Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Then you get the worst. [Music] Every question I ask

Good evening everybody. Good evening. Hello. Calling the uh Planning board meeting, London planning board meeting to order. Tonight is October 8th, 7 PM. We are in the Louisville conference room. Uh Jake Butler, our chairman, is running late. He'll be here in 10 or 15 minutes. Uh Jeff Penta, I don't know Jeff's status, but uh in the meantime, we can kick the meeting off and get some of this business done. Some of our administrative board work before we get into our discussions. Okay. You can uh appoint Ryan to vote for Jake and uh Tony to vote for Jeff, you know, until they arrive. Yep. So appointed. Do we have any voting tonight?

If we do, we don't know. We do. Yeah. More of formality to get, you know, Y. So, uh, if you'll join me in rec does give us eight voting members. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Yeah, the heat's working. You want me to turn it down? It's on 70. It's okay. It'll be on 65 by the end of the night.

It was on 64. Turn it up a little bit. It's one of those automatic systems, you know, Tony. So, wherever you set it, it's never right. Open the window up fast. Okay. Uh, moving on through our agenda, administrative board work. Uh, do we have any minutes to approve tonight? You do have draft minutes in your folder there. uh up up to you if you want to

if if everyone's all set with the minutes, I can make a make a motion. I've been through them carefully from my perspective. So, uh if uh anybody have any com Well, let's hear the motion. I'll take a motion. Mr. Chair, I will move that we accept the minutes of October 1st, 2025 as presented. So, moved. Second. Uh any discussion? Seeing none, uh all in favor say I. I. Opposed. Abstensions. So we're 701. 701. Good. Good.

Hey Ryan is helping. Be prepared to Jonathan. Yeah, we probably won't see Jonathan travel. Okay. Excellent. Uh affordable when you're altering it. Yeah. Yeah. Someday. Someday. Uh Kristen Kelly, any regional impact determinations tonight? None this evening. Uh any news from town hall? Any discussions with staff? Anything you want to talk about other than the main topic tonight? I'm going to keep it to the main topic.

Kristen, anything from you? Anything from the board before we move on? Okay. Uh move old business. I don't believe we have any old business to take care of tonight. So we will move into no no new plans to con conceptual plans to talk about tonight. So uh we'll keep moving along getting into other business and uh the chairman has arrived. So, I'll just kick off the discussion until Jake gets comfortable and then we can uh let Jake take over the discussions. So, uh we're having Sorry, kindergarten orientation today. Open house, whatever you want to call it. Are they going to let you in kindergarten again?

Didn't make it out the first day. Did you pass Did you pass the test? A lot different than Miss Whitties. I can tell you that much. Probably going to have to shave the beer. Yeah. So, uh just kick off the discussion. So tonight we're having a work session on L uh London Derry zoning ordinance section 5.2 plan unit development. And uh with that uh Kelly, you want to brief us on how we're why we're here tonight and what we're going to be talking about? Absolutely. And Jake, the meeting is yours. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. Thank you for filling in.

All right. So before we get into the details here, I just want to preface by going over how how we got here. Um, so obviously the board's aware that there was a lot of conversation about the planned unit development ordinance uh between this board and the council and what we should or shouldn't do with it. So ultimately the result of those conversations was that we should uh amend this ordinance. So with that direction, uh staff um took a very thorough comprehensive review of our current uh planned unit development ordinance. Uh we looked at the what we what we refer to as industry standards, if you will, the model ordinances that associations such as the American Planning Association, which is the National Association um that planners uh subscribe to and follow and use for standards, as well as um what the state of New Hampshire laws state about how we can utilize ordinances ordinances such as these um and what other New Hampshire communities that have um planning unit development ordinances do in in their respective communities. So the draft document that you have before you is a result of that research. Um so I just want to emphasize that this is draft one. This is intended to be the starting point for this discussion. we have a series of work sessions and ultimately a public hearing for this board and then of course we will um take this to the council level at the appropriate time. Um but just to emphasize that staff's task was to utilize our professional opinions and the standards in the land use industry to give the appropriate um starting point if you will for this ordinance and

the the amendments that you have before you this evening. I think

so with that um how would you like to start Mr. from the top, work our way down. Um, just on for people who might not see this because they're either listening at home or reading, just want to reiterate we're working off of uh a directive from the July 7th town council meeting uh which was uh approved by the council um that says, "I move that the town council direct the town manager to prepare draft amendments to the planned unit development ordinance and proceed in accordance with the process outlined in section 8.6 of the Londereary zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments should address the following. Clarify the purpose and objectives of the ordinance to support housing diversity, infrastructure efficiency, and environmental protection. Amend the review process to include enhanced public participation through multiple public meetings and hearings. Establish clear, measurable development standards for open space, affordable housing, mixeduse development, and environmental protections. and strengthen the criteria and justification required for any modifications or waiverss to ordinance standards. Start from the top.

All right. So, I'm going to speak in general terms. I'm not going to read this to you. Yeah. But um so the first section purpose objectives um so we uh essentially can we for the purposes of Day one, chapter one, page one. Could you do a quick thumbnail? What is a PUD? Yeah. What does a PUD do? Pluses or minuses? Why? Thank you. I did skip that part in my notes here. Thank you very much.

Right. So, and I apologize if my voice comes and goes, but this is where we're at today so far. So,

reading the same book, Kelly, don't worry about it. So, I'm just going to read the the definition that's put out by again the American Planning Association for what a planned unit development is. Um, so it's a flexible master plan approach that allows mixed uses, creative design, and coordinated infrastructure under one comprehensive plan. here in the state of New Hampshire um we are allowed we that being local communities are allowed to um adopt ordinances such as this through the innovative land use controls which are governed by RSA 67421. Um so that is how we got to uh this ordinance being enacted in Londereary that process. Um, so again, the intent of a planned unit unit development ordinance is to encourage creative efficient land use that preserves open space, protects natural resources, promotes mixed use, walkable neighborhoods consistent with the town's master plan, supports affordability, housing diversity, and infrastructure efficiency while maintaining community character. So you can see that some of these terms and goals align with what you would typically see in your in your goals in your master plan. Um,

so does that does that answer your question? It does. And I think I I think part part of my interpretation of that RSA is that that it it helps a municipality have more control over attractive land than it would have normally under its typical rules and regulations. Is that a fair statement? That's a fair statement.

Thank you. [Music] All right. So, as far as the changes that we made to the ordinance itself, um, as I, as I pointed out in the memo that I provided, I did not do a red line of this because it just became way too complicated. So, this is essentially an overhaul of the ordinance. So, you have the clean draft in front of you. Um so in the first section what we did is we tried to clarify again the PUD objectives to be consistent with the APA standards and what we heard through conversations and work sessions with this board and the council. Um so we expanded the focus to we expanded the focus on housing diversity, mixeduse opportunities, infrastructure efficiency, environmental protection and economic vitality. So those were some of the things that were right within the council's motion and their directive to staff. And as you keep going through the ordinance, you'll see that those objectives are more clearly defined. Um, whereas we really didn't have have this in the the current version. And Mr. Chair, I'm just going to keep going unless you

That's fine. I'm I'm reading along. You're good.

So then we get into the definitions. Again, we provided uh a more formal definition for what a planned unit development is. Um so that hopefully it's clear to both staff, the boards and applicants. Uh we added in this piece, we'll get into more detail as we go through and get to this this next section, but density bonuses um and then define what open space actually is. Then we get into um the review process, which again, this was something specifically called out um in the council's direction uh motion where they provided some direction um having more of those preliminary consultation meetings with both staff and the planning board. Um and then when we get into the formal application process, so the public hearing stages having uh multiple hearings and then there is um an additional provision in here that allows the planning board to recommend kind of a a community session if you will. So more broad than just at the planning board level putting some onus on the applicant to engage with the entire community of Londereerry as opposed to just sticking at the planning board level.

Um then we get into kind of some of the legal requirements. So how the appeal process works which is the same as any other um action that the planning board takes on an application. It's the same it's the same process for an appeal of a decision. um what's required to be recorded uh in association with the PUD and then how we deal with compliance and expiration which this section didn't really um change with the exception of um I'll point out item H2 which specifically states that if active and substantial development has not begun within 5 years of approval or within another time frame specified in the approval, the PUD shall expire and the underlying zoning shall control. So, this is a pretty significant change. Um, so I'd look for some feedback on that whenever whenever you deem appropriate, but

let's get through the whole thing first. Yeah. So this next section that's titled PUB master plan. Um so now we're getting into I think what the previous section um termed the kind of the criteria if you will for lack of a better way of putting it. So, this outlines exactly what needs to be submitted um by the applicant, when, why, and how. And we generated um some checklists that hopefully provide more clarity on on what those items are so we can make sure that

both staff and the board are receiving

all documentation that you should have in order to make an informed decision. And now we'll get into another significant change. So track size. So as you can see, there's two proposed um track sizes here. There's standard PUD um at 20 acres and this would be in all zoning districts except for the AR1 zoning district. And just as a reminder, our AR1 zoning district is the district that is the majority of town. And then the second being um the larger scale PUB at 50 acres minimum contiguous acres uh within the AR1 zoning district. So obviously this is a change from the blanket 100 contiguous acres.

Those are minimum sizes.

Those are minimum sizes. Um, and to reiterate what I said at the beginning, how these numbers came to be, why these are the numbers, I looked at the APA model ordinance and what other communities in New Hampshire that have PUD ordinances use. And this is the the middle ground, if you will. That doesn't mean we're married to this. We can keep it at 100. It's it's at your at your discretion what you want to do. But that's the background as to how we got to these proposed options. [Music] Um, with respect to infrastructure, so utilities, this really didn't change. We're still requiring that um, public water and sewer uh, be a requirement for a PUD. And then with respect to uses that are permitted in the PUB, again, this this really didn't change. We're still going to follow or we're proposing that you follow um what we already have as permitted uses in our zoning ordinance. And then through your the planning board's review of our proposed um PUD master plan, like most recently, we went through Technology Hill. they propose to use the existing use table in our current uh zoning ordinance uh and stick with that and have those uses be allowed uh within the PUD at varying stages and the planning board has the opportunity to use its discretion to say yay or nay you agree with that or however you want to handle it uh depending on the proposal at that time you still have some discretion over that same thing with the parking standards.

Still allowing for some flexibility with parking um shared parking options within PUDS. Building height did not um did not change. It's still held at the 50 foot maximum. All right. So the density so this again is is a change from the current ordinance. Obviously we don't have anything right now about density bonuses. We just s simply have a blanket six dwelling units per acre. That's it. That's the requirement. So the proposal in this draft is to maintain that minimum six dwelling units per acre but allow for um what's called density bonuses if an applicant can provide for some type of community benefit. Um Dover is a good example of a community that does this not just in PUDS but in other areas of their zoning. Um again this is an option. The idea behind this is that um by kind of giving some type of incentive to a developer that's looking at attractive land to develop. We're we're trying to incentivize them to provide a benefit to the community as a whole. So affordable housing, preserving more open space, um doing you know sustainable practices, um getting buildings lead certified, um providing for public amenities, not just private amenities to their development, um improvements in infrastructure, um things of that nature. So if this is again, this is an option. We're not

married to this idea, but that is one of the ways that you can encourage developers to provide something additional to the community as a whole. Falls under the community public benefit factor. This is a means to try and do that. Um these next sections compliance with other rags the setbacks and buffers did not did not significantly change. And so the the specific objectives this is another section where um there was a lot of discussion at the board level around this particularly

the mix of uses. So here we tried to better define and provide actual criteria for what what that means. Um because even in speaking with potential developers, they're asking that question. What does it mean? Cuz our current ordinance really doesn't define that. So that was the goal here was to try and provide some guidance and criteria.

Kelly, I noticed you went past the um general considerations under the criteria. There are some changes there, right? Yes. Thank you. Yeah. All right. So,

so again, when the board's reviewing the PUD application itself, compliance with the provisions of the our zoning ordinance, site plan regs, subdivision rags, and applicable laws. So that is the same as what's what we currently have in the PD ordinance. Um and then the same process for whether if somebody wants to wave or modify any of those regulations, it would be the the same process that we have now. Um consistency with the master plan. uh and then reiterating that they need to conform with the objectives of this ordinance. So hopefully that's a a stronger requirement if you will because we've more clearly identified those objectives. Um and then providing adequate public infrastructure and services. So I don't I don't know as if this was clearly defined in the other ordinance. I think it it was mentioned but uh hopefully this is more clearly defined. And then the fiscal and economic impacts of the PUB on the town. Um so essentially that's saying that they need to provide a fiscal impact analysis um with the appropriate study and justification. All right. Then the submission requirements. This is essentially the the checklist that um were provided in the separate separate documents. Just reiterating those. So again, what's required to be submitted, what staff should be looking

for, what the board should be looking for, just in terms of a checklist. That's what all this goes through. I'm I can go into more detail if you want, but no, I don't want to read it line by line.

You're fine. Um so interpretation application uh this is generally the same. So it's it's pointing out that the master plan the PUD master plan for the project is the uh controlling regulatory document that's the same standard that we have now. So like Woodmont for example they have their PUD master plan that's the controlling regulatory document for that development same technology hill. So we would be maintaining that standard. Um the fees this did change um I had to refresh my memory but yeah so you can see in the other ordin ordinance there's a calculation of $20 per gross area of the tract not to exceed $5,000. So, I just made a general reference to our land use schedule because we're currently revising it and my thought is we should just utilize the revised one once it's goes through the rest of its approval process. And I think that that land use fee schedule is a better reflection on um what the appropriate fee would be for a development such as this.

Yeah. Which is way over 5,000. Correct. Yeah. So I know that was fairly quick. Um, and my assumption is that the key points you want to talk about are track size, the density bonuses. That was my initial.

So, I guess I'll start with a couple questions. Um, and then we'll go through the board here. The pre-application consultation, is there any way we can take some of that and make it a requirement of the PUD? of you know what I mean like can can part of this process be anformational community input session not just a recommendation to have it I understand that they have the right to apply for it essentially without coming to town staff at all that's granted through our but is there any is there anything we can have that we can make some of these more of a requirement as opposed to a recommendation I think by statute we we can

uh but it would have to be uh you know go through the ordinance process and everything. So have to be you know recommended by the board and the town council where we can rec you know require like a conceptual discussion or you know a pre premeating. So that's I think would be our choice. I know it's been recommended by the missile association to do that. So, it's my understanding that you absolutely can. Um, I will note that I did not run this through legal counsel yet because I anticipated changes and I prefer to utilize them uh only as necessary. So, uh I will of course do that to confirm that my um initial assessment is correct. But yes, I I think we can make that change. Um I've made a note of it. So, we can minimum the conceptual consultation should be required. Yeah, I mean it gets it out there and alerts the public of what's going on because now when we have conceptuals basically it's a board discussion with the developer and staff.

Um I do like that we added something in about a requirement of if it if you haven't started substantial development within 5 years then you'll revert back to whatever the original zoning was. Um maybe piggyback on that Jake also is that if they start building residences they should go so far before they start putting commercial in. So there should be a I think a ratio between residents and commercial so we don't have someone come in and all of a sudden all there is is residential units and no commercial. So are you thinking of some type of phasing requirement? Yeah. like yes,

you know, once you have 30% of your residential up, you need to have x amount of your commercial up or something like that. Um, I would like to see it a little bit more stringent, get down to two years. I don't know how the board feels about that, but I think if you can't have the ball moving in two years after you've had a something approved, you're just wasting everybody's time. Anyway, my only comment on that is given the if this is the direction that the board is is generally moving with respect to number of meetings and all of that. It's I'm saying two years after approval.

Okay. After approval. Yeah. I'm saying two years after approval. Okay. Yeah. I realize the process itself could take two years. Absolutely. What are you what are you thinking for? I mean like shovel in the ground or full occupancy. No, shovel in the ground. Start substantial development within two years of of signed approved plans. So, not planning board approval cuz we all know it could be a year and a half after planning board approval that you actually have a set of signed plans cuz like two years after you signed plans to full occupancy is like No, I would No, no, no, no, no. I'm saying two years you need to start two years. It can't it can't just sit there for five years. Correct.

So, that Sorry. Go ahead. Yeah. There's more than just starting though. Somebody can start and work on it for six months and then stop. that that that's my concern really is that it stalls for whatever reason. Some developments I've seen, not even not only in town, but they they didn't get the the tenants they were hoping for, so they kind of slow roll the project and move off to other projects and when they get more tenants or or whatever, then they sty it up again. That that's my concern. I don't know if there's a way what we can do about that. So, I think so just to if I may, because I think this will help Yeah.

clarify. So as a general measure, so the length of time for a subdivision approval is that they the length of time they have to meet conditions is two years. So that's the maximum time frame per statute that correct an applicant has any applicant any applicant has to meet the conditions of approval for a subdivision. For site plans, it's 120 days.

Correct. So, a two-year time frame after your approval is not I wouldn't say that's unreasonable. They still have the opportunity to go through the extension process. Um, and then as far as u substantial completion, active substantial completion. Um what we typically look at is uh as a as a measuring point I guess is the way to put it is um whether or not they have their initial infrastructure in place. So utilities and all of that. I agree.

Um so you're not necessarily saying that they have to have buildings up and everything but it's more of get your utilities in things of that nature. um as and that's your substantial improvements, your substantial development that's occurred.

I agree. So on that just to put into perspective to your point, two years till you can meet your subdivision approval. Even if we have two years on top of, you know, you have two years to meet your to have some sort of substantial completion or however we want to say it, that's still theoretically four years after after approval. You know what I mean? So I think if we're at five, we're close to a decade before we know it. [Music] So you're saying it would be two years to meet the substantial um I think substantial is the completion requirement. I feel like substantial is the

I think that's how we have it that's how we have it phrased in our site plan regulations. Active substantial development improvement. Yeah. I would just want to make sure that it's not I'm not looking for a pro asking for a project to be finished in two years is not reasonable at all. But asking them to Yeah, it's substantially complete is how we term it. Okay. I would just want a definition to substantial completion because some people would see substantial completion as like projects 90. So we do we have it we have it defined um in the in the site plan regs. Pretty sure I'm right on that. Um, we can use that. I can take your feedback tonight and I can Yeah.

make that adjustment and we can we can go from there or we can take a different route.

Thank you. Um, I do really like the I the um specific objectives section that's added to this. Um I was cur can we add something that is the P something like the PUD must demonstrate substantial community benefit in that I mean obviously you know this is talking about a substantial community benefit will give you density bonus but I'm wondering you know get rid of the density bonus and and allow more density but the plan as a whole needs to dem demonstrate legitimate substantial community benefit.

Yeah. So, I think I I just pulled this Yeah. up to give you a reference point for what we would consider community benefit. Yeah. Um so, we can certainly take these these measures, if you will, and add them to what you're what you're suggesting. I am looking for board's input here, too, not just me writing things away. I like the density bonus. I think it's a you know a give and take kind of thing. They get to they get rewarded for improve um you know community benefits.

So what I'm saying is the way this is written right now is that if the project demonstrates substantial community benefit we offer a density bonus. I'm asking the project to have a requirement of a substantial community benefit just in general like in general you know so in order to have a PUD approval you need substantial community benefit the project itself needs to correct have be a benefit to the community correct but that's fairly subjective the well we would need to clearly define like like Kelly did in that table

we would need to you know this is what she's she's considering substant stantial community benefit to for uh density reasons. We would definitely have to um lay out or define what substantial community benefit is. But I personally would rather have it as a requirement than you can put a PUD in and if you can show us substantial community benefit then we'll give you a density bonus. I'd rather just say, see, I think that's what she tried off the I think that's what Kelly tried to do here.

So, she's saying substantial community benefit is creating affordable housing or or leaving areas adjacent to wetlands open for open space or building in in uh sustainable green fashion or improving infrastructure. So I don't know what you want on top of that. But it's a it's a trade-off. It I agree what you're saying. She has

instead of it instead of So if you can right now the way this is laid out is if you can demonstrate substantial community benefit, he will give you a density bonus because you've demonstrated substantial community benefit. What I'm asking is take substantial community benefit and make that part of the requirement to get the PUD and let the density these are the definitions because to Jason's point, you know, that's subjective. Yeah. No, I agree that these are de definitions, but they're being used in a different way.

I'm saying to approve the PUD, you need to show substantial community benefit. So what you're saying is basically to even get a consideration there has to be a substantial benefit. Correct. Whereas right now this says this says right now the way I read this your PUD does not need substantial community benefit which is described through these this table if you demonstrate this. We're willing to give you density on top of your approval. I'd rather say you know let the density be what the density is. let it determined by, you know, the soil or whatever. So, so community benefit is the baseline, correct? Not a bonus.

And then if you're willing to increase quote unquote the community benefit, these are the incentives you can have. And I'm not sure we should define what the community benefit is because, for example, if you say, I'm going to build a 20 uh a 20 acre warehouse, we're all going to be like, what's the benefit? Well, it's going to be Amazon. It's going to have 100,000 jobs. Okay. Well, that's different. You You know what I mean? Because if we say it has to be green or has to be this or that, you know, there's so many kinds of different benefits. It could be a AI, you know, a server farm which is going to run the police department that's going to be all robots or whatever comes our way, you know. I agree.

You guys need a couple robots going to happen one day. So just just as an example to to get away from kind of the specifics of this table. So like affordable housing for example, you would put like a you would put a percentage that they need to have a percentage of units that they need to have for for affordable or workforce housing. You have that in here. H you have that in here. Uh I I believe I only have it 15%. Right. But that's in that's the trade-off where if you do that then you get additional density bonuses. I think what Jake is saying is they just need to do that period. Correct.

Doesn't give you extra density. Correct. That's exactly what I'm getting at. So that so that would be the means. That's an example of how to do it is just you need to have you know 20% of your units need to be workforce housing workforce units affordable or however you want however you want to term it. I think we've got to be careful of mixing those two terms there because they mean different things. So I think we either use one or the other and affordably be the bigger blanket term. The workforce housing fits a provision in statute. So it just depends on what the goal of that paragraph is. I agree wholeheartedly and would rather stick towards affordable as opposed to workforce. We all know how I feel about affordable housing on here and what it actually is.

The problem is is in this day and age, affordable housing is always affordable. So, do we say reasonably priced? Well, she's got she's got she's got a pretty Oh, she does have 50% of AMI. Um, so like are you thinking that it's it's almost like a you know, three of these five or two of these five have to be met to to consider a community benefit? Or is it one or is it, you know, like I guess I didn't think that far into it. Okay. I I kind of I I kind of I like both of them. Like I like the idea that

there has to be some benefit to the town even for us to say, "Okay, you can bypass the zoning for this for this specific master plan." I think there should be some kind of baseline there. But by the same token, I also like this and saying, "Okay, you can have your PUD, but if you want more of if you want more density, then you've got to pick from this alakart menu here to get it." Like it's kind of a carrot kind of a carrot sort of thing.

Yeah. I just I'm just going to go back to the fact that you can't let it be subjective because somebody can't plan around that. You know, it's not something that somebody can say, well, is it subjective? If it's very written into the regulation, is it subjective? If it's a table like this, it's not necessar it's not subjective. But you the example that was thrown out over here that well, what's a what's a Amazon going to do? No, that's why I'm saying we have to define it. We need to define what we're considering a substantial community.

I think she did that here. You bring you bring up a good point because what one person considers a benefit, another one doesn't. One person likes a grocery store, another person views it as traffic. Well, I think that's where the board uses uses your experience and your discretion to say this is what Londereerry needs needs and you you make a recommendation. I think the only place we're differing, Giovani, is I'm saying this is an add-on to the PUD. I'm asking it to be a requirement of the PUD. That's the only difference between what we're looking at right now. This is this is optional

optional for the PUD. I'm looking to make it a requirement of the PUD to have to meet say one or two of those. I think some of this defines what a community benefit would be, but that also having or other uses or other possibilities leaves it open enough. So there is a clear definition, but on top of that, if we there's something we didn't think of, like Ryan said, then we can still hit that exception. So people do know a clear way to hit it. It's not a totally obscure where I couldn't tell you how to hit a benefit if I came in here. We have some examples, but we also have that flexibility. If something else would come up, we couldn't envision, which very well could happen,

but it also gives us the right, it gives us the ability to say, I don't think this is a benefit of the community, and I'll tell you why it's not a benefit. and then I have to convince the rest of you guys. And if we decide that's not a benefit for the community, then it doesn't happen. You want to leave a little bit of room for the developer to be creative also, right? We say, "Well, what if you put some trails in there?" I don't want to do that. Okay. How about a test in here? Whatever the situation may be, turtle pond. Yeah. Right. Mr. D. Francesco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So I I think part of what the chair is trying to do here, and I'm not going to put words in your mouth, so step on me when you need to. the the the fact is that in order to qualify, it seems to me, and I could be missing some stuff, it seems to me the only the only qualifier to be a PUB is if you have enough land. Uh I think I think we've added some additional criteria with respect to the uses and how they are distributed within that tract of land. But yes, I

yeah I mean in general 90% of it comes from land

and I think what the chair is saying is that what can we add to make it a a qualifier to get into the show right now. To get into the show you have to show up with x number of acres of land and you have to say uh that that you're going to do houses and and industrial and and whatever. But it's kind of wishyw it's very wishy-washy. So in order to see the show, I think the chair is asking what can we what can we do to make an additional qualifier for someone to be allowed to apply to to to make their land uh qualify for a PUD. I think I think that's where he's going.

Very well, sir. And I think part of it is already done on this blue chart. if that's blue on the screen. Um I think that's part of it. So if the entry requirement was you have to have the land and if you're going to do if you're going to be a PUD then you have to do this this this and this then we'll consider you for a PUB and I think and I believe you're also saying then we don't have to bother with with density or we can bring up density whatever density they want but they have to prove it from the get-go instead of

I think I think we're asking to I think the chair is asking asking to in increase the price to get into the movie.

So could So and I I think that's a great idea. Um I think um if you're going to if the consensus is to is to get step away from the density bonus concept then I would suggest if you're in agreement taking these whatever five two three four five um community benefits and if you agree they should be requirements then we can we can do And they're they're fairly well defined sum or a number like Jason was saying like

I guess I didn't I didn't get that far into it. The other thing I was thinking is if we wanted to leave a density bonus get take the public infrastructure out of this table. make the public infrastructure a requirement that you know the off-site infrastructure improvements need to the significant off-site infrastructure improvements that directly benefit the community something there just needs to be more teeth to a requirement of a PUD and it's in either it's either in housing or infrastructure you know if we wanted to leave the density bonuses and leave this table where it is and say hey if you can show take infrastructure out of there. If you can show one of the four, then we'll give you an additional, you know, 10 to 15 or 5 to 10%. And then make the infrastructure the to your point, you know, increased price of of getting into the movie. H, you know, have the infrastructure be, you know, the significant off-site infrastructure improvements directly benefit the community. Then in a checklist we can say okay this this is going to give us a significant infrastructure improvement.

Yeah. What about be a you know pre-qualification to a PUD? No, you're fine. What about something like this? Right. So we got these five. We say cost of getting in. You got to meet three of them. Right. Um now under this it's saying you know we've got these density bonuses right but it can't go above seven dwelling units per acre right 7 and a half it yeah it can't exceed the 25% basically

so what if we make these five pick three you can get pick three you now get considered um but the density is now seven as opposed to six right so there's a little bit of uh you you know like you've hit these three so now you can do seven as opposed to six. So they still get the equivalent of the density bonus but they have to hit three of these but but that's on top of proving that it's going to Yeah, we're kind of right because there's two different things. There's okay you have to prove that's going to be um what was the word we used

for the community benefit the community. We have to prove it benefits the community. Okay, good. This is what you're going to build. Because to tell you the truth, I can think of some things that you could meet all these things and it's not necessarily going to benefit the community. Do you see what I'm saying? Yeah. So, let me I guess so. I I think Sorry. I think that the cost of getting in the show would be it has to benefit the community. Hey, by the way, if you do these things, look at the bonuses you get. Correct. Do you see what I'm saying? But you can't even get to this table until you That's what I'm saying. do the first thing. And I'm I'm with you on that.

That's what I'm trying to get to. And I think we could do that through if we want to leave. I think we could do that through it being an an infrastructure requirement, an off-site infrastructure improvement. Well, no, that it could be anything, though. That's what I'm saying. It could be anything. We have to decide. We say they say, "Oh, we're going to put a new power plant in." So, I don't think I don't think that that's not what this table is saying. It can't be anything. There's criteria and standards laid out. So if you're going to choose from this list, I would I would assume that you're keeping the criteria and measurable standards that are outlined. Yes. So if you pull public infrastructure,

it's just moving from one. It's no longer a bonus. It's now a requirement. That's all. But but I'm I'm to me I'm good with both. And meaning like you just have to prove and we have to agree that it's like, okay, great. Well, that's great. you're going to provide, you know, uh, sewer, but we already have sewer in that area and we don't need it. Do you see what I'm saying? Like, why can't just one of these be your ticket in? That's what I'm saying. Additional ones then give you That's what I'm saying. That inf that infrastructure in is that is our qualifier is that this has significant off-site infrastructure improvements that directly benefit the community. That is our qualifying component. My thing is, why can't it just be any one of those? just to take it in.

I see what you're saying. Either one of the whatever whatever the five you want, you pick one and then additional things that you pick out of that gives you that density bonus on top of that. The one buys you gives the ticket. Whichever one whichever one of the five because either one of those five is going to benefit the community, right? I I think that yes, but no, I think infrastructure has a legitimate benefit to the entire community whereas Sustainability and green building does not have an a benefit to the entire community, nor does mixed use. You're saying that infrastructure outweighs the rest. It has a more of a benefit. Absolutely.

I agree, but I just don't understand why we would pigeon hole ourselves in these categories. I agree with the bonuses, but what again, we want it to benefit the community. Yeah. And we can define what that benefit is. Do you see what I'm saying? We don't we can't, you know, we're not going to think we can't think of the future and what things what we're going to need. Yeah. You know, maybe we need another fire station. Maybe whatever fire station. No, I'm just saying that that I think to get in the show, they just have to to me that you have to prove it. And I I understand what you guys are saying. You got to pick one of them. But I can think of some of these like, okay, what if we get to the point where we have so many affordable housing that we don't need anymore? They go, well, I meet that meet that criteria. Well, it's like, well, that's why infrastructure we never

But you're picking one. And I'm saying if you make it vague, then it it then we decide whether the community needs it. Yeah. Because I'm I'm reading that top one now and thinking harder about it. And I think that's more fitting the definition of workforce housing that we talked about. That's not the 80% AMI. Yeah. So we we almost need to rephrase how that works. The problem with make with keeping it vague is somebody comes in with a plan and they don't know what they're supposed to be hitting. They can hit one of these or No, no, I know. But what I'm saying is the idea of keeping it vague, right? Somebody comes in and they're think they're coming in with a community benefit, but because it's vague, we turn around and say, "Well, that's not really a community benefit." And then they got to go,

that's what conceptual is for. Well, well, yes. Well, well, yeah, but but I mean like I I I feel like there has to be some in infrastructure. Absolutely. I I feel like infrastructure pulling that out and making that no matter what a baseline. I I agree, but it's no longer part of the density. I think if we're going to say there has to be a community benefit, and I agree that we should, I think we have to say what there what the expectations of them.

These are examples of community benefits. List these five or other possible community benefits. Leave it like that because you have defined ones in there. So, they do know what some of them are going to hit. And if there's something outside of that, they can come for conceptual design and go, "This is what I'm thinking. Do you think this hits a community benefit?" and have that conversation because it could be and it could be something we don't envision. It keeps it open, right? Because we can't think of everything that's going to happen and what we're going to need. You know what I mean? They might come up and say, "I don't know how it's going to benefit community." And you know, someone might say, "Well, that's great because we need that a lumber yard or whatever it may be." Yeah,

I think it's hard to I think it's hard to imagine um having been here for a long time, it's hard for me to imagine that um even a 20 acre tract. Um which is not very big by the way. Um it's a housing development.

There's a 30 acre tract on South Road right now that is going to stay 10 10 acres green but 9.1 acres, whatever it is. it. But the the point is I can't think of um a project like that that would not affect uh public amenities or infrastructure. And so I think just as a as a basis, somebody coming in and asking the town um to build a PUD to create that's what they're doing, right? They're creating land use. They're creating a village. It's a create it's a it's a it's a creation um to come in to do that that they need to know right off the bat that we're expecting because we know for a fact they're going to affect infrastructure uh roads sewer water uh green space uh traffic whatever uh it's is going to be affected and so that is a basis of in order to buy the ticket that's what you you have you're going to have to provide that something and I don't know what that is or how you define it or how we snowball it to to make it work but

but that's what I mean right now right now the way this is laid out they don't they don't need to meet an infrastructure requirement they don't need to meet an off-site infrastructure requirement the way this is laid out right now if they meet an off-site rest requirement we'll give you another 10% in density is what this I think I think what we want is in this list. Yes,

we just have to pick out like for example like you said, right? Offset infrastructure is should be a baseline, right? But then there are other things and and honestly like open space should be a baseline. You have to have x percentage of open space. Um you know maybe a community some kind of public facility or something like that, right? But then you can say once we pull those pieces out of this list, we can say the other stuff in there like the lead, like the um you know like walking trails and stuff like that. That is not a requirement. But if you want to do it, we'll give you a density bonus. Yeah, I'm

so I think we just pick out of here what we view as necessities. To me, the only one is infrastructure. I think I think open no matter what would say open space no matter what no matter what condition the town is in no matter how many homes we have no matter what is going on there's always going to need to be an infrastructure improvement be it sewer water roadways but if they a new fire station a new police station no matter what a new DPW no matter what we are always going to need no matter what shape the town is in we'll always need infrastructure

and I agree but my fear is that they come in and say okay we're going build a new DPW for you and we're going to we're going to have something that we don't want. Do you see what I'm saying? That's a separate conversation that would fall under like a fiscal impact, right? No, no, but but what I'm saying infrastructure great, you meet the requirement for infrastructure, but now you have something that we don't want or need, but you meet the infrastructure thing, so we're all set. That's my That's my discuss. We still that that's part of the discussion and the board's ability to say we still that's I guess that's my question. And we still have the ability to say we don't need another That's great. You want to give us another town hall. We have one. Have a good day. Yeah. Okay, good. So, we still have that ability. So, if I could I make a suggestion? Sure.

Um, so I'm hearing that obviously public infrastructure amenities is a priority of out of the five on this list and the general consensus is it should be a requirement. Yes. So, I can pull that out and I can take another shot at defining it. the criteria and standards is there then I heard open space as another requirement. Is there a consensus on on that? I think we I think Mr. Chair if Thank you. I think we need to Oh, you're welcome. We need to get to um there's a huge change in here. Yeah, it's massive.

It went from a 100 acres to somewhere else. Oh, if you're talking about a 100 acres, green space could could become important. If you're talking about 20 acres, that's 21 one acre houses by the time you're done with frontage setbacks and everything else. It's built-in green space. It's not that big a deal. So, so I think we need to talk about

that part be and then swing back to to this conversation and decide if if we're good with that or are we good with 100? Do we want to make it 200? Um I mean that that's I think we need to go there before we start to get into the minutia because it will make a difference how big the tracks of land are going to be. Yeah. So, we most definitely need to figure that out before we talk about density bonuses. I'll let you start. Um, so I I I don't um

I built I built I built commercial buildings and I built uh residential buildings and based on uh what's going on with the RSAs in the state um right now um and with uh the H reports getting uh uh the H uh getting harder and harder to achieve um if you if you I think I'm happy with 100. I would concur. And I have a big issue with this. What do we need in this town? Affordable housing. Yeah, we're just, you know, it's one of in the pilot here. I think we should focus on affordable housing. I mean, if somebody decides not to do affordable housing, there goes nothing in lendidary

because that's we have to we have to put it an emphasis on affordable housing because that's what everybody says they need. I would I and my opinion on it, I agree. Affordable housing is needed in Londereerry. I think an emphasis is put on it this way because if they can meet affordable housing, we'll give them density and anybody who's building anything% of anybody who's building anything wants density. So it I do see it as you're you're saying you'd want it to be more dense. I want more. I want to bring more affordable housing because that's what they're saying they need

here. It's just one of the pile, you know. Who's they? And what is affordable housing? [Music] If we did what? What? So, right now, it's a simple question. What is affordable housing? Housing that's affordable for the average London homeowner.

All right. Moving on. Hold on. Just real quick, Ann, so I can understand this a little bit better. Right now, I see affordable housing as a big incentive on this because we are going to allow more density. If if the applicant says we're going to provide affordable housing, we're going to give them more density. So, I see that as a bonus or an incentive, I should say. Would you rather it be 25% as opposed to 10 to 15%. Yes. More more affordable housing. So, is anybody opposed to changing the number on that? We could we could step it. We could say if you do 15% you get

you get 10%. If you do 20% affordable, you get 15 or whatever, you know. Do you have money? So, if affordable housing is a top priority, you need to give more density. Correct. Yeah. But not cap it at 7.5. I agree.

Agreed. uh seven and a half units per per acre from from six because knowing the economics of a developer that's not much of an incentive to do that. And then you got to define what affordable is. And um I've heard some uh comments here where well this is just the old you know affordable based upon the average income of the h of uh the blue collar worker in the in this the town or wherever the region wherever the MSA is that they're looking at. So and I don't know that we can subjectively define it because I think that's probably state guidelines or federalines. There is um some guidance from the state specifically about affordable and it states rent and utilities or mortgage and taxes and insurance do not exceed 30% of gross household income

and that should be the definition here because this is the more the workforce definition that's this is more geared towards the the federal definition. So that's a good seat. All I'm saying is that that that's something that we should define for affordability. But

you know, I think you need to there's two things that come into the the end product of a house. One is the cost of u actually getting this thing approved, the cost of materials, the cost of the land, and um those are all and it's very expensive and timely to get a project from from start to finish. It takes two to three years to do that. And you we put other priorities in place where we're saying, well, infrastructure's got to be a a a qualifier for it or what have you or um and I agree with that. I think that infrastructure is very important, but timelines, cost of money to get there, cost of the permitting to get there, these are all things that come up to be 30 to 40% of that end product. So if you if there was a way that you could give that person that's accomplishing what you want more of a bonus and a shorter timeline to horizon to to the horizon of of of getting the project up up front at a cheaper price,

I think you're going to accomplish your goal. Mhm.

And um with regards to the criteria um just in looking at some of these things, I I just I think that they are what they are and I think they're pretty definable, Ryan. And I hate to disagree with you, but you can't be subjective when you're defining legislation because that developer has come in here has already invested $200,000 worth of engineering to then go in front of a board that says, "I didn't even like the color of your tie today and not or you know your attitude when you presented it or something like that." They they need to know that they got a measurable uh they they know what the they need to know what the gamble is.

They need they need to say, "Hey, you know, I got 80% likelihood if I hit one of these things that I'm going to get this defined." And with regards to acreage,

um I don't think there's too many 100 acre parcels left. So if you do push it up to that 100 acre and if if we want to out you know rule out of existence PUDS then push it up to 100 acres because I think there's probably two parcels left in town that have 100 acres. Um so if you want to go that route that's fine but to just take the take the legislation off the table and then you may not be accomplishing some of the other things that we want to accomplish. Well, there's a bunch there's to be argumentative. Oh, you there's a bunch of land that's not for sale that if you put the parcels together, if you put the puzzle pieces together, it's you're going to have plenty of land. So,

maybe you're right. I would. So, just I I looked it up, but not very many. There's not very many. I will give you not that many.

Let me just state so everyone can have some an estimated answer. So Lynn did ask for a map um showing all of these parcels, the 20 acre, the 50, the 100. Um so that's being worked on, but I didn't want to spend too much time on it before I got your feedback on the acreage. But that being said, um, in my estimation, there's three to five tracks of land, that being either a contiguous parcel or parcels that can be combined like Technology Hill did, um, to 100 contiguous acres is about 3 to five areas. I would agree with that number. Yeah. Yeah. And don't So that's pretty close to

Well, the town is almost the town's almost built out. How much how much do But but isn't that kind of what we want? Isn't this supposed to be the exception to the rule, right? Like we don't want PUDs all over town, do we? Well, maybe you don't, but I mean, I'm just saying that that you also want those those those remaining parcels, you want input into accomplishing smart development. Yeah. So that

so that's what I think this design you may want, you know, to accomplish affordable or workforce or whatever you're saying, you may want to get that those major infrastructure projects done in that section of town. you may want to take those projects and and develop in a smarter capacity so you can leave the remaining uh wetlands and lands adjoining those wetlands to protect the water sources and things. So you want as opposed to saying your only option is to go your standard subdivision route and at that point you can do whatever the heck you want. Yeah, I get I get what you're saying

and that is just to emphasize your point that is where the other communities have these smaller tracks. Um that's that's the primary reason is so that they have it's again an in an incentive for a potential developer to put forward a development that isn't just you know a subdivision and they're not required to preserve x amount of land or do anything that benefits benefits the town if you will but it's to try and have some more flexibility which is what the PUB does over those existing parcels that are that are left and control. As we said at the beginning of the meeting, it's a way to control

what's going on in the tracks of land. That said, if we use an existing uh project to talk about because it's the most one of the most obvious ones right now is the piece on South Road. I I don't see how a PUD could have been worked into that 30 acre parcel there. Um, but if I if I look at this and I did today and I looked at that land that with the new one with the old one for sure they they could have got it in there with the new one be close as it's written right now when we know it's going to change. So, you know, I you know it's a I just that's my opinion.

Yeah. And the only reason I'm pointing that out is just to further explain the why behind, you know, why other communities do it this way. Again, that doesn't mean we have to do it this way. How many 20 plus acre lots roughly are in London? So, and so that's the way it's proposed here is not including AR1. Um, and I I didn't get as far to as to get an estimated number on that, but obviously it's going to be more since it's a lesser amount. But if I had to take an educated guess, you know, it's not it's not a lot.

So that one would fit within that because that I'm guessing is within AR1. Am I or am I in 30 acres? This has to be 501. Thank you.

So, I'm just going to bring the elephant in the room up real quick. Um, while I don't disagree with you about everything that you just said with regards to this, there's a lot of good stuff in this that is going to give us much better control over a PUD, which is what the council requested. If we put a reduction in land on this thing, the only thing anybody's going to hear is the town council is allowing a PU or the council planning board, whatever is allowing a PUD on less land. Nothing will be talked about about the amount of teeth we've put into the ordinance and nothing will be talked about the benefit of the ordinance. It'll just be

there they are again. Now it's 50 acres instead of 100. That's my two cents.

That's where getting the right messaging around it. The people that scream the very simplistic messages without much thought put in them have to be counteracted because there's is substantial benefit to getting affordable housing in there to get public infrastructure. Some of the things that people in this town have asked for and so we're helping to get it in a way and they've asked for well why aren't the developers paying their part in this? This is what it is and it's doing. If they want subdivisions all over, then they can complain about how this is and end up with subdivisions all over and then they'll still complain about that. In the end of the day, this is we are doing what's best for the town to get the most public benefit out of this. And so,

and I think right now that's recognized. But if we were to say 50 acres, every ounce of benefit in this thing is gone. Then we repeat this we repeat the same thing and we say cuz in the end of the day, okay, we get the public benefit on potentially three plots of land. What's the point of doing this at that point? You know, we're going to put a lot of work into this.

Goes right back to what he said. So, and yeah, and so to be so to be clear, to get it to get it out there, to get it on tape in a in a in a standard development like the one on South Road, I'm going to keep using it because it's right there in front of you and the map's been sent all over all over social media um of it because originally everyone was saying it was going to be more apartment complexes. Um and so um what happens in a standard development like that is you have um 17 a little over 20 acres of that land give or take between 17 and 20 acres is going to be 17 homes and two culde-sacs. Okay. So if you have that all throughout town, what you have is the the town budget is going to go up because the town has to plow and maintain those roads. Now the developer is going to build them, but the town has to maintain them and plow them because it's not they're not um condos. It's not condominiumized. It's not like um what is it up by? It's not like schoolhouse rock. uh uh schoolhouse schoolhouse where that is

just a bill that is there is an HOA there they take care of their own stuff but in typical right like the South Road project we have to plow it we're going to have to pothole that road it's going to take more hours uh uh public works is going to need more people they're going to need more trucks more fuel more salt more sand all of that okay in a PUD that doesn't necess necessarily happen. Although it still can. It It can. It can. Yeah, it is. It is allowed. That is still allowed to happen. However, the control is on this side of the desk for it. Yes.

Okay. So, I just I want to get that out there so everybody knows all the parameters and all the things that currently happen with with standard standard single zoning, whatever. Um, it's it's that's not the cheapest way to go. It's might not be the most expensive way to go, but it's not a panacea, you know. So, you know, which scary movie do you want to go to? If if if you don't like scary movies, you want to one go to the one that's the least scary. I don't know why I'm on a movie thing tonight. Sorry to keep on inputting here, but I I feel like point of tonight, sir.

Yeah, that's uh Sean, you're right. It's all it's all and and you're right, too, because everybody's going to say, "Well, you're reducing the acreage, right?" And but everybody's got their drum. Somebody wants affordable housing and wants more affordable housing or workforce or lower price homesic

handicap housing. Uh gentleman comes up here all the time wants water and sewer everywhere in town. Uh everybody comes in talks about traffic concerns. Uh the conservation cons conservation commission comes in and talks about conserving certain areas. And I think that's the important point, John. You're absolutely right. when they're saying you're reducing the acreage. Well, it's what Kelly just said. We're we're taking the available land that's left and developing it to h allow all those areas that beats each individual's drum and say, "Let's have some really creative development that we can give our our input and control and get what we want out of it. Otherwise, you get what you get.

You're going to get the same old subdivisions that are coming in creating more roads, creating more potholes. Everybody's going to ask for subdivisions, but then they're I mean sidewalks, but then they're going to want the houses affordable. And you know, it's just going to be the same old same old until we get to a point that you can say, let's let's try to get the panacea and accomplish everything we want on the remaining land that's left. Mhm. So the one other thing to put on the table, I'm I'm very sorry, but the last thing to just to throw on the table is for for everyone, including us, to understand, we cannot tell a developer how much to charge for a house.

Mhm. Or a condo or an apartment, but you can

or any of that. We we we do not have that control. We cannot say it to we're going to give you a permit for that 20 acres of land, but you have to put houses on that land that that the the maximum price is $250,000. We cannot do that. We we don't have the power to do it. It's not legal to do it. We can't do it. We can't incentivize them to to to try and minimize to help them minimize their costs so that they can do that, right? But sometimes that's a crapshoot too because you can minimize their pricing and they can still charge whatever they want for the house. So so you you know it's not a crapshoot though because if you define what affordable housing is and it happens all the time in other other states is that you're saying well you could have built six but we're going to give you a density bonus to eight. So those other the the additional three units, you have to build two of the two of the three at what we defined as affordable housing. So So you do accomplish your goal and it and it is in here it says, you know, it's a 30-year affordable period. So it's a lease for 30 years. So, Gio, you have converted me o over to the the pod pud thing, right? Um, I'm not on social media, thank God. But, um,

and you're in marketing. I the second the the day I no longer had to run Facebook ad campaigns, I closed out all my accounts. But um uh when I do talk to people, one of the things I hear is, you know, smart growth, smart growth. Well, this is smart growth, right? You know, like th this is saying, okay, you want to build, you know, we'll we'll let you kind of bypass we'll let you we'll let you do a master plan, but you know, do this in return. Mhm.

Could I can I add one more point just based on what I hear as well and you all heard hear it too from the community is scale right I hear a lot of comments about the scale the size of Woodmont the size of technology hill they're 100 plus acre tracks that's why they're so big so it's another way just another consideration to to think about as far as what you're hearing from your fellow residents. So just for a consensus so we can begin to move on back to what Mr. D brought up. Where would we like this acreage to lay?

I'm fine with it as is. Yeah. I mean I think a lot of thought put went in went into this and she I mean we you came up with 20 based upon other areas. I I don't I and and you have a very good point about okay great you know some a lot of people complain about the Woodmont and and it's like okay well this is just going to be a smaller area so it's and they can right they can come in with 100 but they can also come with 20 and if it ends up being something that people don't want well it's only the small little area it's not you know a gigantic area but if I could

I think Kelly said it that the 20 acres is only in commercial zones essentially and then the rest of the stuff which is if the majority of the town is your AR1 and that's the 50 acre minimum. I think we need to write next to the 20 not in AR1. Yeah. Call that out. Yeah. I didn't it's not it should be in there but it needs to be. Yeah. Because that's what people seize on that 20. People don't want to think that there's going to be a mix mixture, you know, a technology hill in their right behind their subdivision, right? So, yeah. And

and just to add if and I do want to make sure I get consensus from you all, but when I have that, I will come back to you with the map showing where these areas potentially are, which obviously would be helpful, but and I don't think we're at a point tonight where we have to make a decision. No, absolutely not. So, nope. Just trying the city data, see where see the parcels we're looking at, and then move on from there with the discussion. I agree. That's a great idea.

Okay. I just want to see also our commercial area where we put the commercial businesses taken away because we as all current residents of London Derry, we need more commercial businesses to go to. We go elsewhere for it. We have a couple of restaurants this and that, but we have nothing. You know, we don't have what was promised in Woodmont. you know some of businesses on the first floor residences above we don't have that I don't want to take away that that's why I think we have to you know be balance a little more

yeah have pay careful attention to the amount of dwelling units that we allow and the amount of commercial and I think some of it there should be some incentive there so they're allowed so many unit you know unit dwellings and then you know to a point and then they have to start putting in commercial. So, it'd be up to them to go solicit, you know, commercial establishments. And I think part of that problem isn't necessarily that we don't have commercial land available in town. It's getting and as Art said, soliciting and getting that commercial in. I agree with you. I think I didn't hear you.

That that goes into soliciting. I don't think it's because commercial is not available in zoning. There's commercial zones, but it's just making sure that those get populated because what good does it do to have an empty lot of commercial if we're not providing all the services like I like the commercial business to go in those lots. Yes. Exactly. I mean, we need it. We need, you know, like amenities that people are are used to. Exactly. Like getting the Dunkin Donuts in the morning, having a 7-Eleven, uh that that type of thing. Seven of them aren't clothing stores, things like that. They got 10,000 of them now. I think it's a So, Kelly, you got a pretty good idea on where we stand on that.

Yep. So, I'll I'll come back to you with a visual showing the 20 and the 50. Is there anything else we want to discuss on our end before we give Kelly some marching orders for the next one here? Uh use of uh let's see, master plan. I see in there uh comprehensive master plan, PUB master plan, and master plan. So when it says master plan, I don't know what is really being talked about.

So I thought I addressed that at the beginning somewhere that if it's in this ordinance, all references to master plan mean the PUB master plan unless specifically stated as town of blendary master plan. So it's likely that I missed some consistency with that terminology, but that that's the intent. Yeah, because the only thing I I worry about so someone sees well, you know, someone's going to get confused anyway. So, the less confusion, the better they can understand what what this is. And I think one of the important things also is the highway access for these uh EUVs. So, you don't want them out in the countryside somewhere where they're going to have to travel five miles to get to 93. You want something a little bit closer. Well, isn't that something the market would decide?

Yeah. Like PUD, it goes back to Yeah. infrastructure because there definitely would have to be road improvements. Water as well. Water, sewer, uh your roadways, uh those are things that we deal with when we we take a look at traffic studies and other things when we're considering this. Correct. So that's something we're we're taking in consideration as part of the the process. I really liked Kelly the the the part at the beginning where you said um community involvement maybe even as early as the conceptual phase. Yeah. Um I like that a lot. Um because that's when people are running around with their hair on fire

because they hear it at a heritage commission meeting and no one knows what they're talking about or how they're talking about it, but they're running around anyway. And so I like I like for the opportunity to get it out into the public so the public can can voice their opinions before um things get too far. Just a thought. And I think that goes a little bit towards I think what I talked about a while back was making it more of a requirement than a Yeah. for the community sessions. Yeah. I have that noted here.

They have to come in and talk to us first. I I got one, Kelly. Uh, under the community benefits, I have heard sort of like uh some some input on maybe there's a undefined category or jump ball category or whatever, some other definable use that then that could be the category. Go to like Ryan's point where you say, "Hey, I I hit a couple of these, but I also got this other thing." It might be a timing, you know, issue. It's like there might be three years from now there might be a public need that wasn't thought of today. So this is also for our generations so to speak and and that you know if that developer could address it then it might be relevant and then that would be that would be the subjective item. So in the current PUD, so they have the master plan is composed of elements submitted by the act that describe the project including there's a list on one of the items in the list. It's um any other developmental guidelines. So it's it it's got it's got definite criteria and then it's got that extend like jump ball as you called it. I like that.

True. I don't know what to say. And I guess as part of the process, one of the first things they do is talk to the, you know, the planning department. And if there's a current need, I'm sure that the planning department will be like, "Wow, well, we really need a blah blah blah right now." And it's like, "Well, it's not on the list if it's well, that's where the other is." It's a good point. Yeah. Like a catch all. It's actually, if you go back to our 1997 master plan, it talks about uh the village concept. That's so 30 years ago. Yeah. Yeah, that's right. We're talking about it 30 years ago and it's like, you know, how come we don't have a other than, you know, uh the village up in the north part of town, we don't really have a center

supposed to be shut. One other thing I neglected to call out um was about ownership, PUD ownership and um uh I guess requiring a development agreement. Y whereas currently it's not uh explicitly required. It's only required if there's multiple owners. Correct. Then they have to have a development agreement.

Correct. So right now in the draft before you it states PUD shall be under unified ownership at the time of application or where multiple ownership exists subject to a binding development agreement requiring all owners to comply with the approved PD master plan. So would you prefer you would prefer a development agreement regardless of one owner or multiple? I I would I would agree. Yeah, I think it makes sense. Yep. So, needs a development agreement period. Yep. What does that mean? I think I know what you mean, but

So, an agreement at this in this instance, it would be an agreement between the developer and the town. And typically what we have in development agreements are the provisions that um cover whatever fiscal impacts they're going to have. That's very generally speaking that but I mean we can certainly look into my my only concern make that more detailed but my only concern with that would that be like let's say we drew up a development agreement for technology hill would we need to do that and we're incurring more legal spend expenses on something that was more straightforward that that's the aspect from the town perspective we could be

Yeah. So that negotiation process as you know takes place at the council. Yeah. And requires should require legal counsel. Yes. From both parties. So, and that's where I worry if it's something straightforward, we're spending money, we may not need to spend. Should it be something that is a during the approval process, the board Yeah, this board needs to say this requires an agreement or this does like it's part of we don't not talk about it. We talk about it and we say is this required? Do we are we requiring an agreement for this or not? I think that would be great because that keeps it from just unnecessarily adding legal $100,000 real quick and legal fees.

And I think so the my interpretation of the intent of the way it's written currently for requiring development agreement the obvious right having the multiple ownership you want to have an agreement amongst them saying that they're all in agreement with this approved plan. That's the purpose. Whereas now we're talking potentially more about something with the town and the developers that's a little more detailed than I think the correct original intent. Correct. I agree. Anything else? I have one more thing.

Yes, sir. So is there any way that we can um [Music] stop or not allow to happen what has already happened for example in Bedford and at the Tuscan where the PUD came in and even as successful as Tuscan is my opinion due to its proximity to the border. Even there they've had multiple time the town has had multiple times where Tuscan has come and said because of the changing financial whatever environment that's going on this tract of land that was going to be this now needs to be that. The same thing happened in Bedford and they ended up with with a 12story um apartment building or whatever. Is there is there h how do you protect against that if if if it can be done?

I'm not certain that I'm not certain there's a way to protect against it because in those examples what they're doing is at least my understanding is that they're they're reopening their agreement and master plan. um we could just I think that they're going to be allowed to to ask for that no matter what just like anybody can come back and ask for a site plan amendment or revision um but you don't have to approve you don't have but you you don't have to agree to it is is the key I think that the way um even our current ordinance is written and this draft

um the means by which an applicant could the only means by which an applicant could differ from the approved PUB master plan is if they use the underlying zoning. Um, which really shouldn't make that much of a difference because that would have been what would be built there in theory anyways. So, but to answer your question, I don't I don't think you could prevent that per se because people generally can always come back and ask for an amendment to anything. It's a matter of whether or not you you approve it.

And so the takeaway there for me is that you can you can put on a piece of paper anything you want with land and you can say this is what can go on this land. But until somebody shows up with a checkbook that says I can make money on that piece of land doing those things that are allowed. It's going to be empty.

Yeah. and and supply and demand uh uh market conditions uh all those things uh uh affect that. Right? So you can have all the commercial land you want in southern New Hampshire with three exits in leninary New Hampshire and if a company looks at a piece of land and they they do their due diligence and they can't make money on it, they're not going to build a building there even though the land is available which is why there's land available for for some of it. So, um, and it's the same thing, you know, all all throughout, uh, uh, New Hampshire and the Northeast, that's how it is. Where commercial was a big thing 20 years ago, now not so much. Now, it's apartment buildings because people people need housing and and so, you know, we're

this is where we're at. Could I speak to that a little bit? Of

course. Because, you know, commercial is a fickle beast, right? And it's changing so much right now with online and AI coming in pretty pretty soon, pretty drastically. And um you know, I understand the request and the need to say we need a grocery store here, we need this there, we need the other thing, but all those other avenues are taking away. And what happens with commercial is that you have a grocery store and they service a a zone. They service, you know, we we drop you drop a pen and you say, "Okay, we're going to draw from 20 miles from here or 30 miles." And that keeps expanding. And so what they're modifying it down to is the smaller grocery stores and things to that nature that are more, you know, localized in certain market places, but even that model is going to change pretty pretty soon. So even though we may want that, those same retailers or stores are trying to trying to suck up more of a marketplace because that same marketplace is going online in other places. So even though we may want that, the economics are changing.

So we may want it, but they're they're looking at our commercial land and they're saying, "We can't afford to exist unless you want us to build and go belly up." That's so you know, your anchors that are already there. You know, you you look at Route 28 and they go, "Well, you got you got a one right in Dair and you got a a market basket down the street. I can't afford to put one here. there's not enough bodies there. Until the bodies grow, then maybe they can reconsider it.

That's kind of what I remember when uh Home Depot came in here. Question I asked was uh why you want to build one when you got one in Manchester and one in Salem? And they said because those stores are too busy. And had no reply for that, which is their business decision. Oh yeah. Oh, look at look at the um the movie theater that's coming back to life in London Derry. I hope a uh you know a bowling alley comes in and a movie well movie theater and uh the roller skating rink that was in London too.

But what they're doing is they're not doing new development. They're doing infill into all the retailers that that have failed. That's why you're seeing all these like Shaw Plaza and stuff. It's the bounce house and it's this and it's that. It's all these unique concepts. We'll see if they stay unique concepts, you know. I I personally have looked into a bowling alley and a roller skating rink and there's no money in it. Unfortunately, you said no way. There's no money in it right now that just unless there's a Tik Tok trend that somebody's roller skating. Never going to be. It's not 1970 anymore. Plus, they just last for two years. Plus, they just put one over the line in Manchester anyway. TV film. Find someone like Tony is a great roster. All right, we're getting off the beaten path here.

Miss Karen, do you need anything else from us? Um, can I just recap my list here? Sure. All right. Making it a requirement for community sessions. Um, providing some type of phasing requirement. Um if I have my notes here, right? So like having a percentage of residential complete before uh moving on to a commercial phase like something along those lines. Something along the lines of if there's commercial involved once you get to X amount of residential you need to start building the commercial.

Okay. uh reducing the substantial completion to two years andor being consistent with the definition in our site plan rigs. Mhm. Um having it be a requirement to demonstrate community benefit. Mhm. Um, still a little unclear on what the didn't you say infrastructure was a community benefit? So I heard in my notes I have public infrastructure would be required to be demonstrated. That would be the one

that be the community benefit and then still still leaving the total of five uh five in this table that's on this table for the density bonus. It would be four. You take away the infrastructure. So then it would be got it. Table would stay the same without the infrastructure. That would be your density bonus. I believe we talked Yep. More density cuz going from six to 7 and a half isn't really density. So I've specific to the affordable housing though. Mhm.

Okay. That's what I have here. Um and then the track size we're going to keep I'm going to clarify further the 20 acre being in non AR1 areas. I'll come back to you with a visual of what that actually looks like so we can continue that conversation. Um, I need to make sure I'm consistent with some of the terminology. And then the development agreement, sorry, am I leaving that as is or what was the consensus on that? that it would be a

how did we put it? It will be to the board's judgment if there is a development agreement required part of the discussion but it's part of the it's legitimately part of the review if you will. Okay. We have to say yes there's a development agreement or no there's no development agreement. Okay. What? And aren't we uh making the conceptual required? Yeah, she dropped that. Oh, she did. Okay, I missed that. Sorry.

And we did talk about changing the affordable housing definition to what you had you had stated the other affordable housing was. And then I think Ann mentioned and I I didn't hear any disagreement on it on upping that bonus for the affordable housing. Did we land on stagger? We did. We did get Okay, we got that. Yeah. So, no no cap on the 25% of the of the standard density. Mhm. is what I have. Correct. Uh changing what you just said, Sean, the affordable housing to that 30% of the gross household income. Remove workforce from that. So that'll go that'll go away. Thank you. Yeah. The other thing I heard though was um I think Jason said it some type of like step system. Is that Yeah.

Okay. Yep. So for the uh affordable instead of saying the 35, do we want to just tie it to whatever the federal definition is? Because that way if it changes we that gets really dicey because if it changes in a bad way, we get tied to so it's better for us to have our own. Okay. All right. Gota some sort of other jump community. Yes. And then adding what Givv's calling the jump ball category. You can you can come up figure out some way to say that. It's a jump. That's too good. The joker card.

Wonderful. Uh it's what everybody say the lendary way throwing out where if there was some other need at the time that you could satisfy. I mean, obviously the developers going to go and talk to staff and they're going to say, "Hey, in this section of the town, we really need this." And they might want to incorporate. Back to the acreage, is it up to 50 acres or 50 acres or more? 50. It's a 50 acre minimum. It's a minimum. Yeah. 50 contiguous acres minimum in the AR1. Got it. So, I'll cl It's not clearly written right now. So, I'll clarify that. Thank you. Great meeting, folks.

Yes. Yep. I want to say thank you to our staff for putting together a uh good presentation and really a I think a substantial significant document for us to work with and mess up. This is what I've been doing all day. This could not have been a light lift. So, super easy. No problem. You got nothing else going on, right? Nothing. No, honestly, good job, though. Thank you. I appreciate and thank you for being engaged and you all did your homework in Reddit which I greatly appreciate. Um and just to to close here, so this is the tenative timeline

for this ordinance amendment. So we have a work session scheduled in November 12th. So between now and then, we'll work on what we discussed tonight, amending that and then coming prepared with the goal of getting to you like a week before, if not the public hearing before. um and then have a hearing in December and you know if we're ready for that um with the ultimate goal of getting it to the council in January. So wonderful. Sounds good. Right now we're on track. Excellent. Looking for a motion to adjurnn. So move, Mr. Chair. Have a second. All in favor, please say I. I. Good night.