Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Everyone and welcome to the planning board meeting call the meeting to order Frank I'd like you to sit for mr. Coviello who's not going to be with us this evening That's okay. It is And the first item on our agenda is approval of minutes of April 16th 2026 Motion to approve the minutes second any discussion all those in favor aye any opposed aye

Mr. Chairman, if it's okay, I'd like to suspend the rules, make a motion to suspend the rules for the purposes of bringing forward old business item B and new business item C for the purposes of postponement. Second. Discussion?

Not for suspending the rules.

So what we do when an applicant makes a request for postponement, we usually honor that request. There's nothing currently that requires a specific explanation as to why. we do have some explanations in the packet that have been submitted but that's basically what will happen and despite whatever you may find in the agenda if the vote is to postpone these matters they will be postponed until the next meeting any other discussion all those in favor aye any opposed and now you need the actual motions correct for postponement yes i would make a motion that we postpone under old business item b the request of bora llc

to our next uh june meeting is that the right month to the june 18th meeting second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed and then i will further make the motion uh that we will uh new under new business item c of reagan electric company owner and schindler development uh move that postponement also to june 18th correct yes second discussion

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Those items are postponed until June.

We have determination of completeness, subdivision review, request of Jeanette McDonald as owner, Flipping Burgers LLC as applicant for property 86 Farm Lane, requesting preliminary and final subdivision approval.

motion to determine that item a is complete according to subdivision review regulations contingent on the granting of any required waivers under section 4 of the agenda and to accept the applications for consideration second any discussion

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I abstain. Okay. We also have a determination of completeness for request of Jeanette McDonald as owner for Flipping Burgers LLC, applicant at 86 Farm Lane. This is site plan review. And also a request of 304 Maplewood LLC as owner for property at 304 Maplewood Avenue, requesting amended site plan review approval.

I make a motion to vote to determine that item A is complete. Motion is for items B and C to be accepted as complete any discussion all those in favor We have our public hearings

and some other items on the agenda. The procedure for public hearings is presentation by the proponent, questions by the planning board members, public comment, limited comments, two-for or against the application or proposal. You have to provide your name and address. Anyone who wishes to speak during the public comment must speak during the first round to speak in subsequent rounds. Comments are directed to me. First round, people have three minutes, oral comment only. Second round is up to five minutes. You can include a presentation. And third round is an additional up to five minutes, oral comment only, after which the hearings are closed and the Board deliberates. The next item on our agenda is a request of double MC LLC as owner for property at 134 Pleasant Street requesting site plan review approval for the redevelopment of the site to include reuse and expansion of the existing structure and construction of new structure for residential commercial uses with associated site improvements. This property is on Assessor's Map 116 lot 30 and lies in character districts CD4 and historic districts. Since the last meeting, before the applicant speaks, I want to remind everyone that we stopped the meeting with the discussion with the applicant where there were three options on the table. Two of those options have been explored and rejected by the applicant in the process. The third option, which was to place the drive-through facility, which was the last remaining item that we were discussing last month, not place it but leave it in the existing building it's my understanding and this can be explained by the applicant shortly but that is the change that will be happening and if that is the case i think that was the last item we had for discussion and that changes the entire staff memo recommendation as well if that in fact is how this has this application has changed As a matter of the record, I want the board to know that last Friday I did attend the open house at the Treadwell Mansion. I did see the owner, Mr. McNabb.

He did mention to me that that was his intention to do that. That was the only thing I heard. We didn't engage in any other discussion about the application.

So just so folks are aware, that conversation did take place, and it stopped with that amount of information. So Mr. Chagnon? if you would like to explain what the changes are. We're not looking to accept any new materials this evening. I think we have a process in mind that we've discussed with staff that might take care of that. So you can proceed.

Yes, thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the board John Chagrin from Haley Ward and with me here tonight There are some members of the project team Terrence Parker the landscape architect Tracy Kozak project architect and Rebecca Brown from Redmond Peterson traffic engineer. They're here to answer questions relative to the shift in that you discussed so at the meeting in april the board talked about a number of things and i think there was a lot of discussion though about the position that the change in location of the bank within the building would constitute a change to the drive up which is grandfathered in order to keep so at the meeting mr mcnab said he had a number of choices one of which was to redesign or reapportion the interior space so that the bank would remain in the same location and therefore keep the drive up as a pre-existing non-conforming use and i'm here to say that that is his desire he is going to do that a the board could issue an approval subject to that relocation i can tell you we've looked at the plans and and um That relocation of the bank facility will actually make less traffic because it's a little smaller and the bank was a bigger driver of traffic and parking. some of the bank space will be converted into additional dwelling units but that change would not change the conformance of parking there are no changes to the site plan the site plan engineering layout open space all of that is exactly the same there's just a couple of notes that would need to be changed that would change the use in building a and the use in building b the use descriptions but nothing else would change so we would like to go forward with the understanding that a condition of approval would be that the plans be revised to reflect keeping the bank use in the existing footprint that it is now used

So the plans would be changed so that the site and floor plans would reflect the bank staying in the existing building with the drive-through basically as it is today. With the new proposals, what was going to be bank becomes office or apartments or whatever, but the net impacts decrease in terms of traffic. Yes. No change to parking?

No.

the the parking requirement goes down so this is now going to be a further excess in a number of provided spaces on site okay so if it's up to the board but that's the sort of a thing that can be a condition subject to staff review of those revised plans when they're prepared questions of the applicant yes bill so so that the uh exit

If I understand right, the exit is not across the Parrot Lot. It's out to Pleasant Street.

Yes, that's correct. When we came last month, we had redesigned the site to ingress and egress to Pleasant.

And the stormwater was...

Understood, but not yet nailed down when we talked last so no the stormwater was Designed and in fact, you should be taking a vote tonight on the conditional use permit portion of the Application which is for the stormwater connection across the parrot Avenue parking lot that has not changed and And we can talk about that now or when that application comes up. But that application has been reviewed by the Conservation Commission and they're recommending your approval. Good. Yeah. No changes to the site plan from what was looked at at the last meeting other than the change in the location of the bank associated with the drive-through Correct, and that would be no absolutely no change to the site plans other than where it says building a it would say a different use Building B with a different use so it would go from professional office from Bank and financial services to professional office and apartments and so the footprints remain the same yep exactly yep so basically internal changes okay yep architectural changes yep any other questions also the board knows this can if the board is so inclined this can be a condition approval

based on those plan changes being made as discussed and reflected based on what the applicant just said, because it does reflect what my understanding was coming to the meeting and talking to staff. So I think the conditions would be getting plans in conformance, second floor plans in conformance with what was just represented, updated traffic and parking calculations that staff would review to confirm also what was stated. And is that it?

yes if you're ready to to go to deliberations as we said i think the staff memo did include the playing department recommendations for conditions of approval as they were stated last month and as we stated last month we're we are uh those conditions are acceptable to the applicant

I forgot to mention there was a small mistake made in the packet. There was materials from the abutters that was included in tonight's packet that was actually not resubmitted. It was stuff that was copied over from prior meeting. So that wasn't new information that was submitted. Just point of clarification.

Thank you. The public comment material.

Right. The public comment material. Yeah. Any questions? We're going to need a motion. Well, here's the thing.

We have a public hearing, don't we? No, we don't.

Oh, we don't have. That was held in March and closed, unless you want to reopen it.

We could reopen it, but that wasn't the intent.

I was confused.

Do we want to hear from the Deputy City Attorney on that topic?

Sure.

Thank you for mentioning it and it's noted we don't have any other we've all well Yes, I suppose Logan you could sit on this one Yes

deputy city attorney yes thank you mr chair um so as as you were alluding to at the last planning board meeting when this was considered the public hearing was actually closed and it was not made clear at that meeting that it would be continued to this present meeting no noticing was uh was made therefore it would not be appropriate at this meeting for the board to take new evidence into the record if the board wanted to reopen the meeting it could do so by reposting at the next meeting but you are certainly under no obligation to do so if the board feels that it has enough information to act then I would recommend that you act thank you yes

do agree that we should act on it i would just want to be very clear as to the motion language and uh what an affirmative vote versus negative vote is saying looks like you're ready to do a motion no idea how to start that it would be it would be a conditional approval subject to the site and floor plans being revised to reflect the fact that the drive-through bank facilities would be maintained in the existing building yeah

and that the traffic and parking calculations would be revised to reflect the same change and also reflecting that there's no increased impact. So with reduced impacts and the last issue that was discussed with the owner at this meeting with the three options that I mentioned actually before he came tonight, and he selected one of those. So we were told what might happen. That is what has happened. So it's those conditions. I think those are the two, Peter?

Those are the two.

So it's those two conditions. Staff would review to ensure that that's, so the conditional approval, this is not unusual, the administrative from this point, if those changes are made, staff would approve it. Ultimately, I have to sign those plans as,

folks may or may not know I sign all the site plan applications when they're finally finished and and that's that I make a motion that we vote to find that the site plan application meets the requirements set forth in the site plan regulation section 2.9 evaluation criteria and it dropped the findings of fact as amended regarding the bank location use of staying in the existing footprint building second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed and I will continue to vote to grant site plan approval with the following conditions beginning with having revisions to the site and floor plans in conformance with the stated changes of the bank remaining in the existing building with the existing footprint along with stated changes regarding updates to traffic and parking based off of that move ensuring that there is no increased impact

We also need to include the conditions 2.1 through 2.7.

Oh, I was just making sure I got that one right before I went on. Okay, got it. I was looking up to make sure I hadn't missed anything. Great job. All right, and I will also then, yep.

Excuse me. I don't know that it's the entire banking function that has to remain in that building. It's really just the banking function as it relates to the drive-through.

I don't disagree with you.

I don't know what the intent of the owner is to do with the buildings, but...

Where the the banking business takes place maybe we can talk about this after I finish making the motion So my understanding the banking is being kept in the existing building So let's not complicate it so to continue the motion

and then conditions to be satisfied subsequent to final approval of site plan but prior to issuance of a building permit or commencement of any site work construction activity, we would add in 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and then conditions to be satisfied subsequent to the commencement of site work construction activity but prior to release of surety bond or certificate of occupancy would be 2.6 and 2.7. Second.

just a question on the first part would you want to add that the said changes would be reviewed by the Planning Department staff for conformance I will add to mine that review well yeah that no changes or impacts increase reviewed by staff that was good catch okay

can I just clarify I was going to make that comment but also um can we just add that as 2.6 under prior okay it shouldn't be prior to that shouldn't you be reviewing these before they actually get there is my point so 2.1 through 2.5 currently they have to do satisfy all these before they can get a building permit right but I want these changes in plans verified by staff prior to that going forward is my opinion

that's why i had it first before the conditions so it'll be i mean it'll be 1.1 or 2.1 a that was kind of i think it has to go above all of those that is my point because we need those changes in order for everything else to move forward based off of our approval

I just sort of saw this as like being the top one that needs to be done.

Yes, please Just so we're all clear

So we have 2.1 through 2.7 revised, and then 2.8 and 2.9. And there was a second, as I recall.

I second the revision.

That was going to be my question.

Do folks understand the motion?

We just did some renumbering, that's all. Right.

Do you understand the motion? I do, yes.

Yes.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed?

Want me to continue? I'd also make a motion we vote to recommend the city council approval license and or easement for a private stormwater pipe and related drainage infrastructure to cross city-owned property within the Parrot Avenue municipal parking lot as shown on the left on the off-site grading and drainage plans submitted for 134 Pleasant Street with the condition that city shall retain the authority to require the removal modification or relocation of the stormwater infrastructure at any time. the sole expense of the property owner should the city determine such action is necessary for municipal purposes public improvements or changes to city operations and subject to final legal review by the city attorney and the department of public works second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed

thank you i was moving on i thought i was done um would it be appropriate to ask or possible to ask that we take the um item b or b new business or do you want to come back to it

The applicant standing at the podium show make a motion to suspend the rules to bring forth the item for B second any discussion all those in favor Double MC LLC is applicant in the city of Portsmouth as owner for property at 0 Parrot Avenue requesting a wetland conditional use permit from section 10 10 17 50 for the installation of new treated stormwater pipe below the Parrot Avenue parking lot as part of the redevelopment of 134 Pleasant Street There will be 601 square feet of disturbance within the wetland buffer area, which is located beneath the existing parking lot. Set properties located in assessor's map 115 lot 4-1 and lies in the municipal M and historic districts. Mr. Chagnon, I believe you're here to present that.

yes thank you mr chairman and members of the board john shagnon from haley ward here tonight with me is mark mcnabb and this is associated with the 134 pleasant street development in order to provide appropriate stormwater infrastructure bringing it into compliance with the desire to separate stormwater and sewer flows the application was through the tack process referred by the public works department to a stormwater pipe connection that would be the closest location of separated stone water pipe that work is within 100 feet of the mill pond and therefore in the city's buffer so we're here tonight to request a conditional wetland condition use permit the criteria the five criteria to grant are listed in the application package I We defer to the written record and there are no areas within the vegetated buffer impacted or altered. Number six, so it really does not apply. The Conservation Commission reviewed the project on April 8th and they recommended approval. Subject to the addition of the wetland scientist stamp which has been added to the slight site package or the the application package in the existing conditions plan so without any further time Tonight if it's acceptable, we would just ask you to Approve this wetland condition use permit subject to the planning department recommendations for conditions questions of the applicant

Really quick, I'm sure you have an answer to this. Was it not feasible to go West and then down whatever that newly created road is going to be instead of bisecting the paradigm lot?

so the original design of this off-site connection went to the west and then along the courthouse driveway yeah which would be not through the middle of the lot but the pipe connection down there turned out to not be stormwater separated i see so the department asked us to move to this location so a little bit of efficiency to bisect the lot Yeah, unfortunately it bisects a lot, but it gets to the separated drainage infrastructure.

i know i'm going to get asked this question when it comes to a city council meeting so how long do we think that project will take well because i'm thinking that lot as we all know is always filled with people parking there so how many parking spots for how length of time might actually be out of service that's a good question where it's a cut

dig place cover it's a lot quicker time frame i would imagine they could probably install at least two or three hundred feet a day of pipe and it would probably take three or four days and there's a section there that would be obviously losing any parking spots is critical but it doesn't impact the entire lot you can just sort of cut off 10 spaces a day probably or something of that nature and The work can be staged from the act of construction at 134. So it doesn't need a lay down area.

I Just know I'll get the question. So I need to have the answer.

Thank you John you're gonna start at the north and move south or south and move north I think you would want to start at the low point.

So you start the south and move north. I

And so if you do that the north part will be open at the beginning the first couple of days Then at the as you a couple days go by the south will open up for a circulation The way you're doing it with cut and cover.

Yes Okay, and there are multiple entrance and exit points luckily so You know the questions of the applicant

Okay, I'm going to open the public hearing on this. Anybody here or on Zoom wishes to speak two-four against this CUP application? Anybody here? Last call. I'm going to close the public hearing.

a motion we vote to find the conditional use permit application meets the requirements set forth in section 10.1017.50 of the ordinance and adopt the findings of fact as presented second discussion

I just like to point out the benefits of actually having this happen is because the city there now we have a developer who's actually going to help us with our stormwater sewer separation that's what's actually going on here so this was actually a benefit to the city because we're now going to have a section done that would have been at our cost now done by somebody else so that I just want everyone to understand what just happened here is that that is actually a true benefit to the city so And the environment. And our sewer plant.

That too.

Any other discussion?

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Sure. I make a motion we vote to grant the conditional use permit as presented.

Second.

Discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Request of Jeanette McDonald's owner and Flippingburgers LLC as applicant for property at 86 Farm Lane. Requesting preliminary and final subdivision approval and site plan review approval to subdivide one lot into three lots with associated site improvements. Said property is located on Assessor's Map 236, lot 74, and lies within the single residence B district. Who's here to present this application? I believe Mr. Simonis is recusing himself. Mr. Almeida is coming back. Logan, can you sit for Mr. Simonis?

I can. I'll stay in this chair, though.

Good evening. Eric Weinberg with Altus Engineering. With me tonight also is Brett Berger, applicant with Flipping Berger. Jeanette McMaster, who is the owner, schoolteacher, was called to school for an evening meeting. What we're proposing is three-lot residential subdivision, two new homes will be constructed at the 86 Farm Lane address, and the 86 Farm Lane home will remain. In May of 2025, I can't believe a year has gone, We received zoning relief to have the parcels with less than the required lot area and keep the existing home to have less than the minimum rear yard and lots with 75 feet of frontage where 100 feet is required. Following the zoning relief, Jeanette was contemplating how to develop the property, whether she was going to do it, whether she was going to get a developer. So ultimately she chose to work with Brett and so that's how we got to this moment. An interesting piece of property because the Longmeadow Lane is a public right away. It's not in use in this portion. It continues out to the other end to where Betty's dream is. Betty's dream is actually constructed through part of the right away and Anyway, it's been partially developed. I think the road many years ago was roughed in. When you look at the existing condition survey, you'll see that sewer was constructed in the right-of-way and actually we thought there was some errors and we looked through the record files and working with DPW realized that not only there's a single sewer pipe there, there's actually two. That's because the sewer was constructed and then anyone who's been here long enough remembers the very successful omni mall and The omni mall was it's they were expecting a lot of flow from that and that serves that area the omni mall is where was where home for you know, it's where Home Depot is so they To build them all, they had to improve the sewer infrastructure through that area. So that's why they built the double-barrel sewer through that area. It's just a little bit of interesting history as you go through some of these projects. So what we got was zoning relief to construct the homes off the existing right-of-way. And the right-of-way, as you can see on the site, plan the subdivision plan we shifted the roadway to the east toward Jeanette's house and the reason we did that was on the existing right-of-way goes through a portion of the shed and a hedgerow on the abutting property closer to spalding turnpike we didn't out of respect for the butter we didn't want to impact their shed we didn't want to impact the hedgerow so we shifted the road over took some right-of-way off of genetics property near the house and built building the road that way and then once we get past the house you can see it shifts back into the center line of the right-of-way and it's very doubtful that the roadway will ever be continued to long meadow but we certainly made the provisions that it would or out towards betty's dream it is long meadow uh so we're instead of doing a cul-de-sac to serve two lots we requested a waiver to build a hammerhead. We've had that reviewed by Fire and Safety all through TAC to provide that on one of the lots so that emergency vehicles that they need to get down to the two homes is a way mechanism for them to turn around. If for some reason that the road is continued, that easement onto the abutting property will sunset. We're proposing only a 22-foot wide paved surface on this just because it's servicing only two homes. We've got the support of fire and safety and TAC. for water there is Utilities plan we're proposing and there's water existing water in farm Lane on What we're proposing is a new hydrant at the front of harp Farm Lane in this roadway that will actually help on the entire neighborhood because there isn't a hydrant nearby and then we have a smaller four inch service servicing the two home we went with a smaller service as proved by DPW because if we went with a six or an eight inch line with two homes it would um it would end up with stale water and wouldn't get enough turnover so we have only a four inch line with a blow off at the end to serve on those two homes we're proposing a new utility pole on our side of the road and then underground utilities I'm going into the site with a transformer near the hammerhead I believe that there's an error in the staff memo Peter and I spoke about it that said that we were asking for a waiver for overhead utilities and that's not accurate we're not proposing overhead utilities The existing site topography, if you can go to the site grading plan would be great, Peter, which is 138, I guess, in the package. Right now, the way the... when the roadway was constructed or the subgrade was constructed for the roadway, it created a dam and inhibited any runoff from leaving the site. So we have lower, I'll call it the western corner of the site, creates a dam and all the water infiltrates into the ground so that we have very little runoff leaving the site. And so what we've done with the stormwater management design is we're providing two bioretention basins on the property that will treat the runoff from both the roadway as well as the lot development with an overflow that goes down the city right away and ties into the city drainage to the north of the site. That runoff that runs through there. There's a culvert that was part of When the roadway was roughed in is a culvert crossing and it's part of the Hodgson Brook watershed just so it's very clear That's generally Where we are on as mentioned we're at ask for waivers on to have the hammerhead in lieu of the cul-de-sac 22 feet of pavement in lieu of 32 feet of pavement with a sidewalk and the last thing I do want to go into and I know that on the staff memo didn't support this waiver, but I this is a subdivision and because we're creating more than two houses or ultimately three houses we have to go through site plan review as part of this process staff is recommending and it's it's been tradition that we rec that the site plan is recorded well the site plan here on is it almost exactly as subdivision it doesn't have any pertinent information that five ten fifty years from now would cause anything but concern or confusion because these are the two boxes and I'm shown as the potential home are not defined as what they will be their potential home and all the information that's pertinent for deeds for recording and so forth is on the subdivision plan so we would like that the board strongly consider that the site plan for a residential three-lot subdivision Is not recorded and that you just record the subdivision plan if you find that there are some notes That's on the site plan that would be applicable. I don't think there are We would be happy to put them on the subdivision plan. I think that having to plan Recorded would be very confusing for this development. I Think I'm out of words Any questions? Which sheet would you suggest being recorded the previous sheet it is 134 Subdivision

I'm looking at just the farm lane submission. What's your sheet number, Eric?

It's C1.

Yeah, C1 I have. C1, got it.

Yeah, C1.

So this would be the sheet that would be recorded?

That would be the one that would be recorded. It has the easement. It has the hammerhead. That would be on the drainage easements. It has the setbacks. It has the lot areas. It has the road layout.

And what you're suggesting is when the homes are actually designed and laid out?

they would it would be no different than a vacant lot that they just need to comply with zoning that you would never record the location of a home on a residential subdivision now if this were an apartment complex and it was truly a site plan I think that it's appropriate that on The plan would be recorded because we weren't we're not creating lot lines on a subdivision on a site plan with this is where we're creating lot lines and only lot lines What's the objection to recording the site plan just confusion? I think that it it's redundancy and it's in its confusion If I know we're added to the site plan

Didn't mean to upset you. A note could be added to the site plan saying C subdivision for boundary information, that sort of a thing, or whatever, but go ahead.

was going to say the subdivision plan that gets recorded could have a note saying site plan on record at portsmouth city hall funding sustainability department and you can even list a file number if there was one or something i guess my only question is and i'm trying to scan through all of these is any notes that relate to drainage or anything like that i would want to make sure are on

subdivision plan in case to put on notice anyone that you know would read this in the future would truly understand all of the drainage needs of the lots well i i mean that would be in the deeds as well and there are drainage easements on and because that that's a good segue the um drainage is on both lots there's going to be a recorded homeowners association as well okay

Right where I was going. Okay, then I'd be good.

I had another question on the stormwater going off-site. Eric, you mentioned this in existing, that long 12-inch culvert, that's an existing culvert?

There is an existing cross culvert. So if you go back to...

It's shown on C4.

C4. Yeah. on at the very top right of the right there is the existing cross culvert that we're tying into that's in the right away and that so the cross culvert is the diagonal going across the proposed road that goes across the existing right away across the existing right away but the proposed

proposed road the end of the proposed road well the end of it what a rookie

So this is the existing drainage that's there. We're going to build this in the right-of-way, and this is where the roadway ends. And so this is the drainage that's on the lot. This is the drainage that's actually on both lots, and this is the hammerhead. So the roadway ends here. We've got drainage infrastructure that's partially on the private property and then in the right-of-way heading down and connecting into that existing drain manhole.

so that that was my question the big long culvert that doesn't exist you're proposing to construct that and do you have do you have necessary reasons for that how does that work with public works it's it will be because it's a public road um just need public infrastructure just need permission yeah yeah we'll need to do a drainage connection permit as we go and do the work

I think that, you know, there was a long debate in legal about whether or not it was a private road and public road. Because there's public infrastructure in it already, it's a public road. I think there's probably feelings from DPW that they wish this was a private road because now as a public road, it will probably need to be maintained by the city. Right.

Did you want to add anything on the site plan, Mr. Gordon?

well I was just wondering if it could be called the subdivision site plan if you we can talk to the survey or stamps it but I don't see a problem why it can't be called subdivision site plan I don't know if that would solve it Trevor left so he left

the subdivision plan has to be recorded no question about that absolutely i mean i hark back to i know recorded at the registry is a three four lot subdivision that i happen to live in one of the lots now and the squares of where the houses are was actually on the plan i think i like

suggestion about a note on the subdivision plan to see the city files for the site plan because unless there's something missing on the subdivision plan I don't think there is it's unusual to have a site plan for single-family homes so in addition to confusion is there any other

Hardship that would Be experienced by strict conformity I I think that the biggest is the confusion and that it serves no real purpose because the houses that are depicted on this are conceptual

The other way to do it would be to do it and just say those are potential building envelopes and just, you know, not make it specific.

Or even remove them. I don't know that it's required to have those boxes in there.

Well, site plans are usually intended to show improvements, so otherwise... Any other questions to the applicant?

Yes, Bill. Conceptually, are there two site plans or three or one? If it's one or two, then we're not involved, are we? One or two? Site plans.

Oh, site plans.

One or two units.

It's three units.

It's two new units, but one is existing.

Total of three.

One lot to three lots with three houses, even though one's existing.

So the city's requirements to prepare a site plan, they've done that. It's a subdivision. They've prepared the subdivision plan. I don't feel strongly either way about it.

You know, I mean, I think I can see the potential confusion, but... More importantly, I know how incredibly difficult it is if the plans are too busy to get them recorded at the registry of deeds because I've gone through this multiple times in my day job. So... site plans can tend to be a lot busier and have a lot of things on them and it might take several tries before they actually get approved and recorded. So I'm fine with the note on the subdivision plan and if it makes you happy showing a building envelope on the new Lots I think is a pretty easy thing to do and definitely having a note on the subdivision plan that a full site plan details are located on file of the city I think should be sufficient for anyone that's reading the plan I agree but

I'll scroll back. You misunderstood. I was thinking of the building envelope label on the site plan. I don't think it needs to be added to the subdivision plan. I think the subdivision plan is fine with your note.

I misunderstood what you said.

No problem.

I was trying to make you happy.

That is one option for that part of the application, but we do have to have a public hearing on this. Any other questions of the applicant before I open the public hearing? Did you have anything to comment on the public? Okay. I'm good. We're going to open the public hearing. Is anybody here or on Zoom wishes to speak to, for, or against this application?

We've got a hand up there.

Yes.

My name is Catherine Gray. I live at 32 Farm Lane. Been there for 46 years. There is a fire hydrant on Farm Lane. I think this is fine. I just don't understand how many houses are you putting there? Two. Okay, I just wasn't sure because all the chit-chat going on. So, okay, but I, Jeanette can do, can do that. Just increase your police force because it's Indy 500 on Farm Lane. Yes, there's four stop signs, but they don't matter. You know, you could give, if you're a cop, you can give out 50 tickets a day. So yeah, I'm for Jeanette, that's fine. No problem. Okay.

Any questions that we don't do questions? Thank you, ma'am. Okay. You're welcome.

Thank you.

As you were anybody else here or on zoom, which is to speak to four against this application.

You're on zoom and like to speak, please raise your hand. Okay. Julie, Julie on zoom.

Hello. yes we have you um i i i am uh julie vertel i'm at uh 71 meadow road um and i believe i'm property number four that is cited within the plan um i made most of my main points in my uh objection letter that i submitted earlier but my main concern is for the wetlands area we did talk briefly about the sewer and the capacity of what it can handle. I really just do wanna stress how old the sewer system is in this neighborhood and how many issues we've had with it already. Most of our neighbors are really hesitant about adding two more houses to an already stressed system. I know many of the other neighborhoods are being updated especially downtown, the Bartlett Street area. So I know that our neighborhood is probably on the list for that. i'd really like to have that looked into to see what the capacity of the sewers are if this actually can handle what they're proposing there's a lot said on speculation of where the manhole covers are and the access to sewers i mean this is because this area is really overgrown calling it a paper road is kind of An exaggeration it's it's really just a forest you know it's completely overgrown it's not walkable I can't even access the back of the property myself and my property. is connected to it, so I would say that putting in a pipe like that would be very disruptive to. the majority of the area that is outside of these lots. And so I just want to make that known that this will impact the surrounding area a lot more than I think is being recorded. And yeah, I really would like an analysis of how it will affect the wetlands area there and specifically the sewer. And that's all I have to add. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anybody else here on Zoom wishes to speak two-four against this application?

No other hands on Zoom.

I'm going to close the first round. Any second round speakers wish to speak two-four against this application? Last call for any second round speakers?

close a public hearing mr. chairman I will take a stab at making a motion to vote to grant a requested waiver of from the section six general requirements regarding allowing a hammerhead versus a cul-de-sac with a roadway that is 22 feet instead of 32 feet of pavement with a sidewalk. And I, sorry, I'm trying to do this on the fly. Look at my notes. I think strict conformity would pose an unnecessary hardship to the applicant, and a waiver would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of regulations. I'll second.

Discussion?

I mean, we're talking about a pretty short, it's not like a true cul-de-sac, so I think having the ability to be able to turn around, it's not that far off of the main road. I can see this being a very less traveled road, and therefore having the requirement of having a sidewalk there may not be a real necessity or even a benefit to any of the people that are actually living there.

Any other discussion? Motion on the waiver is pending. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

OK. Oh, we need to do the other waiver first, right? Yeah. I will also make a motion that we vote to grant a requested waiver. Is that under general requirements? section six general requirements regarding the recording of both a site plan and subdivision plan specific circumstances relative to the subdivision or conditions of the land and such subdivision indicate that waiver will properly carry out the spirit intent of our regulations and I would like to add that the subdivision plan would be recorded with a note regarding the full site plan being on file with the city of Portsmouth. And if there's a file number attached to that, it could be added as well, whatever specifics that would make that.

Second. Second. Discussion?

I'm still wondering how there's a hardship here created for the applicant.

It's not. That's not the standard. That's not the standard, yeah. Hardship is standard for variance of the Board of Adjustment. It's just the standards are laid out in the memo, but it's not as high as a hardship. It's just basically an accommodation. So if you feel the spirit and intent of the ordinance is met and there was a logic for it, you could vote for it. If you don't, then you vote against it. but it's not a hardship standard.

Technically, I put specific circumstances relative to the subdivision or conditions of the land in the subdivision indicate the waiver would properly carry out the spirit and intent of our regulations.

Personally, as I said, I don't feel super strongly about it, but I also don't see a great benefit to having the site plan recorded, especially if it's on file at the city files, which it will be.

you are entitled to do granting of this waivers is something we would expect to see other applicants in the future asking for the same waiver is it possible for minor subdivisions yes our minimum site plan review is three units

And because the existing building counts as the first unit, the two new houses then count as two and three, that's what triggers site plan review. And I can tell you at three units, it's unusual, yes. So we don't get a lot of those, but we get a few of them.

Does that justify a change to the regulation? There may be a change to the regulations.

We can take a look at that.

Okay.

But if the request, as the applicant said, if this was an apartment building or a commercial, there would not be basis to accept that request for a waiver.

Thank you.

Any other discussion? On the second waiver request, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

Okay. I would make a motion that we vote to find the subdivision application meets the requirements set forth in the subdivision rules and regulations and adopt the findings of fact. Should this be as we've amended because of the waivers or no? No? Okay, as presented then. Second.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

I will continue in vote to grant that preliminary and final subdivision approval with the following conditions of 2.1 and 2.2 2.3 and 2.4 included from the staff memo second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed okay moving right along um site plan review approval vote to find that the site plan application meets requirements set forth in cycling regulations section 2.9 evaluation criteria criteria and adopt the findings of act as presented second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed i will continue and make a motion that we vote to grant site plan approval with the following conditions 2.1 through 2.6 of the staff memo but i have a question after i get a second second um i believe this area has not gone through sewer separation yet and that might be some of the concerns that were raised by the public might be because there isn't um separate drainage storm water drainage for the sewer and so the sewer lines might get overwhelmed i believe that is the case but i think um i don't want to put it on the applicant but i would like us to be able to at least make part of this maybe that is you know they're putting in drain lines and that's why i think there isn't separate drain lines already existing so just wanted to make sure that we had that information out there for people that this might be one of those plans that is in works in the future I don't know exactly every neighborhood and when they're going to be addressed but that might be what the concern is regarding thinking the sewer lines are overwhelmed it might be especially during high rain events I just want to make that public you might as well try to make it part of the approval i just wanted to really make sure that we put that out there if they have questions they can certainly reach out to the city regarding if that's on a timeline um do you want to remove 2.2 since you just oh yeah sorry i you know i got way ahead of myself didn't i yes let's remove the uh yeah because the easements will be with the subdivision so they're not with the site plan remove uh stipulation 2.2 from second second agrees sorry about that got ahead of myself i thought i was on a roll you were or any other discussion all those in favor aye any opposed good yep perfect

Next item is request for society protection of forests as owner for property located at 400 Little Harbor Road. Requesting a well and conditional use permit from section 10, 10, 10, 10, 15, 50 for the construction of two sections of existing shoreline trails at the Creek Farm property. This project will rebuild 300 linear feet of eroded trail, approximately five feet wide for a total of 1500 square feet of permanent impact. This part was on Assessor's Map 203, Lot 8, and it was in the rural district.

Who is here to present this application?

And I'll note Mr. Simonis is now sitting. So, Frank, I'm going to ask you to – no, you're sitting for Mr. Coviello, so I guess you get to sit back, Logan.

I'm Dylan Summers, a stewardship project manager for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forest, and I'm here. Eric Weinbreib of Altus Engineering has provided some pro bono advice and support on this project. We are proposing a trail maintenance project on the Little Harbor Loop Trail, which is on our Creek Farm property in Portsmouth. This trail was created prior to Forest Society ownership. I don't know all of the history, but it's likely that the trail was built in the late 19th century as part of the historic Cary Cottage summer estate. So it's a pretty old trail and just like many trails that have been around for a long time, high use, many decades of use has resulted in impacts that have degraded trail conditions over time. The trail has a 300 foot section that has been through a combination of erosion and compaction. The trail has fallen below grade and forms a slight depression in the landscape. That depression has a tendency in the kind of gentle terrain that the trail goes through, has a tendency to collect and hold water. And as a result, often has muddy trail conditions, especially during springtime, winter thaws, and during large rain events. And in areas with muddy trails, the tendency that people avoiding sections of mud have a tendency to widen the trail over time. and cause additional impacts and widen the area of mud as they go around it. So we are proposing to repair this section of trail with a structure referred to in trail building as a turnpike where we will use fill to create a raised trail surface above the existing depression that was created over time that will restore more natural drainage to the site. And in addition, where needed, ditches along the bottom or the bottom side of the trail, the low elevation side of the trail, downhill, will be used to get water away from the trail following the natural contours of the terrain with as little modification of the existing site as possible, needed to achieve a dry, stable section of trail. This section of trail is in the 100-foot buffer of the tidal wetland of Sagamore Creek. The site was delineated in 2020 or 2019 for a waterline project for the Cary Cottage. by Joseph Noel, New Hampshire Certified Wetland Scientist. He returned March of this year to revisit the site and make sure that conditions hadn't changed, confirm that conditions hadn't changed, and re-delineate the highest observable tide line for the tidal wetland adjacent to our project. So the the, um, our project would be following the standards for construction of a turnpike is outlined in the. New Hampshire best management projects practices for trail construction and maintenance. Manual published by the Department of natural and cultural resources. some turnpikes in certain circumstances use low retaining walls when they need to be raised when the trail surface needs to be raised pretty high above the existing ground to get the tread surface above the water table in this circumstance that's not needed so we would be building a modified version of a turnpike that does not need retaining walls on either side because the the surfacing will retain naturally as it will only be raised a few inches above the existing trail surface. The turnpike will be built with layers. A layer of coarse drainage stone will be laid down first to provide more drainage that will allow water to escape that area quickly. And then the that will be surfaced with a aggregate that will be compacted into a firm surface that will both shed water off to either side from a crowned middle, as well as water that does get down will go into that coarse drainage stone layer and be able to get away from the trail more quickly. So that should address a lot of the issues with water sitting in that depression and remaining there over time. Will we use... geotextile fabric to separate those layers so they don't mix over time and that the structure will hold up for a lot longer. We originally proposed this project to be about 270 feet in two sections that were not connected. And that is the project as approved for, recommended for approval by the Conservation Commission in April. Since then, after discussions with our contractor, we have decided that it would be best to also include the center 30 feet. If you go to the current site plan, which should be the page up, yeah that right there you can see that there's a middle section 30 feet that we've included making the total total section that we're addressing 300 linear feet um and about five feet wide means about 1500 square feet the um reasoning behind including that section is to kind of create a contiguous tread surface through that section of trail and especially so that the section that we're not um building the turnpike on or we weren't going to build the turnpike on wouldn't become a new low spot that could then eventually have mud and wet problems that the current trail has so we're proposing that change to um for a better outcome for this project Additionally, we've had some figuring out where we were going to stockpile material during this project. It's not visible on the site plan, but right off of the, if you go down toward the bottom of the site plan, there's a, it was not visible on the site plan without changing the The scale, but there is a parking area right back there. Unfortunately, our, um, we leased the Perry cottage to, uh, another organization and there are apartments and those parking areas are pretty well used and there's pretty limited parking. So we can't use those areas as. for stockpiling materials. So we'll be stockpiling on the lawn just next to those parking areas. About a third of that area that will be stockpiling material is inside the 100 foot buffer. So there will be some additional temporary impacts. We'll be using silt fencing to contain that stockpile area and make sure that it stays contained to that zone. And it's on existing lawn. um and i think that's all i have to say for now i'm happy to take questions questions of the applicant

extra hundred and fifty square feet that was not presented to the Conservation Commission and they did make a couple of recommendations conditions suggestions mitigating the use of the existing trail along the shoreline in future planning efforts to reduced buffer impacts. Do you think that this extra 150 is kind of aligned with what they were suggesting there?

So they were... In the conversations at the Conservation Commission, they had concerns about other sections of the trail. And I think in that section, in that recommendation, they were really talking about future planning for this trail and how we want to approach future maintenance on other section of the trail which run so from this location the trail goes around a point and then runs along the shoreline it's pretty much right on the shore we're not planning anything in that area but they wanted us to consider the possibility of relocation or doing something differently with how we manage that area in the future if we were to make any changes we don't have any changes planned at the moment so I think that concerning the extra impact from what we proposed when we talked with the conservation Commission I this is on an existing trail so we are not having the impact is not spreading beyond the existing trail footprint so there's no real the inclusion of a little more fill does not change the footprint of the trail dramatically and if it was to be that we would have maintenance issues with that middle section because we didn't create a contiguous trail surface through there then that could result in user-created damage to the surrounding area increasing the footprint of the trail as people avoid areas of mud so i think that um given the potential for future impacts that um our proposed change does not have a substantial impact and um is offset by the protection that we're going to provide to the surrounding areas by making this small change well said thank you

Um, so you're going to also add temporary impacts along in the buffer along the parking areas, but you didn't talk about whether or not if those areas are damaged, whether or not you would restore them.

Oh, my apologies. Yes, we will absolutely restore those areas to their, um, original condition. We're working with a contractor who I've worked with before. Um, he is done a fantastic job for us in the past. Um, you know, a lot of trail builders care a lot about the quality of their work and the, you know, trail building is an aesthetic endeavor. So. most builders care about the impact they're having and do a lot of effort to restore um things to their original condition so it's as if they weren't there so we will restore that section of lawn after the project is over um yes absolutely two questions one is a curiosity sure about how long do you anticipate the lifespan of this type of trail to be That's a great question. So the lifespan of a trail structure like this is indefinite with maintenance. There will be needed maintenance over time. As the trail surface, there's some erosion. We might add surfacing to patch up areas. But overall, the materials we're using don't rot, unlike wood. There's not much there. we're the way they're built they're pretty stable and so even with high use they're much more stable than the natural ground um so they the expected lifespan is indefinite as long as we keep up with maintenance which we intend to do my second question is um what season is best to do this work So the driest season is probably the best season to do this work. We don't have a lot of that. We don't have a lot of that. That is true. So we plan this work for probably in the fall, most likely. It could be late summer, but we wouldn't do this sort of project in the spring just because conditions on the ground aren't right for it. And that being said, I don't think it would have a... substantial difference to do this during a wet period of time. The finished product is going to set up and be stable even if it's wet or there are wet conditions during construction. So I'm not really too worried about timing. I don't think it makes

dramatic difference but it's easier to do the work when in dry conditions and any small impacts may be lessened sounds great any other questions you had mentioned using silt fence would you have an objection to using silt socks so that we make sure all the habitat in the area isn't cut off from a specific area

Yes, absolutely. We will be using two different methods of erosion control, and I apologize for not mentioning this earlier. Along the section of trail that's being built, we will be using silt socks. It's a much more natural and appropriate method of erosion control for that place the only place that i was going to plan on using silt fence is around the material stockpiles which they'll be sort of in a higher and additional uh barrier that'll prevent those stockpiles from migrating downhill okay thank you no other questions the applicant thank you i'm going to open the public hearing thank you anybody here on zoom wishes to speak to for against this application

If you need to speak on zoom you need to raise your hand otherwise, I'm going to close the public hearing We have a member of the public wishes to speak

Eric Weinrib, Nine Middle Road. I do some volunteer work with the Society. I've been involved in going out to the property with the Conservation Commission. I strongly support this application. I think that adding the extra area that was not mentioned to the Conservation Commission is appropriate. Because it's a discontinuous area, it would have been disturbed further by going back and forth with the equipment, so I think that this is a good solution is to continue the work as a longer section. I think it's a great benefit to the city, and I think everyone's going to enjoy it. Thank you.

Thank you.

anyone else here or on zoom we should speak to for against this application last call public hearing is closed make a motion yes uh vote to find the conditional use permit application meets the requirements set forth in section 10.1017.50 of the ordinance and adopt the findings of facts as presented second second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed Uh, vote to grant the conditional use permit with the conditions, uh, outlined in the memo.

Second discussion. Yes.

Uh, would the motion maker be okay with adding a 2.2 to that? Any areas of temporary impact will be returned to their original condition.

Yes. Second.

You're good with that. Mm-hmm amended motion.

Any, any other discussion?

All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Thank you.

Thank you. A request of 304 Maplewood LLC for property at 304 Maplewood Avenue requesting an amended site plan approval for a 1,011 square foot addition to the existing office building. This property... is located at Assessor's Map 140, lot 7, and lies in Character District 4L2 in the Historic District.

Who is here to present this application? Joe Coronati with Jones & Beach Engineers. With me, I have Rob Graham representing the owners. This is an existing property. 304 Maplewood has been an existing commercial use for many years, decades. And it's currently a office building. And the owners would like to add just over 1,000 square foot addition to the property or to the building in the rear. This addition meets all your setbacks. We meet all your open space and building coverage requirements for this zone. This property is located in your historic district. The architects, McHenry Architecture, has gone before the HTC received approval for that. For the design of the building, it's also located just barely, but it's located in the 250-foot shoreland protection setback, which we've also received a shoreland protection permit from the state already for this. We've been to TACC. received comments and they've recommended that we come before you. We've actually already addressed their comments as well on the plans that were submitted. So it's a small office addition in the rear of the building. There's no change to the front of the site. The part you see from the road will never look any different. It's the same parking layout, same building, same utilities. The only work's being done in the rear of the site. Happy to answer questions. That's all I have. Yes, ma'am.

If you could just speak a little bit to the butters claim that there was a fence put over the property line, it would be really helpful.

Yes, so we have a on the east side of the lot. We have a. A neighbor to the east, there's a fence that's out there. There's a chain link fence that runs along a portion of that. And I believe there's maybe some discrepancy as to where the property line may lie. We wanted to remove the fence and build a new stockade fence. But after getting the abutter's comments, looking at the site, owners have decided that they would just leave the chain link fence where it's located and we would add a stockade fence on our side of the chain link which does not disrupt their use i believe they have animals the dogs they don't want us to you know there'd be a lot of yeah uh issues removing the fence in that time period of getting a new fence installed so we just agreed Keep the old fence and build and put the new one right up against it. So it looks good and doesn't disrupt their life Your parking calculations they change it all with the addition They they technically require that we need more parking but we have enough parking on-site to accommodate that based on your square foot and the The existing use that's on the property. They don't feel they need more parking either. They have a certain number of employees They're currently a little Stuffed into some office space this just literally allows the existing employees to spread out Okay, they're not even adding any staff. They just need more space and

Any other questions of the applicant? Yes, Frank.

Just to clarify to make sure I understood that correctly, the parking requirement does go up, but you already have parking present to accommodate that? Yes. Thank you.

Any other questions? Thank you. I'm going to open the public hearing. That wasn't your hand up, was it? no you okay with the public hearings anybody here on zoom wishes to speak to for against this application last call i'm not i'm going to close the public hearing unless you raise your hand i'm going to close the public hearing

Motion Move we vote to find that the site plan application meets the requirements set forth in the site plan regulation section 2.9 Evaluation criteria and adopt the findings of facts as presented second discussion All those in favor aye any opposed aye will we vote to fight the grant the site plan approval with the conditions conditions to be satisfied subsequent to final approval of the site plan but prior to the issuance of a building permit or the commencement of any site work or construction activity as outlined in the memo second discussion all those in favor aye any opposed

Thank you.

Thank you, folks.

Good night.

Good night. We have a request of Sea Level LLC as owner for property at 185-187 Wentworth Road requesting a one-year extension to their wetland conditional use permit that was granted June 18th of last year.

Move to grant a one-year extension of the wetland conditional use permit to June 25th, 2027. Second.

Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? We have a request of 361 Hanover Steam Factory LLC as owner for property located at 361 Hanover Street requesting a one-year extension to their site plan approval that was granted August 21st of last year.

I will recuse on this vote.

We'll vote to grant a one-year extension of the site plan approval to August 21, 2027. Second. Any discussion?

I just have a question. How many extensions can a light plan get?

A site plan can get one extension like this. If they require a second extension, it has to go to TAC first and then Planning Board and can have an optional public hearing. You can't deny a second extension without a public hearing. And then for a site plan, you can receive subsequent extensions

I recused on this originally, so I'm recusing on this vote. That makes sense.

So you're back on deck.

I wanted him to know that.

Any other discussion? All those in favor?

Aye. Any opposed?

Quick, before we close the evening out, that we did have originally a meeting with the HDC scheduled for next week which is our normal extra meeting tonight but that has been occupied by I think the budget the HDC is very anxious to have a discussion with us with respect to the historic district in the master plan I don't think it needs to be a long meeting but I agree it is a it's an important meeting Board willing to have a special meeting Provided we could do a polling is if people could fit it in to do that We could even have it early.

I would guess no more than an hour Yes, does it make sense to make it in the hour before our next meeting in June that's a possibility to all of I'll check with them.

We moved housing to the second Thursday next month.

That's not a conflict. It's not a conflict. So we could start at 6.

Possibly at 6, start early at the next meeting. If the HTC can do it, then that might work for us.

June 18th. June 18th. At our June meeting? Yep.

They might ask the same thing before their meeting.

they probably will I'll negotiate so the board preferences if we can get them here an hour early for our meeting okay I spoke with our master plan consultants today just as an update they are going to they're preparing a series of questions they want to post on the city's website for flash vote polling of residents and they're going to circulate those draft questions to us for input and staff before they're posted so be on the lookout for that probably going to be looking at questions about possible zoning amendments And I ask that they try to make those as visual as possible, because most people don't know what a zoning ordinance is, much less what a setback or a bill two or a coverage or anything like that is. So they're working on that, and that'll be happening soon. That's interesting.

If anyone has a phone near their microphone, it tends to do that.

Mr. Chair, if I can put in a plug for a flash vote for members of the board, for people watching, it is possible still to sign up to be a flash vote official voter, if you will, so that you can access that on the city website.

I'll put in another plug for a flash vote. I spoke with one of the owners in Originators of the the system and how it technically works we get kind of geeky about it. It's an amazing it's an amazing Tool we currently have over 800

Sign sign ease if you will or people have signed up to take the polls and it would be great to add to that I'm tying into the master plan issues Bill had a question he would like to raise.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm interested in knowing in the city should be able to help us with this is the status of the infrastructure in the outer Woodbury, Outer Market Street area. We've got about 1,000 new residents out in that area and projects that are underway. I don't and I don't think most people do really understand the implications for roadways potentially for sewer water potentially for recreation what we're doing in that part of the city in the master plan we've talked about having some assessment of infrastructure capacity. I haven't seen what form or scope that'll be, but that's not here with us yet, and we are reviewing projects out in that area. So I'd be, I'd like to, I'd feel that I could do a more effective job if I had the wisdom of the Department of Public Works and the Recreation Department and others of highways about what is happening in the out-of-market street Woodbury area. sewer water particular or because i think the the street issues those would be covered by a traffic study if and when something is proposed that's a requirement speak to this for a while traffic stood if it comes from a developer it's gonna probably be limited scope to what's directly impacted by that developer uh... i'm interested in a a broader view and kind of the cumulative effect of all that we're doing

If I might, we just had a budget public hearing on water and sewer and the other enterprise funds, so it'll be worth tuning in to the May 13th budget work session. We talk a little bit about use and availability and capacity, so that's a great tool to go back and watch. If you're interested in specific projects, you can go on our city website and sign up for updates on all of the projects that include those going on in that Woodbury Ave corridor. So we've inundated the website and some meetings most recently with that information. And one of the highlights from last Wednesday's conversation was that water usage citywide is down from 10 years ago. So we are managing water better. And there's a lot of resources out there that we've spoken to recently that you could take advantage of.

May 13th meeting it was the May 13th budget work session With the sewer separation project the flows going through our plants are actually less than they were a decade ago Would that include roads as well?

There will be some conversation about roads and if you're interested in roadway specific projects You can go on the city website and there are ways to get updates on specific road projects through the DPW

On the topic of the master plan the representation of people in Portsmouth in terms of like responding to the surveys I think has been Problematic the fact that only 16% of respondents were renters when a little under half the city is renters and I think part of that is renters don't always understand that they are have a voice in the city because they think just property owners and they don't necessarily understand that like they're they're paying property taxes through their rent and things so I think I don't know if there's a way that we can make sure that we are promoting this as you have a voice in the city. Um, and I know obviously parents of young families have been underrepresented in some, some of that's come down to when things are being scheduled. think the big master plan meeting was the opening night of the Little Harbor fifth grade play which is a huge deal for the fifth graders there it was the week before April vacation so a lot of families were trying to get ready for whatever their plans were and I don't know if you know this but baseball season in Portsmouth is huge and it was a practice game night so I think If you're not going to those games or going to those things, you're not gonna see those voices. Maybe having it online would help parents, but you're also, but I haven't seen anything through like working with Seacoast Community School who have the information of almost every family in portsmouth because at least one of their kids is in one of our programs we could literally send out a message on brightwheel that has the link and get hundreds of families okay um so i think it's in how we're putting this out there might be ways that we could bring in people who are being underrepresented in the

if you know of ways like that that you can i mean as a planning board person that's a wonderful thing to bring up and to help with the process that the outreach is something that i discussed specifically with the Uh, consultants today, they're very aware that they feel the whole is in the data as well. That's one of the reasons to do the extended flash voting system, either budgetary issues. So the alternatives are rely on this board because it's a, it's a planning board process to know of resources. Like you just mentioned to help get more people to input, to do more online.

I mean, in my phone right here, I have access to every elementary school family who is in our program. Okay, so it's on you. It's on you.

I mean, the alternative is for us individually to volunteer to do extra meetings, and that's a heavy lift, I think.

In an effort to help Ryan, is there a specific link or landing page that we can be sending out to those?

A flash vote? So just a flash vote. Well, and also the master plan website, on our website. And it has a link to where you can make comments. Got it.

All of the boards that were up at that meeting are on the website so they can send comments back regarding this and when we get the questions for input for additional flash voting then they can The consultants can put all those links in so we've got it on the same message.

You got it handy to send out Also offering food at events is very helpful if you're trying to get parents there because they don't want to cook dinner and

And with that, I think we are adjourned.

Thank you very much.