Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I pledge algiance 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. Next up is roll call of members present. Jared Okonnell, chair. Travis Tucker, vice chair. Russell Blanchett, member. Minsky, select representative. Jesse, no. Member

Letha Riley, member. and we're joined today by uh Carr from the NRPC and Joan McKibben, the planning board administrator. Um so first up is public input on non-aggenda items. Does anyone have any uh input on uh things that are not on our agenda for today? Okay, seeing none. So closing uh public input on non-aggenda items. Uh we have uh item three on the agenda is a very short one. So we're going to start with that. Uh so that one is uh in Kesler I think uh Noles's Tree Farm uh tax map 1, lot 2321 Charles Brinkraftoft Highway request to start previously approved barbecue food service May 1st instead of the first week in June. Uh is the applicant present?

Yes, sir. Okay, come on up. Um so yeah, would you like to uh speak about um what you're asking for? Sure. Uh may I sit down? Yes, definitely.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Uh the reason we request to open the barbecue early is to coincide with planting season. Uh the barbecue is a feature of agurism for us. The offering provides an opportunity to increase exposure, awareness, and education of the Christmas tree planting season. Um, we're also very happy to announce that we'll be doing field trips as well for the planting season too, not just formally. We offer field trips uh for the regular season.

Um, so thank you. What does the planting season um involve for your business? Uh we are a Christmas tree farm and uh we plant Christmas trees this time of year. Okay. So that's just the staff just planting trees in the field mainly. Yes. Okay. Any members of the board have any questions or comments? Are you doing field trips for the um the elementary school in Lfield this? We would like to. Yes. We'd be very happy to have them. Nice. Okay. So, yeah, I don't see any um concerns about changing the date. Does anyone have any concerns?

I'm just wondering, are there any neighbors or anyone expressed any concerns? Have there any neighbors that have expressed any concerns? Yeah. If Yeah. Let's open up to public comment then. Uh if there's any uh members of the public that wish to comment on the um item on the agenda, please uh come up. Seeing none, so close public input? Um so but but maybe this gentleman will did have any of your neighbors um expressed any concern or anything that you know of or

Well um you know we we have neighbors and everyone has their their own interests I suppose. Um but um we've worked very hard to uh mitigate anyone's concerns. So Okay. Any other question? Yeah, just you you did this last summer, I presume, correct? We didn't actually open yet. We applied for our permit, but um we're working diligently, but um yeah, it's a lot. Definitely. So, this will be kind of the first first test run this year. Yes, sir. All right. Cool.

How long do you how long does it go for? Does it go the duration of the summit? Uh, our permit currently is from uh June till December. Yeah, I remember when you were here in the fall, yeah, late fall, right before the Christmas um cutting season and that was exciting to have. Thank you. Community take part. And do you think that this revised date would u be good for um future seasons so that you won't have to come back again? Yeah. Okay. about that for a future planning so you don't have to keep changing the plan and signing the plan.

And would you ever want it uh to be earlier than May 1st?

Uh I'm I'm not I'm not sure about that. I I it didn't hasn't occurred to me. It seems like this is more of an opportune moment to launch for the year. Um perhaps after we get our feet wet, we'll if we you know feel that it's better to open earlier, but I could definitely use the breathing room after the Christmas tree season to um take some time off with the family. So yeah, because of course this um approve permit approval um basically this approval you're limited to the dates that you uh request. So, uh, you can go narrower than that, but you can't go earlier or later than

um, so if you'd like to proceed, any other questions or comments. Okay. In which case, would someone like to make a motion to approve the request to um amend the date? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we um we approve the request to start uh the Thank you for food service on May 1st instead of the first week in June. Um going forward um for tax map one lot 23 21 Charles Bankraftoft Highway otherwise known as No Tree Farm. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor, please signify by saying I. I. All those opposed and abstained. Motion passes. Two three 6 0. Okay. Thank you very much everyone. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Good luck with the business. Good luck. Thank you very much. Okay. Um so now we'll go back to the first item on the agenda. Um uh an application for a subdivision of one lot

into three lots tax map 15 lot 49 349 Charles Braftoft Highway. Owners are Mark and Sandra Martell. Uh the proposed new building residential building lots will have access off of Hillrest Road. Is the applicant present? Yes. Okay. Good evening. Good evening.

So, for the record, my name is Doug Magcguire. I'm an engineer with the Debet Group. Uh, and I was working with the owners and applicants, Mark and Sandy Martell. Sy's here with me tonight with her son. Mark just had a recent surgery, so he is not able to make it, but If there's any specific questions for the owners, Sandy would be more than happy to help with that. Uh, so what we're here for tonight is, as you stated, a three lot subdivision. This is a piece of property located at 347 Charles Bankraftoft Highway. It's at the corner of Charles Bankraftoft and Hillrest Road right there. Hillrest comes up and currently it's a 8.935 acre parcel. It has some open fields in the back, but it only has, as far as development, an existing duplex, which has its driveway on Charles Bankraftoft Highway. And so what we're looking to try to do is create two additional frontage lots on the property utilizing the 8.9 acres to create one parent lot with the duplex and two additional lots which would have legal frontage on uh on Hillrest Road. And so does everyone have a copy of the plans or if they need Okay, I laptop. So, uh, I do I always bring paper copies in case somebody wants to have a paper copy. But, so we have been working with staff prior to this. Um, Jay has reviewed the plans. I met with Joan prior to getting started. And uh you know Jay had a handful of comments that he was able to get over to me earlier last week of which we were able to address and and get on the plans

a lot of which has been taken care of. There's essentially one item that is a bit outstanding. I talked with Jay about it today. Um you know in looking at his staff review he had some concerns about this and my take is I'm interpreting it a little bit differently than him. I wanted to just at least explore that with the board and let you guys make that ultimate determination. So essentially, as you're most likely well aware, any new subdivision lot has a number of criteria that it has to meet. So we have a minimum a minimum lot size as you know for a single family would be a 1 acre lot, a two family would be a 1.5 acre lot. We're required frontage for a one family of 150 feet, frontage for a two family of 200 feet. And then addition to those requirements, we have specific items, contiguous dry area, a building envelope that you have to maintain, and a shape factor. And so we're quite familiar with these regulations. Uh, you know, no issue with them. I think they're good to try to get a good shaped lot and they work well in that case. So, we tried to look at that in this regard to make sure that we had the right thing put forward. So, the and if I could just point real quick just to make sure we're all understanding where we're at here. So, there's a few things going on on this lot. One, we have some wetland areas of course and two, we have an existing PSNH easement that goes through the property. So despite having 9 acres of land, we have some challenges that we have to work around and that's why these lots are proposed to be oversized. But we have all the criteria of each lot and how we meet those requirements listed on the plan. So the only item and this is kind of the the piece that we need to talk about to see

if you guys are comfortable with this and we can move forward or if I have to go another direction here is the existing lot that we're creating. We're creating you know we're subdividing this out as a two family lot. So we exceed the uh a minimum lot size obviously of the 65 340 we have 79973. we exceed the contiguous dry area. Uh we also we and we meet the shape factor and we easily exceed the front edge because the majority of all the front John Charles Vancra would be part of the lot. The only item that we don't meet is the building envelope. Now, from our standpoint, and I I did talk with Joan about this, and obviously staff will weigh in on this when I get done talking, but our understanding of that is that this law or this lot in its entirety was built with a two family in the early n 1990s. So, you know, quite quite a bit of time ago. And and Jay, this is an item that I wasn't aware of when I talked to you this afternoon. I don't know if this might change your thoughts on this at all, but the, you know, the building envelope buildable area criteria that's in the zoning ordinance was actually put in fairly recently. Uh, as far as zoning ordinances go, it was put in March 13, 2007. So, our opinion is that this lot when it was developed in its entirety was grandfathered from having a building envelope requirement. It did not need to meet any type of building envelope because that didn't exist when the lot was being developed. So, you can see that they have put their house here. There's an existing drainage ditch that

comes through and it it bicts the property. So essentially where you can develop on this lot, your buildable envelope is restricted to this side of the property. So the condition of the building envelope not meeting this requirement was already the case because it wasn't required at the time. And creating this as a lot is not making that condition any worse because essentially you have a 13,000 square footprint of a buildable envelope that is exactly where the property was constructed. Now it would look like you have a lot more land because this easement for the utilities is you can use that land but your regulations specifically call out restrictive easements. So to me just I mean just this is just my opinion but the the restrictive easements it it's kind of it maybe shouldn't fully be a requirement to be outside the buildable area because the buildable area and it's actually said right here in your it's noted as the intent is to allow allow sufficient area for locating the principal dwelling unit and have ample area for yards and gardens and additions and other accessory structures garage shed pool patio porch, etc. So, a handful of those items like obviously like driveways and a garden, you could easily utilize this area in the PS&H easement. So, they can use that yard area, but it going strictly by your regulations, exclusive of setbacks, we would be using just that 13,000 right here. So our position is that out of the lot that we're creating, the only thing that doesn't conform is the buildable area. But that buildable area is kind of a pre-existing non-conforming condition

because when this duplex, which we're not changing or altering the duplex in any way, when this was put in, the buildable area rectangle didn't was not required. And so that's pre-existing, non-conforming with the law. So, when I talked with Joan about this initially, just conceptually, I said, "Look, we're never going to get the the buildable area here because it this bisects it and the drainage bsects it. So, we're never going to get that to be big enough." And she said, "Well, are you conforming with all the other applicable criteria in the lot that you're creating? Are you applicable in the lot size? Are you applicable in the contiguous upland area? are you meeting frontage? Uh, and so we were meeting all the other criteria except for the piece that was essentially not a requirement at the time that it was built. So from our standpoint, we felt that that requirement didn't apply to the existing lot with the duplex, but it would apply to obviously everything else. So with that in mind, the other two lots, the proposed two lots that we have, this has legal frontage to it's, you know, it's a L-shaped just to grab the legal frontage because we didn't want to start building roads and stuff for these just two lots. So you have a a large oversized lot. This is 4.4 acres and you meet all the applicable criteria. You have your frontage. you could come in without any wetland impacts and use that. We're actually proposing a shared driveway just because we think it's cleaner that way, but legally you could come in this way and and access your land. As I said, the uh the the the PSNH easement, the poles are only right here. So, I mean, this is going to effectively feel like yard area. It just is restricted as to whether you could put a building and you're not going to want installing your

own pool there or anything. But we meet the uh buildable envelope for here and we meet the buildable buildable envelope for this lot as well. So that that's that's kind of where we're at. I I mean I think we we meet the intent of the regulations on all the lots. we you know not asking for any relief on the two new lots and I believe we meet the regulations as far as what would be applicable just because and again Jay that piece I didn't realize until I kind of looked into it about the 2007 you know as to whether or not because that truly is a grandfathered condition at this point being that they placed that duplex there and met all applicable requirements without having to have a buildable envelope there. So that's where we stand. I kind of gave you more info just on the whole project as it stands, but obviously we have to address that one item and then if you tend to agree with my analysis, then you know I'm happy to move on and talk about additional questions you might have on the subdivision.

Okay. Thank you. So we're definitely going to have to discuss um the technicalities of the building envelope um before we accept or deny acceptance of the plan. Um so Jay, do you have any comments?

Sure. Uh just um backing up a little bit, you probably saw the prior staff memo. There were many comments. They have addressed those comments. So a couple of items are still pending. Uh I I don't see that as an issue. The issue with the building envelope is is that it is a zoning ordinance requirement. Um zoning ordinance requirements are not frozen in time. they apply going forward. And the way the ordinance is written, it's not when your house was built, it's any lot subdivided after 2007. So, right now, this lot is a conforming lot. It's not a non-conforming condition. The lot conforms. It has sufficient building envelopes um for at least two additional lots. So, it's not non-conforming. But if a subdivision is approved the way it's currently proposed, it becomes non-conforming. So we it would be it would have the effect of creating a non-conforming lot, which I don't believe can be done without zoning relief. Yeah, looking at this with the easements there, I think it might be a good candidate for um a variance because there are unique aspects to this lot um that could justify getting a like the hardship and the uniqueness potentially.

Yeah. And do you see any other ways to orient the subdivision that would make it so that we we wouldn't need to get a variance?

There really isn't. And it's mainly because where the existing house lot is that entire side of the road, you're never going to get to that buildable envelope. And so, as Jay stated, the only way you could, I guess, if you were trying to meet that letter of the law is, you know, you'd have to say, well, this is, you know, my building envelope is behind my house on the other side of the wetland channel, and so that's my buildable envelope. But to me, and I don't think Jay's disagreeing that that it it makes sense potentially. It's just that, you know, I was kind of going off of that it's a grandfather condition and he is not. And I guess that's the difference where we're at. But I mean, at the end of the day, the building envelope, what it talks about and and and it was nice that you guys or not you guys, but someone at the town actually put that note of the intent to like really explain what the intent of the building envelope is. And we, you know, we meet the intent because all the infrastructure, parking, um, you know, yard area, septic area, um, obviously the duplex lot, all of that's met within that footprint of the building envelope, which is a substandard building envelope. So, um, you know, I mean, obviously, no one's going to knock down an existing duplex and build it in a building envelope when they could build it in the building envelope that's already there. So, our standpoint, that's why we felt that that's a condition that didn't apply to this existing lot. But yet, but we are altering it. And and so and that's I think where Joan and I were at where when we met that's why she was like well are you conforming to all the applicable

pieces that matter and that would be all the other pieces shape factor like if I didn't meet the shape factor then we'd need relief you know those type of things. It's really just the buildable area which wasn't a factor when the house was constructed. yourself because yeah, I think when something's grandfathered in, that generally just means if you don't if you just leave it as is, it's you can you can keep it that way. Um, and also as it is, there's enough space for the building envelope just on the other side of that. Not that that's realistic. Um, but

yeah, I mean, and that's and I think that's where we were at. My take is this lot essentially was approved with a building envelope envelope that was only 13,000 because where they put the house it was a 13,000 foot area because it was restricted by the PSNH easement and the the drainage ditch in the back. So it it you know that's where they put it. So to me that condition is not getting any worse. And and that and that's the thing is like when I it's like if you have a grandfather condition, are you altering it to make it more non-conforming and at least as far as where the building is constructed, it's not changing whatsoever. Like we didn't we didn't have 13,000 and made it 5,000. We're we're we're at the same level. So that's kind of where our take was on that. But um you know whatever you guys ultimately decide is you know how we'll move forward.

And how uh where does it show on the plan where what the current proposed or the proposed building envelope? So everything is calculated in those boxes up at the top. So if you look I don't think you have the most current plan on Yeah, probably not. Yeah. So the the lot 49 chart is what the parent lot is and that's on sheet two. And so you can see that it says okay I found it

building envelope is required of 34,848 ft. We have 13,085 and we said existing because again that's all that was there before a subdivision happened or not as far as at least as far as where the house is and and that area that's usable of where they're actually built their the property. Okay. Uh, any other members of the board have any questions or comments? I think as presented uh there's a strong case here that could be made to the ZBA to address the five criteria for uh relief.

I agree. Yeah. I hope that's the best path forward for this this subdivision is to go to the ZBA get that variance. Yeah. Because unfortunately we don't have the authority to just ignore that. Right. But I believe you you could present a strong case to them. Yeah. I think for sure. Yeah. I I mean I I think it does make sense. It just was a question of whether or not that, you know, existing condition and when it was done if that made any difference to the situation. I guess I mean if it if that if I didn't have that like if this was built in 2009 and it you know or something I probably wouldn't have asked the question but Right.

Yeah. I understand where you're coming from. Yeah. Yeah. I think our problem specifically with 502.01, which I think is the regulation, is that lots created on or after this date in 2007, and we are creating a new lot here. So, I think definitely if you go to the zoning board, um, you should have a strong case. Just I feel like we're kind of hesitant and you can probably see kind of the the zoning reasons why why we can't do that.

Yep. Um, and so I guess all I I guess I would ask is I don't know what your abilities are as a board just logistically. Uh, you know, because obviously we have this before you. I don't know if it can be continued and I can go to uh, you know, because obviously I could put together a zoning application fairly quickly um, and then allow me to come back to you. Obviously, if I don't get the variance, then I'll have to alterations to the plan. Yeah. The main advantage of that would be not having to renotice, right? Uh yeah. Yeah. And it all it just kind of keeps us

in front of you as far as deadlines and submissions and Well, we haven't accepted the plan yet, so there's no clock ticking yet. There's no Yeah. Yeah. Jay, do you um have any recommendations on how to handle um continuing or not something that hasn't been accepted yet? I mean, yeah. I mean, it hasn't been accepted, but I I think the board's, you know, clearly receptive. I think the key is going to be getting on that ZBA agenda. I'm not sure what that cuto off is. So, I just be reluctant to say let's continue it because I'm not sure if you can make that next agenda or not. I want to reach out to the town tomorrow because if I'm looks like that's May 11th,

they have a pretty early cut off. I don't know when I have on the computer. So, we just reach out to the town tomorrow. Sure. Yeah. Absolutely. And then obviously, I mean, worst case scenario, we just renotice a follow-up hearing for the board, planning board. Yeah. Okay. that zoning. Is there anything we can do to help zoning? Can we write a letter saying

I think I think they have a strong case regardless. I mean obviously if through staff at least I could say that you know I did want to come to you guys and present it and you know if there's obviously if there what Jay suggested is that I come anyway which I think was a good idea because I might have there might have been some other glaring item that you guys weren't happy with or there was issues. So if if you're not seeing anything major other than this hurdle, then obviously I can share that with the zoning board at least that I came to you essentially as a conceptual and you know talked about the process.

Yeah. So, I guess just looking at this. So, you're going to have a driveway coming from um the easements over on Hillrest over through the bottom lot. Cool. And or originally slightly through the the proposed new lot and then through the bottom lot on the other side of the drainage ditch.

Yeah. Our thought our thought was just that it made sense. I mean, obviously if there's someone that wants more privacy and wants their own driveway, but the the family is planning on keeping these lots in the family, but if something changed or something, someone could put a lot a driveway in that way. What we're thinking is coming in on this side utilizing some of the the drainage ditch area for the driveway made sense because nothing on this side of the line would effectively ever be used by the duplex lot because of the drainage ditch that bisects the land. So it seemed to make sense to just kind of allow the driveway a shared driveway be able to be put in pop off to this lot and then come to this lot is kind of what we're proposing. So obviously we would have an easement codified and everything to work between the two properties

and it's not worth going from Charles Bankrupt Highway uh going

well because we would have to cross the drainage ditch and although although it is a a defined drainage ditch with an easement to the town of Lichfield, it is it does meet jurisdictional criteria. So it would probably be some level of a permitting effort to cross it. So I think it makes sense to come off of Hillrest and I I'm assuming we we we are in the process of getting a that's that's actually maintained by DOT as well. I should have mentioned that. So Charles Bankro and Hillrest are both DOT maintained and I think DOT would prefer to see the driveway come off Hillrest. So I think that's probably the better option.

Yeah. And if the um future um home builder decides, is it fully possible to use the uh former street car right away?

Yes. Yeah. our our office did a ton of research on that and although it's a very very old uh plan uh so to speak or discussion deed whatever you want to say it's it was very clear that they would potentially have right to access the trolley car piece but it was able to be used by this property. So it wasn't a question of it would be a question the other way around if anything you know as to whether or not the trolley some trolley company could still utilize it but use I have seen um PSNH or Eversource use that Oh yeah yeah yeah they use it yeah that's how they get

and do they have an easement through there no I don't think they do I think they just utilize that to not impact the field and it's an easier way for them to come in. But yeah, because they don't have a legal right to to they don't have their own easement there.

Okay. Yeah. I mean, I don't have any It sounds like the only concern was what what we first discussed, but there was one question on there that talked about um you're going to have municipal water and on-site septic for each of these lots. But there's a additional there's a well somewhere there. Yeah. Is that for like irrigation or just gardening or

Well, so originally originally the well was used for the duplex. I didn't have that info at the time, but I talked to the owners. So, it was it was used, but because of all the PAS and all the fun that we're all dealing with, uh they brought water through and they connected up. So, they're just using that as irrigation only for right now. So, uh, but the new house lots would be connected off of Penachuck as well. Yeah, I don't see any issue going to zoning. I know it's a timing thing for you. I'm sorry about that, but I get it. It's following the path and

I mean, we knew we knew it was a potential issue. We just thought we might have been okay, but that's all right. You know, we'll uh just one extra step hopefully. Yeah, this is definitely a very tricky uh lot to subdivide.

It is. And and I mean I think I think the thing is is it's like the family when they when they look at it, they're like this property is humongous. I mean like what do you mean two two new lots on this huge it's like because when you go out there the the PSNH easement is fully usable. I mean it has been usable. It's it's a farmer's field, you know, through the whole thing. So there's no delineated line that's like this is a no use like it looks like on the plan. So effectively they're going to use that as yard area and you know they'll follow the rules of the PSNH and they'll still be able to maintain their poles and everything but it it will feel much more usable than what the the little shape shows that it is.

Yeah. And that's a big easement for what's currently a very small um power line. But it could theoretic. You only have two pole sets in there. I mean, it's not very Well, but they have the right to expand. Yep. They have the right to expand that. Um what's going to happen, but you never know. Power power power the power grid's very is strained in some ways. So, there's always a chance that could get expanded. And yeah, I was I saw them cut the trees down in there a while ago. I was slightly confused because of how much wetlands there were. Yeah. Um but yeah. Well, but we can make it a priority to get get you on our agenda for as quickly as we can after year.

I appreciate that. Yeah. And I'm glad I came to just at least get your guys feedback and um obviously if the zoning board's going to act on their own accord anyway, but I can at least let them know that I came to you and there wasn't any other concerns as far as like questioning whether or not these lots conform. Jay's reviewed them. I don't think there's any other questions as far as conformity. So, I can at least say that in my my criteria. And with the drainage ditch, I wouldn't expect anyone to use um anything past that drainage ditch for any uses of that duplex. So, I think it's definitely a very good case for the ZBA.

Okay. Well, thank you for your time and I'll make a another trip to and I'll hopefully see you after that. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Should we do anything formally to formalize not accepting or you should take a vote not to accept? Yes. Okay. So on the basis of the zoning provision. Yeah. Sorry. Which one is this? That's the first on the

Yeah. Um Mr. Mr. Chair, I make motion that we not accept the application as complete for a subdivision of one lot into three for tax map 15, lot 49, 49 Charles Bankra Highway, uh for reasons of uh zoning zoning information. Okay, I'll second. Okay, we have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? Okay, all those in favor of not accepting the uh application, please signify by saying I.

I. All those opposed abstained. Okay. Uh motion passes uh 600 to not accept. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Sorry.

Okay. Okay, next on our agenda is uh a minor site plan application for a 840q ft garage at tax map 20, lot 18-3 uh 640 or 461 Charles Bankcraft Highway. The owner is 461 Charles Bank Highway LLC. Eric Gibbons is applicant present here here ready to go. Um good evening Mr. Chairman, members of the board for the record Ethan Beals, project manager at Hainer Swanson, Newman's 3 Congress Street Nashville, New Hampshire. I'm here tonight representing Eric Gibbons who's a longtime Lichfield resident and owner of Jolt Electric and HVAC, local electrical and HVAC contractor in Southern New Hampshire for over 30 years now. And as background, a few of you may remember back in I think it was early 2024, um we appeared before this board seeking approval to construct what we called at the time a mixeduse commercial residential um development upon the subject property in accordance with the Lichfield zoning ordinance. Um, again, just to walk you through the property a little bit, it's located at 461 Charles Bankraftoft Highway, known to Lichfield Assessor's Office as map 20, lot 18-3. Overall measures 3.4 give or take acres in size with about 1.4 acres in the far back side of the site existing as wetlands that were flagged by GOV environmental services and later field located by our office. sites abudded by undeveloped property to the south. Uh residential and commercial property to the northeast. Of course, right across the Charles Bank Highway is Mel's Funway. Um property is located in Lichfield's NC Northern Commercial Zoning District. Since our approval in 2024, uh the commercial contractor's building, um which is really a combination shop and office building for Jolt, um has been constructed. at this exact time. If you drove by the property today, the residential dwelling has not yet been constructed. Um, but of course, if you were to drive by it, you'll see a

flat pad where that building would be um such that it can be built in the future and that is still in the plans at some point in time. Um, which was which was something that we had represented to this board at that time.

Um, landscaping has been installed and really the remainder of the lot has been loaned and seated and established a healthy stand of grass. Um, the new shop building has really been a gamecher for Jolt and their business. And if I'm allowed to say so, uh, after recently touring it, um, really everything you could see a local contractor wanting for a vision as their business grows here in Litfield, New Hampshire. And again, I'll compliment myself. I think the site looks phenomenal, too. That's that that might be hearsay. Um, accordingly, as part of that growth, um, you know, Eric had said to me maybe two months ago, you know, I'd never designed a site before and we did our very best in trying to plan for every and all future needs, but once it gets built, hey, there's a couple things I'd like to tweak and and make changes to. Um, and that's why we're seeking a minor site plan approval um, here tonight. It is proposed um, to construct a small 840 square ft garage. Um the garage will be adjacent and much smaller than the existing shop building. It'll be cold storage for equipment, tools, supplies, other building materials for the building. Um additionally, we're looking to construct four parking spaces um on the site. These will help provide a few additional parking spaces for employees, customers. Jolt owns a couple of utility trailers, pieces like that. Um both of these amendments um these site plan amendments will complement the existing use and don't really change the spirit and intent of the original approval original site plan. Additional traffic beyond what was originally contemplated in the traffic study for the project is not contemplated as this has no material change on employees um customers etc. The existing utilities it's really only an electrical service um for lighting in the new building. It's not proposed to heat the garage um or have any any sort of plumbing. So, existing utilities exist on the site with sufficient capacity to service the building. Um, I did include a storm water letter as part of my submitt. Briefly summarize that if

that's okay with the board. Um, the the the additional kind of I'll call them the two areas really only adds just over 2,000 square feet of imperous um cover to the site. storm water from this site, the immediate sight site to the south, and then the Finnegan fence lot just south there really flows into an existing storm water basin that was designed to handle runoff from all three of the lots when we did the original subdivision. Um, and that basin of course provides qualitative and quantitative treatment of storm water runoff from all three lots. Um, including a future development on the middle lot. It's it's coming at some point. Um, the additional 2,000 ft of imperous surface represents about 0.6% of the total contributing area to that storm water practice. The letter concludes stating that it's our professional opinion the practice has sufficient capacity to handle this small increase in impervious cover without having a detrimental impact on downstream water bodies. Um, just in summary, we believe our site plan amendment conforms to the Litzfield site plan regulations. It'll continue to help Jolt operate their business for both the near and long-term future on the site. Um it will it will complement the existing use of the site already and be happy to answer any questions from the board.

Okay. Thank you. So um first step is we need to determine um whether to accept the application for completeness. Um Jay, do you have any comments? I I think the application is really very straightforward. It is a minor site plan. it does meet that criteria. So, several of the requirements don't apply. Um, but otherwise, I think it's fully um ready for acceptance. Okay. Um, so and for the minor sub site plan, um, do you have to notify Butters? Yes, we did. So, notified and fees paid.

Okay. Um, so in that case, would someone like to make a motion to accept the plan for completeness? Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we accept this site plan, minor site plan as complete for 461 Charles 461 Charles Bankraft Highway tax map 20, lot 18-3. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of accepting the um site minor site plan as complete, please signify by saying I. I.

All All those opposed abstained. Okay. Motion passes 600. Um okay. So, uh I think it's safe to say that there's no regional impact. Um and uh yeah, so I think you you already presented just about everything. Um so um does the board have any uh questions or comments?

Okay. Uh uh are there any members of the public that wish to comment on the application? I'm only seeing uh staff. Um so I'll close public input. Um, so yeah, this is pretty straightforward. Um, yeah, just looking at it. Um, there's already room. Is there already room to not need to regrade anything for the most part for the four additional parking spaces?

Um, there's I would classify very minor regrading. Um, if you were to kind of go back in that corner, it does have a slight slope. If you remember, there used to be a very big hill in the back and that hill's kind of come way down as we prep all three lots for development. Um, so there is still a little bit of kind of remaining slope there, but it's just more about kind of pulling grades and massaging. So again, nothing that couldn't really be done by a minor excavator. Sounds good. And will any regrading be required for the uh garage?

Sup, super minor. Um, of course, we want to create a building pad there before we pour a concrete slab. Um, there is a little swale in that corner of the site that pulls water again from that back portion of the the um the site in and then it pulls it up and around uh the exist the proposed dwelling out front. Um, and so it's just simply again massaging grades pieces that it it'll I would hope that both of these things could be completed in in a very short construction once they they get construction started. Small equipment, mini excavator, maybe maybe like a skid steer and or a small dozer, but it's really just prep the two and then pave and or pour the concrete and then they're off to the races.

Okay. Thank you. Um so do any other me uh any other questions or comments? Um so there would probably be no conditions except no conditions or yeah just standard conditions. So this is this would require um conditionally approving with standard the town standard conditions. Uh would someone like to uh make a motion to accept or to um approve the conditionally approve the plan?

Mr. Chair, I make a motion to conditionally approve the Monite plan application for the 840 foot garage at tax map 20 lot 183461 Charles Bankraftoft Highway owned by Eric Gibbons. Um 461 CBH LLC. Um standard to standard subject to standard uh conditions of approval by the town. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Okay, we have a second by Jesse. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying I. I. All those opposed abstain. Motion passes 600. Thank you all. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So um that is it for the main items of the agenda. Uh next we have committee reports. Um any committee reports? Uh no last time you weren't prepared to speak for them. I'm ready.

Um on um your committee obviously your board but I'm also um working towards the circumventual highway exploratory committee. that's starting next week and we have from your board Letha Riley will be attending. Um she's got a good background to explore what we're going to be able to look at with this um planned and we have um a very good board capable of of doing everything we need to do to find out what's available to us in that capacity. um also on the 250th birthday celebration city and they are moving very quickly towards being ready for their July event. Um there's going to be a hot air balloon. There will be fireworks. There will be a petting zoo and hay rides. Um there will be six um trucks, food trucks, and Romanos is coming in and is using the um the snack shack uh to to prepare some food and to serve some food up too. Um and we're going to have a stage that all day long is going to have either music or is going to have children dancing on it or a talent show for the town. Have a pie I don't think we're having a pie eating contest. I think we're having a a pie making contest in the chili cook off. Um we have a lot going on um in the 250th and it's headed under the heritage committee which I am a member on uh the as a selectman's representative as well and they are working um on getting the library to come in and do some historical presentations of some of the older properties in town. So, when that gets gets going, I think that's going to be a really interesting series. The historical society is also going to be doing um some things in the morning before July 25th um to have the museum up in a special 1776 room ready for

that. Um they're talking about something to do on the musterfield and they're prepare uh preparing a walk through from the LMS GMS to the the old town hall in the church. And that's enough to keep me tired. Okay, thank you. Any other committee reports?

Okay. Um, so next we have the April 7th, 2026 minutes. Has everyone had a chance to review these? I think I need to look through it a little more. The only thing I saw first was just really minor. Um, I think it was, where was it? Bottom of page seven, just real bottom. It said, um, next available planning board meeting would be Saturday, May 7th. So, uh, just change that to Tuesday, May 5th. Thank you. That's written correctly, but just change Saturday to Tuesday. That's all I caught. That was all I caught. I was Okay, great.

Because the May 2nd sitewalk. Yeah, the sitewalk. Yeah, like two Saturdays in a week. Technically that is a meeting, right? Yes. Yeah. Yes. So in some ways I would list that as the under upcoming meetings on these minutes. You got Tuesday, April 21st. You had Saturday, May 2nd as a sitewalk and then Tuesday, May 5th as a normal meeting. Ideally, some of the people that were here to speak publicly about that would join that meeting. When we did Telerico, there was a lot of abutters that were there and walked through with us

so they had a better understanding of where things were going to be. It's helpful for everybody. It's very helpful. Yeah. So maybe if you could adjust the meeting minutes to just reflect that in case someone goes back and they see that then they can they can see it in a second place where we're going to be officially meeting. Yeah. And I hope that the um the sidewalk provides a sense of scale that you can't get on plants. Yeah. Because it's a big lot when you just look over at it. You don't get the perspective. do you can stand in the middle of it but not knowing what's going. Yeah. Having things like corn or sust will be hugely helpful.

I don't think the plans do the do justice for um how much of the where the the water goes through over there with the with all the wooded area dense. It's pretty it's pretty dense. And I'm thinking that when we're scanning out there that the people that are on the other side of it, hoping they get a sense of of protectiveness that they didn't have when they were looking at the plans. Yeah, agreed. But, you know, we'll take that feedback and appreciate you doing it. I think it's great to do. I'm excited for my first walk.

It's a blast. Definitely the way tick tick bring the family. It's great. Yeah. Yeah. Because this Yeah. This that plan is going to be one that will be a it will change the feel of that part of town for sure. And hopefully it's in a good way

for the most part. Like obviously Mr. pays great attention to detail from everything that you could see at Rose Meadow. um that there are there are places there for the people that live there um to have a good quality of life, storage areas and all kinds of things and open open land. I mean that's not a mixeduse facility. I mean I think he can he could put something in the front of it but that's simply apartments a commercial apartment buildings uh town houses and and that still has a quality of life to it that we want. Once these people move there they become our people, right? Okay. Any further uh amendments to the minutes? Okay. Um would someone like to make a motion to approve them as amended?

So moved. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any further discussion? Okay. All those in favor of of condition of um approving the minutes as amended for April 7, 2026, please signify by saying I. I. All those opposed abstained. Motion passes 6 0. Okay. Lastly, we have any other business. Do we have any other business? I just have um a NRPC bill to you for you to sign, but you can do that outside of the meeting.

Okay. I guess anything else before we um adjourn? Hopefully everybody got an invitation to NRPC's annual forum, had a chance to sign up if you were interested. I think there's one seat left. So if you haven't

Okay. In that case, uh would someone like to make a motion to adjurnn? So moved. You have a motion to adjurnn. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion, a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adjourning, please signify by saying I. I. Oppose abstained. Motion passes 600 Z. Okay. Thanks for watching the uh April 21st, 2026 meeting of the planning board. The next meeting will be on the first Tuesday of May and a sitewalk on uh the Saturday before that. Yeah. May second. And it's at 9ine, right?

Uh yes, I think it's at 9. Yeah. Okay, thank you. It's very efficient. Three, we have three items. Just just under an hour. Everyone Bring it.