Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Get that done. Oh, that not this. Both [laughter] dogs. All the dogs. All right, I'm going to bring the meeting to order. Um, Don Bury of 135 River Road. McDaniel rep. Gary Mcin, community development director. Just do 50 Brown Hill Road. Ben Davis 9 Wheeler Road. Casey Dustphano 4 Hop Kilm Road. Levi Bry 19 Laurel Drive. Jonathan Petrangelo 5 Woodier Drive. Sandy Crystal one view drive. Don Bingo land used assistant.

Um so we get no minor modifications or conceptual consultations. Thank you. Um, so we're going to get right to the event the public hearings. Uh, proposed zoning amendments. You're up here.

All right. Let's do it. Um, so these are ones that we've returned to from our last meeting. So hopefully it's not too complicated. Um, A is back on here again because we just rephrased the description of it basically. Um, so again, it's removing the purpose statements from 4.01, putting them in the appropriate overlay district section, not changing the purpose statements in any way, and then updating the references to those purpose statements so it refers to the right location. It's the exact same wording just in a different structure.

Correct. Yeah. And yeah, I had left out the additionally part at the end where it um the references would have been changed, but I didn't include that in the description before. So now it should all be covered. Do you want to do public hearings one by one? That's a good idea. Yeah. [clears throat] Um so this is to u amend section 404.01b 01B and I'll open this public if anybody has any comments on the um that part. I have a few questions. Okay. More of someone that doesn't really know how to read the law this much. Uh I assume that the part

first could you just say your name and address uh to Abby Road. Okay. Uh I assume that the part uh that is referred to the wetlands aquifer and the flood planes is mostly just rewriting the same thing on a different place. Yeah, the purpose statements were all in the beginning in the section 4. Um and so we literally moved the exact same language into the part that's actually about the overlay district. So it is with it in its home. That's what it seemed to me, but I didn't really want to read everything. I know it's too much, but it really is that simple. We just moved it.

So, the big I would say that the thing that changed for real was the the part on the the additional use or whatever they call the dwellings the accessory dwellings, right? Let me get to see. Yeah. Did that part Is that part changing because of the state legislation? Yes. Yeah. Okay. So, we are just adop adapting our our thanks to whatever they voted for the state because we were forced to change that. Got it. Yeah.

Anything else follow on that? I'm open here anyway. We go on. And also this part that says an existing structure may be converted into an ADU regardless of whether such structure is that also on the RSA. Yes. Do you want to wait until we get to that? Yeah, we're done. So, we're Yeah, we're going to work down our list here. And all right, with that, I'm going to close to public hearing on a [cough and clears throat] get any other. I'll make a motion to add [clears throat] or place on the warrant the um to amend section 401 B. Second.

All those in favor?

I opposed. So we have power five regular members. All right, the eyes have it. All right. B to amend section 5.11 table use regulations to add multif family housing as a permanent use in the commercial district and to add section 7.28 regarding supplemental regulations for multif family housings in the commercial district. Um, this one, we talked about these last time. I had put them as two separate uh items and we combined them into one to make sure one wasn't voted for and one against. So, that was the only change from the last time you discussed it is just combining them into one item.

And this is again is based on state law change. Yep. One one alternate rate is [clears throat] we have six. Oh, are we six? Yeah. So, there's got to be one alternate. All right, Ben, you're you're in. Yeah. [clears throat] Thank you. You're welcome. Um, the board get any discussion on B? I'll open to the public. Anybody has any questions or comments on on B? So, this is the additional being able to do multif family housing in a commercial district.

This is not the ADU. Oh, that's not the ADU. That one's next. Okay, I will close combine them. That's Oh, y I'll close the public hearing on that. Move to C to amend Oh, got I'll make a motion. Trying to move it right along. I'll make a motion to place on the warrant the um the amendment to section 5.11. Second. All those in favor? I opposed. You need to say section 7.28 28 on that one as well. Yes. You mean all of amendment B? Yeah. All of amendment B. I just Yeah. So moved. So moved.

All right. [sighs] See to amend section 7.04 04 regarding accessory dwelling units, ADUs, to update definitions to remove the requirement for a conditional use permit for detached accessory dwelling units to allow 80 units to be built on any lot with single family dwelling to clarify and to add clause regarding ADUs in existing non-conforming structures.

All right, this is the big one. Um but [laughter] this is all based on the changes to the state law. So previously we had required a conditional use permit for ADUs. Um and now they are permitted. Um, I updated the definitions to match what is in the the state's language and um clarifying that um we used to have requirements that said that the lot had to have at least the minimum lot area or frontage um or sewer, one of the other, [snorts] one of those three. Now, it's if there is a house, a single family house on a lot, you are allowed to have an ADU as [clears throat] long as you can provide for water and disposal. Um, so that's that's basically it. The size has not changed. We still say that it can't exceed 800 square ft of habitable floor area. Um, at least one of the units will be occupied by the owner of the property. That's the same. And the other part is that an existing structure can be converted into an accessory dwelling unit regardless of whether it violates existing dimensional requirements. So if you have a like a garage that's too close to your lot line, then would be allowed now. It' be an existing non-conforming structure, you can put an ADU above the garage.

You can convert the garage into an even if it's too close to your lot line. I know [laughter] garage close to your lot, don't you? I do. [laughter] ADU here. So does that with that regulations if that loft is over 800 square feet [clears throat] area or is that you just you can only use 800 square feet of it as habitable area. If you have a structure that's bigger than that you could you know have the whole back part as storage or Yeah. Anything else the actual living area [laughter] may not live. Yeah. Okay. Um,

and it's still one ADU per lot, whether it's attached or detached. You can't have one of each. One ADU per lot. Okay. I'll open this to the public. Did we answer your questions or we got some more for I just have so that that piece of the that the structure if if it's existing is also from the state law. Exactly. But it still applies all the all the regulations. If I don't have anything else in the property, I still need to have whatever distance from the lot or from another from the neighbor or from whatever that val that is valid for like if you were building a new structure. Yes.

Yes. Exactly. You still have to meet all the setbacks and requirements if it's a new structure. Yeah. If you have an existing structure that was able to get built and it's too close to a lot line, that's fine. Yeah. And the part of the of having water and and um basically sewer, but not sewer, septic. Yeah.

Septic. It they they still needs to apply for if if I'm putting two more bedrooms, they'll need to be a septic for that as well, right? you have to have at least a plan approved that is for enough bedrooms for the total. Um you don't necessarily have to install it. That's also in state law. So um if you're so you have you got to have the provisions to put it in. So you have to be able to prove that you could put it in if yours [snorts] were to fail. You don't have to install it. Interesting.

This is how the state is trying to solve our housing crisis. I will say just anecdotally, we are seeing people actually installing septic systems for these ADUs. Oftentimes they'll do even a separate one um for the new area, but or they'll say, "Oh, mine's pretty old anyway. Let's just update it now." Um but I mean that would be the wiser thing to do because it would just be problems. Yeah. And those problems don't come up on nice sunny days [laughter] in the middle of the week, you know. In April 1. Yeah. [laughter] Okay. Um, so I'll close the public hearing on that. So I get any other comment on that. [clears throat] I'll make a motion to place on the war all of section C.

I'll second. All those in favor? I opposed. All right. Moving right along to D to amend section 10.01 1 to remove an applicant's alter alternative method for resolving a wetland boundary dispute to make various other clarifications and corrections.

Right? So wetlands is what we talked about last time. I removed the section about grass clippings. We said we weren't ready for that. So that is out. Um but otherwise um in you know last time we talked about that section um about sorry that line about in the alternative the applicant can retain their own wetland scientist. So this means if there is this dispute, the applicant's already hired a wetland scientist, there's a dispute, we don't believe that the boundary is correct, the applicant can't hire their own second wetland scientist. The planning board is going to select a third party scientist to resolve the dispute.

The same planning board wanting to ask for that third party. It could be most likely at the applicant's expense, but the planning board's going to select the scientist. We're not going to allow the applicant to pick a second scientist to solve this dispute. And this is the same, you know, with like a third party engineering review. We don't let the applicant hire their own third party engineer. We hire the third [snorts] party.

Other than that, it's some clarification of language, some moving things around just to add some some clarity. um specifying the um adding we added the shoreland rule. So the list of um permits permits that are required. So the rest of it is Yeah. And then we [clears throat] moved that mitigation statement in four and moved it into three because it made more sense.

Yeah. Two in two separate places. We kind of just moved it together. The rest of it is pretty inconsequential, I would say. Carrie, I have a general just comment like, and [clears throat] it does pertain back to like some of these other ones that we've already gone through, but when when these are [clears throat] going on the Warren article, Yeah. like is there a way for us to put some additional clarity in

like as an example C was because of RSA state. I'll create like a voters's guide or like anformational sheet that has some a narrative of why and what it means um with more descriptions. Yeah, we'll defin be on the ballot, but we will make that available to voters in advance of town meeting for sure. Good. All right. And if in the past I think the community development director has been at voting day had a table to answer questions. I don't know maybe now that we're moving back to the school there'll be room. I've been told in the past it's a space issue but I don't know. I'm happy to do that if I'm

I mean I I think that's if I'm allowed to I'm happy to it's a good idea because we don't get a lot of members of the public coming to ask questions. Thank you for coming. [laughter] Okay. So, I'm going to open up D to the public here. Any questions? Any comments? I will close the public hearing on D. Bring it back to the board. Any other questions? I'll make a motion to place on the warrant se all section D. Second. All those in favor?

I Last but not least, E is about the time period for excavation permits. Um, so I tried to make it more clear and less of a run-on sentence. Um,

so I took out the first part that says with the exception of approvals for excavation blah blah blah. And then so first it just talks about the we didn't change this but the conditional use permits special exceptions variances and then I added a new paragraph at the bottom that explains that the planning board will set a date for excavation approvals to expire. The date will correlate with the progress plan update requirement specified on their AOT permit. If there's no AOT permit, it shall be 5 years. And the AOT permit requirements are I guess always or close to always five years. So, um, essentially it's saying you have five years for your excavation permit.

Is that how you spell Kate? Oh gosh. No, it's a it is a acceptable variant. It's not nice. It's not right though. It's not the not Yeah, it has [laughter] two Rs. R. Um, thank you. So, I'm happy to bring that back. I spelled it right on this sheet, not on this one. Okay, this is why we do this. I can bring that back on the 22nd [clears throat] and we will spell it correctly. You have to I mean maybe for a spelling error, we don't have to. I don't think so. Adding an R of course. For a spelling error, we can probably get rid of it.

Um, [clears throat] so what happens with people that have a permit already? that's disactive in declaration. Does that change? Are they gonna No. So, the one the permits that they have will expire when they expire or they've already expired. Yeah. Um and then when they come back it would be a fiveyear and the idea is to align that with their AOT requirements so that they're not doing updates every single year. Okay. Okay. Oh, open E to the public if anybody's what was the reason for this change?

So, we were doing it was a two-year um permit and so the most of them have an alteration of terrain permit with dees as well, which requires a five-year update. So, that would mean coming here at year two, year four, year five, and year six. You're doing updates almost every year. um it's pretty cumbersome for the applicants to do that. So, it made more sense to align and have just do the five-year when they're doing their update for AOT. Anyway, and the update is showing us what have you what how much material have you removed, where are you going to be excavating next. In addition, they are submitting reports each year um showing how much material has been removed um and that goes to the Department of Revenue Administration and they pay taxes on that material. But um so there is reporting but it's they're not coming to the planning board for that.

Okay. Okay. I will close with public questions on it. I'll make a motion to place on the war and all of section E. Second. All those in favor? Opposed. Well, that's done. Nice. Nice minutes. Sandy minutes. Oh, minutes. No comment. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of December 18th, 2025. Second. All those in favor? I I um excuse

I'm going to do the same. I wasn't there. All right. Um, before we adjourn, I just want to say real quick, the master plan steering committee, the survey closes tomorrow. If anyone hasn't done it yet, no shame. Just take the postcard so you can do it tonight. [laughter] Anyone else? Anyone else? You get more involved, K. [laughter] I'll take it and find somebody to How many do you have? We are like a few shy of 500 and really want to hit 500. So like if you know any you know anyone I'll send it around. Last call. We get one last Facebook post. This is your last

we might blast it one more time tomorrow just to final call. But I am pleased that we're Yeah. That's good. So we have to select board. We have to do a roll call vote on here. not a non-public session. It is a non meeting. Okay, sounds good. Yes, I saw it doesn't meet the definition of a meeting. So, we make a motion to adjourn. If not, there's anything else for the meeting. I'll make a motion to adjurnn. I'll second. All in favor? Bye.