Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Everybody, welcome to the uh Tuesday, January 6, 2026 uh meeting of the Lichfield Planning Board. Would you all please stand for the pledge of allegiance? I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, I'll start with the roll call of members. Michael Croto, chair, Jared Okonnell, vice chair, Russell Blanchett, member, Jesse No, alternate, Travis Tucker, member, Lee, member, Steve Ganon, select Misre.

Okay, welcome everybody. And tonight we have with us Jam Car from NRPC. Welcome. And John McKibben, our planning board administrator. Um Jeremy um Roberty is not going to be with us this evening. Um he sent me an email that he couldn't make it. So, I guess we will ask um Jesse if he's interested in becoming an alternate for voting purposes this evening. Yes, I do.

Okay. So, we'll make you an alternate member for appointment of for voting. Um, first item on the agenda is public input on non-aggenda items, items not listed on the agenda for this evening. Is there any public input related to non-aggenda items this evening? And hearing none, I will close public input on non-aggenda items and we will go to um the first order of business. Well, tonight we actually have public hearing per RSA 675 7. Um we have a couple of things on the agenda for this evening. Um those would include um the um accessory dwelling units, home occupations requirements for solar energy systems, foundation certifications, and uh amend section 1301.03 at impact fees to be usable for public works facilities. We have a petition article to remove zoning section 1504.00A 00 A for regarding signs on Albuquerque A and uh vote by planning board for the March ballot. Um so I guess what I will do um at this time um is I will turn it over to Jay just briefly and um we'll have him give just a brief summation of some of this and then we'll open it up to public comment. How's that? I I do have a handful of printed copies of the amendments if anybody needs one. Oh, you do? Never mind.

If anybody else needs one, I've got a few.

Uh, all right. I'm just going to run through these. I'm actually not going to do it on the screen because it doesn't flow very well and it's hard to read. Uh so starting with um item one which is uh to amend section 507 of the zoning ordinance um you know related to accessory dwelling units and the initial intent of this was to comply with recent changes or I should say primarily to comply with recent changes in state law that allow uh both attached and detached um ADUs by right. So that was the primary driver. uh and then there was also a lot of conversation around um the possibility of also increasing the size of ADUs. So those are really the two primary drivers but um uh for you know well I guess for those who were here and those who were not here at the uh last work session that we had on these there was a lot of input on this item. So there are now several additional changes that we've made um based on that input. And so I'm just going to run through those. Um if it isn't obvious um basically new language is in bold italics and language to be removed is struck. Um so just kind of starting with the first more significant one that is um well somewhat significant substantive anyway 507 section 507.02 02. Uh there was just concern expressed that we we do want to maintain the character of uh existing single family neighborhoods and we should state that overtly. So that was added. Um there was also um you know some concern expressed that while we had a definition of accessory dwelling units, it was not exactly the same as the state definition. And the suggestion was why not use the state definition that's in the RSAs. So that's what you see here. It's not significantly

different, but there are differences in wording. Uh so that made sense. Um and then moving on down to the bottom of the first page is section 507.04. This is really where we had a lot of conversation around um you know allowing larger ADUs. Well, I mean, the testimony that we had overwhelmingly was in support of allowing something larger, and this relates to another change I'm going to make later, but there was also a lot of conversation around how we define the what is the square footage within the ADU. And uh what we've learned is the current practice is it's kind of an elaborate process of, you know, calculating the square footage of closets and corridors and different types of space and removing them. Um, so the sense was we didn't want to do that. So I'll get to that point later. But so what was the square footage allowed and um so what we landed on was um first of all eliminating a minimum. So you can have an ADU as small as you want to have it. Uh so that would be eliminated. But in terms of the maximum uh it's been amended to say uh the total living space of an ADU of the ADU shall not exceed 75% of the total living space of the principal dwelling with a maximum size of 1,200 square ft. Notwithstanding the above, no ADU shall be restricted to less than 750 ft of total living space. So essentially you can we can't require that you be less than 750 square ft and you can go up to 1,200 square f feet. Um uh also just in the next uh subsection C just clarifying it's 18U for single family home. I'm now going on to the next page and um just adding in a line. We are we do

require that the princ the property owner has to occupy one of the two units. Um but there's was some concern expressed around we don't want to become a rental community. So we just added an express statement that the owner has to demonstrate provide some evidence that they occupy um one of the units. Um uh going on down to subsection F. This is really uh not so much a substantive change as this is just taking the language exactly as it's in the statute. Our language was similar. This will be exactly paralleling the statutory language. Uh and again we just clarify that uh you can't have more than two bedrooms and and that's because we have two different sections here attached detached. So neither one can have more than two bedrooms. Um, moving on down, um, the the change that you see in section 507.06 is um, the way we had we had in Lichfield allowed detach use, but we did it as a conditional use. You can no longer do it as a conditional use. It's allowed by right. So, uh, we just reflect that in this change. It's no longer the planning board that approves it. It's the building inspector who approves it. I'm now going on to, uh, page three. And uh kind of once again as I mentioned earlier that there was this concern expressed around maintaining the character of the neighborhood. So we just in subsection E towards the top of the page emphasize that again that we're trying to protect the character of existing neighborhoods. Um and then finally section f not finally but section 507.07. uh this is new and this is also um you know consistent with the statute. So we took that statutory language again that just states that an accessory dwelling you may be converted from existing structures including but not limited to detached garages, barns or other similar

structures and this is key regardless of whether such structures violate curtain dimensional requirements for setbacks or lot coverage. So that essentially means that if you have an existing barn, detached garage or out building, even if it doesn't meet SAP requirements, you can convert that to an ADU. Um, you don't have to get a variance. And then finally, we had a lot of conversation around total living space. And so this amendment would also add a new section or a subsection to the definition section to define total living space. Uh and the new definition would be total living space. Total living space is the finished heated and habitable area of a home including rooms such as kitchens, living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, bathrooms, plus hallways, stairs, laundry rooms, pantries, and closets, but excluding unfinished basements, unfinished attics, porches, decks, and garages. It is calculated by measuring and turning over to page four. the exterior dimensions of above grade floors of the home and subtracting non-finished, unheated, and non-habitable areas. The area of a stairwell shall only be counted once. Hopefully, that all makes sense. So, that is item one. Okay. Shall I go into item two or shall we? Um well I guess if you want we can go one by one and maybe open it up to public comment for each one as we go. So this is basically for the accessory dwelling unit. So at this time um because this is a public hearing we can have um public comment. So if anyone is interested in commenting on this particular uh zoning uh amendment uh you can please step forward, state your name and address for the record and provide you your input.

Good evening everyone. Ray Peoples's 205 Charles Bcraftoft Highway. Um I heard about this uh this increase in size and uh it comes with great concern to me that at 1,200 ft you are going to change the character of this town. the these are very large. At the state when we we approved this um and we passed this in the house that was a highly debated um number how big to make them. The free stator wanted it to be endless. You can build anything you want on your property no matter how big it is. You got property, you can build it. Um the rest of us all lobby very hard to keep these in a a controllable size so that they wouldn't become a blight on the neighborhoods. These are all much of the planning in Lichfield has been done over the years um to single family residential neighborhoods. We don't even have much mixed use other than what you've just approved in recent history. So when we as you know um you you take a plan in you start by can we support this we look at sewer we don't have sewer so we look at septic systems what can that what can those lots take for effluent disposal what do we have for water can penetruck supply us enough water um we look at all that when we start a subdivision here now we're going to take all this work and all these years of planning and blow a hole in it you're going to anybody that wants can just add another house in their backyard. 1,200 ft² I mean 28x40. These are big places. They're not small. Um if you happen to know where I live on Route 3A, the building that I have out by the side of my house is 28x 40. That's as big as many of the single family uh residents here in the north end along Oak Drive and places like that where the raised

ranches were built for a number of years in the 70s. So we we're increasing the impact on fire. We're increasing the impact on police water, what our groundwater disposal here in the town where we have very sandy soils can can take. And septic systems are designed by the number of bedrooms. So if you have a house that has a a septic system that was designed for three bedrooms and now you add two more, you're going to push that septic system to failure faster. And uh we're going to be having problems, you know, with groundwater in incursion into things like wells. There's another problem you have, right, as setbacks on all those things. So I I would highly encourage the board to reconsider the 1,200 square ft and make the building envelope whatever it is. If it's 28x40, that's the livable square feet and calculated on that. I also um I don't know are you collecting impact fees um on these permits? I mean because these are going to add to police and fire and um uh ambulance service and stuff like that as we move ahead. So there there should be some of that rolled into the CIP impact fee calculations. Um you know, I don't know. I just I I I'm not 100% wed that we're headed in the right direction with this ADU thing to solve our housing crisis in New Hampshire. Um that being said, I'd just like to please reconsider the square footage calculation.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else for public comment regarding ADU? Yes. Come forward. How are you? Pieran 15 Chaseburg Circle. So, I've done a lot of ADUs in Lichfield and I have a copy. So, there are copies here for the board if they're interested.

And I want to give you an example. I think there's five examples, but I'll give you I made six copy five copies there. So, those are all the ADUs I've done in the past two and a half years. Okay. So, the one on Newstead, if you bring up Newstead. Yeah, I made copies for everybody. I think this is what we're talking about.

So, it's not all there. It's this part. Is it extra? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I was I was making it big enough so we could all see them because I'm sitting.

So when news said right, we did a 24 by 42. Okay. 24x 42 that gives you 1,08 square ft. Okay. Now, if you look at the drawing, you see a common hall in the back in the stairway to the basement. We took that space out. Okay. We took out closets. We took out what we're what we have in place now. Okay. Now, that square footage is 800 square ft. Now, this particular one, we did two bedrooms. We did two bedrooms, but you can see the family room is very small. In your kitchen and family room, your dining room and family room have to be part of it. You know what I mean? In the kitchen, I give a good size kitchen and I give always put a walk-in shower for my bathrooms. Um, and we try to do a double sink, right? So, but you can see all the square footage that we took out made the 800 square ft and it's tight bedrooms. They look big, but if you went through it, you could see how small they are. In regarding the septic systems on every property that we do for the ADUs, we have to have a new septic design in place in case it fails and once it fails, they have to put the new septic system in based on the new how many people are there the bedrooms.

So I was going to ask that question. So currently on the bedrooms existing septic septic systems can be utilized. Yeah. with the ADU until it fails. So, run it to failure.

In all these ADUs, it's more or less the husband and wife now living there, bringing people into the house, meaning most of these all the kids are all grown up. You know what I mean? But this particular one, the kids came back. So there's two people living in the house main and then there's three people living in the ADU because they want to keep that separation. So then you go to another one. If you go to 19 Chatfield, the first one, because of the property lines, we So, it's the far right in the back. So, because of the property lines, we had This is a onebedroom, but we had to put the closet in the back. Do you see that in the far back corner? And that's where the bathroom is. And this little room is just just to give a little space for the husband. This was an elderly couple that came home from Florida and now living with the parents, the owners. So, it's a good it's not a huge bedroom, but it's a bedroom. Again, they have a good kitchen area, but the the living space for the living room is pretty small, you know. Um, the kitchen

and we wanted to add more, but we would have had to go all the way out back because of the property line. And we made like three different drawings for this home. We didn't end up doing obviously the garage with the room up above. We didn't do that. Um, so my point is, so he's worried about making the the ADUs too big, but they were going to put a garage with a room up above with the ADU. You know what I mean? But that was for the homeowner, not for the ADU. And then if you go to another one, you just go quickly through the ones THAT

the address. That's the address. 14.

Oh, 14 GR. Sorry. So, that one was at 733. And then you see the hallway in the dwelling. that hallway area. We were counting that as part of the ADU and part of the homeowners. And we tried to make that the ADU, but we couldn't at the time with the building inspector we had. So, we were we were fighting and arguing what we were going to do. The homeowners were pretty disappointed on they couldn't get that square footage, you know. Um, so that was that one. That's on the ranch. one Woodth Hawk that's 17 office. So this was one in London area and they did theirs based on 40% of the existing home. 40% that could be the dwelling for the ADU, but he just went with the space that he needed because we had property line issues on that.

Um, what's their square footage in London area? Say it. Say it again. What what square footage they allow in London area? 40% of the existing dwelling. Mhm. So if you have a 10,000 foot home, you could have 10,000 square foot, but it hurts the person that has a 1500 foot home, right? They can only do 40% of that. That's why the square footage I I don't think would I mean the percentage wouldn't work. Um, so this one was just give you an idea. This one's 768 32 by 24.

Yeah. Yeah. Is that the other ones? Yeah. Yeah. 768.

Um and then you have one six Firefly. All the markings on it. But so we had an unfinished storage area closet. So on this one there's a lot of roof lines. A lot of roof lines that take a lot of space in the addition. So what I did was try to use that space by putting things in the wall. As you can see where my drawing is, how I have um boxes near the dining room on the outside wall. I put things in the wall to help that space. In here, it seems like you have a good size bedroom. There's a lot of angles where the roof lines come down, you know, that takes some of the space out. Um, so that's based on the 800 square ft. And then you have 11 more And what I try to do is so as you come in the breezeway here that wasn't part of the space that was at the common area and then you have the main part. What we try to do to help with the space is if you look on the second page of the detail on A4, I try to put in big windows to make the space bigger. You know what I mean? That gave a lot of

openness. Um, I put a window going up the stairway as well as well. So, I think 1,200 square ft is the right number because by the time you take that stairway out, by the take by the time you take those common areas out, you're going to get it to that 900 ft or,200, you know what I mean? That 900 square ft, you know? So, I think 1,200 square ft foundation size is is the way to go. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Appreciate it. And again, if anybody wants to see any of the projects just to walk through and I'll get some more information, I can make that happen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anybody else for a couple of comments this evening? Yes, come forward.

Hi, Vincent Lagna, 36 Wood Hawk. Um, so, uh, my parents moved up here about 2 years ago and I wanted to put an ADU on and when I started looking at around for sizes and requirements and things like that, um, I quickly got in touch with, uh, Mr. Gran and we went through a bunch of different drawings trying to figure out layouts and stuff like that. Um, at the time we were restricted to 800 ft². And when you take into effect, uh, living spaces, um, kitchens, bathrooms, things like that, living rooms, and all that, you chip away at that really quickly. Um, I was really lucky with where I put mine that it's basically just a square, uh, rectangle property. Um, I didn't have to do any crazy juts to the back, to the side, anything like that. Um, but something that my parents really wanted and I couldn't give them was a second bedroom because of giving them their own bathroom, their own kitchen, somewhat of a family room, putting in two closets so that we had a coat closet and a closet in the bedroom. Um, Pierre also came out and put, as he said, an an inset set of drawers and all that, which gave my mom more storage for, you know, winter summer clothes. Um, which kind of helped out because there was one less thing that we had to put in the bedroom. Um, so I think the 1,200 ft² is the right direction. Um, I like that number, especially just going wallto- wall. Uh, because as you said, when you start taking out all those spots that are just, you know, bathrooms, closets, thing like that, it adds up quickly. Um, so I think it's the right direction. Um, with the septic, I was worried about the septic cuz I have, you know, I had a three-bedroom house. There's only two of us living in there, so it was technically two bedrooms being used, but then adding two more people. I was worried about the septic, but again, they did their work. They did what they needed to, and you know, everything's been good so far. I've had no issues, but that plan is in place that if we ever have to change it, you know, rip it out, then it's there. So, I think all

the work is being done properly to account for the different um issues and concerns. I do see where the other gentleman is concerned about water coming into the town, electricity coming into the town, um things like that. Those are concerns, but it doesn't matter where you go in this country, you're going to have those concerns. Um the infrastructure that was built 50, 60, 80, 100 years ago is not up to what we do nowadays. Um so those have to be analyzed, but they also have to be, you know, what is the difference between putting in a 3,000t house somewhere and putting in a 1,200 foot ADU. um those those types of things. I I see where they're coming from, but at the same point in time, it's my property. I pay for it. I own it. I would like to be able to put my parents on there, things like that. Um so, I definitely like the language that's in there now. Um there's a lot of updates that you did and I agree with those. So, I just wanted to say thank you and I I think this is going the right direction. Thank you.

Anybody else public comment for this? All right. Um, seeing no further comment on the ADU uh discussion, this time I'm going to close public comment on ADU. I'm going to bring it to the board. Any questions for the board regarding this um zoning amendment this evening? I would say that Mr. People Peoples has a valid point and concern is um if you flip-flop it most of the time we're all thinking that this is going to be someplace our elderly parents going to live in. But it could go the opposite way where they decide to make it a two-bedroom and rent it out as long as the family owns and lives in the principal dwelling. You could rent out the ADU. So then you could have a husband, wife, and a child. So now you have a rental unit that's not collecting impact fees. Taxes will go up a little bit, but it's not going to offset. That's, you know, so that's the the concern. That's the flip of the concern. Um, we looked into an ADU for my in-laws years ago and we quickly realized like eight, well, my mother-in-law realized 800 square feet is just too small for her. Especially when you start considering you go from a, you know, four bedroomedroom home to a one-bedroom home and my father-in-law wanted an office. It's like, how do you squeeze that in there? It's a it's a big closet. But then we also get into the discussions where there was a lot of ambiguity on what does 800 square foot count as. At the time we were told it would be the stairway going from the garage into the house and it would be you know the closets and everything. So that made it even smaller.

Anybody else? So I wasn't

Yeah. So, I wasn't here for the last one, but I was reading the minutes before coming tonight and saw that there was a lot of discussion, you know. Um, but I wondered, Jake, could you I just want to make sure I'm understanding things correctly and that I'm not assuming incorrectly. So as I read um the shall not exceed 75% of the total living space of the principal dwelling with a maximum size of 1,200. Effectively what you're saying there is you know the eligibility to even reach 1,200 square feet would be a what? do the calculation.

Anyone with 1600 square feet would be able to build an ADU of the maximum size. So almost the majority of single family houses. But if I had a Okay. So yeah. So but if I had a 3,000 square foot house, let's say, you know, the biggest ADU I could put on there is 1200 square feet. That's right. Regardless of the fact that 1,200 is, you know, 40%. Right. Am I okay? All right. I'm just I thought I understood that. All right. Um,

yeah. So, the concern we had with that, and I believe it was probably Travis that brought it up, is as I mentioned earlier, if you have a 10,000 foot house, if we didn't have any stipulations in there, what can you get away with? Yeah.

And I can speak to that a little more. We were particularly thinking about like 3A, a lot of older homes, kind of World War II, pre-war homes that are small cottage types. We were like, well, a,200 square foot ADU is the size of, if not larger than those existing homes. So, we're thinking we've, you know, golden rules of proportions have kind of been done away with, but um there is something to be said about kind of having size, you know, be reasonable. Um, so at least we can guarantee that the ADUs are not going to be bigger than the house for those real kind of small types.

Yeah. I mean, you know, my only my concern with ADUs has always been and don't get me wrong I'm I'm I've considered it for my mother lived with us until she passed and it would have been nice to have had a like independent space. So I do like the idea of an ADU especially with the intergenerational households that seems to be coming back which is kind of nice. Um, but the thing that I worry about as a as a single family homeowner is the notion that, you know, Steve just brought up that you can rent these things out, you know, and now all of a sudden you have a neighborhood with the potential for, you know, renters are transients. They could only maybe rent for a year or something and then somebody else moves in. So, as a homeowner that Yeah. who my expectation was I moved into a neighborhood where it it was all single family homeowners. It's that that's a little concerning. I'm not going to lie. Um and it seems like the bigger that you you allow for it, uh the more possibility that that might be. But I I'm not convinced that 1,200 is that crazy big, I guess, is is where I'm saying. um that the quirky calculation that I read in the minutes and and everything that goes into it. I is that a standard that's put by the state? Is that specific to our building inspector?

Yeah, I I have I should say I have not encountered that elsewhere. I haven't either and that's why I'm like okay. Do you think that how much square foot I mean h what percentage of square footage are we talking that that eliminates in your in your typical ADU? I think it' be hard to say but I think we just had one example here where it was over a thousand square feet and by going through those elimination processes they got it to the 800

800. So that seems I think that's really been the drivers is I think it's been a motivated to try to help people get what they were looking for. Um if I had I don't want to suppose what other people are thinking but that seems to be the motivation so that effectively we have a thousand or thousand square foot plus ADUs that are being permitted. if you went with the perimeter of you know the structure um by doing it that way um you know you you were effectively increasing the size that we would allow. So the calculation isn't based on or doesn't follow the rules that we had you had clarified some language in here where it talked about uh the living space definition.

So is is that what we were trying to get at with the heart of at the heart of by defining total living space? Yes. By saying get into the calculation exactly what the total living space is. Okay. And and this applies to anything, not just an ADU, because you theoretically could run into the same scenario of if you put it as a percentage of the the the overall dwelling. Yeah. Now, are you going to start saying, "Well, I'm going to take out closets in the house and change that." So, this should be this will apply to anything. I was going to say this definition squares with I'm I'm a I'm an appraiser and I you know, this squares with what we do and and how we value. So that makes sense to me. Um

and that's what we tried to do. Discussion didn't at all. Um that was interesting. That is interesting. Okay. That's all I had. Okay.

So yeah. Um Jay, have you seen any communities be able to um have um impact fees collected for ADUs? Yes, we definitely have communities that are collecting impact fees for ADUs. Some are charging the same rate per unit. Some go by square footage, so an ADU in that case would always be less. So, we do have some towns that calculate it that way. Um, and then we do have some towns that calculate the ADU if it's if they go by dwelling unit and not by square footage. Some might say the ADU is 50%. So there's it's it's kind of all over the map, but that's what most towns are collecting it. The question is just are they collecting a smaller amount uh or the full amount?

Yeah. And is Lichfield doing anything right now? We are. So I guess we'll have to decide what we want to do about that. Leave it or change it. Um because yeah the additional unit can um drive some impact to the town. I don't think square footage really affects it because if someone just wants more luxurious space, it's a little bit more wood for a fire, but I don't see any more use of town resources really,

right? I think the argument for those who discounted is mainly schools. If you're limiting it to two bedrooms, you'll have less of a school impact than a fourbedroom house. So, some discount it for that reason. Some towns also have the same discount for um an ADU as they do for elderly housing. Um and in some of those communities it's they charge the full impact fee for everything except schools. They don't charge for schools. So there are communities that have done that also.

But yeah, I could definitely see a scenario where NU can result in services to the school district. Um there's nothing preventing having people having um family age kids there. But the p definitely less than normal single family home though. But does that belong in here? That doesn't. Right. Probably belongs in the impact fee schedule, not in this section. So that's probably another a conversation that we should probably have, but it's probably separate from this distinct from this. Yep. An ADU is new development and new development is covered by impact fees. So that's a good point.

Reasonably assume that an impact fee would apply to an ADU. So we did close public input if the board is willing to allow because I get assuming you have a question. Yeah, I have a question. Um so there is no public input at this time because we closed it. But if the board is if the will of the board, if the board wants to reopen public input to have you speak, we can do that. It's regarding what you're speaking. Okay. But that's up to the board. That's okay. Okay. All right. So, if you want to ask your question, I would come forward. The question is, so when I pull a permit for every job,

I think it's based on the total cost of the job on my permit fee. So, I think it's based on the total cost. I think that's how they do the impact. That's that's the permit fee. That's not the impact fee. No, but the permit fee, but I'm talking about the whole job. So, if I'm doing $300,000 job, it's this is this is what I'm paying for that permit. If I'm doing a $200,000 job, it's less. You know what I mean? So, it's based on the total, but that's the that's the building permit you're talking about, correct? Yeah. That's separate from the based on the whole project. But that's not that's not the way impact fees are charged fee comes after.

So how how do they get the number that they're charging for the permit right now? For the permit I don't I don't know but for the impact it's everyone is different. Yeah. With definition that's definitely separate from impact fees and impact fees are set on the impact fees schedule which this board sets. Sure that happens when they they issue the CO. Do we have an idea of what the impact would be? Yeah. You assess it and collect it. See? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's Yeah, that's a separate issue.

Okay. Um, now is this this the first public hearing on this or did you have one last second? This is the second public hearing because we made substantive changes. Substantive changes. There is always we do have time to have a third if that's the will of the board. All right. I was curious. So we can choose to send it to the ballot. We could choose to send it to another public hearing. Could choose not to move it forward at all. Could

I just had a quick question for Jay real quick. I feel like I've asked it before, but um are you aware of any other communities in the area off the top of your head that allow up to 1,200 square foot or would we be alone in doing that? Yeah, in fact I I just distributed one and Ashley just adopted it I think last week and they did adopt up to,200 and it would just be us two then at present time that you know of. Yes, I'd have to double check. I think Hudson is moving forward. I think theirs is also they're proposing 1,200 I believe last I saw that could have changed in the hearing process but that was the last I saw. Thank you. The largest I know is Limeboro at 2000. Wow.

Yeah, they got a lot of land. Lot of accessory. Yeah, we Yeah, we can't forget uh our neighboring town Londereerry with its more generous requirements too with the percentage base which could make some huge ADUs based on that and they they don't have a maximum at all with the 40% rule. Are we aware of that? I'll take a look at their I would be a little hesitant too. I believe that Lenardi would permit that.

I am looking for their requirements right now. Okay, it just says please answer this follow five following five questions. Total living area of the principal dwelling is this many square feet times 40% is the allowed for accessory living unit. So limit stated. Yeah, there's no limit that that I could see. 20,000 square foot home, 8,000 square foot AD. That many big size. Yeah. But um it they are still limiting it to two bedrooms. So I can't imagine someone putting a two 30,000 foot AD with two bedrooms. Two bedrooms, bedroom, living room, a grand ballroom. His

friend Ko needs a guest house to live in. his and hers offices. And yeah, I don't have a concern about our the proposal because it's probably going to be no big no no bigger than some of the ones people are managing to slip through the current interpretation of square footage.

That was an issue though. I know I wasn't here at the last meeting, but I was talking to someone who does um engineering in Massachusetts and he was telling me that one of the things with ADUs is the septic. Um because once you increase the size or you know bring in more people that does definitely have an impact on the septic system. uh certainly something that's being uh in Massachusetts they they're um dealing with that issue. Um

and they do have to get a septic design in as a part of the process. And I believe that an ADU is done as an apartment on the total bedroom. So, um, if they have a one-bedroom ADU, they have to add one and a half bedrooms worth of, um, gallons per day to the septic design. So, it's not just another bedroom or two, it's one and a half bedrooms or two and a half additional bedrooms, I believe, because you got a whole kitchen and you got everything.

Yep. So yeah, it's definitely interesting that they let them use the old one temporarily until it fails. Um, and I can imagine there are definitely instances where people don't promptly take care of that, but they're going to have to at some point and um because eventually sewage is going back into the house.

So um it will get taken care of eventually if it becomes a problem. Then they have expensive bill. Any other questions? Um so obviously this has gone to public hear this is the second public hearing. Um, what was the will of the board? What do you guys want to do?

And obviously we can have another I think you said there's time for another public hearing if necessary if you have further questions. Um, and just to confirm the wording. So the current wording um is that considered clear that the maximum size of 1,200 is for the ADUs is not talking about the principal dwelling in that scenario. Good catch.

I thought so. But if it could be worded better, we certainly could word it better. I think. Yeah. Just if we want to make it a little clearer, we could say with a maximum ADU size of 1,200 ft, just add ADU,

the maximum ADU size. Yeah. Yeah. And if we wanted to make it cleaner, we could just move the shall not exceed 1,200 square feet. And but not one thing we also have to keep in mind is size is not the proper term. Um total living space is the proper term or total living space. So that's a better way to phrase it. Yes.

I think that answers your question, Mr. Chair. I think it's going to Yeah, the third and frankly, you know, there's this is a big deal with need for most public input. I think that's a not a bad thing. No. Dave, would you be able to read that version to us back? Yes. The total living space of the ADU shall not exceed 75% of the total living space of the principal dwelling with the maximum ADU total living space of 12,000 square feet. It does roll a little I'm sorry, 1200. It does roll off a little awkwardly. He's looking at us going

I think I think if we put um the total living space of the ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square f feet and um 75% of the total living space of the principal dwelling then you don't even have to say maximum size. Yeah, that would be less redundant. Yeah. Oh yeah, good point. I'm sorry. Tell me that again. Uh the total living space of the ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square ft and then the rest with a period after dwelling. and 75% of the total living space. Uh the total living space of the ADU should not exceed 1,200 ft and 75. Yeah. Then we can just Is that good?

If we want to make it even clearer, we could say whichever is less. I think that's up to them, isn't it? It shall not exceed 1,200 and it shall not exceed 75% unless it with a minimum of 750. Isn't it or rather than and it they're both a limit. It cannot exceed 1,200 feet and it cannot exceed 75%. Because the ore would allow I have a 3,000 foot home and I'm going to go with 75. Mhm. Yeah. One day. It's very important to get this language uh right.

All right. So, what I'm still uncertain what are we going with? Tell them slowly so I can actually write it down. The total living space of the ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square ft. I'm writing it down. So I'll pause. FT shall not exceed and shall not exceed 75% of the total living space of the principal dwelling. Beautiful. exceed 75% of the total living space of the principal dwelling and then we strike after dwelling the rest of that sentence.

Got it. Awesome. Just want to make sure we had chat GPT say I know I was gonna say run that run that through and see what happens. And we're good with the definition for total living space. I am. Yeah. Are there any discrepancies uh Letha that um between how that and how you typically do that in the appraisal field?

Well, I'm probably not your best answer on that because I don't do residential. I do commercial. However, yes, that is consistent with the um the measurements and um basically the ANC standards if you really want to get technical. Yeah, I was doing some research into the ANIE standards and they're definitely stricter and require computer um calculations to a specific level of precision. Yeah, obviously we don't need

but that the the still the the the basics around above ground living space as defined in here is is appropriate. I did see more elaborate calculations but I I felt it was excessive and too difficult for a lay person to understand. Yeah. What what additional requirements did you see uh how to calculate areas under slopes. I mean different different ways of calculating different areas and you know so I just felt it was overly complicated even go there like I think this is a big improvement having this definition

and I guess before we send to public hearing can you just uh read what you have written down just to make sure. Yeah. so far. Uh so the the change is just to that section. So I'll say the total living space of the ADU shall not exceed 1,200 square ft and shall not exceed 75% of the total living space of the principal dwelling. Period. Sounds good to me. I'm I'm ready to send this to the next public hearing. You wish to make a motion, you can certainly do so.

I'll make a motion to the amended um um section 507 accessory dwelling units to public hearing at our next meeting which is January 20th. I'll make sure I have 10 days to post 10 days ahead of the meeting and don't count the day. Let's just double check that, but I'm pretty sure we do. Yeah, the 10 days would be Saturday. So if we post it on Friday, we're good. Okay. Um what? So what's the date of the meeting? 20th 20th. Okay. So if we post it this Friday, the 9th, we should be fine.

Yeah, it would have to. Yeah, they don't count the day of posting the day. So 20 posted this Friday. Yeah. Okay. And I'll second Jared's motion. Okay. So I have a second by Travis. Any further discussion? All right, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of um the motion, please signify by saying I. I.

Those opposed? Anybody abstained? Motion passes 700. Okay. So the next public hearing will be January 20th for this particular um amendment. All right, 11 to go. We'll move on to the next. Thank you. Thank you. We invite you guys if you do want to do a walk through just get a hold of me and I can do have that. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, home occupations section 504 by conditional use permit. Jay.

All right. So, what what this item proposes to do is to amend section 504, which is our home occupation section to clarify the home occupations are primitive by conditional use permit. So, the reason for that is because right now the pling planning board approval is required for certain types of home occupations. Um but we actually don't say under what authority that is. Is it site plan review? You know what is it? And um and that really came to a head be or came to light because currently we do permit um you know family daycare, family child care um as a home occupation that requires planning board review. The recent change to state law uh requires that all communities allow family home and group daycare either by right or conditional use. So that required us to say if we're going to require planning board approval and not allow it by right and you know the only way to do that is a conditional use. So that prompted uh a suggestion that we change um all home occupations that require planning board approval to require a conditional use permit and that includes um family home daycare and family child care. And then there are a few other changes that were also suggested um you to comply with statute. those are just using the exact statutory definition uh versus our close but not exact definition uh because of the changes that were made. And then as a result of at the last hearing um we did use the term allowed as a conditional use or permitted as a conditional use. We also use conditional use permit. The suggestion was is that we always are consistent use the same term conditional use permit. So those are the changes that you'll see. Um, so, uh, again, kind

of I'm going to flow through it, uh, hitting on the major changes. The first, and I'm on page four, uh, section 50403, uh, where it currently says in the existing ordinance, home occupations requiring plain board approval. Again, plain board approval is struck and we say a conditional use permit. Um, moving on down um to the bottom of the page, section 504.4 before um we had used the term family child care facilities. So we are now paring what the statute says which is family home and group child care is how it's phrased. So that's just taking that and then adding the language conditional use permit. So should we change 5044 to say family home and group child care and second family childcare facilities?

Yes, you're right. We should we should where we say family child care facilities we should say family home and group. Yes, we should. Also, this is not substantive, but while we're there, if we could just change 504.4 to 504.04. Yes. Thank you.

Flipping the page to five. Um both of these what you the changes that you see here at the top that is in the bold italics is simply taking the language from the statute as it exists now. It is the way of saying um you know you're allowed the five hours on school days etc etc and then there is this caveat that's now added provided that the after school and holiday increase in capacity is permitted by the state fire code and in compliance with any local ordinance. So that's directly from the statute. And then the next section we did not have at all. We simply have family childcare facilities. The state has two groupings. The second one is family group daycare home facilities. And this is once again taken completely out of the statute. So we didn't alter it in any way. So that's essentially it. Then going down towards the bottom of page five. Once again, we just added by conditional use permit. Um to be clear, I'm now turning the page onto page six and there are no additions on no changes on the language on page six. But I would say when I I it's arguable whether that's a substantive change, but it's whenever in when in doubt consider it a substantive change. We have the time. So

what section was that the change Steve? Oh, so right here to section 504.4, which should be 04. Yeah. We just would be adding family um home and group child care to this to the title to this title. Right. And we will be adding the O. I don't think that's substance enough. I don't think the O is. No, I don't think so. Oh, even this. Yeah, it's

it's the call of the board as to whether you think that's substantive or not. Well, at this time I will open this up to public comment. Home occupations section 504 by conditional use permanent. Is any members of the public wish to comment regarding this change Karen on 144 Pinerest. So, I run um a little CSA business for farm vegetables and I'm just wondering if I am part of this home occupation category.

Yes. So, that would depend on whether or not if you fall under the definition of agriculture. Do you um do you produce on property? Yes. So, you would probably be considered a farm stand. Yes. which is so that's under a separate section of our ordinance. It's not considered a home occupation. Okay. So I would not be required to get this conditional use permit. No. No. This only farm stands we deal with here separately. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?

Okay hearing none. I will now close public input on home occupation section 504 by conditional use permit. Um bring it back to the board. Any questions from the board regarding this? Yeah. Looking at definitions of substantive change, I don't think it alters anything. It's just organization. True. Yeah, I guess I would agree. It's changing. It's just correcting the title. Yeah, I'd agree. And I'd say um I mean if if we're comfortable with it, we can send it to the the ballot. Correct.

And I think maybe take some clutter off the agenda for for the upcoming public hearing. I mean people see all these kind of things like what's really important whereas I feel like we want the feedback on the ADU stuff. This is not as popular and the this entire change basically is just compliance with state regulations. I don't think um like we already had public hearings on these initial um requirements ready to use. So I mean anyone want to make a motion.

So I guess I'll make a motion to send the um amended section 504 home occupations to warrant. Okay. I have a motion by Jared. Do I have a second? I'll second. Second. Sorry. Anyone? Yeah, I'll second. Um, does anyone know when the town meeting is off the top of their head? Do we have to say that in the motion? March 10th. March 10th. Thank you. But you have deliberative session before that.

Thank you. Yeah. So to clarify, my motion is for the nons substant substantative amendments to the uh section and are to the uh public warrant for the public meeting as we just mentioned. Okay. Um we have a motion. We have a second by Travis. We've had discussion. Any further discussion? All right. We'll take a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I.

Those opposed. Anybody abstaining? All right. Motion passes 70. All right. Moving on to next item three. So item three is uh would be an entirely new section of the zoning ordinance and the intent here is to um address solar um and the different types of solar installations that are possible. Um and this is really motivated by really a couple of things but primarily that right now the ordinance in Lichfield is completely silent on solar. Um, so, uh, we know we have solar in town. Um, I guess, uh, ambiguity as to how it's permitted or whether it's permitted, but also I think there's a sense that inevitably we're going to see more proposals coming forward and those could well be for different types of solar arrays um, under different conditions. So I did put together a brief presentation which I could not access last time. So this time I saved it as a PDF. Uh just to kind of run through some of the examples. I will say I struggled to find some good ones. If id spent more time I probably would have. Um so the first examples that um we're going to show are for and these are terms that we use in the um proposed ordinance. So one of the reasons why I'm showing them. So the first is accessory use solar examples and the first one is a groundmounted residential system and this is actually a system that exists today in Lichfield. Next is again this is another example of accessory use solar and this is a roof

mounted residential solar system and we've all seen probably plenty of these. Oops. Go to the next one. I struggled to find good ones of this. This is a roof mounted system. Actually, see if I can adjust this so you can see it a little bit more. This is accessory use. And this is just an example of one on a municipal building. This is an oddlook picture. Looks like it's flying, but this is actually the Lake Street Fire Station in Nashville.

This is um I have it down here. So, this would be an example of what we call dual use solar. And this is I'm sorry, this is accessory use solar, not dual use. This is a parking lot canopy. And again, this is one of the uses that we talk about specifically in the ordinance. And we're tending to see these mostly on office sites. They're expensive, so you don't see a lot of them. They're usually missiondriven. Uh I guess I would say at this point this is another example of dual use. Uh we're I hear a lot about this in literature. I struggled to find a New Hampshire example, but this is dual use solar on actually an agricultural site. This is um solar that's colllocated with a Christmas tree farm and it's on property owned by the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forest. So, this happens to be in Bethlehem. I know there's more out there, but they can be hard to find and be descriptive. This is another example of dual use solar. This is on I think it's Savage Road in Milford. It's dual use, although it's hard to see. This isn't in this is in an industrial zone. Um, but kind of in the back here, I could have had a good picture that got a good angle that got the array and the buildings. Um, but you can see that there are self- storage units in the back here. So, that's what's coll-located on this property. It's kind of half self-s storage units, half a solar array. This is also dualuse solar, although really the scale of it is quite large. it if you didn't if it wasn't coll-located on a parcel with another use it, you know, certainly could be an

example of primary use solar. This h is um Penachuk Waterworks property in NSHA and in the foreground here u you know on the lower part of the slide is the uh Penach Middle School in Ashwa. Oh, and that's my last one. So, that's kind of why I mentioned it that way. I could not find, although I'm sure they're out there, a good example of a primary use in this area. I know they exist, but I didn't f I didn't want to find one from another state. So, um, they're out there. This is kind of what they would look like again if you didn't have that other one there. The other example I had was Fidelity. I think I showed that previously. that's also dual use because it's on their campus. Their campus is just 500 plus acres. So, it's enormous. Uh so, that was just intended to give some visuals for the language um that we're talking about. And so, now I'll go through that at a somewhat high level. Um we didn't have a lot of conversation around this uh at the public hearing, but there was some. So I will hit on um the changes that were made from the last time. Um but essentially kind of going through the key requirements of this again would be a new section of the ordinance. It would be section 2300 and um yes 2300. I think I've got to make a correction in my reference. Um, and bottom line, this ordinance would apply to all solar energy systems uh in the town of Lichfield after the effective date of this ordinance. It goes through providing a variety of uh definitions of the different types of solar. I'm not going to go through all of those, but the most important, you know, we've got the dual uses I mentioned, and then we

talk about different requirements for roof mounted, ground mounted, uh, etc. Uh, and then a lot of these are other terms that are used. Again, I'm not going to go through all of the definitions. I am now on page seven. And at the bottom of page seven, we have uh general requirements. And so these go through the different types. The first is accessory use solar systems. There was some concern expressed at the last public hearing um that it was ambiguous as to whether or not um approval uh planning board site plan approval was required for um accessory residential and for roof mounted systems. So if there's ambiguity, let's make it clear. So we added the specific language planning board site plan approval is not required for roof mounted systems. That means roof mounted systems on any type of building. uh and accessory residential turn to page eight and accessory residential groundmounted systems. So now I am on page eight um just uh under subsection B. I'm not going to go through these in detail. Um but there are also design standards that do apply across the board. So although you don't need site plan approval for a roof mounted system, there still are design requirements that apply and these are mainly to try to control how it looks on the roof that the panels don't you know exceed go over the pitch of the roof etc. And um there is a maximum height for a ground mounted system. Uh it also requires that uh ground mounted solar systems do have to meet setback requirements uh building setback requirements. There is a screening requirement. There is uh you know lot coverage requirements and then we do

note that you have to meet all um applicable codes. The next section is specific to groundmounted solar systems that are either dual use or primary use. So this is key uh because dual use systems are permitted as a conditional use in the northern and southern commercial uh we call them commercial uh service districts. These are basically the industrial districts that are located in the northern and southern ends of town. So those would be permitted in those um districts and they would be permitted um in the residential district only on parcels of 10 acres or more dual that's is dual use when it's in association with active agriculture. So that essentially allows dual use along with agricultural uses. Next, we get into a series of requirements um around how the um array is situated on the property, how it's cited, including, you know, setbacks in fencing requirements related to storm water management. Essentially, you do have to go through planning board site plan review. Um these are additional requirements that would apply specifically to solar. So, that's why they're in here. Uh and then next um submission requirements for ground mounted um primary and dual use solar systems. Once again, we note site plan review is required and in addition to the normal submission requirements, you also have additional information that you have to provide um related to the facility area. It's exciting and uh and this is really because there are some things that are specific to solar that we really do want to see including um you know describing relevant viewsheds because we're

concerned about the appearance and um you know equipment also uh making sure that there's an operation and maintenance plan. There's been you know some concern expressed of gee could you just kind of leave it to grow wild and unkempt. So, we want to see an operation and maintenance plan, needs to be an emergency response plan, and then finally, there needs to be a plan for abandonment and decommissioning. And this also notes that the board could require that a bond be posted. Um, you to cover potentially the cost of any decommissioning and removal. And I should have noted I didn't as I was flying through it, but the northern commercial industrial zone is really pretty well isolated. Um, we do have a I'm going to think I think we changed it. I think it was a 200 foot requirement in setback requirement in there. And let me just double check because I think we we did talk about whether or not to increase that and I thought we did. I'm going to find that. So that is the overall U, but I am going to specifically look to see.

Looks like it's 100 ft from Strawberry Craft Highway 100. So there was discussion at the last public hearing about whether or not that should be increased. 100 feet is double the standard setback.

Yes, that's it. Okay. Well, thank you very much. Um, at this time, I'll open it up to public comment. Any members of the public wish to comment on this particular Oops. Okay. Hearing none, I will close public input at this time. Um, bring it back to the board. There any questions for the board regarding the um ordinance?

No, I think last time Jay I we were talking about like examples of screening and stuff, but now that we have put in the say print approval, I feel like it the board will have some say and I feel pretty comfortable without needing any photos. I feel pretty comfortable with this version. I do see it goes from 23 02 definitions and it jumps to 2304 general requirements. Yeah, I noticed that. I I I kind of flew by that comment, but I do I I will fix the numbering. Perfect. And you als you you'll carry the decimals down too to like the end, right? Yeah. You know what happens with this is it tries periodically it will automatically number. Yeah.

And then you got to go back and remember to know or remember from here. So, I I'll go back and make sure I fixed all those. Thank you so much.

So, what is the will of the board that we want to I think it's Yeah, I think it's uh ready with with the nons substantive numbering changes. I did read that in the minutes. I understood there was a concern, but it's double the I mean, yeah, I personally worried that 100 feet. It's it's a pretty far distance.

Yeah. And we'll probably require some vegetation between the road and that. And I don't find solar that ugly. So, some might, but Well, I do, but But I you know I our opinions concur here in the sense that I I think it's enough room and yeah I think the quality of the buffer matters more than the distance. Okay. Anybody want to make a motion?

Mr. Chair, I'll make um I will move that we Where's the language? Hold up. I want to make sure I read the language here. uh that uh we add this new section of the zone ordinance um to address our requirement for solar energy systems uh to the warrant. Okay, I have a motion by Letha. Do I have a second? Second.

Second by Jared. Any further discussion? All right. Right. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, abstained. Motion passes 70. Thank you. And I'd like to thank Jay for this was this was nothing a few months ago. We went from like zero to 60. And I I mean you did a fabulous job taking a lot of material boiling it down to something that was cohesive under you know we understand it and I really appreciate

all your work your hard work on this very much thank you and filtering through a whole lot of feedback from our last workshop to really distill this into something that is we can kind of sound so thanks next two are simpler yeah okay that's true so foundation certification section 409.

Yes. So, so this was really um this came to us through the building inspector. We have had some challenges where um basically buildings have been built. They don't meet the setback requirement. They've been wound up going to the zoning board um to get relief. You're kind of at a point where it's it's too late. And one of the things that we noted is most towns do require uh that the foundation be certified prior to proceeding with construction. Uh so this is simply amending uh the ordinance to in fact require that prior to framing um you do have to submit a certified foundation plan to the building inspector for approval. So the only question I have is um should we mention um easements in this requirement or is that typically not required on a cert foundation certification plan?

What do you mean by that? easements. Easements like they're generally easements on land. Yeah. On a property that might affect the ability to build there. Um wouldn't that come in with your setbacks? And I don't think a setback is not necessarily an easement. An easement is a section of a property where someone has where there are different rights specified. But doesn't this address all in that that introductory language where he talks about the plan must include dimensions, distances to all property lines, setback lines. Wouldn't that all be addressed in the kind of normal project approval processes? Isn't this just different from specifically for the foundation certification?

Yeah, I'm just saying like should should we explicitly mention easements or not? We could the attempt was to make sure you met setbacks. Yeah. Um, but if we had a concern over easements, you could certainly say the plan should show easements because I do know that um, yeah, it says wetland locations, but I do know that like my property, for example, has an easement in it that basically says you can't build there because there's some wetlands nearby, but there are no wetlands on my property.

Um, we could certainly add it. Um, if we were to add it, I would say planets include foundation dimensions, distance to all property setbacks, etc. And I would probably say easements after setback lines and any wetland locations, etc. So, if we thought that was important, we could certainly add it. No harm in being thorough. Do you think it's necessary to say must be submitted to the building inspector or is that just implied for clarity? May requirement if we're going to add easements anyway must be submitted to the building inspector. Sure.

It should be building inspector or the building inspector or their design or um the building department or its design or anything like that. We could say building official. What is the organ saying? No, we just say the inspector. I think it would because if we didn't have one, we would have an acting one. We would have someone. Yeah. Doesn't that constitute their office, the business of the building inspector? I would imagine. Yeah, I think so. Yeah. And that is the person you do want to have, review it. So, yeah. So, I'll add that online. Building official. Do we use fish?

We use inspector pretty frequently in our existing ordinance. I know that's terrible. That's a valid point on these lines, right? Right. And that would be substant. Yes, I can do that. That's it.

All right. At this time, I'll open this up to public comment. Section 400, general provisions regarding foundation certification plans. Hearing none, I will close public input. Bring it back to the board. The board wish to proceed. So, we're going to have Jay make the changes. Do we want another house hearing? Yeah. Given the circumstances, yeah, it's substantive. Yeah.

Especially out of easements, I think is subsent. So, does anyone want to make a motion to I'll make a motion to send the amended um section 409 foundation certification plan proposal to public hearing on our next meeting on January 20th. Okay. I have a motion by Jared. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Jess. Any further discussion? All right. As to this um that is section 4 400. Um, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I.

Those opposed, abstained. Motion passes 7 0 0. Okay. Thank you. Finally

on the on the planning board's list. Finally, um, this is a really simple one. Um, the existing impact fee statute has a pretty extensive list of things that you can charge impact fees for. And because the list is so specific, um, it has been interpreted that public works facilities because they're not expressly listed, you can't collect impact fees for them. And um so there was a change um that passed in the last legislative session that specifically added public works facilities. Uh so this simply amends the town's ordinance to allow the town to collect impact fees for public works facilities.

And is that the the statute basically based off of the

it's exactly how it's worded in the statute. It's these three words have been added. So, if we add them to our ordinance, the town could then use impact fees for public work facilities, which I think is something the town would like to do. And we will open this up to public comment. The section 3300 to allow impact fees to be assessed for public works facilities. Any members of the public wish to comment on this amendment? Okay. Hearing none, I will close public input and bring it back to the board of the board.

Motion just send it to the to the ballot. Yeah, good. If you want. I will make a motion, Mr. chair to amend section 1301.03 to allow impact fees to assess for public works facilities and send that to the town meeting ballot on March the 10th. Okay. I have a motion by Travis. Do I have a second? Second.

Second by Jesse. Any further discussion? All right. We'll take a vote. All those in favor um of the amendment to section 1300, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed? Anybody abstaining? All right. Motion passes 7 0 0. Thank you. Okay. Takes us to the petition.

Yes. Petition article to removing zoning section 1504.00A. 00 A no signs on Albuquerque uh vote by planning board for the March ballot. Jay, you want to So this is something that um you know came forward and we discussed this I think a lot at at uh the public hearing um at the last public hearing and essentially this is really a very straightforward um suggestion. Right now under the ordinance um you are not allowed to post signs on Albuquerque unless they are as noted town or state highway direction and regulatory signs. Those are currently the only ones allowed. And there has been concern expressed particularly on people who uh from people who want to post signs related to various civic social um functions uh that may happen and um those are not permitted. So the board actually um you know struggled with this issue. I think we looked to come up with some language that might work. So the the planning board had initially proposed an amendment. Um and we definitely had a lot of discussion around what it would look like, what would exceptions look like, etc. But at the same time, there was this petition article uh that came forward independently and uh and the proponents of that did speak at the last public hearing to their reasons. And I think the conclusion was it's going to be confusing to the voters to have two different um you know articles uh you know on the ballot relating to the same issue and what would happen if both of them passed. Um so I think the board decided not to move forward with one but

of course the petition one is moving forward u as it must. So in this case um the action for the board is not whether or not to move it to the ballot. It is um whether or not to recommend or not recommend and that would appear on the ballot. The planning board's recommendation would appear on the ballot and you will see the vote. So yes and you will see the vote. All of our individual votes will be visible.

But beyond that uh of course the board can't change the language, can't make any the only action is to vote one way or the other. All right. Well, again, I'll open it up to public comment if any members of the public wish to comment on the petition article. Yes.

Yet again, Ray Peoples's 205 Charles Bankraftoft Highway. Um, not I spent a lot of time on the planning board, as many of you as you know. So, I don't often think that we made bad decisions in the past. I usually think they're pretty good. But in this particular case, I think we made an error uh by limiting the signs on Albuquerque. It's the only road in town that you can't put a sign on if you're running for election. Can't put a sign on if we're advertising for a parade or a church event or anything. Uh any kind of temporary signage, the highway department collects them and which is definitely not a good practice, especially with election signs. So, I'd love to see the planning board move this forward with your recommendation. I signed the um the petition and I think it's the right thing to do and I thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. All right. Seeing no other members of the public, uh I'll close public input. U bring it back to the board. How do we want to proceed with this? What's the recommendation? You have any questions? So, yeah, the main concern with this petition is that it will change the character of the neighborhood a little bit, probably more so in the commercial area. Um, so we have to decide what to do about that.

Yeah, it is something that is notable. Um, I mean, I definitely agree. There's, you know, there's lots to be said about um signposting and and free speech certainly. Um it this kind of the history I think, you know, I think there's just it it came I think very abruptly and it's kind of hard to kind of delve into where this came from and does it size up now. Um so I don't know. I think it's something to cons consider that do you want to drive seven miles along Albuquerque and there's the risk of you know all the street signs. I think that's something for for everyone else to to choose. election signs, landscaping, you know, septic pumping, all these kind of

clarify that. As far as landscaping signs and roof sign, roof clearing your roof snow plowing signs, there are no off premises signs allowed, so those should not be popping up.

Correct. And and signs still with properties that are adjacent there would not be able to put them in the setbacks. Um, but I think, you know, it there might be points where so- and so lives there. you know, it's it's it's kind of gray area and I think there's a lot to be said and there's a lot that I think people want to talk about, we want to talk about and so I don't know, I just have a lot of reservations with the the clearing the prohibition um because I just feel like we haven't been able to arrive at something that satisfies everyone. So, I think the main question that I think we need to be clear at is what will be allowed with this repealed like because some of it's um the property lines like along Albuquerque there's the part that is within the town right away and there's parts that are not within the town right away. Um so what exactly could someone put where if this gets repealed?

Same They could put on any other street in town. Yes. I guess what? Like what? Yeah. Like what? Like if we get a notification that that there's a 5K running on Saturday morning. That that can go on any other street, but it can't go in Albuquerque. Is that what we're saying? That is correct. That's right. Okay. That's correct. Yeah. And in theory, you know, Albuquerque would be no different than what we see on 3A. I mean, 3A signs permitted. It's just I think worthwhile to to think about is that a change that residents want to see.

Yeah. The biggest uh difference with Albuquerque is it has a lot more townmaintained area because there's the road and then there's the gap between the road and the walkway and then there's the walkway and then there's more gen like in most places there's even more grass in that area. Um,

so I did read in the minutes where u or perhaps some commentary where there was concern about mowing the lawn in and around these signs and whatever else, but that's assuming that someone's actually putting the signs not on their property. I mean, I is that by this repeal, is this is this opening up that as well on the town owned property as well as whatever area that they own? Because I I didn't I didn't understand that comment when they talked about it would be an issue with mowing the lawn and on town owned property. like but this is only for resident properties along

this is this is town right now residents can put signs on their on their property without an issue it's not town property this would be the property that runs along Albuquerque that is in the town right away where uh the road crew maintains they're going to have to stop move the sign pick up the sign up the sign so if it's on their property they could do whatever they There's no obstruction, there's no issue. The concern we have,

I should say I have, I believe the board has it, too, as well as the road agent, is um the impact it's going to have to him on cleaning up, policing it, who's going to monitor the signs, who's going to take down the signs, when does he take down the signs, what does he do with these signs? And if you go to the end of Albuquerque and Paige, you look at that mess, that could turn into Albuquerque. It may not. It we haven't gotten to that point because Kevin is authorized to remove signs along uh Albuquerque. He does leave election signs and stuff like that. Um he does not he does not it is and it's violation of state. He does not he Yeah, he does not remove if you put an election sign out there they collect it.

He does collect it. Yes. Um, but the concern is what we were looking for is some kind of policing request where they come to the board request. I want to put a sign up here. Yes. Okay. We know whose it is. We'll know how long it's going to be there and we trust you're going to go remove it. And if not, they'll remove it. Right now, it is truly any sign can go up and it can stay as long as it wants. And there's no one that could tell you to remove it based on this petition. If this is removed, what permits people to put signs on public rideway?

So, I mean, right now, you people will because where they're frequently putting a temporary sign is between the edge of the road and the front of their property. And so, that's kind of the area. And it's really not public property because in most cases it is subject to public right of way but it's they own to the center line right so that's Albuquerque is different because it has a very wide in most cases if not all deed right away

so the the concern for people is is that if they kept it on their property in many cases The rideway is very wide and often wooded and so you I think it's 75 feet back. 75 feet back and so you wouldn't people wouldn't be able to see it. So if they're advertising the parade or you know a fishing derby or whatever it is, you just you wouldn't be able to see it. So that that's the issue. It's not 75 ft. It's it's a 75 foot rightway, right? The pavement is 24 and the whole rightway is 75. It's not 75 feet into their property.

No. Right. But in a lot of areas there's still a lot of That's again that was the I'm not arguing the point just that's a testimony in the answer to the question of why that was why people were saying there's woods and it's difficult. If we did it' be difficult to see. It's no longer in line of sight. It is. Right.

Yeah. And I'd say one counterargument could be made is that no one's driveway is on Albuquerque. They have other right of way that they can put signs in front of. Um I think and like my view is that there's probably a better way to handle this where we can have policies for different types of signs which would facilitate the um proper um like dating of signs and timelines for signs so that they're not there in forever. We can address all that in the next goound.

Yeah. put put this on the ballot as it's written because we have to. And then in the following year after we've had a year of living under the the change that this gives us, we construct something that we believe would be more favorable. Put that on the ballot. Or if there's no issue, we could just let it let it be. Yep.

Can I speak just for public input? When it comes to the types of signs and the time that you can have them up there, I mean, if they're election signs, they're highly regulated and everybody that's running for election is responsible for collecting their signs. Um, we can put them at Hillrest in Albuquerque, but we can't put them anywhere else in Albuquerque. And it's the only road in the whole town that has this moratorum. I I I think you have to error on the side of, you know, people really do the right thing most of the time and and leave it up to us to be responsible for cleaning up our signs. I mean, it was just like the parade ordinance that we put in place. We had a a moratorium on throwing candy because the road agent didn't want to pick up the candy and we said, "Okay, we'll pick up the candy and so we don't have to take it out of the parade." I mean, that's a got to give us a little credit for doing the right thing. And

again, I really hope the planning board um sees fit to recommend this because let the people decide, right? It's on the ballot. They can decide what they want. Okay.

So, what's the I was gonna say I was only going to add that when I think of the stretch along Albuquerque um having moved here from a town that didn't have that jewel, I look at I look at it as park space. I don't look at it as a road with green space and gee the bike path. I look at it as that's your park that stretches all the way downtown and all the way through town. And that's it's really special to be honest. Um and I personally would have a really hard time seeing parkland with signs on it. I just or anything else for that matter. That's just, you know, um, but that's that's how I view it. I don't know if others do.

So, you would not recommend. Is that what you're saying? Correct. I would I would have a hard time with that. I I'd like to and I think that if you I mean, it's going to go to the ballot. The voters are going to decide either way. So, nobody has to think like me.

That's fine. Um, I'm afraid if as a as a board, and you're all entitled to your own opinions, but as a board I if if if I were to recommend this or if it if it went and that the board is suggesting if we did suggest that it was okay, once you set that precedent that other way, it's going to be really hard to go back and find this other happy medium that you might want to see. I I just

um I don't I don't see it coming back again, you know. So, I I think once once you do this and if the voters decide that that's what they want regardless of what what me or rest of us think, then that's that's fine. Then, okay, then I'll be in the minority. But so I would probably also vote to not recommend this as worded because I think there's a

better there's a way that has fewer unintended consequences than this. Um in looking at the aerial view of property lines, but you're not perfect, but you can just center it yourself to know where the property lines probably are. I think there's plenty of places where people can put signs on their property if they are near Albuquerque and they can have their sign pretty visible um without going on town rightway. Roof mounted signs aren't allowed. Yeah, that's the only way someone's going to see a sign from my property on Albuquerque if I don't put it on Albuquerque.

Like this one here, like just put there or there. And that's the current practice. It's not that bad.

Yeah, I would I would also echo for similar concerns. I do think Albuquerque at present is special. I think it's been zoned as a kind of town resource and I think it's been developed as such, especially with the the walking path and you have to think the majority of these signs um even the signs that have existed in Albuquerque in previous years that we've seen um with the high school. Um I know some of those were making these this conversation is because of those kind of exceptions, but they go right along the bike path. Um, you know, it's just it's there's a lot of unknowns, I think, and and there's not a whole lot of benefit to pushing this through and encouraging it and recommending it. Um, but I think there there might be a lot to be gained to taking some time and thinking through all the kind of steps and what the town really wants to see. So, I think just my conscience individually, I would not be comfortable recommending it. So, I would vote no.

And I'm in support of figuring out um something over the course of the next year. find a new um wording that is much more prevents clutter and prevents unanticip unant anticipated consequences but still allows people to put up some signs for some to like community beneficial uses at times. Again, obviously there's a petition out there. War article is going to be done town time meeting. Um, but do we have to say we the planning board recommends?

I think it's like what we do with the board of selectmen and the budget committee, you know, recommended this to this, right? Putting that we're going to have to make based on the council where someone's going to have to make a motion to not recommend and then you're going to vote for it. if you don't recommend and against it if you do recommend it. I don't think that'll confuse people. You always do it in the affirmative of what they're looking for. But then technically and then you vote accordingly. So you in the affirmative, right? We'd have to if you want to do that first, it would be a failed motion. Then we'd have to I think vote to not recommend as I said vote in the affirmative.

Right. I think the ballot say not recommended by the planning board and we'll have to vote. That's how it will read on propose it in the affirmative. Right. Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion? Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that the planning board approve the rec Thank you. recommend the U petition warrant article for 150400. Oh yeah, for section to resend section 1504 paragraph A of the Lichfield zoning ordinance. I have a motion. Do I have a second?

I'll second for proceeding. Second for discussion. Okay, I have a second by Travis for discussion. Any discussion? All right, take a vote. All those in favor of um the motion, please signify by saying Can you read the motion again, please? Yes. to amend section the petition article to remove zoning section 150400 to recommend recommend Cindy to recommend the sorry

we have presented the presented um petition article we had a motion we had a second we have discussion we take a vote all those in favor of the motion please signify by saying I I those opposed I those abstained okay motion passes one or fails I'm sorry six 160 and there we go that's the count that goes in the ballot we don't have a lot of fail we don't have a lot of those no no it's the first time

twister that one but yeah so that is the proper proced feature for this one. That was the way it's supposed to. So, it would be on the ballot as the planning board recommends. No, no, not recommended. Not recommended by the planning board. And then we'll have the 61. Okay. Yeah. One in favor, six against.

Okay. Um, so I think that completes all of the for public hearing this evening. So, thank you for everybody for coming. I appreciate um the uh input. I appreciate um the board's uh input and um I think we are move forward with these. Um we have another public hearing coming up on a couple of Um, number two is a voluntary merger, right? And of tax map. Do we have an applicant this evening? No, I have the paperwork. Is the applicant not coming in?

No, it it's a um by statute um the planning board shall approve um no public hearing or notice shall be required. No new survey plat need to be recorded but the notice gets the notice of the merger is recorded. So this is for tax map 21 lot 468 and 20 I gave you that in the um portal 2 and6 Morgan Road 493 and 499 Charles Bankrupt Highway. So there are four lots right?

Four lots. Yes. And I didn't highlight this. The lot 2120 goes across the road. So, it's the 19 acre lot. It's interesting. Small lot four up front. That little place where you highlighted. Wow. Yeah. Lot four up front. Um 499 Charles Bankraftoft. Then uh two Morgan Road and six Morgan Road. You sure that goes across the road? Yeah. So, I'm looking at NRPC's site. This is it. 2119. sliver. Yeah.

That you meant across the road. I got on the other side of Morgan, not on Albuquerque. Yes. Tax map. This should not be colored because that road doesn't isn't there yet. Okay. Gotcha. Okay. When you look on the NRPC page, it it has 2120 in the bottom section, not on the top section. So, I just read it as all of it. Right. And we have consent of the owner, I assume.

And I have the paperwork um from Morgan Road Investments LLC of One Continental Drive. Um is the owner of the contiguous parcels located in town of Lichfield. And then it spells out the um lots and the book and page. Now therefore, the owner the owner a for said having requested the voluntary merger of the above described lots or parcels of land pursuant to the provisions of New Hampshire RSA 674 39A. The town of Lfield Litzfield does hereby merge said parcels of land and they have they have signed it just has to sign it and get get it recorded. I send it back to them and they'll record it back to the engineer.

And I come up with a total of 25.496. Does that sound right? Um I don't have a total spell out the tax map blocks. 21 46 8 and 20.94

2.0 555 one I'm reading that right and that's and there are no mortgages on the lots. No 25.44 25 96 but close enough. I don't think you even need to make a motion. Let's see. These will be the uh lots that we will see again in a different form. Right. Yeah. Right.

Do you think they're doing this to just simplify the process? Yeah.

Okay. So authorize the chair to sign that. Well, I think we should make a motion motion to the chair. Authorize the chair to approve the or sign the voluntary merger under 67439A. So moved. I have a motion by Travis. Do I have a second? Second. Any discussion? I just have a question. Yeah. So 2120 is not included. 2120 is included. Oh, is included. Yeah. So, okay. So, then I didn't highlight the other side of Morgan Road there. Oh, right. Because you think of Morgan Road.

Yeah. So, then you're not talking 25. It's It's 19 2120 is 19 acres. So, you're talking about a total of 45 plus. No, no, no, no. 2120. It's not 19 on both sides of Morgan Road. It's 194 total, but Morgan Road slices it. No, but that part that tax map is wrong. That I see. Doesn't belong there yet. Road doesn't really go that way. It goes over where it's Morgan Road is wrong. I I see what you're saying. I apologize. We did have this discussion, but I wasn't My brain wasn't in there. I apologize. No, that's all right. Okay. So, I'm seeing what you're seeing, too. Yeah. Wait, what?

Because if you take that out and add a paper, it's probably a little It's a paper. He's probably a little bit bigger. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? Take a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed, abstained. Motion passes. 700. Okay. Um, and we will sign that. I'll sign that at the end of the meeting.

Um, number three, the bond reduction for Terico Drive from $800,000 to $313,700. Joan, right? And that was um on basis of LC Engineering has calculated that and I believe I put that on a portal. Yeah. Calculations. So, you're looking for to reduce the to reduce the amount. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anyone want to make a motion?

I'll make a motion, I guess, to reduce the um bond reduction for Telerico Drive from 800,000 to 313,700. Should be Tel Rico Street. It should be street. Yeah. Okay. Talico Street. Second that. Second by Letha. Any further discussion. All right. All those in favor of the bond reduction, please signify by saying I.

I. Those opposed, abstained. Motion passes. 700. Next is escrow refunds for Jolt Electric 461 Charles Bankraftoft Highway. $3,161 plus interest and Finnegan Fence 457 Charles Bankraftoft Highway $3,153 plus interest and those basically are finished. I have um LC Engineering that he's completed his review on both of those.

Okay. Does anyone want to make a motion for the escore refund? It's for both. I move, Mr. Chair, I move that we refund the escrow for Jolt Electric, 461 Charles Bankraftoft Highway in the amount of $3,161 plus interest and for Finneian Fence 457 Charles Bankraftoft Highway in the amount of $3,153 plus interest. Okay, I have a motion by Leather. Do I have a second? Second that. Second. Jared, any further discussion?

My only question is, do we need to do these separately or can we do them together? Does it matter? I think you could do them together so long as somebody doesn't have an objection and wants to vote on them separately. Okay, it just occurred to me as I was No, that's a good question. It's a good point. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor of the motion, please signify. For the escort refunds for Jolt Electric and Fitigan fence, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed, abstained. Motion passes. 700. And that brings us to the master plan update, chapter 3, natural resources.

Okay, so simple update, but I actually have a draft completed. So, I am uh just now in the process of editing it, checking map numbers and table numbers and all that stuff because they got inserted and moved around. Uh so I should have a draft to you by the end of the week and we should be able to discuss it at the next meeting. Thank you. Great. Great. I think it looks nice. Two-page agenda. It's on the back. Okay. Uh next item is committee reports. any reports from any committees? Jay, I guess I'll go start with NRPC.

Uh, only that we do have a full meeting of the NRPC commission on Wednesday, January 21. It was originally in February, but uh we have a what we call a amendment to our transportation improvement plan. It's statemandated and they can't wait till February. So, there we go. Good. Um my understanding is that the uh economic development uh committee has been disbanded and that there was a report. Yes indeed it was uh presented to the um board of selectman and um there it is. Okay. Thank you.

Presentation visually. Thank you. Yes. Yes indeed. So that was last week and uh la yeah the 29th and uh so yeah I I thought it went well. It was a good discussion uh lengthy presentation and so yeah so now we move on to the next phase. So once we're done with natural resources, a key next phase will be actually updating the economic development chapter of the master plan, which is one of the key recommendations that comes out of the committee. And um you know, we still have to get through this year's town meeting, but next year or future year, uh there are also recommendations for some zoning changes that we may want to consider. Okay.

They're not specific. they're more general, but um so there's definitely and there's a matrix in there that kind of has all the recommendations and you know kind of what's planning board uh so it'll be definitely worthwhile well there's no reason to wait you know encourage the board to take a look at it but um so uh I guess in here um uh Kim Queenan is going to be coming to the next meeting she will be presenting this excellent uh draft so the next planning board meeting next planning board meeting Yeah, I talked to her yesterday. So, hoping to get in here and uh to discuss it. So, should should be good. Good. Um Yes. And she is the principal author.

She is the principal author. We had a capital improvement committee meeting last night. Um and uh in order to uh get some more public input um and it has gone back to the board of selectmen. They had tabled it the last meeting to get the public input. They have we have gotten the public input from the committee. It's going back to the board of selectmen. They will vote on it probably at their next meeting. Um the conservation commission meets this Thursday. Jim 6:30 at the fire station.

6:30 at the fire station. Um and the lower Marramck Local River Advisory Committee did meet um I believe it was December 18th and they had the folks from Liberty Utilities regarding the gas line or the gas um line that's going to come through I guess Manchester, Marramac, Lichfield. Um they actually I think are going to be coming to Lichfield to speak um Thursday. Thursday. at the technical review committee. My understanding um about that. So interesting discussion

and Kim Kleiner I think if everybody saw did send an email to the board members are welcome to come. Correct. I wonder how with this Budweiser plant closing and not having an easement. I wonder how that's going to be impacted.

Good question. Yeah, there's a lot of questions. Um, and I think there's going to be more discussion as we go forward. So, yeah. Uh, let's see. I think that's everything I have. Okay, let me just check the minutes. I believe approval of the minutes of December 16th um last meeting. Did anyone have opportunity to take a look at those? Have any questions, concerns, amendments, changes?

I didn't notice anything. Okay. And does if anyone want I did not was not at that meeting. So I mean if anyone um wants to make a motion to approve them they can so do so. Anyone else have any questions? I seen something and I can't find it now. So maybe I was imagining it I saw something. It's hard to find sometimes. Yeah I have nothing. Okay. Okay. I'll make a motion to approve the December 16th, 2025 minutes. Okay. Have a motion by Jared. Do I have a second?

Second. Second by Russ. Any further discussion? I'll take a vote. All those in favor of the approval of the December 16th, 2025 minutes of the Lichfield Planning Board, please signify by saying I. I. I. Those opposed? Those abstained? I motion passes. Let me see. 5 02. Okay. Okay. Any other business this evening? Um Jay, do you have anything? I do not.

Okay. Um Kim Kleiner is going to do a year in review and she wanted um departments to submit their top two or three items for her year review. Okay. When does she want that by? Uh probably soon. Top items that the planning board did in 2025 or something. Items of interest. Okay. All right. Did you have something?

Yeah, I uh I've been following some of the um board selectment updates and yeah, the uh we talked about it a while ago, but they are moving forward as anticipated with the sale of the stateowned um properties for the from the former circumferential highway project. So, it'll be interesting to see what happens with that. I was at a um I zoomed into a DOT meeting on Monday and they got approval to sell some condos. They there I think there six occupied condos in Marramac. So that moved forward and they will be at um the board of selectment in Hudson next week uh to do a similar presentation as was done um here. Although obviously Hudson has so much more property. It'll be interesting.

This is 19 properties that are uh currently occupied renting from the state and they are offering the renters first dibs at purchase in Lfield. I think we have three. Yeah. They also have extensive areas of um you know undeveloped land. Yes. Very very extensive. So that'll be interesting. There'll also be a public information meeting scheduled in Hudson. I don't believe there's a date for that yet, but that'll be interesting to see.

Yeah. And what we want to do is team up with Hudson to talk to them to find out what they're thinking about doing with that land and see how you know if we can come up with the same plan. Um I don't remember how much land. I think we have 50 acres or something like that. It might that might even be long. They have extensive wetlands. His Yeah. Most of theirs land is between 11 and 3A 3A Low Road. Yeah. Yeah. And ours is um really the only woodsy section of town. A little north of Noel's tree farm

and it's some on the right. It goes to the left. It's right on the Hudson border. It climbs up to 102, crosses 102 a little bit into there's a little bit of Lichfield. Actually, to get to it, you have to go through Hudson. Um and then, you know, off to

But it also goes to the river. Yeah, it starts at the river, crosses 3A, goes up through um the property and comes out on 102 and then crosses 102. And they met they met with us, showed us they also the town will also have first dibs at purchasing the property. If the town decides not to purchase a property, it goes to um New Hampshire Housing and then if they don't, then they could, I think, sell it off. Yeah. to auction it. Auction it off. Yeah.

So, we're thinking, like we said, we're going to meet with Hudson, figure out what they're going to do, see if it aligns with what we want to do, and then would have to go to town ballot and I don't see it coming up anytime soon to figure out how much it costs and if the town is want to purchase that land. Interesting. Yeah. Okay. Um I think that concludes our business for this evening with the planning board. Um unless anything has anything else. Um so at this time I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Motion by Jarro. Do I have a second? Second.

Second by Travis. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I. Those opposed abstain. Motion passes. 7 00. Thank you for joining us this evening and um we will see you on uh January 20th. Have a good night.