Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Everybody, I will call to order the October 1st, 20125 planning board meeting. If you could please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance 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. All right, Mr. Rug. Looks like we have a couple people that aren't here.

Uh, no Jeff and no Jason. So, uh, we've got Tony and Steve and Ryan that we can, uh, I will appoint uh Mr. D and Ryan to vote for uh Jeff and Jason. Okay, that gives us uh eight voting members. Uh Mr. Chair. Fantastic. All right, let's get through some uh administrative stuff. Looks like we have a couple sets of minutes to approve uh the 3rd and the 10th. I'm looking for a motion to approve the meeting minutes of September 3rd, 2025. Okay, Mr. chair on the minutes of uh September 3rd uh there are several lines where the voting is incorrect.

Okay. So it' be line 173, 188, 210, 225, 237, and 262. That vote should be 900. A total of nine members present. What are the uh lines again? Right. Okay. 173. Hold on one second. 173 173. The minutes in front of me reflect 900. Oh, do they? Okay. I haven't seen those. So, must have uh someone slipping slipping by me. Yeah. Anyway, so so I'll just run through your numbers though and I'll just double check everything. Yeah. 188 188 is 900. Okay. 210

210 900 0 225 9 0 0 237 9 0 262 9 0 Okay, guess my email was uh was read. Fantastic. I wasn't notified or anything, so I had no idea. So, uh I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of September 3rd, 2025 as presented as read by Lynn. I have a motion from Mr. Rug. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Ryan. All in favor, please. Uh, starting with Ann. Um, I was absent. So, so you'll abstain. Abstain. Javanni Veroni. I Tony D. I Lyn Wilds. I Arthur Rug. I

Ryan Wlette. I Sean Faber. I see McF. You're good. And I'll uh I'll abstain. All right. I am looking for a motion to approve the minutes of September 10th, 2025. Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion we approve the minutes of September 10th, 2025 as presented. And I see those have been corrected. I have a motion from Mr. Rug. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Ryan. All in favor starting with Annne, please. I Champa. I Javanni Veroni. Tony D. I Lyn Wilds abstain. Arthur Rug. I

Ryan Wlette I Sean Faber abstain. Steve Midi. And I will abstain. All right. Uh regional impact determinations. Got anything? None this evening. Fantastic. And on to discussions with town staff. Uh the floor is yours. Okay. Um we have a few extensions. Um the first one is um East West Vista and hold on a second. It's like we got uh Vista Ridge, we got the Gateway or the Old Rum Trail extension. Yep. Those are both for 6 months and then three Enterprise Drive which is for three months. Correct.

Um I will start with uh Vista East and Vista West. I'm looking for a motion um to extend this to March 4th, 2026. So move, Mr. Chair. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor? Starting with Anne, please. Ana, I Javanni Vonnie, I Tony D. I Lyn Wilds, I Arthur Rug, I. Ryan Wlette, I Sean Faber, I and the uh the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been extended to March 4th, 2026. All right. Uh we have

So that was the that was your Vista East and Vista West residential site plan. Okay. From Keech Nordstrom. Okay. Um I have another one here from Hinckley Allen dated September 15th, 2025. Um this is for um the old rum trail site plan. They are also looking for a six month month extension. I would be looking for a motion uh to extend this to March 4th, 2026. So moved. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor starting with Ann, please. And Champa, I.

And Javanni Bari, I Tony D. I Lyn Wilds I Arthur Rug I Ryan I Sean Faber I and the chair votes in the affirmative. All right. And may I have a clarification on who seconded? I had a second from Lynn. I believe I had a motion from Tony and a second from Lynn. Okay. I won't argue. I didn't second it. I'll bequeath my second deal. That's fine. All right. It doesn't make any difference. Oh, we'll be queefing. Huh? Yeah, that's the kind of night it's going to be. Bequing. Okay, good. All right, we have uh that's a new legal terminology, Tony.

We have one more extension here for uh Three Enterprise Drive, known as Northeast Golf and Turf Supply. Uh they're looking for a threemonth extension. I'm looking for a motion to grant this extension to January 7th, 2026. So moved. I have a motion by Mr. Faber. Do I have a second? Second. Have a second by Mr. Rug. All in favor starting with Annne, please. An Champa. I Bar. Tony D. I. Woods. I. Arthur Rug. I. Ryan. Wlette. I. Sean Faber. I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been granted an extension to January 7th, 2026. Could I have a comment, Mr. Chair, please? Yes, sir.

Ask you a question. Yes, sir. Um the language was very similar on two of those about a street that's owned by the town. Mhm. Waiting for the town to apply or not apply. Is is uh so does staff. Is this is this a problem that that we're having that the applicants have to um extend? I'm not quite aware of that. Um

well on two of the on two of those applications for extension it said it's waiting for the the town owns the land owns the road so the town has to apply for the driveway permit and it hasn't been done and so my question is why does the applicant have to extend? I know why they have to extend but I don't think they should. That's what I'm saying. Why is the town not get Is it the state that's not responding back? Is the town responding to the state too early? Thank you.

So, just looking at the letter uh regarding Northeast Golf and Turf Supply, Tony, and it says on August 12th, 2025, the New Hampshire DOT application was filed and as the day of this letter, there's been no comments received. So, it indicates to me that the permit uh was submitted, but the state has not gotten back to the town yet. Okay, that's that's how I read that. Thank you. Uh, all right. I'm all set. Thank you. Any other questions?

Uh, last thing, we have a lot merger for Seven Constants Drive. I will sign that. Um, and do we have anything else? Uh, I just want to mention that the U seniors are having their expo this Saturday from 4 4 a.m. That's none of you were up at 4:00 a.m. No, not even the seniors. 10:00 a.m. to uh 2:00 p.m. I had four on my uh my mind.

And the only other thing I was going to ask uh our master plan hearing, has that been scheduled yet? Um, did we schedule a hearing? I believe I believe we do have it scheduled for um for this I believe it's this month, next week, right? We scheduled with We didn't schedule with the planning board though. I don't think did we drawing a blank? Yeah, we had one and it was cancelled. We We had one, it was cancelled. Um I don't remember where we scheduled. Yeah, we got all the stuff scheduled for the It's It's the Is it the third week of October? So, we do have one on the calendar for the 16th.

Third week of October, right? Yeah. Yes. So, the third week of October, we have a uh we have a hearing here live.

Anything else? All right. Seeing none, we will go on to some old business. We have a public hearing on a request for waiverss from the Londereary site plan regulations 3.07. C.1 to allow more than full pipe flow. between structures and town of Londereerry. Typical details for site and roadway infrastructure exhibit D108. This is four Nasha and six Londereerry Road map 10 lots 118 and 121 zone C2 and the town of Derry uh tax map 26 lot 53 uh Windham Realy Limited Company and Windham Realy LLC is the owner and applicant. This was continued from the September 3rd 2025 meeting. Good evening, gentlemen. How are we doing?

Good evening. Uh the floor is yours. Give us a little background here. What's going on and and why you were uh looking for uh a waiver?

Well, my name is Bob Duval. I'm a chief engineer at TF Moran. On here on behalf of the applicant and sitting to my right is um is the owner of the property, Steve Duca. and we're here to um do a little clean up. These being the last two waiverss that are required to fulfill um the the conditions of approval for this project and um and they're they're fairly simple. So, I'm just going to dive right into it. The um the reason for the for the two waivers has to do with uh the basically the flatness of the site and the shallowess of the existing uh drainage outlet in London Road um where the drainage from this project um is takes takes place. the the entire difference between the two is is approximately um six feet total and between the invert of the remote structure and the invert of the receiving structure it's it's less than 4 feet. And what that means is with a two-ft pipe and with about two feet of pitch and the pipes to get around to the outlet structure and with required cover over the pipe, there's there's really no um possible way that that that pipe will not be fully filled uh during the design storm event. Now when you um when you do that um you you you still have the full flow of the pipe happening. So that's um you know that's not an issue. Uh so it's really not a question of

drainage capacity. out at minimum pitch. In fact, at minimum pitch, whether or not the pipe was full, it would still be a low velocity there. And you you would um you would uh have a difficult time getting cleansing velocity depending on the size of the storm. So what we're proposing to do uh in regard to that uh lower velocity than the 2 ft per second for for um cleansing velocity is to increase the frequency of maintenance of that pipe and to flush it if necessary. Now, as a practical matter, um cleansing velocity will be achieved in the 25-year storm. And in fact, more frequently than that, because in small sites like this that are directly piped from imperous surface through a closed drainage system to an outlet, small intense rainfall events like a passing thunderstorm will frequently provide more flow than the 25-year storm flow for a short period of time. And that short period of time is enough to clean the pipe. So as a practical matter the pipe will be cleansed more frequently than once you know every 25 years which would um you know otherwise seem to be the case. But in any event the uh owner has agreed to an annual flushing of the pipe inspection and flushing of the pipe as needed. Plus, I think um normal short-term intense rainfall events will will cause that um flushing to happen more frequently. So there's really no negative implication to the overall

condition of the pipe and it's really necessitated by the fact that this site uh has no significant um fall in elevation across it that would be sufficient to get cover over the pipe. the size of the pipe required uh and um and contain uh less than a full pipe to make it work. So that's that's um the reasoning behind the need for the waiver above full pipe flow and um essentially the design and the maintenance schedule provides um a a a uh practical approach to achieve the objectives of the um requirement and will not pose a problem to um use of the site or threaten uh the town property or neighboring properties.

So, help me out real quick. I'm looking at a plan up on up here that's got a red area of the parking lot that says to remove almost 11,000 square feet of the parking lot. What am I looking at there? That uh I I wasn't here at the last meeting, but I understand that the board said how much pavement would have to be removed to actually make the pipe flow less than full. And so Matt Ruthier prepared this exhibit and submitted it to show how much pavement would have to be removed to reduce the amount of runoff so that the pipe wouldn't flow full. So the pipe would flow it. Okay. Right. Would flow under gravity flow.

If I'm looking at this plan, where are you said there's like six feet between the two pipes or the two structures? This is a pipe between two structures, correct? And you said it's about six feet. You know where on the plans these two structures are? Well, I was really talking about the topography of the site, which is about 300 at the highest point on the site and about 294 at the lowest point on the site. So, the entire topography of the site is about six feet. And the the distance between the inverts between the remote catch basin, which is the one Oh. Um, wait. Can we zoom in somewhere? Sorry. Do you want me to zoom in somewhere?

No. I'm going to point it out and I'm going to come back to the microphone. [Music] is here is okay. So there's about 400 ft more or less of total pipe run at a half a percent accounts for two feet of fall itself just to get the the water moving. [Music] What do you have to do to be able to meet what's required?

There's really no physical way to do it um while maintaining uh pipe cover and actually we already have a waiver for for pipe coverage. So we've already reduced pipe cover as much as practical. We've reduced the slope to minimum slope in the pipe. We've increased the pipe size to to increase the throughput of water. There's just absent removing some of the a substantial amount of the impervious surface, there's just no physical way not to have a full pipe on this site. Okay. So, I can Mr. Chair. Yeah.

Thank you. I might be able to shed a little bit of light because neither one of you were here at the last meeting and I'm the one that introduced the concept of why that map is before us tonight because I asked the question. said, "Show us an example of how we can get to meet the regulations." And to me, trying to connect dots here, what it shows is they would have to have half of a parking lot of for for what they know are planning here. And so that's that part of it just to kind of catch everybody up to speed. Thank you.

And that's why you're looking at at that map. Now, this says re remove the pavement that it's from the plan. There's nothing there now. It's a it's a field. Correct. I was standing in it today. Thank you for allowing me to be on your property today. um and trespassing. But um so um it it's it is really flat, but the removal they're talking about is removing it from the plan so that so that the the pipe flow will match our current regs. Now, we we went through a conversation as well about where's the water going to go when and if it fails was was one of the things. Uh number two, uh where I pontificated again that this is a private site. No, no, um uh general public on the site at all. Uh, and if it fails, which an engineer is saying it won't fail, um, it just doesn't meet our standards.

But if it fails, it'll it'll be on their site. Correct. That was the information that that that's how that was the testimony at the last meeting. Right.

Interested in hearing that answer from you, please. In an extreme event like a let's say a 500year storm or or the pipes were were clogged up for any reason, the water would uh leave the pond uh and come basically straight down the the page uh and then pass to the left and to the right of the building on the site, the owner's building on the site and then uh out to London Road in that area in pink there which is actually pitch back towards um Route 102 would uh basically head down the to the lower right of the page and then across to that small existing parking lot and out the existing driveway to 102. So the water would either pond on the site to a minimal extent, no higher than the curb itself, or if it topped the curb, it would go out to basically the driveways on London Road and the driveways on Nasha Road and and not go onto a neighbor's property. In any event,

so Tony, there's no way to do this and keep the pavement. I guess I'm that's what they're indicating. Sound like it. Yeah, that's what they're indicating. So we also had a very long conversation about the the the depth of the um pipe itself detention pond detention or retention whichever one of the of that and they're on ledge at the depth of this now my understanding is you you you're on ledge and and even if you made it deeper my understanding is then then you have to go wider and there isn't enough

property there to do that. And uh if you blasted it out, you might be able to get it uh deeper. But um what are you doing? I'm just telling you what the conversation was. So, so all those conversations happened um and are available on on the tape and they're here because I asked could you show us an example of how you can make the drainage work as per our regulations and this is what we what we're seeing tonight

and basically in order to do that they need to remove 10,000 square ft of perial space. That was basic question basic answer. Yeah. And like we said, how much was it? It's a It's well more than we thought, right? Yeah. That's that's a lot of that's a lot of space, especially when you're talking about putting cars there, right, for auction. Yeah. Almost makes it not useful. Yeah. If if they have to And what what might end up happening and I'm not assuming anything, but you might end up cars on on on dirt. Well, there'd be no Yeah. And and that's not allowed, right? But so so basically that would be nice. That would be a beautiful lawn

with no cars on it. And the amount of cars they could put there is what you see that's not pink. And and in the front of the building, I guess um as well. Yeah. You'd lose half your space to make it what you have to. We get it wouldn't meet our uh no storage needs for useless at that point at the site. Would it be possible to bring in material and raise the elevation of that part near 102?

Well, you know, I suppose as they say, you can do anything with money, but it um you know, it would not be a practical exercise to raise the site enough to uh to take that that pipe out of the water and you'd be steeping up um driveways and slopes across the site. And then you mentioned uh just briefly a second ago that that the pink area actually tends down toward 102. The pink area uh slopes down towards 102. The rest of the site drains towards uh London Derry Road. So how much of that if it was paved, how much of that would go to that uh catch basin versus how much it would just flow off? I mean

all of that water still goes back to the pond. It just comes back towards 102 to that remote catch basin and then by pipe back into the pond. You have the one catch basin. Correct. Well, there's actually two. What's this down in the right corner? That's the catch basin, I think. No, no, no, no. Right around the 298 topography there. Just underneath the parking lot on the right right corner of the pink. What is that? Just a little flat area or Yeah, it's it's a depression in the parking lot. See how there's sort of a square shape contour around it? That's Yeah, the low point is the center of that square. I'm talking this thing right here.

What's this? Oh, no. That's that's not um the low point. The low point is within the parking area. And the um square shaped contour. Mhm. Uh that opens to the right. The low point of that square is the center of if it was a complete square is the center of that square. And that's where the lowoint catch basin is. And then that pipes uh north to the pond and then through the pond outlet back to um London every road. So So Tony, if this was pvious pavement, wouldn't wouldn't that have the same effect? I'm learning here. Have the same effect as just dirt like engineer could ask.

Oh yeah. Is it gonna it's going to go right through? Yeah. You'd still you'd still have to um because of the shallow ledge, you'd still have to collect all of the previous pavement run through, if you will, uh and pipe it somewhere. And it it wouldn't have the the same effect of detaining and treating the flow that well, it would do the treatment, but it wouldn't do the detaining that this pond does to match pre versus post. Thank you. I'm not sure if pvious pavement is allowed by her either. I was just asking. No, I don't. No, no. I was I'm just trying to figure out like ways to solve this, you know, it's junk anyway. Yep.

But uh so the catch basin, that lower catch basin, how far above Route 102 is that elevation wise. I'll have to look up the rim CP1. The rim elevation is 297.57 and the closest point on on um Nashville Road is Were you asking about Nashville Road or London Road? Nashville. Nashville Road. The closest point on Nashville Road is 294.

Yeah, 294. That's the only contour I see. Um maybe 296. Sarah, you said the first number was, sorry, the first number at the catch basin was how high? 297 and a half, I think. So, it's about 2 feet. 297.5 roughly. And what's the high point of the parking lot? Uh, 301 more or less, right at the limit of the pink area. So, there's a 300 contour there. So, I'm just using it for my brain. So that'd be kind of like the the Continental Divide.

Yeah, exactly. The white area goes to the top of the page and the pink area goes to the bottom of the page, but then routed through the catch basin back to the pond. And how wide is that catch basin? 3 ft. How wide is it? It's a 4ft diameter structure with a two-ft grate. And by the way, even though the pipe searchcharges, that search charge, even in the 50-year storm, never comes out of the great. It's contained within the structure. So, it's not flooding. It's just higher than the crown of the plane.

I'm going to ask a really stupid question. Can you just put a second pipe in? Does that make any difference? Two pipes next to each other. Well, then the pond then the pond will fill up. Pond can't hold it. It's it's that's exactly right, Ryan. It's it the the search charging is caused by the by the uh flood elevation of the pond backing up into the pipes. So So it would have no effect, Mr. D. So So just just to be clear, if as an engineer, you're going to stamp this plan. Is it is it you that's going to be the person stamping it? Yes.

Okay. So what you're saying as a person trained in this field is that this plan although it doesn't meet the town regulations, you're going to you're going to state your reputation because you're stamping it saying that it's going to work for lack of a better phrase. Is that a fair thing to say?

Yeah. I mean the the waiver the intent of the waiver is to achieve the the goal of having uh you know um a reduction in flow and uh proper treatment and all the things that a drainage system is supposed to do on a site by an alternate means than following the um you know gravity flow criteria in a pipe

and and and for the people watching on TV I'm going to ask one more time because you answered really technical and people understand that when it rains, this system that you're going to stamp is going to work. It's going to drain. It's not going to flood the neighbors. It's not going to flood the roads and and you got a your reputation. I mean, it's your stamp, right? Your your license. It if it floods onto onto Nashville Road, you you got bigger problems than Londereerry because that's a state road, right? So, I it's a it's a it's a yes or no question, I guess. Well, it is.

I know it's hard. Not exactly a yes or no question because there's always a storm that's so intense that you know it will flood the site, it will flood the road, it will flood that part of town. But the fact that this pipe is flowing more than full and all that means is it's flowing with a slight pressure in it um will not um prevent the site from following all of the other town regulations. reduction in pre versus post, no flooding of the site in the 25-year storm, and all the other criteria of the town's drainage regulations. It's just a technical criteria of the type of flow in the pipe. It's slightly under pressure by a few inches

of a but otherwise, you know, complies with town regulations by a different means and and so to thank you. And so to to go one step further, not only the state going to be on your back, but the applicant's going to be on your back as well because they're going to if it doesn't work, they're going to have to mitigate it, right? They're going to have to find a way so that it doesn't fail. And so financially, physically, uh, from an ex, you know, excavation standpoint, from whatever standpoint you want to talk about, if it fails, they're going to have to fix it because it failed.

And that's why that's why I to me I go back to so I have two I have two people with stamps. One sits on the town side, right? And one one one stands on or sits on the applicant side, right? So, I have one stamp that's saying you got to follow the town regulations, right? We have another stamp and basically the same stamp give or take um a few classes, but but and and and so one is saying it doesn't follow the the standards, the other one's saying it correct, it does not, but it's going to work. And I think that's and at the end so we have to figure out as a board, right,

the difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is we don't want anything flooding out that that's kind of where we're at. And so because we have two stamps that that are basically saying two different things other than one is trying to follow the town standards that are there. My personal opinion is for sites much more complicated than this. Okay. I I believe that that's why the town standards are there. And my other personal opinion is that you don't have a regulation that could possibly meet the needs of every applicant, right? So you so you make a regulation for way up here and the poor the poor guy way down here gets nailed on it because why do I have to do all that? Well, it's because of it's because of this very very complicated system that you had to do that. And so we got to figure out should we or should we not vote against the town stamp and that's that's as simple as I can make it.

Yep. I understand I understand exactly what you're saying.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um I got a question and then a well clarification on Tony's point based upon what you said. Um, I think you said that in the event that there was an event that flooded that section of the town, it would flood that. Did I interpret it right to hear you say that would flood that section of the town whether this site was developed or not developed? I was answering a question about something to the effect of can you assure that this will never cause any flooding of the road and you know this is just one piece of property in a in a town in a townwide area that's subject to flooding like the Mother's Day flood years ago that's one

right so I mean you can never say in any kind of uh drainage scenario that this will never flood because there's always a storm more bigger than the one you designed for. But if it wasn't developed, would you'd still have the same right type of impact? Right.

But to to Tony's question, which was can are you comfortable as an engineer saying that this will work? Uh even though it doesn't comply with the town regulations, you know, keep in mind the regulations are one way of achieving an end and it's sort of a one-sizefits-all way of achieving the end. in the town uh you know has has um it's it's um I'd say fairly widely known has very stringent regulations and that doesn't mean that's the only thing that works. You know the purpose of an engineer is to solve these kind of problems and the problem that we've solved here which does require a waiver from the town's regulations does not compromise the function of the drainage system. I mean, that's the important thing and that's what I my stamp means. This will work and accomplish the goals of the town's regulations. Uh, even though we need a waiver from a particular section, we're finding an equivalent way to meet the the towns in town.

Thank you. My question is what is that area that's remains undeveloped that's in that block that says map 10, lot 118 seems to be the landlocked That's a building, isn't it? Yeah, that's that's the old fireworks building. Yeah. Yeah, that's the Alamo fireworks. So, that's all existing. Big building that's there right now in the front. I'm sorry. I'm not sure of the question. Yeah, that's Yeah, that's the building. That's the building that's there currently there now.

Okay. Um, well, I think, you know, I think Mr. D's made a good point of the spirit of the ordinance. Um, you know, I I think it would be one thing if guys came in here and it said, "Oh, hey, we got to remove 800 feet of pavement to make this work." Then it would be like, "All right, remove 800 feet of pavement." Um, I just to to remove 11,000 square feet of pavement from from this to me makes the makes the project I mean this is what you're building is parking. So to remove 11,000 square feet of parking is crazy.

So if I can ask one question too. So, um, is it a matter if you could bring in material to add to the elevation of that shaded area? Would that make it work? I'm just not convinced that I've heard all the solutions presented in that the waiver is the best solution. That's kind of where I'm coming from. No, you you'd have to um raise the entire site in order to make it uh work better, including the pond. you would have to raise the pond and the parking lot and you know the entire Why do you have to do that? Because that's the limiting factor is the elevation of that pond. The limiting factor is the elevation of the pond.

And we're already building it up with this MSE wall. You know, this dirt in a bag type of approach just to make the the pond sort of artificially deeper if you will. Mhm. And you know, so we can't short of raising that entire site, which would make it uh economically impractical to build. Um there's there's just u no way to the constraint is not just the shape and size of the pond, but the fact that there's shallow ledge under it, which keeps water higher and um and I know the town doesn't like infiltration anyway, but it makes infiltration impractical. So maybe a dumb question. Have you looked at moving the pond?

I say that. Sorry. Moving the pond, putting it in the middle of the parking, you know, like toward more toward the center of the parking lot. No, that that um that wouldn't help either. We'd have to raise the ends, which would be against the natural slope of the ground because you're in the low part of the parking lot, right? Or the low spot of low part of the site. Site itself. So then what you're saying is you would be essentially artificially creating a low low spot

in the center and you would need tall retaining walls around the pond taller than we already show. And you know it's just it's it's not an option what we would even pursue given the existing topography. All right. Anybody have any questions?

I just had one last question. Um, when we originally talked about it, the one of the things we had talked about was deepening the pond and I believe that that was going to make a way for us not to have the 4 foot set back for cleaning and all that we were requiring. Where I'm seeing you removing the pavement is on the other side of the parking lot. It was under my assumpt I I thought originally you'd be in the in in the upper corner where that asphalt would have been missing in order to have made the pond bigger to have taken more of the flow. Was I wrong in that or I'm just trying to find out. So for you to have made it big enough it going to you going to have to remove the 10,000? I thought that would have been up by the pond. No to make the pond larger. No,

making the pond larger would help somewhat, but again it's the flatness of the site and the length of pipe it takes to drain the lowest part and provide treatment for it. Mhm. And so we're, you know, that that wouldn't change by making the pond, it wouldn't change significantly by making the pond horizontally bigger because we're still limited by depth. Your issue is still the depth at the end of the day. Yeah. And and we had talked about blasting and and things of that nature at that point if I'm not mistaken. Right. Yeah. And even then, uh you know, the the ledge is probably the water table. Even by blasting, we wouldn't affect the water table much.

It's a lot of pavement. What about making the pond larger from a surface area perspective? You talked about the It sounds like the volume of the pond is the problem. If we made the volume of the pond bigger by sacrificing some parking spots, I thought that's the how we originally asked this question is what I'm was that's what I was just ultimately saying. That's why the red shaded area I thought would have been up by the pond in this being the answer from question. Maybe I'm reading this differently. I'm not hearing a pond size issue. I'm hearing a pipe flow issue. So whether the pond is the size of this room or the size of the desk you're on, you still have a pipe flow issue.

Right? If we were to keep the pink area and and shave away at the white area near the pond, expanding the pond, you'd still have uh limited drop between the bottom of the pond because of the water table primarily and the lowest catch basin. So that pipe would still have to be so flat and you wouldn't be reducing the surface elevation of the pond that much by making it horizontally bigger. So you'd still have, you know, a buried pipe scenario unless you took out at least an equivalent amount of parking spaces. I think it would be reasonable to ask the applicant to perform maintenance on this pipe twice a year and ensure that it's clear. You know, you figure in the springtime once all the snow guck is gone and the salt and sand and all that's in there. And once the leaves fall in the fall, I think it would be appropriate to ask the applicant to ensure maintenance of the pipe twice a year and um and and grant the waiver town official and camera inspection.

Um, yeah. I mean, I don't think the town does inspection, so it would have That's why I'm asking. I didn't think Yeah. No, it would have to be like a um documentation. Yeah. Whoever usually takes care of the maintenance of ponds. What is it? Uh, I can't even think of the name. Starts with a B. They do it. Um, but I think asking for it twice a year and presenting a report to the town twice a year is more than fair to to make sure that this is being maintained and where it needs to be. Is that the recommended amount like not just once a year, twice a year? Is that what's recommended? Well, you could you could say no. Twice a year or more as necess if necessary.

Yeah. necessary would be if he had to buy all his employees hip waiters to get the cars then you probably got to call the sewer and drain company and clean it up. No, but but I mean that you know what happens with that when he if when he went in and if they sell it like how does that it's something that's on the site plan itself. So it would be part of the My understanding is it's a ch if it's a change of use it comes back here. No, he's just saying if it changes owners. Yeah. He sells it to at the end of the day the maintenance at the end of the day the maintenance would be on the site plan itself. The maintenance is going to be on the plan.

Yeah. The the maintenance would be required through the site plan. So any if they were to sell it to somebody, the site plan would still dictate, hey, you have to do this twice a year. As long as the use stays the same. Correct. As long as the use stays the same. If the use changes, then it then it comes back here for another if if they decide to not handle the change of use in house. But if it gets too complicated, then it comes back here. Now, what if Okay, again, I'm just saying and then we can say we can say, well, I remember you're going to have hair my color. And you're going to say, "I remember when we approved this and we had a Mother's Day storm and it flooded and so this new person has to

change dig a hole 8,000 ft and blast for 27 months and and whatever." Okay, that's where that's where I was heading with that. Thank you. To wrap up, does it matter if you take out half the amount of space spaces as indicated? Would that improve it the the issue? It it still wouldn't comply with the That's the minimum amount of spaces we'd have to take out to literally comply with the regulations. Would it make it condition any better though? No. As far as No, because it at the end of the day from an engineering point of view,

it works just as well. It's just that the pipe is flowing more than full. But it will flow just like when you, you know, siphon your water out of a aquarium and you put the other end in a bucket full of water. Even though the pipe is outlet is buried, it still flows because the difference in water levels at both sides will push water through a pipe even if the pipe outlet is submerged. So from an engineering point of view, it works just as well. It just doesn't literally comply with the regulation. Mr. Chair.

Yes, sir. Um, can I just I So, I know we asked for this with the the red area, but when we go to, you know, make a decision on this, we are the entire lot. The entire lot is staying. Yes. Okay. Just want to make sure. Yep. All right. Um, we have a motion, please. Yeah. So, just a point of order before we do vote on it. So, there's two waivers. Does the second waiver impact the first waiver? the ask in the second waiver, does that have any impact at all on the first waiver? I'm only on waiver one right now. Is there an impact from waiver one to waiver two? No, they're both um independent waivers. Oh, you were asking for a motion, so I wanted to make sure

Yeah, we understood there were no other things that had to be discussed about that. Yeah, I think they're to me they're related. Why don't we Do you want to I was thinking do this waiver and then we'll talk about the second one. Do you want to talk about the second one before we That would be my preference. Okay. Talk to us about the second waiver.

Okay. The second waiver is to use a different uh outlet control structure um than the town standard which is uh typically well not typically it's exactly a vertical slotted structure that goes typically to the bottom of the pond. But since this is a wet pond that requires a permanent pool for treatment purposes, uh you can't have an outlet that goes to the bottom of the pond. Uh and because there's the pond is shallow, uh it makes more sense to have a circular outlet as the control. We and it's really just the the shape of a rectangular outlet that goes to the bottom versus a circular outlet that u does not go to the bottom but goes to the top of the permanent pool. So there's a there's always going to be water in the bottom of this. that's what provides a treatment per dees standards. Um so in this case the circular outlet um that drains the volume above the permanent pool is is a more efficient outlet than the town's typical rectangular outlet. It's a very technical issue and it it really doesn't again it doesn't have any practical effect. It just has to do with the limited amount of depth that you have and getting the required amount of water out of a circular hole versus a rectangular hole.

So when you say more efficient, are you speaking more efficient for this condition or more efficient in general? More efficient for this particular condition since you have a limited depth of the pond and uh it's easier to make a circular outlet work in this in this case than a rectangular outlet. Oh, does the board have any questions? Yeah. What about the the 4ft burm that's that's mentioned?

And there's a a part B of that waiver which um where the town requires a 4ft wide burm all around the pond. In this particular case, the top of the pond is 298 and we have 29 298 and above uh in the parking lot and uh actually on all the way around the the property line is is 300 plus. So, um, there's really no need for a 4ft wide burm to access and maintain the pond because you can maintain it from the parking lot entering through that little gravel road that goes across the uh the inlet to the pond and then have uh full access for maintenance along the top of that uh MSE wall and on the parking lot and on the the ground surrounding it all that's all uh at or above that 298 elevation.

So that's what the the 4ft BM is typically for. So you can walk around it and maintain. So you can walk around the pond, have access to areas that need maintenance, either u you know improving the turf cover or or get retrieving something out of the bottom of the pond or whatever. But it's really not necessary in this case because that 4ft BM is contained in that MSE wall and it's contained in the parking lot. uh an adjacent ground essentially everything around it is the four foot BM is is greater than a four foot wide BM right Mr. D. So is so again is it fair to say that the way you're building it meets the spirit of the intent of the 4oot rule all the way around it.

Exactly. Thank you. Anything else? So that having a circular orifice while you could eliminate the uh the burm is that is that I'm just looking at uh you know to allow a circular orifice in the outlet control structure for a retention pond and omit the 4 foot wide burm. So you could take that as meaning if you have a circular orifice you don't need the 4ft wide burm. No, there's just two parts of that regulation that both need a waiver. Okay. So, so it's really two separate separate issues. It could be two separate regulations.

Okay. A comma there might have helped. Anything else from the board? This is grandma. I'd just like to say for the record that the town engineer is not available for the meeting tonight and and we don't have his uh input to consider. Thank you.

All right. Uh I am looking for some motions on these waivers. Who would like to make a motion? I would say uh let's start with waiver one. The way we discussed it would be a motion to approve uh waiver one from uh the site plan regulations 3.07. C.1 to allow more than full pipe flow between structures FES1 to CB1. Um, and there would have to be a a note in there to include um recorded maintenance uh twice a year or every six months. So, it's done.

Yeah, every six months. That's a good every six months as opposed to twice a year. So something like um maintain a minimum of twice a year or additionally if needed once every six months or additionally if needed. Okay. [Music] So do I have a motion? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. D. Do I have a second? Second. A second from Ryan. All in favor starting with Ann, please. And Champ. Javanni Vernie I. Tony D. I Lyn Wilds nay. Arthur Rug I. Ryan Wlette I.

Sean Faber I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh waiver one has been granted and um I would say that uh this in either forgoing circumstances the waiver can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. Uh waiver number two, I would be looking for a uh waiver for the typical details for site and roadway infrastructure um exhibit D108 to allow a circular orifice in the outlet control structure for a retention pond and admit the 4ft wide burm. So move Mr. Chair I have a sec uh motion from Mr. Wilds. Do I have a second? I'll second Mr. Chair.

I have a second from Mr. Rug. All in favor starting with Annne, please. and Champ. Javanni Veron I Tony D I Lyn Wilds I Arthur Rug I Ryan Wlette I Sean Faber I and the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh waiver two has been granted. Um and this waiver may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good. All right, gentlemen. Thank you very much of the board.

All right. Uh moving on. We've got some new plans. A public hearing on an application for formal review of a site plan to construct a 7200 ft commercial building along with associated site improvements at 5 Ricker A map 28 lot 22 and 23 zoned industrial 2 Epic Properties is the owner and applicant. Gentlemen, how we doing? Good. How are you? Good evening.

Good evening. All right. Uh before you guys get going here, uh let me get the right notes in front of me. Uh we need to uh take a look at this for completeness. It does look like there are some outstanding uh checklist items. Um I'm looking for a motion to accept this as complete for acceptance only and that the checklist items would become uh conditions of approval. So move, Mr. Chair. I have a motion from uh Mr. Wilds. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Ryan. All in favor? Uh, starting with Anne, please. Anne Champa, I. Javon, I. Tony D, I. Lyn Wilds, I. Arthur Rug, I. Ryan Wlette, I.

Sean Faber, I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. All right. Uh, gentlemen, the floor is yours. Talk to us. How we doing?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, so for the record, my name is Doug Magcguire. I'm with the Dubet Group, the engineer record for the project. And I also have with me Kurt Olsen who is the owner of the property and uh is the representative of Epic Properties LLC. So what we have before you tonight is a site plan, commercial site plan located at Five Ricker A. Five Ricker A is located over there by the airport. It's in the industrial 2 zone and the parcel is 1.24 acres. Its primary frontage is on Ricker A. It does technically front on Harvey Road as well, although the grades, as you'll see, don't really allow for that to be a viable piece of frontage, so accesses is via the Ricker A point. Uh the property is partially developed as it stands. We have an existing 4,800 square foot building with some associated parking and infrastructure that is currently being used by the owner for his landscape and hardscape company. The remainder of the property is cleared but just not not being utilized, just essentially gravel or dirt, grass. And so we're proposing to expand the property and put in a 4unit commercial building to the right of the property. And that is going to be your typical commercial contractor type bay building. 1500 square ft unit. 25x60 is what the, you know, unit shape would be. Each one of those would have approximately a three thou or excuse me

a 300 square foot mezzanine within them. So you're bumping the square footage totals to about 1,800 square ft per unit. And obviously we have associated parking with that uh right in front. So they have you have a large overhead door for each unit to provide access. They're a great unit. great for flexibility. Uh variety of potential uses can utilize them. Um we are proposing a new access point onto Ricker A and connecting this into the rear pavement that already existed to provide a looping connection. And right now you have dead ended park, deadended parking and this really helps with anything that would be coming whether it be from small delivery vehicles. We actually did run a Londereerry fire truck through the property. So now the fire truck doesn't have to back up. It can actually circulate the property utilizing the two access points. We have some existing drainage coming through the property from Harvey Road and we are maintaining that flow that flow connection although routing it slightly differently just because uh it would didn't really allow us to be able to develop the the um property the way we're hoping to with the building. So, we're proposing to relocate that, although still keep that full connection. And we're also solidifying that for the benefit of the town because currently right now, we didn't really have a a legalized easement to have that come through. So, we're not disputing it. It's been there forever, but um we are actually creating a easement to the benefit of the town for that flowage right. We have a small detention pond system at the front of

the property just to handle differentials in flow and that overflows to the existing drainage system as all the water does from Ricker or onto Ricker Aav from our property. So we have a full plan set here including all your typical accutramonts of landscaping, lighting, erosion, sight distance plans and your associated details. I'm happy to go through any of those uh if you have any specific questions. Uh we also do have building elevations that we submitted. Those should be in your packets as well at the back. And Yep. Thank you. And so showing what the anticipated building is going to look like and kind of give you guys an understanding of how the the building operates. Um we did go to Heritage Commission and presented this to them. and they had no issues. Obviously, being in an industrial 2 zone, I think this is a pretty attractive building for for that zone. Uh, and so with that, I will turn it back to the board and happy to answer any questions you may have on the application.

Mr. Chair, yes, sir. I'm going to take Tony's question. Tony, why did this go to what committee? We're going to have time to talk about at the at the end of the meeting. Okay. Thank you for asking. Yes, that was it. I will say this is a handsome looking building for an airport building. And I think that it's almost barnl like New England barnlike. And it's you think that was the uh for the architect? Yeah, it's kind of a cool thing for from a I mean it's a metal building, right? It's a metal fab.

It actually it it won't be metal fab. Uh it can be done stickuilt. And so that actually gives us a little bit of the flexibility to use some of the more conventional siding materials that you'd see. Right. Yeah. It's a it's a good looking building. Yep. And the But I but I am sorry. I am Yeah. I need some help with the You said you you you I assume from an engineering point went on our website and drove the the truck around in your computer, the fire truck. Could you walk me through ho how how that happened on your site plan because I don't see Sure. I can't.

We actually we actually included what we call a we have a program so it's not it's a little bit more sophisticated. We have a program called auto turn. It's on sheet 17 of 20 in your in our plan set. And so essentially what we can do and I'll I'll wait for Kristen to pull that up. Thank you. So you have right there that little exhibit. And so what we have is we show what a maneuver of a firetruck would do as it can come through. And so essentially what you can see is that it can make the turn in, it can make a turn around the existing building, it can make a turn out. And so that's what you know we would typically show to kind of prove that circulation. Now obviously that is not really our design vehicle for this site. We don't anticipate having any vehicles that large there on a regular basis but just to show and for the benefit of the fire department that we were um providing that circulation. And I will say that that will dovetail into one of our requested waiverss that we do have before you tonight as part of the application, which I believe staff is is in support of, which is allowing for a second point of access on a property within 200 ft. So, that was one of the reasons that we did this because they said, "Hey, well, you know, could you keep just one access and just cut it off and not have that?" that I'm like, well, yes, we I guess technically we could, but you'd have a dead-ended situation not having primary access and and really our hardship is that we're working around an existing building. So, without knocking that down and doing a centrallylo development, you really have no choice but to provide that circulation. So, uh, real quick, I forgot something on the last one. Make a record of it. and

didn't go to the public for a uh public hearing on the public hearing. However, there was nobody in the crowd. So, thank you. All right, keep going. So, could that please be noted on the plan that there were no people in attendance? Yeah. For that for that public hearing. Yeah. Thank you. I just want the landscape plan actually is very very good because you're using the ex some of the existing trees and you're adding vegetation on this uh viewpoint from uh you know the roadway.

Yes. Uh thank you. So I mean yeah landscaping plan is sheet uh sheet seven within our plan set. Obviously we all understand this is the industrial 2 zone. So this you're not getting the same type of robust landscaping that you might get on um you know a commercial site or something that is getting constant public uh public activity. But what we did want to try to do is add some some nice landscaping to the front just as you come in. And then because we have this unique situation of this kind of dual frontage situation, we did kind of close up that existing vegetation with some additional arborite to uh kind of provide just a a buffer from that side of the street.

Yeah. Because Harvey Road is what's the public is going to see that. They going to see much of the other side. Correct. Yep. It's just your customers. So that's uh one question for you. Sure. It's really the only one I have. Uh your lighting plan. Mhm. Plenty of lighting between the two buildings. Is there no requirement for the what is that? North side of the existing building. So, yeah, that that's a good question. So, what the existing building does have existing lighting on it. We don't have like the exact This is the proposed This is the proposed lighting, not Yeah. So, we're just kind of we're hitting everything that's new. You're good there. Thank you.

Anything else from the board? Kristen. Um I just wanted to note that they went to ZBA a couple weeks ago and u received a waiver for um the green space in the lower left corner to keep their pavement there. So that's all set. Wonderful. And

you don't have to cut into the slope in the back of the property at all for the driveway. Uh, so we do we we we actually we really don't there's a fairly steep slope going up to Harvey Road and the only area that we touched a little bit was the area adjacent to the building. And you can see that we have some rock there. And the reason we did that is because

we went 2:1 so that we didn't affect the existing vegetation because we could have chased a 3:1 slope and kind of reconstructed that slope, but then you're killing all the existing good tree growth that's there. So, we tightened the grading up a little bit right there just so we could keep that vegetation and nothing else is touched on that slope besides where we're near with the building. Okay. There's some pretty tall trees on that slope and uh everything. Yeah, I mean and obviously good stabilized growth you'd like to try to maintain if you can.

All right, with that I will open up public comment and I will close public comment. All right. Uh we have a uh couple waiverss to act on. I am looking for a motion to uh grant uh the waiver to LSPR 3.07.g.3. G.3 relating to the minimum depth cover for a storm drain line to be less than 36 in. Approve this. No. No. No. Looking for a motion. So moved. I am looking for a second. Second. I have a motion from Lynn. Second by uh Mr. Rug. All in favor starting with an please. Ana I. Javanni Verunni. I Tony D. I Lyn Wilds I. Arthur Rug I.

Ryan Wlette I. Sean Faber I. and the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh this waiver has been granted uh and it uh can be granted because there's no substantial detriment to the public good. Uh waiver number two, I'm looking for uh uh waiver request to LSPR 3.08.B.3 relating to driveway closer than 200 ft from one another on the same side of the road. Um and I would like to note that SA staff does support this waiver. Uh looking for a motion. So move, Mr. Sure. Motion for Mr. Wilds. Do I have a second? I'll second that. And also, this has no significant detriment to the public good. Fantastic. I have a second for Mr. Rug. All in favor? Discussion. For discussion.

Discussion. Second was for discussion. Yes. Is that okay? That's okay, Tony. Thank you. So, you had your time to talk. No. So, this number this number two that we're that we're talking about to add an additional driveway is is a is actually a help in another part of the regulations. So, so you're asking for a waiver in this part of the regulations. In another part of the regulations, it's going to help with the circulation of fire trucks and and you know, whatever else it help it helps with the circulation. So, is it fair to say A little bit of a give and take there.

So you you you're giving up one thing, asking for another thing, and here we are with this one. So thank you. Fair discussion. Thank you for entertaining that. All right. All in favor starting with Ann. Ann Champ I. Javon Vi. Tony D. I Lyn Wilds. I Arthur Rug I. Ryan Wlette I. Sean Faber I.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. The uh second waiver has been granted. All right. Uh we are on to the site plan application itself. I am looking for a recommendation to grant conditional approval of a site plan to construct a 7200 square f foot commercial building along with associated site improvements at 5 Ricker A map 28 lot 22- 22 and 23 zoned industrial 2 Epic Properties is the owner and applicant last advis uh revised April 28th of 2025 with the precedent conditions to be fulfilled within 120 days of approval and prior to plan signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in the engineering memo. Do I have a motion?

So move, Mr. Chair. I have a motion from Mr. Wilds. Do I have a second? I have a second from Mr. D. All in favor, please say I Oh, I'm sorry. Starting with Ann. Yeah, thank you. Starting with Ann. Roll call vote. I. Bonnie Brown. Tony D. I Lyn Wilds. I Arthur Rug. I Ryan Wlette. I Sean Faber. I and the chair votes in the affirmative. Gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you. Have a good one. Appreciate it.

All right. Uh moving on here, we have other business discussion. Woodmont Commons ADU, you know, stretch out. The seat is warm. Some warm forehead. appreciate it. Mr. Smith, good evening, sir. How are you? Good evening. Just to get the important things out of the way. It's 3-3 top of the seventh and bases are loaded. So, just in case Oh, good. Who's Who's up to bat? We are top seven, right?

Uh up to Oh, it's story. He's two for three tonight. So, hopefully by the end of this presentation, it'll not be tied. Um I appreciate your time this evening. I had talked to Kelly about this subject matter and she suggested I bring it up to the board to socialize it uh with you all. So, um, in the Woodmont Commons PUD, uh, most of the sub areas have, uh, an entitlement to, uh, allow for accessory dwelling units, um, as part of the overall residential uh, density calculations and the, uh, ADUs in the, uh, PUD. D are defined as uh one-bedroom units uh with a total of 750 square ft uh per unit. And what I had discussed with Kelly about and you know as I said she said to come talk with all of you about it is we would like to uh have the in keeping with the spirit of the PUD would like to have the square footage of those accessory dwelling units be an andor. So, an ADU uh or a studio onebedroom unit with the total square footage for the entire subunit uh sub area not to exceed 750 square ft totaling all the units. So, let me give you an example. So, uh, WC12,

which is the area on the east side of exit 4A, that area, uh, allows for, uh, 20, um, 20 accessory dwelling units. I'm just looking, got to find my notes. I'm backing up here just for clarity. Is this for a future project or a current project? This would be for uh future projects, although I guess it it could apply technically to uh an existing project, but it would be mostly for uh future projects.

You said east of 93,

right? So WC12 east of 93, you have uh 330 uh primary residences and then you have 20 accessory dwelling units. So those 20 accessory dwelling units at 750 square ft per unit totals 15,000 square ft. And so what we're looking for is a consensus that you could either do the accessory dwelling units or you could convert that into onebedroom or studio units. And I say units not apartments because it could be freestanding. uh not to exceed 15,000 square ft for that total sub area. So the density is not increasing, the overall square footage is not increasing. It's just saying it can be either an ADU or uh a regular living unit not to exceed one bedroom.

Either or. So the number of dwelling units stays the same. Correct. Yeah. Yeah. And I said andor earlier. It should have been either or. Either or. So, sorry, I go to the bathroom there. Uh, if I'm hearing this correctly, the number of units is not changing. It's how we're using them. Correct. The square footage isn't changing, it's how we're using them. Right. So, the Woodmont Commons PUB is already entitled to what's here. We're just asking, can we use a different

as an either or? Yeah. And again, it would be within those sub areas. So we wouldn't be swapping the square footage from one sub area and put it in another. It would stay contained within 750 ft and you know sub area whatever X. It's still 750 ft in sub area X. Correct. Yeah. So this is just the subsection WC 12. It it would apply to all of them art, but I use that one as as an example. Yeah. Okay. and it would only apply to those ones that actually allow ADUs. There are a few that don't allow them and they would still not be allowed.

So, it's and any and just to reiterate that anywhere that there currently is not an ADU allowed within the Woodmont PUB, we are not adding any we're not we're not trying to add a unit or square footage to those areas that are not allowed. Correct. So, for instance, like WC5, it only allows one accessory dwelling unit. So, one bedroom, 750 square ft could either be an ADU or a regular unit not to exceed one bedroom at 750 ft. Does the board have any questions?

So, Kevin, are you treating an ADU as a standalone structure? That is how it is treated in the PUD. It's not how the LCO interprets an ADU, right? So, so you're looking to bring it in agreement with the way we do the zoning ordinance today. It It actually is. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, to allow an apartment or, you know, something inside, you know, part of the main dwelling or over a garage or a standalone unit. Right. Yeah. Yeah. The way it's treated, the way it's treated in the in the PUB is a separate unit. Um, standalone building. A separate standalone building. Yep.

Was were ADUs in the original plan? Yeah. We never heard of that. I mean, it was mentioned ever. It's theual

the sub areas that it and this is in the approved 2013 plan. The sub areas where it's not allowed are WC 3, uh WC7 and WC11 are the only areas that don't allow it. And if you had an apartment in a building or over a garage, you'd still do a separate entrance specifically for that, right? You'd meet all the other zoning ordinance regulations regarding ADUs. Correct. Anyone have any questions?

I was Yeah, I was a little confused at the beginning because I you still making I'm going to use use a different term. a base house on a on on a a plot that can have a an accessory dwelling either as part of that footprint or as a separate additional footprint. Yeah, I think the best Yeah, the best way to think about it is currently the way the definition is in the PUD is that it has to be a part of another of a footprint of an existing dwelling. That was the old Yeah.

That was the old definition of an ADU that correct that that we had on our books. Yes. before the state made the change to it can be a separate and that's why all over the town of Londereerry you see you see a main house and a garage and there's like a little a little tiny roof connected to the garage so they could have an ADU in the garage

and they couldn't until they connected it with the little roof thing or or a walking bridge if it's a second floor one a walking bridge from the back porch of the main house into the into the twocar garage. And so this basically ali I guess I'm thinking quickly align with the current regulations for ADUs. Has it been passed? I mean I knew it was passed at the state house. Does it when does it come into effect? That regulation? It's already in effect. It's in effect. Yeah, two years ago, I think. Yeah.

So, Tony, just to clarify though that a little bit. So, going back to like WC12. So, WC12 allows for 330 primary residences and 20 ADUs because the ADUs are considered to be part of a primary residence, right? What we're saying is it's not Can I stop? Sorry. But it's not 20 add additional buildings inside of the inside of the amount of units you can have. Some of those units can have an ADU. That is well or not. what it what it say the numbers again and I can

so 30 30 primary and this is I'm taking this from the PUD 30 p uh 330 primary residences new accessory units 20 and then when you go to the definition of accessory dwelling unit one of the things it says is uh the property owner must occupy one of the two units. Um, and then it says, "One accessory apartment within a detached single family dwelling shall be permitted provided the following conditions are met." So, what all we're saying is we don't want to change any of those definitions in the PUD. We want to keep that as is. But what we're looking for is the flexibility to say either that gets built or let's say, you know, back to the 330 number, there's a a multif family development that has 330 units. Well, now it could have 331 by adding a one-bedroom unit not to exceed 750 square ft. So, an either or. So, either using it as an accessory unit or using it as a primary residence unit.

Go ahead. So, but I'm looking at So, I can't get this in my head and I apologize. You can have 330 primary residences. Yes. Inside of that 330, 20 of those 330 primary residents can have an accessory apartment detached. So, we're not talking 350 units. We're still talking about 330, right? They can have the 330 can have an an accessory apartment, an in-law apartment inside of it. What whatever you want to call it.

You say only 20 door. No, it has to be det in accordance with the PUD definition. It has to be detached. That is in the PUD. So there's 330. So there's going to be two footprints. There's 330 primary lots. 20 of them can look like your house that has got something out back, right? So, two footprints in one line in 20 of the 330. Correct. Correct. Thank you. That did it. Yes. Thank you. that that is what exists currently. And you want the ability to say it can either be that

or swapping the one-bedroom, same square footage, 750 square ft for a regular primary residence. So, so if so, right now the number is 330 and 20. If someone decides to build 331, then the ADU gets reduced to 19. So the the density of the units doesn't increase. The square footage doesn't increase. It's how you're using. It's how it's being used. So let me try and unpack this a little bit. You got 330 and 20. We've been using this example. Yeah.

If we were to do this, you could have 350. 20 of those would still be limited to one-bedroom, 750 square foot primary residences. Correct. And and the difference is And the difference is you really in in these squares, rectangles, whatever, these pieces of land have really have no interior lot lines. Correct. Does the primary owner.

It's not like a house lot with a house on it and a in a in a two two bay detached garage on the same lot. We can't say that because you have no lot lines because you Well, unless you created lot lines. Unless you created lot lines, right? Now that but if they were created lot lines that would increase density. No, not it's not the lot lines. It's a number of It's a number of units and the square footage that you're looking at. How many square feet are the original 330?

Those don't have a square footage uh maximum on them. So, the the primary residences don't have a maximum square footage. It's the ADUs that have a maximum square footage of 750 square feet detached. That's the way it's defined in the But then didn't you say those 20 can be just another one of the regular uh large size ones? No, they'd be limited by the 750 square feet. They'd be li Yes. So So just to clarify right now, what what are we in? What? WC12 WC12 WC12 has 330

house lots that are allowed on it. They're looking to say we would like to have 350 house lots which is still 330 plus 20 but 20 of those house lots cannot be more than onebedroom 750T houses and who owns or units I should say. Correct. Correct. And you would then not be allowed the 20 accessory dwelling units. Correct. So instead of having 330 primary and 20 ADUs, you would have 350 primary, of which 20 of them are limited to 750 ft. Correct. Make sense? That was a good one. So I'll say it another way. You could put a separate street in there for 20 little houses, right? Correct.

So you don't have to tie the small house to the big house. Correct. Exactly. Yes. Are these rented or sold? If I own a If I own a piece of property, I build a 700 square foot piece that somebody's going to live in. Do I sell that as part of my property or is that Yeah. Well, if you were to build an ADU on your property, it would be part of your property. Yes. Okay. What I But it wouldn't What are you asking? I'm just wondering what else comes along with that now sharing that pot of property with two separate owners versus the one. They're not. I don't think that's So, he has three. what they're saying. We're allowed 330 housing lots

that have 20 ADUs on them. So, of those 330 lots, 20 of them have got two buildings on it, for lack of a better terms. They're saying instead of doing that, we want 350 lots. So, now they're all their own separate structure. That's a better idea. 20 of those are only allowed to be 750. I think he's looking for the auction either or. Is that correct? Correct. or stay as an 80. Could you just be more flexible? So, nothing's increasing. It's just the way that you how you're using it. Exactly. It's just allowing flexibility to swap basically the ADU square footage for regular primary residence square footage is what it is. Not to exceed one bedroom.

Right. Thank you. And so connecting the dots that you could probably say if you carry it farther out that this would be people don't want to hear the phrase, but it could be a way to make a a a a habited building um more affordable for a person to own. Yeah. Cuz it's a smaller footprint. Cuz it's a smaller footprint. So, it wouldn't be a $950,000 or $1.2 million whatever. It could be a a

Yeah. a first a first home, a starter home, or whatever you're talking about. Uh which some people in the community say we need. Uh and this would be a way perhaps to do that. So, does that sub area have a maximum or a minimum lot size? No, it does not. Okay. No, you can clump those right up if you want, right? All in one corner or whatever you want. Yeah. Well, the fire regulations

you you'll see. I mean, you've seen the the build to rent portion of Precopio's uh site plan. They have another site plan that'll be coming in for the other two pieces that are for sale units, but they're not going to be individual lots. They're going to be condominiumized. So, it's going to be one lot with those homes on that one lot. It'll be shared space. So, Procopio would actually it'll probably be they won't own it. It'll be an HOA. Yeah. That'll own it. Can I go back to what you're originally talking about? You're gonna you're saying you're going to have either 330 owners um and 20 of the buildings have um accessory dwelling units or 350 owners.

Correct. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it's an either or in. Okay. Anything else from the board? I think um obviously I've beat it beat the drum quite a bit about smaller homes creates more affordability. We can't put a number on affordability, but at the end of the day, theoretically, if you can only build a house so big, it's only going to sell for so much, which is going to be less than what the current new house is in London area, which I think they're listed around 950 to a million bucks right now. Pretty healthy. So, I would be very supportive of this. Yeah, makes sense. Yeah, it gives us, I think, greater flexibility, housing choice.

I agree. Yeah, it took me it took me a minute to get there, but I I understand and I I think it's probably a good idea. I'd like to see more creative ideas like this. Me, too. Me, too. I mean, that said, the devil's in the details. This is this is we're just throwing stuff against the wall. Yeah. We're at 30,000 ft, right? Right. And and so, you know, the rest of the discussion is going to happen later on when when a plan comes in. Yeah. But the site plan, but conceptually I I think it could be a good idea with the proper site and and what so we're not we're not agreeing to anything right now other than it could be a good idea.

Kevin, the owner of the land underneath the buildings who who owns it would or No, it'll be uh it'll be in common ownership. So the the home owners will own the land. So, similar to one like a senior community. Okay. Yeah. I believe um what's the one on uh schoolhouse? Yeah. Schoolhouse squares like that. Schoolhouse is a condominium association. Yep. Will this community be gated? Is that the plan or

I mean it's everything is there's no plan at this point. It was just more or less when we were kind of spitballing ideas and looking at, you know, what was approved in 2013 versus what is what are the market trends today. You know, we were looking at it going, you know, the the plan approved all of these ADUs and all of these sub areas and they may just never happen. they may never come to fruition and it would be a shame not to be able to use that existing square footage for just regular primary residences as opposed to accessory dwelling units, detached accessory dwelling units.

Are there going to be any amenities or is it just basically housing? It's too far down the was almost too far down the line. Yeah. Yeah. too far down because we're No, it it's we're you're the both of you are talking site plan specific right now, right? I was just wondering what the vision of the vision of it is. Is it just uh for housing or are you going to have amenities like a for Woodmont? Yeah, for clubhouse like that. Well, if you I mean again it's that's a way I don't know because they're not plans that exist yet, right? But if you look at what um Wood Partners just completed, I mean, they have a really nice clubhouse. They have a pool area for their residents. Um

I've I've been in there. Yeah. So, very nice. But all right. Okay. To Smith, anything else, sir? Nothing. Now, now I'm curious to see if the score changes. There's still 33. Nothing changed. Nothing changed. I didn't have the time. They were waiting for you. Yeah, apparently I didn't have to pick it up again. Give him the uh the cue. So, keep talking. Middle of the eight. Any other questions? We're good. All right. Thank you. Appreciate your time. How's things doing there, Kevin? Uh for uh you know, commercial uh you know, growth and interest and

there's there's a lot of interested parties right now. So, it's we're happy to see who the interested parties are and um keeping my fingers crossed you'll be seeing site plan submission soon for commercial and retail um products. Right. So, you go for a change. The phone is ringing. Yes, the phone's always been ringing. It's just you know the been picking it up. I always pick up for you, Mr. Ber,

I appreciate it. So, no, it's it's good. Awesome. Yeah. Thank you, sir. All right. All right. Anything else? We are at the end of our agenda, folks. Mr. D. Um, so, um, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh first of all um there was it needs to be put in the record somewhere that there was no one here for public comment. I agree. Um and as a result there was no public comment today, but it wasn't because it wasn't offered. It was because there was nobody here. There should be a sentence or two in the minutes. I think that's an important thing to have

um for this meeting. It has been happening. I will say most of the time when I've said for the record, I would like it I would like this to be in the record. 100% of the time it has been in the record. This one is even um more important simply because I made a little mistake. Yeah, absolutely. So, and it wasn't and it wasn't because it wasn't, you know, people wanted to talk and it wasn't offered. There was nobody here and so I was just moving along because nobody was here.

You get a few people or even a crowd going to talk. Um, the second thing is I I did uh send you um an email um about um the conversations that we've had about the Heritage Commission. Um I did not share it with the rest of the board because um we're not allowed to do that because then that would constitute a meeting. Um, but I can tell you essentially it was it was um rather lengthy, but it did have an action plan to it um of our we've talked about uh the Heritage Commission and their role. Are we ready or not to make it an agenda item with a public hearing and do something with their role or not? Uh do we need to have another meeting where we say okay we've ruminated over the past six months about we talked about it six months ago.

I let's you know have a workshop for us and I think what I'd like to see if you don't mind I think what I'd like to see is um I thought you've brought up some very valid points. I think they're worthy of discussion throughout the board. Um, I would almost to be honest with you like to see it as an agenda item where what you've emailed me is presented to the board. Um, from there we can we can discuss it. Um, you know, and I think ultimately it should should result in, you know, how do we want to move forward because I know it's something we've talked about for for some time now. I think maybe we need to get a pulse of the board and see do we want to keep going how we're going or do we want to make a change. So, thank you.

I'm certainly open to having the discussion and and giving you the ability to present what you've presented to me in front of the board um in more of a agenda item manner. Yeah, it's going to be more formal and then I think staff has to be involved also. Oh, 100%. And then and I mean basically we I I just want to know we are we going to go further or are we just going to drop it and and leave the status quo? That's that's really I think we go through what the end result is. I don't know. I think we go through the process, we talk about it, we make a decision as a board as to what we want to see. Absolutely.

I think that's I think that's fair and and the right thing for us to do if a board member has got something they want to talk about, you know. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, I'll wait to see what agenda it's going to be on when we have time. And what I'll Why don't we um Can we Can you talk to Kelly about putting this on the second agenda for the month of November? Second November. Second agenda for the month of November. Hold on. Hold that thought, please. Uh he's going to be swan diving somewhere. That would be the 12th. I was going to say somewhere between 10th and the 14th. Yeah, 12th. You can do that. Uh, how about

you can you can do it? Well, I won't be able to present it. I would want you there. Ching is the guy bringing it up. I would like if you're there. Yeah. Sorry. You can do it though. How about the December? What's your second December, Tony? I'm good. So, let's let's aim for the December 10th meeting, Kristen. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. All right. Anything else from the board? Motion to adjourn, Mr. Chair. Motion. So moved. Or do I have a I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor, please say I. I. I.