Master Plan Steering Committee - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. Um, like to call to order the July 17, 2025 master plan steering committee meeting. If we could all rise uh for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. See?

All right. So, before we get into the agenda, our goal this evening, folks, is to finalize and forward our the first three chapters um to the planning board ne um for review and approval um first meeting for that would be the goal is August 13th. So, that's where we definitely are this evening um and and such. So, I'm going to open it up in up to public comment and then we'll roll into our agenda items and as you know, historically been, you know, kind of my um my perview as chair is, you know, if members of the public have comments throughout, you know, feel free just to raise your hand and and and comment. So, does anyone have public comment before we roll into the agenda? Hey, Deb.

Hey, Jeff. Um, Deb Paul, 118 Hardy Road. Um, I just wanted to know how come the agenda wasn't up. Yes. So, I looked today and yesterday and I couldn't find it. It's been up since last week. It wasn't a year ago. I did. It's been up since last at least last Thursday, not sooner.

When you go Well, the way I went was I searched agenda for master plan the meeting. You click the meeting. When you go to the meeting, you know this list that has all the meetings and then over and it No, not there. I didn't go there. I went there. But when I went there, that wasn't it wasn't there. Like from the calendar, you know the calendar on the bottom from the front main page when you go down when you look at when the meetings are right there and then you go to there and you click there and you click the little thingy there.

Okay, that's where I went. It's posted on the agendas and minutes section of the website, which is where all of our agendas and minutes are. So, I don't know. I mean, not everybody just to find meetings. It's in the agendas and meeting center. Okay. All right. Thank you, Deb. Um, anybody else from the public?

All right, folks. Thank you. So let's roll into kind of this um summary of red line uh draft chapters. Um so with this I really you know again we've had so many good conversations. Um I do want to acknowledge um that you know we did receive you know a lot of documents you know from both the survey as well as these chapters the draft of these chapters over the past few weeks. Committee members have had the opportunity to definitely review them. the public has had the opportunity to also review them and we received some good feedback from public members as well. Um, with that said, I do, you know, want to acknowledge the folks that did, you know, you did provide feedback to us. Um, I I do know that um the um Southern New Hampshire planning as well and, you know, our town staff has, you know, diligently kind of reviewed that and kind of incorporated um as we um kind of built out. So, as we kind of reviewed the red line sections, I do want to um you know, kind of premise, you know, set the table there. Um and I also want to kind of thank Sylvia and her team for kind of um you know, one of the um major topics that we've really kind of been, you know, kind of tackling is, you know, regarding kind of housing data. So, she's going to be presenting what um you know, you where the housing data is currently lived. Um, and then we'll kind of I would you be looking for us to kind of definitely move forward with these first three chapters. So, Sylvia and Kelly, if you want to go.

Thanks, Jeff. So, just to recap a little bit. So, we did receive some really good feedback um from the time when we sent out these materials to the committee um and also at our last two meetings or so, I would say. And a lot of that discussion, as we all know, was based around data. Um, and so we thought it would be helpful to define some of that data. That was what I took the biggest request from the committee to be. Um, and so the RPC has done that for us. So, we would like to walk through um the glossery that that um the RPC put together that really defines again that data that we've been talking about and that's cited throughout the draft chapter so far. So, if you're good with that, Mr. Chair, we'll we'll proceed.

Yeah, proceed please. You want up or do you want the

Yeah. No, this is good to start with. Um right so there are several different uh sources of data uh the the very overall encompassing is that US census and we all know from the census it's decal so it comes every 10 years um and that dennial census is defined up uh the first bullet there it's population and housing data that's collected every 10 years as part of the census process. And uh so that's the most recent of course then being as of April 1st, 2020. Uh so that's the first one. The second is the American Any questions about that so far? All right, let's move on to the American Community Survey. This is really estimated uh data and it's uh Also, its origins are from the US Census Bureau and uh Zach uh provided this explanation for us. So, I will just read it so it's part of the record. A large survey of several mil million people conducted by the Census Bureau. The process is continuous and geographies of 65,000 people or more so communities of 65,000 or more that does not include uh London receive annual updates that cover a single year while smaller populations received five-year estimates estimates. The five-year uh American community survey is often referred to as an average but that is incorrect. The value provided by the estimate is expected to be true during some point of the five-year interval. The ACS

covers many more topics than the dennial census such as economic, social, and healthcare data. However, as it is an estimate, there is a margin of error and for more populist geographies, this is less of a problem as the margin tends to be small. though for smaller geographies I would say that's probably communities you know under 10,000 and more detailed topics margins of error can be large and estimates volatile yeartoyear so you have to take it all with a a grain of salt these are estimates the decision whether to use the dennial census versus the ACS comes down to weighing precision versus timeliness the dennials value are the real values reported and not estimates but they are released only once a decade and become less current as a decade proceeds while the as the ACS provides an estimate every year but it is that just an estimate so we're here right in the middle of of the the dennial census and being 2025 we're right in the middle so the next one is employment data directly from tax records. LODES represents a snapshot in time for a given job. Facts such as workers's place of residence, place of work, age, income from the job, the job's industry are available for analysis. The National Historic Ge Geographic Information System, this is a collection of data sets housed at the University of Minnesota. It's the New Hampshire GIS is often used to retrieve US Census Bureau information. One might choose to use the New Hampshire GIS over a Census Bureau

tool, but the because of the ease of the use and more dates are available. However, while it might be retrieved from New Hampshire GIS, the not New Hampshire, I'm sorry, the National Historic GIS, the ultimate source of the data remains to be Census Bureau. So, the N the New Hampshire employment security, economic, and labor market information. So, that's the granite stats. This is the statistical branch of the New Hampshire employment security responsible producing labor and economic analysis like employment projections. They also manage granite stats, a database combining economic and labor data as well as other publicly available data sets. In particular, the ELMI maintains an employment data set similar to the Census Bureau's LODES, but is an annual average rather than a snapshot in time. Uh, New Hampshire Office of Planning and Development. So this information uh that group is responsible of tracking housing unit building permits statewide as well as estimating populations in nondesial census years and projecting future population. So one of the things we talk about uh and there were comments on were the housing permit data that is actually reported from the town to the state. So, and I did um I think there was some comment about updating that. I think Bob, that was one of your comments. Can we get updated data? So, we did get 2023 data and that's as far as we can go and that is from the state. So, New Hampshire any questions so far? All

right, we'll continue. New Hampshire Housing Finance Authority um or New Hampshire Housing as they typically go by provides a large number of services related to home ownership and housing around the state. They also conduct a survey of landlords to gauge rental vacancy and median gross rents. In addition, they track home purchase prices by town. And then, um, there's the New Hampshire Department of Education. This monitors school enrollment by grade, municipality, and school district. And finally the town data um which is as I mentioned al also provided by the town government that in can include things like parcel and GIS data assessing data utilities data that may be um retrieved directly from the utility. So that's our glossery of the data and what we do in um the latest version is we refer to this and this will be appendix one any I know that's a lot of information and it may be easier as we go through the red line and then you'll have this um and we can go back to it if you want to as a re reference happy to do that because I know it's it can be confusing Martha,

thank you. I'm just gonna acknowledge. Thank you. Um, can we um some of these although they're great explanations, can we put dates with those like what what date the data is that we're using? And that's that is actually for the most part in the in that if it's US census, it's 2020. maybe um be good to kind of go through the red lines. Um yeah, I that's a great point and I had that absolutely that same thought. May you know, let's um you know, pivot to the red line, review the red line. Unless Kelly, did you have something else? As if we haven't already, we'll make note and we'll make sure we'll have the dates. Okay.

I mean, it would be great if we could have it right in the glossery. So when they refer to the glossery, they'd see the date, but May, not date it right in the report. So they don't have to even go to the glossery. In all of the tables there should be dates. The I was going to say reference by the looks of know they were added the last exactly. So it should be fully updated at this point to reflect the data source and the date

based on what the source is. So like Sylvia said, the census would be of course 2020 and then but sounds like well not sounds like we were able to update the um state data related to population to 2023. So that should is updated in here as well. Does that answer your question, Mark? Um yeah, pretty much so. But we'll make note if it's not there. We'll make note. Zach is aware that all the dates need to be on there. Okay. And the um 2023, why why is it that we can only update to 2023?

It has to do with the reporting. If that's all that the state has, it may be that there's a backlog or I'm I'm not sure what happens and when when uh for example, the assessing department or the building department reports all their information. But we They're getting it from the state. But Kelly, do you know when when So generally they the state submits or or submits a form to the town. Typically it goes through the building department. Okay.

Um and it's circulated amongst usually assessing and planning, but it's it's reflective in its requesting um building permit data. And they're generally a year give or take behind. Okay. Because it takes them almost a full year to input the data, evaluate and analyze the data and then project out the population and growth if that makes sense. So they're okay less behind send it to the state, but then they have to go and do all of this analysis.

So they're they're less behind than the census, but they're still they're never no one's ever going to be 2025, right? If I'm hearing it right, they're two years ahead of the census, but a year and a half behind reality. They have three years ahead. They have 2023. Yeah, they're three years ahead of the census. Two years behind respect to permits and population. Okay. So, there's a possibility that obviously that um the 20 24 numbers might get released in the next by it. So, we'll want to monitor that. We finish with the entire master plan.

That's we'll see. So like I know the town of Londereary we've filled out the form that the state sends us for asking for bu total building permits and those types of questions. We've submitted that back. Okay. Typically we do that in the beginning of the of the year but it's based on the prior if that makes sense. Okay. January 25 is everything from 24.

Yeah. So, I think the reason we're poking on this is because there's been a large number of permits and we have that number generally from the town, which the 23 numbers are quite a bit off. And you're right that it might be by the time we put this on the street, it might be updatable, you know, but it's been a pretty hot market here of units on the market being either built, permitted, or already constructed or in the process of. And it's a substantial amount. And that's how I keep poking on this thing rather than But are you doing the 2023 just educational for myself? Are you doing 2023 because you're trying to keep it on par with other communities that you're doing these kinds of master plans in or is it just because that's what the states had?

So I think the 2023 update was in direct response to the committee discussion that took place at the last several meetings. Yeah, we just we just looked for the Okay. I asked Zach to look to see if there was any more recent data. Well, the recent data is with the town, but it's not from the state. So,

which I it confuses me why if we have the factual data, why send it to the state to be regurgitated back to us a year from now? So from a planning standpoint, we want to be able to compare to our surrounding communities and compare to how we fit in or how we don't fit in.

And I think I've said before when we talk about applying for grants and looking at things on a regional perspective, it's important that we can represent our position in that. And so that's why we take more of that regional look at it which which is let me get to the answer to your question. So not the other communities around us don't they're not taking that data direct from their town based on 2025. They're taking it sending it to the state and pulling that when they develop their master plans or other documents. Yeah. I'd be happy with 2024. Does that is that not an accurate?

I'm happy to because if wants to provide us with the 2024 data, there's no reason why we couldn't put it in. It's not that we don't want to provide it. I'm just saying for the purposes of the plan comparing the data. Yeah, we're trying. There's kind of two things going on. We're trying to be consistent is what we're trying to I understand everybody's position on this. Yeah. But it doesn't change when it goes to the state. It just comes back in a pretty format. We we we want to know say how many building permits were issued in 2024. We know that number. Why can't we put it in here?

So, I guess that's a question for the committee as a whole. Is that what you want in your master plan? Do you want the specific building permit numbers? I think to be really honest with the community, yes, we refer to it in other sections or other years. So to just have that number

because in some way over over time over that period of time that we're missing let's say you have to 2023 data between 2023 and 2025 we may have grown a lot compared to comparable towns in in our area and that that should make a difference. But so the issue so go ahead Sean.

So the issue I see with that is we'll have one data point that's 2024 and the rest will be 2023 because we'll only get building permits from that. So when you compare them you're not comparing apples to apples at all. You're hearing an off year and you're only comparing the building permits which doesn't influence the other other numbers. It may be a different until it comes back from the state. That's the only thing that's and I I just use bu building permits as an example. Yeah. The the rest aren't one for one. That has to be processed by the state to get those numbers. The building permit the building permit number is one for one where everything else is not one for one. Correct.

Population education. It could just be a note then it would be using the same data but it could just be a note that um you know since this data was published there have been x amount of building permits issued in londereerry I guess I mean then I mean once once it gets approved I mean I agree I think having some clarification that even just to for residents to go and find where where can they find the most accurate information because once this thing is published it's it's the day after the day after it changes. So publish it's obsolete already but

um so I really think that it's possible if we could just like even have a sentence for the most accurate information please visit XYZ just wanted to find what XYZ is um I think that that's yeah all right so this is the the latest data now remember the master plan is typically a 10year period that we're looking at so that for 10 years It's it's a guidance document. So keep that in mind. Yeah. So what may be surprising to you, what page are you on? 29. This is not the red one now. This is page 20 29.

29. So this is updated. Last time we didn't have um what was it? 2023 data. We had 2022. And that line was just going straight up. And one of the okay comments were what and someone drew the line straight up past that but in fact that's not what happened. In 2023 there were only 54 building permits in total. Silia I I don't mean to interrupt you. Um you're you're talking and I think everyone is trying to find 26 actually. Yeah I said 26. 26.

Um 2 Hold on one second. 26 on the I apologize. 26 on the um red line version. Correct. No, I'm not on the I jumped to the updated because we're talking about 20 23. We want We can compare though. Can you just give me a You can name of you can compare to the one. So just which this one let me try third one. Oh, yours right here. So this is the the chart which like Marge was saying is on page 26 of that May document, redline document. And then

we got the feedback saying you want 2023 or whatever the most current building permit data is. So that's reflected in the I guess what we're calling the June 24 document. Yeah. to show that 2023 data which I know does everybody follow that um yeah okay this is the red line and I guess I have another one last question there's a reason we're we keep talking about this because we know the number of permits issue but when you count permits are you counting you can have 280 units under one permit so I don't know how you're counting that no this is the actual number of units

okay all right just just checking yes I asked the Same question. I had the same question, Bob, to just ensure that I had the right information. So, this is the actual number of units versus my point on reminding us about this 10-year plan that we're working on is that you can see the cyclical nature of this. And that's because uh some a developer will have a concept. They'll come, they'll talk to the planning board about their concept

and they start their planning and and you can see the planning years. Those are the dips. And then you can see the building years. Those are where there are peaks. And so it's always cyclical because there's there's that typical planning time and then building time. And that's pretty common. We've see that often. And so you can see the peaks here though as what you all have been talking about that growth if you looked at sort of over time that peak is getting higher and higher isn't it so you are growing you are definitely growing no one is denying that and growing at a rate that is faster than the region and so there's no denying it but I just want to point out the cyclical nature. It could be as Bob and some of you suspect that in 2024 the building permits have shot back up and I think that's why you want to know that number.

But I bet you're surprised to see the 2023 number being only 54 compared to the year before 321. So it's it's very different. And that's again because and what you've seen in front of the planning board, you've seen a bunch of cases. You've seen you've seen, you know, all sorts of different uh subdivisions and PUDs. And so that cyclical nature you can see here, but we should go back to the red line and go over the comments. I just wanted to because you're talking we're talking about data and things like that. I wanted to jump to that point. It seemed a good opportunity.

Okay, Jeff, folks, when we're um you to the red line, I'm not confident that everyone's actually kind of even found the page that you were on, but which is Sorry, I went No, you're good. Um, you said something in in that narrative and thank you again, Sylvia, where we are growing faster than other communities in our region. And I really think that's an important statement to make in the plan. We do we make that statement. Okay. So I really want to ensure that that is um prominent within the plan

um as well as kind of you know other components. So if we when we get to a motion I'd definitely be to move it to the planning board I would definitely um you know any you know within any addition but if you're saying it's already in there then yeah it sounds it is in Okay. All right. So, let's go through the red lines. I think that's

remember this is the version that I sent back in May and this and you had comments. So, we're going over the comments from this May version. We're also going to tonight because you know, not to drive you crazy, but to show you how we responded in the latest version. That is why we jumped just now from the red line to the most updated version. So the comment some of the comments are in that most updated version. Right now we're sort of looking at the May version. I know that's confusing and I apologize. No, I think that's how the group decided to look at this.

So just to kind of if that's a case, can we just I mean we redlined this last time we were here. Can we just move to the the updated one? Let's just I So the most updated one is reflective of the red and then also the uh discussion that took place at the the last meeting. Is that accurate? What is the phone call? We have that. Did you send that? So the one we're looking for and please correct me if I'm wrong would be it's a word document two period draft land use housing regional impacts MPSC update June 2024. Is that the one we want to be reading? I guess that's my question to you. Which one do you want to go through? I think there's

the most recent one. There's We know what the red lines are. We did them. Okay. I just There was a question at the last meeting about Yeah. whether or not enough time was provided for this May red line. That's why That's why people got the red May red line one. I I think it's actually worth going over. So, if we could just look at it and then we can show you the response. All right. And so, we can all get on the same page because there's like 15 different things named in here. We're looking at a PDF. 717 red line vision. You don't look at the formatted comments. I just want to know which one I need in front of my computer.

772 red line vision of a And it's the PDF one, correct? Oh, it's a PDF. Okay. And a lot of these red lines are a formatting. Please, if it says formatting, just don't even It's a PDF, correct? Yeah. The red line. Yep. It should say May 25 at the end of the title of the document. May 2025 draft is the very last thing that it says on the document. We're on the same PDF. All right. Are we doing the red line or the May We're doing the red line. Okay. The only one that says red line is the third one down. Am I correct? It's different on everybody's. Like Jeff's is the second, mine's the third, but

yes, red line in all capital letters. As long as it says May 2025 at the end, then you've got the right one. Okay, good. March. Well, I have to extend. Mine doesn't say May 2025. Well, that's because it's cut off. It's cut off. You have to extend. And it then it does. The name's too long. I'm good. Okay. All right. So, we're on Are we on vision? We're on vision.

So, vision. Let's start with uh uh right into the thick of it right from the beginning. And one issue is the term affordable. That term was used frequently with uh survey respondents. And so that's why this comes up here is because it was used frequently with um uh people who you know the 1400 or so people who used not all of them but many used that term and so I understand because there's a lot of ambiguity in that term and maybe what we want to do is because I know people wanted um some definition uh with some of these terms and maybe we uh define that so that when people see affordable we can say this is housing for uh it can be a variety because also people are concerned about the word diverse. So uh we can say this is affordable in this case means housing for people on various income levels and includes a variety of housing and we can even give examples like for first home buyers for uh families and for people who are downsizing so that we refer to various income levels. Maybe that's something that this group because I think we I would rather hit that nail right now and just get it over with because it comes up often and it was used by many people.

What page are you on? Do it. Go ahead. That that I understand that it was used by many people and I understand that people generally are want to want to find affordable housing. But the fact of the matter is in London Derry, which has been fairly built up already um houses are market price and market price right now in London is not affordable. Well, for some but there is actually a statutory definition of affordable housing. It is housing housing costs not to exceed more than 30% of the household income. Right?

Grossing. And if you base it on the median household income in Londereerry, which is 130,8 something, it equals a home priced between 450 and 500. Okay. We do have those. Not many. Well, we have them. They're just not for sale. So, we can we can use that. And that is in our regional housing needs assessment. I believe it's probably even later on defined in the housing section, but it was brought up by a couple of people and so I thought let's just

Does anyone have any that discussion change? If we were going to change it 10 seconds, what do you want to change it to? But if not, let's move on because this has to be voted to go to the planning board for review which will have another kind of sess section of folks that will also be reviewing and scrutinizing it. I think Mr. Chair, I think we just put a definition in the appendix as to what that really means because what's affordable in Windham Windham, excuse me, or versus Candia is not the same and the population is different. I think we just put a Well, according to that definition, it is the same. Well, no, because income similar. I would just put a definition. I I I'm good with it. Um Okay. Because when when you tell

Happy to do it, happy to do it. When you say to a contractor, these aren't affordable housings and they houses and they go, "Well, of course they are. They sold. They're affordable to somebody." And you can't argue with that, but that's not what people want to be. We'll add that to the glossery. Yeah. Yeah, the glossery of terms. Yep. And I can even put a little uh call out block uh right in that portion because other definitions like workforce housing that should be in a glossery. All these things that we throw around which then the planning board hears about it. We even hear a zoning board. We got to define those because they're being spit back at us

by people applying for stuff which is fine. But this document is giving them that information which is fine. Again, they're using it. They're using it, which is fine, but they need to be defined. Great. A statuto definition for Marge, you provided was the definitions that you provided. Those were from AI, right? But those included um did I have Oh, I hear um responsible growth and sustainable development. Okay. So, we made a change to that. Uh we have a recommended change to that. You'll see.

Yeah, that was kind of it gave us kind of wordy definitions. Yeah, we'll we'll see that in the next round. Another uh the second bullet there include responsible spending. This is what this committee um came up with. These five bullets at the top of the page we're at right now on the screen. And there was a question about the phrase include responsible spending. Um, okay. So, not sure what the the group because the group came up with that. I'm not sure what you'd like me to do. I I don't see any change. I don't see any. Yeah. No.

All right. That was So, folks, let's And Sylvia, if um what I appreciate the comments by every by folks and and such. So, let's continue on. If there's anything here that is really kind of Yeah, that does not reflect what our community is progressing. Let's you definitely bring it up. Um, but we also I just want to remind we had many workshops to kind of workshop these items out as well. So, I want to ensure that we keep that, you know, in the back of our head as well. Go ahead, Sylvia. So this um this skipped and the

Deb is something wrong over there. No, I'm just looking at that chart that's all. Okay,

so this has been um changed again. You can see that this says London projected population. There's a lot of discussion about this. So we actually took this out and what we did was we made it regional because um I think it was you know a lot of people have questions about this population uh projection and uh because we can see that Londare is growing faster than the region. We decided we in we what we did was replace this graph with the regional growth and we made a comment as we talked about earlier about London Derry's growth being faster

and you'll see in the next version. Okay. Okay. So basically we're emphasizing that London area is growing faster. This is an area where to what we were talking about earlier where we are emphasizing that point that we're showing how showing how we're different like what I was saying showing how we're different than the region. Yeah. Which is important. Do do we have any idea what number we are thinking is a full buildout of our that's not part of the scope of this and that's a a whole different ballgame there. Somebody at one point said 32,000. Okay. Okay. So Mr. Sure. So, just make sure I understand. So, this chart will be changed out. Is that correct?

Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure I got that. Thank you. Yeah. Oh, yeah. All right. You and you'll see that in moments as we That's fine. Okay. All right. Thank you. Keep going. Um I think this was uh here we're just adding the source. Keep going with the year. With the year. Yeah. Keep going. This is just for Yeah. And that's again uh that's again talking about what is it? I can't see that regarding cost of housing.

Uh referencing the housing section for the detailed cost breakout for the housing for housing cost. So that was a new section. What did that what page are we on? So we can everyone can follow page 13.

13. All right. So there was a lot of discussion between at our I think I not the last well I forget what meeting this was actually but there was a lot of discussion I think it was back in May about median household income and per capita income and so that is this is an explanation regarding that. I think uh Bob that was probably one of the things you were actually I think Lynn brought it up in May. I think Lynn did it. Lynn, that's right. Oh, not Bob. Sorry. Give Bob all the credit. No worries. So, I shouldn't get any credit, but it was Lynn. You're right.

Lynn, you're right. Lynn brought this up. So, we did add this more of an explanation, but nobody in the last round had comments about this. Okay, that makes sense. All right, so commuting destinations. Looks like this is where we added some additional information. Um, and as you recall I when we first talked about the glossery of uh the different data so I think there's some more information here you want. So everyone can follow 16

16. All right. Yeah. So it's it's no one had comments about this so we can continue. I just would have highlighted that last statement that says London Derry saw its share of or between 8 1985 and 23 develop that's right there Marge the 27 and 0.1 yeah that whole sentence that starts with that between 1985 I just think that's key just bold it Okay.

Yeah, that's a key thing.

Sorry, I just have to bold. Um, I don't mean I I don't and this might just be a clarifying question. Um, it looks the source of this information is from the US Census Bureau. Um, the averages are 2020 to 2022. How did we get the those averages? If the census only goes to 2020, this just might be me being naive, but the commute destinations with data, it cites the census. Okay. And so where's the where does it say this commute destinations for?

It says 2020 to 2022 averages. Okay. Let me ask Zach that might be ACS. So those are estimates then. But let me is there a visual that can go along with that last statement 1985 and 2023? It's a very broad you know yes we went from 27.1 to 45% where did 85 develop land? I'm just trying to find see what that looks like. Did it happen from 85 to 92 92 to 96? 2021 to like you want an incremental I'd like to see what that looked like where that you know when that growth was happening so similar to like how we have the dips correct

correct for the permitting and population have correct for for land correct okay you think that's something that corre let me talk to why 1985 what's that why 1985 do you know why he chose 1985 I think years was born. It must have been just that that increase stood out. Got but I will. So that tells me the increase started in ' 85 is what I'm hearing. It was probably relatively flat. Something happened in ' 85 and that's when we started to see we generally know that in that time frame that was the a boom period for construction in general. But yeah we can certainly

I think it's worth visualizing I think it's worth visualizing. Okay, good. Good feedback. Let's keep going. The house the housing and affordability challenges. It says the region added just over 7,000 housing units. Okay. And 26% of those are in Londereerry. I think that's significant. So here 26% are in lenary. Yep. Where does that number

come from? It's in the 7,000 is in line two. No, we Oh, I see the 7,000. I just don't see where the 26% come from. Yeah, I just I can't remember. I was doing research. Do we have So I will find out what percentage I think Marge you're just looking for us to call out what what where Lenary fits into that 7,000 that works. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Very well put. Absolutely. Okay. Good.

Excellent. Okay. Or did you have other hold on what's this possible map on page 18 continue investment in sidewalk network shared youth pass blah blah blah safe road design will help the town line just showing the different so what is the map the map would show different means of transportation you're saying yeah I'm we'll see what what he comes up with I don't know what he's what is there really to come up with

in terms of a map sack there's like six sidewalks in town what's there to Woodmont well by the schools that that whole paragraph perplexes me which paragraph are you continued investment in sidewalk sidewalk networks I mean we're not doing we're not we have never invested in sidewalk networks you think well um I I think that I think I I have to disagree with that because in the survey that we said there was an outcry and requests for bike lanes, walking sidewalks, connectivity by sidewalks to like rail trails and parks and we don't have that. So I would take strong objections say we're not doing sidewalks. I mean, you know,

what I'm saying is continued investment is very misleading. No, I understand. I understand. I I think I think it's a very general term, right? But let's be honest, there's been zero investment from the town of Londereary. That is true. I would agree with that. That's why I have a problem with continued investment. Investment has been in your rail trail. Rail trail. Correct. Exactly. Talk about the rail trail here. Yeah. Well, and I also think in the survey people are asking for these sidewalks and walkability and whatnot. They're they're a they want their cake and eat it too. They want to have a rural community, but they want sidewalks that are citified and and bike lanes. agree with that. They're asking for two different things, but I think

I don't remember that being high in the survey this map to be just to clarify in the plan. It it the only thing I'm stuck on is continued investments. If we want to invest in sidewalks, sure, continued investments is 100% misleading. Right. I can't think of one sidewalk. The town of Londereerry. Remove continued. Let's let's Okay, folks. Let's remove continued. Let's remove. That's the only one I can think of. Absolutely agree with the That's it. That's all I'm trying to get. Continued investment is a terrible word. With respect to the visual, the map. I think it would be good though to show that to prove that point, right, that we don't actually have sidewalks, but we do have

rail trails. And that will help illustrate where there's potential for sidewalks. Well, there's also totally agree. You can improve the walkability of neighborhoods by avoiding four-way intersections. If you have T intersections, you create a way to get past that intersection without crossing it. Do you know what I'm saying? So, if we had people designing neighborhoods without or waste four-way intersections, that would improve walkability. So, I'm assuming there's other ways to do that as well.

Yeah, I No, I agree with uh with Jake that the word continued is not it's just not a correct statement. Yeah, I I don't agree with the fact that that surveys did not indicate that because it did request that they survey definitely. Absolutely. I live a mile away from the rail trail and I have to drive there because you can't walk there and you can't bike it. You get run over. So, I mean I have to drive there to ride my bike on the rail trail. Exactly. So y without risking my life alone, right? So all right. So we will rewrite that. Well, it is our master plan.

It is your master plan. That's right, Martha. Joe, let's just keep going. I don't I don't I think there was your section with zoning. I don't know what page we're on yet. That was a big one. Yeah. 20. Page 20. Yeah. Page 20.

So, yeah, we just um Kelly added this section on lot size and infrastructure. There's no comment on that. If you skip to page 25, no, they're talking about vacant land. This piece, I think this is when we uh requested further explanation about um how we define vacant land I think is answered. All right, it's all good. And uh there was some discussion about so the let me just talk about the law size thing.

Yeah. So we I moved to page 21. So there was a lot of

well I had noted in the initial draft that there were um some differences between what was written versus our regulations. Actually Lynn posed the question as well. So this is this is directly lang this is language direct from our regulations with respect to how we do how we calculate or what we require for lot size um with respect to densities which is ultimately based primarily on um sewer usage or sewer availability versus septic. So that's what this paragraph reflects again what our regulations reflect.

Okay. Table 25.

So there was a lot of um there was some questions about this as well. So I'm I will just point out this is uh again that American community survey. So these are there is no getting updated numbers. Someone asked about getting updated numbers and this isn't about growth. This is just the percentage of single family and multifamily two family manufactured homes. So, um I think uh there was there was just maybe some misunderstanding of this. I'm not sure.

And that's 2023 numbers, right? Correct. So, that's noted now. Yeah. Well, it's at the bottom, I think. Yeah. of Yeah. because I I think at least in London Derry and a couple other communities not necessarily well not necessarily listed in this list you're going to see a major change in uh multiple units in the in the last currently in the last two three years going into 26 you're going to see that number but again we already beat that to death we're using 23 numbers but by the time this gets out it's going to be substantially different to the right side of that chart in London

this is This is the one we we've already seen the updates. No, no, the the this is the one that's on the bottom of page 25, right? Yeah. You were just on. Yeah. Yeah. You're talking three or four units. Structures with five or more units. Yeah. We're seeing a explosion of that in town, right? So, it's going to be really different very shortly. It could be. It could change. Yeah. No, it will change. You were talking about this table just now, Silia. Page 25. No, I'm saying you were just referencing the building permits when you said this is the chart we've seen updated. Yes. Okay. I had I'm sorry. I kind of moved on because I Yeah.

So, we're good with this. So, let's keep going. We kind of skipped page 24. I don't think there were any edits on it. Well, 24 that it's a square box. The second one It says recommended zoning revisions and process strategies are recommended by the HOP grant. We never really discussed the HOP grant. Yeah. and why that's in there and are we sure that's something we want to

so I researched that and what I found was that all the monies from the hop grants that came out of the uh whatever that you know whatever that government money that came out in the co all of it's been spent 100% as of December 31 2024 and when you go to their website there is no 2025 so I'm not sure that the hop grant's still a thing so Londereerry received the grant monies. Oh, the old hop in the 24 one before

and we are concurrently um working with the RPC on developing and going through um developing basically a report analysis utilizing those funds. The hope was that the master plan would be concurrent with that. Um but this seems to be behind the hop would you say?

Well no we have done some work uh but we are sort of waiting for this process and these chapters become more solidified. Can I just make a um just to clar in our when we review the June um red lines um there are a few items um within that section that entire section that I think we could probably look at it

when we review that. So, I just want to Marge, I do appreciate you bringing that up, but um I just opened the June one, so once we get to the June one in a few moments here, we'll want to unpack that. And Sylvia, you do have a comment there. Okay. And I will um if we keep this in, we can um provide explanation of what hop grant is. Yeah. All right, good call. Move to the next page if everyone's set.

Yeah. So, I would just add one thing. So, if I understand Kelly correctly, you already have some monies within the town that came from this grant. We re my office applied for the grant through the state, the HOP grant. We received $50,000. Okay. And we've been contract we've contracted with the RPC to go through that and utilize those funds. Thank you. Page 27 kind of has the graph I was asking for, but it's in Yeah.

Yeah. All right. So, have we done 25 yet? We did. Okay. We've done that. I think those were the biggest Okay. Go there. 30.

So, people wanted uh the definitions were there already, but we've just called it out a little bit more on um being cost burdened. So, if you scroll to the next page, uh there it's right there. I may have even done more in the next version. So that those definitions and I believe we added a little bit more information there. That's what it says at the bottom.

Yeah, looks like 30 minutes. All right. So there there were no additional comments um from the red line version. So I think this is all okay. We all good. All right. Going.

Where am I going? Did you Where are we? No, we keep going. I think uh Sorry, one more. 32. 32. This was also included. And this is US census data and that national historic geographic group. So we've added that reference.

So adding the references in uh more current data as we discussed previously.

All right. Great. And I think that's I think that those were the big items. So now we can jump to the latest version and you'll see the so I've I still have that we need that affordable definition. We need to make sure all dates are on the data. Um the there's some other definitions like hop, but you'll see some are built in already into this. So what document are going to now? This is the June.

You're going to the word document. It says two period draft land use housing regional impacts MPSC update June 2024. No, it just says 24. Sorry, 24. Does everyone I I just want to ensure everyone has it on their screen before we say that one more time, Jake. So, it's it's a word document. So, when you're looking at your thing, you've got PDFs and you've got word documents. It's the one that says two period draft land use housing regional impacts. Okay. I I went to the right one. Thank you. This one. Yeah. Okay. I got it.

All right. Again, the same chapters that we were just talking about. All right. So, this will be quick. So, just look for the red and you'll see some minor minor uh changes. Um here, for example, we page five.

Yeah, page five. Uh there was some concern about using that word sustainable. So um we made some suggested changes there and that is in the vision. So give that a read. So now it says as good environmental stewards Londereerry fosters development while preserving its distinctive New Hampshire identity natural resources and ensures a thriving inclusive community for generations to come. and that was um to respond to uh the comment of concern for sustainable development. So, we just took that out and explained what we were talking about and I think this gets to what the committee and I'm seeing some head nods. So, is everybody else good?

Good. All right, let's keep moving. I in the next box down. Um I just had no I can't find it. I don't see how our policies can provide a variety of housing choices. We don't provide them. We allow them but we don't provide them. The zoning provides them and so policies provides the options for them but we don't actually Yeah. We don't provide it. We don't provide the No, but you provide the uh you provide the zoning that allows for it. Where are which number are you at? It's number five. The blue blue one. Uh establish policies and objectives.

The proper word probably encourage. Allow for that's what allow for allow for encourage or encourage. Yeah. Encourage. You like encourage. Yeah. because we're not really providing be like, "Okay, yeah, here you go." Yeah. We're not here. Sure. I think that's a good

All right. Yeah, that's good. Good grab. All right, we'll make that change. Uh and here the demographics. So, this is new since the last version. Uh this this is the data source explanation and you can see it refers to at the end of that paragraph to appendix A and we've already reviewed that. Mr. Chair, I have a quick question though. I know that myself and several others gave some comments earlier in the week like over the weekend or Monday. Were any of those taken account in doing this? Oh yeah. Okay. just one ask cuz I didn't know

as an example uh someone uh was concerned about the word diverse and in and uh it was used in this way that I think something like lenary or the residents are diverse housing types diverse housing types they didn't like the word diverse so we just replaced that with a variety of housing that's I just didn't know if that was taken account that's all thank you Um, of course, if if there's anything that you see that's not there, please speak up. All right.

I think that was just additional explanation from Zach. Did we um page six? Is that where we are? Page seven. Yeah. Can you tell us what pages you're going to because seven? Thank you. So further explanation about the data we covered earlier reviewed the definitions. So that's just cited in the actual plan. This also this page seven is kind of what I was talking about earlier. Yes. 1980 154% 90 45% 2017% 2010

4% 2020 7%. Obviously, we don't have a 2030 because it's not 2030. Yeah, that made more sense to me than just a here's a block of time, here's a percentage. So, it shows you that Yeah, it shows you that a majority of that was was pre200 from from, you know, 2009 to 1980 was a majority of that. And yes, we had 2010 makes sense. It was lower 4%. 2020 seeing 7%. I'm sure 2030 will be, you know, more than 7%.

Yeah, we did um we did little math at the last meeting. I I don't know if you were already here or not, but when you look at the permitted, constructed, in construction or permitted, we about 2,300 units in the last five years. And if you even use the metrics of 2.0 0 people per unit instead of 2.7. Yeah. You're you're looking at, you know, 47600 people, 4,700 people. If you add that to 2020, then you see that you'll see that curve by 26 27 when they're all occupied, you know. So, you might see that spike again, but again, there's nothing to do with this because we're not showing that. Yeah. Right. But realistically, that's where that

disconnect kind of comes in with this correct report or this plan is that we're seeing some I want to say drastic, but we're seeing some major changes that are happening. They're not really being reflected in this document. Go back to that because you, as you put it, uh, Jake, it's going to be obsolete the day it's published. Yeah. You know, and that's just the way it is. So, um, but more updated than the last one. earlier as updated as we can get. If you look at the bottom of page seven, this is the explanation of the graph that is on the following page. This is where we took out the Londereerry population projection and replaced it with the regional.

And this is where we state you can see in that uh last sentence. However, local data such as recent building permit activity suggests that London Derry is currently growing at a faster pace. So now, if you flip to the following page, you will see the um this is population project and this is the region. We should probably add the word regional after projected because I was looking at that freaking out thinking you had the the commas in the wrong place for London and then I realized it was regional and I think just say com projected regional population might sure

yeah you're talking about um so we're currently the title southern Hampshire planning commission projected population but more region because I think that will yeah because we do lend area lendary lend And all of a sudden this is regional which is fine but we everybody needs to change speed before they look at it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's a good one. So then u but this is regions within the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission, right? So I do want to Southern New Hampshire regional planning commission. Yeah. Did I say University of Southern New Hampshire or projected regional population? I think it's just projected regional population. Yes.

So then jumping to page nine. And this would be an an example of some of the feedback we received earlier this week relating to that uh diverse the term diverse. Okay. See that what page you're on? Page nine. Okay. need for. So if you look at the last sentence in the first paragraph, as demographic graphics shift, there will be a need for for a greater variety of of

of Thank you. housing options. All right. Then again, so page 10 just uh more clearly defining the source of the data and I think uh page 15. Sorry, if you I thought you had go up. Let's see. No, no, no. 15. Yeah, you were right.

So, right that call out box with the majority. Which page are we at? 15. 15. You You went by it. Sorry. It's okay. Right there. Oh, I'm not getting Oh, no. Wait a minute. That's the wrong one. Go down again. It's under commute patterns. If you find commute patterns, it's my 15 for whatever reason. It's

different. So 16. So there was a concern about again the phrase sustainable growth. So we replaced this and I'll read the sentence. While many of these commuters are traveling outside of the community, exploring active transportation infrastructure, transit, and promoting mixeduse development could improve accessible and efficient transportation. So that was taking out transportation accessibility and sustainable wellplanned growth. But we felt we got at the at the intent of this sentence that came from the survey. All right. I think we've already tackled this one. So let's go to Okay, we've already talked about that. I think we've that might be it. These are just so 26 and 27 are the next areas. So that's housing. It starts with housing. Well, my 26 and 27. Yours is a little bit different again. So here

7 to 28. So yeah. So looking here. Um and we're now citing where the data came from. That was a big discussion last time. Well, we did skip page 26. Yeah. With a couple red marks on it. We're 26, right? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Um I remember that you're so right. So instead of ensure it was promote. All right. We said and then the the hop question Marge you the hop grant question. So the comment was that we could change the language to just say that um well that call out box. Okay.

What would we to make it more general? Yeah. Okay, I will land use boards and committees in the review of recommended zoning revisions. All right. Yes. Stop after that. Yeah, just get rid of that reference to I do have a question, Mr. Chair. On the HOP grant, what what I'm just trying to learn from the Hop Grant thing because I read the Hop Grant document. What is the town that we got a grant so we're doing whatever we're doing. What is the outcome of that? What are we trying to gain by that? What is the desired outcome of doing whatever we're doing in the regional planning council? What what is it? Are you asking him or me?

You because you're doing the hop grant, not him. I know, but I didn't know if that's the direction this conversation. No, no. So, we're working with the RPC to conduct a review of our zoning regulations and any other pertinent regulations. and um it's essentially a version of an audit and it's focused on housing regulations. So, we're working through a review of that and uh it will result in potential areas that we can amend our again specific to housing regulations, potential future zoning amendments or any changes that we may or may not want to our regulations again with respect to housing or or policies

or policies. Okay. So, it's for lack of a better term, a version of an an audit. Yes. Of our regulations, but the focus is on housing. All right. I would assume it's an audit to see how our current zoning aligns with the need for housing. It's a fair way to put it. Yeah. Need or not. Yep. Good. Thank you.

All right. We good to move on. So the next section with housing so that we're through land use. So now we've hit housing. So again making reference to the data source and then those recent uh development trends. That's a new section there. And talking about uh again we go a little bit deeper. If you look at um the middle of that paragraph, over the past several years, the planning board has approved new housing developments across a variety of housing types, including single family, condominiums, two family homes, multi- and multifamily apartments. Notable among these is the Woodmont Commons development which includes 1,430 approved residential units with 165 already occupied and 264 currently under construction. Sylvia, it's incredibly important to include that Woodmont Commons has its own master plan and is this is should not be part this is not part of the Woodmont master plan unless I'm

This was direct comment from the committee that they wanted to include. Okay. Well, I'm just saying that if we're going to say Woodmont, we have to I want I don't think we have to take it out. I think we just need to be clarify that I think he's trying to point out that we have no why don't we just say this just make it clear among these is the Woodmont Commons development which per the development per their PUB master plan allows for 1430 approved units. Perfect. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Let me see if I got that right. I I'll record I'll take a Okay. Okay. Is that where you're trying to get at?

That's exactly what I'm trying to get at. I'm trying to remove make it stand out as unique because then someone's going to take it and someone's going to say, "But your master plan is it's going to happen." So,

yeah. Okay. All right. Uh the next page 27 there's just some clarification uh from the information and that uh those units are then reflected in that same graph that we've talked about. So those numbers were just updated to reflect and I did also include the chart so you could see actual numbers there. So this is building permits

and I will give that a chart a title to think I have that in or I might have even cut that off. I don't know what happened there. All right. title and source. All right, let's keep going. I don't think I think that was it. Oh, did we? Yeah. Did we keep that graph in twice? I that it shows I didn't want to show that it was deleted. That is actually There's a line through that graph. So, it's actually deleted. I just haven't accepted these changes. Oh, okay. I don't see a line in mine, but that's

a line in mine. It's very, very faint. Okay, I'll take yours. It's just enough to annoy. And that's it. All right. Could we um just I sorry to harp on this one. Um I don't know what number page number it is on yours. It's page 20 on mine. Possible map here. Oh. Are we not putting are we not putting a map there or we are I will ask Zach see what he has in his I've asked this is the same discussion that we had. It's the same exact one. Yeah. So it's either

make the change to that sentence and then if there is a map that shows these transportation items referenced in the paragraph. So, whatever sidewalks we have, I just don't want this to go to the planning board and there's a blank page that says possible map here because then it's going to be a 45minute conversation on what that map is on a possible map. On a possible map. So,

I do have a question. You I asked this months ago and you did give me an answer, but I can't remember. Um is there a reason are we out of region with people like Marramck was experiencing some explosive growth around um you know the highway three and also with Salem probably those three communities including us have probably seen the biggest explosive growth but they're not listed here and they're really neighbors I mean they're not very far away is there definitely not very far that a windam is what why are they not included I'm just curious um because it it paints a kind of is in Rockingham Planning Commission. Marramac is in Nasha Regional Planning Commission. All right.

I I can ask Zach if he can look at that. I'm just curious. I It's not a do or die for me, but I think I work in a lot of these towns professionally and I just know what's going on there and um they're experiencing the biggest growth. Um definitely not Candia or Auburn or Chester or some places like that. Their turn's coming. their turns coming. Not like anywhere in here. What towns are in our region? The ones that are listed on the list. I don't have heartburn about I just want to ask the question. London, Nashville. Oh, Salem is in here. Got to get it. Oh, these are commute destinations. Never mind.

I have no heartburn over it. I just want to ask that because there we go. London. If you want to use a realtor's term of comparisons, those are what comparisons. not, you know, not Auburn, you know, or Windam for that matter. I think that's all we had with respect to these chapters.

Thanks, Bo. Thanks, Kelly. Thanks, Olivia. Appreciate the time going through those chapters, Bob. I think I think that's a that is somewhat important. Um I do kind of want to get a sense of where we are in moving this to the planning board for that for for review. Um that's going to also include you know additional kind of collaboration and you know feedback. I think this committee has done immense amount of work. Um it's been hard. It's hard. This is hard work folks. Um, so I really appreciate everyone's time and passion for it, but I would definitely entertain a motion if we would want to move this to the planning board for for review. And I think it would certainly be appropriate at this point, you know, for

as we've amended it tonight, it be presented to the planning board. I think that's certainly appropriate at this point. Can I just add one thing? There was a comment from Mike Speltz. Oh yeah. Um he wanted more emphasis on preserving open space and we kind of didn't really talk about that. No. Yeah. No, I even printed it. Yeah. It was about um open space and Yeah. wooded areas and real character. And I think and I think

basically I can read you what he wrote. protect natural resources and ecosystems through acquisition of land by fee or conservation easement land with high conservation value is do we feel that those themes are not reflected in this in any of this current version I think it's mentioned in there it's mentioned yeah and it's it's not given um emphasis and it doesn't say how how we're going to do it which he says specifically that it should either, you know, be through acquisition of land by fee or a conservation.

That wouldn't be a planning board or a zoning regulation. That would be a town council decision where we get into that our vision. Yeah. What is the vision of the next set of chapters? Yeah. Okay. I'm sorry. What? Yeah. That's kind of the whole natural resource because I think that there's a real green infrastructure natural resource inventory kind of thing that will chapter Kelly that's a really kind of good I don't want to ignore it that I think you made a value comment and I wanted to raise it and let's definitely bring it to and maybe even bring Mike in when we start to talk about these these um that part of these surveys especially with because the next topics

will be natural resources transportation economic development type aspects so I think it's I think it's well timed so Jeff, would you accept a motion? Do you want a motion now or do you want one later? Um, I would Bob, I am going to open the four floor for you because you've kind of

No, no. I was just I was just going to say that um I'm not saying we should be included in this chapters, but I think there's a real we mentioned this in May. I know we mentioned it in June and probably in April. There's a real dichotomy here between this push for more housing, more housing, diversity of housing, more density perhaps, and the idea of keeping the feel of the town and preserving space, which I guess you could argue if you more dense, you have more space, but but he could be debated for 10 hours. There's a real dichotomy here. Not that it impacts what we're going to vote on today, but I'm still very uncomfortable about that that clash between and I know the others here that I won't speak for that feel the same way because we're speaking out of both sides of our mouth in some ways, right? It doesn't impact this necessarily, you know, what we're going to vote on. It's fine, but I think that's reflected in the survey actually. I think you you see both those things in there at at a high point. And I think that's the hard part about this committee is to try to take into account both those things, meld them together and mesh them in. And there's there's ways to do that, but you've got to keep both those aspects in mind because both those aspects are what people want.

Correct. Mhm. Um so Jake, I would entertain a motion. Have a second. Okay. Okay. So the motion on the table is to um move to submit the vision the demographics regional context housing and land use chapters as amended by by members of this committee July 15th or July 17th rather 2025 um to the planning board for review and consideration. Do I have a second? Second. Oh, you motioned. I read the motion. He motioned. I seconded. You just reiterated it. So, sorry about that. It's all right.

All right. Um, all in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Chair votes in the affirmative. So, we have consensus. Thank you folks. What is the process? I'm sorry. What is the process? You goes to planning board and then what? And then it goes to Sorry. Was that a unanimous vote? It was a unanimous vote. It was. What's I just out of curiosity. It goes to planning board. as three of you who are on that planning board. What happens then? Yeah. Will there be public comment? Absolutely. Will it be a public hearing? Can I talk as the chair of the board?

So my my anticipation is there will be two or three meetings on this subject. We're going to have, you know, usually when something comes to the planning board, the planning board reviews it so they can review it and then we have a public hearing on it. Um, I anticipate that I will take it a little bit differently and let the board digest it and get some feedback from the from from the public at the first meeting. Um, so we have some of that ready for the second meeting. The reason for it is hoping that we can not just keep kind of not kick the can down the road, but be able to act on a little bit more at once. So my thought is that we as a board will discuss it. I'll have some, you know, I'm gonna depending on what the crowd is, we'll have to, you know, limit times on public comment, but get the feedback at the first meeting and then have a real legitimate public hearing

where it's noticed after that. But the first meeting, I I'm going to anticipate to accept some comment. All right. Um, any chance we're going to email those people who gave us their email addresses and said they were wanting to participate? I was just gonna I was just going to ask that same thing. The the people that signed the original survey on this chapter who gave their emails said they wanted to participate is are those emails put into a group anywhere that we could blast out an email to them?

We can make that happen. Um, so There are two things the group can decide now is now that you have approved this to go to the planning board. One, do you want us to put it on the website as a draft chapter or do you want to wait for the planning board? Yes. No. I'd say what was your yes to the first one? Well, if it's if uh my feeling is that if we're talking about this in public, it has to be posted on a website. Oh, yeah. as a draft after a draft. I don't see a problem with it. That's what I thought being a draft item on the website. That's what I would recommend is posting it on the master plan uh site

so we can what we'll do is we'll make these revisions. Um I'll make sure either the map is in or it's not. Um I I've also made a note to have a map of the region. I think that's a good idea. Um and so we'll give that to Kelly and Jeff. you guys can do the final proof and then get it on the master plan website or give us just to echo on that. I'd be very comfortable not seeing this again until it gets to the planning board. So make the amendments, Jeff, you can review them. You're the chair of the board. I'm sure that you're going to review them with Kelly and be happy with them.

So that's how I just understood that motion is now we're to the planning board. Yes. So like Sylvia just said this the clean version based on discussion tonight will go up on the master plan website. Yeah. And then I'm anticipating this to be at the August 13th planning board meeting. Yeah. So when we publish that agenda now that we have the ability to publish the documents that go along with the agenda, I would put that clean draft um link to to that agenda as well in addition to going as Martha to your point. Yep. Go ahead. Sounds like we don't we shouldn't have an issue blasting that information

include a copy so that they can review it and not spend okay hours at the planning report that would be really good. Okay. I and just to you know when we have the public hearing I'm more than likely depending on how busy the board is is going to ask for a specific meeting for it. So that would be the only topic. Pay attention to planning board meetings, but they usually end between 11 and I know you'll notice we last meeting discussed putting this on the 6. Yeah. It's too That's what I'm saying. The six is too busy for the six. And it's crazy. Exactly. So we'll more than likely have the public hearing for it on its own meeting so we don't have to Yeah.

It'll be long enough without it. Yeah. But I was hoping if people had time to review it and comment ahead of time, then we wouldn't have to have them standing in line to make comments. Yep. I must I'm thinking positive that that many people are going to be reading it. But Correct. Yeah. I may be doing But at least we're giving them the opportunity since they said they wanted to be involved and we have comm met our commitment by Exactly. by letting them know. Yeah, Jeff, there's somebody in the audience who wants to

and I will definitely kind of say the um let's draft up that message to the list to that list serve. Um once we obviously firm up the dates and and and and such like that do want to ensure that um you know the infrastructure is available to se to elicit that feedback. Uh we have a good plan for that. Um, and did I see uh Oh, Deb, Mr. Chairman, you get a chance. Ju just a quick question to to the co-chair on the planning goes to the planning committee. You guys review it, changes as you deem appropriate, then does it come back here?

No. Yeah, it's passed here. Those drafts are fine. But those chapters, correct? Um, I just before you go to Deb, I do want to like I just did with with the draft In terms of whatever you're going to send out to the email, I'm totally comfortable if just you and Kelly handle that. It doesn't need opinions from me. I don't think it needs opinions from many of the board. I think that can all get handled. Sure. Unless anyone on the board would like to volunteer to take that task. I will take it. Deb, hold on. Deb18 Hardy Road, I just have a question because I couldn't hear very good over there. Sorry. when you were saying the um email is going to go out the all the people that did the survey.

Not all the people just the people who signed up did the emails. Yeah. Who you have? Well, how else could you email them to them if you didn't have anyway? Um to those people, are you you're going to give them the draft and ask for input? Correct. And I just wanted clarification. Are you going to put the date and time of that planning board public hearing on there so they're aware of it? Is that going to be on there, too? So, I want to make sure I'm clear. Yep. So, the initial ask that I heard tonight is get this out. I don't know when the planning board hearing is going to be yet because Yeah. No, I I think it's it's appropriate to let them know when the first discussion is going to be. Yeah. So, we can

to our point it could be two months before we have the We can say the planning board's going to be Do you want us to say I guess it's a question. Yeah. You want us to say the planning board will be discussing this amongst the board on the 13th? Would I want to have I'm not going to be I guess it's going to depend on on how you know if there's 10 million people in the room it's going to be hard to take public comment. But if it's in a setting like this where Deb has a question I have no problem having her come up. So I'll stick if there's a hundred people in the room that's kind of a I'll just stick with putting August 13th the planning board will be

having an initial review

and the website for additional dates. So yeah so there's I want to be very clear what this process is going to be in that message whether we have the dates or not but I want to be clear that the planning board will have an initial review. I want to be clear that the committee has kind of reviewed this. We took you know input um you know from the survey having it that clearly articulated in the message. I want to ensure that it's communicated that the that opportunities for a public hearing will will be um available and if we have that date great but if not then we're going to um you know

we'll send out another send out send out another email and you know and communicate that. I just want to be for tonight what I understood it to be is we want to get this out so people have time. We do. Absolutely. So what I would recommend is that we can once you approve uh the final draft we can uh or you can I it doesn't matter who draft uh the email message and then you guys can look at it. I'm happy to draft it. You guys approve that message and then we will send that out. We won't actually send the draft chapter. I don't know if some some folks uh computers or their systems can

We're going to link it. It's going to be linked to the It'll be linked to the website. I just want to be clear on that. No, as long as they get the info for me. As long as they're getting the information because it's their document, right? We're just, you know, moving it along, but it really is public document. Kind of the shepherds of trying to get that. Shephardds is a great word. Thank you. And I did like what you said and you kind of took what I was going to say and say, you know, make sure that this is you can go and listen. Yeah. If there's not a lot of but there will be a keep your eyes open for the because I just think that's important, right? Absolutely. Especially with a document of this magnitude. Thank you.

Thanks, Deb. Any other public comments? Great. So, um, another piece of our agenda was going over next the, um, the survey questions. Um, folks, those survey questions were, um, also sent to this committee as part of our packet a few weeks back. Does anyone have any feedback on them? No, I I just we didn't do the minutes approval from last meeting. I'll make sure we we'll get those. I was I'm too excited to kind of Sorry to point that out, but No, you're good. Um, do you need a motion on these or can we

So, our ask of the committee is if you are ready for this to this next step to go forward that you motion it to get go to planning board for a quick review and then we can proceed with I'll make a motion if you want. I mean, I looked at it. Yeah. No, now I want to make a motion to do the new question. Sorry. question. So, actually, um, so the last, you know, when we did this for the land use chapters, this those surveys, those didn't go to the planning board for review. Um, they did. Yeah, I don't remember that either. No, the question No, they didn't. No, they didn't. Yeah, they didn't go

I have no problem with them not going to the board. I just want us to make a motion so they can start getting them out. Right. If you don't think that needs to happen, we don't need I don't think No, I I just want this committee to kind of, you know, have the input in uh and we ensure that we're capturing the appropriate questions so we can um drive seem pretty good this research. So, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion I'll make a motion to uh accept the the survey as proposed. I'll accept the motion and we'll have a discussion before vote. Um I'll second it. Second by Bob. So open I'll open the floor for discussion. Sia.

Um so there was one because this involves natural resources. I don't know if um the group wants to ask uh the conservation commission for example uh for input. So that's one question and utility committee. Um this is natural resources, transportation, We we do water at utility.

Okay. The thank you. So if that's something that would make sense to provide them with an opportunity to fi provide feedback. I did get one comment or a couple comments. Uh one was do we want to add a category for age that says a 75 plus category? I um what that was my right and the reason why I just I like apples to apples if we do that then it's different than the last one. Yeah. Yeah.

Uh so uh the other one was on number under transportation on number one. I think Bob, you suggested a category H impact of proposed new developments on existing neighborhoods and streets. Yeah, I I think it's a critical thing and people are talking about all over town u especially some proposals that I'm not going to mention that are very large that will feed into two-lane roads. It it is a bit specific compared to some of these. Well, but I leave it up to the group if they think that's

Yeah, I forgot I said that. I think it personally, I can't speak for the whole group. It's critical. People are very concerned if you talk to people in town about people's neighborhoods being concerned about being becoming cutthroughs for other developments and also overloading very narrow two-lane roads that can barely handle traffic they have now. So that is a concern. Aren't those the concerns though all listed there? What page are you on? The survey survey right there. So you see cut through traffic. Um yeah. Yeah. It's under transportation. I mean it is already kind of cut through traffic. Is there traffic volume?

Yeah. It's there. It's fine. We do. Just from a procedural standpoint. There is a motion in a second. Yeah, I have a question. Just procedurally here. So, let's um So, we're past. Can I ask another question about this? Sure. Go ahead, Martha. I'm just wondering how are we going to get this survey out the Okay, so let's Yeah, that's logistics.

Sorry. We're talking about if if the survey and I apologize, but we'll definitely get to the logistics and kind of go through all that. Um, so folks, we had the opportunity to kind of review this. I heard that there there was a suggestion by staff to potentially have this go to conservation and um water. Do we as the representatives of the conservation and utilities committee what I I asked what values would we receive there? Um I'm not I'm not questioning I'm justly asking.

The good news is we meet Tuesday. So if you if I can email this out to Commission members, we can have your comments back by Wednesday morning. Does the overall um committee feel comfortable voting on these questions pending input from the utilities? I'm fine with it. I think any other input I'm totally comfortable with the three of you adding. I trust that the three of you are going to do the right thing. So, and we're meeting Tuesday, too. So, perfect. Great. So second motion second. We got a sec. We got a motion. I got a second. All in favor with I

opposed extensions. Excellent. So we have an approved survey from this committee pending the um input from our utilities and conservation committee. So we didn't change anything. Correct. You didn't change anything yet. So the motion is um either as as written or uh subject to changes. Okay. From utilities. I have a copy of this at home. So I can forward what I have at home to the consom. Yep. And I was going to say so this is on the website as well under this agenda. So

I can also send it to YouTube separately in its own doc if you want but it's linked on the I I have it as a document, but I'll leave it to you to get it to Yep. I'll do that tonight. And then when if we should have any comments from our committee members, send them to you, please. Okay. Did Did I hear you're both meeting on Tuesday? Yeah. What time? We're at 7:30 and we're at 6:30. Six? I'm sorry. We're at six. I'm just wondering if I should go. No, I don't think Yeah. No, I I would say keep it. Yeah, that's asking a lot. Yeah, we we have the survey. We're just asking them if they want to add anything. Be there Tuesday at your meeting. Yes. Okay. You'll just come to utilities too soon. Haven't been there in a while.

Why not? We'll be in the little party. I might even show up. All right. So, our next So, next our question to you all is the time frame and the how for the survey. Yeah. Right. Um and Martha, thank you for definitely bringing that up. from the how my expectation or thought is the same, you know, the same survey monkey or whatever Southern New Hampshire Planning uses as a survey tool. Um, keep it the same survey tool. Um, unless you have something more enhanced, I'm less concerned there. I would like for this to coincidentally, I didn't actually think we were going to be at this point, but it is right before old home day. Yeah. Um,

could we just do it the same exact thing we did last time? August. Yeah, because we did postcards and Deb, you know, I thought of this last night. I not last night with days today. Yeah, last night, Wednesday at the concert on the commons. I saw Kirsten sitting there with the town has a booth there and I thought to myself, the master plan staring committee should have someone sitting there with Kirsten or just Kirsten with a sign saying, you know, this is our site. You want to participate? We're going to have some surveys coming up. So, you're telling people there's a whole bunch of people that go there and they walk by there to get to the food truck. So, it's in a perfect spot. Jake, I'm going to volunteer and miss the tiny world meetings for for those ones. Yeah. All right. Miss the uh

I think it's a great idea. We still got a couple of concerts before. No, I think it's a old home day and I I thought idea stayed here. We didn't do it last year, but we we should have. Might as well. That's a great idea. And so you can also do old home day this year. Do old home day. And Jeff, do you remember? I can't remember this. I know we went to the senior f because I was there with Lynn and I know we did the postits on the thing last old home days. Did we do maybe we've done this and I forgot. Do we do a QR code that we could put in the London Times or people with the some We had a QR code. We did in London Times. Yeah, we did. Okay. Very much there. Yeah.

And very thankful for that as well. Um, very thankful for that. So, yeah. And and social media blasts. So, that was that was huge. Um, to Jake's point, same schedule, same Yeah. same thing we did last year. As similar as we can add what Deb said about the if we can have K if I'm sure she's good if she's fine with having something at her booth. I'm trying not to volunteer Kirsten, but I'm volunteering her. Kirstston, I should say. Sylvia Kelly, does that sound absolutely perfectling because I've already had a whole child and he's about to turn one. So, hey,

we'll do it all again. Um, so you time I'll be there. I was going to say if we're doing it again, you're having another child. So folks um folks folks what that does mean is that we will need volunteers from the committee to staff these what we did last time we put on a Google doc the schedule so that people could volunteer for certain times. Um I won't be there so yeah you will no I really won't but Cam can be u I'll see if Cam or Suzanne can go or I have other staff and help with setup and all that. But who can Kelly, can you reserve a table for us? Sure, I can do.

Actually, I did receive an email from Kirsten. So, if you want to, Kelly, if you could you take that reserve our table for home old home day. Um, and we will also start to staff concerts on the common. Um, let me look into the Google. Yeah, just if she can't do it, she can't do it. But if she if she can have something on the table, that'd be great, you know. And I would absolutely miss plenty board meetings for concerts on the common I miss the meeting. What if we all missed the meeting? What would we had the meeting there? All right, folks. We had a table at the library. Remember we had um at the fair?

We went to the senior fairenior paper copies. We went to the votes across the street. Um that was yeah for primary season. So we won't have that. Yeah, we won't have the vote. That was unique for this one. I remember bringing Deb chocolate as she stood outside survive that. So I think um Kelly and Sylvia maybe we get a a list just of all of those kind of schedule and we can build it out a rough schedule of how this can go. Perfect. Awesome. But it really was Facebook and people social media getting it out on Facebook that really made the difference and all those definitely all those touch points.

All right, folks. Motion to adjurnn. Sir, you want to? Oh, yeah. The minutes. I'll make I thought it was I will say it was pretty funny if somebody wasn't here do the minutes probably watching the tape, which is I thought was pretty genius. But I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of the June 26 meeting. Second. Motion in a second. All in favor of approval of their June 26, 2025 minutes, please say I. Opposed? I guess one last question is next steps. Are we meeting next month? Are we going to go on to the next chapter? We are going to we're going to continue to meet next month. Okay. Um third Thursday pending. Um yeah, third Thursday. So now motion to adjurnn.

Motion to adjurnn. We have a motion on the table. Second. Second. We have a second by let's say Martha. Um all in favor opposed. Thursday would be Thank you so much folks.