Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Let's get started. Let's uh call this uh call this meeting to order. This is the uh October 15th meeting of the city planning board starting. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Thompson, could you call the Certainly. Uh Chair Woodin here. Uh Mr. Hicks. Oh, I'm here. Mr. Fox here. Mr. Santa Cruz here. Mr. Tarbo. Miss Savage here. Miss Conra Daki here. Uh Miss Rosenberger here. Council Todd here. Have a quum from the meeting. Uh first item on the agenda is approval of the August minutes. Um would someone like to make a motion to approve the minutes as submitted? You mean September, Mr. Chair?

I'm sorry, I do mean September. September 17th minute minutes of the of the planning board. Uh would someone like to make a motion to approve those minutes as submitted? So move second. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? Any abstensions? Two two abstensions for the record. Mr. Santa Cruz and Rosenberger. You were three and Hicks was out as well. So three extensions. Uh so we got a motion and a second. Uh any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed?

Hey. Hey. One person talking. All right. Let's move on. A quick agenda overview for tonight's meeting. Uh item 6A, a major site plan for 1 to 7 Maguire Street, uh has been uh continued by the applicant at the request of the applicant to the November 19th meeting. Uh and item 9A, a minor subdivision for 138 Snow Pond Road, has also been continued to the November 19th meeting at request of the applicant. Do we need a motion or anything to move those? Can we move them both together?

Yes. Uh, so would someone like to make a motion to move both of those items 6A and 9A to the November 19th meeting? I'll take that motion. That motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Opposed? That motion carries. Uh, first item on the agenda is design review applications by consent. So, anyone in the audience that has uh any concerns about uh the design applications that are outlined in item five in our agenda, which is 5A through 5e. If you could make yourself known if you've got an objection to any of those? If not, any member of the board have any questions or concerns about those items? So, design review applications by consent means that we've reviewed those, architectural design review has reviewed those, and we take them in mass and do them in one uh in one fell swoop. So, if there's no objections to that, we will take a motion to approve items 5A through 5e um as submitted with architectural design review recommendations.

So, move second. Motion made and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. Moves us on to six. Uh in our agenda tonight, item 6A, again, for the record, has been postponed to the excuse me, been moved by the applicant to the November 19th meeting. Item 6B, Novus Group. If we could read that into the record, Mr. Thompson.

Certainly. Uh, Brady Svin Properties, Stickney Avenue. Oh, sorry, wrong one. Nois Group on behalf of St. Paul School request approval for a major site plan application, architectural design review, and a conditional use permit for disturbance to wetland buffers and certain waiverss from site plan regulations for the construction of a 17,600 foot building addition, relocated squash courts, and other improvements at tax map 724Z, lot 1-10A, addressed 80 Dun Barton Road and tax map 811Z lot 1-8 addresses 117 Dun Barton Road in the institutional and open space residential district. Okay. Uh staff has found the application complete not a development of regional impact and uh we will be all there is on tonight's is just the determination completeness. So um staff has determined that the application is complete a development of regional impact and recommends setting the public hearing for the 19th of November. Would someone like to make a motion to find that the application complete and set the public hearing for November 19th?

Second. Motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor?

Opposed? That motion carries. Extensions by consent. Item seven, we have nothing tonight for extensions by consent. Uh moves us into item eight, which is nothing as well. And item nine, uh site plan, subdivision, CUP's amendments, public hearings. Let's move on. Again, item 9A was removed from the agenda at the request of the applicant. So, we will go to 9B. If we could read that into the record. Brady Sullivan Properties, Sticky Avenue LLC, and First Sign and Corporate Image request approval for architectural design review and a conditional use permit pursuant to section 28-67I for a 72.93 square foot internally illuminated building wall sign to be placed above the sills of the first level windows above the first story of the same wall or placed more than 25 ft above grade on the building dressed as 1160th Avenue in the opportunity corridor performance district.

Okay. First on the agenda here was we'll determine the staff has determined that the application is complete not a development of regal impact and recommends opening public hearing. Would someone like to make a motion to find the application complete not a development of regional impact and open public hearing? Second. Motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. I see the applicants here. Let's get a quick staff update.

Certainly. Uh this application is both for architectural design review and a conditional use permit uh for the signage associated with the uh residential redevelopment of the former highway garage that's currently under construction at 11 Stickney Avenue. Uh the reason for the cup in this particular case is due to the location of the proposed wall sign above the sila second story windows. Uh the architectural design review committee uh reviewed and recommended approval of the application at their September 30th meeting as submitted. Uh this normally ADR would be a consent item, but because of the conditional use permit, it does require a public hearing here tonight. Uh Alec uh can fill in if anybody has any specific questions regarding the ADR meeting and the concerns or questions that were brought up with ADR. Otherwise, staff is recommending conditional approval of both the ADR and the conditional use permit for the recommendations in the staff memo.

Great. Uh welcome to the table. If you could state your name for the record. Certainly. Scott Albertton from First Sign. Scott from First Sign. It's a first for me because I looked at this sign and I said ADR has got to just be pulling their hair out. I thought for sure that they would have all kinds of issues on it, but congratulations. I I think it's I think it's a first. I think it's a first. I couldn't believe it when we when I was looking at it, but tell us a little bit about it and um obviously it's a large sign for for obvious reasons, but

Sure. Feel free. Um, well, first let me just say that I'm glad they did appreciate it because we do put a lot of time and energy into making sure that our designs are aesthetically pleasing and appropriate for the building. In this case, we had historic um interests also in mind. Uh where we position the sign was critical because we didn't want to cover the existing uh granite sign that's on that sign on that building, excuse me. And so there were very few opportunity to opportunities and we did um choose to not put a freestanding sign there but do it up on the building to keep it nice and clean and uh do what we needed to do as far as visibility went for safety reasons and marketing reasons uh make sure that it was visible from sticky as well as um the highway.

So I think you would have run into issues if you'd put it up on the roof line but I where it is it looks it looks fantastic. I I congratulations on that. Um, okay. Any questions from the board? Any member of the audience have any questions or concerns about this application? And those the sign is going to be just give me a little bit of technical on the sign. So, it's a single looks like a single post in the back and you're going to have studs or you're going to have pieces that are going to hold it up. There's not going to be any opaque or anything behind it, right? You're going to be able to see right through it. Excuse me. The only thing behind it is the two bars that go between the two vertical pillars and all of the the individual letters are mounted to that. Okay. And it's lit. It is internally illuminated. Yeah. Using LEDs.

Perfect. And I love that you say New Hampshire Highway Department sign. That's great on the front. Okay. Any other questions or concerns? Yes. Go ahead, Amanda. Just pull up a little. The the loss at 93 North the windows in which in front of are they in is that um going to be illuminating or or light shining into that residence? Actually, that's not a residence. It's a common area and there's no light in the back of the signage at all. call comes from the front of the letters. Well, as you you answer my question, that's just a comment, which is Okay. Um, great. If no other comments or questions, we'll close the public hearing. Um, did you open it to the public?

Oh, we did. Actually, I did ask if I did ask. My apologies. Yep. That's okay. I usually don't, so keep keep asking. It's true. It's a common theme. It's true. It's true.

Okay. Uh, thank you very much for your testimony and we'll close the public hearing. Let's uh move in our packet here. Think we got a cup and no waiverss. Um, oops. Where am I going here? Okay. All right. So, again, findings of fact. We'll use our findings of fact tonight as the information that was presented to us, the staff report that we've got in our packet, uh, and the information that, uh, is in, uh, that the applicant has submitted with their application. Uh, so 9.2 Two in your packet is to grant architectural designer review approval for a new 72.93 foot internally illuminated building sign at 11 Stney Avenue as submitted. Would someone like to make a motion to grant architectural design review approval as submitted? I'll

make that motion. Second. We got a motion and a second. Uh any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. Sorry, I got an iPad issue here. Can't see the damn thing. There we go. All right. Uh 9.3 is to grant conditional use permit approval to allow a sign above the first level of windows at tax map lot 642Z 12 addressed as 11 Stickney Avenue based on the evidence provided showing that criteria are section 2894B have been or will be met with the following precedent and subsequent conditions and those are outlined in precedent conditions one and two subsequent conditions one only. Someone like to make a motion to grant a conditional use permit as outlined. Move. Second.

Motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. You're all set. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. When are you opening? Um I think they are already all the buildings. Uh no, building 11. Building 11. Well, good luck. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, let's move on. Uh item 9 C in our agenda if we could. That is Gallagher Callahan Gentrell PC Kafua Realy 139 LLC request approval for a major site plan application architectural design review and certain waiverss from the site plan regulations for the construction of a new 11,150 urgent care clinic at tax map 583Z lot 30 addressed as 161 North State Street in the urban commercial district. Okay, let's get a staff update on this if we could.

Certainly if you Mr. Chairman, members of the board, uh this application for major site and architectural design review was determined complete at the September 17th planning board meeting and calls for the redevelopment of the former Santander Bank at the site at 161 North State Street. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure, convert and construct that into a new 11,150T urgent care medical facility in addition to reconfiguring the site's parking and landscape layout along with several rail requests. Uh the staff report for this item has been updated and revised since the September planning board meeting accounting for the discussions held between the city administration and the applicants legal council. As part of those discussions, the city and the applicant have agreed to a precedent condition of approval relative to the potential future long-term improvements to the intersection of Pentacook North State and Horseshoe Bond Lane. Uh please refer to proposed condition number four in the staff memo. uh city and the applicant have mutually mutually agreed that this note on the plan will serve as a sufficient means to preserve the ability for the intersection improvements to be taken place at some point in the undetermined date in the future. Again, we're recommending the conditional approval of both the architectural design review and the major site plan per the recommendations in the staff memo.

Thank you very much for that update. Uh welcome back to the tables. If you could state table, if you could state your names for the record.

Yes. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Ari Pollock. I'm with the law firm of Gallagher, Callahan, and Gartell here tonight for the applicant. To my right is Johnkeington, the CEO of Catholic Medical Center and also an agent for its parent company, HCA. And behind me at the table is Avery Steed of Fulmer Lucas, the project's engineering consultant, and Patrick Brady of Chappelle Engineering, the project's traffic consultant. Uh, as was mentioned, Tim's summary is comprehensive, so I'll keep it real short. Um, HCA through Manchester Health Services, another affiliate, is proposing a complete redevelopment of 161 North State Street. The site was most recently a banch a branch bank, but at other times has served as office space and even hosted an environmental consulting firm in its history.

Well, don't forget the market. You can't forget the market. It was uh Champy's market. Might be before my time. Oh, come on. A little bit. It was a wonderful market. So I I'll I'll absolve you for that. All right. I will most certainly take your word for it if I refer to as Japanese market. Just ignore me.

Okay, fair enough. Uh the uh the subject site is now owned by Kafua Realy and they've authorized our application for site plan approval. Um and that there is a letter to that effect in your files and HCA and its affiliate would be a long-term tenant on the property if the project is able to proceed. The site's approximately 1.67 67 acres. Uh the applicant is proposing a complete redevelopment so that they can construct a medical facility offering urgent and emergency services which is an allowed use in the district uh which is the urban commercial. The property is a corner lot having frontage on both North State Street and Pennook Street, both of which are public streets. A full set of plans, landscaping and lighting plans and building elevations were submitted for your consideration and I'm sure are in your packets. Uh and uh we certainly can have our architectural uh our uh engineering and traffic folks come forward if there are specific questions relating to the layout and the design. Uh we did obtain a variance from the zoning board back in July of this year to allow a portion of the off- streetet parking to be located towards North State Street. As this is a corner lot and it is as shown on the plans before you tonight, there were no other variances or conditional approvals that were necessary or sought for the project. Uh we have requested waiverss of various site plan regulations, most of which relate to depiction of existing conditions and other plan notations and all but one of those requests has been supported by staff in its uh staff report. Staff is recommending against excusing us from providing utility profiles um for which we did seek a waiver, but we have reviewed staff's comments. We appreciate their take on the situation and we are comfortable uh providing those uh required profiles if

the project is able to move forward. Uh and therefore we anticipate that that waiver request will be denied whereas the others might be approved. Uh, additionally, we did appear in front of the architectural design review committee that took place on September 2nd, 2025. Uh, and we presented our elevations and landscaping plans. Committee reviewed things and recommended that the planning board grant approval. They did have some comments including a request for additional plantings, all of which are addressed by the staff report and incorporated within their recommended conditions of approval. Otherwise, the applicant has reviewed the staff report as well as the recommended conditions. Um, I would make note of uh Mr. Thompson's u depiction of the intersection uh note to be added to the plan was negotiated language. The applicant is comfortable with it and frankly we think uh quite a nice uh resolution for what otherwise probably would have consumed a few hours here tonight. Um and as a result, uh we're accepting the conditions as recommended or would would accept them as recommended. Uh one note, there is a request from staff to enlarge an existing bus stop easement that is located today along North State Street. We have reviewed the proposed easement and we are in agreement that it is a minimal increase and we are in agreement to provide it again if the project is able to move forward. Uh our team is assembled this evening as well as John uh from uh HCA uh and we're able to uh take any questions you'd like or we can keep it short since the staff recommendations were clearly stated and are acceptable to the applicant. Thank you for your consideration and as the chair alluded to, it sure will be nice to have something uh productive go on to that site. It's been a while.

It has been a while. I appreciate the fact that it's not another urgent it's an urgent care facility as opposed to a just a medical another another medical building. So it looks with ambulance in the front will tell you that it's a different a different type of building. I just for the record and anybody that's listening, I just want to explain the traffic patterns and the movement again, ambulance movement in particular or people coming into the into the property headed north on North State Street from uh downtown coming up to the property on the left. Taking a left in that first driveway, correct? Taking a left at the lights and taking another left into the property.

There there will be two driveways, one on Penuk Street and one on to uh North State Street. Uh the ambulance portico is in the front of the building along North State Street to buffer it from our neighbors as much as possible. Uh and uh yes, the ambulance would exit from the North State Street um driveway. The left and right out of both I don't think No. Say again. This doesn't show that the plan shows the ambulance coming in off north off of I'm sorry. You say come in off North State. Yes. And leave off North State. Yes. Okay. What about northbound?

Northbound. cutting cutting across traffic. That was my that was going to be my question. So, if you're in the property then at that point and you're in the in the parking lot, can you go out on the North State Street side and take a left across? Let me look at the plan. I don't think I don't think we want to do that, but I believe there's a med. Oh, there is. Yeah. I think we're going to use Pinnacook Street so we don't drive over the median. There you go. Doesn't show the median on the plans, Ari. And I have forgot about that. Little help from my friends. Well, I had you too, but okay. Questions from the board. Jeff,

you you just stated one of my questions was the turning template show the the ambulance coming in from the north, turning right into the property, circling around, and heading right back out to North Street. What? It's coming northbound. We never showed it coming in. Make sure it can make all the movements coming in off north off of Pentag. If it's missing from the packet, we'd be happy to show it as a condition of staff review. Same with the um the fire truck. You have the fire truck coming from that existing fire station, making a right on Penrook and a left into the site. Then when they go out, you're forcing them to go back north State Street and find some place to go turn around and come back north.

Right. Just curious if it was ever looked at to run it the other way that they come in by the ambulance bay so they can then exit by Pentacook Street. I I couldn't tell you whether things that aren't shown were run through. I can tell you that the fire department did review the site plan submission and their request was to flare the driveway entrances on the North State Street driveway so that they would not run up on the curb with larger equipment. Right. But I guess I'm questioning if they weren't provided the turning template that showed them coming in off North State, then they would have nothing to review and comment on.

I do recall a conversation where they asked for that and it was provided whether they reviewed it and whether they've returned comments. I couldn't tell you the end of the conversation and we certainly could uh follow up on that as a condition as well. Yeah, it's just not in the packet. So, it wasn't provided to us for review. The other question I have, Mr. Chairman, if I could is you have the patient drop off area on the further side of the building. Call it what? The west side of the building, the rear. I'm trying to understand how that works because if people can come in from North State Street and they can come in from Pentacook, you could theoretically have two cars want to be nose to nose in that drop off area. How are you controlling traffic and safety in that area at all?

Yeah, you that that could happen. I think what's more likely is people who can park will park. Um certainly uh if somebody needs immediate access to the doorway, there could be a car parked there. You've always got to go slow in a parking area and this would be no different. If there's two cars there, then they're going to space each other out and they're going to move through the doorway in a safe way. I guess my only concern is you're calling this an ER facility, right? People don't think somebody's bleeding, I'm going to go park or I'm going to go slow. They're trying to get somebody. I've been at Conet Hospital. When people come in, they're not thinking slow. They're thinking, "Get me in there as soon as possible." I'm just trying to think of the next person in line being safe as well as that person coming in.

And I guess all I can say is there's adequate space there for multiple vehicles. Um hopefully they'll be safe about how they drop off and and leave that area. Um and again, it's a it's a temporary place to to to have your vehicle stand while you're unloading somebody and then you go into a spot. You can't stay for any extended period. And the staff of course would be attentive to whether they're occupying that area for too long or preventing somebody else from filling up. I'll think about that. Thank you. Do we have lighting? We do have a lighting plan. It was submitted in the package that's in there. Uh snow storage. Uh I believe it is indicated on the site plan. I could ask.

And looks like there's one pad for dumpster in the back. There is a dumpster pad. There's also a generator pad in the front. Mr. Chairman, you can find the snow storage at the interse. Okay, other questions from the board. Yeah,

I do have one. Sorry, I apologize. One other one. At the corner of the intersection, the existing building runs right up to back of the curb, but yet I don't see any work on reinstalling curb or do any treatment there. when that set of steps and everything gets taken out and dealing with that kind of woolful condition in that corner. Yeah, that area is restored and I think we are showing a sidewalk coming through there and obviously uh it is going to be part of the landscape plan to make sure that that area is safe. What what you said is right. The the building today is right on the street. That's the whole point of removing the building and bringing it back into the site.

But I'm saying on the the North State Street You have a set of steps that go down right next to the ped signal and you don't indicate any restoration in that corner of the site along North State Street. Uh did not come up as a staff comment to my knowledge. We'd be happy to look at it if you have concerns there. I think it needs to be addressed so that we know that we've got a continuous piece of sidewalk there after you rip it out. Just make a note of that if we can if we get to that point on the conditions of approval or if it comes to that. David, I saw your arm go up.

Yeah, just just a quick kind of we a while back we looked at a project across the street, the old uh Irving gas station site that that proposal included a center island on Pinnacook as you got to the light coming going east on Pentook, didn't we? Wasn't does that block your second entrance is what I guess in anticipation of that development that's not seemed to be going anywhere but there was an island there was there may have been something proposed for another project the urban gas station just on the other side

it it's not there today it doesn't block this project and if something else comes forward in the future they would they would be accommodating we don't have to anticipate that so they'd have to accommodate and they'd have to accommodate what they've got there now or what they We're first. We're first. You're first. Okay. Okay. Yes, you are. Other questions from the board? No. Open it up for public Yep. Sorry. Medical waste. Is there a separate way for dumpster treatment than just general waste that's in that? Now I have to ask for help. We typically have a separate you guys hearing me? Uh yes. There are separate accommodations for medical waste

in the building that's picked up and delivered. Correct. In the building. So it's not out in a dumpster for That's correct. We we contract with services to come in and remove that. Perfect. Thank you. And we Okay. And we have we seen signage as well? Not yet. We're going to do that separately during construction. Okay. Any other questions before we open up to public comments? Have you guys step back? I think we'll grab some public comments and then I probably have to come back up. So don't go far. Uh public comments. Anybody? Oops. Maybe not. No. Okay. Sorry. We're back. We're back. Okay. Any other staff comments, questions, concerns? Now,

just um a little bit of what um member Santa Cruz commented on is where you where the staircase comes into the sidewalk. We can touch on making sure that's clear in the plan. Um I'm just looking at a street view of the plan and um I'm not as familiar with the site but it looks like the sidewalk along and North Station has back curb and we might want to make it clear if that back if it isn't already on the plans if that back curb is intended to remain and if it's going to be removed that may necessitate restoration of the sidewalk and we'll want to make that very clear in the plan that's approved so it doesn't become a construction item in a point of contention at that point.

It's no issue. It's d what's there today is damaged. Um and you know we it would need to be restored. I do think there is flat grade on that sidewalk as it comes around the building, but as we're connecting our entryways to it, we're going to need to deal with that grade somewhere. So I we have no issue looking into it and it could be a condition if you'd like. Are you saying to reset the curb or redo the sidewalk? I want to clarify what your We're going to reset the curb and then bring our sidewalk and entrance down to the sidewalk that exists. We're we're gonna match the existing sidewalk. If you don't mind, I might bring it up on screen so we know what we're all talking about. Sure. The building has pushed the sidewalk in toward the street.

Yeah. Shocking.

What we did without Google Maps before, huh? There's your See how it's collapsing towards the street and that uh pedestrian signal is the leaning tower. So, my guess is if you're going to try and restore all that curb, you're going to be cutting into the sidewalk, which probably would necessitate fixing the sidewalk rather than just patching. I have no doubt that the engineering department will not take kindly to our disturbing your sidewalk and that we will be repairing our damages. You heard it first, Pete. Right, Pete? Absolutely. Feel like I've seen this movie before, Dina.

No doubt. Um, is there any affiliation with Conquered Hospital or is this a separate entity? This is a separate medical entity. Thank you. Any other questions, comments, concerns? Nothing else from staff. Yes, David. Just on the lighting plan, because because of that previous project I was referring to, there was some issues with the butters there and and turn lights and lighting the back parking lot where by where the dumpster pad is, there's a residential home right there, right? So, some consideration be given that a butter in terms of your long-term light plan,

right? We did provide a lighting plan. It is compliant. They're all downcast fixtures and we would be again happy to review that again with staff, but it was part of the submission package. It is addressed in the staff. I think the concerns on the Irving the concerns on the Irving station were turning for vehicles and driving in the parking lot. So, they're coming in that driveway off of Penuk Street right into the the back of the lot. So, some screening on the back. Um, I think there was on the landscape plan, I saw some some screening on the back and and some There are some I think it's pretty well resolved, but Mr. Chairman, you did you mentioned something that actually caught my eye. Now,

on the landscaping plan, you have trees behind the dumpster that are shown when I scaled it like 18 inches off the property line. If you think of a root ball of a tree, there's no way you're going to saw those trees 18 inches off that property line without impacting it a butter. So those trees will need to be pulled back into the property along that side just to avoid I'm sure it'll deal with in construction, but easier to deal with it now and not have to fight with engineering when we're in the field trying to deal with it. Yeah, understood. We we can move things around so that the roots have enough space on property.

Just council to thank you. Just one more quick one. While we're on landscaping, I'll just sing one of my greatest hits, which I think you've already touched on this, Mr. Pollock, but the use of uh uh eliminating the non-native species that you have. I think there were only two that I saw listed on the plan look like they're non-native, but again, as was recommended, but I think you touched on that when you uh gave your it's a rather neglected landscape and we're bringing it up to a modern standard and there actually was some review of that with the ADR committee and and we're fine with their recommendations. Okay. Yes. Thank you. I think they preferred a maple to something we had there. And why why not?

So, I I just I do want to bring up an elephant in the room is the easement that was discussed I think at the prior in the prior staff notice that came out for the determination of completeness. I've gotten some calls. I know some other members of the board have gotten calls regarding the easement discussion that was talked about. I I it's not a a point that needs to be, you know, really dug into too deep, but I know there was people that were concerned about the easement um uh verbiage that was in there. And obviously, it's been changed and the and the the reasons for easements that are put in here are to support Pinnacook Street and and North State Street, not anything else or or any other future developments. I think the language to which you refer was stricken from the report and is now replaced with non uh that's right with verbiage that does not include that phrase or word or project

and while we know that well and while I won't be using those words in public I think the public can be satisfied to know that that content was removed by agreement uh and that what exists now is a warning to those who come in the future that that intersection simply may need future improvement. improvements and everyone is having their eyes open about what could be proposed some future day and I wanted to mention it because while we read it and and you read it a lot of the people in the public don't read it um and they're looking for a quick answer on YouTube or on TV right now. So, thank you very much for at least addressing it and and again I I think it's it was well done by you and staff to be able to put the language together and put it all together.

I think this the thanks goes to staff. was their report and they revised it and they brought it to a place where the applicant could agree and the applicant's happy with the We are happy with the resolution, Mr. Chairman. Great. Well, thank you. Okay. Anything else? Will we close public hearing? Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. All right. So, in your packets, excuse me, in your packet, we have um

that you go in your packet. What number am I at? Yeah, Christa. 9.3. No, I close the public hearing. Findings effect and then

9.1 findings of fact. So again, the information that we heard here tonight, the information that's in your packet of info um we'll adopt as our findings of fact to make our decisions. Uh first on the the docket here is 9.2 is to grant waiver request below from the listed sections of the site plan regulations based on evidence provided showing the criteria RSA 6744 3E and section 368 of the site plan regulations are met and those are outlined in a section 150316. Oops. Um B through J. Would someone like to make a motion to grant the waiver requests below as outlined? So moved. Second.

Motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. Thank you. 9.3 is to deny the waiver request below for the listed section of the site plan regulation because evidence was not provided showing the criteria are SA67443E and section 368 of the site plan regulations were met. Uh and those are out it's outlined in A which is section 1602 site plan requirements utility plan. I think the applicant agreed to that anyways but we'll deny the waiver on on principle. Um would someone like to make a motion to deny the waiver request as outlined? So moved. Second. Motion's been made in the second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I

opposed. That motion carries. Excuse me. I'm sorry. Um 9.4 is to grant architectural design review approval for the construction of a 11,150 ft urgent care clinic at 161 North State Street as submitted and with the following conditions and those are outlined. A additional landscape trees shall be placed along Penuk Street and the northeast corner of the site and a more prominent tree such as a maple being planted at the northeast corner of the site unless additional plantings are not possible due to the constraints in the site uh versions of the utilities. Do we want to add anything Jeff um language wise on the reconstruction of the corner sidewalk site plan?

I was going to say I think that was site plan not I don't want to confuse. So would someone like to make a motion to grant architectural design review approval as outlined? So moved. Second. Motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed? That motion carries. That would make better sense in site plan. Sorry. Uh 9.5 is to grant major site plan approval for the construction of 11,100 ft urgent care facility at 161 North State Street as submitted and subject to the following and those are outlined in precedent conditions. One, wait. One A through B through V two through six

through six and subsequent conditions B1 through 16. Would someone like to make a motion to sorry grant major site planoint approval as outlined with the with the revision? Sorry, there I am. I'm one step early. Tim, I'm going to say it and you tell me if we need to revise it. My thought is we put it as um work with engineering to restore any sidewalk that is damaged during that is intended to be damaged during construction as part of the demolition or do we want to say damaged because I mean it all needs to be restored but it depends on

make the applicant do it. I would suggest some to the effect that the applicant would be responsible for uh restoring sidewalk post construction to a ADA condition. I don't want to say to existing correct and that would include sidewalk potentially the ADA panel at the corner ramp because that may tie in and then curving. Yeah, I'm acceptable. Okay, you got that out? No, he's honest if anything.

So, the uh applicant responsible for indicating or indicating on the plans the restoration of the sidewalk post construction uh to address ADA compliance um curbing and ADA how much of the sidewalk? Well, the curbing goes along the entire stretch of Pakook Street from the driveway to the intersection and then wraps around at least to the fire hydrant. Beyond that, they may not be touching because the building's far enough back. Yeah. So, if we want to clarify the limits to be determined by engineering division.

I I like the existing sidewalk on North C Street and Pentag Street have back curve. The applicant shall demonstrate if this existing back curve will be removed or reset and the abuing sidewalk shall be shown to be completely restored accordingly. Applicable sheets shall be updated and any necessary details shall be added to the plan set. It works. It works for me. Okay. I can't remember if we had a motion on the table. Um I'll I'll make the motion with that addition.

Yep. There are two other Sorry, I don't want to cut you off. There are two other items. Um separately, I have the existing building has a stairwell abuing the North State Street sidewalk. The planet shall show the removal and restoration of this area, including restoration required within the public right ofway. Um the same applicable sheet shall be updated and any necessary details shall be out of the planet. Just kind of breaking apart the back of the stairwell. Yep. That's fine. And then you had also mentioned and maybe you don't want to recommend um or maybe you don't want to but turning plan shall be provided to demonstrate ambulance navigation through the site if entering through the pen

fire truck. I just want to make sure the fire truck saw all the different iterations because I can't imagine the fire truck turning right on Pinnacook and trying to navigate left in when they know to go back out they'll have to go north state street go down around the neighborhood and come all the way back to the fire station. Should I make it clear? entering from Pentecost Street and exiting north. You should be able to make basically make lefts and rights from all enter and exit from all driveways because you don't know where they're going to be coming from. There's nothing guaranteeing that that fire station's not on a call and they have to come from another part of the city. Left or right ins and outs? Well, obviously there's no left in any left in Well, they could their fire department. They go right over that curve. They don't like to go over that median.

I just want to clarify. Is he asking to turn left? Okay. No, no, no. I I that's what I clarified. Yeah. I asked that stupid question in the beginning. It wasn't stupid. I just want to make sure. Okay. All right. Refresh my memory. Are we good? Al um those were the three added conditions 78 N if it captures what the board was and the applicants already agreed to look at my landscaping question and address that. So I don't I don't think necessarily need to have that. I trust Ari. All right. the hole. So, I think we got a motion. Did we get a motion? I will make the motion. Make the motion. We have a second. Changes. I'll second. Uh, any further discussion? All those in favor?

Opposed? Motion carries. You're all set. Congratulations. Good luck, guys. Thank you. All right, let's move on. 8D in our agenda.

90 in our agenda. See, you rolled down to 8 just for me. Uh this is North Point Engineering LLC, Scuffy's LLC in Enterprise Mobility requesting approval for a minor site plan application and certain waiverss from the site plan regulations for the addition of a 760 ft 2 bay garage and associated paving at tax map 781Z lot 31 addressed as 28 Manchester Street in the Gateway Performance District. Okie do. Um let's see. We need a determination of completeness on this. So, uh, staff has determined the application complete, not a development of regional impact and set public hearing. Would someone like to make a motion to determine the application complete, not a development of regional impact, and open the public hearing?

Second. Motion's been made and second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I opposed. That motion carries. We are open. Welcome to the table. Um, if you guys could just sign in and I'm going to get a quick staff update if I could on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, this minor site plan application is calling for the building renovations at the Enterprise Rent Carar facility on Manchester Street. Uh the proposed improvements consist of the demolition of the existing garage wash bay at the facility and replacing it with a new 760 foot two bay garage along with new associated site and drainage improvements uh and several wavel requests. Back in June, the zoning board of adjustment granted variance to permit the expansion of a non-conforming use. Set back and frontage variance to permit this application to proceed to the planning board. Uh we requested the board discuss whether or not the sidewalk on the site's Manchester seat frontage is in some standard condition and if the applicant would be required to improve the existing sidewalk as part of the site plan approval. Uh staff recommends that the board require as an additional precedent condition that the applicant replace the segment of broken vertical granite curbing on the Manchester Street frontage as referenced in the staff report and remove and replace the immediate adjacent sidewalk to restore the sidewalk to a functioning and safe condition. Uh further details if you have questions about the review of the application I would defer to Alec. Uh and again staff's recommending conditional approval of the application for the recommendation memo.

Great. Thank you for that update. Uh welcome to the table. if you could state your names for the record. Thank you. Um, my name is Ian McGregor. I'm North Point Engineering and with me today Becky Marino from Enterprise Runnar. Um, welcome. Thank you. Uh, I know last time I was here there were some trouble with uh, thumb drive. I don't know if that's still something still a thing. Still a thing. Is it really? Yeah, it locked us up. Sorry. All right, that is okay. Um so then uh yeah tonight we are here to present um our project uh at 28 Manchester Street. It is located in the Gateway Performance District. Um you should have the plans there.

Yeah. Then it'll open on there. Yep.

Just pull up the All right. So, um, as I was saying, it's located in the, um, Gateway Performance District in Manchester Street. Um, it is just east of, uh, exit 13, um, down on Manchester Street. Um, this Oh, all right. just a little lag. Um the site is uh 0.93 acres as it stands today and consists of the um enterprise rent a car service center as well as uh the storage of the rental vehicles. Sorry. The existing conditions um are part of an improved site plan from 2003. Um they consist of the office building that's located as a primary structure on the property as well as a attached onecar garage. Uh consists of 24 parking spaces including one handicap spot uh and 30 um storage ve areas for the vehicles that the customers will use for um rental purposes. Uh the site also contains um storm water management as well as uh landscaping that were all included in the 2003 approved plan set. Um our proposed project is uh and I would like to amend this. This was in the um ADR comments as well. Um it's uh listed on the introduction as a a 760 foot addition. Um, it is a rem the project consists of removal of the

existing garage and an addition or replacement of a 100,03 square foot twocar garage. Uh, the net difference is 760 square feet of impervious area. Um, just wanted to make sure that's clear. Uh, here we have So, just state that again. So, the you've got a building there that's how big? So, it's uh 1,3 square feet. 1,0003 square feet. So you're taking that down and you're putting in a No, no. The the existing building would be um roughly 24 uh 40 square feet. Okay. So it's just add on to the existing building. Okay. Uh no. So it's a removal of the existing and a replacement of the the net difference which is the 760.

Yes. Um so along with the removal of the building uh the hatched area is the pavement that is going to be removed associated with the project. And then um these two trees um on the cursor that are called out uh are also going to be removed. Um that is to facilitate the storm water improvements that we're making. The storm water improvements are uh to infiltrate all of the new impervious areas as well as treat all of the existing pvious areas or impervious areas. Um so a significant improvement in storm water quality. Um mentioned the garage I was going to show you the architecturals. Don't know if we've Um, so here is the uh existing condition uh on the the bottom photos of the screen. Uh, so the entrance from the parking lot looking east. This is kind of the the front of the building. Um, the last photo uh is if you're on Manchester Street looking south. This would be the view from the sidewalk. Um and kind of this area uh here would be oh um yeah so this is the back side. Um you can see the existing garage is comprised of a a leanto uh and then the single car bay that's there and the proposed garage is rotated 90 degrees. Uh so the angle the gable end is is altered by 90 degrees and there are two bay doors as opposed to one. Um I believe it still maintains the um kind of residential feel and appearance. Uh

and we were able to receive ADR approval um at the last meeting. In addition to ADR approval, we've also received uh three waiverss or um ZBA variances for this project consisting of the um reduction in setback, continuation and expansion of a non-conforming use as well as a variance for reduction in total frontage. Um uh I would like to have Becky kind of talk about the purpose and the reason for the uh expanded garage. So the reason for the expansion is that currently um our our employees our business is very um has kind of peaks and valleys. So um you know a lot of customers will be there during certain times of the day to rent vehicles um and our employees may have to prepare several vehicles in kind of a short period of time. And so currently what happens is we can only wash one vehicle um on site inside the building. So our employees will bring a vehicle inside the building. They're vacuuming it. They're washing the in the outside of it. Then they'll have another vehicle lined up outside the building that they're starting to clean the inside of. They're trying to vacuum it. They're trying to do the windows. So when the first vehicle gets pulled out, the second one can come in. And so they're they're doing kind of this line of vehicle preparation where they're not undercover. Um so we're trying to provide an area for them where they can clean multiple vehicles at the same time, be undercover, and you know, have a better working environment. And it will also help too with our customers uh being able to make sure that we're able to turn the vehicles around quicker so they don't have to wait as long.

Um so I want to stress too that this is not um there's no association with increase in traffic or um increased customers that will be visiting. This is uh primarily for the convenience and safety of the employees at the facility. Um we've reviewed the staff report and um almost all of the comments are reasonable and uh were able to be fulfilled. There is one comment that we would wish to uh discuss further. Uh it as was in your packet. There are several waiverss that we're requesting. Um and all the staff recommendations make sense except the waiver that I would like to have a little uh more discussion about concerns the um connection to the public sidewalk. Um as I described in our sorry um submittal of the waiver uh the nature of the business itself is the um rental and movement of vehicles and associated with that is um not only people um walking on site but also the circulation of vehicles constantly throughout the parking area. Um, we believe that encouraging uh pedestrians to come from the public sidewalk onto the parking area would uh not be something that should be encouraged as well as the uh danger that is posed. Um, we have some site constraints as well. try to um so this is the front door of the building here. The most logical place to have the sidewalk come would be a continuation of the existing sidewalk in front of the building to the sidewalk along Manchester Street. Um but within that pathway, not only is there

landscaping that was part of the 2003 approval, but also utilities and the signpost. Um and in addition to the obstacles that are in the way, uh there is anywhere between a six and a 10% grade between um this parking area and the sidewalk down below. um which would uh con it would pose a problem for ADA uh compliance.

Besides the technical stuff that he knows from a from a business perspective, um I our concern really is uh is customer safety. Um you know, Enterprise's slogan and kind of our business model is we'll pick you up. Um you know, so most of our customers were either picking them up at the body shop where their vehicles are, picking them up from their house. there's very little pedestrian traffic and to invite customers to walk across active drive lanes is not a situation we really want to put them in or have our employees be in as well um having customers kind of crossing that that lane of traffic. So that's our major concern about it besides all the technical stuff.

So again I my piece of it would be if they if they don't have a sidewalk to come in at least to to be able to come in and come across they're coming down your driveway. Um, so they'll come down Manchester Street, walk across the front of the building, go to the driveway, and then again in the winter come through the driveway and walk in the driveway. Again, I I you you mentioned it. I I had thought to myself as I was reading the staff report, um, you know, how much walk-in traffic do you get? Um, I you know, we got a lot of car dealerships up the street, got a lot of body shop deals up the street. Maybe you do get walk-in traffic. I'm inclined more to say I think you need a sidewalk entrance. um whether it's right there or not. I think there needs to be some safe way to get off of Manchester Street on the sidewalk and come over into your property. Um I I just I don't want people walking into the sidewalk into the into the driveway to get there. Um I don't know where it might go, but Jeff, you know a lot about these things.

I'm going to be honest with you, Mr. Chairman. We set a precedent two months ago by allowing St. Paul to not put a sidewalk up their driveway. And there's a heck of a lot more traffic there pedestrian than there's going to be here. I actually went to look at St. Paul's on Monday and four people stepped right off that curb from that driveway right in front of me and expected me point taken

to come to a stop. Um I'm not necessarily saying we what we're doing here. I'm always an advocate for pedestrian access. I think it can be done here. I think you could come off the corner, angle it a little bit so it goes in between the first tree and the landscaping as opposed to maybe normally I'd say 90, but since it's not a street that's going to have traffic, you could do a slight angle so it could go in between the landscaping and that might give you enough length to eat up your grade difference that you're talking,

you know, um because you could do 5%. That would be legal. So I would still suggest we look That means you're if that's a stop bar or something there for vehicles has to get pulled back a little bit toward that arrow to facilitate that. I I I still think now that you've got a different business, you've got a gas station convenience store is going to go next to you. People are waiting for their car. They're going to walk over there and get something and come back. So, while you may not expect people to pick up their car just walking randomly down the street, there's a bank on one side that they may have to go to while they wait or the other side now that that whole area is being redeveloped. So, I would be in favor of adding sidewalk to that area.

Okay. Any other comments? Yeah, it doesn't look like it's that far off Manchester Street for a pedestrian to walk around. In fact, I'm visioning parking my car there, then having to walk in. And I think I'm gonna have to walk across just as much parking lot. Yeah. Even if I get out of my car then if I just walk there. And if they don't have much actual volume people arriving to their business on foot, Manchester Street doesn't seem to me to be a real

pedestrian friendly. Pedestrian friendly area. We don't see people going for recreational walks too often on Manchester Street. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's not common. Um, I failed to see the real need for it other than sticking I think perhaps the deputy senior manager has some comments relative to the Manchester Street improvements that are coming forward as well.

Just just a point of information. So, um, right now, uh, Manchester Street is not a very walkable street at all. And, uh, as part of our capital improvement program in fiscal 28, which is, uh, basically a year and a half from now, uh, there's money in there to actually start built rebuilding Manchester Street and widening it from Garbins Falls Road to Airport Road. It'll be a three-lane section. It will have sidewalks on both sides of the road as well as bike paths. So, it will be more convenient eventually walk down the hill from the car dealerships and the auto body shops um uh to get to your store. Um that funding is going to be also supported by the state of New Hampshire. The funding is currently in the state's two-year plan to do that. So, so the Manchester Street project, which we've been talking about for 25 plus years, is uh is is almost here. So, I think, you know, as the board thinks about whatever is appropriate to do with the connection of the this of this particular um operation to the sidewalk, just to keep in mind that there are there is a sidewalk network that's coming that should facilitate pedestrian movement on Manchester Street.

Yes, Matt. So, I'm looking at Google Maps and I'm not seeing almost any business on Manchester Street with a sidewalk to the street. almost every business, the Blazer, Dunkin' Donuts, Amco, you know, up and down the street doesn't seem to be any sidewalk to the street anywhere. Okay. Except for now we're asking this applicant to do this. So, I don't think it makes any sense. Okay. Take it. Teresa, question on the 10-year highway plan. Is that um funding from the state in the new 10-year highway plan or the current one? It's uh it's been in the current plan. It's also proposed in the in the coming uh plan which will be adopted this summer.

Right. Right. I was there in Berlin the other day and they did say conquer's being taken out. Bo conquered highway project is taken out. Highway being taken out and so but this is staying this is staying in. That's interesting. Okay. All right. Thank you. I I have a dumb question. I I don't know who to ask, but if that is going to be done and what did you say 28? So So are you improving the sidewalk this data in 28? No. So what we're doing uh if I may, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Um please.

So we've actually there have been slugs of funds that have already been approved for for design and and other aspects that go along with it. the funds in in our fiscal year 28, which is July of 27, is for construction. And so the area that we're going to be improving is up the hill from here. And so it's not this four-lane section that's here. It's actually starts at basically Garbins Falls Road and Red Blazer

and goes uh east towards Pemroke and it will go all the way to Integra Drive Airport Road. and and the improvement will be to take the section uh between Garvin's Falls and Airport Road integra drive widen it to a three-lane highway um add sidewalks both sides of the road bicycle paths uh and and make it more of a complete street so it will facilitate pedestrian traffic um because right now it does not uh which is why there's not a lot of connectivity between businesses particularly between Garvin Falls Road and Integra Drive so that that um spot between Garvin Falls and I guess is it west which is towards the bridge. Yep. That's not that's not

that is not um that is not scheduled for the same level of improvement that the rest of it will have because that section that we're talking that where Enterprises is already pretty improved. It's a five lane highway. It's got sidewalks on both sides of the road. Um there might be some minor payment improvements later but but not the same wholesale as between Garbins Falls and airport and TRA. So again, not to build it around additional things that are happening, but you've got a pretty major plan for exit 13 and that whole development area down there for residents and, you know, all kinds of development that potentially could impact traversing around the space and moving up and down Manchester Street and over the bridge into into downtown. If I yes shared um the may red blazer particularly in March the board conditionally approved a minor site plan right one of the conditions was that they provide accessible sidewalk to the the rightway to facilitate you know future connection to the sidewalk just as a kind of point of clarification.

Okay and ask I don't remember I don't remember anything about that conversation with red blazer other than other than the easement the easement question that we went through. Did you guys hear that? Sorry. Did you guys hear that? No. Regarding Red Blazer, Red Blazer, there was a requirement for a connection to the future sidewalk as part of the Red Glazer's most recent minor site plan, which we did in March. Okay. But that is east of what you're talking about, the new development, right? Correct. Y Mr. H, you made a point of saying Red Blazer. I know doesn't connect and we're saying we made it a requirement that they connect for the future. clarifying that this isn't even part of what they're talking about. Mr. Walsh made the whole statement. It's not part of this.

But this is an existing sidewalk which we have a regulation. So if we're going to start requiring future developments up the street to connect, we should be consistent. Fix this street that the city should fix too. Do they see another hand? I just have a clarification between the two of you. I'm confused. So the red blazer is north of it's east. Which way? I'm going that way. That way of Garvin Falls. Yeah, correct. Okay. And this is And are there any connections to the sidewalk from Garvin Falls to the bridge? No. Oh, no. No. Although, Mr. Chairman, yes, sir.

The new St. Mary's Bank does have a sidewalk connection that was made which is next door to this property. So, I was shocked I didn't see a a swatch of color across the uh Enterprise, a big green swatch of color like St. Mary's blue across the front of their bank. It would have tied right in. You would have been sisters. Uh, okay. Other questions, concerns? Council Todd.

Yeah. Thank you, uh, Mr. Chair. I I just think that, um, it makes sense to me that we're we're looking at planning for the future. If this were, uh, if the Manchester Street project were, you know, 10 or 15 or 20 years out from now, maybe I'd be a little bit more on the fence about this. But I think that considering we want to have a cohesive plan, we want to have our uh establishments along Manchester Street accommodate the rest of the road work that the city is going to be providing in terms of additional infrastructure for non-motorized vehicle travel. It makes sense to uh include uh the sidewalk in here as well. So, I'm going to be supporting that. Thank you.

Okay, Jeff. I do have a couple questions. So on your demolition plan, it says everything when the hatched area is being demoed. Does that include the floor drains so that when now you're proposing to wash cars, that water is going to exit the building and go back into your storm water treatment? Um I am not familiar with the mechanical and electrical of the interior of the building. Yeah.

Uh no. So we currently have an oil water separator and that is sized appropriately for uh the volume of water. When we first built this bay, we didn't use, you know, pressure washers. We had garden hoses that had high volumes of water. So now we use pressure washers. Two pressure washers in this bay will have the same volume of water that um you know, the hose had originally when this bay was first built. Um so the bay will just be area will just be redesigned with new floor drains to accommodate the larger space to go to the oil water separator which goes to sewer. Okay. I won't call could you pull up the drainage plan if you would gra

while you're doing that? I saw a note in the in the in the packet too on from engineering. I think they had a an asbuilt u question regarding the size of the drain. I thought there was like a almost like a sketch drawing of what they saw in 2004 as part of the packet. I just want to make sure that that was part of what you'd said you didn't have any problems with as far as it it in the packet it said you need to confirm what's there and in the existing condition. Yeah, we have um a couple notes out to our surveyor to go back and grab additional information. Okay. All right.

Okay. So, I just have one question. So, the when I look at the existing grading that kind of resolved under the building, it looks like all the water kind of used to get trapped and come down toward what is now your drainage pond. Now, you're showing a curb opening on the corner, but you don't show any grading on how that water gets back to your drain area. And and the only reason I say is I don't I see a 233 on your site, 232 existing on the other site, and I'm worried the water's going to sit and not actually get to your stormer. So, if you can work with engineering to maybe add some additional spot grades just to verify that water's coming back on your site and not going to the abuter.

Yeah, I agree 100%. We'll be able to include some spot elevations to ensure that proper drainage is happening and the storm water is functioning properly. And one other Yep. So, you have a curb in front of your dumpster there, but currently it doesn't. Is that going to be okay for the dumpster truck to come in and have to drive up over a curb?

Uh, one of the other comments that the city has made is that uh for fire code, this dumpster is too close to the existing building. So, the dumpster will be moving uh roughly five feet um to the left in this photo or pick or plan. Um so, we'll be amending the curve as well in that. So there will be a uh the pavement will just extend there and there will be a opening for the enclosure. Okay. And you can moving that and the angling of it you can get the dumpster truck in and out without having move all your cars out of your entire parking lot. Um

well right now um my assumption is that the dump truck is a front loading dump truck. So, it will be able to come in, pick up the dumpster, and it will be angled appropriately, and then move out and exit onto Black Hill, which is fine. Yeah, I figured the exit was a problem. I just want to make sure it gets in. Yeah. And we'll be submitting um turning templates to verify that. And there's no way to put any of those trees back in that area. Um so one of the other comments that we have is to work with uh the city to ensure that we're meeting the appropriate um tree totals. So we will be replacing those two trees somewhere else on the site.

Thank you. Awful few few trees on it for such a big site. Yes, Dina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, so do I understand correctly that the proposed two bay garage is going to be through and through? So you're going to have cars going correct both ways. And so then we have a a driving path up through there up to the north goes around to here. And you're concerned about putting a sidewalk there? Yeah. Because of the drive around

Yeah. from this existing sidewalk uh to the front door. What about if you were between those two kind of cloud shaped I don't know what those are. Um Google not the trees on the other side of the cloud with the dots in the middle. Sorry that's scientific term. Um this cloud and this cloud. Yes. Between the tree and the cloud come in through there and then do some kind of a crosswalk. Uh yeah, there would definitely be um painted uh lines to denote uh if if we were to put in a walkway that this would be pedestrian access.

Um as well as was stated earlier, it would have to have some sort of skew to it um in order to uh bring down the angle of anybody walking up it. And the area right along the the building where you have some trees there, that is that walk or is that grass shrubs? Yeah. Mhm. Is that something that could become pavement and then you can put a sidewalk. They come across and they walk along that p if that could be uh let's see. I don't think that that is um trying to see. Yeah, this so that all of those um Oh, okay. It's pretty dense. Yeah, it is pretty dense.

Yeah, it's like a cloud. Yeah. Yeah. And it would be a shame to remove the trees. Mhm. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Other questions? Any member of the audience have questions or concerns about this application? No. Yes. A

just um one other item. So, there's the discussion about granting of the waiver that the board will have to um make make a decision on. Another item that you may want to discuss before we get to the conditions of approval is the board has the ability to require the applicant to repair, you know, sidewalks that are, you know, underdesigned or under constructed. And staff identified that there is a segment of broken curb. So, we're bringing that to the board's attention to discuss. I believe it was item 3.8 in the staff report. If you want to look at the picture, um, and the board can discuss if they would as part of this application page 12

if they want the applicant to restore that area or not. 12 looks like a good spot for a sidewalk. Is that part of the future planning for you to do that? No. Okay. See, all you wanted to do was put in a little addition. Nothing's easy, right? I hear you. What? Looks I I can't imagine what caused that. Well, looks like that's about where the gas line comes over. Exactly.

Ah, when you look at the site plan and compare location plan. Yeah. Okay. So, Alec, how do we handle that? Uh, it's it's the bird's the board's perview. Um, I'm recommending in section 9, I think 9.2 that the board discuss and take action. And if you vote to require that, there's language there that you would add it as a precedent condition. Otherwise, you could choose not to require the applicant to make that that work part of their plan. Okay. Thoughts from the board? Yeah. Jeff

Chairman, I if something from their development impacted that curb, like if they physically did construction that impacted, I could see similar to what we just did in the previous submitt where we said they need to restore it here through no fault of their own, that curb is been damaged or whatever. I think we're go we're stretching a little bit to ask the applicant in this particular case to replace that curb, especially if we're asking them connect. Now, hey, if their piece of sidewalk happens to have to connect right there and you're going to be digging that whole section out, then it makes sense to replace the curb. But if you're going to be tying in further to the west, east, excuse me, I don't know that that's really your responsibility to fix.

So, let me ask let me ask you this. I mean, typically when we do this sidewalks, we want connectivity and we want to be able to go from point to point, have a crosswalk to go from point to point. How would you feel having a sidewalk go right between those perfectly two trees right there uh into the parking lot? that's there and then maybe just hatch it over across. You could di go diagonal. See, the thing is we're talking about when we say it's not safe for pedestrians to cross in that area. The only people utilizing that oneway loop are your employees. They're not customers. So, they're going to be aware there's a cross in there. It's one directional. People only have to look one direction to see if there's a car coming. There's plenty of sight line once they curve around the building given the speeds they're going to be traveling. I think we could angle it, not have to come 90. So if that shortens the

in the other section in the other side. So kind of come between these two trees and go over right to where your landscape bush is that that blocks your sidewalk piece to the front door. So customers do drive like that. That is where customers pull their vehicle. So then you then again now you're just saying let's go closer to where that big dip is by your sign. If it can fit in there, right, then we fit in there and go 90 or 87 or something like that. So again, play the devil's advocate here. So coming into it into this parking lot, if we just 90ed it right off of this, right into the parking lot and stopped it. Didn't offer anything more. No hatching,

I would not recommend you stop it in the middle of parking. I think we should at least bring it to the connectivity and have something striped. Okay. You can see from that picture there and 3.8 that it it's doable. It's just a matter of maybe some creativity and it doesn't have to be straight. It could be could have a little curve to it. It could have a little arch to it. I I don't want to take out the trees. So, I don't want to take out the the landscape bed. I think the landscape beds are beautiful, so I don't want to take those out, but I do think we can fit it in there somehow. Okay. Any other questions? I want to move on. And I asked for the public testimony, so no public testimony. Anything else from staff before we close public hearing? Nope.

Okay, we're all set. We'll close. Um the only thing I'd want to mention is that um this uh minor site plan is not subject to architectural design review. Yep. Um however, they are within a performance district and so their building permit will require it. So the applicant submitted their ADR application. They went to architectural design review on September 30th and were recommended to approve as submitted. I failed to include that in the staff report. So, I want to include that as part of your motions tonight to add architectural design even without a big green swish across. I'm disappointed. You could add that.

I could add it, but I I'm not going to put them through that about a sidewalk. I don't want to make them make a swish. Okay. Anything else before I close the public hearing? We'll close the public hearing. Thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it. Thanks for putting up for the questions. Um, I cut you off before. Yes, Alec. Sorry. Sorry. Um, member Santa Cruz mentioned about the floor drain. Staff did have a recommended condition that this site plan shall specify if a floor drain will be provided. And as part of your motion, you could clarify that that the site plan shall specify that a floor drain will be provided. They could put that note on the site plan. Um, there's a little bit of other verbiage in there, but it's present condition verify retention of the existing. Yeah, but we have a site plan

that needs to be done anyway is verify this condition and the site of of condition existing. So basically site plan shall have require a site a floor whether they utilize the existing but they provide a new one is up to the applicant but they must provide one. Yeah, I think staff's thought was they could throw it on the site plan or provide a note because that could be something captured if it's all internal plumbing could be on the building code or building permit, but there's a note on the site plan saying there will be a floor drain that will capture all the internal water and then we'll shed outside. That's fine. Um, yeah, I'm I'm fine. If Peter's happy with that, I'm Yeah, happy with I just want to make sure we're not dumping it out. That's all.

Understood. Okay. Anything else? All right. Um, so again, in our uh in our packets, we'll use as a finding of fact are the information that client the applicant presented tonight, the information that we've got in our packet, and the testimony we heard. Um, we'll move into first thing we're recommending is a motion regarding the sidewalk condition on item 92.

Yeah. So before right right at 9.2, Two staff recommends based on the adopted findings of fact that the board require as an additional precedent condition uh and per section 21102 uh 21.02 sidewalk required to replace the segment of broken vertical granite curving on Manchester on site on the site's Manchester street frontage as referenced in the picture on item 3.8 of this report and remove and replace the immediate adjacent sidewalk to restore the sidewalk to a functioning and safe condition. Uh, this design and details of the work shall be provided in the plan set and include applicable construction details all in accordance with the construction standards details. I don't know what the the board's level of confidence is in in replacing that particular piece. Um, discussion.

I don't I don't think there's from what I'm seeing and what I'm understanding, I don't see that that was the applicants to any negligence of their own. My guess is that Kirby the stuck out or stuck out in the plow went by and took a good chunk of that. So I think it's not on the applicant to replace that. If they're not impacting it as part of this site plan, like I said, if something changes and that's where the sidewalk ties down, then we can work with you on that. But well, I would have to make that very clear as part of this condition, especially because to replace that curb involves a curb cut into Manchester Street where if the applicant was just to provide a sidewalk connection, they would go from the back of existing sidewalk. Then I would say that it's not their responsibility. I would agree.

So, do we have some consensus on that so we can move past that or any anybody want to make a motion on the other way? Um, so we've got consensus that we're not going to require the applicant to fix the existing uh condition of the sidewalk. Is this where the sidewalk connection can be addressed as well or should we do that later on? That would be under site plan motion. Okay. So, you would be denying their waiver requests. Yeah, waiver request when we get there. Correct. Okay. So, when we get there, so 9.2, do we need to do anything on that or it's not consensus of the board is not to include it. So,

the consensus is not to include it. So we'll move on from there. Uh 9.3 is to grant the waiver request below from the listed sections of the site plan regulations based on the evidence provided showing that the criteria of RSA 674443E and section 368 waiverss of the site plan regulations are met and that's addressed in A uh through D. Uh anything we need to change or add on that Alec? Nope. Nothing there. 3.9.3 is to grant the w the waiver request. Would someone like to make a motion to grant those waiver requests as outlined? So moved. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. Any discussion? All those in favor?

I opposed. That motion carries. So grant the waiver request 9.4 is to deny the waiver request below from the listed se sections of the site plan regulations because the request does not meet the criteria of RSA 674443e section 38 368 waiverss of the site plan regulations. And those are outlined in A through G. Uh again, lighting plan, above property, municipal sewer, drainage and erosion control, municipal water supply, bar scale, and connection to public sidewalk. So again, any anything need to change in that one, Alex?

Uh that's just what staff's recommending. You'd have to make a motion and make that vote. We but but the sidewalk as if you were if you were deny the waiver site plan regulations require the public a sidewalk to be provided from the public sidewalk to the building entrance. So we want to take that out if you want to allow them to not construct the connection to the public sidewalk. You would grant the waiver to that particular section in a separate vote from the denial motion that's the wording confus granted versus deny it is screwing me up. So, let's talk about the the sidewalk piece of it. Uh, again, I don't want to talk about the design. It's not No. Well, I guess yeah, I guess we do have to talk about

if you want to do something different than staff recommendation, I would suggest you take this particular item up separately. Okay. So, can we take G out right here? And but if we're I guess we've talked about making them do the connection. So, if we make them do the connection, this stays in this stays as staff recommends. Okay. So, I wanted to bring I wanted to only talk about it, not just not just vote on it. So, I want to get I want to pull the board, see if where the where the board sits as far as uh do we want to make them put a side I don't want to say denial or grant it screw me up. So, do we want to do we want them to do we want them to put a sidewalk in or don't we is where So, I'm I'm on the I want to see a sidewalk connection. Yeah.

Okay. So, one, two, three, four, five and opposed. One, two, three, four. Okay. So, we've got a we've got a primary approval aspect of it. So how do we so so in this case you would continue with the staff recommendation for 9.4 to deny allen through to deny it. I don't want to get into the designing of it. I think we can allow that to happen approval. Okay. So at this particular point 9.4 is to stay as is from A through G to deny the waiver requests as below. Okay. So I'll make that motion that we deny those waiver requests as outlined A through G. Second.

Motion made and second. Any further discussion? All those in favor by hands? I I Amanda for the record is on opposed uh Eaton Teresa and Matt are opposed. Okay. So that motion carry or denies the motion carries denies. All right. So let's move on. A 9.5 is to grant minor site plan approval for the removal. Before you do that, Alec architectural design review. Yep. I I may recommend that you first I lost the spot. Um,

based on the adopted findings of fact, vote to grant architectural design review approval for the addition of for an additional 760 square foot two-pay garage at tax map 781Z31. Address is 28 M Street in the Gateway Performance. You want to take that 9.4 A for the record 9. Yes. Yeah. We'll we'll we'll make sure the properly reflected. Okay. Someone like to make a motion to grant architectural design review as so eloquently put in. Motion's been made. Do we have a second? Second. Uh, any discussion? All those in favor?

I opposed. That motion carries. 9.5. Good to go. Grant minor site plan approval for the removal of an existing attached garage and adjacent pavement and construction of a new 760 square foot two bay garage along with new associated site and drainage improvements at 28 Manchester Street as submitted subject to the following precedent and subsequent conditions. And those are outlined in precedent conditions 1 A through CC CC CC and two 345 subsequent conditions one through 16 through 16. Would someone like to make a motion to hit me?

Perhaps I may have language if it works for you um Jeff but uh you board may want to consider adding precedent six. Additional spot grades shall be provided on the grading plan to demonstrate proper drainage from the gapping curving to the east of the proposed garage structure toward the proposed drainage facilities. Correct. Do we have turning turning templates? That's in actually was in here. I apologize is I missed that and the staff about the truck. Do we and we'll have to just work with we don't have to put a condition about the sidewalk because we already denied. Correct. Thank you. And there's no issues with the replacement of the uh dumpster. You brought up some issues with grade curving because those are addressed. It was addressed. Yeah. And if I may, um, uh, again, the language with the 760 square feet, if that can be amended.

Yeah. For 10 or 100, 103, uh, for both. Both. 100, 103. Correct. Post demolition, the new addition is the 10,00. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, I'm not going to read all precedent conditions. The subsequent conditions. I can't scroll back that far. So, would someone like to make a motion to grant minor subdivision approval with the site plan approval? Sorry, minor site plan approval with the addition Alec made uh and the president in subsequent additions that were read into the record. So moved. Motion has been made. I'll second that motion. Any further discussion? All those in favor?

I opposed. That motion carries. You're all set. Thank you very much. Thank you. It was a process. We got there. We always do. Okay, let's read item 9EE into the record if we could. Thank you,

Mr. Chairman, member of the board. This is Ryan Taber in Eastern Development requesting approval for an amendment to a major subdivision application and recorded subdivision plat to grant certain waiverss from the subdivision regulations to allow batuminous Cape Cod Burm in place of vertical granite curbing throughout the common private drive to not require street trees along the full length of the common private drive and instead limit plings to the culde-sac area and allow existing trees along the approach credit towards compliance. to allow a common drive length of over 1,000 feet and to allow a common private drive with three inches of hot patumis pavement instead of the required four inches all at tax map 11Z lot 251 addressed is 15 hot hole pond in the open space residential district

okay let's get a staff update on this if we could

sure I am going to defer a lot of this to the details to uh the remaining staff uh who's been more intimately involved since I'm new to this project but just in general uh The applicants are requesting an amendment to the previously approved subdivision application which was signed by the chair and the clerk on June 2nd of this year. Uh specifically, they're requesting those four waivers that I outlined. All of which were at one point previously requested during the initial review process with the planning board. Three of those waivers were ultimately determined not necessary as the applicant revised the plans at the time to comply with those regulatory requirements and eliminate the needs for those waivers. The fourth waiver request for the pavement thickness was denied by the planning board at their May 15, 2004 24 public hearing. Uh please refer to the staff memo for a summary of the project history and the actions taken regarding those waiverss in 2024. As it relates to this request to amend the subdivision approval, staff has consulted with the city solicitor and confirmed that the waiver for pavement thickness cannot statutoily be considered by the planning board per the requirements of RSA 67715, which requires an agreved party to file suit and superior court within 30 days of a decision of the planning board if they feel the decision was unlawful or unreasonable. The applicant cannot request the same waiver for the same project after that appeal period expires. As such, the applicant is statutoily ineligible for the waiver for the pavement thickness and the board should take no further action on that board for that portion of their request. Uh, as outlined in the staff memorandum, staff is recommending denial of the other three waiver requests for failure to meet this requirements of RSA 67436 and section 3508 of the subdivision reg. And lastly, assuming that the board does not grant the requested waiverss, the board would then deny the requested amendment for not complying with the regulatory requirements.

Okay, thank you for the update. Welcome to the table. If you could state your name for the record. Ryan Taber. I'd like to also say for the record that the four waiverss requested were actually not all requested prior. Street trees was never a waiver requested prior. That was something that was discussed in the planning review meetings with Ann Marie Skinner and Alec Bass who mandated that I imple implement street trees, but there was never a formal waiver request submitted for those. Okay. Anything else? So let let's open this up to questions from the planning board starting with the granite curbing versus Cape Cod BM. What do you guys have for questions on that? I don't know that we we're not here to ask questions. We're here to listen to why you want

Cape Cod Burm is the same thing as granite curbing. It's aesthetically different. No, it's not the same. What's the difference since engineering? It's a burm of asphalt. It's not

that you guys implement. Why are you giving me attitude already? Like you you're not even listening to what I'm saying. You guys you guys pave roads in conquered New Hampshire recently like Palm Street with Cape Cod Burn on both sides of it. You have it on Hothole Pond Road, which is this road is off of, which is steeper and narrower than the proposed road. So why is it that a private road with no city allowed entry on private property has to have granite curbing? Engineering wise, it upholds the same. It can it can sustain the the slopes and it can drain the the water that is proposed to drain. How's it handle a plow?

What kind of plow? A city plow or a private road plow? Because you're talking about a half ton pickup plowing the road, maybe a one- ton versus a six-tonon truck plowing the city roads. And you guys have Cape Cod Burm installed on your roads currently. And it doesn't hold up to a to a plow. Then why do you install it? We don't. You do? It's on Palm Street currently. You guys just pave Palm Street in May of this year. So you put Cape Cod Burm on both sides of it. We're not in charge of paving. We're in charge of plans. So the planning department didn't do anything on Palm Street. We didn't go through and say put new put new Cape Cod.

It's a public right ofway. You installed Cape Cod Burma on. So why is it a private road in the residential district surrounded by woods and trees has to have granite curbing installed? The only rationale behind that is aesthetics versus actual engineering basis. Okay. Y um I'm new to this board so I don't recall your initial application. Did I hear Tim's um summary that this is the 2003 approval? 2003 initially 23 2023 the plan was officially signed by the planning board. And did that plan have these conditions stated in there? The prop plan requires and shows and indicates currently

and these were discussed in planning review meetings with Alec Bass and Amarie Skinner who mandated granite curbing. They said Cape Cod BM was not allowed which it is and is actually being installed in conquered New Hampshire on public rideways. This is a private rideway. If I can complete my answer to the question, the approved plans indicate granite curving and that was by force. So, in 2023, you were on notice that these your subdivision had these conditions. Um, did you appeal to the superior court?

No, there was no amendment at the time because the actual approval was based on granite curbing. I was told in the plan review meetings and it's in writing via email and staff report that granite curbing is required. Cape Cod B is not allowed. However, Hothole Pond Road, Palm Street, and there's several other streets in conquered New Hampshire have Cape Cod BM installed on them on public rightways. Again, we have to remember this is a private development, private road. The city has no right to entry, no right to maintenance. They have no reason to even care if it's Cape Cod Burm or Granite Curbing. The plowing is going to be different. The maintenance is going to be different than the city is going to require. So my concern is that of our legal authority to do anything and if uh the cited statute that I heard Tim say to that you shall appeal

that was for pavement thickness. Do we have the ability to even hear this if the appeal wasn't made? I don't know if we for the pavement thickness. No are our we council is basically then why is it on the agenda and that that appeal was to a conditionally approved plan. This is a final recorded approved plan. It's two different things.

Our city's solicitor has recommended to the board that the because the board has previously denied that waiver and it did not appeal under 67715 that it is ineligible because this is nonmaterially different application to request that waiver a second time. The other three requests did not have waiver requests that were acted on by the board during the initial process. So those are eligible to be requ considered by the planning board as part of this amendment. The payment thing is on a recorded plan, not a conditionally approved plan, still pending engineering review and it's on the agenda, so it needs to be acted on.

So Tim, it's your opinion that we have the ability to look at 51 A through C as they weren't part of that plan and are still right for uh application for the He has the right to request an amendment for waiverss that were not denied previously by the board. Well, D is vested for it was previously denied by the board. Correct. He's basically didn't exhaust his he didn't failed to exhaust his legal revenue. Correct. Still on the agenda. Still has to be weighed on. You guys posted it on the agenda. You have to make a decision on it. It's a waiver request. No, we don't have to make a decision on it. Okay. Then I can use that as basis. Certainly. Yeah. Go right at it.

Okay. So, are you guys just going to vote to deny all these waivers right now? Because that's the feeling I get from this board based on what you're here to hear why you need the waivers. So, you told us about BMS or you've told us about Cape Cod BM. Yep. Okay. Submitted the documentation to Alec which has all the waiver criteria which shows all the waiver criteria is actually met for each item. That's not what my report says. That's what I submitted to him. He could have circulated it to you. I'm sure your report I've got So right here it's the same thing. You can pull it up. It's it's with the supplemental materials. It's part of the agenda. Okay.

So Cape Cod Burm it works. Doesn't make any difference besides granite curbing except the fact that yeah the plow hits it. Granite curbing can shift. Cape Cod Burm may get a chip out of it. It's easier to replace. It's easier to maintain. It's also more cost effective. Undo hardship is based on the cost and the uniqueness of the site which requires it. Okay. Street trees.

Street trees. There's existing vegetation. If you want to I can pull it up and show you. I requested a wa a waiver on this. The culde-sac. Yes, it's going to need street trees because the whole area is being cleared. The entire right side going up the road as you're driving up the proposed lane has existing vegetation along it within the 10-ft buffer. And then the first 400 ft of the left side going up has existing vegetation. All that is to remain. The more you cut, the more you pretty much disrupt the the basis of the intent there. You're trying to cut trees to plant them. It doesn't make any sense. So I would say put the trees around. If you look at the the plot plan, which the condo plan, which I don't have in front of me. I don't know where to get on this computer, would be between the corner of the lot from units one to three is a power line easement for uh PSNH and then around the culde-sac. So, it' be a revision to that plan. The other the existing vegetation remains.

Okay. Length of driveway. I'm not I don't want to lead you through them here. What do you mean the driveway? Length foot thousand foot length of driveway which is section 202 which is the other way. What's wrong with the length of the driveway? How many roads in this town have called the sacks over a,000 ft? It's in here as a as a waiver request under section 2003 length of driveway common drive private drive to allow a residential deadend common private drive to exceed the length of a,000 ft. Are you not asking for relief on that? I am asking for relief on that for 150 ft from 1,000 ft to 1150 ft. It's actually 1149 feet from edge of pavement on hot pond road to end of culde-sac.

It doesn't change the clearing. It doesn't really it doesn't change any of the engineering on the road except the curbing requirement because it goes from three to eight units from 9 to plus units. All the storm water remains the same. Nothing else changes except you can get one more unit in there. So actually use the land as intended. It doesn't pose any type of safety factor risk because the road is actually 50% wider than the fire department requires. Fire department requires 16 foot wide row. This I believe is 24 ft. There's plenty of room around the culdesac. Even looking at Swan Circle, which is just across the street, yes, it's a shorter road. The culde-sac the same size. Fire department has no issues accessing that. The other two roads, I believe, was Coventry Road and Farmwood Road. Yes, they're over 25 years old. That demonstrates history that the fire department has had no emergency access issues with those roads over a 25-y year period. So why is it a road even shorter than those two would not be would not be allowed? And I also referenced Shelburn Lane. Shelurn Lane is a phase development. Yes, and it's going to have secondary egress. However, I don't believe that's been constructed yet. And with that, people are buying buying and moving into those homes. There's no issue with the fire department given that that road's over a thousand feet long and that they are currently moving into those homes without the secondary egress. All of these sites I've referenced have private water. So it's based on precedent. That's what it's for. Okay. It doesn't change anything engineering wise. I said except the granite curbing requirement. The road width stays the same. The length increases slightly. You get better intent use out of the land. So again, these plans have been approved back in 2023, 2024. So what's changed? And now why are you back for a waiver? Do you guys really construction costs are now?

They're double what they were last year.

So the delay from the planning board last year or from Conquered Engineering caused numbers to go through the roof. So it makes the project nearly impossible. Granite curbing substantially more expensive than Cape Cod Burm. Cape Cod BM works just the same whether you agree or not. I mean, if you're I'm not going to be plowing the road with this the same state trucks you guys use to plow the road. It's going to be a small guy like I said in a half ton, maybe a one ton. So, it's, you know, I'm not worried about the curbing and you guys don't have any maintenance over the curbing, the road, street trees, none of it. It's all the HOA. So, whoever buys into it and I own part of that until I sell the last unit. Once that's done, I I still have a skin in the game. So, yeah, I would like to see things go accordingly, but you have to also weigh in the fact that things are way more expensive now. So, Cape Cod BM is more affordable than Granite Curve, the street trees. I'm just trying to actually use the existing vegetation because that's what's in that's the natural characteristics of the law, not planting trees, which looks commercialized. I understand that downtown 100%. That makes sense. There's no no vegetation usually on these lots. This one's surrounded by woods. The road length, yeah, you put,00 150 ft more road. You can actually use the benefit of the entire lot based on the regulations versus not in the pavement thickness. We already discussed that. So, you guys are going to agree with that anyways, even though that is completely over overgineered.

Okay. Um, you mentioned that construction costs are up from 2023. 2024. Do you have any examples of what a curb or driveway would cost now versus 2023 or four? Granite curbing now is almost $50 a foot. Cape Cod BM is around $9 to $10 a foot.

2024, you're looking at $30 a foot for granite curbing and about $5 a foot for Cape Cod B. Road work per foot. And you guys can fact check this all you want. Almost $1,000 a foot for road work completed. Do the math on a thousand foot road. That's a million dollars for a road. Think about what your housing costs are going to be. They're already substantially high. I'm not using cost as the basics factor for this, but is a significant piece to it. But the uniqueness of the lot is what drives this because there's a 50 foot

access for 400 ft to get into the lot. I asked you what the basis of what the reasoning was and you said cost. So is there another reason other than cost? The uniqueness of the lot there's a hasn't changed since when we approved it originally. I mean the reason you're coming back is something substant changed and the cost the cost is the biggest the only reason I went with granite curbing is because it was mandated by Alec Bass and an Marie Skinner. It doesn't have to do who who mandated it. It's it does have to do with that and it's in recorded meetings. It it doesn't that that they said it is because they said it because it's part of the city rags. It doesn't

but it's Cape Cod Burm's also approved in the city rags. So why is it mandated on a private site? Same thing with street trees. There's a reason that within 10 ft of edge of road you're allowed to use existing vegetation instead of planting new street trees. Okay.

Your road length has waver requirements. You you mentioned the street trees and um I'm looking at one of your plans in the supplemental showing the existing tree line and the existing tree line is on the property line meaning your your property line and the trees that are required to be on the drive the sunny drive um is your is in your property line You're where I'm going with this is that whatever is happening on the property line on your abutdder or whoever's adjacent isn't your can't take credit.

Can't take credit for it. I'm not taking credit. So, I'm looking at your tree line. I just say um the northern side of the street and the vegetation over there. Again, I'm looking at it from what you is that Altus has indicated.

The slope is on the property line. You have a one and a quarter to one slope. You have property line one and a quarter to one slope. Drainage for the road on the the side going up on the I believe it's the north. I don't have it in front of me. I'm not taking credit for anyone else's trees by any means. The property line's tight. The access is only 50 feet in there. The whole engineering was tight. I know that you're because the north side of Sunny Lane as it grow as it you know comes from was it hot hole hole pond

hot hole pond you're right up against your own property line again your vegetation our requirements are based on your property line not your neighbors and share the same vegetation is right at the property line really in the neighbors property

I saved the trees going up the road on purpose because I don't want to cut clear cut between the neighbor and myself. So, if you look at the actual site, there's existing vegetation that has not been removed that I'm going to try to preserve as construction begins. I'm not taking credit or using their property. There's still went I just the whole property surveyed boundary and all and I went off of that and I pulled at least five feet off the property line which is within 10 feet of the road. Again, you just have to remember this is not downtown conquered. This is off Shaker Road, Hotole Pond. This is very rural existing vegetation. I know. So, why plant trees in the woods?

Okay, let's let's move on. Matt, um may I ask Mr. Taber a couple questions? Certainly. Okay. Uh good evening, Mr. Taber. The So, there's a plan set that was included with your w with your request. This is the approved plan set that was signed, I assume, back in June of of this year. Yeah. Is is that correct? Yeah. The planning board emailed me multiple times to get it recorded when I wasn't ready to record it. Okay. So So in the plan set that's in here, it's the culde-sac that was originally approved, which is just under 1,000 feet. If my recollection serves, it's a thousand feet from edge of road to end the culde-sac. Okay.

Spot on. And and so your your request is to extend the culde-sac that was previously approved from what's called 1,000 feet to 1150. Yeah. I believe it's 1149 to the end of it which allows for a ninth driveway. Okay. And so right now when you got your project approved uh previously in 2023, it was for an 8 unit um detached condominium. Correct. Originally it was nine units proposed. The only reason it went to eight is because of the fire department would not sign off on the thousand foot versus 1150 ft. Okay. So, but the approved plan is eight. But the that was because of the fire department. But the approved plan is eight. Yes. But there's a back Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Approved plan.

Back piece of this that you guys have to understand. It wasn't just always eight. It was nine. I was forced into eight. Eight was approved because I was forced into it even after multiple sitewalks with the fire department on site. So, Mr. Chamber, your your your intention would be to to lengthen the roadway to 1,149 ft in order to get a ninth unit. Yes. Okay. And so you would have to come back in for to resubdivide or for a reubdivision at that point because you have to update your your your previously approved and signed condominium subdivision plan. Correct. Yes, if the board requires that.

Okay. So, um, you did not submit an a plan with your your request to show what the ninth unit would be or what the road extension would be. Correct. You guys have seen that from 2023 when it was originally proposed. Okay. Um, but I know I didn't submit it with this, but why am I going to spend engineering dime time on submitting something that could be possibly denied when you guys have already had the design presented to you? So, I guess where my mind is is you're asking the board to approve an extension of a roadway to show an additional unit which has not been previously um approved without showing the board what that would be.

The board knows what it is that there's no changes to the actual the the clearing on the site. The only changes is the culde-sac goes from five units to six. That's the change. So, all you do is spread the house a little bit more because you get the road past the easement a little bit more and then you can get the other unit in there. I I guess what I'm trying to say is it's it's um it's customary for the board to look at a plan when it's trying to when you're when you're requesting something like this and the board doesn't have it. So, so therefore um I think it's going to be challenging for the board to act favor

make a decision without having a plan that actually shows what your intention is. Alec has the plan from 2023 that shows nine units. We can pull that up. That was not submitted as part of the amended application. That's it wasn't required. So, but if we're talking about looking at the plan, why don't we pull it up? Yeah, it doesn't work that way. There's no component when in regards to an amendment request. You know, we we take what you've submitted. Um, you're providing some information during this public hearing that that even, you know, we as staff didn't necessarily have. Um, you know, what didn't you have?

Your request was to, for example, the road length. Your request was to grant a waiver to allow a road that exceeded 10,000 length. I I'm not aware in your in the material you provided which stated how long that is, the design, the layout, or any of that information. You've reviewed it. It's in your staff report from 2023. But there's no connection for me to know that your waiver what your waiver request was referencing. You didn't reference the previous plan or anything like that. We we don't know what you could be.

That's just calling gray area, but that that's fine. I mean, you guys can vote on it based on having a revised plan to review. I mean, it can be a condition of approval. There's other ways to look at that. You have seen the plan. You have issued a staff report on it. I have the records of it. So does the city. So, it's not like it hasn't been presented before. And the nine units was never an issue. The only issue with the nine units, and I'm sure you can comment on this, was the road length because the fire department would not sign off on it. However, this to be said on the other roads for the other culde-sacs with private water that show the fire department doesn't really have a a claim on on safety for that.

Matt, so Mr. Taber, if if the design's already been prepared, um why haven't you submitted a a resubdition plan if if the plan was previously designed in 2023, which I don't have a recollection of? It was previously designed in 2023 and exists. Um so presumably the engineering cost would be minimal or non-existent. Is there a particular reason why you chose to go this direction instead of doing a resubdivision to try to get to the ninth unit?

There's no non-existent engineering costs. I don't know where that even comes from. You think that things are free? Engineering is not free. It's very expensive. Secondly, I don't have approval on it. So, I'm going for the waiver to say, "Yeah, maybe we grant this conditionally based on review of the actual 9-unit plan." Mr. Sure. Because the only the only question I had was is previously I I I understood to say that there was a 9-unit plan that was previously prepared that was given to the city but later submitted for conditional approval but but it was later redesigned to be eight units

based on city feedback because of the fire department. So, so therefore the plan with nine units exists and it could be resubmitted I suppose for a for a a resubdivision as an amendment or a resub as a instead of I think the challenge is you're asking you're asking the board to try and again make a consider something without a plan in front of it. Your intention is to try and get a ninth unit which inherently requires the resubdivision. You're telling us there's a plan that already shows that that was given to the city and then you later redesigned because of comments from the fire department. about overall length of the culde-sac. So the plan exists. You could have come back and and asked the board for submitted a new sub a resub.

You could just submit that one at that point which we have the avail ability to pull up. Um

we don't it's not doesn't work that way. You've got to you've got to go through the submission process. You've got to start the if you want to put a ninth unit in here, you've got to start the process, recommend a ninth unit, come back with new plan sets and say here you go. We're not going to go back to plans that weren't approved that you submitted that were that are probably in the record somewhere, but those aren't what we go back to. You got an approved plan for you got an approved plan for eight eight units. If you wanted a ninth unit or we don't even know that. All we know is you want a waiver to extend your your road beyond a thousand feet. We don't know why. You might want to leave it open space. You might want to put a a baseball park down there. I have no idea what you want to do with it. I can't make a decision based on what you're presenting here because you're not presenting it the way we need it to be presented. If if you can just give me a chance and don't add add to your comments. I got your comments over and over. I'm telling you, our process needs to be followed and our process needs to be done and and check marks need to be done. When we get a report that says that the the staff recommends denial of all of these waiverss, you can't come in and tell us that that you don't know what you're doing and I should be doing this and I should be doing that. You should be going back to plans that weren't approved. It doesn't work that way.

Have you read the staff denial report? Because it doesn't have any factual basis to it. I'm not seeing any factual basis from you that says I need this to other than it costs more. It's not just cost. It's uniqueness of the law. There's undue hardship on every table that helps us make a decision. I can clearly tell from the board's bias on this set. It is biased. You've been biased since I came up here. You've had a different tone towards me versus every other person that sat here for an hour and 30 minutes before I did. And it was the same as before. Then why wasn't it communicated to me? I would not be on this agenda and that I would need to submit a plan for that. It was not. It was

your first question was question to us and say tell me what you want to hear. I'm tell you what you want to hear. It was the first thing you said. I asked what the board has for questions. It wasn't about what I what I want to hear from you. You come to us to present a reason why you should be getting these waiverss. You should have been prepared to say, "Here's the four I'm asking for, and here's the basis for what I want them for. Here's the plans. I went over the basis. Can I talk, please?" And the reason I'm I'm I'm a little bit different in the sense is because you came up with a different attitude. You didn't come up here presenting uh presenting a comprehensive plan. You came up saying, "This is what I want." And you guys don't know what you're doing unless you approve it. And

well, Alec and Tim came over and opened up this plan for other other applicants, but I didn't get the same behavior there. I don't even have the the link here to pull it up for anything for this meeting. I don't know where it is in this computer. It's a city computer, but they came up for the other applicants. Why couldn't they do that for me? That shows disfavor right there. What do you need to bring up? I don't

anything that I submitted that I can pull up that I can go over it with you so everyone can see it. like this right here that that shows the actual waiver request that shows the undue hardship that shows the reasoning that supports every single waiver criteria. But since you guys have already made up your mind based on since I be before I even came up here, you guys made up your mind Friday when Alex sent me the email 3:54 p.m. days before this I could barely prepare. You guys already made up your mind and you're going to side with each other. Staff had determined what our recommendations made up. I am open-minded. Well, it doesn't seem that way from the board. I'm just stating that the offic heard from you, but from from these individuals over

council. Yeah, thank you. Um I think that uh there's a very similar instance of what's going on here from the I believe it was last month's meeting. We had a presentation and I won't go into the details of that, but basically I believe that the board came to the same conclusion that we would have liked to have seen a complete plan Yes. And this individual was trying to renovate his property uh into a residence and he wanted to put in a driveway and he wanted he had all sorts of specific ideas about where he wanted to put it. But um basically he didn't come to us with a full complete plan and we had the same conclusion then and we listened to uh and spent a lot of time with that individual

um listening to his concerns. Uh but in the end because of what Mr. Walsh was referring to earlier, the fact that that individual did not submit a complete plan. We were not able to really uh move forward with what his specific requests were either. So, I think that that's what we're trying to get at is that there's a consistency of process here so that it's fair to everybody. Um, and we're going to try to continue to follow the same process so that it's fair to everybody.

So, I understand that. I I appreciate that and I I understand that for the nine units versus the eight with the road length. However, the granite carving the street trees, I don't know if you need a plan for that, per se. I mean, it's we we went over it and we can pull up the approved plan. I can show you just as other applicants do where the street trees would be and wouldn't be and then where the curbing would be and wouldn't be. So, I don't know if we need an updated plan for that because the the going to show instead of saying granite curbing, it's going to say Cape Cod BM. That's the only thing that's going to change on that.

Pete, thank you, Mr. Chair. I I think it's self-evident that that granite curve is is much more durable than Cape Cod Burman and and and that is what the standard request in site plans and and subdivision plans. Yes, the city does occasionally use Cape Cod B to save the taxpayers money. So then why can't I do it? I I have no control. We this board has no control over that. Yes, you do. You mandated grain at curbing. You just said so the taxpayers can save money. What about the developer who's building houses for the town? General services. The planning board has no control over general services. What they do, what they pave, where they pave, and how they pave. Someone in the city approved it, and they approved it for public rightways.

Suggest that granite curb is is as good or as durable as as Cape Cod B is as ridiculous as saying three inches of pavement is as good as four. What do you drive on down the road outside of conquered? It's three inches of pavement. Four inches is heavy duty. It's your aggregate subbase. And you're an engineer. And you commented on this in the the when I requested the waiver 4 before and you made comment that yeah 3 in is the standard and that oh it'll last 10 to 15 years. It's also a low traffic road. You guys have to look at the facts not opinion and actually support it with evidentiary facts. But what I said was 3 in would be the bare minimum. But if you want the road to last then you use more pavement. If you want the road to last, you use granite because once

granite has nothing project, those people are going to be left with the with the maintenance bills on that road. What does granite have to do with protecting the road? Absolutely nothing. Cape Cod Burm has been installed on a hot hole pond road for over 15 years according to the city and there's no issues with it and there's no plow marks in it at that. This is also a private development.

Any uh member of the audience have any questions or concerns about this application? If not, we're going to close the public hearing. I'm going to ask you to step back. Um, so we'll close the public hearing. Um, any other comments, questions, concerns from staff? Um, I I'm at a loss, but I, Mr. Chairman, I think I think um my observation would be that I think the board probably can make a decision about curbing in in in the street tree issue. Yeah, the length the length issue the length issue. I don't think the board has enough information, especially if there's an intention for a resubd I'll just just to add my own two cents. I I slightly disagree that this appropriate materials submitted to make those decisions to amend a plan because we don't have a plan is being amended that was submitted. We have written waiver requests to a non-existent plan at this stage.

Yeah.

Um Alec. Yeah, if I may, I could certainly, you know, we staff's, you know, recommendations and thoughts are in the staff report. If you want, we can summarize them. I think this particular with the curbing um it could be made. Um staff thought it was worth mentioning that the applicant previously received a waiver to allow a road with a 10% grade slope grade where normally eight is allowed. Once drive exceeds 6%, the engineering and the planning board can require curbing. And so we, you know, the planning board required that once and it was approved with granite scoped granite curbing on a road that was at 10% where normally 8% is required. So that's kind in our staff report. Staff is of the opinion that granite curbing has a is a more durable product than the basketball. Um, and I think that's probably about most of the information. I think board needs for consideration on that.

I would public hearing's closed. Please sit down or go. I would also add when it comes to the street trees requests, you know, the applicant is required to provide a certain amount of street trees. The regulations do state that you know certain trees if they're within a certain proximity and you there's other criteria can count toward that. Um it's a to me it's a little unclear without a plan and exactly what the applicant's stating. Um if there are trees that meet these criteria, they could be shown on the plan against that tree count. Okay. And that isn't and or hasn't been provided yet.

Okay. So, from a from a decision perspective, it again, you leave it open to say if you want this, show us is what you're is what you're saying. Well, certainly that if there are trees that can count towards the tree count. Alternatively, the applicant provided a plan provided designed by a licensed land uh landscape architect, you know, that met our regulations. Yeah.

Um, can I ask a question? Can I understand? I just want to understand the regulation 28 was it 046 about the street trees says trees within 10 ft of the rideway that is the rightway of the roadway. So in this case where there's not a city rightway is that become edge of pavement or common. Okay. If you look at the landscape plan that's in his supplemental, it shows slope work 15 to 20 feet up the slope, which means there are no trees that are going to remain in that 10 foot to take credit for.

So, you know, on both sides, you've got a lot of slope work to create this. So, there realistically is not going to be any trees within 10 feet potentially to take credit for. Okay. Yes, I can understand his saying from the top of the slope to the property line there may be some but the regulation is 10 feet from the rightway which 10 ft up an angle that's not 10. Please honest to God please just be quiet. Can you be quiet please? Anything? Sorry Jeff for interrupting again.

No no no that's right Mr. Chairman. So, I mean, I was just looking I was trying to pull back up the landscaping plan um to better understand looking at the slopes and freezing up on me. I mean, scaling off the plan, the slope is 10 ft in plan view, not 10 ft on slope. Yeah. So, I don't understand how trees are going to be remaining there. That could take credit for based on what I'm seeing in the plans that are in the supplemental documents. Okay, David.

Um, just just from a standpoint, what's going to change on the the uh,000 ft versus the 1149 from a fire department standpoint? Are they going to change their minds? That we don't have a plan to give them to them. They very Can we override the No. Okay. Not public safety. So they still the the fire thing is can still exist. The stopping of again fire is going to want to see a plan if it's a it's not going to be an old plan. It'll be this is what I'm submitting for,49 ft and here's the

plan set up for the for the housing and it goes back through review and and fire will give us an opinion on it. Okay. So, is there anything is there any historical data that tells us that they changed their mind? I I don't know. Okay. Thank you. Did I see coun? No. Well, yeah, I guess. Um I don't think that we're going to have an answer to this. That's why I hesitate a little bit, but um uh what would be an example or can we cite any instances where we would have actually granted waiverss for let's say the BM? Is there anything that comes to mind in recent memory?

We had a discussion internally on Cape Cod Burm on a downtown project. I want to say maybe uh John or somebody was proposing office store street or something. They were going to use Cape Cod Burm. We made them stick I don't know if sticky all internal they wanted all asphalt push back and said no they must for the durability of the plow something else and that's a residential park. So that was the Stiknav uh project, the Brady the Brady Sullivan loft that was here tonight and then I there was definitely another one internally that again it's a cost issue. You know it costs a lot of money to put these particular curbs in. Um but we did push back on that and made them put conc granite in as well.

Just a quick follow up on that. Um I suppose what would the information uh be need to be provided that would be helpful for us to make a determination on that at this point? So in other words, if if someone were to actually submit u some some actual cost estimates that could be verified and present that information in a formal way, then that would be something that we could all have have in as part of the record and look at as as part of the weight to to make the waiver I mean we can make the decision but the waiver you know the hardship piece of it doesn't include cost. I mean, it doesn't it doesn't look at cost as an element to say, you know, it's a hardship for this reason or this reason or this reason. You can't do it.

Did I see someone over here? Well, me, Matt. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. If if I can offer a potential alternative to denying this tonight, there there would be a way if the board is comfortable with tableabling this to a date uncertain, which would require renotification of butters and a resubmission with complete information, including plans, the board could consider the application for amending the project with a more complete application. So, what's the board's flavor on that? Again, I I you got length of the of the driveway, you've got street trees, you've got curbing. Are all three of those on the table or are we good on any of them or could

we could we take each of those individually because I think that um we might want to um if we went with the route that Mr. Thompson suggests that we might want to uh specify particularly what we would like to see in the relication. So I for example just mentioned you you discussed hardship. So if we take the first one because that's the first one on the list and let's discuss the burn. That would be my suggestion. Y yeah

that's fine. And again I think the I think the I'd go the last one. So I'm going to look at the la the last one on the list which was the length of the driveway because I I I'm okay with that if if everybody's okay with that. I'm okay extending it but I need a reason to be able to approve it. I need fire to look at it. I need the ninth, you know, house to be planned into the plan. So, I'm okay with saying I want to table that um and and direct the applicant to say this is what you need to bring forward to to to get this to the to the next level. And I don't know how fast that happens or quick that happens, but is that what you're

Yes, that's for that one that I think so. I think obviously we would like to see a resubmission of the plan that he proposes with the I guess it's nine units, right? Um, so resubmit the plan with the nine units, have a further discussion with the fire department, get their approval. That's those would be the criteria and then we could hear that information. Right. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I would agree with that.

Okay. So then moving up on the list, you've got the uh in our again waiver pieces 28046, which is street trees to not require street trees along the full length of the common private drive limiting uh new plantings to the culde-sac area. Um, what's our what's our thought process on that? Are we comfortable with that? Are we we we're not going to, you know, we don't think they're going to live. I haven't heard from you, Matt. Go ahead. I'm going back to Jeff's point. I'd like to see what has been cleared in the property line. We have no we have no evidence of any of that. Okay.

Right. So, we I don't know how to make a determination whether those it is in the middle of the forest. That's true. But if the trees are on the neighbor's property line or neighbor property and the neighbor clearcuts their property, how there are no trees, everything's clear. And to Jeff's point on the slope as well, I mean again, you know, is it going to support trees? Um, again, we don't have anything here to to to show us that. So our our same process there to table and resubmit with supporting information. Yeah. Um and what the condition of the current condition of the lots are. Yeah.

Okay. How about the first one which is curbing for residential common private drives to allow Cape Cod Burm asphalt concrete to place in place of vertical uh granite curbing through the common private drive. I'm opposed to that in in just in general just because we've we've got a longstanding history of making people put concrete in or put granite curving in. Um thought process on that? Where we where do we stand? Anybody have thoughts one way or the other? Problem with Cape C. Okay. I have no problem with Cape Cods either. Right. Uh Dina, this property is private. It's not public at all. Yep.

I don't have a problem with If it's I guess I do only from my history. Yeah. You know, in 32 years being in the engineering construction industry, asphalt curb does not hold up the same. It

um granite is a more durable product whether you're a big plow or a small plow. I've seen plenty of parking lots with curb granite cur I mean asphalt curb everywhere because it's sat on top of the asphalt. It's not sit below the structure. So it doesn't take much to move it. The other issue we got to consider is the granite curve detail is seven inches and the bassel burm is only three or four. This is a pretty steep slope on the side and now we're going to lose another three or four inches on that slope and how does that affect the entire slope because we had questions about the sloping on the side. So that I think we need more information how that's going to be addressed and does it now make it steeper than what we'd be comfortable with that the soil the road's going to hold up

and I can't remember does it flatten out at all? Is there steeper sections? It's the whole thing. It's fairly steep the whole way up. All the way up. And then um my my last one is is I also have some thoughts in mind of the long term. This is an HOA and I'm trying to be respectful of owners. You know, I agree. He says he's on the hook till it's sold, but once it's sold, six, seven years down the line or less, if they sell faster, hopefully that works out for them. And that asphalt curve starts to fall apart. Now it's on nine or eight, sorry, eight land owners to pay for all the costs to rebuild that. Y okay. And that's where I'm sitting is that they're on the hook.

And I also don't want this to come back six or seven years from now and they somebody say we need the city to take this road over and we don't meet the standards. So we have to bring it up to standards like we've seen many a time in the city. Yeah. Okay. Did Amanda have did you have a question? I was I was agreeing with this due to the slope of the drive um that I don't see how the long on the long term how the Kburn would sustain and um again once Mr. Taber is no longer financially on the book for this project that it's then on the HOA and I want there to be you know safe roadway all that all that and that that they don't their roadway doesn't start to erode

because they don't have the foundation for that. Okay. E I'm still stuck on the 2023 application. Were all four of these items addressed then and there per the approved plan right now they there were no waiverss granted for these items. So they they currently as are as are signed in the approved plan those items have been complied with. they've provided street trees. Um the initial application that was submitted in 2023 uh I if I I believe I haven't um I believe had the nine nine units and and was different in many ways than ultimately

what was ultimately approved and through a series of receiving reports you know coordination with the board um and continuing the application to bring it to a public hearing the applicant through redesign met a lot of our current standards. But in 2023 with the eight units that were approved, were all four of these items addressed specifically within those approvals, whether they be notes in the plan or part of the permitting process comp the Yeah, the design comp would be, you know, the applicant proposed slope granite curbing. There's no need to go.

So, I'm still stuck on a required appeal to the superior court, which lapsed 30 days after the approval. This seems like we're going back and it's it's a very it's a very fine line between being able to amend versus relitigate the approved plan. It almost seems to me like it's lacking jurisdiction to rule on these issues for failure to appeal back in 2023 if I understand. You could also so t tableabling it will allow us to bring the city the city solister in to for further reviewing it. But councelor Todd Thank you. I'm sorry. Did you have anything? No, I was my concern is No, I I agree. I agree.

I'll follow up on on his comments actually though. If in fact we we received a new official plan that was submitted and that there was a certain material difference within that plan, then I think we are certainly able then to move forward. Well, that that's a different that's a different avenue then that becomes a different a new a new plan as opposed to Eden's point which is I want to waiver on this plan that was approved. You can't I don't know that you can go back. It's like going back to a jury that, you know, a legal system and saying, "I didn't like your your decision. I want a different decision." I I don't think you can do that.

Which I think I'm hoping that Mr. Taber is hearing this because um the um that's that's the key element here to make this work is to have a new plan submitted with the items that we're all discussing here tonight included. That will allow us to listen to this again. Otherwise, I think that you're correct. I mean obviously we we can't I think it's two I think it's two factor. I think it's first and foremost going back to city solicitor say here's what we heard go watch the tape see see what was discussed can we statutoily or you know legally go and and make changes to this without having an amend

without having an amenity plan and I don't think that we can but that's I know we can't with the with the l the depth of the of the asphalt. Yes sir. Matt u Mr. Mr. Chair. So, uh, and Mr. Thompson, jump in and Mr. Bass, jump in. If if you have questions about the legality of the application, um, you could always continue this this hearing and application to date certain, which would be the November meeting, November 19th. Is that the date? um and with a request to either uh get a legal opinion from the city solicitor, have a non have a have a have a attorney client meeting with the city solicitor to talk these things through.

Um that's completely within the the board's rights to do that. Um, so so as opposed to tableabling and re and renoticing, if we did a continuation, we wouldn't have to renotice, get opinion, maybe do a non-public session with the city solicitor prior to the meeting and and then be to hear it. That's absolutely it's absolutely an option. I I suggested the date uncertain just so we could get an additional plan submission so that we get over that hurdle which I think is I I don't want to put words in the city solicitor's mouth but I would in I would expect that would be a minimum requirement for an amended plan. Okay. I saw Pete too. Yeah. Well give it give it the peak because it dovtales into what you just said too.

Thank you Mr. Chair. of two things that the the Cape Cod Burm issue does come up quite frequently and and I think we actually approved it on the the case in front of us previous to this one where there was Cape Card Burm on site at the at the Enterprise lot. Okay. But we're going to let them put it back in. Yeah.

Um and there are other instances where in a parking lot or u some some minor site we were were okay with with Cape Cod Burm or recommending approval of Cape Cod Burm uh to the planning board. Um this road is is a whole other thing. And and also I want to mention that once you go from 8 to nine units, it it requires the widening of the road from 22 feet to 26 ft. Okay. I didn't know that. just to set the fact shocking again.

Same with what Alex said. Um, so Pete, so 26 ft or 24 ft? 26 26, right? We would have to look, but there the going from the 8th to the 9th unit does trigger into different portions of our subdivision and construction standards. Yeah. A reason for resubmission with a plan considered with any type of planes design. Okay. Can I ask the can I ask a question? Sure. Yeah, you we'd have to look back at the staff reports on the approvals for when I had nine unit submission because we they agreed to it was a 24 foot wide road on nine units. So then that would have to carry. No, not if you resubmit it won't have to carry if you're not if you're going to have to resubmit it won't have to it won't carry.

Okay. So why would they object to it now when they approve? Might not but we need to see it on plan and it's based on engineer. Okay. All right. All right. God almighty. things have to be set straight. Correct. So Pete, anything else other than the distance the uh the width? Alec, I would have to we'd have to any plan submission and the change to the nth units we'd have to do a comprehensive review of the plan against the subdivision regulations. So do we do we want to address all three at the and and leave all three in there and have the city solicitor

I'm not looking at you guys now. Um, so that's the question before us. Are we comfortable with all three of the of the requests, the street trees, the curbing, and the length of the driveway? Do we are we objecting to any of them? Again, I think there was some I I'm fine if we want to have some more discussion regarding Cape Cod Burman and and and uh and concrete or excuse me, and granite because there is some decision on it. I I am opposed to the Cape Cod Burman. have been opposed to it on multiple plans. Um, but that's okay. We can we can all talk about it and figure it out. Um, I'm inclined to continue the meeting, look for feedback from city solicitor's office, let staff figure out what needs to be done. Do we need a non-public session to talk to the solicitor um previous prior to this going any further? And then the next question would be would we be ready to go for November with a new plan set and um updated updated information and that's on the applicant at that point. Staff can work with the applicant to figure out what the best timing it would be. Are we okay with that

or alternative? November would be challenging for a full right comprehensive staff. That's my only thought is is the November. But I mean again, if we continue it and no date certain or continue it to the November meeting, you you can continue because this is not subject to the 65day clock, right? Because it's already an approved plan. So you can table to a date certain at whatever length of time you choose or you can table date uncertain and require renification or or continue continue as opposed to table. Continue as opposed to table. Samanda, I think there's a lot of elements that I think one month would be challenging, especially if there's a deadline, which really is is today.

I don't think that November 19th would satisfy the staff, the city sister, and the meetings that need to happen to come to a better understanding of the plans. So I would either say continue uh a date uncertain or specify December or um I I mean that I don't see how November 19th these things could be accomplished in the time because there are there are schedules to be met to do to to this is a not a little hill to climb at this point. We are now at a at a almost at a mountain and I think that I know where you stand and I'm saying you as the applicant but the staff needs to review this and that takes time and the deadline for that was today. I think that it's in your best interest to for the applicant to consider this to be either December and or for us to make the decision to be undetermined. I don't think it's in your best interest to try to force it. So, let me just councelor Todd,

let me Yeah, thank you. Uh, yeah, I agree with that. Um, I think the date uncertain might be best in this particular instance. I think we want to make sure that the city solicitor has enough time to review the material facts involved here. And I also want to do that for Mr. Taber because I think this gives him an opportunity to take a little bit of extra time to create the plan that we have asked for with the elements in it that we're expecting. And so that's what I really would strongly encourage. You know, use this time while you know on our end we're looking at particular issues. You know the issues that you need to look at and you can take advantage of the time to create the plan that we can have before us which really uh I think will will help you. I think uh move this along.

I'm fine but not November because obviously today was the deadline December if you guys want to say December and then ready continue it or so in in the case in that case I'd rather do no date certain because then it can come on December. Um and if he's not ready then we don't have to table it again at the meeting. So we don't want to put a date certain on it just because then at that point you're locked into the December. If you're not ready, then we've got to then table it and then renotice it. You don't you have to go through the renotice perspective. Council Todd. Yes, and I agree with that. And I just would want to also put on the record that does not mean that we're going to be sitting on our hands on this. We're obviously going to be moving forward. So you'll know that we are we are still progressing on this and that again gives you the opportunity to continue on your end to move forward.

Understand? Okay. So just so when you continue a date uncertain um the applicant will be required to notify us the typical deadline of when you want to come back in. He has he will have to repay the butter notification fees and provide us with the resubmission materials at that point. Resubmission materials for sure. Okay. They continue to have to do the well if they continue to a date certain then you remain in the public hearing schedule and I want the applicant and the board to understand that if I say December 19th to so do the December 19th date if that's acceptable then we'll do that. Yeah, sure. I mean to the board you put January

if that helps you get extra time to kind of work with staff and and what plans you need to pull together to try and give it resolution we and I think I I I I appreciate the offer January meeting for January do we have the January date I do appreciate the offer for January given that currently both the planning division and the city solicitors office are both short staff and have people working multiple positions at the So getting that time to do that I think January we should certainly have plenty of time to get something scheduled with an on meeting with board. Okay. So that's good. So uh motion Alec or Tim sorry

it sounds like the board is looking to continue the application to the date certain of January 21st 2026. 21st would be understanding the applicant will provide resubmission materials by December 17th for that public hearing. Okay. So move. Good with that. So we got a motion and a second. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Opposed. That motion carries. Good with that. Yeah. Okay. We will get there. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um All right. Let's move on. Uh other business. Any other business which legally comes before the board this evening? Believe the deputy city manager has a couple of items. All right. What do we got? Too late. Too late. We got a motion to adjourn.

Recognizing that councelor Todd, Mr. Thompson and I were here till 11 o'clock last night. A long time ago. Early night. Hey, welcome to my world Tuesday. Um, so just a couple of things. We are getting close to wrapping up the the RFP for the master plan update. Um, uh, the question is, uh, does the board want to see it before we go out for a proposal? Okay. So, we will have it. Board member does. Yes, board member does. So, I I respect that. If if if it's the will of the board as a body, we're happy to to provide it and um we can get it to you at the November meeting. So, if that's when you want it, if we want you want to see it, I would like to process. Yeah. Okay.

This is a big process. I just want to make sure we've got I'm sure it's there, but again, in my experience doing I just want to take a quick look and make sure we've got that be great. So, November meeting, Matt.

So, we'll have it at the November meeting and we'll make time on the agenda to to talk about it. you'll get it in advance. You'll take a look at it. Um uh and we'll make sure that we're all on the same page because the master plan is the board's responsibility and the staff will be here to help you with that before we put it out to look for a consulting team for it. So, that's what we'll do there. Uh we're continuing to work on zoning amendments. The parking one uh is still in process. Um, just to give you a sense of where we think we're going with that, uh, after much deliberation and uh, pulling it apart and putting it back together again with the staff, um, there are the zoning ordinance and the site plan regulations have parking requirements in them, design standards. They are not the same. Uh what we're thinking about doing is leaving the zoning ordinance so that quantity of parking that must be provided is still in the zoning ordinance. X parking spaces per unit, x parking spaces per square foot, things like that. However, there will be a conditional use permit um that would allow the applicant to come to you to say, "Hey," and provide uh studies or other information that would say, "Look, we think this parking standard's incorrect board. We want you to consider a lesser standard." So that would that would be the relief val so they don't have to go to the zoning board. Um also we were looking to basically exempt anything that is subject to minor or major site plan um from the provisions of the zoning ordinance for design standards. So for things like dimensional requirements of what a parking space is, dimensional requirements for drive aisles, um requirements for uh for landscaping, things of that nature. That's all in the site plan review regulations. So we if you're going to be subject to site plan reviewing

under under the zoning ordinance which is article 984 uh if I have that correct um you would just come here if conversely there are things in development world that are not subject to planning board review and what we'll probably do is keep those things in the zoning ordinance to say look if your for example um uh minor site plan threshold for a parking lot is five spaces or or between five and 25 spaces. If you're making four spaces, um you will still have to be subject to the zoning requirements to make sure that your parking spaces actually meet the requirement of a standard parking space which is 9 by19 or a compact parking spot, things of that nature just to make sure that there is some governing threshold there. So people actually build things that are usable and we'll create a relief valve for them either through conditional use permit process with the planning board again so they don't have to go to the zoning board or we might actually just say go to the zoning board depending on what that is because there's not a lot of that business. Um so that's the direction we're moving. The other thing that we're looking to t tackle which I'm curious to see how the board would feel about this is um this might be the opportunity to broach things like electric vehicle uh charging station requirements. Um, other communities in New Hampshire have those. We do not. Uh, and if we're going to being the parking regulations, now might be the time to put that in there, which I think is actually consistent with our our our current master plans and and other things. Um, the other thing we might do is also talk about bicycle parking because of uh complete street policy. So, um, that's the direction we're moving in. Wanted just to see if that's made sense to the board and happy to answer questions. So, bicycle parking popped up with me the other day with somebody that was hitting me on it from the complete streets project saying, "Where is bicycle parking? Why can't I park my bike at the uh at the school street parking garage? Why can't I park

my ebike? Why isn't there one parking spot that's got 15 ebike spots in it?" Uh, all great questions and chargers and charger units as well. And I so I I applaud that piece of it and being able to to look at it uh with that multimodal futuristic aspect in mind. I'm not 100% sold on charging stations in downtown or in the corridor or you know in that area but um certainly in certain areas or certain places and even places like uh Ever Arena parking lot and things like I mean those types of underutilized big wide open spaces that are right off the park right off the highway seem to just be screaming for those types of things. So I I love to hear it. I mentioned solar when we talked the other day as well. um you know and and getting some solar I I thought of you Dina immediately but um looking at it and saying okay are we beefing up the solar piece of it are we looking at it and starting to put it into the to the you know the just the design aspect of it you're putting a new building in a commercial building you got x amount of feet on the on the roof what's the solar capacity for it and can you do it so 100% think that those are are great are great pieces that you know that we need to

they would be again those applications subject to say plan review so the board could have conversations with applicants about waiverss or reductions of of those requirements. But again trying what we're trying to do is is I think the major frustration of the development community is they don't want to have to go to the the zoning board particularly for things that are design related issues like uh I'll I'll you know the case that I'll use is um uh the Costco that went through the the variance process which this this board has seen before uh but you know for dimensional requirements things of that nature uh for for parking reductions things of that nature trampoline park is the biggest example I have the parking ordinance the ordinance currently requires over a thousand parking spaces for altitude which at best has 25 cars out of it.

Your car pooling probably 10 kids to get there. I think something easily the board could handle through a conditional use permit. Mr. So I have I have a few questions. So I want to take him in pieces. Parking. So if I'm understanding you planning board now has control of changing parking requirements as far as whether it's two spaces or 1.5 or is that have to go back to the zoning board? No, it would be it would be all within the purview of the planning board.

Okay. So that's step one. Yep. Your ID or EV. A couple things you got to consider with this. Is that going to count towards your overall parking? So, are you going to are you actually going to tell somebody if I show up with a regular car and there's no space on that EV, I'm not allowed to be in that lot. So, you need to decide whether this is a electric car used first so that if I don't have an electric car and it's the last spot in the lot, I can take it without suddenly being towed. Same with ADA spaces. you now need to consider whether you're going to require at least one EV space in addition to regular and that has different dimensional requirements. U I'm going through this I literally I'm the design manager on our EV team in Massachusetts for all the NEVI all that stuff. So I'm familiar with all these things. So

we will lean on you. So so so what I'm trying to just um these are some things that come up in this is literally we just did the down in B just over the line the the was it Hampton in right across we're putting in chargers there. Yep. The other that kind of they allowed us the waiver because of the for the requirements of you know not carrying extra parking space but saying those could be regular but things like that we need to see figure out how to word those to these to make sure that was the approach I used in Marramac when I created EV parking requirements in Marramac. Yeah. And and then then it all comes down to is they always want the EV way over there away from the building. Yeah. Yeah.

But then the handicap is over here. The other issue is we're we have to consider is can UNATIL provide the right well not even just a transfer power because if you're talking are we going to say it's level ones level twos level threes are we not going to require what has to be put there of the applicant they can put whatever they choose to and then again you talk about having to have extra switch gear extra transformers we have a problem with requiring people to do underground and we always give waiverss for not having a transformer here. We're going to say you have to have EV and guess what? It requires a transformer. Can't get a transfer for 10 years, right? So, so just a couple things to consider on that.

Yeah, appreciate the feedback. Um what just so you know the direction we're moving. We're we're talking about larger parking lots. So, it wouldn't be a 10 space lot. It would probably be things around like 50 spaces or more. So yeah, you're talking retail large multif family large retail large service and then uh the direction we're also thinking about is just mandating only level one if somebody want to go beyond level one to two or three be different design standards. Um there be a different design standard. So, what we're trying to do is kind of um dip our toe in the water to try and start moving the community in that direction without having a seismic change that that's going to cause a lot of angst.

It all sounds like the the planning board meetings are going to be longer. That's all I hear. Sounds perfect. So, the other thing I have is a lot of times these EV charging are not part of the development. They're a separate vendor that they come in, they do it. So, we're going to have to figure out how that happens during the process because they may not know the vendor. So, things may change. Um, I I would be careful on level ones. I think I would say level two is your minimum because level ones you're there for four and a half hours trying to charge a car as opposed to a level two you're there significantly less time and level three it's, you know, whatever. Level one might be more appropriate in a residential setting.

Yeah. And then you know and then I'll go into my last thing and then I will be quiet talk is we already have bike parking. We have requirements to have bike racks in our site development plan. So when you say bike parking I guess I would say micromobility. I'm talking is the scooters. This is I'm talking downtown. I'm specifically talking downtown and an area where someone can park a bike for two days and be in their apartment and leave it into a certain area just like they do a car. Then I would say in our site plan regulations, we may want to put requirements in larger developments for covered

the new employment security building. I can never remember the name of it, but whatever the the name of the new building is, that underground parking area, people are already like, hey, why didn't we think of this right out of the gate and have bike parking and bike storage areas in here so we could store our bikes and do bikes don't say we have to. And that's what I'm saying. So, but we have to be careful. There's a difference between just saying we got to have bike parking and somebody leaves their bike out on the front lawn as opposed to in the larger developments of x amount of units or more, you must provide covered locked parking. Okay. We're on we're that's we're on the same No, no, that's fine. What else, Matt?

So, that's and then beyond that, um we're eventually going to get you signage changes. uh the the planning division uh with uh Kirstston O'Brien and Stephanie Verdil are are um going through a process to audit uh the variances over the last three years or so. We might go back further just to see what we're seeing with uh common themes. Uh which zoning desk districts, what how what's the size size issue? What's the height issue? Um the one thing we're going to try and do is balance this of um the analogy I use is is a speed limit. So sign regulations are kind of a speed limit. You can have a certain height, you can have a certain size. There might be some flexibility to that. Uh but just like the highway when you go you know change the speed limit from 60 to 70 miles an hour people might be inclined to drive 80 miles an hour all the time. So I think we just want to make sure that we don't necessarily by changing the sign to try and rightsize the sign regulations to what we might be seeing as frequent flyers with the zoning board that we just don't give somebody the green light to say okay we're going to go from 60 square feet it's now going to be 90 square feet. Um, and everybody's going to come in and say, "Well, I want 150 square feet then." So, we've got to try and figure out how to how to control that. One way we might do that is through conditional use permits again, which would give the planning board and not the zoning board the authority to allow people to go larger, whether that's taller, bigger, square footage, something like that. Um, which again is a different standard than what a varian standard would

for this for this loft uh building. Just using that one as an example because that hit two I think planning zoning issues. It was a height above the the second story as well as as well as the size. So those could be done by conditional use permit just at the planning board. Uh we that is one way we could handle it. Yes. Yeah. Would they also be subject to ADR review? Yes. Yes. So so it checks all the boxes and it makes it I guess at the end of the day it makes it an easier application for the applicant.

We're trying to make uh we're trying to make the process more efficient and and uh user friendly and um frankly give the board more holistic control over things. So you can look at a site in its entirety and not just compartmentalize things or uh or maybe the zoning board might not have all the information that the planning board would have which is not unusual. Um and so to try and make sure that we're doing this in a more comprehensive way but it's also easier for the development community and more efficient and frankly it's going to be easier for I think the board and staff as well. So it's targeting those areas that aren't such drastic policy considerations that need the new master plan first. These are the types of things that we know are long-standing issues that need to be addressed.

I have one more if I could. Doesn't have to be right away, but uplighting. We have had a constant back and forth about uplighting of building faces and whatnot or downlighting if you want. It's kind of vague in our rags as to it. It to me I didn't think it was vague and so I know on Delta Dental I was very much blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. I don't care. I don't remember that. You show the board. I wasn't even there. I didn't remember that. Well, it's just to me, you can tell me all you want, but if I sit at my house in East Conquer and I look across city of conquered and I see a bright light right where Delta Denton is, sorry guys if you're listening, but it's a bright spot in the sky. Y So, yep.

I think at some point we need to get a handle on that so we stop getting the well you let it happen here like you know that old well you did it 10 years ago. Uhhuh. Y currents don't allow.

And then the other thing just Mr. Chair and then I just let the board go. Um, the other thing that that's happening is the the planning staff is looking at the flood plane ordinance as well. There are new maps that have been produced by FEMA for as part of their their routine update and there's a discussion about updating our ordinance accordingly to allow for that. We just went through a process a few years ago that um allowed for development in certain situations in the flood plane through the Clar process which you're familiar with with the ROI property on Manchester Street. So, we're we're trying to look at uh our current ordinance, what FEMA's and the state are suggesting and what the the board and the city did uh a few years ago to facilitate that and balance it all out. So, that's that's the state of of what what's going on with zoning. Um

Okay. Okay. Again, all I hear is more longer planning board meetings and more stuff. I'm only kidding, but I think it's the right decision. I mean, what I hear is, you know, we're going to get more holistic plans. We're going to actually start seeing the signs on buildings and in the applications we're reviewing rather than it comes back 2 months later and then well because we did this now we have to do this zoning approved this so we got to do this so I would Is it good Matt you're good I have nothing else your honor sorry Mr. Mr. Chairman, staff, you're good. It's great to be back at planet. Absolutely. Welcome. All right, with that, I'll uh entertain a motion to adjurnn. Anybody? All right, we got a second. Second.

Second. All those in favor? We are adjourned.