it a lot easier for developers when things are identified partway through the process and reduce the cost because when they have to do a whole round of noticing just for a waiver that means they have to do the legal ad fee again and the abutter notice fee again. Councelor Remy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. The only thing I would suggest is that we make it so in the language that they're putting in for the noticing that they say that waivers may be requested exempting us from conditions of the like there's some generalized language that they include in the noticing language to say that this may not include waivers because taking this out, what I worry about is people that are very used to the fact that well, they must be meeting all conditions. They're not requesting any waivers because it's not in the thing anymore. I don't know that anyone pays that much attention, but we should assume that our public is reading every bit of every waiver that goes out and they know what's in there and they're paying attention to it because some do. Um, I wish more did. Um, and yeah, I think if you're going to take this out and people may be used to it that we should have some generic language that say waiverss from requirements may be requested at the up until the meeting. Mhm.

Um so that people know they if they kind of care about it, they should go to the meeting. Yeah, I agree with that. I think we have pretty good language that we use for public workshops for ordinances where we make it very clear like please be aware that modifications could occur that that during the workshop phase this could be amended. So please follow along. Um, so I think that we could take that and adapt it for these notices. Um, we usually put that in the ab butter letters because we have a lot more space to work with in those whereas the legal ad and the paper we pay per line. So we try to like

make it very concise. Frankly, as long as the abuter is no, I think that meets my like concern around it is the people that are going to be most impacted know because they might just do the research and then something like if they feel like we pulled the rug out on them if we granted a bunch of waiverss at the meeting they didn't know was an option. Yeah. And again, I think that we will continue to include any waivers that are requested that we know about ahead of time. It's just like probably once out of every 10 applications this happens where it's it delays it by a month and it's always a big hassle.

Could it disincentivize applicants to giving you the waiverss on time though?

Um I don't think so, but maybe. I mean the staff will catch them though. But you staff would have no time to prepare and we're already scheduled for the meeting and there's nothing you can do to push them back because there's nothing in the code that says you have the right to push them back because they didn't have to put them on the same timeline. Uh so staff does an initial determination of completeness and then we do a more thorough review and we send them a memo of comments and they have a revision deadline to meet that and that's where I think we would we would require them to submit any outstanding like waiverss that they haven't requested. And anytime that they we don't feel like that we've gotten enough information or that they're not ready for the public hearing, the planning board steering committee has the ability to say whether or not it goes on the agenda. So

So should we change to say waivers request shall be submitted by the revision deadline? I even that though I think we actually talked about that internally and I think that that still opens up the possibility that a waiver a like inconsequential silly waiver like oh they got to point to light foot candles and they're only allowed to do 0.1 in this one spot you know it's just those little things that we're really worried about here request shall be submitted prior to the revision meeting except as uh exempted by the um what am what's word I'm looking for the your boss um

community development director development director um except as exempted by the community development director [snorts] and basically say that the community development director can send it forward anyway but it's to put in if they if you guys feel in bad faith that they've been withholding waiverss that they knew they were going to ask for it gives you the out to say no we got to hold this until because you missed the revision deadline Yeah, I think we already have that. So, this what I'm not showing on the screen, but I think I did include in your memo is that there's still the requirement for them to

uh which section is this 15. So, yeah, 26 1014, which is on page 31 of your packet. um you know lays out all so there's a 26 104 A B C D and then this is E. So everything above it is still would have to be um met and so we're still requiring the request to be made in writing. They have to cite the specific regulation. um they could walk into the meeting with a packet and say, "Here's my waiver requests."

And then the board would be well within its rights to say, "Well, we need more time to look at this." So, I still think that I I guess I think the vast majority of developers are acting in good faith and they will they're not trying to pull anything by you. And the ones who are, you're gonna know and you'll be able to you have a lot of leeway in that situation.

Yeah. And that's where like my thought with it is basically that that this gives you the out that they could literally bring it to the meeting as long as the development director signs off. But it gives you the out to say you're not responding. You're not being responsive. You knew you needed this and you're just not following along. Like it gives you that leeway, but also gives you the it gives the staff the the option to like say, "Never mind. It's fine. just keep sending it forward. Um, it gives you a little bit of optional teeth to say, "Nope, you're not still responding. So, you're going to have to wait till next month." I don't know. I'm good either way. I'm fine with it, honestly. Either way, I'm going to be on planning board in a month. So, if you want to interpret this question,

Mr. Mr. Sure. I Yeah, the I can see the I can sort of see the reason why somebody in Keen might have inserted E. You said it was seemed to be a local thing, right? So

the good if you assume good angels here, it's the fact that we want a complete plan to come before uh the body before before we approve it. And so I can sort of see why why it would be included. Um and at the same time you're saying that there's these these on occasion there's waiverss that come up uh a sort of after the fact or in the review process. So I guess as long there's a good process up front to to identify hey you're going to need a parking waiver and a this waiver or that waiver like the planning board the planning staff is doing that before this happens. As long as there's a process to really identify the big waiverss that are needed ahead of time, I think I'm okay with with this because I don't I don't think it's going to be a case where there's a sudden surprise. This is a whole different project because we we introduced a waiver at the last minute and the citizens we we have we haven't been able as citizens been able to express any concerns with that. So I think long way of saying as as long as we feel good that that process to identify the need for a waiver is happening ahead of time and that this really is only to prevent the strange minor cases that might come up during the review process. I'm I'm okay with this amendment.

Yeah. And I would just add to that that um we do so staff does a pretty thorough review. We have the um the presubmission meeting where we meet with the applicant prior to submission of the application,

but oftent times there's significant changes between the that point in time and when they submit and so it's a short but pretty intensive review period and then staff will sometimes send like a sixpage memo just of all these little things. Yeah. And usually where this becomes an issue is when we tell the applicant, hey, you have to revise this thing and this thing and this thing and this thing. And so they're trying to accommodate all the requests that we're asking of them. And then one of those changes maybe affected the light trespass or the whatever. And it's just they don't meet the letter of the regulations as a result of the change. But overall, we think it's a better site plan, if that makes sense. So, the one that keeps sticking in my mind is I think we

there was um I can't remember what site this was, but there was a site that had um part of it was the lighting installation and they had the wrong type of fixtures. They weren't using like full cut off fixtures and they needed to adjust everything. So, they had done the whole lighting plan that met all of our standards and they did the whole table and this this whole thing and then we're like,

"You need to change your light fixtures." And so of course that changed everything and they ended up having like it I think it literally went from a 0.1 to a 0 2 foot candle in one area on the property boundary which then meant that they had to request a waiver for light trespass which meant we had to tell them sorry you you're going to next month and by the way you have to pay to renotice everything. So that's more of the situation that I'm thinking of here. If somebody were to submit an incomplete application where we identify like, oh, you need this waiver and this waiver and this waiver, and it was clear from the original application that you needed those, that's probably where we would tell them like, you need to do a full like revamp of your application and submit for next month.

So, I'm comfortable with the these amendments. Councelor Remy, are you good with that or do you still want to see Yeah, I'm fine. We haven't had this issue here. It's been like I've seen zoning is more where I've seen concerns on them like interpreting things in odd ways recently. Um but yeah, we haven't had that issue here. Yeah, I'm I'm good with this.

Okay. Um I think we're almost done here. So the last two um number 17 is a proposal to amend the earth excavation application submittal requirements specific specifically this section that refers to um the exemptions. And so this is making it clear just being more specific about what section it is where they can request exemptions from because it's it says application submitts but then it refers to all of section 2619 which is all of the application procedures and the submitt requirements are in a certain subsection of that. Um so just adding a little bit of specificity because that question has come up. Um, and then also, this is just a thing that I've noticed. It hasn't really come up as an issue, but um, I believe the Earth excavation regulations were written quite a while ago and just have never really been used until recently. Um, and I noticed that the section on security doesn't match all of your other sections on security. So, I just wanted to update it to be consistent because it seems to be a pretty consistent planning board policy to not accept performance bonds um and to only accept checks or letters of credit.

Council Remy, thank you. Um it makes sense to me, but I just do we care about who the letter of credit is from? Like, can I write a letter of credit for a million dollar bond or does we have to like it just says a letter of credit? I mean, do we care that it's a organization that could support the uh letter that they're writing?

I'm going to be completely honest. I just copied this from the other sections of the code. I [clears throat] kind of assumed the letter of credit could only come from a bank. So [laughter] that's what I I think that that's the difference between the letter of credit and a performance bond is that the letter of credit, my understanding at least, which is not great. But what I know is that it's backed by a bank, whereas a performance bond isn't necessarily backed by a bank. And that's why they're less desirable because they're not as reliable if we had to pull it to actually do the improvements ourselves.

Yeah. I it is generally it would be a generally some kind of financial institution would issue the letter of credit and hopefully they can cover whatever it's for. That's all. So yeah, I just didn't know if we cared if it was like from a AAA rated whatever. It's all fine. I don't I don't care enough on that one. I think it's going to be okay. We don't deal with enough like letter of credits for earth excavation that I honestly I don't know enough to comment on this. So, I would have to defer to our finance department. Um, yeah, I think it's I'm sure it's fine.

Yeah, they do scrutinize these. Um, like I know that in the past the city attorney has come back and said, I I don't like this in the So, it gets reviewed

um but not by me. So, okay. I think that was uh Oh, I did want to do really quickly master plan consistency. Um when I this is I think in line with the recently adopted master plan. We do have goals under livable housing in particular um to make sure that the housing development process is transparent, easy to navigate. We're trying to boost infill development and redevelopment, remove barriers to housing developments. Um we talk about continually improving the development approval process to be predictable, effective and streamlined. So I think um a lot of these changes are in line with that. Um under the thriving economy, we have under goal three um an action item to review the city's regulatory processes to identify potential challenges or constraints that prospective businesses andor developers may face. Um and then under flourishing environment uh we're it talks about um as an aspiration smart growth compact walkable development and infill are promoted to preserve green fa green space and farms and adaptive reuse of buildings is the common building strategy over green field development. Um, so in my mind, making sure that we're making our regulations as clear and streamlined as possible is going to help achieve that goal. Um, any more questions?

I think we used in real time. I did write down some of the changes. Um, so for number one, we're going to strike the beginning and just say the owner shall blah blah blah instead of referring out to article 23. And then for number two, we're just going to remove that and um add the definition of primary entrance to the ordinance that goes to city council. But that wouldn't be part of what we're voting on here. We would just be removing that from our version. Yes. Okay.

Well, one of the recommendations um in your recommended motions if you think you're ready to approve this with those changes is once you've adopted it to send this to city council to incorporate into the land development code. But yeah, but that item Yes. would not be because we don't have the authority to change that one. Yes. Yeah. And I can always if you would rather that I bring back a revised version, I can always do that if you want to wait. I don't think we made that many changes. I don't think we did either. Yeah. So, it was one, two, we're striking. One, we're striking the beginning. Two, we're striking the whole thing.

Right. Three, we were fine. Four, we were fine. Three, we didn't change. Four, we didn't change. Five, we didn't change. Six, we didn't change. Seven, we didn't change. Eight, we talked about a lot, but we didn't change anything, right? Eight and nine. And the thresholds, I think we were okay with the thresholds with the exception of Mr. cost.

Who still has misgivings about ruining downtown? Yeah, I'm through 14. I don't uh Yeah, I think those are the only two where we actually changed it. Is that right? I think so, too. 11 12 That's the only thing I wrote down. 14. Yeah. So, um, proposed amendment number one would be modified to read 20.2.5 monumentation. The owner or develop developer shall provide permanent reference monuments and final subdivision plans dot dot dot dot. Yeah. Can I take a stab at a motion?

Yeah, please. Uh move to approve amendments to the planning board subdivision regulations, site development standards, earth excavation regulations, and application procedures as shown in the memorandum to the planning board dated November 14th, 2025 with an effective date of January 1, 2026 with the exception of amendment one striking the words in accordance with article 23 of this LDC and capitalizing the first letter of the next word uh to complete the sentence. and striking amendment two entirely with the intent that the definition is sent forward to city council for a different amendment. Thank you. Second. You got a second?

Yeah, second. Any further discussion or uh deliberation? All right, let's call the vote. So, all those uh all those in favor of of uh motion one uh amending the uh planning board subdivision regulations. Any opposed? Okay, you have the second motion there too. Move to refer the amended regulations to city council for incorporation to chapter 100 land development code of the city code of ordinances.

Second. Thank you, Mr. Angle. Any discussion or deliberation? Okay, let's call the vote. All those in favor? Any opposed? approved. Councelor Remy, thank you. This was a great meeting to do this in where we didn't have other topics and they're trying to like split brain power between this like heavy work and like trying to deal with a public application. So, as much as like we didn't have a public application, this was a perfect meeting to do this in. Yeah, it worked out well.

Thank you, Mary. So for the next agenda item, unless you want to table that to another meeting. Yeah, I think we should table that. Okay. [laughter] Since councelor Remy suggested we used up almost all of our brain power. I was also going to ask if I could be excused because I don't need training on that if I'm off the Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. You're sticking it out. All right. So, uh, Miss Burner, any staff updates? other than they left you all by yourself tonight.

Um, no, I don't think so. Yeah, no staff updates. Um, we are pl we are working on sort of like an implementation plan for the master plan. So, more to come on that. I think we're kind of waiting for the city council to finish their their goals. Um, but it seems like what they're coming up with aligns very nicely with the master plan goals. So, um, we will hopefully have more on that in early in the year. Um, next meeting is very full. We have six public hearings and also the uh meeting schedule for next year and then in the new year we're going to be jumping right into CIP. So you have a busy couple months ahead. [laughter]

The 22nd of December. Yes. And and that is something I wanted to mention because it's the Monday before Christmas and there's a lot of um there's a lot going to that meeting. So,

yeah, including a cottage court. And it's actually really cool, [laughter] but it's going to be a lot. So, just a heads up. Well, we'll just have to make sure we uh do our homework and can get through them quickly. You're going to get some of your neighbors up on the podium here. Yeah.

Yeah. All right. Thanks. Thanks, Miss Burner. Uh any new business anyone has? [snorts] Okay. Upcoming dates of interest. Uh, joint committee of the planning board and PLLD December 8th, although likely to be cancelled. I'm sure you're brokenhearted about that. Uh, planning board steering committee December 9, 12 p.m. uh, via Teams. Planning board site visit December 17th. Sounds like it's possible we could have site visits that day. Uh last month we tried something different. We had site visit at like 4:30 uh and got reasonable attendance.

So we might go to back to something like that instead of 8 a.m. Okay. Would you like me to send out a doodle poll or something like that just to get a sense from everybody when they're available? Say that again. Sorry. Uh do you want me to send out a poll to see if people are available on the Wednesday or the day of the meeting? Like what time would work better for people? Sure. Okay.

Yeah. We have to do we have to think outside the box a little bit to get quorum at these visits. Uh and then the final date of interest uh planning board next meeting as we just discussed December 22nd 6:30. Uh no more time items and with that I will uh declare the meeting adjourned but I would ask if you guys would hang out for just one second. Um,