Planning Board - Regular Meeting

good evening everybody i'm going to call to order the june 10th 2026 planning board meeting please rise for the pledge of allegiance i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands one nation under god indivisible with liberty

All right, let's get right to it with some administrative board work. Mr.

Chair, John's not here, and you can appoint Ryan to vote for... Ryan, you are John tonight, sir.

Thank you.

And that gives us nine voting members. We have a quorum again.

Fantastic. Kelly, I see two extension requests. The first one is an extension request for the vehicle storage lot at 4 National Road and 6 Londonderry Road. Do you know when they want to extend to?

I would recommend sending it to August 9th, 2026.

August 9, 2026. I'm looking for a motion to grant an extension to the vehicle storage lot at 4 Nashville Road and 6 London Area Road to August 9, 2026. So moved. I have a motion for Mr. D. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Arthur. All in favor, starting with Ann, please.

Ann Champa, aye.

Giovanni Guarani, aye. Tony D., aye. Arthur Rugg, aye. Jeff Penta, aye. Ryan Ouellette, aye. John Cruz, aye. Sean Faber, aye. And the chair votes in the affirmative. This extension request has been granted. We have another one here, March, April, May, June. For 2-5 Highlander Way, they are looking for a one-year extension. So I'm looking for a motion to grant an extension request to 2-5 Highlander Way to June 2, 2027.

So moved, Mr. Chair.

Motion from Mr. Rugg. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Jeff. All in favor, starting with Ann, please.

Ann Champa, aye.

Giovanni Veroni, aye. Tony Dee, aye. Arthur Rugg, aye. Jeff Penta, aye. Ryan Willett, aye. John Cruz, aye. Sean Faber, aye. And the chair votes in the affirmative. This extension request has been granted. Kelly, John, do we have anything else? I have nothing this evening.

All set.

Fantastic. All right, moving on. We are going to a modification to the condition of an approval granted by the planning board on April 1, 2026, relating to traffic mitigation, 295 Rockingham Road, Commercial 2, District tax map 17, lot 25, Page Rock, LLC.

Gentlemen, good evening. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. For the record, my name is Paul Chisholm. I'm with Keech Nordstrom Associates. To my right is the distinguished Mr. Brad Westgate of Welts, White, and Fontaine. And behind us is Dean Navaroli of Page Rock, LLC, who's the applicant for the project. As you recall, this was actually two site plans that were approved on April 1st earlier this year. They were two 12-unit townhome developments located at 295 Rockingham Road and 3 Page Road. There was some discussion at the time during that hearing related to traffic related concerns and what it led to ultimately was basically a concept of a development agreement that was conditioned on both of the approvals. So really what we're talking again is about both of those approvals and that condition specifically. At the time, the applicant voluntarily offered a contribution that the town could use at its discretion for any potential traffic mitigation measures in the area. It was undefined, obviously, and to be determined with the town council. This was viewed as a good faith effort and contribution from the applicant. It was not required by ordinance or by regulation. It was offered really as a way to be a good neighbor and kind of put good money after something worthwhile while saving the applicant time. Tonight we're really here to talk about an alternative to that. We have had a chance to review the proposed language of the alternative. While the applicant remains committed to what was basically committed to last time, I think there's some technical things with that that we would like to discuss. The way that it's written now, This proposed alternative, there's just a couple things in there that we would like clarity on before agreeing to it. And the first being that, really there's three things here. So the first being is that there's kind of a timing uncertainty with this. What we're not looking to do at this point is inject any further uncertainty in terms of time, in terms of cost or scope. We're looking for something to be a little bit more defined. I think it's a little bit too open ended at this point. And so obviously with timing being an issue, we obviously received the approval back in April. We were hoping to kind of hit the construction season, hit the ground running, and that hasn't been able to happen. So we're really looking at this point to kind of find ways to work with you to come up with a solution and maybe some language that might work a little bit better for the applicant. The third thing on that is that this was approved on both cases as a condition precedent. Given what's transpired, it's 70 days later and here we are again. We're hoping that the board would be amicable to making this a condition subsequent rather than something precedent so that this could be kind of done. It would allow them to kind of move forward and then if there's other technical things that need to happen, that that could happen in due time. and allow this to kind of not cause any further delay to the project and potential construction schedule and things like that. Um, so again, I just want to reiterate that the applicant really remains, um, committed to cooperating with the town and the planning board to kind of solve this issue here. Um, and I think generally we're all kind of looking to do the same thing. Uh, it's just a matter of how do we, you know, technically get there. So, um, I kind of, I guess I know Kelly had, uh, written specifically, I guess we can start there, uh, in her staff report, um, what the, uh, proposed condition is. Um... and uh yeah you have it yeah okay um and basically i'll just read it verbatim here it's a motion to modify the condition to state the applicant shall participate in a traffic management improvements identified by the town's traffic management working group including but not limited to speed feedback signs flashing warning beacons or other traffic management measures approved by the town the specific improvements contribution amount and implementation schedule shall be coordinated between the applicant and the town prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy So again, I think we're just looking for clarity on what that is. I think we're pretty well defined in what we were offering, although I acknowledge this board can't necessarily negotiate dollar amounts and I can respect that. I think that's really what we're kind of looking to clarify on this. And then again, to go along with the last sentence of that proposed condition, tying it to a CO, I think we just need to make that condition subsequent. Thank you. Thank you. Rather than precedent. So we're open to suggestions. I don't know if the board has any thoughts or feelings on that or kind of where the board's position in general is. But happy to talk. Thank you. Kelly, I will start with you.

Sure, so I agree that it would be a subsequent condition, even the way it's worded now, because of the CO factor, that's typical, so that's a non-issue. In terms of the open-endedness, I'm assuming the primary concern is the, or other traffic management measures approved by the town. Um, the primary items that were discussed internally were the, um, speech feedback signs of flashing warning beacons. Um, so, I mean, from a staff standpoint, that's reasonable. Um, just to back up a little bit as to how we got here. Um, Whenever there's a dollar amount presented, it triggers development agreement and or exaction process, which is a process with the town council. The intention of revising this was twofold. One, going through that process with the understanding that the dollar amount being discussed was $15,000 is not cost beneficial to either party, that being not beneficial to the town or the applicant because just the sheer cost associated with the legal process of reviewing that agreement and getting even a draft agreement would almost eat up that entire amount. So we're trying to get away from holding a dollar amount. And the other would be the timing associated with that, not cost but beneficial. So that's how we came to this solution, if you will, or this amended condition. But I'll...

i'll defer to the board if you want to change the terminology that's used in you have any input being a member of the traffic management committee again the intention wasn't to require a signalized intersection here so we're not talking two hundred thousand dollars you know so again we understand the the the applicants willingness to work with the town and You know, just hope it makes you feel a little better. And again, and as, you know, we were looking against speed feedback signs, a flashing beacon, or, you know, some other type of traffic calming. Where would a flashing beacon be?

excuse me where would a flashing beacon go kelly you want to pull a map up real quick at uh mammoth and page mammoth page where it used to be grain of field yeah wasn't there didn't there used to be a flashing beacon there correct we're going to put up something we took down

We've been there before. It's a thought, Jake.

It's not a... No, no, no. I get that. Before I start talking, I'll go to the board. Board, do we have any input on this? Yeah.

Sure. Typically, wouldn't something like this, wouldn't we just hold a bond? Wouldn't we just handle it that way?

No. So the other factor here is that the applicant did follow our regulations. They did conduct the degree of analysis for traffic that's required, and it did not hit a threshold which triggered any mitigation or improvements. Concerns were raised by some board members and some of the public about traffic, and that morphed into the original condition. However, as I articulated in that April meeting, it's unclear as to what improvements specifically the board was seeking at that time and therefore what dollar amount would be appropriate. Um, since that time we've met and taken, um, the recommendations from our traffic management working group. So we've come up with the answer of the, the what can be done there. Uh, and then the dollar amount piece is something that can be

sorted outside of the planning board meaning a quicker process through the town manager without holding up their signed plans and and all that and we couldn't make that happen quickly i mean it seems like we've done you know we've put up blinking lights or whatever they're called before so we should have a rough idea and we can put a ceiling on it to say You know, you're responsible.

We absolutely can.

Up to including including up to I'll just throw a number of the hundred thousand dollars not to exceed that. I'm just wondering. I mean, what I don't want to do is have this whole beautiful development done. And then we're sitting here holding up this whole development because we can't come to some kind of agreement that should have been done beforehand. I guess that's, you see what I'm saying?

I do. And I'm saying that the way that we're proposing it at this time is expediting the process. We're removing the Negotiation factor of a development agreement and that lengthy process.

Gotcha. That's the intention. Okay, so it's not no development. Correct. I get it now.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So putting it bluntly, this board created a system where there is no system.

Well, we created a condition that wasn't warranted, which is what I'm having trouble with right now.

Well, that's a separate issue. What I'm saying is, even if it was warranted, we have no mechanism, we have no language, we have nothing in our regs to be able to support the issue. And we have no way to hold money. We have...

So the typical way... if the criteria is met through the regulations for traffic, if it was warranted, you would do a development agreement and you would be able to define what $15,000 was specifically used for. Or you would do essentially an exaction.

But my remembrance was The reason why it was done was because the applicant volunteered.

Correct.

In the 11th hour. So you're asking. And in fact, if I remember correctly, we had a pause in the meeting for five minutes and they went on in the hallway and came back with an idea. And we said, great, they're going to volunteer to do something that they don't have to do.

Right. So now we're talking about a donation. which this board can't take donations. That's a process that needs to go through the town manager's office.

And I do not advise... We certainly can't condition a site plan based off of a donation.

You cannot condition a site plan on a donation. It is not even close to good practice. If anything, it's borderline illegal. It's just bad practice to do that.

So that's how we got here. So you mentioned traffic management group. What's that?

Town's traffic management group? Yeah. It's a group of staff members that the current town manager put together and we are more active in looking at traffic concerns throughout the town of Londonderry. So right now we have a traffic safety committee which again is just mainly advisory. Granted we are advisory as well but again we have a lot more time to dedicate to this. We meet monthly and We're looking at a number of intersections. I don't think you were at our presentation, Tony, on the beginning of the month. Watch it. If you don't, just again. I watched it. Okay.

So this is a new thing, a new, is it a new process or just a new... A new thought. A new way of managing.

In my opinion, it's a new process. And again, the townspeople voted to put monies into the account so that we can actually do something.

So could the money that they're donating go into that account?

Um, that again, we'll have to have to look at the fine details of that. Tony.

That's I don't even want to talk about the money.

I'm just trying to figure out. I'm just trying to figure the management group is a new is a new thing.

We need to know what that is. If I recall correctly, I think 1 of the reasons why we wanted to also put in a development agreement. per se was because we did not have a place to kind of yeah we don't have the mechanism we had no process so we were like okay so have the town council negotiate that um And then we were able to look at that and then kind of, you know, as Kelly mentioned, it would be cost prohibitive for the town, for the traffic management committee kind of starting up. So I think from a timing standpoint, it somewhat makes sense.

Yeah, I'm not in disagreement with any of that. What I'm saying is this is a new thing. What is it? How does it work?

Right.

How do we interact with it? How do we not interact with it? Little Petey, Big Petey, here we are again trying to figure out what to do or what not to do. That's where I'm at. And for the record, when it happens, I don't think we have any other choice. We're going to need to retract. what we did in whenever it was, April or whatever. But I'm trying to figure out what we do moving forward before we retract it.

So the intention of the traffic management group is again to bring issues to the board so that we're going to keep you informed of some of the conversations we're having and what we're proposing to do at various locations.

So will then that, will the traffic management group similar to some of the other boards, will you all have a template? You'll be sending us saying the traffic management group has looked at the intersection of ABC's building development, and we think it's a good idea or not a good idea. How are you interacting with us?

Again, I'm a member of it, and I'm a member of the staff here. As long as I'm here, I'll...

I'll bring you up to speed.

I think it's worth talking about after this application. Fair. That's fair. Let's talk about it after the application.

Could I just say one thing?

Sure.

But that intersection isn't an issue. with your group, right?

Correct. It's on our radar.

It's on your radar, but it's nothing a hot issue.

Like a lot of you to remember the history and write some of this stuff with now that they we've implemented the stop signs on Mammoth Road, old Mammoth Road right through the village. Yeah, it seems to have quelled down the traffic concern going through the village.

I just remember that whatever went through the intersection went into the garage and just... Yeah.

So I see this as kind of two ways. We're removing this condition altogether in its entirety and it's done. Or we're removing this condition and in my head I see... Two possible things. I don't like the or other traffic calming measures. In my head, we remove the condition altogether and it's done, or we remove the condition and replace it with installing speed feedback signs, flashing or blinking warning beacons.

And make it subsequent.

Correct, exactly. So, I mean, I feel like we kind of put ourselves in a little pickle here because nothing was warranted and we tried to warrant something, which has put us in not the best position.

It sounded good at the time.

I appreciate wanting a donation, but that's really nothing here inside of the purview of this council or this board. Well, you guys might want to do it. You're talking to the wrong people. I like option B of what you just said.

Yeah. Couldn't we just make it a condition, one of the conditions that before they get the CO that has to be approved by the traffic safety committee or whatever, and if the traffic safety committee feels that it needs something and if they want to help with that, then that's outside of us.

I think it's too open-ended. I want them to leave with a path forward, not a this is what might happen, but that's what we owe them.

As long as they satisfy the safety committees, whatever we want to, however we want to word it, up to... We can't put a dollar amount on stuff.

I think what Tully's suggesting is the board action. Yeah. I think that's what he's saying.

And just take out the open-ended last part, like you said. Correct. Mr. Chair.

Who?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, if I may. My name is Brad Westgate. I'm a lawyer with Wells Light and Fontaine in Nashua. Picking up on what you've said, Mr. Chairman, we were giving thoughts similar to the analysis you made earlier today. We put aside the idea of the monetary contribution because of the difficulties with it. That seemed fairly clear from what Kelly indicated to start and what you've reiterated. thought we had was to propose a condition subsequent that was definitive as to work to be undertaken and I had actually prepared with your indulgence I prepared a motion to that effect which reads very similar to what you said but I only put into it the the notion of putting in the The solar feedback signs, but either or those are the flashing signs as determined by the director of public works within a particular time frame. That seems very logical to do because it's a take off on fundamentally Kelly's goals. Relative to traffic calming. It's really the two primary mechanisms that could be based best used It makes a condition subsequent so we can get ourselves to get normal conditions precedent Completed in the 120 day time frame then we've got a final approval and a final approval is pretty important to us But both for going forward the building permit Undertakings to AG application for a condominium registration all of that business It's pretty important for us to do So if you would permit me, Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to pass that out, not to supplant your thought process by any means, but maybe create something on paper. I could even suggest how we could add in the two possible installations with that. Then I think we have a definitive undertaking that we're happy to do because we wanted to cooperate from day one with something. And unfortunately, the condition that was imposed on April 1 just turns out to be not enforceable. It's a practical matter. So it's either it goes away entirely or we stay with the philosophy that we did want to do something.

If I may?

Please. Folks might have to share.

That's all right.

We can share. I'm not sharing.

Only child with siblings you are. I'll read from the chair. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

So again, Mr. Chairman, I'll be quiet. It's definitive undertakings, time frame, condition subsequent. Those are sort of the three keys to us.

Yep. Want to read that? Anybody have any input?

I like it. I think it's a lot more specific. There's a lot less unknowns in it. It gets us free and clear out of where we were. We have something concrete for the applicant who, again, do this out of goodwill and good faith to the town. And I think we're getting still goodwill and good faith out of this. So we end up with the result we wanted with a concise manner. And it was lawyer-reviewed.

So, Brian, you know, we are talking about 24-hour speed feedback or the 24-7 solar feedback signs. But, again, we're talking, you know, we want to standardize this throughout the town. So we don't want a Home Depot and a Lowe's. So something as specified by. Right. You know, and, again, I guess my only other thought, though, too, again, the event, you know, we would like to run it through the Traffic Management Committee.

not just not just the director of public works so it seems like kelly's kelly's motion that she uh suggested would probably fit it better if i may mr chairman that but kelly's motion has two very fundamental things that we simply can't accept the condition i'm going to change the notion and the concluding with non-limited two concept we need DEFINITIVE UNDERTAKING, WHATEVER THE TOWN TRAFFIC COMMITTEE DETERMINES OF WHAT WE SHOULD DO, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE A PRECEDENT TO A FINAL APPROVAL. AND IT NEEDS A TIME FRAME. IT JUST SIMPLY DOES. GIVE ME A MINUTE. But the last person you want to look to as a lawyer to figure out what is the best thing to put on the ground.

Thank you for recognizing that. Because like I say, the units that we're looking at, you know, it's not just speed, it's traffic counts and stuff like that. So it's a little more than just a screen. Again, just I want to make sure that I don't know off the top of my head.

$5,000 premium.

Say it again.

$5,000 premium.

Hey, entertain me, guys. How about something to install two 24-7 solar speed feedback signs as specified by the town's traffic management working group to be installed prior to the issuance of First Seal?

Any issues?

If I may, Mr. Chairman, the only problem is that the TAHO needs to determine by a date certain what it wants. Otherwise, our COs are indefinite time-wise.

I think it identifies what we want, which is a 24-7 solar feedback sign. You're worried about the as-specified part of it is what you're saying. Indeed.

What I'm worried about is that if I say we take a look at what I wrote just on the second paragraph where I said the applicant shall install two 24-7 solar speed feedback signs and you could put it or two solar flashing beacons if you wanted that flexibility at locations determined by the town director of public works and the traffic committee and that could say prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy, but it still needs to say But by a date certain, that determination of what we're to do must be made. Otherwise, we can't get a CO if you haven't told us where to put the signs yet. Why don't you make it precedent then? Because precedent has no time frame either. We've already been 70 days on the attempt to figure out an undertaking on the first condition. That didn't happen. There's no statutory structure for determining when conditions precedent are finalized. And condition precedent is very difficult for us to move forward on other aspects of the project.

So, Brad, we're far enough along that we know we're not buying Home Depot. John, do you know what kind of sign you want or the group wants?

Do you have a specification that you could give to them tomorrow? Yeah, absolutely. All right. So I'm not worried about it. Yeah. If we have a specification that the town already knows and they're comfortable with, you already have the answer as soon as you get out of here. I understand the concern, but I don't like putting a date on the town. Okay. So you're not going to need the date. I would say in the event that you should need a date or you get to a point where you're ready to... to get your first certificate of occupancy and somehow you don't have exactly what you're putting in, I would ask to have a public hearing with this board and we'll make the decision.

That's true, and that is a fallback.

I agree. But I'm very confident that town staff is going to have exactly what you're looking for.

We're far enough along in our presentation on the 1st of June. We made that presentation and we're coming back to request.

All we need to know is where. So what and when.

Yeah.

Perfect.

What if you took what you wrote, what you modified there, and you said, but no later than? I think that's what the applicants are looking for is something saying that, look, we're hearing that we have a solution, but I think they're looking for, is that right? Is that you're looking for like a no later than?

I just want a definitive date of which I can understand. but I don't think is necessary based off of what John said. And if a CO is getting held up by two traffic signs, there's going to be a lot bigger of an issue. If they come and ask to talk to the board again, there's going to be a way bigger issue than a date.

Paul, what's your construction duration?

A year and a half? Well, that's the thing is, you know, before you get your first CO, I guess it depends on how it's tackled. But, yeah, it's probably somewhere around 12 months would be my guess.

We can't do it within 12 months. Like I said, if we can't do it in 12 months, there's going to be a much bigger issue here between the board and town staff. But it sounds like he knows exactly what he wants.

I'm just saying that it's not unrealistic to ask for a no later than date. It's kind of standard in most legal contracts. And I think the applicant's saying that we need, I'm sure, that in order for them to do X, Y, and Z, they need to get past certain... Take a poll of the board here.

Do we want a date or not want a date?

I think it's good to have a date because, I mean, God forbid something like COVID happens again or the plastic that the signs are made out of are back and they come to us. But still, if they came to us, we'd say, okay, just do it. And then the signs come in, they come in. But you're right, I think they need a date. I think it releases them of, allows them to move forward with the CO, but doesn't release them of the condition that they have to still do the sign.

Unless we can't come up with a date by then, then they need to proceed.

They need to proceed, but eventually they need to do the signs too.

So just real quick, who wants a date? Sign of hands for a date? I do. One, two, three, majority. Okay, so we're getting a date. How's December 31st, 2026?

I mean, they proposed a little later date. Why wouldn't we take the later date?

Because if we can't tell them what kind of sign we want 6 months from now, we've got a location. That's bad.

There's a lot of time.

So. Before I read this, what I am going to be doing is for the motion will be. The applicant will install two 24-7 solar speed feedback signs as specified by the town's traffic management working group on a date no later than December 31st, 2026. Is there anything else that we need in there? Is this precedent or subsequent?

If I may, Mr. Chairman, if you look in the prior paragraph, it recites how it would be a condition subsequent.

Okay.

And you would, under your reading, you would eliminate that last sentence that I wrote, I believe.

Correct. We good? All right. So I am looking for a motion to modify the condition. What? Oh, it's a public hearing. Yeah. Is there anybody from the public that would like to talk? Come on up, Sarah. How are you?

I'm the only one in the public tonight. I look for these 3 gentlemen. There's a part of the time. Okay. Bob male 5.69 member of London area. My family also on law 15 to 30. Yeah, 233 beyond the cell side of the page road. Little white ranch house. And I got 3 things on my mind. It's divided up into two projects. And you got one project coming from Mammoth Road. It'd be on what was the little lot merging to the second lot. I can.

Oh boy.

That's not supposed to do that. You got the driveway for the project coming in here, then it goes right through the current house and the project is built. Mainly, you know, the 12 units have built more of it. You're moving it. Oh, I'm moving it. It's a touch screen, sir. And that was, you know, I like that in a good way. You know, traffic comes here, and it goes on the painter or during your field. And the other thought was on the other project was, of the second project, and then all the traffic coming out on the Mammoth Road, and that would, because you've got, you've got traffic right there by 28, you know, coming out about here, and it'd be a lot safer for traffic entering and leaving instead of having a driveway coming on Pedro down here. That's just my thought on that. And I had the thought You've got a personally good house here. Is there any way that the developer could move the house onto either one of these partials and still maintain it, and still be able to build the project? But it's just, you know, why take a track of a personally good house? But it's just a thought. The other thing is that you're calling it, trying to remember what name the two names were. Can you? Can you give me the two names again, sir? Oh, what are the two projects must be at the development name or something?

Yeah. Applebrook was orchard view.

Yeah. This one has a history of a turkey range on from here in this area and it doesn't have any auction that I know of history and of course then you've got the woodlot that wouldn't have any agriculture history I know of.

Wait so you're talking about that lot history of turkeys? Turkey farm.

It was Yeah, boy. No boys. On the other side of the road. I mean, turtle. But so but so you got a turkey range when I was young back to the trees. So I'm just giving you some of the history and making up history as you're going along. But it's up to you. So anyway, those are the three things that were on my mind.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Merrill. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you very much for this. But, you know, it really would make a difference on safety instead of coming out on the page road on the development. Oh, there's 12 units right there, but 28 come out on the mammoth road and enter either page or. Do any of you feel of wherever doing it that way?

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Merrill. Anything else from the public? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. Kelly, can I do both of these together, or do we need two separate hearings? Separate, please. Okay. All right. Or do you want me to say it's removed? Yeah. I've got to figure out what I was going to say.

It's going to be exactly the same, but.

Yeah, so I'm looking for a motion to modify the condition to state a subsequent condition to install two 24-7 solar speed feedback signs as specified by the town's traffic management working group. And that the honor before December 31st, 2026. So moved. I have a motion by Jeff. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor starting with Ann, please.

Ann Champ, aye.

Giovanni Veroni, aye.

Tony D, aye.

Arthur Rugg, aye.

Jeff Penta, aye.

Ryan Willett, aye. John Cruz, aye. John Faber, aye.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. The motion to modify the condition has been approved. All right. We have the same thing, a modification to condition of the approval granted by the planning board on April 1st, 2026, relating to traffic mitigation. Three page road, C2, District Map 15, Law 235, Page Rock, LLC is the owner and applicant. I'm going to open right up with public comment. Do we have any public comment? Seeing none, I'll close public comment. And I am looking for a motion to modify the condition to state a subsequent condition to install 224.7 solar speed feedback signs as specified by the town's traffic management working group on or before December 31st, 2026. So moved. I have a motion and a second. All in favor, starting with Ann, please.

Ann Champa, aye.

Giovanni Veroni, aye. Tony D, aye. Arthur Rugg, aye. Jeff and I I'm a lot I don't cruise on Sean favor in the chair votes in the affirmative. The modification to the condition has been approved. Thank you gentlemen very much. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Thank you.

Thank you. We appreciate your cooperation. Well, and staying with it. Thank you very much.

That took 35 minutes, actually. Yep.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Thanks. Good night. I do think it's important, real quick, to come back to, now that we're out of our hearings, come back to something Tony was discussing. To me, the Towns Traffic Management Working Group, I feel as though comments should almost be presented as part of the design review process and part of the design review comments. Do you agree with that, John? we can and i'm sure that's we can take a look at the yeah yeah that's really when we want this group talking is yeah absolutely and i i and i think we'd want it in writing because if john can't make the meeting then we have no feedback that's what i'm saying it would be you know just as the heritage commission conservation commission police fire have it be the traffic management working commission group, whatever you want to call it, and it just be part of our design review comments that we can go through and make a decision on based off of the feedback back from the management group.

I just want to make sure that The expectation is made clear. I'm well aware that I'm on my last slide here, but what we're talking about is revising a portion of our design review process. While it sounds fairly minor, and I think it's a good idea, it is a little bit more involved than just simply having the traffic management working group fill out a comment sheet. This is a group, interject if I'm getting off base, but this is a group that's tasked with, yes, looking at traffic overall in the town and finding solutions, etc. When you talk about involving them in our design review process, you're talking about involving them with a level of development review, which is not necessarily their task, if you will. Individual development review as it comes through. So I think... Everyone's agreeable to talking about what that looks like. I just don't want people to hear this conversation and think that that's now going to happen.

That's fair. That's a fair point. I absolutely understand that.

That's a good point. Kind of understanding what that scope of that group is probably is best before we...

Better defining the scope. Right. So again, we're not going to be doing traffic counts per se. No. We're going to be looking at having corridor studies... prepared you know uh hillsbury road from mammoth road to the town line uh litchfield road from 128 to to the town line to litchfield you know so that's so again it's speed and and uh and uh congestion is the mission of that group defined is it on paper yes is it yeah and it's on the website we'll share it and it's okay and so

It's people watching. But the general public, how is that different from what the Traffic Study Safety Committee or whatever they're called do?

Again, in my view, because I'm basically a member of both, and I was a member of the Traffic Safety Committee for a while, still concerns and congestion were brought more to the Traffic Safety Committee, but they didn't have a... A means to pursue it any further. A mechanism to do anything. Exactly. Now there's myself, there's Sean, there's police on that committee. So again, we're on the traffic, the working group.

Where we with with the process of the idea of having the town. Do the traffic study in the in the applicant pay for it.

I know that we negotiated with Lamont and with no pawn.

OK, so so that's that's in place now that's in place of going forward. New applications will have the studies dot correct.

Good. They're working for us, performing the corridor study. All right.

Well, with that. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Before we do, I would like to say thank you very much, Kelly, for everything you've done for the town over the past few years. It has been a pleasure working with you. There's been plenty of times you and I have not agreed. But nonetheless, it's been fantastic working with you. You are certainly going to be missed in the film. So thank you. Yes, thank you, Caroline. Thank you. Alright, now I'll take a motion. Let me respond first. Make sure I say kind words on record.

Motion by Tony, I give the second.

No, I do appreciate your comments, Jake, and this board is something that is one of what I view as an accomplishment. It's something I'm proud of in town in my four years here, and I think we've come a long way. There's not a lot of land use boards in this area regionally in New England, New Hampshire that function well, and I think this board is a really good example of that. So you all should be proud of yourselves for that. And thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for that. Good luck. All right. I have a motion. I have a second. All in favor? Aye. Have a good night, folks. Thank you.