Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening everybody. Welcome this evening to the April 1st, 2026 Town of London Planning Board Meeting. If we could all rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Okay, just some before we get into administrative board work, just some housekeeping items here. Yeah,

the Woodmont PUB annual update, which is under other business, will kick us off this evening. Um, so and then we'll officially kind of bring this um or kind of Yeah, Kelly, I'm sorry. We do need to do this continuence on Mr. Chair. Yeah, Arthur. Uh yeah, I'm going to appoint Jake uh Jason to vote for uh Jake. I will appoint Jason Knights to um to take Jake Butler's spot. Give us seven voting members, Mr. Chair. And because it's April 1st, um Jason is now the chair.

Meeting adjourned. Okay, just very quickly for those that are here for the public hearing um on for subdivision uh goshopia for the precopio public hearing uh that is going to be continued um from this evening to next week. So, we will be hearing that next um on April 8th for both all three all three items A through C under old business.

There we go. Thanks, Kelly. Sorry, I usually have this right in front of me. And we need to officially move that. Yep. Could I get a motion to move? So moved. Second. All in favor of moving for continuing the public hearing for the propio for the you know I'm just going to read all three. Oh okay.

For the public hearing for an application of formula review of subdivision of map 10 lot 41 to create a new 12 acre lot on Pillsbury and Gilchrist Road 15 Pillsbury Road. Map 10, lot 41, zone AR agriculture residential area 1, Woodmont Commons Plane Unit development for Copio Companies and Pillsbury Reality Development LLC, the owner, which has been continued from December 3rd, 2025, January 7th, 2026, and April 1st, 2026. And then again, the applicants requested a continuance for two April 8th. And that is for all three under old business. And I have a motion and a second. All in favor with roll call votes starting with an

Ann Champ I. Javanni Bari I. Tony D I. Just a note there's eight voting members total here. So uh Mr. Rug Arthur Rug votes I. John Farrell I. Jason I Sean Faber I

and the chair votes on the affirmative. This plan has been continued to April 8th 2026 next Wednesday. This is your um only notice of the continuence. Okay, moving along. So, we'll kick off the Woodmont PUB annual update. Who from Woodmont is presenting or would love to kick us off. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh Kevin Smith, consultant with Pillsbury Realy Development, owners of Woodmont Commons. Um there's two portions of the presentation this evening and Lucy Gallow who has uh annually done the fiscal impact study as is required under the PUD master plan uh is with us via Zoom tonight and uh I'll let her present this portion of the uh presentations first.

Welcome. Good evening. I'm on the team's call. Can everyone hear me? Okay. Yes. Yes.

Great. Well, it's it's good to be back. I'm here earlier than I have been the past few years because the town did a fantastic job in getting all the required information to me uh much earlier than usual. I want to thank a big thank you to Kelly Coron, Sarah Journey Lee, Justin Campo, Lisa Muse, and Auntie Small. Um their help was the cooperation was invaluable. As usual, I'm just going to walk you through the report. We've been doing this um presentation since 2013. So I I think we're all pretty familiar with the process. Starting on page four, if you can advance back to page four, that would be great. I just wanted to remind everyone towards the bottom of the page that the um fiscal matters of the Woodmouth Commons uh development agreement outlines the requirements of the annual fiscal update. Um so we have been consistently applying those standards uh since the fiscal update requirement began back in 2013. Moving on to page five. There is a measurement period in each annual fiscal update and that fiscal um that uh measurement period for this particular year runs from July 1, 2024 through June 30th, 2025. In terms of the Woodmont Commons population, um 520 residents were living in Woodmont Commons at June 30th, 2025, which is an increase of about 79 residents um from the prior year. And it's primarily due to an increase in the population in Baldwin.

Moving on to page seven on table two. It's very exciting to um over over the years to see the buildout of Woodmont Commons as as it becomes a true live, work, play community. On deck uh for 2026 are Dair Medical Center and the Woodmont uh Wood Partners uh apartments. Those are the um Alta Oak Pines apartments. So they weren't included in this particular uh fiscal update because they were not placed in service prior to June 30th, 2025. Uh but you'll see the effects of those in the next year's uh fiscal update. So for for this report, there were 227 employees at businesses in located in what Copins. Towards the bottom of that page, you'll see a new disclosure. Um, in August 2025, the London area town council voted to provide a tax exemption for part of the Baldwin senior living property. So essentially the value uh was lowered from 60 million at the assessment period April 1, 2024 to 5 million at the assessment period April 1, 2025. The effect of that um tax exemption wasn't felt in the June 30th, 2025 report. So, so you won't see it here, but um the effect will filter through the June 30th, 2026 report next year. Kind of the good news even though that was a drop in taxable value, the dairy center in the 264 partners uh apartments coming on uh help offset that um decline in tax value. So, that timing worked out great.

And I'll show you on page eight what I'm talking about. So um the if if you'll notice on table three in in that column that says tax tax fiscal year revenue the 2026. So you'll see that 196 million uh that amount includes the impact of the loss in value from the all the one but the pick up and value of the all to open departments and uh what what portion of the u uh D2 medical center. So although we uh had had a uh the values included in full of the ball in for the 2025 report, we still are projecting an increase in value uh for the 2026 report due to the overall growth that's happening in the project. on page nine in table four really uh the the crux of this report um I think that's probably most sensitive to to the town and the the citizens is making sure that we do a thorough job of of analyzing potential um new costs that the town is experiencing both operating cost and capital cost. So every year that's a really a joint effort with town staff as well as school district staff uh to make sure that we capture any um expenses that may be assignable to Woodmont Commons or or out portion thereof according to the development agreement. In this particular year um the town added four additional firefighters due to overall growth. So in table five, we've uh allocated cost the cost related to those uh firefighters to um would buy conference and that's about $7,000.

And then on page 10, ever since the central fire station um was placed into the service, uh we've allocated a portion of the debt service related to the central fire station debt service and that's about $10,000. So under table seven you'll see that total operating costs of the town uh that have been affected by the woodlock commons uh growth of both of the residential and commercial portions were allocating about $17,000 annually and would look at that every year. On page 11 under table 8, table 8 really tells the story of Woodmont Commons from the inception. You can see back in 2014 the u annual net revenues that the project was producing for the uh town were about 158,000 annually. uh the net values have grown to $750,000 annually affected with the 630 2025 update and accumulatively the projects produced $4.3 million in net uh revenues for the town. Um and right under that table notice the conclusion that based on this analysis no amount to do the town under the terms of the development agreement. And right there on 11ary school district this year there were 20 public school uh children living in Woodmont Commonas. There were 18 last year. We may see a pickup in the report next year as we add those alta open fines apartments in the public school children living in there. So we may have a bit of a job with the

public school children uh next year. And then on page nine on the next page on table nine I'm sorry on the next page the annual tax revenues to the school district or 1.8 million and cumulatively common generated $9.6 $6 million for the school district. On page 13, the next page, thus far, uh there have and this is kind of the center of that page. Thus far, there have been no alligable incremental operating or capital expenditures that living comments has has generated for the school district in this particular fiscal update. And if you want to scroll forward to take a look at appendix tables one and two. Um I think it's always helpful if you want to understand the detailed components of what's happening with the tax base for Woodmont Commons. This is a list of all the parcels and their assessed values. Appendix table one are the assessed values that generated property taxes for June 30th, 2025, which is the report we're looking at right now. And then appendix table two uh represents the assessed values that will generate the property taxes that will be recognized in in next year's report. So this is uh both exciting to to watch the growth of Woodmont Commons and the the tax dollars and tax values that it's generating uh for the community um and to u track that every year since 2013 has really been a pleasure for me. So I'm I'm proud of being a part of the uh working with the town on this project.

I hope I didn't go too fast. I'm usually I'm used to being last on the agenda, not first. I always try to speed through when I'm I'm last and it's a late agenda item. So if they have any questions, I'll be happy to answer them for you. Oh, thank you very much. The board have any questions, comments on the fiscal report? Yes. Go ahead, Ann. And Ann, if you could just um speak into the mic. Okay. I was just going to ask Kevin if I could get a hard copy of it. It was hard for me to understand with my hearing aids. Sure. Thanks. Any other questions about the fiscal impact?

No, it's good to see that the plan worked and you know what the what the town put in place to make sure that the taxes were being paid by the development and not by the residents. Looks like it continues to work in that direction. So, that's good. Each year has been uh been good and I think we're we're used to what uh what to look for. Anyway, um this fiscal report is available on our website currently um as you know as part of this evening's agenda as well as it's it will be uploaded to the Woodmont page. Excellent. After this meeting.

Good. All right. Any other questions, comments? Thanks to Lucy and her hard work. Thanks. We're good with Lucy. Lucy, we're good. Look forward to seeing you next year. Take care. Thank you. Thanks, Lucy. All right, Kevin. Yeah, you're up.

Thank you. Just going to have Kelly load the uh PowerPoint. Mr. Chair, once again, uh my name is Kevin Smith. I'm a consultant with the Woodarmm Project. Also, uh here this evening with me is Ari Pollock. no doubt a familiar face to most of you. Uh Ari is the attorney um on the Woodmont uh development and has been since its inception. I'm just going to briefly run through this PowerPoint this evening just to give you an update of where we're at and what's in the pipeline. Uh so new for this last year, um the Wood Partners uh uh Oak and Pine 264 multif family units came online in late summer. I believe they received their last CO certificate of occupancies in uh late fall and uh they are doing very well uh thus far with their uh lease up rates. Um Beth Israel Lehey Clinic opened to the public officially this past February uh in 2026. That was originally built by Dair Medical Center. They then sold it to uh Lehey Clinic. Uh and so um we're very happy to be uh having um doctors uh from the Lehey network now operating out of uh Londereerry. Uh exit 4A phase 2 work started in the fall of 2025. Uh as you're all aware, phase one of Old Rum Trail uh and the interchange was completed uh last year. And so phase two now is uh underway uh in the town of Derry. And that also includes the infamous tunnel of the rail trail uh that finally was worked out between the tunnel uh the rail trail folks and the state of New Hampshire.

And lastly, uh construction uh has commenced uh on the Pillsbury Road uh pump station uh off of on the north side of uh Pillsbury Road. Just some pictures there. There's the Oak and Pine. There's the Lehey Clinic. That is phase two of the construction at 4A. and that is uh the where the Pillsbury Road pump station uh will be located. Um I've seen lots of online posts about people wondering what is going on there despite there having been a lot of notices and signs uh talking about what that is. So, just reiterating one more time, that is a pump station for sewer that will service um uh a lot of the Woodmont Commons development on the west side uh but also some uh portions outside of uh Woodmont as well at a future date. Uh what is in the pipeline? And I want to just preface this before I get to it to say that it has been my experience both uh working on the municipal side and uh working on the development side now that you really can't count on anything until there's a certificate of occupancy. Uh the development process is a long, winding, complicated road uh that can often take many years. Um beginning when a a developer or user looks at a piece of land uh to um getting to a a letter of intent, an LOI with the seller, uh and then getting to a purchase and sales agreement with the seller and then going through their due diligence phase. And then if they make it through that, they go into design review uh with the municipality. Uh and then after design review, they go to the planning board. If they're able to receive a conditional approval from the planning board, um they still have to

meet all of those conditions in order to get to sign plans. Once they get to signed plans, they have a precon meeting. Then construction can begin. And then after construction is complete, can they get their CO? And I have literally seen development stall at every single one of those phases along the way to include starting construction and not completing it. Uh which is the why the town makes developers take out construction bonds uh in case they don't complete projects. Um so I I preface that with saying what's in the pipeline. These are all in various stages within that process. um but none of them have obviously their certificate of occupancy uh at this point. So on the west side uh currently under planning board review uh is the Precopio project which was mentioned earlier which is proposing 310 uh home uh a village on the north side of Pillsbury Road. uh signed purchase and sales agreements. Uh we have for 200 plus residential units and 15 uh,000 square feet of retail along Main Street on blocks what we call four and six. That's across the street from where 30 the 30 Main Street building uh currently exists. We also have a signed PNS for 30,000 ft of a physical rehab center that would have 30 beds. Letters of intent. We have two letters of uh intent from hotel developers and then also 6,000 square feet of retail restaurant use uh next to Dair Medical Center. And then interest looking at land. We have a developer who is looking at the one block that is the block right out in front as you enter the Woodmont Commons development after TJ Maxx uh to develop retail and restaurant pads there.

on the east side, the 4A side, uh, south of Old Rum Trail. The planning board conditionally approved 750,000 square ft of industrial use there. Right now, uh there have been um negotiations with a high-tech manufacturing company uh for 400 jobs and 350,000 square ft of high-tech manufacturing and then also a 200,000 square foot uh warehouse storage facility. Uh as far as uh in the LOI phase or the PNS phase north of Old Rum Trail, uh we're in talks with two MA major retail users as well as uh uh an outfit looking to do 350 units of multifamily residential. All of this density that you're seeing on both the east side and west side is in compliance with the Pillsbury PUB. uh nothing more nothing well it is less but it's not more than what the PUD uh has allowed. So all of this you uh are seeing here is uh within the density limits of the uh Woodmont Commons PUD. So how much density remains on the west side? That's the west side of I93. uh used and planned right now are uh 700 excuse me 917 units that's 30 Maine that's already built the Oak and Pine that's already built Gildest Road and then uh Precopio uh which has not been approved yet but I've included in that number because it's under review and then also I added in there that Main Street uh developer which is an additional uh 228 units that gets you to

917 17. As far as commercial space remaining, uh there's uh or excuse me, commercial space that's been used already. 620 a little over 621,000 square ft. That includes Dair Medical Center 1, uh Lehey Clinic, the Baldwin 603 Brewery, um 30 Main Street, the retail space, and then again, I added in uh the physical rehab center as well as the Main Street developer. Uh and then there's also been 26,000 square feet of assisted living space used from the Baldwin. So what's remaining on the west side? Uh 163 units of residential. That breaks down into 53 what I'll call regular units and 110 ADU or studio 1bedrooms of 750 ft or less. Uh almost 365,000 square feet of commercial office space remains as well as 54,000 square feet of assisted living though it's doubtful that would be used unless it was uh used by the Baldwin as they have a restriction on it and then 150 hotel rooms and I highlighted the areas here of where that remaining space remains. Um, and as you can tell from those previous numbers, the bulk of this will be commercial, retail, uh, restaurant use. Um, because most of the housing has been said for uh, at this point as far as what's in the pipeline. Um, the, uh, 6.8 acres that you see there, that is where the main street uh, developer uh, would be building there. Um, the only areas that are not highlighted on here that I would draw your attention to is the there are still 38 acres uh up on Hy Road on the other side of Hy Road from where Proopio is proposing their

development. Uh there's an acre of land right next to 603 Brewery and there's uh the 2.5 acres behind where Lehey Clinic has built and that is where the proposed uh uh physical rehab facility is being proposed. How much density on the east side remains? So planned and used again uh conditionally approved is 750,000 ft of industrial. So remaining options, and I put options because you couldn't fit all of this into that area, um are 350 units of residential, 200 hotel rooms, 700 uh,000 ft of commercial office, and 420,000 ft of uh institutional use, hospital assisted living, etc. And again, this is looking at the 4A side. You have the to the south of Old Rum Trail, uh 750,000 square ft of industrial, and then you have approximately 92 acres to the north. Uh that's unsaid for right now. Now for the big announcement of the night. Um you may have heard recently that the craft family uh has announced the location of the new stadium for the New England Revolution at 4A right on the corner.

What huge news now? Well, so that goes against every policy and procedure that we have in this town. Well, and Jeeoff, I'm going to tell you that what date it is. I know. If you haven't figured out by now, it is April 1st, also commonly known as April Fool's Day. This is not happening. Don't worry, it's not h I'm sure it will not stop an anonymous poster on Facebook tomorrow, but I can guarantee you this is definitely not happening. Yeah, I just got a text. It's out there. Never fails.

It's out there. Kelly Kelly Aayot's calling me. Kevin was just kidding. That this is definitely not happening.

Not a joke though is the fiscal impact uh that Lucy went over. So, uh again, I don't think it can be understated. This is the net tax revenue uh that Woodmont has delivered to Londereerry. And it's important to say net tax revenue because this takes into account all of the expenses such as uh police and uh fire EMT calls uh over to Woodmont Commons um any school impact. That's all taken into account uh that in 2025 a little over $2.5 million in net tax revenue uh came out of Woodmont and overall since its inception uh it's been uh over close to $16 million in net tax revenue. Uh those are not small numbers and uh as um Mr. Ferrell pointed out this was by design of what the fiscal impact agreement was supposed to do. And that ends the presentation.

Thank you, Kevin. Much appreciated. Um, the board have any questions? Jason.

Hey, Kevin. Um, I think it's funny you put the revolution up there because it seems like that's the only real estate quest that's gone on longer than Woodmont at this point. So, um, it's been 13 years. Um, you know, every year it seems like you come up here and for a while it was Pillsbury and I noticed they then they decided to stop coming. Um, people are tired of hearing we're getting interest, you know, like we're we're we're this close, you know, it's seems like the only thing, you know, as you and I talk about every year, only thing getting built over there is residential and doctor's offices. And now the PNS is rehab center, which is another doctor's office along with other residential. Um, you know, I I I drive through Bedford and I see what they're building on Second Street there or uh, yeah, Second Street. Um, I drive obviously Tuscan Village is its own city practically at this point now. And those were both started after the master plan for this was approved. Um, I drive down Michael's way and I get a little embarrassed because it still just is a lot of scrub land surrounded by doctor's offices and apartments. Um, the economic outlook, as you know, is getting worse by the day. And um I can't help but feel like we've missed the window on this and that a lot of this interest and purchase in sales is going to go away and eventually, you know, one of these years you guys are going to come and say, "Well, the only thing we can do is residential." Um it's it's frustrating. I hear it all the time from anyone who finds out that I'm

on the planning board. What is happening over there? And I wish wish we could tell them it's something other than apartments and doctor's offices. Uh I don't know why we can't at least do something there. Like why can't there be a farmers market or a Christmas market or something like like use the land like rather than just have giant piles? Turn those into sledding hills, you know, like do do something to make the land. Yeah, there's a tax that it's tax positive and that's great to hear. But people did not get excited about, oh, I can't wait to get you $2 and a half million dollars in net tax revenue. People got excited because you you sold us on this awesome development. Not you, but the people you work for who are paying you to be here to take their bullets.

Sold us on this great great development in North Carolina. It's going to be just like that. And here we are 13 years later and we're still here. No, it's really one of these days it's going to be just like that. And uh every year it gets a little further away. So it's it's depressing. This is probably the most depressing meeting we have every year because it's it feels like it's the same PowerPoint presentation every year. And it's it's unfortunate, you know, and I wish they were here, but they're smart business people who have decided to let somebody else take the slings and arrows. So, um yeah, hopefully one of these years is actually something to report on. So, thank you.

Kevin, could you talk about the overall economics of the project? And um you're a smart guy. you you see what the public says and such, but what like I look for I definitely want to look for solutions and you know find this find the win-win for for everyone involved. Um what are the economic drivers? Why why is London just not I guess and I'm not saying that I believe this. Why isn't it desirable? Why isn't that land desirable? It's it's in the middle of, you know, two highway exits right off 93. Um, you know, part of me, you know, the business part of me says, well, you have to put the people, you have to build the the infrastructure for the people so you can attract the retail. Um, but then the other kind of concept, and you know, a counterpoint argument that I sometimes get is, well, we have 27,000 people in here already. Isn't that enough for a pizza place?

Right. Um, I don't know. So, I'm just trying I'm trying you I've been you researching that. I'm trying to just understand, you know, what is less desirable about the London area in this location and why hasn't there been more retail establishments or or or stuff like that.

Yeah. So, a lot of good questions there and and Jason, as you know, I share your frustrations on the um speed at which it's developed out. Um, and I I remain an eternal optimist on it as a resident in town and a neighbor almost of the development. And I think back to when it was first approved in 2013, and uh, you know, it was always said it was going to be a 20-year buildout, and we are now in year 13, so it's got to get going. Um, but uh, yeah, I share the similar frustrations with that, and it hasn't been for lack of trying. Um, you know, we've

gosh have met with so many different potential retail restaurant users uh over the years.

You know, it's it's interesting because Exit 4A, everyone wants to be there. It's right off the highway. They look at it as amazing visibility. And that's why right out of the gate, we're getting all of this interest and and people wanting to be there because of the accessibility to us as residents of the community. this area seems very accessible. You know, every single time that we have a potential user come in, I remind them that that market basket is number one in the state for sales volume. It's number one. 20,000 plus people a a week go through that um that plaza. That's a staggering number. to a lot of these users, they see it as so far off of 102 that they got to drive into this development and they feel like they're going to be out in no man's land. Now, if you talk to Chris Nickerson, who runs Dair Medical Center, he'll tell you the best movie ever made was leaving his old uh building on Butrick Road and building there. He said because they get so much driveby traffic and they've brought in so many new patients because they're so much more visible. So we use him to say well talk to these some some of these other potential users like the hotel users and tell them that this is not going to be as tough a you know a cell to drive people here as you might think it is. Um, there was the chicken and egg thing with the residential portion. You know, when it was just starting out, the feedback was, "We want to see more rooftops. Want to see more rooftops." Right now, all we see is open fields and apple trees, right? Well, now they're seeing the rooftops. And in fact, the people living in those rooftops are going, "Where are the amenities? We want

to have restaurants. We want to have other things to walk to in and around Woodmont." Um, so I I think it's coming to a critical mass and trust me, all of us within the Woodmont internal team want to see it happen. We want to see this development get to a finality and and have it be done and have it be delivered with what was told to the community. You know, I I've read the stuff online when people say, "Well, we're not getting what we we were sold that we, you know, were told we're going to get." Well, as I just showed you, there's a lot of land that's still not developed. And to this point, nothing that has come in thus far, as I said, is deviated from the master plan, right?

There's a finite amount of residential. There's still a lot of commercial that can go in. And I can tell you, so long as I'm around and working on this project, there will be no one coming in asking for one more residential unit over what has been uh given to the development. uh because now the infill has to come and the infill should be amenities that serve not only the residents of that uh community but of the entire community. Um and as far as the economics, Jeff, yeah, they were probably better precoid. Uh there's no doubt about that. But stuff is still being built. There's still deals to be made. They're tougher to get them to pencil out in today's environment than they were 5 years ago. Um, but I'm not seeing a complete

drawback. Uh, you know, we're seeing the restaurants get built.

Um, I think I told the story last year that, you know, we had the folks in from the copper door. We put the hard cell on them to put a copper door in downtown Woodmont and the what the feedback two things we were told. One, it's too far off 102. We're not going to get the visibility we need, which I was like, you need visibility. like everybody knows the backd dooror and it's always packed when you go there whe whether it's Bedford or Salem and the other feedback I got was we're already in Bedford and Salem we're capturing London Derry and that's the mindset right um but we're not going to keep pushing for those things because we know the community wants those things we want those things um so that when you go through there you are just as proud as when you drive through say a uh a Tuscan village You ask a question.

Yeah. Go ahead, John. So, um, Tuscan Village had full water and sewer when it started, right? And Second Street over in Bedford had full water and sewer when it started. When are you going to have full water and sewer? Because I know you don't have the capacity in Derry,

right? We'll have full water and sewer capacity once that sewer pump station on Pillsbury Road is completed. At that point, we'll have the entirety of sewer and water available to serve the density that was in the master plan. So, to your point, John, that master plan was passed with the density, but neither the water nor the sewer to support it at the time. The water's now there. Penach built the water tank and the transmission line and pump station last year. So now the water's there to serve the entirety of the development. The sewer will be there uh hopefully in December of of 27 when that's completed. So what Jason's talking about you're not going to see until that's complete.

Correct. Because there's Right. Yeah. Right now there's not enough. But it could be argued why did it take 12 years to get to that? Cuz it cost about $20 million. But that's part of the cost of developing this thing, right? I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm just saying why I I mean I mean like if you knew that you needed water and sewer and why did it take 12 years for it to get to that?

Well, no, but it it shouldn't be lost that there is a big cost to all of it. You know, if if you look at what went in Woodmont to begin with before any building showed up, you had to widen Route 102. You know, that state didn't pay for that portion around Woodmont. Woodmont paid for it, including uh Hampton Way, parts of Gilcrest Road, uh all those lane widenings, that was all born by Woodmont. Then it had to put the roadways into the development leading up to Pillsbury. Uh and had to build the sewer infrastructure, the water infrastructure, the gas infrastructure, and all the drainage ponds before a single building ever went up. I mean, you're probably talking around $30 million just in infrastructure,

which should have been considered in the development cost.

Well, and it is, but when you're when you're doing this project, it's such a large project. It it couldn't be done in say 5 years or or 10 years. That's why it was always said it was a 20-year buildout. Now, a lot of that infrastructure is in and you know with the receiving the grant uh or the town receiving the grant from uh from Washington on the sewer infrastructure helped out tremendously uh in getting that pump station built because that pump station is what 6.5 million John. So there's definitely there we agree there's cost to development. Uh in this case there's a lot of cost to that development and my point was the speed is

Yeah. No infrastructure was there already in the other two places. Oh I yeah I I I I get that question why it took that long. I get it. That sewer sewer infrastructure the sewer line you're talking you said there'd be another user when you were speaking earlier of the sewer the sewer line. Oh no. What I was saying is that sewer pump station and the the transmission line to connect it to Manchester will primarily serve Woodmont, but I believe there might be capacity, John, to serve. It's primarily Woodmont. Yeah, there may be some excess capacity there that will also for London potentially.

Okay. I I hope I was glad you didn't say Manchester. So, I was glad you didn't say Manchester or different town. I appreciate that. Anyways, if you do have the excess capacity. So, any Tony?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so there's a bunch of takeaways here and um I'm very fortunate that um I don't participate in the online forums um for a whole bunch of reasons, but occasionally people throw um screenshots at me um which are much less painful than the other shots you could be getting um the the the north side um housing that's going to come in was always going to be housing. Correct.

Yes, it was the housing on that side was always part of the PUD master plan and part of the development agreement. It it was and I would also add that if you actually look at the PUB master plan, it called for housing and some commercial development up there as well. Under the plan that's been presented, there's no commercial development in that section, just the housing. Yeah. So, um the fact that the um keyboard warriors um are screaming about excess development and excess housing is not true.

It's it's not true in the sense that that was the planning board approved those number of homes there when they approved the PUD. Thank you. That's all I have. But some of those homes were above commercial. Could have been. Yes. So So is it May I go ahead, Tony. So, is there a point? What What are you saying? No, I just remember the whole plan because I was there. I understand. I was too, but I don't understand what does the comment mean that that there was also commercial planned up there.

So, you're saying it would have been better with commercial or it doesn't matter or I don't understand what the comment is. No, I mean I just observation like the original plan and is if this is the best that I shouldn't say it is the best that can be done because I was looking for the commercial development anywhere on the property basically and uh and it it is a lot of residences up there and uh it would have been nice if there would be something for those residents across the street, you know. I I say I get it. But but to just to put a bow around it, it's the same number of units. Oh, I know. I know. I'm I'm asking is it

it is the same amount of units. It's just that there's to Ann's point, there's no services for those units up in that area. Yeah. Is that is that what Thank you. Now, now I would I just I couldn't figure out where it was going. So, thank you. I appreciate it. All set, Mr. Chair. Any other questions from the board? And again, there is no soccer stadium coming. I want to be very clear about that. Yeah, it's too late. You have to repeat that. I'm taking that slide out when I have to post this. I'm not dealing with those calls. You can take them. It's too late. You can't you can't unsee it.

Um Craft would never would never move it out of Massachusetts anyway. So So we're good. But that parking lot for 5,000 cars. Well, they are saying that All right, Kevin and Yo, thank you very much. Um, next order of business is administrative board work. Uh, Mr. Secretary, do we have any approve any minutes to approve? We got three sets of minutes. Uh, Mr. Chair, and I'll motion that we approve the minutes of March 4th, 2026 as presented. I have a motion on the table. So moved. Second by John. Did you make the motion? Tony made the motion. I I thought he was

Art made the motion. I made the motion. Tony did the second. Okay, John could go next. My apologies. It doesn't matter. All in favor? Starting roll call vote starting with Anne. Anne Champ I. Javanni Bar. Tony D. I Arthur Rug. I John Ferrell. I Sean Faber. I chair votes in the affirmative. Next set. Mr. Chair, I'll move that we uh adopt the minutes of March 11th, 2026 as presented. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Sean. All in favor starting roll call vote starting with an Ann Champ I. Javanni Bar. Tony D. I

Arthur Rug. I abstain. I was not here. Jason I favor I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion we approve the minutes March 23rd, 2026 as presented. Um just a point of that's that was the um PUD PUD. Yes. Okay. Monday night meeting. Thank you. So there were very few people, right? So we just had a quorum. I think we had to hold that for the next meeting. Let's hold that one for um of the for more bodies, particularly the ones that were um in there. Okay. Yeah, that's a good move.

Three of you were here. One four of you were here. Oh, so we do have a Yeah, you know, we can No, let's entertain that. Okay. Okay. I'll go ahead with the motion. I'll second it. Okay. All right. A vote. All in favor? I mean um roll call vote starting with Ann, please. Anne Champa I. Javanni Veronnie abstain. Tony D I. Arthur Rug I. John Ferrell abstain. Jason abstain. Sean Faber I and the chair abstains. So we have 4 04 abstensions.

All right. Moving on to regional impact determinations. I don't believe we have any Kristen Kelly. Correct. Excellent. Discussions with town staff. We have an extension request for Vista East West site plan moving that to October 10th, 2026. So move, Mr. Chair. Second motion and second. Roll call vote starting with an Ann Champa. I Javanni Bar. Tony D. I Arthur Rug I. Sean Fer, Jason Knights eye. Sean Faber I. And the chair votes in the affirmative.

We have another extension request for five ricker a site plan moving that to July 28th, 2026. Town have any comments on that extension. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to move that. Okay, I'll move that. Uh, Mr. Chair, second. We have a motion and a second. All in favor starting with an please. Anne Champ I. Javanni Bari I. Tony D. I. Arthur Rug I. John Ferrell I. Jason Knights eye. Sean Faber I.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. Okay. Moving on to I would also like to just move another agenda item. Um, the non-binding review and discussion will be conducted in accordance with RSA 67454 regarding the proposed governmental land use project. I'd like to move that one up. Does anyone have any objections on the board? That is the SAU building project that is part of um federal regulations. That one will be that is required as a as a courtesy to come forward to our board. What happened? And and no, I'm not going for the sympathy fing.

This wasn't actual knee surgery. It was last Wednesday. So, we're uh we're in recovery mode, but excited to be here nonetheless. Just move carefully. Just a warning to any consultant that works for me. Um my name is James Danis. I'm the uh deputy director. I'm sorry. I'm just going to um read this since this case into the

record. Um again, non-binding. I started to but then I just basically explaining what I was doing, but I haven't officially read into the record, so apologies. We have a non-binding review and discussion will be conducted in accordance with RSA 674 semicolon 54 regarding a proposed governmental land use project. The project consists of construction of a 5,000q foot addition and associated parking expansion to the existing town hall SAU25 as well as a 5,300 square foot addition to the police department impound storage area. Additional site improvements include storm water management upgrades, installation of sidewalks, and ADA accessibility enhancements. The proposal further includes a request for a conditional use permit for permanent wetland impacts totaling 5,614 square ft and temporary wet land impacts totaling 916 square ft. 268B Mammoth Road tax map 9 lot 45 zone AR1 town of London area is the owner and the applicant. Okay. Sorry about that. I'm I'm only the vice chair.

Oh, fantastic. All right. So, uh, once again, my my name is James Dannis. I'm the new deputy director of public works. Welcome.

I'm here with uh Nick Gooan, who is with TF Moran and the designer of the uh uh site project. Um, you you've already said it. We're here uh in compliance with RSA 674. Um, and we're just kind of looking for u input and everything on on our site plan. Uh again, we submitted the site plan application in accordance with normal procedures as well as a conditional use package in accordance with normal procedures. Uh we also attended the uh conservation commission meeting last week uh to go along with a wetlands impact and a buffer impact supported by the conditional use uh and parking in that area. Um so with that uh I'd like to hand it off to Nick uh to do the line share of the presentation.

Thank you James. Um, fairly straightforward. So, I'll give you the facts of what we're proposing. Uh, an expansion of the existing building to accommodate the SAU of approximately 5,000 square feet with a corresponding parking lot expansion expansion that'll ultimately accommodate 70 parking spaces. Project is phased um and it's purposely such. Uh, the first of which is to accommodate the building expansion. Um the area as depicted on the plan on your screens um to the left would accommodate approximately 32 parking spaces but it is initially intended to provide for the opportunity for construction layown. Um as all of us know uh parking here at the the town hall can be problematic at times. So this is looking to resolve that outstanding condition of perhaps some deficiency in parking. Um, as not mentioned in the the opening, there will also be approximately 5,300 square foot expansion of the impound yard. Um, this is just an example of the town doing its due diligence, realizing they're going to have mobilization costs and there is a no need to also expand the impound area. So, we're going to take advantage of that opportunity as well. In addition to those two improvements, uh, we are having the opportunity to add two ADA parking spaces that will be centrally located uh, basically right at the front door. as well as providing some sidewalk improvements for better uh mobility and interconnectivity of the site. Um in order to accommodate this uh we will see a wetland impact as part of phase two. So if we flip to the site layout plan for phase two, we do see we have an approximately 5,400 square foot permanent wetland impact with just under a,000 square ft of temporary impact. Um, so those impacts, the area in red is the wetland impact. Um, you can see that we've really just skirted along the outer edge of that wetland. Uh, the larger, more functioning wetland

community is located uh, further to the north. And that area blue represents what is the wetland buffer impact, which is a little under 20,000 square feet. Um, other improvements to the site, we'll have some site lighting improvements, um, some minimal landscape improvements. One comment we did receive from the conservation commission is if there was the opportunity to evaluate further landscaping within the parking lot which will be taken under consideration as part of a value ad. Um from the standpoint of utilities, we have what we need on site presently. There's an existing sewer stub that will connect to to service this building. Um I believe most people in the room already know, but the area of this building expansion previously housed a building. So we really do have the necessary infrastructure in place to accommodate this. Uh so water, sewer, gas, all those interconnections can be made. Well, as far as managing our storm water, it'll be a closed drainage system. So catch basin to a pipe to a head wall, then drain to a filtration basin. Um the intent with that filtration basin is to dissipate the improvements of the parking lot so that we can provide appropriate storm water treatment consistent with your site plan regulations. I would note that it is a um partial storm water management plan. doesn't carry with it all the normal bells and whistles um but does allow us to evaluate the improvements that are being proposed and to confirm that there's no increases in the peak rate of runoff specifically to the parking lot that we're looking to install. Um other site related items um I think I mentioned that we'll have some site lighting improvements uh dark sky compliant and I will leave it at that folks. Um we had the opportunity to meet with the conservation commission. They provided us their their feedback which we'll look to integrate to the extent practical and we're looking to do the same this evening. So if there's comments, questions or otherwise, James and I are happy to answer.

Yeah, we also ran it through um ran it through staff. John gave us a handful of comments that uh um you know he he ran us through the reg regular uh regular gauntlet of uh of questions that everybody would uh everybody else would have. So, I got a few things to address and uh we'll get those taken care of on top of uh you know the concerns that the uh concom had to uh uh to the project as well. That concludes your presentation. Yes, sir. Um before we go to the board, any staff input? Kelly?

Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I believe you have my memo dated 1st of April. Uh my memo uh summarizes the results of my review of the plans in the drainage memo. Uh and those comments included providing appropriate details, clarification and cleanup of the plans uh for proper construction of the the uh the improvements that are being proposed. Uh an additional the to revise the drainage analysis to address existing and proposed development being proposed on the site. So that's my readers digest version of my comments and as James indicated he's he's they're well aware of what's what the comments are. It's all I have

just a reminder this is a non-binding discussion but the board should provide still provide the input as you see fit. I have nothing else. Thank you Kelly. All right, board. If we could def um you provide again, as Kelly mentioned, it's a non-binding um non-binding. Um yeah, we can't make it binding.

Right. Right. And this is really our only opportunity to provide feedback for this project. So, if we could you definitely provide feedback on overall site layout, impacts, and mitigation related to the conservation overlay district. um and you know any comments or rec or um input on phasing functionality of the site improvements um and any coordination with existing municipal uses on the site and and Jeff just to confirm for everyone here this this there's not a public comment on this right this is not a public hearing Tony

thank you Mr. here. So to say it a different way, a municipality does not have to follow its own rules and it's a courtesy when the municipality comes to the planning board. And this is the same process that has happened for all the capital projects that have happened in the town of Londereerry since I've been here since 1978. So when the library was built, when the high school was built, when the high school gym was built, when the central fire station was built, when North and South fire station was built, when the police station was built, when this town hall was built, um all of those things, everybody talks to each other, but it's not there's there's nothing binding from from anyone. So, uh, appreciate the amount of detail, um, that's in this report. Um, it is from me, from my experience, um, it's a lot more detail than I've personally seen in the past, and I appreciate that. Um, and, you know, it is what it is. You're replacing a building that was already here. Um, all the infrastructure is pretty much already here. Uh, you're going to address the parking situation. um conservation has said their peace and um I wish you the best of luck. Thank you.

Thank you. Oh, Mr. Rev. Uh under the landscaping uh plan uh could you include is it just a request purple lilac? It's a uh the state flower. I I do realize it was a cardinal sin to come in with a landscaping plan in in London area without purple lilac. We will further evaluate the potential for its inclusion. There's a few engineers that have been trained. You know, it's nonbinding. It's not non-binding. So, it's up to you comment. Also, the school district too, I'm sure, is uh is watching. Um the lighting fixtures, is there going to be a continuity with out there now?

That's the intent. Yes. Okay. Okay. And the other I had was uh where the construction uh trailer is. Is there still easy access through the front door of the town hall so people can uh the construction trailer for the building addition itself the actual project? Yes.

Yeah. So it's actually intended to be out in the courtyard here just on the other side of the back entrance. So, um, through some discussion and agreement, we we we staff agreed to let them have it relatively close to the to the addition. Um, the concern was any of their construction activities impacting existing parking spaces, which we emphatically said no to. So that's why that that gravel area that stage one is going to be built first so that they can occupy an area for lay down and storage and and conx boxes and that kind of stuff, but their trailer and a few other incidentals will kind of occupy the courtyard and and and some of the green space while they're working.

Thank you. Uh it's a good project. So thank you. And it's great to see people working together. That's the the intent of how we like to do it. So um there was one comment on uh landscaping related to the parking area itself. Um DBW actually has a variety of trees that we are looking to plant um you know around the parking area. So I think believe that satisfied the uh the concom's question on landscaping just to kind of supplement what we already have shown on the plan. That's where our list in our site plan has come from is conservation commissions. Yep. Any other comments from the board?

Is that really now a dog pound? That area in the top right officially? I honestly don't know. It's what the police department uses whenever they have strays or Oh, okay. missing animals. I never knew. Series of panels with an outside area. There's an existing area there right now. I thought there was just cars that were damaged. That seems like what I'd see down there. There's an existing run back there. Okay. Thanks. From what I've seen, I end unobtrusive. Must be I can't see it. Any other comments? That's it. Be good to get this done. Excellent. All right. Godspeed. Perfect.

Thank you for your time. Have a good day. Thank you very much. All right. Moving on. Going to be Moving on to old business, we have a public hearing for an application for a formal review of a subdivision of map 10, lot 41. Nope, just the That's not the one. The two new business I think we have left. Sorry about that. Oh my gosh. This is one over here.

Yeah. I apologize. We have a under new business, new plans, a public hearing on an application for formal review of a site plan for a retail car dealership and associated site improvements in the commercial to C2 zone in district 6, Dicki Street, tax map 10, lot 109, Leon and Tamara Lamps as the owner and the applicant. As the case is now read into the record, would like to check for completeness. a second while we there were two two checklist items.

So, Mr. Chair, there's an error in the memo. Um I said there were two outstanding checklist items, but then underneath that there's actually So, there's four. Yes. Okay. Kristen, could you um review those?

Sure. Um the first one is um some utility clearance letters. Um the second one is the architectural elevations. The third one is the lighting plan. And the fourth one is um other legal documents, easements and such like that. Okay. So I have utility lighting plan easements. What was the third one? architectural and so so clearance letters, architectural, lighting and um legal documents.

Okay. So there's six in all. No, just Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. Just these four. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we wave for acceptance only the checklist items that Kristen had just read. So there'd be uh one, two, three, and four that are listed here on the uh staff memo of April 1st, 2026 from uh Christristen Far. All right. I have a motion to wave those items for acceptance purposes only. Second.

Have a second. All in favor of that motion, starting with Ann, please. Ann Champ I. Bonnie Ronnie, I Tony D. I Arthur Rug I John Farrell I Jason Knights I Sean Faber I and the chair votes in the affirmative that those have been waved for acceptance purposes only. Okay. With that done we'll invite the applicants up to present. So welcome.

Thank you. Good evening Mr. Chair members of the board. My name is Jason Hill with TF Moran. I'm here with the owners and applicants, Leo and Tamara Lampis. This is a site plan application for um property at Six Dicky Street. Um if you have a access to the Google map, if it's easy, Kelly's,

you could load that. If everyone's familiar with the property, uh that's fine, too. But um this is um an existing redevelopment project even though there's no technical redevelopment criteria in Londereerry. Um the site's uh basically fully disturbed occupied. It's shown here on if if there's an aerial map, Google map um there's an ex so friendly roads

it's almost in dairy um just north of Broadway. This is um a point4 acre site. It's bounded to the south by um a restaurant like a sports bar restaurant type Friendly Reds. Friendly Reds. Friendly Reds. So, thank you. Um, and then they were bounded along to the west by uh auto auction auto auto

auto auction in New England wholesalers and then the primarily the rest of the abuing is the residential, you know, sites, you know, along Dicki Street and such. So this is the purpose of this is so that Leo and and Tammy can essentially they own an existing auto sales business. They've operated for several years and um in order to expand the clientele base per per se to a retail instead of solely wholesale, you know, just enables them to sell to more people. they're required to uh come before you to get a site plan approval as well as we had to do some other things like we got several variances from the zoning board and so that's the purpose and this project is essentially to keep the existing building and do some site improvements minor uh relatively minor site improvements there'll be no change in the utility services. Um what we actually looking to do is to um remove the so it's basically um essentially gravel and pavement the site today with a loop driveway around it. And you can see they're storing inventory on the south side with access a loop road around the building itself. And so we're going to reorganize that. We we're pulling in the footprint on all sides except for along Dicki Street. We're going to consolidate the development and keep the existing building and delete the loop driveway on the

north curb cut and essentially create a small parking lot in the middle where that bush is. uh for customers and for the one or two the low amount of staff. So this business is a um it's not like Garony or something where you it's not open to the public anytime you come fast you move a lot of vehicles. This is a slow they call ahead arrange for a meeting on site the customer. So, you're talking about a limited volume, limited activity, limited traffic, uh, one at a time.

For the most part, it's one at a time. Uh, so that's what we're looking to do. Um, we will be the plan here is the site plan showing the reconstructed essentially on the left hand side is the south. That'll be the display area and the sorry the inventory storage and on the other side of the site will be the parking for the staff and customers. That's how it's set up. Se several of the waivers actually are non-applicable essentially because they get into the parking criteria whereas like we're actually using that area for storage but we applied for the waiverss uh basically. So, I can get into that in detail, but essentially we're talking about a very small parking lot and a vehicle storage lot and um some landscaping. That's all kind of we're doing and some drainage improvements. Um so, this plan shows all of that. The building at the center, the storage of vehicles on the left hand side, there's an existing garage on the top is the page that'll be retained. And then we'll have a storm water management facility, which is a gray rectangle there at the end of the parking lot. Could you um just flip to the landscaping plan, please? Thank you. Here we go. Thank you. So, we're proposing to dress the So, uh, this proposal will make the site look much better than, forgive me, it's it'll upgrade the appearance with regards to providing much more green space, street uh, tree plantings, enhancements to the um, you know, the interior landscaping.

However, we've applied for some waiverss again pulling back the um, the footprint of impervious consolidating. So we actually have less impervious than what exists now as a result of the project. So the waiverss, so that's the project. Um the lighting will be retained. There's just some um existing lighting fixtures that are low voltage um functionally nonobtrusive, you know, um those would be retained. Um the B uh and um like I said this the the utilities will be retained because there's no new building uh loads or anything like that. Um, so we're looking at um that. So the waiverss are uh several I've submitted the paperwork. Um I can review them with you or um just rely on the So the waiverss are for interior parking landscaped areas to remind to allow less than the required amount of interior shade trees. L um curbing along to omit curbing along the edge of pavement along the left hand side of the plan where we're proposing um on that left-handed strip in front of the the display for the vehicle. So the in the storage and to allow for less than the required perimeter shade trees for the total parking lot perimeter um of 300 lineal feet. um architectural elevations to be rendered where we're not proposing any upgrades. The facade, the lighting since we're not we're proposing to retain the existing lighting

uh security lighting if in fact that'll be waved for the lighting plan. And then um the utility clearance letters I would I waved it but it's almost an NA versus a waiver. So that would be the waiverss. Um Jason, um didn't you submit a second another one this afternoon?

Yeah, I did submit um a waiver. I have a copy of it. It's for um drainage criteria for a a freeboard requirement the town has for pre-board, which is um you know available head space for, you know, the 50-year storm. So there's criteria. So I'm proposing a waiver for the freeboard for the pond for the drainage system. So that covers the waivers. Um finally I submitted a and I'm not going to read it but I'll refer by record to it the um performance standards memorandum and I can go review those with you if you'd like. about how this project we demonstrated that we conformed to the performance standards of section 5.16 of the zoning ordinance and then um basically the last thing is related to you know we have some comments from the Stantech group I got dated today um most of those I've reviewed the comments a lot of them are um what you'd call uh well they're technical changes that we can make. I don't expect the outcome of the model to change much but we have to address those and we intend on doing that. The main thing is related to the the drainage system that we're proposing which was um it's not the standard of the town and it was observed by um Stantech and others that um it should be discussed with you guys to see if um what you think about it and so that um is

we have designed this system which is that rectangle It's this site is unique um just like so I've we have a unique site it's limited by topography meaning like uh vertical uh topo relief which means um which which restricts the options that we have for drainage systems. We are um as I mentioned reducing the impervious coverage in and of itself by approximately 10% by pulling the footprint back. So that deals a lot with the reduction in flow to the abutters just that aspect of the project. But the um treatment aspect is something that's different which you know we're required to do that as well and and we've looked at scenarios. We've proposed this system which is appropriate for this site which is restricted by it's been controlled basically by the ele the top topography having really no runoff anywhere directed at the abutters very low runoff rates in general. We've tested the soils um to find that the location of the practice has a rapid infiltration rate to receive runoff and it's appropriate for infiltration practices based on that. And because of those constraints with the elevation and the topography and the fact that we have a point4 acre site, we don't have a lot of real estate left to put in alternative systems that would render this development non practical to keep them using the land how they're already using it. So those factors, the practicality and the site constraints have led to this design of an appropriate system of infiltration. It's actually a filtration system

because of the rapidity of the soil to ex receive water. You actually have to filter it instead of just discharging it to treat the water. And so the design does that. And we do have a porous pavement system which is the it's the UNH spec. I think it's what we did and I wasn't involved with it for Stonyfield. This is the UNH spec. Uh I have extra copies but it's um it involves of the details of the design and and such of that system. So that's the approach to storm water here for this project and we have um that's this system is I've utilized on sites that have low traffic and not heavy truckloads and stuff like that. an appropriate site for the use. And um we've done it on other projects in southern New Hampshire that have been built and been, you know, existed for several years and are still performing. So this system does require some maintenance like everything does and we've baked that into the the template for this project, the plans and the the report that'll require the maintenance activities to be done. And uh the system is very efficient based on EPA testing that has been done and published for municipal MS4 permits and specifically in New Hampshire and AOT and stuff. So I know the system performs good in uh removing the targeted pollutants of you know nitrogen and phos phosphorus and others but so I think it's appropriate uh for this project. So that is the system that was essentially looked to be discussed with you all tonight uh to get your buy in or

questions on approach to how we can get this approved and move forward with the project. Excellent. Do you have anything else from a presentation standpoint before I go to staff?

We did bring I was not at the conceptual meeting last summer with the board. We did the the applicant held held one. This system was described at my understanding is this was mentioned to the board as an approach. Take that with a grain of salt because it is a non-binding hearing, but it was proposed uh at that point in time. And my understanding was there wasn't any significant push back or issues with that approach then. So that would be pretty much all for now. Thank you. Anything else? Great. Um Kristen, do you have um anything from or Yeah. Who wants to go first, Kristen or John? Me.

Kristen, go ahead. Um so there are seven waiverss that were submitted um with the application and then the one that was received just today. So we haven't had a chance to really look at it. Um so I don't really have any good comment on that. Um, if you want me to go over the waiverss, I can do that. So, just to clarify, the waiver that was submitted today, staff has not had the opportunity to dissect it, right? Okay. Thank you. Oh, did you want me to go over the other ones? Um, yeah.

Okay. All right. So, the first one, Jason already mentioned these, but I'll just repeat. Um, has to do with uh the interior parking lot landscaping. It should be at least 10% and they have I don't think they have any at all. Right. That's I think it was zero. Uh that would be um existing. That's correct. 0% provided.

Proposed. Yeah. Um the next one was um 310 G3 and that has to do with the interior shade trees. Same same reasoning. Um, and the 310 G4 has to do with um the curving along the edge of the pavement and the surrounding parking areas. They don't meet that minimum. Um 310 G5 is related to the perimeter shade trees. The quantity um one per 50 ft of perimeter length. Um, the next one is 312 related to the architectural renderings. Um, they're not changing the building, so makes sense that they wouldn't need those necessarily, but um 313 is to do with the lighting plan like they said. Did you have a question?

Nope, not yet. Okay. Um, the lighting plan, they're not proposing any, so seems unnecessary. Um and then the last one is 11.5 A throughF and that relates to the utility clearance letters. Um and the one that was submitted today had to do with um the requirement for 12 ines of freeboard for the 50-year storm, which I would defer to John on input on that. Thank you, Mr. Trroier.

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, Jason summarized the the issue regarding this storm water pond again. So, this this area here, the square, that's what they're that's where they're proposing to store some of the the storm water. So again, typically you see the a detention pond is a depression in the ground, a grasp area that that again with an outlet control structure that that uh throttles that water out. What they're basically proposing is to store the water basically on the surface and allow it to infiltrate and then also to for it to flow to the west out this way and again and creating a point source discharge. So, so far so good. J Jason, am I describing it correctly?

Yes.

Okay. So, again, concern is again we we we have in the winter time again uh it's just unconventional storing storm water in a parking area. That's one of the big concerns. In the winter time, it freezes. You have an ice skating ring. It does not infiltrate. Second part is again they're creating a a point source discharge. So again what it'll end up happening is it it'll water will fill up in that area and it'll discharge and it'll flow into the the butter's property. At times what we end up doing is it put we'll create a level a level a level spreader that allows that water to to dissipate much more gradual over a bigger area. I've got no clue what's happening with the topography uh to the east or to the west, excuse me, onto that property. So again, they're creating that point source discharges which is of concern. The uh the complete uh porest payment design was not provided within the design within the plan spec. Uh I'm just summarizing these comments because there's four pages of them. Uh the drainage analysis uh was using again incorrect soil types and infiltration rates. Uh it's unknown how those rates were were determined. Uh and lastly, the calculations indicate features that do not or are not even represented on the plan on the plan set themselves. So there's a lot of concern regarding the drainage of the site. Uh the other as I said four pages of comments are Jason says he can address them. So again it's you really need direction from the board how to deal with the drainage in a nutshell.

Oh one second. Thank you John Kelly. Just could you clarify something for me though? Um it was mentioned in as part of the presentation that there was no redevelopment requirement in London. I believe that's wrong.

Yeah. So, I think it just to note kind of how we got here. Um, so this has been this property has been in discussions at staff level since like I believe the early 2000s and it was essentially the result of um an enforcement matter. So, we're running up to about 20 yearsish of conversation about how to essentially get the site into compliance. Um, the current owners before you this evening have submitted a site plan because this is a commercial use and a commercial zone and we require site plans for such uses. Um so while there may not be redevelopment um requirements when you have a commercial use in a commercial zone you were required to have a site plan. So that is the process that we're following which is why they're here this evening. So the again the intent of this plan is to address um how they're operating today and ensure that they're in compliance with our current standards.

Excellent. Thank you, Kelly. I appreciate that. All right. So, I'm going to move to with questions to the board. After questions to the board, we'll open up the public hearing. Could I address any of John's or do you want me to wait on on that? Um, I'm fairly certain you're going to have a lot of questions about the storm water runoff. So, may I address the board as well? Um, yes. Yeah, sure. Go ahead.

Okay. I just want to um clarify a few things. So um when we purchased the property and I and I know you guys have heard this before um we were given permission and uh this is a copy of the letter. So um we were given permission to do what we've been doing there. Um wasn't it only online though?

Uh and let's let's have her finish and then we can ask questions. So, yes, we are we work by appointment. We are respectful to our neighbors. We don't want a lot of people over there. Um, I'm going to go all the way back to the beginning. When we purchased the property, we were told by the town and the real estate person that it was in a C2 zone and that we were able to sell cars from there. What we learned after we purchased the property was that um you could only do wholesale and to do retail you would need a site plan. So we had just bought this property and we were not in a position to spend the money for a site plan. So we have been doing wholesale there. In the meantime, the town came to us um and they asked if we were selling if we were doing retail there, which we hadn't been. We're a small family-owned business. It's me, my husband, and my two sons. So, when we realized that we were kind of up against a wall, we went to dairy because it's illegal to have two places in the same town and we had to open up a second business in order to retail our cars. So, from 2017 on, we have um had double rent, double insurance, double expenses, two separate businesses. um which has been very difficult to maneuver but somehow we've we've been lucky enough to do it. Um and so to fast forward where we are, Mr. Codner approached us and said that we would need a site plan. So that's what we did. Um we talked with TF Mour and they were really great about um

they talked to Steve Cummings first. We did we the same spot for the drainage, right? because he bought the property unlike John. Right. So that's true. We had another engineer that came to us and he said, "Guys, you're on a point4 lot. It's a natural spot. This is where the water goes. This is where you need to have your drainage." So then um we we went up we had some conversations about that. Um, and so when we contracted with TF Morin, before Jason took us, we were working with Matthew Ruthier, who presented the plan to the planning board back in uh, June,

September. September. Uh, we had a we had a meeting. John saw what Matthew had planned. The same thing. I'm just um I'm just gonna can I just have one person talk for a variety of reasons. One, this is a public meeting. Um it's carried on cable television and the microphones are you just pick up one person at a time. Okay. Thank you.

So um anyway, so Matthew when he drew our original plans, he did the same thing. So we tried to work with Mr. Trudier the last few months. Um, and what he had us doing was when you look at the lot, he wanted us to go to the top of the hill and bring some sort of crazy drainage down uh where now the water it flows to where it flows and it goes out. We don't we haven't had a water issue there. And the thing that makes it difficult for me to understand why he's being so difficult with us for the drainage is because we're losing a driveway. We are giving up uh spaces that we have and we're trying to come to the town. We we obviously have a huge hardship and we're trying to work with the town to accommodate

the best we can and this this drainage thing has just been you know hanging over our heads. This is a 4 acre lot. It's small. It's tiny. There's not a lot of water that happens there. Um, and now behind us there's big development and they took down all the trees all the way up to our up to where we are. So, and now if there's any water it's, you know, anyway, I wanted to say that to you, but I also wanted to to address the water issue. So, low impact develop, this is we are a low impact. We we're not building, we're not taking anything down. We're not rebuilding. We're leaving everything essentially the way it is other than what the town is asking us to do. Um, and the design that Jason is talking about serves two distinct purposes. It provides parking and transportation service, but it also is treat storm water quality and quantity volumes without taking additional space. Rainfall drains through pavement and directly infiltrates the subsurface. This significantly reduces runoff volume, decreases temperature, improves water quality, and essentially eliminates impervious an imperous surface. It also speeds snow and ice melt dramatically reducing the salt required for winter maintenance. the porest asphelt design tested at the UNH and that's the UNH study but this this is a UNH study that talks about it's the wave of the future and there's also a storm water best management that I found um from the department of environmental services and I also dug out from the EPA where they are endorsing so um sorry I just get really teed up when I'm talking to everybody Um but good

we you know we're trying to make this work and for us you know just having to go back to try to to go back what Mr. Troier has asked us to do in the last few months has been thousands of dollars. So at this point you know it it's just gotten out of hand. Like we're hoping that you guys will see that we definitely have a hardship and reason and and and reason with us so that we can figure out something that works that isn't going to crush us, right? Yeah. It's already crushed.

It's already crushed us. But, you know, trying to keep it trying to keep it rolling and I understand, you know, Mr. I understand what you're doing with all due respect. However, from about the property. We've not you've never come out to talk to us. You're engineer. Folks, folks, let's Art, I got this. Please address the chair when you're um um and I just want I just want to kind of also clarify it's not John doing this. This is the town regulations. John is right. He's the one we talked to. John is rightfully enforcing them per what we have. So, so I just want to clarify that. And you know, you're doing everything right. Coming to us, you're making your case. will then kind of have questions and deliberate.

It's hard for me to understand how somebody can look at a piece of paper without actually coming out to the property to see that it's a point4 acre and expect us to meet these obligations for this drainage system that um you know that already exists and we're not making that many changes. I thank you. Thank you. Okay. questions from the board to either town staff or the applicant. Um Jason, that's right. Yes. Yes, sir.

That was very thorough and well presented and there was a lot of information and um we're talking about point4 acres. I you know I spent before I was on the town council I spent 11 years on the planning board. Um the planning board is um as you're well aware quasi judicial board all the information you've given and everything else there's a great deal of detail. All the information that coming from the homeowners great deal of detail right what is you know what is happening here is that you had a business that's been running since the 1950s and it's been a car lot since the 1950s. So I understand your your why you're perplexed on like why why has this become so difficult. So and I understand why you're trying to look for, you know, relief on it and everything else. You spent probably tens of thousands of dollars, you know, on this. Unfortunately, zoning came into effect in the, you know, the 19 the late 1970s, which changed everything. it not only affects you but it affects every other business that's been here for even 200 years and that they have to meet those regulations. Um, drainage has been always has been an issue. Now, I don't know if we can they can work around drainage or whatever those things are, but what I want this board to understand and consider is point4 acres. These are all the hoops they've been jumping through. They've been jumping through them for the last several years and everything else. And our regulations say that, you know, you have to do that because everyone has to be treated exactly the same, no matter who you are and no matter what piece of land you have. I have empathy for you and I understand and I hope that the uh we can figure out how to help and that but an amazing

amount of information given how small of a project it is and the the slight change you're making. It's thank you for the hard work. Thank you,

Tony. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um so drainage is always is always an issue and we in the past um three or four months we've been through um it seems like countless of these types of of projects where once you try to make a change the entire site gets opened up. and I've and I've done the same speech every time, which is similar to what John just did. Um, one of the bigger issues that we have on this board is that we have to try and find the happy medium between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law. Town staff doesn't have that right. town staff is obligated to do their job and read what the regulation is and make applicants enforce it. Okay. So, that's that's part of the dichotomy of of what goes on. Drainage has been an issue with this board and the ZBA since zoning started because the law says a particular lot of land cannot drain off into someone else's land. And therein lies the problem cuz well then where does the water go? It can't it can't just sit there. There's going to be runoff, especially in New England because when the ground freezes, it doesn't perk doesn't percolate down,

right? It just runs somewhere. And then people come here looking for relief that we can't give them because their sellers are flooding because of a change that somebody made somewhere upstream, downstream, in between stream, whatever. So that's where we're at. Now what we have to try and interpret is we we have a set of regulations that we know works. We also have have to look at 04 acres. How do we how do we handle that? What's changing? What's different? What's new technology? What's old technology? And then based on the experiences that we all have had at this board, like I say all the time, I've been on that on the side that you're on right now talking to boards. Where do we go? We're going to come back to that. But I do have a question on the conservations commission's comment on they recommend that a shed be demolished and check for hazardous material. Where is that shed on this site? And will it be demolished? Because I don't see it anywhere else.

To the right of the garage in the back. Okay. So, they they're recommending that that h happens. Is that going to happen? Yeah. And who's going to test it? What kind of testing are you going to do? Just a Sears and Rob block steel shed 8 by8. It's been there forever, but it's been an automotive place for since before zoning started, right? Um I don't know.

Whatever. It's a that's almost a rhetorical question. So, um conservation commission is worried about that shed for whatever reason. U Mr. Chair, Marge is here. Is it work? I don't know if Marge wants to come up and speak to that or not. She does not. So, that's okay. I'm okay with that. Um, but um I I don't know I don't know why they made that comment or what could possibly be in there other than old oil that's draining into the it's draining into

the applicant's intention that the shed will be removed and any contents will be removed or sent to uh any facilities in accordance with applicable regulations. Okay. So, we'll need that in writing somewhere, please. Some aluminum rims are there, an old wood store, stuff like that that's not even needed. Okay. Um, and will the soils be tested underneath that that metal shed if it's doesn't have a metal floor? It has a metal floor. There's no cement blocks under it. Oh, it does? Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. Yeah, I'd be happy if it was just it it just if it disappears, whatever. Um and then they also have another comment um to have the applicant document the rationale for waving for for the waiverss regarding landscaping. And you did mention something about that, but I didn't know if if they're talking about the same thing that you talked about. Well, um the site plan shows it the best. If you can flip like the two P Thanks Sean. So the parking lot for this propert that would be fine. Yeah. Keep going.

Want a couple more down right there. So the parking lot is consists of those three spaces plus a space across from them. It's a four space parking lot. to implement those landscaping requirements is um is um we have chosen to provide alternative plantings around the perimeter along the the road frontage where they will be more beneficial and since there's the lot is such a small lot essentially that's the justification for the waiver we'd be creating land disturbance just to create landscaped islands.

Okay. Thank you for that. And I have one more question Mr. Chair if it's okay. And so um of the of the applicant the just so I can get it fresh in my head because I remember you were here last time. I know the site been by the site seen the site. I don't step on land anymore that I don't own. I mentioned that at Heritage Commission the other night. So I have not stepped on your land because that would be trespassing. I now know that. Um, took all this time, huh?

You walked into that one. If you drove by, we have more green space than friendly reds. Understood. Naturally there. Understood. Always took all this away. Right. So, but but my I want to I want to I want to lay this out. So you bought the property and the business or the property and created the business? Created the business. However, however, when we got there, the day that we got the key after the closing, there was somebody operating a business in the garage. So you bought the land and created a business. Yes.

And what year was that, please? 2014 and and this whole thing was triggered by enforcement, code enforcement recognizing that something was wrong. Is that what is that? Was that the first trigger? We just um when we bought it, it said auto sales, but it didn't say wholesale auto sales. We just auto sales auto sales guess your book should present better. So the trigger was wholesale right

by enforcement by our enforcement officer not retail correct which right so which led to I'm sorry which led to a trip to Rockingham Superior Court. Got it. Okay. I'm all set, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I can tell you I verified with a a butter. They've been selling cars there since 1956. So just open it to the public. Can you Mr. Chair? I got a couple of questions if I can take them.

So I think you just sort of talked through one of my questions. What's triggering the site plan review is that you're changing wholesale to retail. Correct. Okay. Not changing multi. That's not changing. Correct. It's going to be increased to retail andreased. It's not changed. It'll be added to the billet. Yeah. Okay. So, otherwise you could continue. Maybe it's a question for staff. Otherwise, if you just stayed at it hotel wholesale, they wouldn't it wouldn't trigger the site plan change. Correct. Okay. Who are you asking staff? I guess basically

no. There's no approved uh site plan for what they're doing. But wouldn't it be a grandfather use? They if they were operating as they were in I think don't hold me to the date. I believe it was like the early 2000s, they could continue on as legal non-conforming, but as soon as they changed Yeah.

the use technically, whether it's wholesale to retail or vice versa, it's you're changing it. And that triggers it's a non-residential use in a commercial zone, it triggers recycling just like any other commercial use. But but that's what's basically it's it's going from wholesale to retail which triggers a sight. I think there were a number of other enforcement matters that are being encompassed into this. But okay, if I'm want to be held to one kind of tipping point, that's my understanding that that's what that is. Okay. Um

All right. So that answers that question. My second question is, so what I hear is that you're making an attempt to there what I hear is there's no drainage on the site currently. The code as best as we can. Yeah. But right now, if you let's say operated the way you're operating today and you didn't have to go through a site plan, there is no drainage on it. Right. Correct. Plan on on on the site. And what currently and what I've meant by redevelopment criteria is that

I don't believe the town has storm water redevelopment criteria similar to a lot of other towns which do which allow cases exactly like this to proceed where we're going to give you better water quality. Yeah. But we're not being held to the current standards of a brand new project. So it's a and this is a unique case to apply that. That's all I really meant by that. Yeah. No, I understand. And John only has one criteria to go by and that's that's he treats the same

he treats everybody coming through this uh board the same way. And but um I guess what I'm saying for the for the board's benefit is that right now there is no type of uh water treatment on the site and maybe what they're providing doesn't meet the criteria, but it's something more than is currently existing. And what I also

That's Yeah, go ahead, Johnny. Sorry. And what I also hear is that you're making efforts to let's say reduce the lock coverage ratio, providing um impervious soils and providing some additional landscaping that will suck up some of that groundwater. Correct. Yes. So it may not be to the town standards, but the site's getting sort of better overall. Correct. Yes. In my in those for those reasons and others. Yeah. So, and that would that's Johnny. Yeah. No, I just want I just think that's important to

Yeah, I agree with that. Um I agree that agree with the importance. I do have a question about this for a little more clarity. the storm water design presented this evening is is it and I'd like actually the staff's opinion to the best of their knowledge better or equal to our current standards. Again, the problem that I have with it, Jeff, is again just the point source discharge out of that. And again, because the issue is is always what happens to the abut, right? That was the biggest thing that I that I caught from the presentation was you had the runoff go into the abut

property and I may have misheard that. So, if you want to feel free to missing the runoff to all abutters for all design storms. Mhm. We are in terms of water quality treatment. This practice has higher rates of removals of the targeted pollutants, phosphorus, nitrogen than uh than the town standard detail which is for a extended detention dry basin. Okay. So the charts are different

and but that's not mean it's better or worse. It means it's it improves those values. We do I agree with John in terms of the point source we can and I've looked at this before the meeting build a a level spreader to convey that water and the non the water we're talking about is a small amount of runoff I don't have the report in front of me it's doc it is under a CFS or a half a CFS and it's less than the pre so we could to distribute more appropriately put in like a stone berm level spreader along along that property line to dissipate that flow which will be very minimal but it will still help. We did look at the frozen condition winter maintenance and I submitted the model with the ground frozen still demonstrating reduction in cover through many of the things we already talked about just in and of it making the site more green. So, we've looked at winter maintenance as well and we know the system can be maintained. Um, and so I would say that this is a um the intent of this BMP is consistent with the spirit of your regulations and the freeboard waiver is uh required partially due to the limited elevation of the site. Whereas all the water collected in that area in order to make u more freeboard you effectively have to um either lower the site which we can't do because of the water table that means you have to raise the site

right and that is not feasible because it introduced like some expensive construction costs a retaining wall we are providing free board it's just for these specific things on this specific site the waiver act we feel is justified and and uh you know looking it's consistent with how you guys are looking to manage water and how uh the EPA is looking to do it in this area in southern in and New Hampshire. So by creating that that level spreader we could we could uh increase some freeboard too. Yeah. So we would you know I definitely would you may not need that you may not need that waiver. That's why it's

I would take the waiver because I think um it's most likely not going to affect the water surface elevation because the water is not going to change elevation. It's going to spread the water out point discharge. the waiver won't go away with the with the uh with the rock with the uh the check dam and u but I definitely would agree to implement one on the plan if if we get to a conditional you know I would agree to provide that to the satisfaction of John and his in the town. Okay. Any other questions from the board?

So this is going to be better in in water drainoff than it is currently. Correct. It'll have Yeah, it'll meaning it'll have less runoff to the abutters. It's controlled and it's treated. Do we know how much water we're talking about in a 25-y year? Well, the amount's been submitted to the board as a part of your application. I could review the summary table. It's a low amount of water. It's um for like a 50-year storm. I'm Yeah, that that's what I'd imagine. You're talking under one cfs, under a half a CFS, tenths of CFS's. Okay. What is what is C just for everybody? What is CFS? It's how we measure runoff and cubic feet per second. Thank you.

And is there any because I I see some of the curb height here I think at 3 in. Is there any opposition to to brazing that or having a lip to try to keep some of the water in on the property or is that something that's just doesn't fit with this design? Well, the 3 in was amount to keep so that you don't have the pond and this is for like you get to a 25 or 50 year storm. The small storms the water goes in to keep from flooding the actual area where it's actually parked. So the 3 in of water, if you look at the plan, is only going to be within the turnaround itself. Okay. At bumpout, it will not be where people are right in here,

the path of travel. Exactly. It's limited. And that was intentionally done. And um I could even look at doing something offline as a condition where we maybe even put a like a catch basin outside of that to try to um decrease that ponding depth from 3 in to potentially zero. Okay. You could say we could work with DPW to minimize the amount of or eliminate the the minor flooding in you. I'm open to trying to tweak the design, but I don't like to change the whole game play.

Yeah. Yeah. that that that's why I asked cuz I mean it it does seem like a small level of water. It does seem to improve from what current site conditions are today and for the abutters. So, okay, that that's I'm good with questions. All right. Anything else from the board before I go to the public? I want to ask John, do you agree with that? What's that with what he's Yeah, just verbally. Yeah, it all the proof is in the pudding,

right? But if you could get that all down on paper, what was just talked about And it can it can get closer to meeting the regulations. Absolutely. So again, what Tamar was talking about is when we had had a couple of meetings and again what what we had discussed was creating a high point in the in the the lot itself catching the water on the right hand side as we're looking at this piping it across the the the property because again on the leftand side you have more real estate. So then you would have had then you would have had an open swell and I think when Jason finally went back to the to the drawing board it was a little more complicated. So again till we really look at it you know it's it's engineering solutions but till you look at it and just

but you think you can find a solution together the the the balls in his court. We looked at that option that John mentioned as a conceptual option and it wasn't workable from our end because it it aid into the parking because we needed real estate at least on the right hand side. So we had to collect the water which drains there and so therefore it cut into the parking and it created additional cost in which it consists of piping catch basins and it removed um the snow storage that we need on the left hand side because that's where we're planning to store all the snow

and so we can't store any snow by that design because it's dist disturbed by ice and uh for those reasons and it required some additional grading. So, we did look at that. It was not workable from our end and this is our our alternative to that as a as a best approach to the project. We've been trying not to change the landscape of the neighborhood at least that we do there. The neighborhood will remain the same. We don't want to be like everybody around us cut all the trees make

that that so excuse me that would also require waivers from you that design it require same freeboard waiver it would require pipe cover waivers because the elevation to pipe it so because I looked at it would require some wa some waivers too before you so it actually require more waivers than this by visav the piping insulation All right. This is a public hearing, so I would like to open up for anybody in the public to come in and speak. Could you just move the mic to the podium? Sure. Thank you.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the the board. My name is Wayne McDonald. I live directly across the street from 6 Dicky Street. I'm at 11 Dicki Street. Uh my family's own that property since 1956. Uh as Mr. Frell has has indicated and it's been a car related business uh throughout that that time period. Uh Mrs. Lampis had indicated that they've and and Mr. Lampis indicated they've tried to be considerate of the neighborhood. They absolutely have been. They've been excellent neighbors. Uh the neighborhood is very used to that being a car related business because it is such a small part of geography. Uh it's not like it's going to it's it's you know it's busy but it's not it's only can contain so much traffic so much activity. So that's never been an issue. The street is very used to that activity and I fully support the proposal as it's been laid out and I think it would be beneficial for all concerns. So totally in favor of it. Thank you.

And certainly happy to answer any questions if there are any. Do you do you have water that you see coming onto your property? Not at all. Okay. No, not at all. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Come on. Just name and address for the record. I'm Mary Moran and I live at seven Dicki Street and directly across from the from the store uh this shop rather and I just I've heard the angst that everybody's gone through all this process in the time that I've been there but um we on this side of the street on my side of the street we haven't had any drainage problem and I don't think they have either because they're so meticulous about that property and taking care of water and taking care of snow blowing and all of that. They absolutely are very mindful of the neighborhood and the neighbors and um have great respect for our property and great respect for us and we feel the same way about them. But I know the process has been a challenge for them, but it's been a great challenge that they've attempted in their best way possible to make it work. Um, but I would just um I would encourage the the board to give serious consideration to their requests and I again um I'm grateful. I would hate to lose them as neighbors. I absolutely would and for very personal reasons. There's just good people who care about the community and the people around them.

Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Okay, seeing none, I would like to close public comment and move into deliberations. Um, the first order that I will that I want to kind of take are the waiverss. So, we have seven there's seven of them, Mr. Chair. Okay. All right. So, do we want to address them all at once or Sorry. Can I just clarify something? Yes. Go ahead, Carol.

Uh, I believe it's eight. If you're still asking for freeboard, just a note for you. Yes, that's the new one. Yeah, the the one that was submitted today. I just didn't know if you're considering it. So, I just want to make sure we're Right. Yeah. Thank you, Kelly. So with that eighth one though, town staff hasn't had an opportunity to review it. Well, for consideration, why don't we address everything except drainage and then and then and then go from there. That's where I was kind of Thanks, John. That's where exactly where I was going. Fantastic.

Um it seems So let's take it from there. Let's take everything from drainage. I also the that eighth one I don't want to would want us to address and kind of discuss how we want to approach that one. Do you want to make a motion?

Yes, Mr. Chair. I will move that we accept waiverss and this is from the staff memo Kristen of April 1st 2026 and does not include the first page that's completeness waivers where it says the applicant has submitted seven waiver requests they're numbered one two three, four, five, six, and seven. And I move that we grant those waiverss because there is nothing uh nothing substantial that would be of detriment to the uh public good.

Mr. Can I ask you to pull out number three out of that? Number three. Curbing boat separately on it. That's the curbing one. You want to take the Yep.

And what is the reason Ian? Um because I think it's necessary for that project. There's no curbing on that street, is there? No. On the edge of the pavement to to corral the um There is no curving on on the but our regulations require curbing uh John to protect the landscaping. But there's no curbing on Dicki Street. No, there is not. Thank you. Yep. I'll I'll leave the uh Don't ask me why I know that. So you're So your motion includes Can we do a consensus? You should have a second for discussion and then right

decide. Do I have a second for for discussion? Second. Second by John. Okay. Open for discussion. So we're talking about number three. Number three. Curbing. So if there's no curbing on Dicki Street then like why would we want to keep it? It's internal. It's not it's not okay requirements your requirements require. So my guess is he's probably talking about since there's no curbing on Street. He's saying well I don't need to do curbing even if it's internal. What what I'm hearing John say is is that no it has to be if it's internal. Right. That's what I'm hearing

in our regulations. in our regulations, it has curbing. And now this is a country street and a country lot and a pre-existing whatever. Um, one person's opinion, um, I would allow this to be waved. I don't think there's any curbing necessary. It's allowing the parking areas.

No, I absolutely not necessary. I think it creates more problems than it solves on a lot like this. They got it's four point4 acres to work with. Um one one person would say um give them the waiver for that. I'm to that. I would agree with that as well. I agree with them. Same. Okay. So we have a consensus that three stays in stays in. is part of the waiver.

Um any other discussion on these the waivers dis put in front of us. All right. Hearing none, go for roll call vote starting with an Are we taking just that one now or all of them? We're keeping them in. Excuse me. The consensus of the board was to keep them in one through seven. One through seven. Okay. We're not taking them separately so I could vote on that. There is not a motion on the floor to keep them separate. There were the motion that was made was to

I just won out of them, not all separate. There was no motion on the floor to to take it out. So, no. Can I make a motion? We are in an active motion right now. You have to defeat this motion in to put yours up. So, can I just Sure. Art made a motion to take all seven at the same time. John seconded for discussion to consider what you asked. Consensus was to leave three in there. The curbing. So, you're you're voting on all seven right now. That's your vote. Okay. I think I'm going to abstain from the vote then.

No, you would say no. If you're not happy, you would say no. Right. Well, I'm not not happy with most of them. I mean, practically all of them, but I don't want to say no on the whole project. Just no on three. And I can't do it. So, I'm going to abstain from the vote. Okay. There's going to be a reason for abstension. See that? All right. Let's just let's let's not have Robert's rules of order. Let's just vote. Let's just let her abstain and let's vote. All right. That's what she's comfortable with. Starting with this um roll call vote. Starting with an please. Ann Champstein. Javanni Veroni I. Tony D. I

Arthur Rug I. John Ferrell. I Jason I. Sean Faber I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Okay. So motion carries. Motion carries. So what I want to now address is the storm water. Hey, never mind. Um, three board waiver. I'm sorry. You want to address the U waiver submitted? The waiver submitted this afternoon. Is it in the packet? It is. It's in your um electronic file. I have hard copies and the applicant brought hard copies.

Could I have an hard copy, please? I got like 11 windows open on this computer. It's going to blow up in a minute. So, I don't want to open another one. Could I have one also? Thank you. Thank you. I find that too many windows slows the things down. It's going to be a brown out. Thank you.

Thank you. conce I I get what you're saying now. You're going to need to explain I'm getting better and better every time. You ready for comments? We need to entertain a motion first. Mr.

Chairman, members of the board, if I can get again though, just I bring your attention to to the uh design review comment number seven. So again, what they're proposing is is unconventional. So I think what you need to do first is accept what they're proposing as allowing them to do that and then you act on that waiver. this unconventional method that they're bringing forward. Comment number seven, is it something you can work with? You need that's why I need a direction from you. I'm I'm asking like, you know, something you can work with. Yeah. So, it's something that you feel you be able to work with the applicant and make it all work

as long as you provide the appropriate backup. Understood. I'm just wondering he's designed to You know what I'm trying to do. Oh, yeah. I know. He's acknowledging it. Look at the comments. So, yeah. I said you know where I'm going. Oh, yeah.

So, Mr. Chair, it seems to me, have we dealt with this freeboard before? This thing before? Yes. Seems to be a like a constant issue. 12 in above freeboard. Not in this application. No, not on this application, but not not how they're proposing to to handle the the the storm water. So, is this Can I continue? So, is this part of what you had suggested bringing the water from the other side, piping it across? That's what I suggested.

That's that. Yeah. Okay. So, um Based on my personal experiences, that concept is 100% correct, but would open up a myriad of other issues once you start. I don't I don't see how I I I I pulled up the topos. I don't think it can. I'm not an engineer, but just looking at the topos, um, there's red flags all over the place saying it's not going to be able to get done. You're not going to be able to have enough soil on top of the pipes. you know, it's going to it's going to create all kinds of other other loopholes that for for a point4 acre. I think they're better off with a swale and a and and then control it when it gets to the when it gets to the end. But the 12 in of freeboard hasn't been necessary since the lot's been there. Probably not necessary now. one person's opinion.

All right, let's get this thing. I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to grant the waiver um being requested by the um by the applicant for lendary site review regulations 3.07B.10. of the surface ponding area acts the tension pond to mitigate 25-y year runoff but does not provide the 12 in of freeboard above the 50 year elevation and submit the letter from TF Moran as backup I'll second that for discussion second by by Sean's open on this for discussion any further discussion

I think Tony has a argument whether it fully works or not. I don't think any of us really know. Yeah. Right. We're not the experts, but we are the board has to make the decision. Well, does it make the property any worse? No, I think it's I think what they're proposing is improvement improving the conditions on the property. I mean, from what I've heard, their neighbors are supporting them. We all know that Mr. Trier is going to make the best out of you can best make out of this and you know work with the right you know and we're going to cross our fingers and hope it all works out.

Yeah. And so the regulations show that that ju just to get it out there on record, the their the flat part of their lot, the pad of the lot is at 310 and then it goes down to 300 as soon as you get off of there. And I here to here. Yeah. So yeah,

not immediately. No, it's not immediately, but it but the water's going to go and there there's a natural swale in that land to to start with anyway. I've I'm not going to say I've been on that land, but I'm familiar with that land and and the the water's been going for 50 years the way it wants to go. It's not going to it's not going to go uphill. I can I think considering the enormous amount of effort and the spirit of trying to meet all the regulations by this applicant and again the enormous amount of effort Yeah. should be considered. I like the idea of the spreader, by the way. Um, I like that. So, I've seen that before, but any any further discussion?

Thank you. Seeing none, I'll move to a roll call vote starting with Ann and Champ. Javanni Baron. I Tony D. I Arthur Rug I. Don Farrell. I Jason. Sean Faber. I And the chair votes in the affirmative. Thank you. The final vote for there is 71 710 710. And for the record, could you just provide a reason for the nay?

I'm sorry. Yeah, just for the record, could you provide a reason for the nay? The last couple of words. Nay, could you provide a reason why her vote um a reason for your vote for nay? Because I think our uh our uh head of the engineering department um told us why during the meeting he believes that it isn't good enough as is. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, motion carries. Moving on to approval of the site plan. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second.

Additional approval and all the conditions that's listed here. Do we need to add anything about um the engineer working with staff? It says it in there on that drainage thing. Does it? So, just to clarify, so when you're voting to conditionally approve this, you're you haven't adjusted any of the conditions, those being what's in the engineering memo as well as uh design review comments. So, you're

Say that again. Kell, sorry. Uh your when you conditionally approve this, Yep. your the conditions are what's outlined in the design review comments and the engineering memo. You haven't adjusted any of that. And within that, you're saying you're saying that they need to comply with all those conditions. So, you're saying that they need to work with town staff to address those conditions. I'm just clarifying that you didn't adjust any of like any of the drainage related design comments or any of that. you've granted waiverss to address certain items, but you haven't adjusted any of the other conditions.

I I think the conversation based on my motion, I think the conversation has been clear that, you know, we want to see the staff work with the applicant. We want to see the engineering department work with them and try to come up with something that works for all parties. Yep. And in in the best possible way and in the spirit of the regulations the best we can. I think that's what we're saying. Yep. Make it happen. I think what Kelly is saying is that when she issues the letter, it's going to reference everything I know that's in here. I know. So that's what they have to do, which is different than what we've been talking about.

Is that accurate? No, I'm just making sure that you it's understood that what's outlined in the memorandum with the exception of the waiverss you granted is what's expected to be held to and that means working with staff. Does it cover what I said? I believe so. I'm just making sure it's clear because I I'm not convinced that Tony agrees. Yes. I'm minding my own business over here. So, we have a motion and a second on the site. I know what I said.

We have a motion and a second on site plan approval. Any further discussion? Okay. And just to kind of again clarify it is, you know, the applicant must meet the conditions that are set forth in the engineering memo as well as the um uh the town planning memo as well. All right, roll call vote starting with an please. An champ. Javanni Baron. I Tony D. I Arthur Roy. I John Ferrell I. Jason Knights I Sean Faber I. And the chair votes on the affirmative. You have a conditionally approved site.

Very much. Appreciate it. Good luck. Yep. Thank you. Work with staff. They're very helpful. Oh, we've been trying to driving us crazy. That's not a good start. Yeah, you guys are all welcome to come by. Thank you. I I can't do that anymore. I'm wear I'm wearing a bracelet on my ankle. Okay. Been by it many times. All right. page. Is that

Next up is a public hearing of an application for a formal review of a site plan and conditional use permit for a 12unit town home development and associated site improvements and a condominium conversion permit lot consolidation and a conditional use permit for 1,400 square ft of wetland butler impact in the commercial 2C2 district. address is three page road tax map 15 law 235 page rock LLC is the owner and the applicant so first I would like to entertain a motion for completeness of the application so I have a question under this on number two it says that we're missing fair amount of required legal documents is that still the is

let me just catch up here. What do you um under number two? It's saying that we are missing look significant amount of required legal documents. Is that still the case? You're looking at the memo for under staff recommendations. Wrong memo. Um that's um just like a catchall. Um

they they actually sent them in today um because of the memo. So they sent in a bunch that we haven't had a chance to review yet. So there's a lot of you talk about checklist item. Yes. Yeah. The the number two it's it's not a standard thing that comes in you know that we're missing. So it's a standard item. Um but we we typically have draft documents of it. It's essentially related to the condo conversion. Okay.

Um and any like drainage easements, things of that nature. Typically we have the drafts through the design process. It's my understanding that we may not have received the drafts. They were sent this afternoon, but it's a typical condition of approval that those get finalized. It's just it's you're seeing it on the checklist in this instance because we didn't actually have a draft to begin with as much. Yeah, cuz I I I don't normally see So, it's not atypical to to see that comment. It might be a little atypical to see it under the checklist. Okay. It was something to do with drainage, you'd see it. Oh my god. So, and we'd spend 45 minutes, wait a minute, did John Tartiger make a joke?

It is April Fool's. So, um, okay. So, I will I I could entertain a motion for completeness of a checklist items for acceptance only. So, moved. So, moved by motion made by Tony. Do I have a second? Second. Second by John. All in favor, roll call vote. Starting with Anne. Ann Champa. I. Javanni. Veroni. I. Tony D. I John Farley. Jason, sh in favor. I the chair votes in the affirmative. That is a 70. The rug has um he's gone.

He's he's gone for the moment. So, thank you. All right. So, thank you, Paige Rocket. That's an awesome LLC name, by the way. Pa rock. Um anyways, sorry. Um so what you can kick off your presentation and we'll go from there.

Absolutely. Um thank you Mr. Chairman and good evening everybody. For the record my name is Paul Chisum. I'm with Keech Nordstrom Associates. We're the engineers and surveys of record for the project. To my right, your left is Mr. Gary Thomas. Uh Gary is a member of Pedrock LLC. Also from Pedrock LLC. Joining us tonight is Dean Navaroli who's sitting in the front row. Uh the project before you is a 12-unit townhouse project seeking approval of a site plan. Uh a condominium conversion plan. It contains a conditional use permit for the multif family use in the commercial to zoning district. A conditional use permit for wetland buffer impacts as well as one waiver request related to the location of trees 15 in in diameter or larger. Um just to kind of give you a little bit broad overview. I'm sure most of you are probably familiar with the area. It's a little bit of a mixeduse neighborhood um in also mixed zoning neighborhood. Uh this property is in the commercial two zoning district. It's surrounded by a variety of uses. Uh industrial to the north. Um there's some residential including duplex and single families kind of uh you know scattered throughout. There's agricultural uses not too far from this on Mammoth Road. Uh across the street from Rockingham Road, you know, just down the way. Obviously, there's a number of bigger uh commercial and industrial developments um that are in the works as well. Um the the parcels in question today, there's actually two properties. Uh one is located at 560 Mammoth. That's about a third of an acre. Uh it's on the left hand side of your screen. Uh and then the larger of the two properties is the property located at three Page Road. This proposal um suggests to merge both of those to create one property. In total, that'll be about 3 acres in total area. Um, that smaller parcel currently is undeveloped. The larger parcel contains an existing single family home that was built sometime around 1977 according to uh tax records and that has a driveway access directly to Paige Road. Uh, in general, the site topography um slopes uh essentially from Mammoth Road to the west towards a

low-lying wetland on the east side. Uh, it basically follows the grade of Page Road as you're kind of coming down from that intersection towards Rockingham. Um, this plan proposes two six-unit townhouse style buildings. Uh, Kelly, if you don't mind pulling up the architectural drawings, if that would be okay. I just want to um put that in front of everybody here. Uh, basically these are townhouse buildings. There are two bedrooms each. Um, you know, the units on the the north side or the upper side of our site plan there will have uh basically two levels and a basement. Uh, the units adjacent to Page Road will have two levels and then a walkout basement. That's just basically to allow and work with the site grading and topography that exists out there. Um, these units are going to be for sale. That's why they're we're proposing the condo uh as part of this. So, this will be a condo association with an HOA and all of those things. Uh, obviously looking at the screen here, uh, Gary and his team at North Point Construction Management um, prepared the uh, architectural plans for the drawing. Uh, but this is more or less what that looks like. We went before the Heritage uh, commission and uh, they really didn't have a whole lot to say. I think they were more or less in favor with it and um you know I don't I don't think any changes actually came out of that that I can recall in terms of the building design or the look or feel of it or anything along those lines. Um I should also note that on I believe it's sheet 15 of 22 on our plan set there is a um basically a developmental sign um that is again North Point also prepared um that was also discussed with the heritage uh commission as well. Uh basically the idea is to kind of put that out to the front of the property by the driveway entrance to Mammoth Road. Um again, you know, there might be some minor changes there just in terms of uh whatever the address ends up being and things like that, but more or less that's what that sign will look like. Um all of these units are proposed uh to have basically municipal utilities, sewer, water, gas, underground electric, all of those things. Uh in addition to

uh each unit having a garage space and and a small driveway, uh there's going to be 10 additional parking spaces. Um along with other similar developments like this, you'll have your typical screened and enclosed uh dumpster. Uh our mailbox pedestal. We'll have an NFPA compliant turnaround. uh of course fully compliant storm water management system for you know mitigating the proposed impacts of development erosion control plans and measures that will obviously be taken care of through the construction period and then also if I could turn your attention to sheets eight and nine you'll notice the residential scale uh landscaping and lighting that are uh proposed for the project as well um we do have a little bit of lighting a lot of it's more unit based there's a couple poles kind of in where the parking areas are really just more for safety we try to keep it as small scale as possible just to kind of, you know, have a have a lower impact overall in terms of how many lights are out there. Um, the waiver request specifically is in regards to um locating all trees greater than 15 inches in diameter. It's it's a pretty thickly wooded area out there. I would suspect there's probably a large number of trees that might be 15 in or larger. Um, to go out and survey them would obviously be quite quite a large expense to the, you know, the applicant and it really wouldn't provide a whole lot of value. We're obviously limiting cutting to the extent practicable. We do have a little bit of a wetland buffer impact there for uh to accommodate storm water management and just make sure that everything is done in accordance with the regulations as far as that's concerned. So, we're really trying to limit how much cutting and clearing there is in terms of the existing tree lines uh in in that sense. Um I'd be happy to dive into that a little bit more. Obviously, we did write a letter to that effect. So, if anybody has any questions, certainly we can address that. Um the conditional use permit, I don't know, Mr. Mr. Chairman, how much you want me to get into kind of the narrative there? We did obviously submit a letter kind of talking about the criteria. Um, you know, more or less I think that the the main takeaway from this is we believe that this is a pretty good transitional use for the property. Uh, considering the industrial

properties to the north, obviously there's other residential devel um, you know, uh, existing developments uh, kind of surrounding in other areas as commercial zone. Um, you know, this is something that I think serves the need, which is obviously housing, uh, for not only the state of New Hampshire, but also the town of London Dairy. Um, and so there's obviously some other criteria in there. Um, and I'd happy to dive into that a little bit further if you'd prefer. Um, in terms of the conditional use permit for the wetland buffer impacts, we're talking about a very small area on this plan. You'll see it's kind of the shaded area to the right hand side of the screen. Um, there's a it's 1,400 ft in total. Uh it's on the back side just the downhill slope of the storm water management uh area to the east and then also the outlet area for that. Uh there's a little catch basin kind of in that corner that is going to have to be cleared to uh and maintained. Uh some of the areas in fact most of that area will be allowed to kind of grow back and and reveate after construction you know once they can establish those slopes but there's a there's a small portion of that which will obviously have to be maintained as it's part of the storm water system itself. So, um, you know, uh, future mowing and things like that will be necessary. Um, so I think I've kind of covered the bases there. Again, I'm happy to dive a little bit more detail wise into some of those things if if you do have any specific questions, but I think at this time it um, might make sense just to answer any questions that you folks might have. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. So, I will first go to the go to town staff Kristen.

Um, like Paul mentioned, there's one waiver for the trees. Um, there's two cups, one for the conservation overlay district. There's a 1,400 square foot um wetland buffer impact there. and conservation did not have um any objection to the cup. Um and then there's a second one for the where is it? Um section 4.1.2 of the use table um to allow multif family residential on a parcel in the underlying C2. Um so there's that. um those criteria there. Um and then you also have the site plan approval and then after that um the condominium conversion. So multiple things to review.

Thank you. John, do you have any input? Mr.

Chair, members of the board, we'll go through brief view on the design review items. Uh applicant indicates that New Hampshire dees sewer discharge and town of Londereary sewer discharge permits is required as well as its Londereary uh storm water permit. They recommend that they obtain all project permits and then indicate the permit approval numbers on the plan set. Uh the site driveway for this particular development has been relocated to Mammoth Road. Uh and now the development does not address uh does not access Page Road. Again, we're just recommending that they coordinate with the assessing department uh and for emergency purposes under 911 the uh proper address for this particular parcel. Uh we have three comments regarding the project drainage analysis. Uh this also includes a uh voluntary this plan will require a voluntary merger form or or uh action. And lastly, we're recommending that they uh provide documentation to support and verify the DRC comments of the planning department assessing building fire department conservation and the sewer division are addressed. That's all I have. Thank you. Kelly, do you have any additional comments or set?

Thank you. All right, I'll open up discussion with the board. Board, do we have any what questions do we have for the applicant? I just have one. Go ahead. Thank you. Um so to the applicant, the um the fire department was very clear about the um the hydrant being 100 ft um within there. That's that's addressed. Yeah. Will be Yes, that's correct. In fact, the hydrant um is actually basically just to the left hand side of the units on the north side of the driveway adjacent to kind of on this plan where you see that tree kind of tucked. So that plan shows compliance with what

correct. Yeah. And we coordinated that with the fire department obviously in between and they're happy with that location. Thank you. Y and so, um, on a lot of these, um, schematics that we get and site plans, there's there's a picture of a fire truck and the the route that it takes. Could you show me that sheet, please?

Absolutely. That would be on sheet uh, 13 of 22. And y, thank you, Kelly. That's pulled up. So, this actually shows two different things. Number one, it shows a um a fire truck uh actually in that NFPA turnaround. It also shows uh either a moving truck, delivery truck, or also, you know, basically what could be um some other kind of vehicle that basically has people kind of moving out of here. Stantech wanted us to make sure that we had room for that that wouldn't block the NFPA area. So, that's what this plan details and the fire department saw that and they were happy with it. They're good with it. Yep. Okay. Yep. And um this for the record this is zoned how? What? What? Commercial two. Commercial two. Y.

So So you need a conditional use permit because in the C2 zone, that's what it says for dwelling multif family.

Correct. Yeah, those are allowed by conditional use permit. So there's some additional criteria you have to meet, but it is allowed. So it could be also be an assisted living facility by right, a nursing home, a community center, a public facility, a public utility, a recreational facial facility, a religious facility. All of these are by right. a business center development, a drive-thru window for whatever, drive-in establishment, drive-in theater. That'd be nice. Those are still around. Uh financial institution with a drive up. Um a funeral home. Um and another hundred not really

hotel a hotel sexually oriented business. Um, somebody tried that once in London. It didn't go well. Uh, could be a fast food restaurant. Hasn't been one in a long time. Could be a re repair facility. Could be professional offices. So, it could be a lot of things. There's also a bunch of It's none of those, right? It's It's none of those things. I just checked. Maybe I was looking at the wrong plan. And it could be And it could be a bunch of other conditional uses as well. Mhm. Um, you chose this route uh for your business. Um, that's all I have, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Any other questions, Jason? So, um, I know we're looking at this one, but you guys are the same company bringing up the next one. That's correct. Yeah. So, I got a question about that. um know if you've ever tried driving down this road anywhere near Rush Hour and the chaos that ensues trying to get into that intersection. Um I know you've done a traffic study, but did that traffic study also include the traffic that's going to come from this other development into that intersection at the same time? From both of the proposed Right. Exactly. because in real life they're both going to be emptying out into Page Road at the same time.

So basically each one produced its own traffic report in accordance with the regulations. So they don't technically, you know, uh count towards each other if that makes sense. Like the math is a little different. Uh either way, the total like change in volume is is a very low percentage overall. Um so yeah, I mean we've met the regulations with it, but no, they didn't basically look at it like it's one traffic study for two. In fact, Stantech, we kind of did that with drainage and Stantech said, "No, no, we really want you to look at it like two different sites." So, we really kept them very separated um kind of by design on purpose because this gets to what you this gets to what you bring up a lot, you know?

Correct. Yeah. So, again, they they meet the the criteria of doing the the short traffic analysis. So again, they they've come up with, you know, it's going to be a weekday average of 79 vehicles per day, but so they meet that criteria of that lot. Then when they do the criteria of the other lot, but again, they're not connected. Everything is in a silo and then the real world hits and you've got Yeah. flying off in front of each other all the time. Similar to what you saw on 295 Rockingham, right over by by the mobile station in 225.

225. Thank you. Yeah. So, I'm I guess you can't, but it's I've I've got serious concerns about both of these and the impact that they're going to have in that I live in that area and I know what it's like trying to cross that road now. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. Do we have the authority to mandate that they get a combined traffic study for the two projects? anybody? I've never heard of it.

So, they're technically two separate projects. If you need additional information to make a decision for this project and the next project, you can ask for more information. I believe we discussed this when we talked about um now I'm going to flip them. 225 22 and 222, right? Whatever the other one is. Um, and essentially the issue is you have two private properties, so we can't technically two owners, right? Two separate owners technically,

right? So, we can't force them to work together. Um, so I'll say it again. If the board needs more information about traffic specifically, what we did for the 225 project is asked for additional information for that specific site with traffic. We kept it you you asked specific to that site. You didn't combine. So Kristen, based on your experience with different towns and different municipalities and whatever, do you have a want to weigh in on this?

Um, I would keep it separate. I mean, if one project decides to not happen, you still have the data for that one that did go forward, but we have the data now if Yeah.

So, so could it be could it be as simple as let's let's just pull a number out of a hat. Let's say we want to we want to do 158 cars and it for traffic and see see what it looks like. Can we ask for that? We want a traffic study based on 158 trips. What's the basis of that? I should pull the pull the number out of the hat. Sounds like it's two times each one. You're very quick with math. Yeah, I see what you did there. You caught me. Why do you think I asked you that? You did, but she actually caught me.

Well, I wanted you to say it. I think it's a slippery slope. Mr. Chairman, can I shed a little light on this conversation? Sure. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Um, so basically, you know, with the amount of traffic that we actually have if we were to combine both of these sites and did one traffic study, considering the total number of cars from both, we'd still be under the thresholds and it would the same logic for the studies that were submitted separately would still apply. So, I think we would still really meet the same criteria. I don't think it would really tell you anything different from a check in the box standpoint of what the regulations say about traffic. Um the the threshold is a thousand daily trips. I think we're under 80 is the total.

Um you know, Page Page Road sees 4,600 cars a day. Um Rockingham Road sees 12,700. So just those numbers and the way that the whole kind of traffic is set up, it's not like it would trigger us into a bigger study or something along those lines technically to meet the regulations. My concern isn't with is isn't with Paige and Rockingham. My concern is with Paige and Mammoth. Gotcha. Pedron Rockingham has a light on it that's that's controlled. Pedro Mammoth is the Wild West. I understand. Okay. Yeah. And that intersection has had accidents before. Sorry. What um did you did you have something to say or I'm almost set for now. Okay.

Good. Okay. Other questions of the applicant? No, I just want to say we we're concerned about the safety of the people. That's why we're asking.

Yep. And you know, I think part of it too is we've heard a lot of those concerns. You know, this project has had a long road. You know, I think it started in 20121. Um it started as bigger project. It started as other commercial things. I think you heard one of the members list off all the things that this could be. Um you know, there's a lot of density that's actually left on the table between these properties. I think there's it could be not quite but almost double the amount of density. You know, that's that's basically what you're going to see between these two projects. Um, and a lot of that was based on some of the feedback we heard. We feel like this is a pretty reasonable request given everything that's kind of transpired over the last 5 years. And so I'm I'm not trying to minimize your comment or anything like that. I just I think we've accounted for it in a sense. And um, you know, we haven't done any formal study of any intersection or anything, but you know, it doesn't necessarily there's been never been a requirement to we've kind of worked with staff through the process and I think we everyone can acknowledge that's a little bit of a sticky spot. Um but uh but uh you know we weren't necessarily asked to to do anything more there. Um so you know I I I do hear and acknowledge your comment but um uh like I said I think this this started as something bigger and we've tried to tone it down to be more reasonable um something that would fit and work a little bit better given all the things and all the concerns that there are

total. Thank you Mr. Chair. So what I heard is there there is a more detailed traffic study that could be done but you haven't been asked to do it. Uh corre I mean there's a lot more detailed studies that could be done. Sure. Yeah. So then my question to the board is is that something that we that we want to entertain and can we entertain that? I would like to see it entertained. for peace of mind. If anything,

we might, you know, we might be getting a little ahead of ourselves. We haven't seen the plan for 295 Rockingham Road. We're looking at this plan right now. You may want to table this discussion. Move to the discussion of 295 Rockingham Road. Get all the get all What this is this is Well, there's there's a Well, I haven't I haven't heard him. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Yes, you're right. I'm sorry. I'm saying let's get it all on the table. If you're gonna ask for something, we're we should have all the information out in the public view and say, "Okay, this is what we're asking for and this is why." That makes sense. That's that's that's a point of view. Sure. I had it confused with the other really kind of went together.

So, I mean, yeah, theoretically that does make sense, but just with it being separate, I just want to have a separate um public hearings on that. Um you can open two public hearings at a time. just don't have to close them. I I'm just trying to suggest a way that we can get all the information out and ask all the questions at once, but I'm willing to do whatever you want to do.

No, I mean that's a kind of a good point actually. Um, any other questions from the board? Okay. Going to open the public hearing. Any questions or kind of statements from the public? Please, if you could just uh state your name and address for the record. Dave Robbins, 532 Mammoth Road. So, at this juncture, can I talk about the two projects as an aggregate or do we have to have the two public sessions opens? I'd like to talk to them as one.

Let's do a I just want a point of order. How would I open up to public? You can hearings. Well, you can actually open You can make We I can make a motion to open the public hearing for the second plan. First, you have to accept it. But I haven't we haven't accepted that. But we haven't accepted it. We'd have to go through that whole process of doing that and have them both open at the same time. If as the chair you it's your prerogative to let this gentleman discuss anything he wants. That is true, but I am probably leaning on um opening it all up so we can all have the same conversation that end um

all that good stuff. So, thanks. Okay. All right. So, to what I'm trying to do is definitely, you know, kind of have this efficiently kind of go as well as ensure that we're not discussing the same thing twice. So, um, so I would check in with staff, make sure that you follow the what we need to do to open the second public hearing, and then let's open it, and then we'll and then you're going to have to come back and deal with them one at a time. She's shaking her head up and down. I'm assuming you want me to say something.

Kelly, please uh hold my hand on this one. So read the case for 295 in the record and then you'll need to act on completeness and then you can go from there even with this other one completely open. Yep.

Which is to John's point having two open the same time. Perfect. Okay. My brain is working. All right. Reading public hearing of an application for formal review of a site plan and conditional use permit for a 12 unit town home development and associate site improvements, a condominium conversion permit and a conditional use permit for 1522 square ft of wetland buffer impact in the commercial 2C2 district 295 Rockingham Road Tax Map 17 Law 25. Page Road LLC is the owner and applicant. Um, do I have a motion for completeness of the application? So moved.

Motion made by Sean. Second. Second by Art. All in favor? Roll call vote. Starting with Ann. Ann Champ. I. Javon Veron. I Tony D. I. Arthur Rug. I John Farrell. Jason. I Sean Faber. I chair votes on the affirmative. Um, so what I would suggest is you let them present their information so you can hear it so the public can hear it and then open the hearing. That way everybody can talk to the two. So inviting the applicant to present you present on this and the cliffnotes version.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Obviously these are these are pretty s very similar projects. I would say it's also a 12-unit project. Really, the big difference here is it's a bigger parcel. It's 8 acres. It's located at 295 Rockingham Road instead of three page. You obviously see that highlighted on the cover there. Um, you know, instead of being a six and six unit um layout, it's a five and seven. We originally started as six and six. We went uh to the conservation commission. They had some concerns with how close that what is now the seven unit building uh was to the wetland buffer and were asking us to take a fresh look at things to kind of eliminate some of the buffer impacts that were going to happen there. What we came back with was shifting everything a little bit closer to Rockingham Road by just a few feet and it really kind of alleviated some of their concerns there. So they were they were happy with this when we came back to them the second time. But that's really the only difference why this is a five and seven versus a six and six. Um all these units are uh you know two levels above ground and then one basement. There's no walkouts on this just due to the site grading and things like that. Um same number of you know extra guest spaces, same you know NFPA turnaround and those things and uh obviously all the same you know conditional use permits and waiverss are requested on this one as the other one. There's really no difference in the ask uh in terms of you know the the protocol there. So uh how'd I do?

Good enough. Good job. Thank you. Excellent. Um I go to staff if there's any additional information. It's

pretty similar. Like they said, there's a waiver for um the trees, the trees over 15 inches in diameter. Um the two cups, condo conversion. Um what else? Um I forgot to mention with the other one that they this one and that one both have um variances two variances each from ZBA um for the 50oot landscape buffer and um maintaining that buffer because the driveway gets in the way. Um so there's that detail as well that I didn't mention in the other one. Thank you Christine John.

Yep. Uh similar comments to this project regarding uh permits discharge permits. Uh comment regarding the uh the drainage analysis. Uh similar about the the uh street address for 911 concerns. Um appropriate uh construction details. Some comments regarding the drainage analysis. Uh and lastly addressing the comments of the uh planning assessing fire department conservation and and sewer uh division. That's it. Thank you, Kelly. any additional just from a procedural standpoint so we're all on the same same page. So

I'm assuming you're going to move to the public hearing portion so people can speak concurrent concurrently on both on both projects. But then once you're in a place to do decision making take action as a board you need to do them separately please. Yep. 100%. Yes, that was wrapping my brain around that. Just so everybody on can understand how this Before you go to public comment though, I have a question. Yes, I'm going to go to the board on any questions about this particular um application. Tony,

thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh to the applicant. So, I'm looking in the I'm looking at the building department comment sheet from April 22nd of 2025. And this may have been before you made a change, but it says platform steps of bulkheads on south building and end unit on north building will encroach into the building setbacks. Is that still true? Yeah, that's on the three-page project. That is not still true. We made adjustments to that after the fact. That's correct. And so they also said slight encroachment by the utility room and more changed as well. That's gone. Correct. Okay.

That being said, if you made changes, why don't we have a new building department comment sheet? Is that um from staff? Is that not something that was done um in in the last month or two? Um it was he they did review it and that's why they went back to um they had to go to ZBA because the driveway had shifted from um Page Road to No, sorry that's the other project. Um so what was the question exactly?

So the question is if if in fact the site plan changed and it did change the size of the buildings, right? Why did it not go back to building department for a comment sheet? Um why did it I I don't know what the process is. I don't know how you guys do it. I'm not sure. Sorry. It did. And it's just we don't have a formal sheet. That's all. So that means they were okay. Yes. Thank you. But just to be be clear, we always include as a condition address all DRC comments to give it a one more view for everybody. Got it. Thank you.

Yep. Just crossing the tees, dotting the eyes. Do have a question. Um, with both these projects, are you are they are you is the plan to have them concurrently run or are you going to phase them? Sure. Any other questions? All right, I will open up the public hearing and we are talking about both projects now. This guy looks familiar. Thank you.

Dave Robins, 532 Mammoth Road. Um so couple of concerns um with the project. Um again, kind of talking about the whole north end, but I'm going stay specific to this because this is what we're talking about tonight. Um three primary concerns. Traffic. I'm on Mammoth Road, Old Mammoth Road. We've had this fight and with the town for years, decades,

decades. Um, and that my concern is, and it always has been, when people come down Paige Road to go to Rockingham Road, the light was put in for easy access to Rockingham Road. Now we have the right turn lane there, but and what would happen is people would come down to this to Mammoth Road and they would see the backup at getting on a Rockingham and what did they do? You take a right and you go flying down Mammoth Road to try to get in front of whoever the people are in front of you. It's the perception of the driver that it's faster. So we've put three stop signs on the road. They have been effective. They have reduced traffic. They have slowed people down. You still get the people that Yeah, people run light stop signs. It is what it is. But overall, I don't sit in my I don't sit in my front window watching the street with a cup of coffee going, "Oh my god." So So that's a positive. But my fear is with as we develop this north end area around Mammoth Road and Paige that we're going to bring those problems back. We can't forget that we have 440 units going to start coming online on Technology Hill in the next year or two. That traffic is going to disperse throughout the town as is the traffic here. Now, when I look at specifically the development that's on Mammoth Road, um I'm sorry, on Page Road, if they're gonna if the people who live there come out, taking a left at the wrong time of day on Page Road is going to be really difficult. So what are they going to do? They're going to take a right and then the easiest way out is down Mammoth Road. So we're going to start introducing traffic that we fought for decades to kind of alleviate. Um and in the traffic studies that I read for these two projects, Mammoth

Road isn't even mentioned. So that was P's concern being a resident of that street. Um, so I I'm not sure what we do about that traffic thing, but it scares me with the development that's going to happen. When I look at Technology Hill, 222, 225, we got the apartment buildings, SNS Metals isn't clearing that land to, you know, plant grass. So, you know, it the area is going to explode and we need to make sure we're dealing with it. And the other pro so the other problem that comes with it is you know we look at these projects and we say okay so it's going to generate x amount of tax revenue which is great and that's all fine until you get to the point where now I need to add another traffic light or make the roads larger and then that tax money becomes significantly less value because you're making capital improvements which leads me to my next concern. So the page the one with access to Mammoth the property being developed is commercial. Now my understanding listening to the board and coming to meetings is that commercial property is desirable property for the town of Londereerry. It's low impact, low use on services and it's money that comes into the town that alleviates the burden on the homeowner. So, we've always that's kind of what we want to develop. Um, and yet here we are again. We're talking about C2 property that now we want to lend to residential development. Um, I you know, Mr. D. Francisco went through his his grocery list of all kinds of things that could be built there that would be by right on C2 property. And every one of them that you know that I heard there was they were minimum impact on town infrastructure and resources

which is kind of the idea. Um so I I I have a I have a big concern with that. I think the town should get away from doing that and start developing commercial property for commercial uses. Um you know one of the way the the what what One of the waiverss was for not for 15inch trees for inventorying 15-inch trees on it. I it almost see you know just a comment. It almost seemed like it was inconvenient to do it. So I'm not I don't know ex I'm assuming it creates a good canopy for property and we wanted to keep trees of that size. Um I would think that you know if we have that ordinance that you know hey we want to keep these trees we should probably try to keep them. I mean, right? Most of the projects come in. What's the easiest thing to do? Clear cut the land, build what you're going to build, and then throw a few more trees in there just to make up for it. But if you want to save some of your old growth, that's when you do it. So, anyway, my thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yes.

Um I just want to say in response to um the traffic on Mammoth Road. So, regardless of this site plan, um, like I was on the council, John was on the council, I think when we we went through the the stop sign portion of that, I do think regardless of what gets approved, not approved here tonight, I think we're going to have some potential to have more issues on that in the future. And I think that's something that if that starts to happen again, there were other options. I remember us discussing possibly closing off the end of Mammoth Road. I think we're not going to just put you back in that zone where you're asking for decades to try to get relief. Well aware of that problem. If it starts to get back like that, please come contacting us and we'll go we but we'll we'll responsibly look at a a solution to that sooner because that's it. It's it's known what you guys went through for years. I'm glad to finally get you relief. If it starts to go back there, we've got to fix that fast. So, Robin Stewart 522 Mammoth. Um, I agree with Dave on everything that he said, but Mammoth and Paige, multiple multiple accidents. Videos have been sent to the police on a regular basis. There was one maybe three weeks ago with a car in a work truck. If you're going to add all that more, and I I hear what you're saying, Sean, and I appreciate that, but if you're going to add all that much more traffic, how's that going to help us in any way at all? I know you said that there's this blends right in. I don't know where it blends in. This is a historical area. We do have businesses. There's um that workplace. I don't know the name of it. And there's

workplace. Workplace. Oh, is that what it's called? Well, there's that workplace and then there's Merrill's Farm and um that's the trucking place where they Yeah, sorry. Uh and Foron and But they all blend right in with our neighborhood. They they're all kind of just there and they blend in.

I don't see anything that blends in there in a historical area to just put up things that it's like a mini gill crust. That's what they look like. And I I don't think that keep that's going to lower the value of all of our properties and it's going to just look out of place. So, I don't know why I don't know how that helps our neighborhood at all and certainly diminishes our property rights or our property values. And Dave's right about Mammoth Road. The stop signs have helped a lot, but down by where I live on the rail trail, once they get dark, they think that it the stop sign's only good for rail trail. So, they assume nobody's coming on the rail trail. They just go in and out like there's not a stop sign there. So, I've asked for a blinking stop sign to catch their attention, but apparently that costs money and nobody wants to spend that. So, that's that's an issue. And that's before all this traffic has started and bombarded the area that we're we're going to have to live in. This doesn't fit into what I saw as the new town plan, the master plan for our area that none of this fits into it. And I thought that was the idea of us having a master plan was to make all these things kind of go hand in hand. So, thank you.

Thank you. Any other comments from the public? All right. So, I will close both public hearings. All right. So, back to the board. Back to We're going to take it back to the board. Just Hey, John. Yeah. Just ask him a couple questions. All right. So, do we have any areas in town that we sign as put signage up for no through traffic, local only?

Um, there were there was a couple, my recollection, I think Lichfield Road is one of them. Uh, but again, that's only certain times of the day. So, it wouldn't be unusual. All right. So, let's It would

Griffin Griffin Road has one. It wouldn't be unusual for us to first my thoughts were is okay, no right-hand turn, no left-hand turn, something like that. I'm thinking in my head, right, going into into um the village of Mammoth Road and then I'm saying, okay, that's probably not manageable or enforceable. But if I have but if we you know as part of this plan if we required you know local traffic only or no through traffic local traffic only we got to come up with the right verbiage or something like that and post that so that if people are going through that area we do have an enforcement right.

Two two things on that. Number one we don't enforce it. I live on hall, which is a no for a truck and 18 wheelers go I've seen 18 wheelers go past cruisers and the cruiser doesn't even put on his brakes. So we we don't enforce it. And then number two, if you do that, all you will be doing is sending cars up to hall road and then cutting down hall road so that they miss. So you're we will be creating unintended consequences to save one road. Well, enforcement issues is not within our purview. That's a police that's

I agree. But it is a quality of life issue that we and I understand that. But you know what I'm looking for is I'm looking for a solution in the middle. So they have a right to develop their land under under our zoning. We you know and and I hear what the people are saying, but they can develop the land under our zoning. If you don't want them to develop the land the same way, then you got to change the zoning and they've already filed their application and it's too late for that. Yeah, I agree. So, I'm looking for an answer in the middle. I'm looking for ideas. How about a um a um a light? It's a half a million dollars. If it saves a life um on Grineer Field in Mammoth,

it's a half a million dollars and you may not get the state to sign off on it because it's too close to the um to the lake that's at Rockingham um and Mammoth Road or Page of Mammoth Road, excuse me. Can I ask? By the way, that was a quarter of a million dollars and we put that in so that the land on the other side could be developed and that and the reason the town put it in was to develop that intersection. So, and that's what they're doing. So, there it's the catch 22, right? But I'm looking for like how can we can we come up with something thinking outside the box here to protect the current homeowners and work that into this project in some way? I don't know the answer, but I'm bringing it forward. Get a grant for the light. Okay.

Town could try it again. We're not talking about the light right now. Um well, I mean, we are Well, we we are Well, we are, but we talk about grant for the the grants and all that stuff. Let's I agree with John and I do agree with you, Ann. So, we can figure that out. We actually can't figure that out. It's a town council issue, Kelly. That's right. for the signage, the through traffic and local traffic only. That is not something this board can actually require. That's uh traffic safety town council. Well, we required on pass plans to make them put up turn signs and everything else on their site on their property. Are you talking about off their site or on their site?

I'm not sure. I I'm trying to come up with an idea. It's on their site, Joe. And then it just a general whatever you're imposing it has you need to justify it on some basis the the reason for this particular property and why you're asking for it. I got to get some first right I'm just making I get it. So I I thought the reason why we were opening both of these was so that we could conduct so that we could request a more thorough traffic study. you have a aso as opposed to redoing mammoth red. I think you're going to have a really tough time because they're under the threshold

requiring you can ask even even for that they're they're under Yeah. But I I don't Yeah. So let's talk it through because that's what we're doing. I'm I'm trying to I'm in my brain. I'm trying to figure out why it's unreasonable to ask an applicant that's going to create traffic, regardless of what the traffic is, to investigate additional intersections that were not investigated. We can't do that either. You can ask. I don't know that we can require Kristen Kelly John like

I would agree with what John you can ask. Frell said yeah I mean we we can ask nothing prevents us from asking for almost anything as long as we're reasonable. Exactly. It's the reason which I know everyone loves to debate this definition. Well yeah we're not going to Yeah. I'm not asking for 102 in Michael's way. I'm just asking for So this is what I'm getting at 102 in Michael's way. You could require it. What I'm getting at is just be be specific as to what you're asking for and as in the why behind it and you should have a conversation with the applicant.

So to the applicant, please which intersection did was investigated in your traffic study, please. This this isn't a traffic study that investigated any intersections. It didn't meet that level. And what that suggests obviously in terms of the regulations is that this particular development and again even if they were combined, these particular developments don't uh warrant that in the sense that's kind of what the regulations are set up for. Um, so there's no intersection analysis in the sense of like capacity or any of those things uh that are typically included in a in a traffic study that's prepared when you get traffic counts and this that and the other thing. Um, this project just does not simply rise to that level. It is too small. Uh, even combined they are too small.

Can I rephrase the question? Absolutely. Yes. All right. And I'm well aware that it's a United States Supreme Court decision that says I can't ask you to do you know certain things or anything. I'm well aware of that. Yeah. Coming into Londereerry and with this project and under the spirit of being a good neighbor to those people who are going to be surrounding you. Is there something that you're willing to do so that we can work through this together?

Uh yeah, I think the concessions have been made over the years on this quite frankly. I mean this started as a higher density project. Um we actually also started this project with the driveway going to Page Road. We worked with town staff uh through the concerns we've heard about all these meetings and the concerns that have been had at that intersection over the years. I did hear I know that there's a number of things coming online in the years to come in terms of a lot of extra units in the area and things like that. But but this project in a vacuum we don't believe like warrants that level of analysis quite frankly and and I don't know where else you put the driveways quite frankly. They don't have any options. They check all the boxes in terms of the safety criteria that are in the town regulations. I just I'm not sure what else we could do. Like what would it what would it change?

Having lived here for the last 30 some odd years and everything else that is a deadly intersection. That intersection it's they're not exaggerating when they're telling you that you know along there we've had we've made as many different changes as we can make over several years. Right. as a good neighbor and I understand you've worked with staff, you've done everything you think you can do. Can you think of anything else? Well, I guess you know when you think about it I'm asking the nicest way I can.

No, no, but I I understand. But think about it like this. Like there's is there anything here to suggest that something's unsafe and will cause additional deadly accidents or or things like that. Like a traffic study isn't going to project ahead to say that type of stuff. Ask you to do a traffic study. I'm asking you to work with me here. Well, no, I know, but I'm like there's no I don't know of any analysis that can be provided.

So, I think the reality is that London area is growing. Our master plan that was recently adopted speaks to that. Um, I think I'm not sure if you've had the opportunity to review the strategies that were in that master plan, but it is a it is a guiding document that we have here. And to Mr. Frell's kind of point of being a good neighbor. That's what we're trying to get at here is where can we find kind of that, you know, that good neighbor vibe. Um where are we what are we kind of looking at there? I kind of agree, you know, a new traffic study whether it's, you know, this conference, what is that going to change? But what's what will change is the long-term investment that you know that is coming to London area with with these kind of modern um you know dwellings. Um, so I do I would definitely kind of advise to like definitely continue to obviously to have this discussion and you know in full um full faith just to kind of ensure that you know we are absolutely trying to our best

we're open to suggestions as to what specifically you would want to see studied but I can't think of anything professional background that would say we should do this and that will help give you the answer you need. I I guess right. So from a board standpoint, maybe the traffic study's not the like what is that going to improve? But I do want to have discussions on how can we improve that realistically. I I I think one thing that it would do is it would give us a more realistic look as to the that intersection moving forward. you know, like it it would give us a more realistic view of what that traffic is going to look like moving forward as we discuss what has to happen at that intersection.

Right. And to Jason's point, thank you, Mr. Chair. To Jason's point, to drill this thing down even more and to the applicant, some sometimes it's a sometimes it's a it's a positive thing. it's a negative positive thing that you're trying to do. So you're either trying to prove something or in the science world you're trying to disprove something, right? And so in this case, in order to give the board some teeth and to satisfy, for lack of a better word, the neighbors and the issue that's been happening in in that area for for literally for decades. It would help us if you could prove that it doesn't affect that your projects doesn't affect Mammoth and Rockingham. Paige and Rockingham um

Paige and Mammoth uh uh Grineer and Harvey. One, two, three, four, five. That's five intersections. Mammoth and Rockingham, six, you know. So it's so it's either a double negative, a double positive, or it's science-based because you're trying to, you know, Mr. PhD is over here, you know, to to prove the negative or disprove the positive, whatever you want to call it, however you want to look at it. That's how I'm thinking. How you could help us and how you could show the world, all seven people that are watching on TV right now that that um here's what our project is not going to do. Mhm. So, you know, when I when I think about this project, I just I on alone on its own, let's say it wasn't located at this intersection, I I think everyone here would be hardressed to say we really need to see a traffic study and things like that, right? But we do hear you on where it is and the specifics of that and also that it's a growing area of town, right? I mean, let's call it what it is. That's really what kind of the issue is here. Um I I think if we were to look at a study of what the impact of what our project would be, it wouldn't really give you any information. If we were to say um you know put some money towards a contribution of some sort to help the town do it like a a more hierarching traffic study of that intersection or wherever they see fit kind of in this neighborhood that may have a much bigger impact and kind of get you to uh something better in the long run. Then I think anything that we could say that would just really kind of check a box and say this this project probably isn't tripping any anything that we would normally cause any warrant changes or anything. So rather than throw money away disproving the the negative,

right, you you'll throw money at something that could be positive moving forward, right? However you best see fit to fix, you know, because this sounds like a much larger issue and obviously sensitively we're located in it, right? How many commas are we talking about? Can I just ask you a question? That's good. What forced the decision for stop signs as opposed to widened out speed bumps? Oh, don't go to tabletops. This guy will blow his head. His head will pop right off. Yeah, we know we stinks for plowing and all that stuff. Emergency emergency access plowing. Um, breaking.

And you're talking to the wrong guy because I see them all over New England. I've I've jumped over them with a car cuz I didn't know they were there. Yeah, I've I've been in the in the the space in between for the on with one set of tires cuz I didn't realize it was there. But but somehow it works everywhere, but in London in other looks. So I just But I do they do have their in London area it doesn't work for some reason. Yeah. But

so just to to Paul's point, you know, again, so if if we were to be upstairs talking traffic, I would say, okay, let's go back to the traffic study that was done for village on technology hill. So we have my recollection, they have counts at that those intersections and then then what we would end up doing is they would put their numbers into the into the uh into the that formula into that formula. Correct. and come up with. So what additional you know what's the percentage of Yeah. And guys that's what you're gonna f I believe that that's what you're gonna find.

Yeah. I see what we spent probably two or three years trying to figure out how to you know to change the traffic pattern on the old Mammoth Road village and we came up with stop signs which have been effective. Um, I mean, how how would we go about um having them work with the staff to do something positive to the town as Tonyy's suggesting and everything? How would we do that? Meaning us taking money? No, I know what that I know what it means. I tried not to say it.

Well, I listen talking about essentially an agreement which would have to be considered. Well, well, we could do um Well, we could do a short development agreement. That's what I'm saying. It needs to be a development agreement, which is being negotiated by the council. Yeah. So, we could because I So, just so everyone can understand staff can't in this board can't just say, "Give us $1,000 for traffic. I need an identified I need a place to put the money. The town needs a place to put it. So,

it's got to be voted on. It's got to be accept it and everything else." So we could actually so theoretically we could conditionally approve these plans with a condition of a development agreement being worked out for area I'm just making this up for area traffic support to be negotiated with the town council. I I better verbiage but I'm making it up. Doesn't Doesn't the town manager do that and then it's approved by the town council? um development agreements are negotiated by the council. Sean, do you have any kind of imp um Thank you. So I Yeah, Kelly, do you want me to answer that? Yes. Yeah.

It's just still unclear to me what the money is going to be used for. Yeah, I'm working on that. Traffic mitigation. There you go. Yeah. If I may, um do you mind if I just have a couple minutes? Can we just put a pause on the recess? Yeah, we can just have a couple minutes to chat and then maybe we can come back to you with a suggestion on how to move this. You mean you weren't prepared for this conversation recess? Motion motion to five minute recess. Thank you. So moved. I could do that. Second. Appreciate that. All in favor? I I I

Perfect timing. Don't get in my way.

All righty. That was a quick five minutes, but thank you. All right. So, I have a point of clarification. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would I would like to remind all of us in the meeting that the applicant offered a solution, not the other way around. Okay. So, just for the record, and I want the record to show that that the applicant offered um the solution or a solution or a workaround to us

now and now we're trying to work forward toward I just as we were discussing even secretly here at the table that I I don't want to see us spending because we already kind of know what that number would be, right? And if it's$10 to $15,000, I I know it would be a waste of our money to come back with some of the same information as opposed to trying to help the town solve a a bigger problem in in my mind, but I will

Yeah. No, I I agree with that. I mean, and the reality is is we could we could do a traffic study. I don't think it would really change any of your thoughts, but it could check the box. It would waste the applicant's time and money. Um, we can work together. Uh, and I think these guys are interested in offering a $15,000 contribution to the town for, you know, traffic studies, whatever it is that, you know, the town feels like they need to do in that area for that. Point of order. from a um procedural standpoint um the planning board is not responsible or does not negotiate anything. If if the if we do decide to go down that path, that would be a negotiation with the town council.

So, and the and then and the the conceptually we're talking about a development agreement between the town council and the applicant. That's where things happen. whatever that we don't do that. The planning staff doesn't do that. Engineering doesn't do that. The town planner doesn't do that. It's not that's that's not what we do. So I can just so you understand as well.

Yep. My recommendation if that's where we're headed is that you continue this so that we can at the staff level so I can go talk to town manager and I this is why I'm saying this so I can speak with the town manager and the council to even determine if this is something feasible because this is not where that decision occurs. Right. So, um just as a discussion on other planning board um approvals uh language such as had been added particularly one when we were talking about a hospital up on Pentingill Road.

Yeah. is that as a condition of approval, a development agreement focused on the Londereerry Village, also known as the Old Mammoth Road area for um traffic mitigation, mitigation, potential mitigation, potential traffic mitigation that can be added in as a condition. It can. then you can do all the other work in the background. It can. I'm just My point is I don't know the position of the town manager and town council on this.

Well, honestly, it's up to the town council, not the town manager. I'm just making sure it's clear that I'm not making a decision on it and neither is the board. You can certainly place a condition um but understand that as what happened with the hospital was is that they didn't come to an agreement and then and the plan went away. So that was what I was going to say next is that you can condition it. They have to fulfill the condition, right? And if they don't fulfill the condition, they can come back here and ask for the condition to be removed. Yes.

Yep. Well, I think it's a fairer approach because I don't think that they I don't think the applicants offered a proposal voluntarily to be continued. I think they would rather have

I also would say I mean the the council realizes you know speaking as one member of the council this is a good faith thing of someone trying to do a good thing. if they hit the council and all of a sudden we're just gonna decide to be unreasonable at that point, we're we're not going to ever get somebody trying to do something good again with the town and that that's just that's just not how we should operate. So, I think it it should come to the council with a with a good faith I I would imagine intention to just keep this simple. Okay. So, you're talking about actually two conditions because you have two separate projects and the intent is for them to work together.

Correct. Same condition in each one. You can have one development agreement across across understood. I'm just for procedural. Correct. And Kelly, if I may, what so what would be the next steps for for the development for the agreement then? I we can schedule a meeting with myself, town manager. Okay. and go from there. Okay. But we're talking about this would potentially be conditional approval subject to those conditions potentially. That's my that's my understanding. It wouldn't carry this process out unless something were to go sideways with that, right? In which case we'd have to come back reopening. I just want to be clear about what

precedent condition. It' be a precedent condition. Okay. John, could you add something to that that if it wasn't able to be negotiated with the town council in good faith that the condition goes away? No, the board would have to come back and make that decision to remove the condition. Yeah. Board puts it on, board takes it off. Okay. So, do we have a I have a couple of other things for a lot of administrative projects. You are never going to want to be chairman again. No, I want Jake, but

you picked a good night. Um, okay. So, we have on both projects, we have deliberations and a vote for I'm just going to read them off. Waivers, the CUB con conservation overlay, CUP for multif family use, site plant, and then a condo conversion. Yeah. Before you get there, I have to talk. I have And have you closed the hearing? Close the public hearing or are you ready to close the hearing? Um, the hearing was closed before recess. Thank you, Tony. You had something?

Yeah, before you do those, I have I have two questions of staff. One, which is very unusual. I cannot remember the spirit of the 15-inch tree rule. That goes back to Juny Vickers. Yes. You and I like Yeah, I'm getting I'm getting a twitch. Um, so so but we're asking we're we're asking applicants to identify all 15inch diameter trees or larger. For what reason? Because you like treats

because because somebody at some point put that in their eggs. Keep keep the smart woman. Yeah. So, somebody put that in the ranks. I'm sure the basis is some Yeah. Some piece of literature from landscape architecture that talks about that certain diameter. So, my neighbor just cut down 2000 foot jack pines so he could put solar panels on his roof. How does that work? But anyway, chainsaw. So, that answered the question. Thank you.

So, um yeah. Now, now, so now we need to get to we have a C2 piece of land that that a property like this can be put on there with by conditional use um vote, right? So, why do we do that with properties? I'm going ask the town plan of that. Why do we do that? Why do why do we have we have permitted uses by right and then we also have conditional uses.

I just say flexibility in whatever that person might be better suited for. Kelly, do you have any comment on that? Well, I have a couple. Okay. Um I think generally, yeah, there's a degree of flexibility that is the intent behind a conditional use permit in certain areas. Um for the commercial zones, it's not uh all commercial zones. It's a majority of them. It's but it seems to me based on my read of how zoning is laid out in this town that and and to be fair, you were not here.

I wasn't. when this was when that table was invented. No, I wasn't. You Yeah, you you inherited that table across the street, right? You you That's I was living. That's true. You are high school on the street around the corner still. So, but you but but you inherited that, right? So, in fairness to you stumbling over a question that's really hard to answer. Um, you didn't invent it. You inherited that chart. I mean any of us staff here didn't invent any of this. It was the zoning was adopted by the town council but

that's a different path to go down. So my understanding in my educated guess if you will is that the cups specifically for the multif family use were uh that process was added to these commercial areas because they were in areas that made sense for a mixed use or in areas that already had residential. So it wasn't necessarily um an outlier use if you will. Yeah. Uh, and then I wanted to bring up the recent statutory change at the state, which I'm sure is going to bring up,

which essentially, this isn't why we have it. London area just happens to already comply with that, um, but it essentially states that municipalities need to allow for um to allow to permit residential uses in commercial zones. It doesn't say by right. It just says allow for a permit or something to that effect. We do that by way of a conditional use permit. Yes, we were very forward thinking 30 years ago when that child was when that child was put out.

But yeah, so my remembrance of it was and I lived through part of it. You might remember the story about I bought the first C3 lot in the town because C3 was invented right around that time and conditional use permits and C2 and whatever. And I vaguely remember a discussion that well these businesses are permitted by right and these other businesses um will do it on a case-byase basis because these additional businesses these whatever 10 12 whatever it is will probably have around the same amount of traffic as these other businesses and and or also the same amount of um noise and commotion and and whatever. That that's my remembrance of of the zoning um thing for conditional use. So, I just I wanted to get that on the table. I don't know if anybody else

I think you got it right, Tony, because as Kelly said, it was really designed for flexibility because, you know, different areas of the town, there's different conditions and everything and those conditions change with time. So you get this option of things you can have in there. But you know a basic uh use for it. But uh I think a lot of the verbiage that we we have is from Tim Thompson. Good. Yeah. And the other criteria for that too is is serviced by water and sewer which the property is. Yeah. Water and sewer are the big determiners of industrial usage and multif family.

Right. And to Kelly's point, now the state has caught up with Londereerry and the state is saying in your commercial zone, you can do these things. All right. So, I'm I'm ready to move on. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right. So, it's uh it's 10 minutes of 11. Yes. All right. So, I'd like to enter. So, let's work on the waiverss first. Actually, you know what? I'm sorry. I do have a question. What's the deal with the 15-inch trees? Why do you want to get rid of them? Well, because we can locate them, but we're clearing what trees we need to clear for the development. So, what's the point? You know, the trees that are going to remain are going to remain, whether they're 15 in or 12 in or 16 in or 14 in. It's we're clearing what we need to clear. We're not just going out and just killing trees for the sake of it. You know what I mean?

And we want to keep a barrier between the road, you know, the road for sound and then the adjacent business in the back, the work force or workflow. workplace. If you build too close to a tree, it damages the roots. They're going to die anyway. There's not there's not a requirement to keep the tree. It's just to simply locate it on the plan. Why? I I don't know what benefit that really provides unless it's like, hey, can you keep this one or not? Like there might be a little bit of leeway there, but I think in this type of Thank you. I just Sorry for the bluntness that I It's all good. So, which one are we doing first, Mr. Chair? We want to do the um the three-page road first. Okay. Um, we need to work we need to work on those waiverss.

Mr. Do you have them in front of you? There's there's only the one for the trees. There's only one which is waiver. It says waiver one site plan regulations 4.12 C.19 Roman numeral 8 identification of trees greater than 15 in diameter. the stamp syncs with the requirement to identify all trees greater than 15 in diameter and uh I will move that we wave that uh regulation moved second by Tony all in favor starting with Ann please and Champa I Javanni Bar I Tony D I Arthur Rug I Farrell I Jason I Sean Faber I

and the chair votes on the affirmative waiverss are satisfied okay moving on to the conditional use permit for conservation overlay. Mr. Chair, I will move that the applicant is requesting a conditional use C cup uh permit for Londonorary zoning ordinance 4.6.1.4.8 conservation overlay district and that the uh board uh grant the uh the permit. Second motion by Art, second by Jason. Roll call vote starting with Annne, please. Ian Champa I Javanni Veron I Tony D I Rug I John Ferrell I Jason Knights I Sean Faber I

the chair votes on the affirmative that CUP conservation overlay has been approved moving on to the cup for multif family use okay so okay I have a motion uh that is uh I think wetlands buffer impact uh we need a cup for that and then I think the multif family uh I got next year but what I'll do I'll move that we approve a conditional use permit cup for under zoning ordinance section 4.6.1 6.1 to allow approximately 1,400 square ft of permanent wetland buffer impact for the construction of storm water management improvements consistent with the conservation commission's March 10th 2026 recommendation and as shown on the plan set motion do a second by Tony

um roll call vote starting with Ann please Ann and Champa I Javanni Veroni. I Tony D. I Heather Rug. I John Ferrell. I Jason. Sean Faber. I And the chair votes in the affirmative. Mr. Chair, I'll move that we approve a conditional use permit uh per lenatory zoning ordinance section 4.1.2 to allow multif family residential use on a parcel in the commercial 2 zoning district. Some moved. by Tony. Second by Tony. Roll call vote starting with Ann, please. And Shannon I. Javanni Veroni.

Tony D. I. Arthur Rug. I John Ferrell. I Jason Knights. I John Faber. I And the chair votes in the affirmative. Okay. On to the site plan.

Mr. Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to grant conditional approval of the application for formal review of a site plan and conditional use permit for a 12 unit multif family residential town home development and associated site improvements and a condominium conversion permit lot consolidation and conditional use permit for,400 square feet of wetland buffer impacted the commercial two district three page road and 556 Mammoth Road tax Map 15, lots 235 and 236, Paige Rock LLC is the owner and applicant with the presented conditions to be fulfilled within 120 days of approval and prior plan signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in the engineering memo

and and a an additional precedent condition to add to your motion to establish a development agreement with the London Derry Town Council focused on the village area, also known as Old Mammoth Road, for the potential traffic mitigation. Okay, that's included in the motion. I'm asking you to include that in the motion. Yes. So moved. Second. Uh second by uh moved by Art, second by Tony. I'll um roll call vote starting with Ann, please. And Champa. Javanni Veroni. I Tony D I. Arthur Rug I. John Farrell I Jason

Sean Faber I and the chair votes in the affirmative. The site plan has been approved with the present conditions as outlined. We need to do the condominium. Now you're good. You included condo. Now we can go to the condo conversion. You included it in your motion. Did I? Art did. Oh, okay. Perfect. Art. It's getting late. All right, I'm still here. Thank you. All right, so be noticed.

On to um 295 Rockingham Road. Have the public hearing. Motion for the waivers. Okay. Those the same waiverss. Yeah, just the the other location. Okay. the motion all at the same time.

Waivers. Okay. Uh waiver from site plan regulation 4.1 through point C uh uh.19 point Roman numeral 8 identification trees 15 in or greater diameter. I will move that we uh wave that uh regulation. Second. Second by Tony. Roll call vote starting with Annne, please. I'll print it out. Tony Ann Champa. I Javanni Veroni. I Tony. I Tony D. I Arthur Rug. I Jason. Sean Faber. I see. And the chair books affirmative. Yep. Okay.

Okay. We have a conditional use permit for multifamily uh residential use and commercial two zoning district. The applicants requested conditional use permit. one of these uh R3 or you do sorry are you doing the CO district or I'm doing the uh multif family permit um let me uh is there there's the cup for the conservation over down here a little further I think I think we got the motion which way is it

cup multif family res so forth board action required motion to approve a conditional use per bit uh per legend of zoning ordinance section 4.1.2 to allow multif family residential use on a parcel in the commercial to zoning district. Second. Second. Second by Tony. Roll call vote starting with Annne, please. Ann Champa. I Veroni. Tony D. I John Ferrell. I sorry. I thank you Tony. We need to go back to the other one. Jason. Sean Faber. I affirmative. Are you doing the um conservation over now?

Yeah. Let me uh present a conditional use permit to allow 152 permanent wetland buffer impacts in the conservation overlay district to construct storm water management improvements. Conservation Commission has reviewed and had no objection to the CUP as presented at the March 10th, 2026 meeting. I will move that we grant uh the conditional use permit. Second. Second by Jason. Roll call votes starting with Ann, please. Ann Champ I. Tony D. I Tony D. I. John Farrell. Jason Knights. I Sean Favor. Yeah.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. Tony D. Okay. Motion passes. So I think we've got three permits done on that. Now we got to do the now the site plan. This the site plan motion also has the the um condo conversion rolled into it. Oh, the condo conversion. Yeah, it's it's rolled into that one. Rolled into it. You read it. Okay.

Um Mr. Chair, I will move that the uh that we grant conditional approval for the application for formal review of a site plan and conditional use permit for a 12-unit multif family residential town home development and associated site improvements and a condominium conversion permit and conditional use permit for 1522 square feet of wetland buffer impact in the commercial 2C2 zoning district 295 Rockingham Road. Tax map 17 lot 25 page rock LLC is the owner and applicant with the president conditions to be fulfilled with 120 days of approval and prior to plan signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in the engineering memo and in addition you can read that

president conditioned to establish a development agreement with the London town council focused on the village area also known as old mammoth road area old mammoth road for a potential traffic mitigation Second made second by Tony. Roll call votes starting with and please. And Champa I. Tony Veri I. Tony D. I Arthur Rug I. John Farrell I. Jason Knight I. Sean Faber I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Carries. Thank you so much. Thank you everybody. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great evening. Thank you. Thank you. We can work through stuff one way or another. Good luck on the next steps. Appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, that concludes this evening. I have a committee thing, Mr. Chair. Yes, Tony. Go ahead.

So, um so there was a meeting of the of the uh heritage commission where they um embraced the checklist that we gave them. Um they were excited to get it and to use it and uh felt as though it was going to be um an improvement to their committee. So, uh, uh, special thanks to, uh, Kelly and Kristen and the board members who who worked on that. We did have several meetings, um, to try and help them out. Um, couple little tweaks will will happen, I'm sure, along the way, but it's all set. A water bottle on that.

Yeah, we we had a glitch already. I think we're getting ahead of ourselves on the commission. So, but it uh things got through. Things work. Things will work. So, it was a very very positive meeting. Motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? I I I. Any opposed? Opposed? The chair votes in the affirmative.