Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody. I will call to order the April 8th, 2026 planning board meeting. Uh if you could please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, get some administrative board work to go through before we get there. Mr. Rug, who's here? Who's not here? Do I need to make any appointments? Uh Jeff's going to be late. So, and John, I haven't seen him yet, but you should put Jason to uh vote for John until he arrives. Uh I think Jeff's going to be very late. And I think John's going to be here in a couple minutes. So, okay. So, why don't we uh I'll appoint Jason to vote for Jeff. All right. Fantastic. All right. Um the seven voting members. So,

approval of minutes. Uh it's the second week of the month. So, do we want to wait until next month? We'll wait till next month. I haven't even seen the minutes that they must have come out, but I haven't uh gotten them yet. Fantastic. Uh regional impact determinations. Oh, excuse me. Kelly, do we have any? None this evening, Mr. Chair. And discussions with town staff. We've got nothing this evening. Just a reminder, I sent an email out uh a couple days ago about the HOP grant responses that we discussed back in March, maybe. Just send me those comments as soon as you can.

So to to to that point, so I've read through them a couple times. I don't know what you want. I don't know what what do you want me to do? Your general feedback. Oh, looks it looks really good. Thank you. I'll make a note. Yeah, I think generally I just gave a couple of uh you know more like general comments. Jeff gave a whole dissertation that is I saw excellent. Yeah, I saw those come in and um apparently I didn't read it good enough but um yeah I mean it looked good to me. Just read the executive summary. So just uh so I'll take those and send them to the RPC and then they'll be back before you in May. Great discuss. Thank you.

Fantastic. All right, moving on here. We're going to get into some old business. We have a public hearing for an application for formal review of a subdivision of map 10, lot 41 to create a new 12 acre lot on Pillsbury and Gilchrist Road, 15 Pillsbury Road. Map 10, lot 41, zoned AR1 and Woodmont Commons PUD. Proopio Companies is the applicant. Pillsbury Realy Development LLC is the owner. This was continued from December of 25, January 26, and April 1st of 2026. Um, so we are here. This was accepted in December. Uh, if you gentlemen want to start out, go ahead.

Good afternoon, board. Thanks for having us again. Uh, my name is Will Nio. I'm here on behalf of the Precopio Companies. Uh with me tonight I have Ben Zer from VHB our engineering firm, Laura Gandia from Divine Milit our attorney, Brian Vatitali from Proopio and from Woodmont Commons in Pillsbury realy uh Kevin Smith is also here. Uh Mr. Chair before we get started we have three applications in tonight. Um I was hoping we have a relatively short presentation but we think there's some cohesion between the whole uh all three. So, I was hoping to do the whole presentation first and then we can do the motions after that parsed out per Yeah, that's per site plan. That's fine. It makes sense.

Okay. So, just to just to have some history here, uh 15 Pillsbury, we had a waiver previously granted on 123 2025. That will be agenda point number one. Number two, uh 36 Pillsbury, we came in front of the board for conceptual back in October on October 9th, 2024. compliance alternative was approved 121124 site plan presentation we gave 12325 and then we've gone through two two rounds of design review we've been in front of the heritage commission we've been in front of the conservation commission twice that will be the second uh point on the agenda tonight and then the third will be 44 Pillsbury which we went in front of uh this board for conceptual and compliance alternative 11125 and then site plan would be tonight uh you will notice our last uh development here, Rose Cran Drive. It's the western portion of the site. We we have renamed it Rose Cran's Drive. It was Liberty Court previously. Rose Cran Drive, I'm sure most people know, is was a prominent figure. Went to Dartmouth Shoe Manufacturer, agriculture uh and newspaper uh business owner and attorney in town here. Most of Woodmont Commons was land that was previously owned by uh Mr. Rose Pillsbury. So, we thought it was appropriate to name this portion of the development after him. Uh and just an interesting fact that he did introduce the first Macintosh to uh the London area.

Thank you, Will. The first uh case on the agenda tonight, 15 Pillsbury Road. It's a subdivision application. What are we looking at here? This is the boundary plan for the proposed subdivision. The subdivision would be um a donation from the lot known as lot 41, map 10, 15 Pillsbury Road. It's currently 130 plus acre development um or parcel, excuse me, bounded by Pillsbury Road to the north. Um and this would be a subdivision of the south of the of the northwestern portion of the site. New frontage for the proposed parcel would be on Pillsbury Road as well as Gilchrist Road to the west. Um, the new parcel would be 12.19 acres in size. Proposed lot numbering would be map 10, lot 41-105. We have had some feedback from the town in regards to what the address would be, the proposed address. Um, they're recommending 45 Pillsbury Road. So, if this application was uh granted tonight, 45 Pillsbury would be the address for the site. Um, as Will mentioned, there was previously a warrant that we um excuse me, a um

a waiver that was sought and granted. Thank you. that related to the um uh providing a boundary plan for the entirety of the site. Um and that was previously granted in December. Um one other thing to note, we are not proposing any improvements on this parcel. Um just wanted to reiterate that we would set the property monuments for the new subdivision line, the new property line, and that would be it. There would be no new um new infrastructure, no new housing, anything of that nature. It's it's a strict subdivision, if you will. getting into uh the Thornton Hill development on 36 Pillsbury Road. This is also a continuence from the December 3rd meeting. Um just a quick note on why we're naming it Thornton Hill. Um we're naming the development after Matthew Thornton who was a founding father of the United States. He was one of three delegates to sign the Declaration of Independence on behalf of New Hampshire. getting into uh the waiver request just to jog the board's memory. We, you know, began when we were in design review initially, we had a big list of uh waiverss that we were looking at, thinking about. We've worked hard and we've got that list all the way down to one and it just pertains to uh the London subdivision regulations, section 3.09 are roadway design standards. um that section in or the um the piece in blue that we're looking at here on screen is uh an 8% road gradient section. It is less than 500 feet in length and there are no um adjacent sections of road that are 6% or greater in slope. Um we're not asking for a blanket waiver uh from a from any section of the subdivision regulations. There's actually a criteria that's outlined in there um for those three points and we're meeting all three of the criteria. Um Miss um town staff has uh previously expressed support for this section of a waiver. We were also I'd like to note quickly we were asking for another section of road waiver previously and that related to this section of road here. Um it's an internal four-way intersection and uh residents would take a left turn into

the 44 Pillsbury development that we're going to get into here in a minute. We were showing that at 8% previously. We've, you know, since looked at our design, went back to the drawing board and we uh gave some additional information to uh the engineering director, Mr. Troier. He had some concerns and so we decided to withdraw our um our request for that waiver and we're no longer pursuing a waiver for that section of roadway. It is only this section right here outlined in blue. getting into the overall site plan. Um, just to jog the board's memory about, you know, what we're proposing. Uh, this hopefully should be a familiar project by now, we're proposing 250 residential units on 36 Pillsbury Road. It's a 94 acre parcel. Um, there would also be we're proposing a private roadway network. That network is in the neighborhood of 2.3 miles. um as well as um central open space for all of these residential clusters that you will see um around the site here, there, and so on and so forth. Um the unit mix ranges um from one-bedroom units all the way up to three-bedroom units. There are five different unit types that are proposed on site. So, there'll be one of five floor plans for all of these units. We also have a a central walkway network that's going to interconnect all of the different clusters to the amenity space that's centrally located here. We would be offering things in the in the variety of a gym. There's a leasing space there, outdoor amenities such as a pool deck, um recreational courts, a pickle ball court, uh and a recreational field and a dog park. Um things of that nature. getting into the new project. This is the first time that we presented site plan uh in regards to 44 Pillsbury. We were here previously for uh compliance alternative that was in November of last year. It was granted previously um and that related to the cott again the cottage court style development um and layout that we have. This is what the site plan looks like. Um when we were

here back in November, we got you know some feedback regarding the the plan that we were looking at. some of the feedback that we got um in particular from the chairman was that things kind of felt a little tight. You know, we kind of needed to, you know, rework the layout a bit and I'm happy to say that we have done so. Now, another thing that I would like to note is that we um went in for design review. We were proposing 62 units. Our number is now down to 60 units. The reason for that, there were a couple different factors that went into that. Um you know, grading being one of them. Uh but we really felt at the end of the day that it would uh help to you know provide more space for the development and you know work on the the crowding issues uh that were uh some of the feedback that we got from the last time we were here and presented this site. Um I'd also like to note that there would be no residential access from Pillsbury Road um on either side on the west or on the south. Everything would come essentially through the 36 Pillsbury Road um development from one access drive here. residents would make their way up north into an internal four-way intersection, take the left turn into Rose Cranch Drive, and then from there have access to their units. Another feature that we're offering is a um a walkway connection into the 36 Pillsbury property. There's a um a walkway that begins here, goes across a stream crossing, and then from there, residents will have the option to walk, you know, further into the site into the amenity building um and have access to those features. All residents um that would live at 44 Pillsbury would have access to the amenities that are um on 36. They would also have the option to continue into the walkway network further down off the page and into Woodmont Commons.

Anything else you want me to mention? Well, excuse me, Ben. Yes, sir. Just make mention though there is a fire access road. Yeah. That would come up down onto Pillsbury. So, there's one one point of access here. That's the primary point of access for all residents and fire trucks. There's a secondary point of access that we've reviewed with the fire department and uh John Troder are here. The fire access would go right on this existing uh road that's there. Perfect.

We would also have a gate um right at the bottom of the access road. It's um a system that's called click to enter. It's already been coordinated with uh Brian Johnson who's the uh deputy fire chief of the Londereary Fire Department. And essentially the way that that system works for anyone that's curious, if there's, you know, ever an emergency on site and the fire department needs to get in, if there's ever an obstruction, you know, along this road here, anywhere basically in the site, they can blur a radio signal and the door will automatically open, pick up that radio signal, and swing open. There's uh nothing stopping the fire truck from proceeding right in. No obstructions or um anything like that. Um we've coordinated on the grading as well and the width of the uh the fire access road. So we're we're all on the same page there. I'd like to say in regards to the uh fire department, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir.

And so while while you're talking about that, and that's going to be plowed and maintained by the owner. That's correct. Thank you.

This will be um one other thing to note, this will be a condo development. These dash lines that we're seeing on the plan indicate limited open space where every individual condo owner would own a certain piece of land. And then the communal open space would be here in the center here, here, and then there would also be common ownership for the rest of the site. All of this land to the south and to the west

for that property. Are you going to leave some of the trees up? The intent is that the whole uh western side um there's easements right there. So what what you these lines right here are potential easements that we're working through for traffic agreement that we're uh that I'll get into in the next slide. But there's a lot of uh foliage here and then there's a lot of trees here as well. So we're going to try to leave as many of the trees as possible. Okay. As is

it's a good buffer for the town. It's a good buffer for our for the residents as well. So, one thing we we we've heard pretty much in every time we've uh come up here, every person we've talked to in the town is off-site improvements and traffic, right? And and there's multiple intersections that have quite a bit of traffic if if you drive around the town. So, when about two years ago now, when we did the original traffic study with uh VHB in the engineering department here, we we had five intersections that we studied. The study results indicated that really only one of the intersections based on this development alone needed to be upgraded and that was the Pillsbury Gildest intersection. We proposed a right turn only lane there. Um after a lot of discussions with the town town manager Kelly engineering department uh though that was the upgrade that was probably the best for our job and that was really the only uh the limitation of our 250 houses plus the 60 additional houses for 44. We're in the process now of working on an off-site improvement agreement with the town. And essentially what that will do, we were hoping to have that in front of city council earlier this week, but that's going to be we're hoping to be on the 20th agenda and that will be an official off-site improvement agreement. What what that is now, it's the Pillsbury Hardy. We're going to make a payment into that intersection. There's there's a uh don't know exactly what the engineer is going to be there, but we're going to let the town have their discretion, but we're going to make a payment to that upgrade that intersection. Pillsbury Gil Guildrest. The money that we would have used for the Pillsbury Gilchrist uh right turn lane is going to go into a payment to the town before we start this project. That that number is being worked through with Sean, Kelly, and John now to make sure that that's equal. Equal uh the site driveway. So,

Pillsbury uh road is relatively busy. She made 310 houses. Uh Hy Tanner, who's the uh traffic third party consultant for the town, requested that we do a left turn only lane there. Um it was going to increase weight times, but but we agreed to that as well because we think it increases uh you know just accessibility along Pillsbury Lane and it probably just makes a a safer passageway there as the quarter of uh Pillsbury Road. So that will be part of it. That will not be a payment. That will be something that we build as a development. And then finally, the uh Pillsbury Michaels uh intersection though the crash history didn't really indicate that anything had to happen here based on additional conversations with the town. Uh we are going to put an allway stop sign in there. Uh we we Ben Ben talked about it earlier that the whole intent of the walking paths on our side is so the Woodmont Common South of Pillsbury residents can walk and they can walk up to the public trails that we have. We have a lot a lot of wetlands. is we have about 26 acres of wetlands that we're going to preserve and we're going to have bridges through. We don't want just our residents to use those. We want all the residents down south of Pillsbury. So, the intent there is that we'll have stop signs, we'll have crosswalks, and then if additional light is needed there, we will provide additional light so pedestrians can uh interconnect between the north and south of Pillsbury.

That be one of those flashing uh lights. Originally, our original site plan, we had an RFMI flashing light, but since it's a three-way stop sign here, based on the engineers that have looked at it, the stop signs don't require an RFMI flashing light because the cars will be stopping anyway. Can I add something?

Yep. In regards to comments that we've received on all three applications, we have had a chance to meet with the town in regards to the comments on 15 Pillsbury Road and 36 Pillsbury Road. We don't take any exception of those comments and we can certainly accommodate those. We have received comments regarding the 44 Pillsbury site plan uh application. We have a meeting scheduled with the town uh next Monday, I believe, to go through those comments as well. I've looked through them myself and we we find them to be very amendable and we can accommodate those. Um, one other update that I'd like to give in regards to state permitting. um where we're at there, we have an AOT and alteration of terrain permit with the New Hampshire dees in for 44 Psbury and 36 Pillsbury. We're under review there currently because of our wetland crossings on the 36 Pillsbury side. We have a standard dredge and fill permit that we've coordinated with um applied for and we have that permit in hand for standard dredge and fill a wetlands permit um in order to get our crossings in. We're in the neighborhood of 8,000 square feet of uh wetland disturbance and it falls notably under the 10,000 foot threshold for uh the dees to require mitigation. Um we're still working through things with the Army Corps. They have a different threshold for mitigation, but it it's nice to know that that permit is in hand.

Thanks. So, Mr. Chair, that's the presentation we have tonight. You you guys have seen a lot of the houses, the house designs, you've seen all the site plans prior. We've talked about the compliance alternatives. So instead of having 100 slides for you tonight, you've seen most of it and these are the final items uh from 12:30 to today that we we thought we really need to wrap up.

Thank you. Um we did just hear the thing is its entirety. We're going to go separate. So I want to start with with what uh A is which is the subdivision itself. Um before we go to the public, before we go to staff, does anybody have any comments on the subdivision? Kelly, John, Kristen, anything on the subdivision itself?

Again, the the uh the comments are still remain the same. Basically, again, this was before the board back in December 3rd, 25. Uh nothing new has been submitted and the uh in my opinion again, a lot of the uh engineering comments are housekeeping items. Again, it's a simple subdivision. It's all I have right now.

Okay. I will open it up to the public. Again, this is on the subdivision, not the site plan for either lots, but just the subdivision itself. What do you have any comments on the subdivision? Mike spelled Sugar Plum Lane. I'm uh wondering if this subdivision will compromise in any way the plans to improve the intersection between Gilchrist and Pillsbury. It's the probably the the flattest most amendable place to add additional space to improve that intersection. I'm convinced that a couple of turn lanes here and there are not the answer and the four-way stop is only going to plug things up earlier. So with concerning this particular site plan, the question is who was going to own it and will it be available to improve that uh intersection?

So I do believe we're we're receiving additional um right away to that.

Yeah, please. So, in terms of the the benefit of the subdivision, if you will, the uh applicant is providing easements to the town for exactly what you described, some type of traffic improvement to that intersection. So, they've agreed to provide easements um with enough area to accommodate whatever that traffic improvement is for that particular intersection. My concern is that we're we're uh operating on a wing of prayer here. We we don't know what that is going to look like. We really don't know what it's going to cost. you know, we've got like a down payment, I guess, in a in an escrow account, but it's it seems to me we should have an engineering plan of an improved uh intersection that's going to support the 310 new homes and the existing increment of traffic from the rest of the Woodmont development. We we don't have enough specifics on this in my opinion. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Want to speak to that

just just to that point. Um with respect to this particular project, the off-site improvement agreement that the applicant referenced, um the town did agree with the applicant that their portion of impact is addressed financially through that agreement. Um again, that's something the town council will ultimately approve. Um but in terms of this particular development and their impact, uh the town is is agreeable to what's been provided monetarily for those improvements as well as the the easements themselves. And and I will say that no, we haven't identified an engineered traffic solution, but uh in order to even get to that point, we need funds to to do so. So that is what the applicant has agreed to do with with the town. Thank you. Anything else on the subdivision?

Yes, sir.

Uh Ray Brlin 3 Gary Drive. Uh I don't know about all the ins and outs of this, but uh I do know that uh there are serious concerns with traffic. We've had serious concerns with traffic. This is, I believe, the busiest uh roadway intersection in the town of Lendere, if not the busiest, one of the busiest. And um and we're we're talking about moving forward with this. Uh, and I know the town manager is working uh with the town in regards to having uh the town do traffic studies. Not only the developer doing traffic studies, but the town doing traffic studies. And um I don't see any of that uh has been accomplished. And um you know I'm hearing a lot of changes that are coming up here that personally I'm kind of I've heard of a lot of it but it seems a lot of changes. You know for instance uh this one uh on on Gilchrist and Psbury. Um I think they're calling it 45. Um it's going to be uh I guess a subdivision from 41 uh to make it a separate parcel with nothing about what they plan on doing there. And maybe they don't have to tell us at this point, but um if if they're doing a subdivision, they probably got something in mind. Uh which is going to put something other burden right there, more traffic. Um, we have we have uh discussion about putting in uh four-way stop signs. I think we know if we drive on the road, there's a lot of people that don't stop

at stop signs, unfortunately. And this adds to a safety problem. We already have some serious safety problems in this town. And we're talking about moving forward with this stuff. I I'm I'm not trying to find fault with the developer. They got a right to do something, but we have to the town have to take these things into serious consideration. What is the impact? And and when we hear that uh they are willing to work with the town and they're going to um perhaps do something wi with no engineering or cost figures and um I think we need to be very cautious on what we do here. Uh we don't want to hold anybody up. However, um and by the way, this let me see if I got this right. Uh 15, which is going to be connected to the other large one, which I have is 42, but then I hear 44. I'm I'm confused on these numbers. Um and and we're going to have an emergency roadway going in. And when I look at the plan that was up there, it looks like it's going in between some of these little cottage houses or whatever they are. They're really, really close. Uh other than that, there's only one way in and one way out. And if you got all those buildings and houses that close together, I think we're talking 15 ft apart or something. If one of them catches on fire, guess what? It's probably going to be a lot of them catching fire. And so I'm concerned with public safety. I'm concerned that we don't really have all the answers here about some serious issues.

I'm talking about traffic. So please, whatever you decide to do here, let's think it through. Thank you. Thank you, Ry. Um, anything else on the subdivision itself?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kevin Smith, consultant with Woodmont Commons. Just so there's no ambiguity about this particular subdivision. Uh, as I mentioned during my presentation at the last planning board meeting on the remaining density at Woodmont Commons, there is a finite amount of residential density that can be built in this particular area. the 310 homes that Precopio is proposing is that cap. Therefore, they cannot build in this particular area. So, while it is being subdivided for the purposes of this plan, it cannot be built on afterwards. And I just want to make that very clear. Thank you.

Thank you. Anything else from the public on the subdivision itself? Evening EJ Diozi Sugar Plain um can somebody help me where is the entrance in Egress in this particular proposal? So this is just a subdivision of land on this if you're on Sugar Plum. So when you're pulling out of Sugar Plum, this is the lot straight across. I know this is just a subdivision. And there is no development going on on this parcel of land. As an answer, thank you. Much like it does today, pardon me.

It's going to look much like it does today. They're not build on it. Thank you. Thank you. So, some questions just are we just talking about this just on the subdivision itself. Move to the next one. When we have the other two, I'd ask you to come back up. We just want to do do them one at a time. Gotcha. All right. Thanks. Thank you.

Anything else on the subdivision itself? Seeing none, I will close public comment. All right. Uh we don't have any waiverss to act on. Um I am looking for a motion to grant conditional approval of the subdivision 15 Pillsbury Road, map 10, lot 41, zoned AR1 in Woodmont, PUD. Pillsbury Realy Development LLC is the owner and Precopio Enterprises Incorporated is the applicant. last revised November 13, 2025 with the president conditions to be fulfilled within two years of approval and prior to the plan signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in the engineering memo. Do I have a motion?

So moved. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Jason. All in favor starting with Ann, please. Ann Champa, I. Javanni Veron, I Tony D. I Arthur Rug I. John Ferrell I Jason Knights I Sean Favor I John Cruz I and the chair votes in the affirmative the subdivision just want to note that we do have nine voting members present thank you

the subdivision has been granted uh we're now going to move into the public hearing for a formal review of a site plan and conditional use permit for 250 single family cottage court style dwellings along with associated site improvements 36 Pillsbury Road at 10 lot 42 zoned AR1 in Woodmont Commons PUB uh Proopial Companies is the applicant. Pillsbury Realy is the owner. Uh this was also continued in December, January, March and last week to this week. Um you guys have already gone through your presentation. Is there anything you want to add before I start talking to the board here?

Nothing comes to mind, Mr. Chairman. We're happy to answer any questions as they come up. Okay. Um John and Kelly, do you have anything? Mr. Chairman, members of the board, again, this this uh nothing new has been submitted. Therefore, the uh engineering comments of uh December 3rd, 2025 still remain. That's all I have at this time. I I have the same comment with respect to the design review items um that was reviewed by the Conservation Commission and Heritage Commission. uh one had no comment and the uh heritage was favorable. So those uh remaining departmental items uh will be addressed through the conditions of

on the waiver itself. I know they talked about it in the um in the the presentation here but can we just go through that again? You have looks like you have one waiver here. It is for this section outlined in blue. Um, we require 6% uh gradient and you're proposing an 8% correct. The waiver criteria allows for a maximum of 8%. Okay, John, anything you'd like to add to it? I'm in support of this particular waiver request, Jake. The the one that I was having heartburn on was at the intersection, the four-way intersection, and Ben and I worked it out.

Okay. So, we've been able to reduce what was going to be what what they were looking for relief on we've been able to reduce. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Um before I go to the public, anything from the board? Listen, the only comment I think I would make is is that when Doug and I first met the people who are developing Woodmart in was it 2008 or 2009? Uh seven or eight. 08 and 09.

So 17 or 18 years ago. Um, a lot's changed in 17 or 18 years and costs have changed and you know what they showed us 17 or 18 years ago was different than what we're seeing today. But times do change and things change. But just for those who have been following this as long as everyone else, just wanted to recognize that at least I am and I believe Mr. rug is aware that we have followed the history.

There's enough flexibility in the uh the master plan because we know over a period of time things do change and uh there's a lot more is involved with the society and everything else and how how they look at things. So that's taken into account. It's not going to be the same as it was 20 years ago and I'm sure it'll still be things going on 40 years from now past my lifetime. Anything else from the board? I do, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir.

Thank you. So, I'd like to address the density that been bounced around um several meetings on social media, local and regional newspapers. And I think it's important to understand that if you just if you just think about green space and let's talk about percentages that are allowed and I'm going to make up a number. This number is not accurate. This number does not represent this particular site. So I'm talking hypothetically. But if if you have to have 20% green space, let's say you have 16 houses on one acre lots, the green space calculation ends up being the space that's in between the houses. When you increase the density, like in a project like this, let's use that same 20%. What you do is you decrease the amount of what I consider non-usable green space which is between the houses and you gain that as a gross number a a usable 20%. Am I making sense? So you took all those all those little 16 individual pieces that weren't used. You took those from over here. you put them in a middle of a site now your 20% is a huge field we'll call it a field okay that becomes usable and I think that's one of the benefits of a project like this the density in itself is up to the individual consumer on whether they accept that or not

the the individual consumer is going to decide if they like living in a situation like this or not, but to me as one board member, I like increased density with more usable green space. And I hope that I'm talking in generalizations enough that that makes sense and um is accurate. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah,

I have one comment to make or a request. You could take it either way. One thing I don't like about this project is that um you have about 10 houses so close to the cemetery area in town and especially since it's the back of the buildings and considering that's a holy place there. I consider it a holy place because there'll be active burials there and all that. Um while people are barbecuing or whatever, but I was wondering if you would consider giving up those 10 houses out of respect for that cemetery that's there.

Can I respond to that, Mr. Chair? Just uh Yeah.

Yeah. Okay. So, so we we we've done some iterations on those houses, right? Because uh we agree, we've met with the DPW. Um we are going to have some mounding. We've talked about the metal field of this development. So, we are going to have some mounds um between the cemetery and the back of the houses that will have fescue grass on it. The cemetery does sit a little bit higher than uh these areas. So, we're also going to have some uh trees there. Now, I I do want to just note um when we look at this plan, it feels like stuff is a lot closer than it really is, but this is 124 acres that we're looking at right here. So, I I pulled some dimensions today and just to give everyone perspective because cuz we are cognizant of this, right? And we want to have respect for uh the cemetery, but we also want to have some respect for our residents as well. It's pretty mutual. So, from the back of these houses to the cemetery,

those the ones up at the top area. Um, so that that's from the back of these houses to that line right there is 262 feet, which is a pretty substantial distance. Um, from the back of these houses right here, these 10 to the property line right here, it's 111 ft. And that will have mounds that will have foliage there. Um, there is mutual benefits here between the cemetery and our development. The cemetery actually has water that drains onto our property and uses our storm water system. So, um, we have looked into it and we do acknowledge, um, in the cemetery there. Can I add something, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir.

In regards to not what's happening on our side of the property line, but on the cemetery side of the property line, there are also some uh, storm water basins there as well. So, I think it's helpful to note that, you know, we don't have grave sites that are pushing right up against the property line. There's a bit of a buffer going on, not just on our side of the property line, but on the cemetery side as well. Anything else from the board? Did I just see your hand up? Um, before I start, I'll I I'll open it up to the public. Uh, this is public comment. Please feel free to come up on uh this site plan. Anything from the public? Good evening, sir.

Good evening. How are you?

Le 21 Kit Lane been here many times. Um guys have worked with us as far as ideas on how to change the site which has been great. Um, the only thing I like to see is something done in writing because things get changed or things don't happen and if they're not in writing, they don't have to do them. So, I've asked because Kit Lane that's that property can put that as far as what are we going to do for a natural buffer because all the apple trees around there now gone seed are all broken or all dead and what have you. Now, they don't plan on doing any work in that area. Okay? because all the hopes is going to be after the water line. Okay. So, uh we discussed it as a gentleman what have you. We have that we're going to put up the burm maybe some trees or what have you done down the whole length of that. Is it in writing anywhere

in the plans at this point? We do have it in our landscape plan and ultimately those plans would be uh signed by the town. They it is in the plan because I haven't seen anything. That's why we have a landscape plan that shows uh tree plantings in that area. Okay. And then the last question I have is that some reason Penachuk needs the stone wall taken down at the end at Spring Road where it's Dut Road. What do we decide to do with that? They're taking it down.

Well, they need access, they say. And talking with John, they don't need access to that point first of all because there's no road there. It's all dirt road. So, I'm not sure how they're going to access it if we just take the stone wall down. Unless you're going to pave that road or if you're going to pave the road that comes off of um this is Penachuk. Yep. Well, they have the uh Gordon Drive spur right there on the other side, but it doesn't come it doesn't come into the So, they would have to pave it. That's what I'm saying. It only goes so far. It only goes as far as the water tank.

It doesn't come to that property line. So what did we decide to do for Penachuck if anything refresh my memory though Bob? Yeah the because if you recall again that the water line that's going to service uh that was on that 15 uh 15inch main. Correct. So that Yeah. And it goes underneath that stone wall. They took it down to put it in. Y put the stone wall back up. Now Penach says they need access to that point. They open up the wall so they can have access to it. My point is it's all dirt. What are we going to do?

Plow it. We're going to pave it. They want a gate there. What are we going to do with that area? So that access though, Bob, is the access to the tank. And again, the uh Procopio does not want to have them having a running access through that. So that's the that's where the line will exist now. Right. The line's on that wall right now. I put the wall back together. Yeah. But they actually what I was told is they wanted to open up that wall again. So we'll have to we'll have to reach out to Penachuck and make sure that again it's again why would you need it opened up Penachuck and if we have if they're going to have to open it up you're going to have to pave mud not necessarily you're going to have a gravel access.

Yeah. Okay. Well something's going have to be put there. But when will we know what Pentex is going to want to do with that uh that 250 year old wall? Ben, are you are you still working out with Penachuck the the final layout of the water throughout the site? Yes, I think we're in a good spot in terms of the layout. Um the sizing is something that they would still dictate for us. Um but I I think the layout that we have on the plans on the utility plan is is pretty much set. So there's so there's still some discussion happening Bob between Penetuk and Proopio. So at that time we're going to we're going to pinpoint if and why they need that. Why? Okay. because they have the access all the way from Pilberry Road. Totally agree with you. Yeah. Yeah. It's

all I have. Thank you. Anything else from the public? I don't think it is.

They wanted to uh Ray President Gary Drive. Um I I may have actually spoke about this uh earlier. I'm not sure. But um this is the big parcel that was all the Appalached that goes all the way up to Spring Road. And um I only see one access which is off Pillsbury. Is there another access to this development? That would be my first question. No. No access. Yes. There's the emergency at the 90, right? Where? Where? Over off of Hubby. There's correct. Yeah, there's an emergency entrance over off of Hubby Road near like that 90° turn.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. But it's not public access. There's only one public access. Yeah. I'm I'm concerned with firet trucks getting in there. And so there will be one there. You just I didn't see it on the plan, but uh you're saying there is one. Yes. Uh so it's I think that's important. Um the other thing is um I I I'm pretty certain there's a lot of ledge there which was probably where all that green is. Uh what is the green designate? That that doesn't designate wetland. It designate um believe a lot of that's wetland, is it?

That's the wetland area. Yes. Um, okay. Okay. Uh, but, uh, over where it abuts Kit Lane, I I see just white there. I don't see any green. Um, is that not also wetland? I believe the green on this is what is representing your wetland on that. That's correct. Okay. That doesn't That's not what I'm asking though. The white there that a botskit lane. Yep. What What is that? That would just be buffer.

Yeah. Whatever. What is existing which is like Okay. So there's no designation of wetland. No. But there is a lot of wetland there. The wetland but not shown. The wet the wetland is what's green. That has been identified by a wetland scientist. Correct. Okay. So everything that's green is wetland has been identified by wetland scientists as wetlands. Okay. Um the the other question I have is there going to be any blasting on this development?

There is going to be blasting. It's part of our NHDS AOT permit. Uh we are going to monitor that how much cubic yardage comes out. Um but yes, there will be blasting. is is has that been presented to the town engineer? Uh I mean it's been discussed two or three times now here. So I would assume that John has had plenty of discussion with Popio on it. Yeah. Do we know how much? No, we do not. Well, I I think that's important. Thank you.

Okay. You know, because we have other concerns here. So they'll go through the the blasting procedure in the town of Londereerry, which requires them to pull a permit from the fire department and go through the proper protocol as far as blasting.

Okay? Because we know blasting can release arsenic. So we do need to be concerned with that. Uh I'm fairly certain that there is a lot of ledge up there particularly where all those houses are towards hobby uh which is fairly high land uh pretty certain you know I've walked out there in the year years past but uh there's a lot of lead showing up out of the ground there. So, um I guess the other question is is there going to be sellers in these buildings?

You can answer on on this side of the development. No, none of these houses will have sellers. None will have sellers. None. I can understand that. Now, um Okay. So, you've answered the question as to access off hovey if the fire department needs to get in there with all those buildings um and homes. And once again, they look pretty well clusters. Are they What is the distance between the buildings? Is it 15 ft, 20 ft? It meets meets code requirements which requires 12 feet, but these houses are between 12 and 15 feet apart. 12 and 15 ft

and they abide by the peed regulation for a cottage court. Yeah, I I I see the point of cluster and sometimes it's beneficial, but you know, if you have a serious condition, you have a fire, uh you have houses clustered together, um sometimes they spread. Uh so I think that needs to be considered. Um thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you. Anything else from the public? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Uh, contrary to what uh Kelly just advised you, the conservation commission uh did have a comment on this and the comment was with regards to five of the houses that uh an talked about earlier budding up against the cemetery. Could you speak louder? Thanks. Does that better? My I just got new hearing aids, so it maybe I know. I'm trying to uh I'll try to be louder. Thank you.

Um so the the five there are five driveways that are very close to the wetland. Um, and we recommended at the conservation commission that that we drop those five for that for that reason because that's a lot of impervious surface draining directly into the wetland and has the the the other advantage of making it a little better uh view from the from the cemetery. So, I just wanted to correct the record in that regard. Uh secondly, I wanted to uh expand on a little history lesson that uh John shared with us a minute ago. Um in two about the year 2017, so somewhat after the initial uh discussions took place, the uh developer came here to get the infrastructure plan approved. um you know sewer lines, water lines, the the the underground stuff. At that time I appeared before the board and I I asked that part of that infrastructure plan would be the improvement of the intersection between Pillsbury and Gilchrist. And at that time I provided them with this picture which I can with your permission I can send up along the board. It don't take doesn't take long to look at it because it's it's pretty obvious what's going on. It's a line of uh cars stretching all the way from the intersection down back toward uh almost to Courtland, which is long. It's a long way. It's a lot of cars, a long way to slip through. They uh the board decided not to uh address that concern. We left the intersection the way it is and almost anybody will tell you that in the in the

40 years of the the years u since 2017 I think it's nine years now traffic has gotten worse not better in in London area and particularly at that intersection. So to me it is a a really critical issue that we get this nailed down because kicking the can down the road isn't working. And what I hope is that if nothing else, our uh town council uh liaison here will take back to the council the uh recommendation that they not approve the project agreement, the development agreement unless they have a firm plan that passes all of the the traffic engineering tests that is going to fix this intersection. I remember at one time in the during the period of time that John addressed earlier, it was going to be a little roundabout there. I don't know if that would make it better or worse than what's proposed here, but it's it's definitely not enough to say we're we're going to put some money in the bank. We're going to uh work out on a development agreement. Uh we're going to make a plan. We need to have that in writing. And I think the town council should have it in front of them an engineering plan that says this is what I'm signing up for and not kick that can uh down the road any any further. Appreciate your time. Uh Mr. Chairman,

Mr. Chair, can I Yes. So Mike, just to set your expectations. So when it comes to the developer paying their share, what they're legally obligated to pay towards this intersection, that might not be enough money to take care of how we fully need to take care of it. Like the amount of money for a full roundabout, it it's it's going to be less than that. So, as we look at this, we've got to figure out

what do we want to do at the intersection? Not only to fix it for this traffic, but to fix it the right way to make sure that we handle all that because that's been a bad intersection for a long time and we want to do it right and one time and spend our money well. Um, so we've we've got to come up with a plan for that. We've also had have to come up with a way to fund that because this isn't going to fully pay for all of that and that's going to take some time. So, we're not going to, just to set your expectations, we're not going to have a full engineering study and plan before all this goes through of what we're going to do at that intersection because they're not responsible for the full amount of the money on everything to do with that. So, obviously, we want to have the best plan we can have and try to get that and keep that in mind so we know how that is going forward. But, it's going to it's going to take more than just this piece and component of it before we have a fully realized plan just to set your expectations.

Thank you. No, I I I appreciate that. And what I what I think is we need to fix the intersection before we add the 310 dwelling units. We we have to admittedly it'll take a while, but that it should have been done many many years ago. And and what we need to do is get that figured out so that if if nothing else, they arrive at the same time that the the fixed intersection and and all these new residents with all their new cars arrive at the same time. Not that we make things worse and then eventually we try to make them better. So we we need to I don't I'm not a lawyer to figure out what the the words are in the development agreement, but that kind of thinking needs to go in there. And I appreciate your uh hearing me out on that.

Mr. Chair, could I just just to confirm what Mr. Spelt said? So I I read the concomments from the 15 memo, but for the record, what he stated was correct with the respect to their comments and what's in your memorandums and the conditions reflects the five driveways comment just so you know. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, can I add something there?

Yes. In regards to the five uh houses that the consom noted, they're up here. And ultimately in later iterations, we did make adjustments to the layout of uh the development. We ended up scooting this row of houses up a little bit. We also made revisions to the alignment of this road up here so that we would cross the wetland in a more narrow portion. We also made adjustments here such that we would minimize our impact. So ultimately for the sake of the standard dredge and fill permit that we pursued and ultimately did get uh granted with the dees we made layout revisions in this area. So you brought them closer to the cemetery.

We moved them further north further north. So these the last bottom couple of houses here the bottom five the ones that were commented on uh by the consom they were more in this you know skinny little area that's pinched between two wetlands. We have a wetland body here and a wetland body here. It that area opens up significantly the further north you go. We couldn't move this row of houses really any further north because we have a PUB buffer that we're brushing up on here as well. We didn't want to violate that buffer. So, we we moved this section of houses north to to accommodate um what the consom was saying in regards to those five houses and for the dees's purposes of wanting to get our impacts down. So, so it moved closer to uh Spring Street or Spring Road there rather than east towards the cemetery. They they did not move closer to the cemetery. They moved north to to answer your question directly.

I have a question. Of course. Is there going to be a fence along Hubby Road on your project? No, there won't. There won't be a fence along Hubby Road. There will be apple trees as uh specified in the PD. It will be one uh line of apple trees as they currently reside. Okay. So nobody can just drive off onto Hy Road from the development there. Yeah, that's that's correct. There's a 50ft buffer around our property. Um so we can't build in the 50 ft. So there's apple trees in that 50.

And and as far as the trees, you said you were going to leave up a thousand trees there. Are you going to leave up the thousand trees or take a lot of them down and put up something else? The intent is that along Hubby, we need to have the row of trees. Along Pillsbury, we need to have a row of trees. Uh Mr. Rug has uh given suggestions on flowering apple trees, which we're going to look into. There are a thousand trees that are potentially feasibly like be able to be saved. Um that that we're not touching. We do have an orchardist on that we're talking to, which is Collins Tree. Um once we purchase the land, we're going to have to walk them through and see uh what can be saved and what cannot be. Are you trying to save their original apple trees

if they're if they if you if they can be saved? We're we're not uh but a lot unfortunately there's a lot of uh invasive species out there, so I don't know how realistic that is at this point. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um piggybacking off of um Mr. spelts and um Kelly, I also found the original conservation uh comments uh that mentioned the five driveways. And I was always confused about that the comment because if the cemetery if we if we look at the plan that's behind us right here, if the if the if the cemetery's on the right and the driveways are on the left, what does taking five driveways out? How does taking five driveways out do anything? It takes the host. It was related to the wetland buffer, I believe. Okay,

that was the intent of making that comment. Okay, but to be clear, what the what the consom reacted to was not this plan. They had a different plan at the time. They had a different plan in front of them. This plan has been adjusted. It's been modified from what they originally saw. Thank you. Okay, that was my question. Anything else from the public?

Robin Stewart 522 Mammoth. If the green is all the wetlands, are you building on the barriers and the wetlands? Kelly, can you what are the buffer impact? What are the wetland total wetland square footage impacts and the buffer impacts? So, we actually um had our zoning administrator provide a determination on this question with respect to the wetland buffer and whether or not it's applicable in this instance and the determination was that it is not given the year in which the uh parcel was established. Uh, our zoning ordinance dictates that the buffer doesn't apply.

So, it doesn't apply is the answer to your question. Is correct. What is the is there an impact to the wetlands and how big is that? What what is the square footage of the wetland impact? So, Ben, yeah, the impacts to the wetland are are mainly the road crossings. Correct. Is that is where is it like 9,000 square feet if I is that number right? 8,822 square feet I believe is the is the right number? Y concentrated on these two uh road crossings as Mr. Trudier mentioned here and here handled through the state permitting process.

Okay. So we have about a 9,000 square foot wetland impact over the course of 125 acres. The 36 Pillsbury Road parcel is 94 95 acres. In total, there's another 20 22 acres in this. There's 9,000 ft in 95 acres. Okay, that's correct. So we are going over the buffers and the wetlands. We're building on them. There is no buffer on these parcels of land from there. The Kelly, help me out with this. They're they're grandfathered from when this was originally put together.

Correct. So there is no buffers when the parcel was originally established. So when the parcel was established, we did not have buffer impacts. So the par we didn't have a wetland buffer regulation at that. Okay, I got that. So, so there is no we didn't care about environment at that point, but we know better now. So, seems to me we should be taking that into consideration. I think that the I think that a 9,000 square foot impact in almost 100 acres is very minimal considering

we have regulations for a reason though for any impact. It's just my thoughts and I just want to say I don't think a mound is enough on the cemetery for privacy for the cemetery. Thank you. Okay. Anything else from the public?

Good evening, sir. Hello again. Thank you very much. Um, quick question on those five homes that Mike was speaking about that are up pretty close to the wetlands. Do they need to be there? I mean, I guess the question is for the developers. If those five sites were eliminated, would that pose an unnecessary hardship for this whole site plan? You want to speak to

All right. So we're we're we're building within the regulations and that's all. We're outside the buffer. We're outside the wetlands. We've moved houses from based on conversations with NHD stretch and fill permit. There has been a lot of modifications there. There's been house modifications based on the tons. So um those those houses are within the regulatory requirements where they can be. I'm happy to hear that. But does would it pose a financial hardship if they were removed? I think that's relevant. Okay. Sorry.

We We're dealing with regulations. It meets the regulation is is what this board is looking at.

That's an answer. Thank you. Um follow up on the intersection that u that Mike brought up also the intersection of Pillsbury and Gilchrist. I think we all agree it's it's a it's pretty much a busted intersection. It's failed in every manner, shape, and form. Going westbound on Pillsbury, approaching the stop sign. The underllayment is shot. The asphalt itself is is rippled. It's delaminated from if there was ever any underllayment. That has to be completely torn up, reconstructed properly. Whoever did it the last time, the the engineering is was flawed. It's a downhill grade weight transfers. It's not my not my area of expertise. Built a few roads, but it's been a while. It has to be addressed before I think any of this can go further because where are these cars going to go? We're talking overall over 300 homes. Those cars need to go somewhere. They need to go somewhere safely for themselves, for the people that are going to live up there, and for the surrounding residents and people that use that area. I haven't heard where they're going to go. We who live on Sugar Plum, we can't turn left between 7 and 9:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, and I think it's 4 and 6:00 p.m. because I really pay attention to that sign. I want you to know that. uh in the afternoon.

Yeah. No. Yeah. You you know you know what I mean. Uh Officer Cruz, you've got that. So I don't pay attention to the sign. Put that

No, no. I'm very serious when I say that. Um how about the exit coming out of this site plan instead of a four-way allway with crosswalk, which I think is a, you know, a great idea with the crosswalk. How about we make that a lefthand turn only all the time and redirect that traffic away from that intersection at Gilchrist and Pillsbury. Relieve some of that traffic. That's just it's it's going to be a funnel, a bottleneck in that funnel. It's it's going to be a nightmare. And I'm speaking from a personal standpoint for myself, my neighbors, my wife. It's going to be impossible for us to get out of our street. It's already very difficult. It's even taking a right-hand turn out of there. It's a It's a chase to try to beat the traffic that's flying down out of there. We need to do something about it. Something concrete's got to happen. I'm hearing a lot of well, we're going to work with we're going to get an estimate. I think these things that were talked about that are being brought up, they need to be put on paper, hard dollars and cents, discussed, everybody agreed to uh before this be before this can uh this can move forward. I think that's all I have on this plan. We're going to talk about the other one in a moment. I'm sure you can't wait. Um

it's my Wednesday night. We only take a right hand turn. I just want you to know that. We'll find out. Going to be watching me now, aren't you? Okay. What was your address again? All right. What's that? What was your address again? Uh, Michael, what number are you? Thank you. Um, I want to just on traffic real quick and we'll come back to the public. You performed a traffic study. The traffic study came uh with recommended um mitigation

mitigation to Yeah, thank you. to these certain intersections right here of which can you explain a little bit what that mitigation was in particular at your entrance and then Gilchrist and Pillsbury. Ashley, you want to speak to that? Ashley Doddal from VHB air traffic engineer.

So um our original study only identified mitigation at the intersection of Pillsbury at Gilchrist and that was a westbound right turn lane. So that would uh kind of offset the the impacts of the proposed development. And the peer reviewer did agree with that. But upon further conversations with the town staff and the peer reviewer at the site driveway in particular is what you're asking about. So going back to Pillsbury and Gilchrist which I believe is talking about the same thing here. Number two. Yes. So

so the traffic study came out and said we need to make a westbound. Am I hearing this right? A westbound right turn lane. Correct. Okay. So that was what your traffic study said. Our peer reviewer, the third party company that the town hires to review everything agrees with that. Correct. Okay. Talk to me about your entrance to the site, which is somewhere around number three.

Right. Our entrance to the site, we originally proposed um no turn lane there. Uh based on our operational analysis, there was going to be very little delay for vehicles turning left into the site. However, the town expressed that they would like the left turn lane there, and it does meet a warrant only for the PM peak hour. So, we are proposing a left turn lane into the site now. So, coming into the site, can you go to the other one? Yep. coming into the site from over here, you're saying there will be a left turn lane, right?

Okay. So, in those two areas, your traffic study, which the town's third party company reviewed and agrees with, feels as though that is the mitigation that you need to perform based off of the traffic that is going to and from your site. That's correct. That's generated by that by their correct. Yeah. Now, your your goal when you're putting together a site, you have to address your traffic. That does not address existing traffic issues. Correct. That's correct.

So, you've worked with the town and are in the middle of putting together an agreement with the town that's going to be presented to the council. I believe you tried to do it on Monday, but some things got changed around. So, at the next meeting that is going to work with the town and instead of you just doing your improvements, which were we're going to put a turn lane here so you can turn right and we're going to put a left turn lane here. I'm talking about these two in particular because that's where we're talking about right now. You've said we're willing to do that, but instead of just going ahead and doing that, we want to work with the town so the town can begin to fix a problem that has been around for quite some time now as opposed to just doing your mitigation efforts.

That's correct.

Thank you. So I what I'm getting at is what for the first time and probably ever, we're trying to take an approach at traffic that instead of just addressing the traffic issue that is being caused by this development. You have an existing traffic issue. That's not what they're responsible for. They're responsible for the additional traffic that they're going to add to that roadway. Their study has said to put two lanes in. The town has said we need more than that. We understand you can only provide we we can't ask them to do more than than what the studies show. We can't tell them you have to do this and you have to do that if the studies don't warrant them. But the town has said we have a real problem at these intersections. So instead of you just spending your money to do just what is required for your site, let's work together. So, the town and the applicant are very much working together to fix this intersection in its totality to fix the traffic that is existing today, not just the traffic that they'll be adding tomorrow.

Does that make sense? Okay. Because the town is responsible for a portion of that correct the town recognizes that the town needs to do something about that intersection. And what they're saying is, I'm just using a round number. Say it's a million dollars to do their improvements. Instead of just doing that million dollars, let's take that million and use it more wisely to fix the entirety of the intersection, not just your portion, Mr. Chair. Add something to that real quick. Sure.

You got to do a temporary fix. You got 300 homes in there, 600, 800 cars coming out of there. You got to do something. Okay. Because how long is it going to take before we can do a real fix? How many years down the road before we do a real fix? Okay. That's that becomes the problem. Absolutely. Because if dollar have to take a right hand turn now the problem gets transferred to Hardy and Gilchrist Hardy and uh Pillsbury.

Okay. We got to do something to temporarily and you have to throw some good money after bad to at least fix it or give us some relief for people who live there and be safe because it's not I live on Kit Lane. I go down that intersection between Hardy and uh Pillsbury and Pillsbury and Gilchrist daily, you know, and a lot of people here the same thing. So, we just can't push it down the road and say we'll we'll come up with a plan that's going to fix it all, but it might be five years from now. Absolutely. the reality that's the reality situation how government works okay we all know so I think there's got to be something put forward to at least do a temporary fix to that area okay

do we have any sort of timeline John as to or Kelly as to how quickly the town is trying to do this not not at Gilchrist and Pillsbury we're going to Stone Edge that's what you Okay. So, okay. So, again, one of the immediate uh repairs or or improvements are going to be at item number one where again the intersection of of Pillsbury and Hardy. So, it's going to become a four-way that will become a three-way. An all an allway stop. All way. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. You knew what I meant. Yeah.

So, Pillsbury have to stop, John. All all three legs coming into that intersection will need to stop. Okay. As Sandy says, and always stop.

Sean, you are a representative from the council. You know, this is coming to the council. What can you speak at all as to what the council's plan is on instead of just doing a little bit, doing this entire thing and doing it right? So it it really comes down to, you know, this getting through with the the development agreement at the council. I I feel like, you know, we we've got something agreed to in in in good faith and I think, you know, things are going to come out positive on the aspect of that. Um, after that it's just coming up with a plan. And there is there is a plan to address this in this area. And you know, traffic has been a a passion of mine since I've been on the council and trying to fix some of the things that we've needed to fix for years and get some of this stuff straightened out in this town. And this is one of the key intersections to be fixed. So, um, there's definitely a deep look to get this fixed and get it fixed in a in a substantial way that really can support what we've we've got going through. Um there is one aspect um too while I'm while I'm speaking on this um not to ask you to repeat yourself but I think there's an unfortunate piece of misinformation out there about this that the town did pay for its own traffic study on on this and we've you you discussed that when you were talking about the traffic studies with this just you know repeat that part of it for the just to make sure that doesn't get lost in your commentary.

I gotta do it again. Yeah, I it's just I can't remember what I said at this point because people people have been that's floating around out there that we don't do anything as far as and we just trust the developer as far as traffic studies and that's not the way it works. And John, our third peer company y that represents us y in these has reviewed this and agrees with the traffic study that's been presented. Correct. Okay. Um, I agree with everything Bob is saying. The only problem is is I I can't tie it back to holding it on the developer. I have to tie it back to the town of Londereerry

and the town of Londereary needing to follow through on it because they are following through on it. They're they're providing their fair share and working with us to try and complete this as opposed to yeah, put in what you want and then nothing happens for a decade. So it the onus I guess is really on the town of Londereerry to do their portion and and make sure it gets completed. And that's what article 21 was all about. Talk to me about article 21. Article 20. Did you vote for it? I sure did. Yeah.

Talk to not me but the public. Article 21 is to put monies into a into a an account for future studies throughout the town to do corridor studies to look at uh problem intersections. So that's the idea with article 21 which was passed. I believe it was $500,000 to put into that account so that we can start as Sean says start addressing some of this tra these traffic concerns. Thank you. Before you come up, is there anybody else that would like to talk because I know you already have. Ray, can I add something, Mr. Chairman? Yes, sir.

To the uh off-site improvements agreement. I I apologize if I didn't mention this earlier, but another component of the off-site improvements uh that we're going to help with our easements. We're going to be giving uh a variety of easements to the town. Those easements have been coordinated with John in terms of the location and the size. Um we have roadway widening easements. We have drainage easements across all three uh applications that we're being here for for today. So, it's not necessarily just the construction of a left turn lane. It's not just the uh the funding or the payment that we're going to make to the town in regards to the right turn lane. It's also facilitating any future improvements that the town would like to make by way of giving them the land to do so. Thank you. How are you?

Hi there. Um Sandra Leu to Fiddler's Ridge Road. Um now for something completely different. Um I just wanted to talk about the movement of people outside of their cars. So in the Woodmont master plan which is 200 one of the documents is 252 uh pages long. It mentions words like sidewalk, trail and other walkable words, walkability type of words like walk, walking, walkability 239 times. So in 252 pages walking is mentioned 239 times. It's a big part of the pitch for the original PUB was a beautiful walkable community. And if there's one thing that has been developed in my humble opinion correctly so far is the connected sidewalks in the part of Woodmont that has been developed. They're doing a good job with that on on that that piece of it and people are using them. So when you build a sidewalk, people will walk. If you have the infrastructure, they will walk. And so what we want to make sure is that the people in this new parcel are able to get over to Market Basket and TJ Maxx on foot. Every time somebody chooses to walk there and get the exercise, they then aren't taking their car is what what I meant by now for something completely different. We can move people outside of their car if we build the right infrastructure. So, I did listen um live um or or recorded, I don't remember, back in December to your original presentation about the trail system. I'm wondering when you're home, it's hard to see the diagram. I think I understand where it is here. I do remember it being seasonal. Totally understand why you wouldn't plow a trail. So, one of my questions is what is the surface intended to be made out of?

Crush gravel. Crushed gravel. Stone dust.

Perfect. That's perfect. that will last you a good solid three seasons. Only in the dead of winter, which was many months this year, will it not be usable. What I'd like to request or be considered is that on the main road, not every single subroad going into each cluster of homes, but on the main road, um, sidewalk be considered to be added. And I know it's a cost, but it is about moving people. So, you're talking about on average, maybe it could be I don't want to make a stab in the dark at 500 people. If you put a sidewalk in, they will use it. The kids are going to need to get to a bus stop and you want them to have a safe place to walk and the trail won't be plowed. And I understand why the trail won't be plowed. I wouldn't I wouldn't do it either. That that should be seasonal. So, that would be my request or item I'd like to see considered, I guess, is a better way to put it. And if I understand it right, where where this development comes down onto Pillsbury does not align with where we enter into Woodmont on Michael's Way.

No. Is it It's just Do you know where the pump station is going? Right there. It's just to the right of the pump station. You're looking at right where it's being pointed to. Right. Um, so even if you put a sidewalk, a sidewalk to nowhere, it it's a sidewalk to nowhere unless you bring it down the edge of Pillsbury. Unless you put it on Pillsbury and you and that way it goes directly across Michael's Way.

So Sandy, they're they're proposing an an alternate. Ben, why don't you show her where you're coming off of that loop road coming into the uh Michael's Way? This section right here would be a stone dust path. We would have a crosswalk from Pillsbury Road. Woodmont would be to the south. Residents could cross the crosswalk, proceed north, and you know, walk into their um their respective clusters and vice versa whenever they need to go shopping or go to a restaurant that's located in Woodmont. They can funnel south through this walkway, come down the hill, and make the cross at the crosswalk. I can't wait till those restaurants come in. I'm glad you mentioned them.

Hey, Kevin. Um, yes, that's the whole idea about it being walkable. So, um, where would a school bus be, bus stop be? It's a private road, so they're not going to go up in there, right? It's going to be on Pillsbury Road. It would be on Pillsbury. They the school buses won't go into a private development.

Right. Right. So, I'd like to see it be considered. Doesn't have to be on every side road on every cluster. It's the overall density of the develop of that uh whole project that in my mind facilitates a yearround way for people to walk that would be cleared of snow and it it stays in line with the character of what's already been developed at Woodmont. So you're you're making this northerly parcel match with the parcels that are across Pillsbury Road to the south. And the only reason people don't like to do it is cost and and sometimes there's a pinch point for space. Any questions or comments or discussions you'd like to have on this?

Thank you. Anybody? Good. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. And you know what I'm going to just end with because of the blank stairs. This is how you reduce car traffic is you give people the infrastructure to walk. And they are proving it on the southerntherly part of Woodmont, the part that already exists. And it makes sense to connect this aesthetically and and have the same level of walkability. Again, 239 times it's mentioned in the master plan. Thank you. Thank you, Ray.

Uh thank you, Ray Buren, Three Gary Drive. Uh, look, uh, you you've Jake,

you you've brought this up about traffic and and you've mentioned it to Sean and I think that's a good point. So, I'm not going to beling that any further. But, um, as far as sidewalks and access for people walking, uh, I I just came down Pillsbury Road and there were two young boys running along Pillsbury Road right by Michael's Way. Um, very dangerous. And um I believe we from the town of Londury uh had discussion with Woodmont about putting sidewalks along Pillsbury which never happened and um so sidewalks are very important and and should be considered uh because it's very unsafe and we're talking about I'm going back to traffic but okay so we're talking about these these issues with traffic and safety. Uh but my other question is this. Um as as a lot of people know, I'm speaking as as a private citizen, but um some people don't know that I'm on the utility committee, the water subcommittee, and source solid waste as a volunteer. Okay. So, uh, so one of my concerns is as a resident and perhaps with others, but, uh, is storm water runoff. This property up at Spring Road where the water tank is is at one of the highest elevations in the town of Londereary. Uh, this coming back down to Pillsbury is a considerable drop in elevation. All of this development is going to be some of it, I'm sorry, some of it is going to be impervious, meaning rooftops,

walkways, sidewalks, uh where the water cannot saturate into the ground. So, where is it going to go? It's going to run off. Uh this water coming down goes underneath Pillsbury at least in one point where the sewer uh pump station is going to be. Uh and there's a coet that goes underneath there. Um so most of that water is going to kind of collect there and which goes down into the duck pond. Um all of these things are are serious issues that should be concerned. Um you know I I can appreciate what the developer wants to do. He's come through. he's got this development. it it looks like it perhaps could work, but the impact that we're going to have to deal with in the town has to be considered and and the fact that uh the town council is going to look at this, but once again, how long is it going to take and and and everything costs money, but we we we got to address these issues before we move for uh forward with a lot of these things because the impact is going to And we don't have any impact fees, by the way. We know another thing that should be considered. Little late in the game. We we keep on moving forward these things and and not addressing what we should be addressing, the health and welfare of the citizens that live here. I'm sorry I had to say that.

Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from the public? Jake, I have a question if after the public is done. I am going to close public comment and go ahead and then I have a couple things.

I'd like to ask u Mr. Troderer a question. I noticed also the traffic that goes up Gilchrist and goes into that intersection number one I believe it is. And then uh a lot of people from Derry take a right onto Pillsbury and head off towards Derry. Now with the opening of um exit 4A that would allow people to go straight to the highway, go up on the highway and get up onto um the old Rum Trail and get into Dair that way through that new newly created road. You you mean staying on 93?

Yeah. 102 to 93 to to Old Rom Trail. Correct. So that'll get them quicker into Derry and if they're going to Chester from there. Correct. I see a lot of those turns from Gilchrist and Pillsbury going right there. Okay. So, what we have found is again people getting off at 93 heading south, get off at exit 4, take a right, and then continue taking a right, go up Gilchrist, take a right on to Pillsbury. So, that they're circumventing the the mess between exit four and heading east. Follow me.

So, hopefully our that will relieve some of the traffic on that number one and, you know, inner at number one. Correct. So, that's good. All right. Um, couple things. I'm sure a few of the board have got some questions. Um,

number two. So the when this originally came to us, we thought it was was a pretty unique um way of utilizing the land that while the density seems different. The number of housings didn't necessarily change. We created more green space. The applicant has provided us with a site plan that has significantly more green space than what was kind of in the PUB, if you will. Which we've heard a lot about, increasing green space. So, I I find that as a positive. Um, I do have a couple comments that I would really like to see you guys address on this. Um, I want to start off with the path from um, uh, Michael's way up into the site. So, that's proposed as a and I know there is a lot more trails and whatnot throughout. That's proposed as a stone dust path. I think for the walkability of Woodmont and the goal of um to your point 238 times talking about walkability in this plan. I would like to see and I think it's very important and a reasonable ask to see that section of that paved because that gives this development the ability to use that throughout the year to access the central hub of Woodmont which is very much so walkable and and has sidewalks throughout. I think it's really important and and I would like to see that as part of the plan. Um, in terms of roadways and and sidewalks and the roadways, I know we've talked about that a lot in depth over the past few years and and we have to a degree tried to

stay away from them a bit a bit inside of these neighborhoods. So, they continue to feel more like a neighborhood and less like um a city. The the other side of Woodmont has a noticeably different feel to it than than what this does. Um the Can you go to the plan set, Kelly, and go to L1.04? So Jake, just for clarification, you're asking for the pathway to be paved from Michael from Pillsbury to that first the interior,

correct? Till it hits the first interior road. So, so that the residents there have 12 months of walkable access to the rest of Woodmont without having to go through the side of Hillsbury Road or anything like that. Um, what she did you say? Was it this one or I'm sorry, L 1.04, it's if you scroll all the way down, it's going to stop on like 99 or something. Click on what is that? 97. And then go a couple more pages past that. If you actually click on the like the these things, Kelly, if you click on these, so scroll all the way to the bottom, it'll stop at 97 and then click on this. Oh, sorry. I got you.

Yeah. Yeah, there's more there. It's just not picking it up in terms of a bookmark. So, yep. Go C7.07. So, you're still up here. Keep going down. Scroll this way on it. So, get to C9.02. This last one. Now, click this next button a couple times. There we go. What did I say? L104. Two. Three. Sorry, it's just delayed.

All right. So, so we've had a lot of conversation about these handful of houses here. We've had a lot of conversation about uh a buffer between Kit Lane and what's here. Is this right here the access road to the uh Am I looking at the access road to Penetuk's thing right there? No, that's the water line easement. Yeah, correct. So, I guess when I'm saying access road, if you look at a GIS right now, it looks like a road and how they're getting up to it. There would be nothing planted inside of that water line easement. Correct. That's We can't put structures on there. Correct.

But we would try to put a little soil fescue grass. You talked a bit about having somebody come in and take a look at these trees. The reality is a lot of these trees are very old, very tired. They don't have much life left in them, right? I would like to see if we can make some sort of buffer here, an evergreen buffer into here. And then the same on this side, creating an evergreen buffer on the back of this. So, we're protecting the protecting the uh the graveyard there and we're we're getting away from the houses over here. Um I I think that between those two asks I do not think is a a massive ask. I think it's very reasonable for for what's been proposed and I would I'd like to see the applicant amendable and agreeing to that because I'm going to look for it to be a condition.

Can I respond to that, Mr. Chair?

Y so the the only concern I have about the trails, right, it made sense to have the asphalt or pave trail from there uh down to the Michaels Bay intersection. Um Kelly, do you mind going back to the presentation? My concern there is what slide do we have this? So, as you can see on the slide, um the first waiver, uh we're hoping the board votes on tonight is that from here, bottom of pod A to the top of the intersection, that's 500 feet of 8% grade. So, our walking trail right now comes down here and then does cross country down here. Um right now these are recreational trails and as someone noted before there is a high ledge here. So if if we go to an asphalt um pathway there it John correct me if I'm wrong. I think I think it changes from a recreational trail to an actual walking path then it gets into ADA and based on the 13% grade there I don't think it's feasible based on the on the land that's there. I'm more than willing to look at oper other options and we can work through that John with the staff of other options but it on the original iteration of the site plan when we came in here for conceptual we we had one of our entrances on this right side but it ended up being like a 10 to 15 foot rock cut and that's actually the the reason why we didn't go up through there because it was too much blast and it was just going to be too much effort to actually get through there with the uh with the grade difference from here up to from Michael's way intersection up to that intersection. So, I don't I don't mean to be a contrarian, but I there there are some limitations there to that.

I I definitely would not want to see for a walking path I would wouldn't want to see a 15t cut for a walking path because that would certainly uh change the landscape of the area a little bit. Um I wouldn't want to see that. I'm I'm not thinking about ADA or anything like that and how that comes in. What I'm saying is imagine that path exactly how it is and put pavement on it. If that's not a realistic ask, I can understand that. But if there is a way that we can do that, I would like to see it. Understood. And like Will says, we'd have to take a look at it. And does it end up being a serpentine pathway? Switch back.

Switch backs. Yeah. Um, you switch back that takes even more. That cuts even more out that Yeah. No, I know you went from a straight line to not what I want. That's what I'm saying. If we can take what's there and put pavement on it, perfect. If we can't, you want to assess the feasibility of something other than stone dust. Yeah.

Yes. I think that's fair. Um, I would say that if it can't be paved, and I can understand that, I think it should be part of the site plan that this section is still maintained in the winter. So, people have something to walk down as opposed to going all the way on the road, coming down Pillsbury. I I would if we can't get pavement, they still need to find a way to maintain it, and I know it can be done. And then obviously I had my comments on the landscape buffers. Do you guys have anything on that?

The landscape buffers are uh we have some trees there now. Like I said, we we we have um I'll tell you right now is all those trees are going to be junk. No. So So pardon, let me retract that. So we have some apple trees there now. In our landscape drawings, we do have some additional trees both on the cemetery side and on the west side. Can you show those to me on the landscape drawings? I don't have landscape drawings on me yet. Kelly, you want to go back to those landscape drawings?

Isn't there something about adding a thousand trees? No. Saving a thousand trees. Saving a thousand. Yeah. Okay. Click on that last one, 97, and then go to your little blue buttons. Just You got to bear with me because it's like a 100 sheets. I know, Josh. So, it takes like this much time to just scroll. No, you're going the wrong way. I know.

Keep going. So, I can see what you're adding. I think this is what you're talking about for the cemetery, correct? This is actually cluster A. So, I'm sorry. Go. Uh, it's between two sets of Yep. So, there we go. You go back one. Yeah, Kelly. Sorry. Yeah, I think it's that right up there. Correct.

Yeah. So, so we actually had walked with uh uh Mr. Wallally from the DPW and we walked up in the cemetery um with the grade differences. We have trees there. Uh Mr. Sure, we can add more trees, but a lot of these trees here will be removed because it will be a burm. The burm will probably be realistically 10 feet tall. That that's not a hard number, right? There's going to be a lot of soil movement. There's going to be fescue grass. And then we we're showing trees thereatically now.

Yeah, that's the big that's the big wide open area. That's on L103. I was talking on L104 and L105 where I don't see. So, here's L104. The the back side. go to the top right corner. I don't see any additional trees added to that. I understand there's existing trees. I also understand a lot about trees and know threequarters of those are going to be gone. And the left side of that plan, the same condition. And this is where I would like to see. I know it's different than apple trees, but I think it's going to accomplish what people are looking for, which is privacy. Apple trees are beautiful and all, but we live in New England, so six months a year there's nothing on them but wood. I would like to see a row of trees on that back right side of those houses there evergreens and on the left side evergreens along that.

That's a fair ask, Mr. Chair. And we'll have to coordinate that with our landscape in the burm. They'll probably be on top of the burm. Y the the one stipulation I do want to say is the wetland is there on on the top left. Yep. And the intent is that you know we're not going to put anything in the wetland. So the trees would most likely start southern here and then we would try to not be on top of the waterline easement. So it's not going to be a huge buffer, but it will be a buffer with the burm and the fescue. I think it will get good separation between you get my ask. Yep. Got it. Jason, I know you had a question. No, you still Sorry.

I have one comment to make. I'd like to see apple trees there because in the past we had the turkeys, the deers, and all that come through our property. I'm just north of that of this development and uh they came they were coming through today and I want them to have a place to go to to feed on. I mean wouldn't I should say uh you know the the when it was an apple orchard, we'd get uh flocks of 22 turkeys coming through and deers and even one bear at a time. You know, I like to see that. And today seeing the turkeys again, it reminded me about that because there aren't that many that come through anymore. And I think that was one of the pleasures of Londereerry, following them through from the north coming through Londereerry down south.

So I'm I'm looking more for the privacy of the residents in the cemetery than I am the I'm but I'm talking about the on the left side and all that. I know what you're talking about the cemetery because it's a a open view there. I know that it's big, you know, you put them there, but I think if they can save some apple trees for the wildlife, I mean, it's incredible to see them coming up. They walk through in my backyard and all that, you know, and uh I hope we can h still have that wildlife come through. Anything else from the board?

You hit some good stuff there, Jake. All right. Um, let's keep moving here. So, we do have a waiver to work on, which we've talked uh pretty in depth about. I am looking for uh recommendation or a motion, excuse me, to grant uh number one, which is a waiver from LSPR 3.09 09 with regards to roadway grade. So move I have a motion from Mr. Ferrell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Sean. Uh all in favor starting with Ann, please. An Champa I. Javanni Veroni. I Tony D. I Arthur Rug. I Jason. Sean Faber. I

Cruz I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh, I am looking for a uh motion to grant conditional approval of the site plan for 250 single family cottage style court dwellings. Mr. Chair, before you get too far, can I just point out some of the conditions that you just went through? Sure. And then you can encompass those in your motion.

Absolutely. So what you just went through in the immediate was the addition of assessing the feasibility of the surface um to be something other sorry assess the feasibility of the surface used for the path from Michael's way into the site. So in other words you're looking to see if something other than stone dust is correctible and irregardless Ire that path maintained all seasons.

Yes. and then the addition of an evergreen buffer along the cemetery uh and kit lane portions of the site. Uh with respect to the kit lane side, it would specifically be south of the wetland area. Correct. I'd like to see apple trees left then there on the kit. They are leaving as they're leaving as many apple trees as they can. What I'm asking is to put a buffer between those apple trees in the back of the houses. They're leaving as much as they can.

I just have a couple more to address. So, with respect to precedent condition number one, we need to remove the reference to the traffic impact analysis. Um, that's being addressed in a subsequent condition with respect to the off-site improvement agreement. For precedent condition two, it states um the applicant shall obtain and note all applicable state, local, and other permitting. We want to clarify that the permitting for the NHDES sewer discharge permit and the town of Londere sewer discharge permit will be addressed under the general and subsequent conditions. Mhm.

And then with respect to design review item 3B as referenced in the engineering memo memo, we want to revise the terminology in there to state sequencing instead of phasing.

That makes sense. So, with all that in consideration, I'm looking for a motion to grant conditional approval of a site plan for 250 single family cottage court style dwellings along with associated site improvements at 36 Pillsbury Road. Map 10, lot 42, zoned agricultural 1 and Woodmont Commons PUB. Proopio Companies is the applicant. Pillsbury Realy Development LLC is the owner. last revised November 13, 2025 with precedent comm conditions to be fulfilled within 120 days of approval and prior to planned signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in the engineering memo. So moved.

I have a motion from Mr. Rug. Do I have a second? I have a second from Jason. Uh can I just interject because there are new conditions that were just made that I just want to get clarification on. We are in a motion. I know it's discussion and it's suspicious that you weren't being here. Yeah. Come on.

My concern is with the ability to maintain the path in the winter if it's determined that it's not paved. I think we're going to run into some safety issues with that. So, I just want to have the flexibility to talk to town staff to work with town staff. If we can't pave it to maintain it throughout the year could be very problematic. And I know that's what the board wants. But if we can't, I just don't want that condition to read like that and then we're not able to do either one. I think we can find a way to do it. I I was on I was on a stone pave um stone dust paved pavement today and it wasn't an issue and the and there was 6 in of snow on it and it was still walkable. It was fine.

I think we can find a way to not going to drive a car on it, but you can walk on it. It's walkable. We're talking walkability here. Yeah, it's walkable. I'm confident you'll find what I need. All right, I have a motion. I have a second from Mr. Rug. All in favor, starting with Ann, please. Ann Champa, I. Javanni Veron, I. Tony D, I. Arthur Rug, I. John Ferrell, I. Jason, I. Sean Faber, I. John Cruz, I.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh, the site plan has been approved. All right. Uh, we're going to keep moving. You guys are going to stay there. Um, we have an application for a formal review of a site plan to construct s 60, excuse me, single family condominiums along with associated site plan improvements 44 Pillsbury Road. Map 10, lot 15 zone Woodmont Commons PUB and agricultural 1, Pillsbury Realy Development is the owner. Proopio is the applicant. This was continued from March and April 1st. All right. We do um we do need to take a look at this for completeness. There are some outstanding checklist items. I'd be looking for a motion to accept uh this for uh completeness only.

So moved. I have a motion for Mr. D. Do I have a second? Second for Mr. Farrell. All in favor starting with please. And Champa I. Javanni Veron I. Con Ir. Sean Farrell I. Jason Knights eye. Sean Faber I and the chair votes in the affirmative. Um, obviously you've already presented on this. I will get started with uh Kelly and John. Sorry about that.

That's right. You do have one waiver request, Mr. Chair. And then in addition to that uh with respect to the design review comments, the conservation commission in this instance did not have comment. And then the heritage commission uh had a favorable recommendation which the applicant has noted. Um any other remaining design review items are appended to the memorandum and will be addressed. Thank you. Uh anything from the board real quick. Did you? Yeah. One quick question. Yeah. This is the site that has the lookout on it, right? Mhm. Correct. Are you guys intending on keeping the lookout?

It's in pretty rough shape right now. So, um, it would be nice to keep it, but the lookout also is about at bedroom height of some of these house of these rooms, so we'd have to evaluate it. Have you been on the top of the lookout? I have. So, you know, you can see Boston on a clear day. It's very nice view up there. It's something quite historic in town. I mean, and I'm not demanding anything, but it would be nice if something that historic, maybe not the cons the maybe not the structure that exists, but maybe you guys could think about something about that. I appreciate that. Well, we can definitely take that into consideration. All right. Uh, talk to me about your waiver real quick, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I'm understanding Kelly correctly, this was in regards to um having any franchise utilities within 17 ft of the roadway center line. Is that correct? That's correct. And I just advise that you should clarify if it's even needed anymore.

Yes. So, this was one, Mr. Chairman, that we had looked over. We were under the impression that, you know, we might need it. We've discussed it with the town. And just for the board's clarity, there's a regulation in the site plan that speaks to utilities not being within 17 ft of a roadway center line. The thought being, you know, getting franchise utilities like Eversource Lines out of the way for the road and for the town. Our thought was, well, we're going to be crossing this private roadway with a few different conduits, electrical conduit, so that we could serve both sides of the roads units for electrical. And when we're crossing, obviously, we're within that 17 ft of the roadway center line. So, I pose the question to John. Um, and John, please correct me if I'm wrong, but your opinion is we're not uh we don't need a waiver at this time if we're just doing roadway crossings with that electrical conduit. Correct.

So, we did pursue it previously, Mr. Chairman. At this time, we're not pursuing it um as per staff's direction. Okay. Uh that does the board have any comments before I come to the public here?

Seeing none, this is a public hearing. I will open it up to the public. If you have any questions, please uh come on up. Seeing none, I will close public comment. Um, I'm going to have one of the same comments I had on the last one. North side of the the development. Can we please install a buffer along the back side of the an evergreen buffer along the back side of these houses? Um, you know, at the edge of what you're considering the the lawn or green area, whatever you want to call it, along that that same row. Um, outside of that, I really don't have any comments. I know you guys reduced this a little bit. I think there was an additional two or three houses uh at first. Correct.

That's correct. Um and I, if I remember, there was a some sort of path kind of in the middle of these in the original thing, right? And we got rid of that to try and clean it up a bit. So now you have your you have a path that is entering the rest of the new development on the right side just before you exit Rosen Cran drive. Correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Uh anything from the board? This is a shared driveway. So it's so the entrance onto Pillsbury is the same as the one we just approved.

Yes. Thank you. All right. Seeing none, we have a waiver we have to work on. Uh I am looking for a motion. Oh, did we just say we didn't need it? I believe they formula withdrew it. Yeah. Yeah. So for So we don't have any waiverss. Uh before we move on to uh recommendations, John or Kelly, do you have anything else?

No. Again, there were some design review items. Excuse me. similar to uh the development at at uh 36 Pillsbury uh in terms of cleaning up the plan and providing appropriate uh details uh addressing the uh outlook control structures um making them in conformance uh with the regulations. That's all I have right now. All right, just to cover some of the conditions. Uh so the addition of the evergreen buffer along the north side I believe you said Mr. Yep. So from 12B to 38A.

And then with respect to precedent condition number one, removing that reference to the traffic impact analysis again that's covered in the subsequent conditions the off-site improvements. Precedent condition two. Again, same comment from 36. We're uh clarifying that the permitting for the dees sewer discharge and town of Londary sewer discharge will be addressed under the general and subsequent conditions. And then with respect to the design review item uh items referenced in the engineering memo item 3B clarifying the uh phrase phasing to be replaced with sequencing.

All right. I am looking for a motion to grant conditional approval of a site plan to construct 60 single family condominiums along with associated site plan improvements. 44 Pillsbury Road, Map 10, lot 15 zone Woodmont Commons PUB and Agricultural Residential One. Pillsbury Realy Development LLC is the owner and Precopia Enterprises is the applicant. Last revised February 12th, 2026 with the precedent conditions to be fulfilled within 120 days of approval and prior to plan signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in the engineering memo and what was discussed tonight. So moved. I have a motion for Mr. Ferrell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second for Mr. Rug. All in favor, starting with Anne, please.

Anne Champa, I. Javanni Van, I. Tony D. I. Arthur Rug. I. John Farrell. I. Jason Knight. I Sean Faber. I John Cruz. And the chair votes in the affirmative. The site plan has been granted. Thank you. Thank you, board. Appreciate your time. All right. Uh, moving on here. Let's see. We are on a public hearing on an application for formal review of a site plan for renovation of an existing building to add a restaurant. Did I skip one? Skip one. Yep. And I'm going to excuse myself for when you skip.

Sure. Yeah. Sorry about that. Uh, sorry guys. We're We got one more in front of you. public hearing for an application for formal review of a site plan for 40 residential units and a conditional use permit for,023 square feet of buffer impacts including associated site improvements in the C2 zone 225 Rockingham Road. Uh tax map 15 lot 126 Gen X Construction Group LLC is the owner and applicant. This was continued from February 4th and March 11th. Um I'd like to note that Jeff has joined us. So Jason, thank you very much. We'll have Mr. Penta take over from here. Yeah, you guys had you guys covered the last one really well. Like a bad habit. Just like that, man.

Like I'm in high school. Just like that. All right. Uh before we get going, uh Kristen, do you have anything you'd like to discuss? I know we have already uh accepted this as complete. Um, is there anything you'd like to add before we get into what they've changed here?

Um, so yeah, you accepted as complete on the at the February 4th meeting. Um, since then those two items have been submitted. So that extra takes care of that. Um you have one waiver relating to um the trees over 15 ft in diameter. And um as far as any outstanding DRC comments, we have some from some of the same concerns from police still and from fire. Um assessing's been addressed and conservation recommends approval. Um, see I think there was one more site.

All right. Um, heritage commission um recommended as presented in October just for reference. And what else? You have two cops to um review. And um there's also an updated Stantech memo for traffic and um site plan. All right, gentlemen, if you want to start talking. Sure.

Good evening. My name is George Chadwick uh with Bedford Design tonight representing the applicant. Um with me sitting beside me is Scott Thornton with the Vaness Associates traffic engineer and I also have Marggo Plant in the audience uh of Gen X. Um, I wasn't able to make the the last planning board meeting, but I did review the minutes and the uh tape of the meeting, so I think I'm pretty much up to speed with some of the concerns the board had. Um, there was two major concerns. Not to say there wasn't other concerns, but there were two major concerns. One had to do with the, uh, fire access into parcel, uh, i.e. the the road or the driveway width and the other one had to do with uh with traffic in front of you. The plan in front of you is a uh firetruck turning movement plan. Um it was presented to the fire department. The fire department did review it and I believe in your staff memo uh indicates that the uh fire department is all set with access with a 24 foot wide um roadway/d driveway. One thing I would like to note while I still have this plan up, um, Stantech while reviewing the, uh, traffic study, um, had mentioned that the turning movement for the fire truck as it comes and turns into the site on the right, actually moves into the oncoming lane, exiting lane from the project. Um, the fire department, as stated earlier, did review this, did agree with this. I think that happens on a lot of projects, but I just wanted to mention that that was a a comment at the end of their uh their traffic review.

Um, as I said, we did increase the driveway width to uh 24 feet. Um, if the board still would like uh no parking signs along the easterly edge of the driveway, we're amendable to adding some no parking sign. No parking signs. Um, lastly, I think we did respond to all staff uh DRC and Stantech comments. Um those plans were submitted back to you on the 26th of March and those are the plans that we have in front of you tonight. Um I did get a chance to review the current staff memo and I believe we agree and I believe that most of them are or all of them are technical in nature and we'll be able to address them. Um moving on to traffic and I think at this point I'll pass it off to Scott. let him go over the traffic study that we did and some of the concerns that uh the board may have had.

Okay. Thanks, George. Uh for the record, Scott Thornton with Vanessa Associates, uh we prepared the traffic assessment for the project and picking up from the February planning board hearing where there was a request for a full traffic study. Um, we scheduled a scoping meeting with New Hampshire DOT, uh, which was attended by probably half a dozen or so folks from from DOT. We also had, um, Mr. Trodier and Miss Farre uh, from the town that were present along with a couple folks from Stantech. Um and we worked out a scope of study for the for the traffic assessment. Um identified uh time periods. We were looking at the weekday morning and the weekday uh evening time periods for for analysis. Um we identified a number of background projects that were proposed um to be or that should have been that the the town had requested they be included in the traffic assessment for future conditions. Uh we did counts in March early March uh March 4th and March 5th uh the intersections and um and roadway volumes There were a couple roadway projects that were identified. Uh, one uh was related to um not really a project but a change in the operation of the Smith Lane and Rockingham Road intersection where uh that was proposed to be changed from a yield condition to a stop sign.

uh that had been approved by I think DOT had received a request for that change and they had approved the request. It had not been done at the time of the traffic counts and uh I noticed it has not been done as of today. Uh the other project that they mentioned was the um uh signal installation at the intersection of Mammoth Road and Rockingham Road. Uh that's got an advertised date of um October of 2028. So in a couple years that work should uh is scheduled to get started. As part of that project, Smith Lane would be uh closed off and um uh terminated prior to the intersection with Rockingham Road. So that would um so that would remove that intersection from from consideration. Um in terms of the in terms of the traffic study, um you know, we we did the standard analysis. Uh the project being 40 units is not a big traffic generator. Uh I think we're looking at 19 trips in the morning, 20 trips in the evening. That's total entering and exiting. Um in the evening, well, in terms of the trip distribution, we're expecting about 65% of that traffic to go out towards 93. Um when they're coming back in the morning, it results in about three trips making a left turn into the site. Uh in the evening, it results in about eight cars making that left turn into the site. We did an analysis of left turn lane warrants and right turn lane

warrants at the site driveway and found that in the evening condition, the left turn lane warrant is met. um not met in the morning and right turn lane warrants are not met. Um you know levels of service really no chain. We looked at the Vista Ridge Road as well as the Smith Lane Road and um and the site driveway. Um the intersection of Vista Ridge and Sims Drive with um with Rockingham Road. No real changes in in level of service due to the project. and um Smith Lane. I think we have a we have a minor change of half a second during the during the 2037 um evening time period, I believe. Um so, you know, we're we're in receipt of comments from Stantech that came today on the traffic study. uh they're requesting some additional information to be presented um and uh in and sent back to them. We have not received comments from New Hampshire DOT. They received the traffic study uh we uploaded it to their portal I think March 18th. So they've had the study for for some time. Um, and I think, you know, we're we're kind of uh working through um the issues at the at the at the front door really. Um, we noticed that the um the police department provided some crash data for uh for the intersection of Rockingham Road with Smith Lane and also um

the intersection of Rockingham Road with uh with Mammoth Road and with the driveway, one of the driveways for the Triangle So, in 6 years, uh, there were three crashes at the Mammoth Road intersection. There were three crashes at the Triangle Mobile Driveway with Rockingham Road, and there was one crash with uh at the intersection of Smith Lane and Rockingham Road. So, you know, there's not a safety issue there, I would say. um that intersection, Smith Lane, has about 15 times the left turn volume that's turning into it in the evening as what is proposed to occur at the site. Um you know, we as I mentioned, we did the we did the left turn lane warrant analysis. One thing we found is that um you know with that volume of eight vehicles making a left turn in an hour that's equivalent to about one car every 7 to 8 minutes. Um the analysis shows that that left turn lane would be excuse me would be empty most of the time there there's zero queue um even under the 95th percentile condition. So, you know, we're kind of um we're we're still going through the process and still trying to work out uh what DOT is looking for. Um Stantech indicated that um we should coordinate with the town and with DOT on uh access at the site driveway intersection. And I think that that's, you know, that's that's what we plan to do. um whether that's in whether it involves

another meeting with DOT in the town uh and Stantech or uh how exactly we're going to proceed. Uh we hope to determine that in the next week or so. I think that's it for traffic. Um okay, turn it back over to you. Any questions? Obviously here to answer them.

Um with that um there is a waiver that's required uh for locating trees 15 in or greater. Um there is not any large trees on the parcel of any significance that um as an engineer we're concerned with that are worth saving. So I would request that uh the board grant that waiver. I don't believe it'll add any additional um information to the proceedings. Um, with that, we do have two cups that uh need to be um looked at. I know staff staff has a recommendation in your packets. Um, we're here and see questions the board may have.

Thank you. All right. Before I uh get to the board here, uh Kristen, do you have anything you want to add to this? Um, no. No, I think I've said everything I need to say.

All right. Can you tell me a little bit about the fire department's comments? I believe you said they still had some outstanding questions. Um well I guess my notes say um they requested confirmation of access with turning radi hydrant performance apparatus circulation and that the we they've already stated that they increased the 12 um the drive lanes from to 12 feet each for a total of 24 for the driveway. Um, let's see. What else did I have here?

What was the original width uh at the last at the last plan? What was the original driveway with? Was it like was it 20? Mr. Chair, if I may. Yep. It was 22 feet. 22. Thank you. Yeah. And the 24 ft does meet the town requirements. 24 ft meets the NFPA requirements. Is the town requirements 28? No. The Sorry. Yeah. So the the NFPA requirement is 12 ft in each lane of travel. In each lane of travel. Correct. And then and then that is uh unobstructed. However, I believe Brian would typically look for a 28 foot wide.

28T is the town standard. Correct. Of a road. Correct. Road. But for a road. Yeah. Not. So we're considering this a driveway. Correct. I think that's open to interpretation. But um John, before we move to the board, you have anything, Kelly?

Uh so just to to kind of reiterate, so at the last the February uh hearing, the board generally asked for three uh items for both the applicant and staff to work through. So that that being the a full traffic impact analysis which included coordination with the town and DOT, you requested um historical accident data from the police department uh specifically with respect to Smith Lane and Rockingham Road and you requested uh confirmation from the fire department regarding the adequ adequacy of access to the site. Um so we did work through those items. The police department, as the applicant uh noted, provided the an accident data u memo, if you will. That memo outlines eight incidents, a majority of which um again specifically at Smith and Rockingham Road. A majority of those incidents were due to speed. Uh and then with respect to the fire department comments, as you just indicated, Mr. Chair, the question of a 28t roadway versus the 12 uh foot width for each lane of travel uh seemingly remains. Um the applicant did widen the driveway to 24 ft as indicated. So it went from 22 to 24 ft. So yes, that complies, if you will, with the 12 ft for each lane of travel. Um but your question about the 28T roadway as you stated should if you if you so choose should be discussed. Um and then I uh John has some additional comments with respect to the traffic study.

Yeah. So Mr. Chairman, members of the board, I think again as far as design review items, uh George indicated that he has reviewed those and he sees no issues with uh uh addressing those comments. Uh Scott's summary is is right on as far as my notes as well. We had had the the scoping meeting with DOT on the the 18th of February of this year. One thing again we had discussed the scope. We're all in agreement with the scope what intersections to take a look at how and do the trip distributions. Um, at that time too, staff was also made aware of the the uh where they're going to be uh putting a a a stop sign at the intersection of Smith and Rockingham Road. So, and as Scott indicated, I haven't seen that happen yet, Scott, either. So, but they did confirm that that was was uh requested by the town and that will occur. Um, as far as uh Stantech, there's a couple of Stantech comments. Again, Scott acknowledged uh refining the the uh addressing the discrepancies in the seasonal adjustments and then the operational impacts at at uh Sims and Rockingham Road. Um one thing also that Scott indicated was that he the study found that the left turn warrants were met. Um and again staff would recommend as well as stand for further discussions with DOT regarding that. Uh, and again, we have not seen a DOT response to date. So, Scott's right on with that. Uh, and lastly, again, the concerns regarding the firetruck turning plan. Uh, again, and George acknowledged it as well. The concern being when they come into the site, they're on the opposite side of the road. And then if at the con at the uh culde-sac at the end of the road, if there's anything parked there, they're

pretty much dead in the water. people are parked on the culinac itself. So that's all I have.

I just just to add one more point to what John pointed out, what John stated um as far as the the left turn lane being warranted. So that again that's a discussion that is a question actually to do. That's not something that the town can say yes or no to. Obviously it's on a state road. So, in terms of how the conditions are phrased, um, that's an that's a comment, that being the applicant should ask DOT their opinion, if you will, on providing that left turn lane. If DOT says no, we're all set, that's that. If they say yes, we want to see it, that's a process through the DOT. It's not a quote unquote off-site improvement plan sheet that this board would see or approve. I just want to make that clear that that that's a separate DOT process.

It makes sense. That makes sense. Can I ask can I clarify that? So, so you're you're comfortable with that being an open item if this plan is is approved that that you all are going to be able to work with DOT when DOT makes a decision yes or no, you're going to handle it regardless of which way they say. Right. So, if they say it's doesn't have to come back here. That's my That's what I'm saying. Yeah. So, if they say that it's got to be done, obviously it'll be done.

It'll have it'll have to be done. Okay. All right. I guess as long when I first read this, I I have to say I was not comfortable approving this with that outstanding, but if they're comfortable with it and they can handle it, then I'm okay. But I do have um a list of other things.

Please. Thank you. Um, so I'm I'm a little bit confused because I I can't find it in the in in the files that I'm looking at down here on this computer. Did the fire department do we have in writing that the fire department said okay to the 24 foot entryway? So So what he referred to was NFPA what the NFPA requirements are. So the fire department So the fire department doesn't know that that the mouth of the road that the road was was was modified. It's internal. It's internal Tony.

Okay. Is where the 24 foot width is, but the fire department doesn't know that. The last thing that they saw it was less than that. And they didn't like it. Correct. Okay. No, that if I may. Sure. Um, the plan that you have in front of you was presented to the fire department and I believe in staff's memo the fire department agrees to two 12T lanes and I believe at the end of the DRC comment it says that uh, let me get it. I apologize.

It's the last one. The last one. The driveway will increase. The driveway width increase meets the fire department requirements. And what and what date was that, George? It's in the DRC comments here. Uh

was one of my summary comments, but um it's seems like it's incorrect because it's and there DRC comments from August. Um it says the fire department requests the town standard of a 28 foot roadway for apparatus access. Um at a minimum we require the NFPA um minimum clearance width of 12 ft for each lane of travel.

So I'm going to go to December uh December Jesus uh February 17th because this is after our last meeting from the fire department. The department requests the town standard of a 28 foot wide roadway for apparatus access. At a minimum, we require the NFPA standard, which is 12 ft of each lane of travel, which would get you to your 24 ft. So, Mr. D, to answer your question, no, I don't think they are just stating that they're requesting a standard of a 28T ride. That's where I was going. I don't hear the fire department saying yes, we're okay with this 24 foot wide.

And that was my point, Mr. Chair. Thank you for helping me with that. Not a problem. So, um, next item, if that's okay. Yep. We'll leave that open for now and then we can we can discuss them. Um, so, um, where does it say where where can I find language that the state said that when they change what I call Plaza 28 intersection um, that Smith Lane will be closed off. Those are your words. Where do I find that language that that the state said that? I thought they were putting a stop sign in, not closing it off. So,

oh, that's that's the end of Smith Lane. I'm talking about the entire intersection when they the comment was made when they redo rebuild that intersection, then Smith Lane will be closed off. Yep. And I want to know where where is that Smith Lane? Where? It's a town road. The town has to close it. The state roadway. It's a state road. Yeah. So, yeah. So, during the scoping meeting, they mentioned that Smith Lane would be closed off as part of the other project where they're in writing. It was a conversation. It was a conversation. Okay. So, we don't know that that's going to happen. In my world, when you don't have it in writing, it doesn't exist. Yes, sir. But I've seen a conceptual of that, Tony, as well. That's produced by DOT.

Okay. Do we have a timeline for that for that change? They said it would be advertised in October of 2028. Okay. So that's two years to advertise it, another year to get everything squared away, and then probably a year and a half to two year buildout. Could be. Yeah.

Yeah. So, okay. Um trees. So, they're asking for a waiver for um trees, Mr. Vice Chair. I just noticed the chair is not here. And my understanding is the reason why we have that form and that format and that um uh regulation is because there's a timber tax, right? And so and so if we didn't if they're going to be cutting down trees, isn't there a timber tax assessed to that? Yep. And so if they don't measure the trees and show what trees are there, then a timber tax can't be assessed. Am I off on that? I'm not certain on that. Yeah, I think I think you might be a little off.

I think that How do you How do you assess the timber tax? My understanding is that the the logger, the person that clears the land will go out, scope it out, and he'll he'll put the form together. Typically, what happen? Yeah, it's part of the permitting. So, he'll he'll come he'll make that determination. So, what are you going to do with it? If it's all junk wood, he's going to grind it all. You know, he'll chip it all. or he'll he'll say, "Yeah, it's all, you know, maple, so he'll cut it and into x many board feet."

So So then, um, thank you for that clarification. So what's the spirit of of that regulation that we have? Why do we have applicants do that? So again, my my understanding was years ago there was a individual on the board that was like having trees and that's probably Art, myself and John might be the only three that Juny Vickers. Thank you. Enough said. Next item. We were through this.

Next item. I understand. Please. Next item. I'm done with that. Um driveway versus a road. In in my world, a driveway doesn't access this many units. This is a road. We're gonna have we're going to have to make a decision on on if anybody agrees with that comment or not. Um when you when you're dealing with this many units and this many cars and this much traffic,

if it walks like a duck and it floats, it's a duck. So, uh, to me the I couldn't say the rest of it. Sorry. I realized I couldn't I realized I couldn't keep going on that one. So, but anyway, so so anyway, um, to me to me that's not it's not a driveway. So, if we're using the driveway standard, I take exception to that. And I and I think it should be um I think we we should be using the road standard, not not the driveway standard. So um and that completes my list, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Anything else from the board?

I'd go along with what Tony said. So Mr. Chair, may I address those? Yeah. Um, so, um, is this driveway to these units any different than other projects that were improved in town for with a 24 ft driveway? I'll tell you, I just cruised through threearters of the amount of things that I could find on on our town GIS and everything's at 28 ft. If there are some, maybe there are, but every condo development I just looked at was 28 feet wide. I looked at

I know Gilchrist isn't because I did that one and there was 96 units there. I looked at what's near you. I looked at Vista Ridge. I looked at the thing on Mammoth Road there that workforce housing. So the driveway that the um what's this guy across the street? Mountain Home Estates. What else did I find while I was just trying to Whitmore Estates? That's the other one. So, everything I looked at inside of two minutes was 28 feet wide. All right. Um, what's your what's the development you're talking about? Uh, Gilchrist Road. Gilchrist Road.

The units that are being built now. Um, the project that you approved at the last meet, not last meeting, two meetings ago across the street from this one has a 24 foot um driveway. I believe the one that you may have approved tonight has a 24 foot driveway uh with 60 units, 300 unit. That's a PUD. It's still the same. It's a PUD. I I would disagree. Sorry. It has its own reg. It has its own regulations. So, a PUD has

I I would I would I I want to talk about the one next door since you brought it up. I think the one next door has a incredibly amount of a different way to travel throughout that property. Well, it's only still one way in and out. There is to me much more circulation to it than than what this one has. Um, I can't remember off the top of my head if it's 24 ft, 26 ft, or 28 ft. I know we had a discussion about expanding out that uh that driveway of which I believe they obliged to if I remember correctly uh because there was a conversation about it. But you have you have two separate like areas of housing if you will that have circulation through each of the lots whereas this is down and back. So when I look at that, I see two very different um very different site plans that have the potential to require there's one way in and one way out. There's there's no turning around besides going down what is this 800 900 feet or something? How many feet is it from the roadway to the Culver?

About 1,000 ft. 1,000 feet. So that's the average width of a that's the average what's a maximum width of a length of a roadway in London area 1300 ft

1300400 ft. So we're almost at the width of a roadway for this driveway if we want to keep calling it a driveway. Um that is that is 24 feet wide. It's 20 pounds of stuff in a 5B bag. Um I I think this does need to be 28 feet wide. I irregardless of what a development has next door, the condition is this thing's 10 times different than what's next door. Um I I think that it is a safety issue. I know exactly how this is going to play out when it's built. I know that there's going to be cars that park along the what's that east side of east side of this roadway. And I know one day there's going to be an emergency somewhere down near that dumpster. in those last homes down there that's going to need to get responded to. And I know that once that needs to get responded to, there's going to be absolutely nowhere for any other apparatus to go or help out. God forbid there was something on the first building that was an emergency and there was another emergency down the road. I promise you, we're going to be asking our fire department or police department to walk 1,200 ft to get to that other that other unit. So yeah, I think the 28 foot in the definition of a roadway is pretty important on this one

board. I agree. Yep. In agreement. That's what I was going to say. But Jake's still in everybody's thunder. He's on a roll. On a roll. That's why he's um to me 28 feet is non-negotiable. And even at 28 ft, I think this thing is still a safety issue. That's my own opinion, but I think this I think as a board 28 ft is non-negotiable. This is a safety issue.

So, yeah. So, obviously, I'm going to agree with you, Mr. Chair. Um, and I think it's important to understand that this board has in the past um, and I hope always will uh, handle these on a case-bycase basis, not necessarily uh, past history because to your point, Mr. Chair, I thought you elucidated it quite quite well. You can Google that word because you're a Londary high school grad.

I was going to say I sure don't know what it means. Um but but but I will I will I will say that that your description of how different every one of these projects is is is very important for us as a board to understand, for applicants to understand, and for the general public to understand as well. And uh because they are all different. They all breathe differently. Um and circulation is always going to be different if if you're struggling to breathe. And that's that's the issue that that my opinion that this site has. With that, I do want to open it up to the public. If there's anybody from the public that is would like to provide any input, the floor is yours. Javanni Veratti, 73 page road. Um, you know, it it looks like the board had a lot of concerns with this project the last time and the time before that, and I don't see a whole lot of changes to it. Um, I think that it was said that there's uh the police also had some outstanding concerns still, and I don't know what necessarily they were. Maybe you should look into that. And I have a question for the chairman.

Yes, sir. Um, I think that uh it was said that it was requested to have a full site uh traffic study, but they didn't do that. Was that the case? Oh, they did. No, they did. They did. They did.

Okay. Um, I don't think putting a stop sign. I mean, I know we had a lot of conversations prior to this about uh that Smith Lane and the difference between the different uh um development that's gone on there. But Smith Lane is really close to this. And with the angle of the traffic entering onto Route 28, I think it's causes a substantial traffic hazard there where you're looking back, but then now you're adding a new element of traffic in front of you that's just feet away from that uh that yield sign. I don't think a stop sign is going to make it much different because you're still dealing with looking back over your left shoulder and then turning around and then potentially having a car come out of this this driveway/road. I do agree with the assessment with regards to a driveway versus a road because I mean if you had a 40 lot subdivision, you'd be asking for a road, not a driveway, right? Um I don't know. There's so many things I have. I heard that there was an issue with the culdeac. If there was a car parked in it, is that going to be addressed somehow? because I can guarantee with the amount of parking associated with the number of units they're going to find parking elsewhere. And I would think that that's probably an area that they're going to find the parking in on the edge of it on the side of it, the middle of it. I don't know. Or maybe right in the middle of it, the the the you know the road. So, and I think you have a you have a CUP

that allows for multif family. So, that's one thing you got to decide on, too. It's a C2 zone and whether or not um you want to grant the CUP for multif family. maybe there's a better use in the C2 zone that would accommodate some of this traffic, etc. Um, so I don't know. There's just so many concerns with it and I don't see that they're making much progress on changing any of these. So those are my comments questions. Anything else from the public? Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring it back to the board. Um, so you must have been talking about Pa Roy, Apple Brook Lane. Is that what you're talk What development are you talking about when you say

right uh right next to the right after the drive going into Hannerford? One of the old um where used to be. Yeah, the old restaurant that was because I thought you said it was something from the last meeting. Oh, the one from the last meeting is the one across the street at 222 that you just recently approved. All right. And I believe they do have a 24T driveway there. Um,

but I do understand that every project is different. I'm not here to argue with the board. We certainly can make this 28 ft. Um, and we will do that. But I personally as a professional I believe 28 feet is an excessive amount of pavement for um a project similar to this knowing in my 42year career now um you know I don't know that I've ever designed a a driveway and that's really what this is um 28 ft wide. All right, board for any discussion here. Um, yes, sir.

Yeah, I just personally I can't think of a worse place to put a 40 unit housing development. Um, you know, as as as Giovani said, even if you put the stop sign there, for the few cars that are going to stop, they're going to be looking back and then they're going to gun it because there's a car coming 50 miles an hour this way. And then they have to hope that there's not a car gunning it coming out of the development because that's the only way they're going to be able to turn onto the road is to gun it. So, you're going to have four, three, potentially three cars all like just trying to get out as quick as they can at the same time. It's just it's it's it's a recipe for disaster. Like, we're going to need another ambulance in town because that's gonna

that's going to be a nightmare. Where is uh the police department uh comments? I see the traffic analysis, but do they have any other comments or do they just have or accident analysis? Excuse me. Where is their like um worksheet? Yeah, hold on. Thank you. Worksheet right here, Jake. I have it. No, I'm looking for their worksheet. Is it um it's on the Yes. Staff memorandum there. It's under outstanding DRC comments, police department. There isn't a There is an updated Yeah, I'm looking for the actual uh design review comment. Yeah.

Checklist uh item. Can you tell me what that is, Kristen? Yeah, I'm looking at looking it up. Thank you. Uh see just LFD followup. I got like a million pages in three different location. Jake, is this police reaffirmed prior concerns about the Smith Lane area, but did not identify unresolved site level safety problems after review of the updated traffic study in New Hampshire DOT coordination.

But you're looking for it, but I'm looking for the the actual DRC comment sheet. if I may. Yep. Their original comment. Yep.

Uh um checked off concerns including circulation within the site, access to sides and rear of the buildings, traffic generation, and then they wrote, "OPD shares the same concerns for this project as it has for recent projects within proximity of Smith Lane and Rocky Road. The increased traffic generation to that intersection from all projects warrants further review. Additionally, limited access to the rear and sides of the of the buildings is not ideal. And then you have what what Kristen referenced in the memo as well.

So what is the soft uh access to the rear of the building? I I mean the fire department appears not to have a problem. I'm not sure. I did not speak to the police department to know what their concerns are. Um I would assume this is very similar to you know all condo projects where you've got parking on one side and um you know so ha have you had a conversation with the police department? I personally have not. Has your team or your group had a conversation with the police department?

I believe Mr. Marott did, but I can't speak for him. He's not here tonight. I I I guess what I'm getting at is I'm not entirely confident that the police department's comments have been addressed. You want me to? Sure. So, uh, we gen we put in every summary, if you will, of our D, all the DRC comments that the applicant should follow up with each department, um, that provided comments. Mhm. I think I'm looking for more of a clear

Got it. As far as whether or not the comments been addressed, I think you're asking for an updated comment sheet. The one thing I'll point out with that is um it is a general comment, meaning it's different from a fire comment in the sense of it's not referencing a standard or anything of that nature that the applicant could respond to. But to that same point I mentioned earlier and to your point, that's why they're encouraged to talk to the department. So I I think I Kelly had sent me an email repeating that police comment. That's why I think that's where I think I'm getting this idea from that there was some email that was sent

was there I'm trying to look it up now but I emailed the police department asking for the accident data

which we I do have a response on that. I was reading that. I think that I I think that the the tra the I keep saying traffic. I think the accident analysis does show that there are not, you know, is as dangerous as this intersection feels there. I do feel as though there are not necessarily the uh it's not like there's 20 accidents a year at this at this intersection. So, that does make me feel better about the the intersection itself based off of the data that we do have. Um, who Kristen, who from the PD answers the comments.

Um, get something from Christopher Olsen. He handles Deputy Breen. Deputy Breen handles a general DRC and then in this instance with the traffic request uh Captain Lieutenant Lieutenant sorry Lieutenant Olsen provided that data.

Okay. Um well I think at a minimum I want to see a 28 foot driveway here. Is is the board in agreement with that? I think that would give sufficient room for, you know, especially if a firet truck or ambulance is going in and you could, you know, have to go against traffic with to at least get by or should have enough room to get by. I mean, the 28 the 28 ft allows this site to breathe more more than it does now. It's just it's just too it's just too it allows this driveway to be a roadway of which it is,

right? I mean, you're going to have UPS trucks stopping. You're going to have FedEx trucks top stopping five, six times a day and they don't they don't go into any parking spots. They just they stop in the middle of Mammoth Road, shut the truck off and they jump out. They don't they don't care. And when it's in this site, it's it's going to it's going to stop everything. So, I think I think the 28 ft is warranted. Do we feel as though we'd like to hear from Mr. Breen and Mr. Johnson? So, well, I think we can get uh accurate up-to-date information from from them that instead of going through two or three parties.

What are you trying to say? I just wanted to be clear what you're actually asking. I guess that for them to come to a meeting or are you asking for the applicant to get I think I want him at a meeting to talk to him about the uniqueness of this site. I don't think that's an unreasonable request. agreed. I just wanted to clarify what we have to do. You guys, does does the vote agree with that?

Yeah. And and to that point, our our little worksheet thing, which is really cute and looks efficient, it's not ever going to be the same as hearing directly from the people so that you can ask questions and have a give and take and whatever. and especially where we're we're trying to figure this thing out and and and make a proper vote. I I I think it's important to do that. So, if uh Deputy Breen and Lieutenant Olsen or just Deputy I would say Deputy Breen would be able to Oh, yeah. would be able to handle any questions we have. I feel like the traffic one is I feel as though the traffic one is well answered and it's complete. I do feel as though

I would agree. I mean, yeah, Lieutenant Pulled the data, got it. I I I do feel satisfied with the traffic, the report they've done, the documentation that's come out of it, the recommendation that's come out of it. Granted, we can't necessarily control it because it's on a state road. I am comfortable with with what's been presented. So, I think I think Deputy Breen would be fine and then uh uh Chief Johnson. And so I'm clear you'd like them to speak a little bit more on elaborate more on their initial comments.

Correct. Want to talk more on their initial comments. What really understand what their concerns are with the geography of the site and the layout of the site. Um, as I've said right now, this to me is a safety issue. So I'd like to get their input. Um, Kelly, when could we continue this to? May 13th. All right. So, May 6th and May whatever the week is after that. 13th. 13. Which one looks more busy? All of them. You're always busy. All right. Let me um So, if you just can you coordinate with Brian and Yeah, you have to make Yeah, you have to pick the date now, but yeah.

Um I'll defer to you on that. I'll staff can coordinate with All right. So I'm looking for a motion to continue this to May 13, 2026. So moved. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Second. All in favor starting with Ann, please. And Champ I. Tony D. I. Jeff Pent. I. Arthur Rug. I. John Farrell. I Sean Faber. I John Cruz. I And the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been continued to the 16th. We'll see you next month. Thank you. Just a question though, Jake. So that give George uh are you gonna are you going to address the driveway width to 28 feet?

I absolutely make it 28 feet. It sounds like you know that's what the fire department um suggests. That's what the board wants. So we will make it uh 28 ft. There is room to do it. Thank you. Yep. Mr. Chair, note this is 800 because uh Giani stepped down from the board.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Rug. All right, moving on. We're now to you folks. Uh, let me get my agenda back up here. Must have closed it. All right. We have a public hearing on an application for formal review of a site plan for renovation of an existing building to add a restaurant and associated parking in support of an aggra tourism operation at 230 Mammoth Road. Map 6, lot 21, zoned AR1 and MHO acquisition LLC is the owner and applicant continued from March 4th, 2026. Come on up, folks. All right. Uh before we have you two start, John and Kelly, do you have anything?

I'm not ready. I'm ready. Sorry.

I'm ready. So, just a reminder at the last uh hearing, sorry, that was March 4th, the board um kind essentially placed a pause and asked the applicant to the staff to review uh three specific waivers that being a waiver related to storm water management, one related to grading and drainage, and one relating to gravel versus paving of the site. So, we did meet with the applicant um to discuss those items. The applicant has made some revisions to uh the plan set, including um relocating the the restaurant main entrance to the actual front, if you will. Um and then providing some additional uh geotechnical data, so additional test pits. Um and then revising the existing conditions and site plan sheets to show um direction of overland flow. So which direction the water is going if you will on the parking area. Uh they've also obtained the NHDOT driveway permit approval. So at this stage you still have uh number of waiverss 11 to work through. Um and again just a reminder this uh site falls under the aggra tourism statute which has specific waiver criteria for you to consider as you evaluate those requests and they're referenced in the uh memorandum should you need to use it.

Fantastic. Thank you.

If I could again uh Kelly summarize it pretty well again regarding all the waiver requests. Uh, one item to note is, uh, with this revised design, they're now proposing, uh, a new off-site well to serve the proposed restaurant. Again, because the demand goes from 53 553 gallons per day to 4,793 gallons per day. It's an increase of about 7 and a half times uh, what the existing uh, demand is out on the site. Uh again, the the plethora of uh design review comments and I'll leave it at that right now. All right, Laura.

Good evening. My name is Laura Gandandy. I'm an attorney at Divine Millat here representing uh Mooseill Arches, also known as MH Acquisition. Um with me tonight, I have uh Dary from uh Brown Engineering. We have Kyle Christian, the owner, and we also have our traffic engineer present as well. And thank you, Kelly, for your summary. I think you might have stole my notes because you said everything that I was going to say. Um, so I it might be a little bit repetitive, but I do want to just again refresh the board's mind on March 4th. Um, we were here, we discussed Maxapple's new and exciting agurism endeavor for a restaurant at the farm. We talked about Maxapple as a community staple and its long-standing tradition in the community where families come together and gather for apple picking and treats at the farm stand. We were also blessed with the opportunity of Elparing of community support for this endeavor. Also, at the last meeting, we presented our waiverss and we believe we received a nod from this board that seven of our requested waiverss would be approved. The board recommended that we meet with the town staff to address three remaining waiverss and those are to sections 309 in various subsections and 307. Um Kelly went through what those waiverss were. We did make a modification to um the section waiver number six regarding 309K. When we met with town staff, the intent of this project is to have the pockin remain as is. So when we met with Town, they said additional waivers may be required. If you look at my waiver request letter, I did add additional waivers in there to cover uh the loading spaces. So basically everything that we could think of to keep the parking area in the ground surface area as is to continue uh with this project. Um Kelly did state that we made some significant changes to the site design. Um as you're now aware, we had the entrance located in the front which eliminates folks walking around

the back of the building. We have located the handicapped ax the candy handicapped pocketing spaces on the existing paved area in front of the building. Um you have the updated elevations um on the screen. Thank you Kelly for that. Um and again the tent of all of our waiver request is to allow the site to remain as is. Um for the parking area we updated and expanded the geotech report at the request of the board. Um we duplicated some of those test pits as well. We did receive our NH DOT updated driveway per permit which does not require to perform any additional work on or off the site. Um we added some additional details regarding drainage. On Monday afternoon we received the staff memo. We reviewed and discussed the memo internally and we believe that some of those conditions um will not be applicable depending on which waiverss are granted. So I just wanted to point out that little nuance to the board. Um and the issuance of the NHDO permit came after Stantex's March 4th um letter. That's part of the conditions of approval. So that memo did not address now that we have the NHDOT permit. The memo from Stantech talked about additional um off-site approvements that may be necessary in HDOT came back and said that there were none. So there's another little nuance there just to be mindful of if the board is so kind enough to grant us approval. Um, so we're seeking approval tonight of all of our waiverss as well as a conditional approval. We believe we can work with town staff to satisfactoryy address those conditions as stated in the staff memo that our waiver request would not cover and as I stated last time and as town staff has stated um the this is a site plan under the aggra tourism statute. It was the intent of the legislature um with providing for specific waiver requests to facilitate agri tourism. The relevant statute

that's noted in the memo is RSA 67432C. Um and it states the municipal boards must grant a waiver from generally applicable site or building requirements if and then it has the uh requirements and we went through those in detail last time. And I also want to try the board and I did this at the last meeting that one of the things that is part of the job of the board is to determine whether or not the granting of the waiver will have a demonstrated adverse effect. And again, we believe that all of our waiverss that we're requesting, there's no adverse effect uh on public health safety or the value of adjacent property. So, we believe that we have successfully met the statutory waiver criteria for all of the waiverss. And I didn't know how you wanted to proceed if we wanted to go through because some of these are interrelated. Go through the first seven waiverss that we talked about last time, have those granted because that could change the presentation of how we handle the last three. So I'll leave that to the board to decide. All right, board get started here. What are Does anybody have any comment? I I would like to I would like to complete um the agur tourism statute 67432.

Mhm. Because it says is this after if

Yeah. So I mean it it it it says that we have to follow the rules still is basically what it says. So, this is not a popularity contest. It's about following rules. And I think it's important to to understand that that the RSA specifically says that the statute was not meant to get around local rules and regulations. What I think is really important about that is is we had an applicant in here at the last meeting on Dicki Street that had been running a business since the 1950s on a point 4 or 6 parcel and you know they changed what they were doing and they had to follow the rules and the rules have to apply to everybody. They can't we can't pick and choose who the rules apply to and who they don't apply to. It's not that this isn't a good idea but the rules are the rules. So that that said, I will say that just based on on perusing the the file, there were some amazing changes made by you all. Amazing. I think it's as as one person, as a as a business person, and also someone who may or may not occasionally visit um the local eeries and and bars. Um, this is it's it's better in so many ways. I I can't even articulate how how much better it is. Um, and I'm interested um to see what what else you did. And I'm hoping by way of presentation, you'll you'll talk about the changes that you made, how you made them, and then of course I may have one or two questions uh to follow through as well.

But I I want everyone to understand and and I and I and I wish that that we could get proper coverage on this thing. This board early on agreed and voted that this met the requirement of agurism. This board never said that it didn't. We took a we took a vote on purpose to prove that that we agree that it's agurism. But we also agree that the second half of the statute is just as important as the first half of the statute. And so that's where we're at where where the decision is made to to relax rules, follow the rules, look at the letter of the law versus the spirit of the law, which you know I'm I'm big on that. You've heard me you've been around long enough. You heard me say it a hundred times. Um, I'm all about that spirit of the law versus the letter of the law. We talked about it on a previous case already. Um, and and so that's where we sit right now. So, I'm I'm I'm interested in in hearing the changes the other changes that you've made. um other than on that elevation which takes care of probably 75% or more of my original objections with the entrance being in the the front entrance was in the back and it just created a whole multitude of other problems.

This is brilliant. So, thank you for that. Thank you.

If I could just respond to uh member Pharaoh's comment just so everybody's clear. We are not asking for special treatment at all. I mean, I think we've been very clear about that. That's not what we're doing. We're just bringing to the board's attention a unique statute that allows a different waiver criteria than what is allowed what you have usually in your subdivision regulations. It's completely different. It's by state statute. So, it's not your typical 674 those five four or five criteria that you're used to. So when we're here in front of you and we keep reiterating agurism, it's because it's a different way of approaching this site plan and it's different because the legislator legislature had an idea of helping towns collaborate with different agurism activities. That's the position that we're in. That's what we're asking for. And we're just pointing out simply that there's it's not saying don't look at the waiver criteria. We're asking you to look at the waiver criteria. I just want to make that clear that there's nothing that we're saying here for to ask the board to do anything but just to deal with this project with an aggra tourism fail

100% and and and you know this better than anybody I'm talking to everybody and you know whatever but but but to be clear it says nothing in 67432b shall exempt new reestablished or expanded agricultural operations or activities from generally from general eneral applicable building and site requirements such as dimensional standards, setbacks, driveway, traffic regulations, parking, noise, odor, vibration restrictions, sign uh sign regulations. I'm not going to read the rest of it, but but that that that's the basis of from from day one where we were coming from and and and we working with you has already paid off. And it's unfortunate that that it's costing the applicant more money than it should probably, but we started we didn't start in a good place, one person's opinion. and and I wish we were I wish where we are today I wish we were back then.

So,

but I think I think we have made some very good progress and I appreciate you recognizing that, sir. Um and a lot of it uh was facilitated in that meeting. So, thank you for recommending that we have that meeting. Thank you, Kelly and John for facilitating the the time and place and um thanks to everyone who attended. It was very uh constructive and um and we agree, you know, as Kelly sets forth in her staff memo, just the way you explained it, the statute gives some some require, you know, it it puts some pressure on the board to or some some encouragement on the board to help agriculture, but it doesn't wave any of the site plan requirements. We agree with that. And we appreciate the fact that we sort of worked through seven of the waiverss last time and we're here, you know, at this point right now in tonight's hearing hoping to address those last three.

And you mentioned you wanted a little more detail about those changes. So if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, I'll go into that at this point.

Um, again, we're focusing on uh parking surfacing for for these waiverss, remaining waivers, parking surfacing, uh, storm water and grading and drainage. And in some ways they're tied together. They large part relate to the parking lot. Um you know it's a parking lot that ex existed for a long time but as the board recognized it's never been used year round for a restaurant. So that warranted some some further investigation. And um what Kyle's done is he brought his as as Laura mentions he brought his geotech person back. He redid those three test pits that really don't tell us about the the entire parking lot, but just to make sure that um those test pits which have been dug in an inopportune time were re-evaluated and then six additional test fits throughout the entire uh parking area. And um the findings demonstrate that the entire surface uh meets the standard for sort of a low travel roadway. um an actual road which is certainly sufficient for a parking area. So um so having taken that measure to analyze the existing condition of the lot, we feel confident that that an alternative gravel surfacing is suitable in this case. Um and uh Kyle also intends to maintain that surface in that way just the same way uh you know a DPW would maintain a gravel road. you go out by annually, you do the necessary maintenance of grading, maintenance of compaction. So, he's happy to accept that as a condition. He's going to do it anyway um for the for the proper maintenance of the site. Um and then, as Laura also mentioned, we added those um drainage arrows to the plan. And again, we intend to maintain that drainage. Um,

so we're showing where the storm water goes in an attempt to get to the board to the point where um we can feel comfortable granting that storm water waiver and moving forward uh with the case. Um the relocation of the entrance I think is important. Uh there were a lot of concerns about uh accessibility. Um that also you know the board noticed that that there's some puddling that was taking place in that area. Again, Kyle's not going to let that happen in the future once this um he enters into sort of this great uh grading maintenance program. But nonetheless, having that um entrance at the front is just more welcoming. It's probably better for the business. Also, um I think people would rather run enter from that front entrance than than go around this the side. And um it allows for much better um uh accessibility for uh all folks. Um Laura, am I missing any? I think that touches on most of it. And again, I'm sorry for restating what you said, which Kelly already said, but um

So, do you want to get into the storm water exception?

Um well, you know, I think yeah, relating specifically to the storm water waiver. Um there is some language in in the municipal regulations about exempting agricultural operations. Um, I think that would place some emp onus on um potentially uh I guess I really I guess Laura I feel like more um let's you know let's address this waiver request. I mean if the waiver is granted the exemption is somewhat um you know moot. Um, so I guess Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. So, do we Kelly, do we have the Do we have a new plan that has arrows on it that shows the Sorry. Thank you. This is a proposed I'll let them do it, but this is a proposed uh sorry the revised site plan sheet and the little arrows there are the directional arrows they're referring to so we can see where water's going. Yeah. How it's moving throughout the site.

Right where it belongs. difference is is it's all moving there and you weren't doing any winter maintenance here in the past. Yeah. I mean, so it it can I am I am Am I You're good. Thank you. You're good. So, um it looks like the parking lot was topped today or yesterday. Yeah. So when when was it when was it puddle? I call it puddle jumped. When was it puddle jumped? Because now it's going to be different, right? Um well,

yeah, I I wasn't at the site when he did I think he mo mainly is maintaining exist great, but I suppose um we should probably go back out there and do another uh uh another spot sort of check to make sure all those arrows are going Yeah. So, and I just happened to look over there as I was driving here tonight and and noticed that it had been topped. But, um, so is there going to be gravel put on top of that? It looks like sand right now. Just sand. It's gravel. It is gravel. Okay. Thank you. I did I didn't drive in. I I saw the color and it Yeah. So, that's fine. But it's

Yeah, that's fine. Especially this time of year when you get it, it's still half frozen or soaking wet or it's turns into a it turns into a mess. Um, yeah. So, yeah. So, that it is what it is. My guess is it's different today and I'm guessing those arrows are going to go in a more favorable direction now that it's topped. Because when you when you grade a project, you you tend to straighten things out,

if you know what I'm saying. So you you your greater is level and so it fills it higher on one side than it does the other because the land is sloping down and it tends to move in that direction. Even if it's a even if it's a uh a payloader, um it's the same thing tends to happen because it's a hunk of straight metal. You know, it's a three yard bucket, five yard, two yard bucket, whatever it is. Um but my guess is that those arrows are in a more favorable position today, more so than they than they show on that plan. But um there's some other things to talk about too, Mr. here if if uh but other people have some things I'm sure as well. So I'll I'll yield. Thank you.

Anybody keep going? Thank you. So um when I was reading through the file today again um and John mentioned it at the beginning, the you're going to be using an off site well or off this this property well. So, the well is not on this lot. No, we're changing that. We are going to do an on-site well. Okay. Um Yeah. Fine. Fine. That that's we're good there. Um a new well. Yep.

Yeah. So, um what would be the guess on how many parking spots you have there in that in the dirt in the gravel lot? 89 in total. 89 in total, but I don't know how many are in. So, there's 89 total on the site. Yeah. Okay. So, if I said if I said 60 for the gravel site, am I that far off? No, you're there. I think 60 is 5560 probably. Give or take, right?

Yeah, give or take. Um, and the and the restaurant is going to seat how many people or including the bar or whatever? 99 or fewer. Okay, got it. And on a So, I'm very familiar, intimately familiar with restaurants and and how they work. I've had many lives like a cat. Um, many different You can't kill him.

Many many different Yeah. I land on my feet somehow every time. I don't know. Um, so we we know the track record. We we know the track record of of restaurants and we know that it's not very good. Okay, let's let's leave it at that. The statistics we can argue back and forth for 100 days about statistics on u how many restaurants startup restaurants start fail in the first 5 years and it's not it's not a pretty number, right? So, so I'm very familiar with restaurants and and how they work, but I'm not at all familiar with an an agurism restaurant. I know I've been to a few and and I haven't gone back because I don't like eating dandelions, but this I know this one is going to be way different than the ones my wife dragged me to. So, I'm I'm anticipating that I'm going to be there a lot, but but the point the point is when when in a typical restaurant, you're going to get about two and a half turns a night in a place like London, New Hampshire. Is that the same on an agurism restaurant?

Our anticipation is it's going to have similar uh uh flow as a fine dining establishment because of the fact, you know, it it's there's no paper plates, you know, it it's a a multicourse offering. Um there is going to be the bar. Um so that's that's what we anticipate. Um, I don't know.

So, while you're thinking about that, so fine dining is a state regulated term, which basically means any place where people are sitting down and there's a knife and a fork and a and a and a and a plate. That that's how the state that that's how they do it. That that's what they call fine dining. Some people fine dining is a is totally it's like way up here and it it doesn't need to be according to the state of New Hampshire, right? So, so in a in a in one that's way up here, you're lucky to get one and a half turns a night because people are there for the night and and they got money in their pocket and they're just going to keep sitting there spending money. So, you don't care if it's two and a half turns, right, in a night. But it makes a difference because the turns dictates your parking and how many parking spots you're going to need, right? Because if people have a five o'clock or let's say they have a 7:00 um uh reservation, the 5:00 people might still be there, right? somebody coming for a 7:00, they you know what, let's go at 6:30 and we'll have a couple of drinks and then our table will be ready probably at 7:15 or 7:30 because that's how it works in a lot of restaurants even though we had a 7:00. Um, so you're going to you're going to have overlaps, right? And so my question is how you going to deal with that with that many parking with that many parking spots? Well, I I think we're uh relying on um the um fact that your regulations uh provide us a target um that is designed to uh meet restaurant uses. And the fact that we've met that target, we

anticipate um I mean we've analyzed it, you know, we've done tra we've done our traffic analysis. Sure. We believe your standard works for this site. Okay. Yeah. All right. That's fine. And and and do off the top of your head, do you remember what the standard is for this many square feet? John, do you have that? It's it's a half a seat per Yeah.

Or excuse me, half a space per seat. So they requires 50 spaces but in their calculations they they are not taking into account other activities on the site. So they have the existing use of a warehouse storage barn. They have the ice cream shop and food. They have the general office and they have the low generation low generator sales and retail. They're not taking into account any of the additional activities the picking the plantings etc like that. How sorry how are we not we we have uh we decide we need 50 seats for a restaurant and then we have what is it I say 80 I think 92 spaces and then the warehouse is gone. I mean that's where the or much of the warehouse is now being replaced with the restaurant and then there was a request to address um parking associated with a uh another building kind of distant from here on the same site and we did we did address that as well. So, there's some additional parking area.

You obviously haven't gone to get ice cream at 6:30 in July. Yeah. That said, you can fill the parking lot now with Okay. That that said, I I I think you're pretty close on on I think you're pretty close on on parking.

This is going to be some anxiety out there. You're going there's going to be parking rage in that parking lot, but there's parking rage at Market Basket every day. So, it, you know, I I think I think you're pretty close. For the record, I am not um I am not a Mammoth Road is a problem person. So, there's other people on the board that probably are going to jump on me for saying that, but I I I really don't care. Um I I think you're okay. Now I I there was mention um there wasn't two things. Let me go back. Let me let me stick here. So there is a program in the state that that contractors go to for salt mitigation.

T2. Yeah. Yeah. And could you describe that program for me? It sounds like you you're familiar with it. Yeah. I actually Yeah. I am unfor Yeah, I'm very familiar with it. uh or unfortunately was right

familiar with the um it's its founding let's say um yeah it's it's a T-squed I think they call it it's uh a lot of I think you know initially it was a lot of municipal operators uh winter maintenance operators were going but now a lot of the companies send their people and they get certified snow pro green snow pro certified um and basically they've learned how to maintain snow in an environmentally responsible way um through um applying salt. A lot of it salt reduction, you know, I mean it's that's the main goal and applying salt at the right time is a lot of it. Um

and also the product being used. Well, true. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. And so and so to be clear, the state doesn't come and inspect. It's it's an educational certificate basically that you get. Yeah. After you take the the class or or whatever.

Um so it's not it's it's not an enforcable thing. The state is hoping if they can educate people that they're going to use less salt because they're going to do it more efficiently and they're going to and they're going to do it in a timely fashion and and whatever. And so my question is, especially with the water going the way it's going on this plan, which I think is going to change, would that be something that that the U applicant would consider having at least one person associated with the farm getting that certification. I think it's a we were going to typically hire a farm company like we do now. Great. Okay. Super. I thought um

the requirement is usually we see it a lot inside of um some of these subdivisions. I've seen it before in storm water. It's a Yeah, it's it's a requirement inside of I think it's the storm water, right? Oh, storm water. The contractor who is who's performing the work is to be green snowro certified state. Yeah. All right. That's Before we get away from the parking lot, can you please ask the question about where is the handicap parking going to go for the restaurant? That's in the front. In the front. In the front. Right. The front door of the restaurant. Yeah. No. Over not Well, yeah. Can we put that one back up or is it here? You want the elevation or does No,

I think it shows everything. Yeah, that's fine. Oh, there they are. Enter. You're going to enter on the left side from from the handicap parking. How do they get into the restaurant to here? You can walk through undercover at that point, right, Kyle? Yeah. So, you basically walk immediately under cover and along to the to the left into the main entrance to the restaurant through so through the through the red door through the so at the back of the the other side of the store. Yeah. Okay. Looks like there was two up in the top corner, too.

Now, I would think you got to have more than two, but they're showing they got four. That's That's what I would think. Um, so, um, so my last thing on the parking lot was if the if the parking lot is going to stay gravel and we have I get to the No, over here's over here.

So where we have there it is this this part could be asphalt, cement, whatever. So the people coming off Mammoth Road that are coming in here going probably 50 miles an hour have a solid surface to break on instead of hitting gravel and getting into the site. And for the same reason, people coming out, especially especially if you're going to take a left, they're going to be skidding on tar trying to get up to skidding on gravel to try and try and get up to speed into traffic is going 50 60 miles an hour down the hill. And that you're talking about probably a I don't know a 20 by 20 would would do it. And that way they're safe on the way in so that they're able to stop because they have that solid surface to stop on and they're able to get out without spitting stones at the car behind them or worse not being able to get traction and they and they get hit from a from a car.

So without turning toward Kyle, I know there's a strong desire to maintain the the agricultural character. I know that um we were hoping that by doing a a you know bianual maintenance program of the gravel surfaces that we'd be able to maintain that area in a condition um such that traffic would have relatively stable uh you know surfacing to come and go from. Um, I I don't know that I can't say that we'd be opposed to alternate surfacing, but I know that we'd we'd really prefer to just um sort of stick on that well-maintained gravel surface if possible.

And so, yeah, and and and I understand completely where you're coming from. However, I've mentioned it before. Yes. And I was at Water Valley skiing today. That's where I got a little color. And and I will tell you there was a fight in the parking lot today because that's a gravel parking lot. And as the guy went to go onto the tar, somebody in a Porsche SUV took exception to stones hitting the front of his car because the guy was trying to get up to speed. So, um I I think it's warranted. I think it's necessary. I think it's a safety issue. You know, God forbid, God forbid, there's a kid that's going to the petting zoo or whatever, whether it's going to be there or not any anymore, or a kid happens to be running here and a car comes in and can't stop cuz they're skidding on dirt and gravel. You have that little pad. Doesn't take much. If you have that little pad, that won't happen because they'll they'll be able to stop safely and and nobody will get hurt that's walking around the site.

What's the difference now? It's already being used by vehicles coming in and out. We'll just make it a condition. Kyle, if you want to talk, just come to the podium. Yeah. And then give him a Yeah. I'm definitely not for paving that area. I want to maintain it as gravel. It's gravel now. It's always been gravel. We have no issues. Sure. To to answer your question, you're exponentially increasing the amount of traffic that's going to come into that site 12 months a year. Exponentially. So

John, what's the what would what it would be the expectation in a normal situation of the existing I'm not talking the gravel lot I'm talking what is paved what would be the expectation of the town of the existing paved area is it satisfactory the way it is or is it something that the town would say needs to be repaved. Typically, we we wouldn't, you know, it is a paved surface again. So, always the concern would be maintaining it in the winter time. Mhm.

U dealing with the drainage obvious obviously it's you maintain it it's sloped and it's graded correctly to flow into the basins. So you're not going to have ponding water out there and then you're actually able to to create orderliness to the parking lots in the great in the gravel area. I don't know how you can ever identify where those parking spots are. So that's you know again it's an one more thing to finish up on the same topic. I want to say to my fellow board members that based on what's been done so far, I'm okay with this dirt uh parking lot.

Me, too. But I would like that I would like that skid plate put in. And I would say the reason for that is changing the location of of the entrance has changed the traffic flow of Oh, 100%. 100%. Yes.

I agree. I agree. Um, I do think that there would, and I think you might have, you mentioned, you you hit on it a little bit a while ago. Um, I do think there would be something warranted in the updated site plan that would require maintenance to the gravel area. um you know bianually in the spring after the winter and then before the winter comes I think is there should probably be more of a firm date on it but I think that's reasonable given the fact that you know we're saying hey this can stay gravel I think there should be a maintenance aspect to it um I guess my concern My concern isn't with Max Apples and Max want to put a restaurant up. My concern is 10 years now, 20 years from now, whatever it is, what does it look like if Max Apples were to sell the T-Bones? What's that look like? Is that possible? Now there's there's there's a specific pro provision in the statute that essentially says if it's not going to continue as an agricultural agurism use. So in other words sell to a commercial entity like you're saying

then this approval is doesn't apply. It' have to go through our our standard commercial site plan review for a commercial restaurant where start over again. they would be essentially starting over. Um, step one of that would be a variance. True. Because it's in residential at a minimum one. Absolutely. And that's an important distinction because many, if not most, and I believe that the commissioner of agriculture are all in commercial areas said that are already in commercial correct

zones. They're not in AR1s. But it's also important for to to understand that this lot, the the the the piece of land that this restaurant is going to be on um is an independent piece of land separate from all the rest of the farmland that the town has a development. Is it what's the what do they have on it? Conservation conservation easement on it. So this lot could be sold independent independent of the rest of the sites and become totally something else if it's if if it's abandoned but under AR1 rules.

There you go. So under AR1 rules. So I think that um the the question is important what happens because it's a huge percentage of restaurants that fail first of all but what's happens the whole the whole thing blows up. what's going to happen with that piece of land moving forward? And and I I think the deputy town manager answered it very succinctly that it's AR1 land. It's AR1 AR1 stuff could go on there if this fails. And I think that's an important thing for everybody to understand.

And just cherry on top if you will, this general area entirely is AR1. So even if you had somebody come forward with a reasonzoning proposal to change this to commercial, my hope would be that that would be strongly um discouraged because well that that would be spot zoning and we've discouraged that for so decades. So,

and if I could just add uh one thing that I think would help u have the board have more security. 67432C says they even the waiverss that are granted such waivers shall continue only as long as utilized for the permitted agricultural use or activity. So that's another level of protection for the town. Thank you for that. Exactly what I was asking. Thank you. All right. Anybody got anything else before I go to the public?

I'd like I'd like to hear the board's opinion on Well, I guess we can do it when when we're talking about waiverss. I'd like to know if I'm off base with this pad thing. No, but we can but we can wait if you want. Let's come back to it after. or uh that's fine. Yeah, let's come back to it. All right, we're going to open up public comment. If you'd like to come up, state your name and address and the uh floor is yours.

Just while he's making his way, you do have a number of written comments in your file. Just you have a number of written written comments that were submitted. Yes. Just I just don't want to forget that voice. Oh, yeah. Come on up. Oh, okay. Um, yeah, I'm uh I'm a a resident of Manchester. However, I've been uh a resident of London for about uh 35 years. Just give us your name, please. Uh Robert Bonham. Thank you. I'm Judy Bond. Thank you.

Yeah. Indeed. Um and so um um my connection with all of this is that um I'm I'm a member of the London Dair United Methodist Church and we do a food pantry where we distribute food to um to about 45 families which is around, you know, 100 people. And um and so we get food in from various places. Um a lot of it from local grocery stores where they have food that um say uh bakery items that are almost out of date. We'll get that. We'll get food from their uh produce department where it probably won't sell, but it's still edible and acceptable food. Um, we also get a significant amount of food from Max and the MA and the food that they provide us is first grade. It is not ready to be dumped somewhere. They bring in so much food to us that we also send food to a sister church because we can't give it all away. and it is good food. Okay? So, if you're a business and you have perfectly sellable product that isn't selling and you end up giving it away, what's the horizon for that business? I mean, you look at the east from here and see what the horizon is for Apple Orchards. It's not too pretty. Okay? It's a a condo city.

These people need to adjust their business to stay alive. I don't see it any other way. Okay? So, not doing anything guarantees failure. Doing something at least gives them a chance. And and so all I'm asking you to do is to give these people a chance. let them try something. Okay? Because I guess there's so many rules and regulations and so forth that if they can't try anything, you're guaranteeing them to fail. That's all I've got to say. Thank you. Oh,

and I just want to add to that the everything that he said, plus the fact that we've raised our children and our grandchildren here and they've had so much to do with Max Apples. They've been they did pumpkins. They were pulled around in wagons. We have beautiful pictures of all the things they did there. They've been on the ski on the sled riding hill and everything. And we had our grandchildren with us for Easter. And we brought up the subject of what Max is trying to do. And our granddaughter right now is into fruits and vegetables. She works at a farm stand and she's also in charge of the fields at one of the restaurants. And when she heard what they wanted to do, this food tot restaurant, she was all excited and she said, "Make sure they pass it." And that's what we're here to do.

Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. Anything else from the public? I think um my name is Ann Marie Rich. We live for certain place and I think all of you should have gotten an email copy of the letter that the people from the church uh food ministry have signed. Yes.

Um it's also clients and um volunteers who work there. So I don't know if you need official if you keep anything in paper, but here is another uh copy for you. And again, I know you've gotten a lot of feedback from the community about uh how different people feel about Max and what they've done throughout many years to uh support the community and this community aspect that we live in here. We hope we still live in here after listening to all those houses going up tonight. But anyway, and I decided not to say anything. All right. Oh, thank you for that. Because I get you yelled at me last time.

I get so frustrated that I don't want to say anything because it would make me look bad and it might be harmful to Kyle. So, yeah, I'm just going to stay stay away. Thank you, Mrs. Rich. You're welcome. Thank you. You're welcome.

Sorry, I'm nervous. Dana Green, 46 Seasons Lane here in London Derry. Yes, you got nothing to be nervous about. We're all eating. Get it all out real quick. You're good. I just want to say I really hope um for the town sake that this passes and for Kyle's we love our farms here in London Dairy. We can't let another one go. and let's do what it takes to keep this farm viable and a place for our future generations to visit. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. You did well. Anything else from the public? All right. Seeing none, I will close public comment and bring it back to the board.

So, I have a um Tony, the problem you're trying to solve or you're proposing with this with the skid pad. Mhm. Could we just kind of like unpack that a little bit more? And I really kind of want to understand what exactly are we solving there and how are we solving it? Is is a skid pad like the only option like is it is it essentially we're trying to prevent accidents? Is that is that how you're kind ofing it?

Yeah, we're trying to increase safety. Uh we're trying to prevent uh an unfortunate accident. Any anytime you have cars coming off a major road like like we have on on Mammoth Road, um they're going at a pretty good rate of speed which all of a sudden have to stop.

Mhm. And sometimes they have to stop faster than they want to stop because especially on on this site where there's a lot of kids running around all over the place and not to mention the dogs and whatever else. And um when you come off a a tar or cement road onto gravel and you try to stop, your stopping distance is increased exponentially because you skid.

Mhm. you have a similar issue as you're leaving a site trying to merge into traffic that's going fast. I mean, can you imagine can you imagine um um an entrance or an exit ramp? Um as soon as you come off it, you're you're on gravel and you have to stop or you're trying to get up to speed and as soon as you put your foot into the gas, your back wheels spin and you're not moving forward and the cars are still coming. So, for me, it's a it's a safety thing more than it is anything else. And for me, it's a um it will I mean it would just it's going to be a sa safer project with that pad in there than without.

Thank you. And Mr. Chair, um could I ask the applicant a question? Um just um so what Tony was so what we're trying to do is ensure that it's um the safety of the entrance coming in from you the pavement into the gravel with the new with your new plan you know um new use and whatever how have you accounted for that? Yeah,

I mean I I guess I think that the Kyle's not only willingness but desire to to engage in this bianual maintenance uh regimen for that gravel surfacing is going to result in the same type of um conditions in that spot that you have in the intersection of two gravel roads. to, you know, say town gravel roads, which it's not ideal. I agree with with uh Mr. D. Franchesco. It's it's not as safe as pavement, but um but as long as people are, you know, not driving um like complete lunatics, it's it's it's considered an adequate treatment for public roads. and um and that's why we feel like it may work. Is the gravel that's in there that is there currently is that is is it the same gravel that you're going to you that you'll be using or is it a different type of I guess

you know kind of more better gravel I sorry right I I'm I'm like some type of roadway gravel did you say 3 in 38 tall 38 inch top so 3 inch just 3 inch gravel 38 like PE stone or is it a gravel mix? Road spec. That's what I was gonna say. Basically, yeah, our expectation would be to use road spec. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'm all set, Jake.

Yeah. Um well, one one thing to think about in this discussion about gravel versus not is as you talk about, you know, cars trying to come out of the parking lot onto the road are going to be spinning their tires and one is fine. You do a couple hundred of those, you're going to start to develop ruts and hills and or not hills, but holes and indentations in there, which is going to each one of those is going to make it a little bit harder each time. to get traction and come out. So over the span of two years, that's probably going to get worn down pretty quickly.

Mr. Chair, I have a followup to that. Sorry. Um, so you mentioned that you would be t um at least twice a year reviewing and reviewing that spot, reviewing kind of the structure and probably to Jason's point any issues that would have come from that with the review and you obviously I would imagine if you find issues that's when you would right solve it,

right? Exactly. The intent is and um Kyle has equipment on site um to to twice a year, you know, York rake, other other implements uh to twice a year um basically stabilize that grade. And so that would include if there's a low spot developing as as Mr. Nice pointed out, then we would that that would a material would be redistributed such as to eliminate that and then compacted into place so that it would temporarily prevent, you know, the the ruting. That indeed does happen over time, just like you see, you know, on dirt roads where uh you know, just before they get out there with the grater, it's an absolute mess. You know, we're not going to have that situation, but, you know, there'll be maintenance that needs to occur.

John, on our uh 3.09 09 K2 paving materials. Let's get rid of the wearing course. Let's get rid of the B base course. Crushed gravel. What do we consider a 6 inch crushed gravel? 6 in of crushed gravel. There's a 304 inch and a half. What is it? Yeah, it's like 3/4 3/4. Some some of the the some of the newer stuff is even is uh is a little bigger in stone. Like 3/4 and an inch or getting crazy over an inch and a half. Uh about an inch and a half, two inches. All depends of what the what it is. Okay.

So, can I ask a question, Tony? Um is that Mr. Chair, can you ask a question, Tony? No, but my my question is is that a matter of opinion or is that do you have something to support that? Like a matter of personal personal uh experience. Absolutely. Personal experience. I did I I I I told you about a situation today that happened at Waterville Valley. There's a there was road rage in the middle of the parking lot because I live on a dirt road and I and I think that

as much as it might be improve certain situations when you're going from gravel onto pavement. It puts a coating of gravel on top of the pavement which actually worsens the condition where you if you were in that situation where you're going to break hard or whatever you're actually floating across gravel now and I think that is it am I understanding this correctly as a condition of the plan to maintain that gravel on a twice a year basis or if we vote on it if we vote on what they're proposing

I the flip side to it is the entire discussion we had the last time was all about safety. And now we're talking about just one safety area. Not the whole lot, not the whole site. And what he's brought up is one area that would improve the safety of the site. I don't disagree, John. But what I'm saying is that the by adding that little pad might make it how little more unsafe. I think it's not going to be little. I think it's going to be pretty big. I I'm I'm sharing with you my personal experience and my personal opinions like Tony is with with that little pad.

You can't speed out of where you are onto a main road. Well, I don't think the traffic uh you I don't think the traffic conditions over there are 60 miles an hour either. I'm going to I'm going to bring it back in real quick here. I want to go I want to go to

3.09. 09 K2 which is discussing paving material. Um there's two things that stick out to me. Design and choice of paving materials used in pedestrian areas shall consider such factors as function, climate, characteristics of users, availability, cost, maintenance, clear blah blah blah blah blah so on and so forth. In moving the entrance to the facility to a degree, we have fixed what was a big concern. Number four, design and choice of paving materials used in pedestrian areas. When I think pedestrian areas, I'm not talking parking lots. I'm talking that area between when parking lot stops and it's only where people walk to get into a building. Pedestrian. Fair. There is with the entrance where it is now. I think there's one area that might not meet that that I think is an easy fix, which would be around the uh um around the ice cream stand. You get a ramp that goes up into the building that I'm sure people will walk into to go over to the over to the the restaurant there. I I think that by paving that we're close, you know, repaving. It's it's all gravel now from when they redid the whatever you want to call it, the ice cream stand. I think repaving that area and that ramp helps. 3.09 K4 for pedestrian areas. For number one here, parking requirements, 1-in wearing course, 2in B base course, and 6 in crush gravel. The board is will a wearing course is pavement. A base course is pavement. The board sounds as

though we're willing to to not require that, of which we're well within our right to do that through alternative surfacing, which is number five. But we have to ask ourselves, what of this parking structural requirements do we want to to hold to, which I think is a crushed gravel base. up. I asked Kyle what did he put in? He put in 38. It is the road spec. I asked John 38 in thought road spec. So I asked John what our spec is. He's saying it's what was it? 3.1 point. What did you say? What did you use for a number?

304.2. 304.2. Which is what kind of gravel? Um I'm looking right now. Not sure exactly what it was put down but it did. Do you know where you got it? We'd have to see what he Yeah. What he actually pulled for. That's what I'm getting at. How much of that did you put down? C. There's already 12 in there. You look at that. Yeah. Gioch.

Correct. I I I guess what I'm getting at is new material added. One truck load, 10 truck loads, 20 truck loads. Um believe there was four truckloads. Four truck loads. Okay. Tri axles obviously. I guess I'd want to know what that spec is, but I think if it meets the spec where where we can at Oh I just No, excuse me. I just crossed out everything that I just had. I hit X on John. Um, you fine with that? 3 point. It's your disc. It's your disc. Oh, whatever.

We have the ability to move off of pavement if there's something alternatively proposed. The first two layers of pavement. The next layer is 6 in of roadsp spec gravel. I think that is we know there's a foot there. They've they've showed us that. They've demonstrated that.

They've added on about 2 in of additional material. That's where I'm a little questioning. Is that material what we can consider roadsp spec or not? Because we're going to want roadsp spec to go down. We want that to be what it is maintained twice a year. I think if we do a small amount of paving along the the ice cream stand. We're addressing a pedest pedestrian traffic issue. Mrs. Smith shuffling up that little teeny ramp and gravel. It's a lot safer with Mrs. Smith doing it on pavement. Right. What we haven't addressed yet, which is Tony's comment about this. Call it I guess you could call it an apron if you wanted to. Um what the board feels about how the board feels about that. We know 3 one one eight 3.08 08 I believe was a fact that those are within 200 feet of each other. We said that's okay. We're not worried about it. It's been like that. It's not an issue. So I think we have some reasonable compromises here. We don't have a grading and drainage plan, but we can see which direction the water's going, which is a positive. um you know what what's the board's thought on this this apron I on this one section and then my other question would be what's the thought on what I've asked with regards to I spent 20 minutes going through the thing and just hit X on it. So 3.09K number four or whatever it was about pedestrian access and cleaning up or paving around the entirety of the um hut there. So one other thing though uh Mr. Chairman I just want to bring to your attention because the the discussion will continue. So in the back

in the rear of the building and I'm looking at comment 19H revised plan uh does not provide a suitable accessible landing hard service for the emergency exit at the rear of the building. So again if you look at the you're talking where the original entrance is. No. So what they're proposing now is to see this emergency see right here the proposed emergency exit so again it's my my understanding that that will be required to be a hard surface concrete something when you're coming 4x8 landing something correct yep want to make sure that yeah that we're all on the same page because

what's what's the thoughts on Tony's and my suggestion with pavement. So I I have an alternate too if you want to if you want to hear that. Sure. So So put a pad there or just close it. Why do you need that entrance? You have a you have a massive entrance with a island in the middle of it which gets the cars in and out of there fine. For for a site this big for a restaurant that small for an ice cream stand. I like using that entrance more than the main one. Yeah, got five part. Here's an alternative. I have cars that never go on gravel, so I never I've never used it.

Hey, maybe you can barter with a a paving company. We're not talking bart let's answer number one. Does the board want an apron? Yes or no? If we can start with Ann and come right down. Let's get a consensus here. So, by apron, do we mean a pavement apron in kind of inside of the buffer, if you will? Y I I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. Right in this area here. Yeah. Yeah. How big is that area? It's like 30 25 by 30, I think it was. 20 by 30 or so.

So, Ann, I think it's a good idea. Yes. I don't think it's going to improve uh the situation is my personal opinion. So yes. Yeah. I'm not And we can talk about sizing later too. I mean it's not Yeah. What does that what's that improve? That's kind of my question too is Jeff. For me, it it addresses a safety concern coming onto a main road. And that's why I'm in favor.

For me, too, because of what Giovani said, that part where the gravel hits the pavement, it makes it less safe. If we have a buffer there, that doesn't put it right onto Mammoth. It puts that gravel that's going to spill off the gravel a little off. And that that for me is what helps. And the speed to come on to Mammoth. You're just going to need it. Yeah. I'm in favor as well. So, there's enough to be in favor, but it's a majority. Me here. Yeah. Me, too. Yeah. Me here. Um, what about uh the pedestrian side of things with access into the building around the essentially patching in what got pulled out 100%.

Yeah. For especially the handicap and Yes. that makes sense. Yep. to the right of the ice cream stand. Yeah, that's not even an entrance to the They're not going to enter there from to the restaurant there. It is an entrance into the building nonetheless. But let's we'll keep going here. Okay. That's where you're talking, right, Jake? I thought you meant in the back of the building. Yeah. No, not on the back of the building. Okay. That that that's what got us off of all this because they moved the entrance. So, at least we're staying on the front plane of the building.

Yeah, 100% you're right. All right. Um, was there another one? I don't think so. Three. Who was it? All right. I think, um, Kyle just mentioned to me, sorry to interrupt, Mr. Chairman, if I may, um that area where the hand is sitting right now that uh he plans to actually um pour concrete in that area within that solid surface. Concrete or pavement? Hard surface. Okay. Concrete or pavement? Solid surface. That's fine. All right, that takes care of that.

So, I think it's appropriate to uh to probably start going through these waiverss. Kelly, do you want to go through anything else, John? You're good. Time for some waiverss. Fantastic. All right. Um, my plan's not till 5:00 a.m., so unfortunately. I don't think you're kidding. No, he's not. I'm not kidding. All right, I got to leave my house at three.

I do have one thing I want to point out. So on the staff memorandum, I believe that I uh sorry, let me try this again. On the staff memorandum, I believe I ordered them in the way in which you provided a consensus last time in terms of what you were agreeable to. Okay, don't hold me to it, but I think I think that's what I tried to do. Well, in an effort to make this easy and if you don't want to do it, it's fine. Does the board want to vote on these all at once? I think that we should vote on them in the order that Kelly put them. All right. I think somebody could probably group together some.

No, I'd say they're all in none. All right. We're going to go, but I am going to abbreviate them as waiver one, waiver two. We all have it in front of us. The notes per the staff memo. Yeah. Uh yes, that I'm reading staff uh memorandum April 8th, 2026. Make sense? Max apples staff memo SP4826. Could you just read the waiver section? Just Yes. 3.114.1. Yep, that's fine. And I don't know if it would be helpful, but I do have the waiver copied. I've got it. We're good.

Um I am looking for a motion to grant uh waiver number one from uh section 3.11, section 5.06, and section 3.02. 2 checklist be 10. So moved. I have a motion. Do I from I have a motion from John. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Arthur. All in favor starting with Annne, please. And Champ I. Uh. Javanni Vani. I Tony D. I. Jeff P. I. Arthur Roy. I. Ferrell. I. Sean. Favor. I Cruz. I.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh, waiver request number one has been granted. Uh, waiver request number two section 4.12. C.19 point what's that 5678 uh tree identification looking for a motion to grant this waiver. I have a motion from uh Mr. Frell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Jeff. All in favor starting with Annne, please. And Champa I. Javanni Veroni. I Tony D. I Jeff Pent I. Arthur Rug I. Sean Ferrell I. Sean Faber. I

And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh number two has been granted. Waiver number three. I'm looking for a motion to grant waiver number three, which is section 4.14. C.2.7. So moved. Sorry. I have a motion for Mr. Rug. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second for Mr. Ferrell. All in favor starting with Ann, please. Anch I. Joan. I Tony D. I Jeff Pent I. Arthur Roy I. John Ferrell I. Sean Faber I. John Cruz I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh waiver number four has been granted. I'm looking for a motion to grant waiver number five uh 3.08. C.2 sidewalk requirements.

So move from John. I have a second from Jeff. All in favor starting with Ann, please. So Mr. Chairman, members of just so for clarification. So that comment is as it addressed this sidewalk here. So again, typically it's again it's a 7 foot sidewalk and it would be a need for a curb or curb stops. That's where that area is. Okay. So, as indicated, that's, you know, that's where the the handicap parking is and and whatnot. So, that's where that that's applicable, too. Okay. So, can we add curb stops? There are no curb stops now. Plan doesn't indicate it.

Yeah. I mean, there haven't been curb stops there for 100 years. Okay. Yeah. Plow the plows move them all over the parking lot. I had a motion second. Thank you. Uh all in favor starting with Annne, please. Ana I. Javanni Veroni I. Tony D. I Jeff Pent I. Arthur Roy I. John Frell I. Sean Faber I. John Cruz I and the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh number five has been granted. Before I'm looking for a motion on this I'm looking for some clarification. If we wave it our conditions would be at the end. Correct. Sorry. If you whatever you wave then

if we if we wave 3.09, our conditions for any parking lot upgrades that we've been discussed would be a condition. Yeah. So, I'm looking for a motion to grant uh waiver to section 3.09K parking surface standards and alternative surfacing. Some moved. I have a motion from John. I have a second from Arthur. All in favor starting with Annne, please. And Champa I. Javanni Veron I. Tony D. I Jeff Pent. I Arthur Roy. I John Ferrell. I Sean Faber. I John Cruz. I And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh uh this number six has been granted. I'm looking for a motion to grant section 3.07 checklist number six. Grading plan requirement. So moved. Second.

I have a motion from John. I have a second from Art. All in favor starting with Ann, please. An Champ I. Javanni Bari. I Tony Dei. Jeff Pent. I Arthur Rug. I John Ferrell. Sean in favor I. John Cruz I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Number seven has been granted. Uh looking for a motion to grant uh waiver to 3.07 which is checklist what's that? 11.2 storm water management. So moved. So moved. Yeah. Second. I have a motion from John. I have a second from Mr. Rug. All in favor starting with Ann, please. Ann Champ. I. Javanni Verani. I Tony D. I Jeff Pena. I at the Rug I. John Ferrell. I Sean favor I John Cruz I

and the chair votes in the affirmative the votes are getting lower as we go uh looking for number nine I'm looking for a motion to grant a waiver to 3.14 which is traffic impact analysis requirements so moved I have a motion from John do I have a second second second from Jeff all in favor starting with an please and Champa I Javanni Bari I Tony D I Dr. Jeff Penta I. Oh, nice. Very smooth. Very smooth. John Farrell. I Sean Faber. I John Cruz. I

uh and the chair votes in the affirmative. Looking for uh this has been approved. I'm looking for a motion to grant uh waiver number 10 from section 3.08b3 driveway design standards. I have a motion from Mr. Rug. I have a second from Mr. Ferrell. All in favor starting with Annne, please. And Ann Champa. I uh Javanni Bari I Tony D. Francesco me I Jeff Pet I ET Barnum I Sean in favor I and the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been granted. Uh all right we got one more folks. Um I think you skipped one. Did I? Which one?

You were going to say number 11 clarification. Go up first. So just for the 309K in my waiver request letter after meeting with town staff, she su would suggest that we add in additional waivers so the parking lot could remain as is. So if you look at my waiver request letter, there's other sections that I have in there that you technically didn't grant. So I just want to make sure that

Kelly, what's your thoughts on that? Do we need to? So, so I submitted on March 19th a waiver request for number five, and this was after a discussion with town staff, we did the 309K2, but then um basically upon guidance from town staff, we were asked to put additional waiverss in there just so the parking lot could remain as is. So, I went through and I did that, but that wasn't voted upon. So, mean one, two, 09 AC, CD. Clarify the motion. Can you just cl Yeah. So, just clarify that motion. Okay. What do you want me to clarify? What you referenced as? Sorry, number six.

Six. Thank you. So, you want to clarify that it includes six? Six includes Oh, sorry. Uh, it's inclusive of 3.09K 1 and 2 and 3.09 09 A, C, D, F, G, and K. You need clarification from us or do you are we all for the record? That's your We're good. We're good. Yep. We're good. Uh so looking for a waiver to grant uh number 10 3.08 B3 driveway design standards. So move. I have a motion from John. Do I have a second? Second.

Second from Jeff. All in favor starting with Annne, please. Anne Champa I. Tony Baron I. Tony D. I Jeff Pence I. Arthur Rug I. John Ferrell I. John Faber I. John. And the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been granted. And last but not least looking for a waiver on uh RSA 67432-C agra tourism relief request. So moved. What are you asking? Okay. Making sure you understand what you're doing. Yeah. You do. What's that? I think it's too broad, isn't it?

We We actually table that waiver. At this point, you'd have to withdraw. You can't table. Okay. I don't want to do that. Okay. Are you withdrawing? It's uh I'll leave that up to Laura. But um I think that I I think the purpose of that was just to be a catchall in case there was some provision of the regulations that were going to be applied that we wanted to secretly from under the agurisms. I will not vote in favor of this one. Withdraw my motion. Yeah, I'll withdraw the second or if I get HFT.

All right. So I can withdraw that just to make the record clear. Thank you. That'd be best. All right. So the waiver is formally withdrawn. Yep. Thank you.

All right. All right. So stuff back together here. I am looking for a motion to grant conditional approval of the Max apples site plan uh with the conditions set forth in the staff staff recommendation memorandum. Um and what would we like to add to that? Are we doing the he said concrete pavement or concrete around the call it a hard surface?

Yeah, a hard non-porous surface around the uh around the ice cream stand. And that ramp is one I think we all agreed on. The other one was I'm not sure if we're going to be able to put a ramp there. Whatever that Yeah. It's not a ramp. It's you know get you from A to B. Yeah. Where there's gravel. And then the other one, what do we want to do on the extent of I would recommend that we do the condition have them work with Mr. TR and staff to uh put the appropriate size apron there to meet the safety needs that we are trying to address. John, is that too broad for you or are you good?

I think the paved apron standard. You just make sure where it goes and it's done right. That's what I'm saying. Correct. Which I know you're going to do. Yeah. I think and and if I can if I may, Mr. Chair, so the intent because the the the the roadway right roadway has an extensive overlay on shore past the pretty sure it's on Max land because No, it's really not. So this is this is the apron Tony. Yeah, it's really not. Okay, that's that's your fever. So, my thinking is you're going to bring them back to here.

Back to that that dash the right. I don't I think that's further than the board was proposed. I'm thinking I'm thinking of a car length. 20 ft. I was going to I was going to say whatever 20 ft is off of off of the apron. One car length is enough. So, we're clear. Is it 20 ft? Yeah. Yeah. Well, I think because the car I think you leave it to John to make sure it's the appropriate amount for what safety need is that you're trying to meet meet. I would say that's 20 ft. It might be 22 ft. We got to give him a we got to give him a definition on it because I would say a minimum of 20 ft from the from the Why don't we ask him what he thinks?

He thinks we should pave the entire parking lot and put grading and drainage in. I listen, I'm only asking about the apron. I know what he thinks. John doesn't work on the apron because it's not in the regulation. If it was up to John, we'd be building, you know, stacked parking out there. Um, okay. I think we should use 20 ft. I think 20 ft is 20 ft off the edge of the existing pavement. Done. Easy.

Yes. I do want a little more clarification for Max Apples on that. Is our expectation that they pave it or is our expectation that they are what is the expectation of what's underneath the pavement town spec or pave the thing 20 ft?

I don't know. I you know I had I had waterfront property that had dirt driveways going on to tar and me I found it cheaper to just tar it than the annual maintenance that I was having to do four or five times a year I was doing annual maintenance and it was more expensive than just just taring it in there. So to me it's asphalt. I know but what I'm asking and and the base coat it doesn't matter. What I'm asking is the way this stands and the way I understand the regulation for that 20 ft, it's going to be 6 in of digging everything out there. It's going to be 6 in of gravel. It's going to be

two inches of of of whatever. It's going to be a two inches of base coat and an inch of top coat. What I'm saying is are we just putting pavement over what's existing? That's my That's my intent. Thank you. So the expectation is pavement over what is existing. I'm just one person. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Yes. Pavement over existing. Yeah. We don't need to get continental out there. And one one thing that uh Kyle just mentioned, if I may, may I? Sorry. Oh, I know it's getting late. Um would uh like a reclaimed pavement

recycle asphalt that compact would you maintain that? That's what I I would say base coat pavement. It's got to be bound. It's got That's not bound. It doesn't That's not It doesn't glue together, especially in New England. You know that it doesn't. That's pretty good. It does, but it doesn't. So, Kelly, pavement, please. One more item. If you could clarify, you discussed uh by annual maintenance for the gravel parking area. Is that correct? So can you just reiterate your expectation?

So the expectation is that it's done in the springtime after winter or mud season which is right around now and then before winter which is sometime in November. So is it like a November 15th, April 15th thing?

Yeah, by April 15th. By November 15th done. So, just to clarify the conditions on this approval, either asphalt or concrete around the around and up the little area that got ripped out near the the ice cream stand. A binder coat of material for 20 ft by the width of whatever that driveway is. No excavation underneath. Just binder coat of 20 ft. 2 inch thickness.

Yep. And that it's uh there's a bianual maintenance and regrading of the parking lot no later than April 15th and no later than November 15th. With that, do I have a motion? So moved. I have a motion from Mr. Ferrell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Mr. Rug. All in favor starting with Ann, please. Ann Champa. I Tony D. I Oops. I That's all right. Tony D. Uh Javanni Veronni. I uh Jeff Pence. I Arthur Rug. I John Ferrell. I Sean Faber. I And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh your site plan has been granted.

Thank you very much. Have a good night. I would I would like to add I think it is very important to clear up. I think it's very important to clear up. There has been a lot of information going out through local social media sources, local news sources that this board has been against this development and site improvement.

This board has not been against it. This board has been doing everything they can to find something that works. We are so far off of what our regulations are to make this work that I can't even explain it. And I think this board, although it may have felt difficult, Kyle, we have been reasonable, we've got you to a spot that is that is going that we can say we've we've done our best on and it's and it's safe. Far off of what a site plan would be required for this and it's safe. Yes. In response, we thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks a lot. Journey,

Mr. Chair, I'd like the record to show that I am tiredder right now than Kelly looks. Um, Mr. Chair, I just have a really quick I know. Um, folks, just uh really Hey, real quick. Real quick. Um, all right. So, on Monday evening, um, the council did kind of address the PUD. Um, Sean, I think it was you that brought up the the change. I thought that changed that how it was brought up was professionally done. I thought it was very folks, I'm talking. So, um,

yeah, no problem. I'm doing the best that I can. So, I thought it was professionally done. I thought it like aligned with where it needed to be. Um, I think there was other recommendations that were either we saw or was put put forward. I do want to say that this board did work to, you know, had three public sessions workshops to bring that forward. Um, Mr. Chair, if you recall in the spring, in the spring 2025, this board had a um invited the council to have a partnership with it. Um, and I want to kind of just reiterate that the expectation as one board member is that we continued that partnership. Um and you know to in the spirit of partnership I was a little bit you know kind of protrude that like folks were saying that the planning board didn't incorporate some last minute requests. Um, and I would probably just kind of advise that the council if they do have and you know this is probably a process thing and you know probably giving free advice on how to follow a process. Um, but if they have recommendations and if they are true to those recommendations and they've spent the time to write those recommendations down that they trace it back to where the pro where we brought the PUD to it. And Sean, I'm I'm sure you could probably reiterate that to your colleagues. Um, but it does this town no good for one board to point a finger saying, "Well, the planning board did not do this or the planning board did not do that

with the with the amount of work that this planning board did, the amount of work that our town staff did and to kind of have the council bring it to us to say, "Well, I just thought that everyone would read it and that we could just throw it in there." Well, you're not going to be able to throw it in there unless you if if you really want change, do the work. Get the change. Proc it through. Process it through and get it in front of us because it's doing us no favor. especially for a PUB that for for years people have come to the podium and on social media and everywhere else saying we need to revise that. You know what we did? We did the work. We we entered in a way of partnership with the council and for the council to just kind of throw it back. I take offense to that. So Sean, if as the liaison um I just you know want to thank you for how you approached it. um and if you could work with your colleagues to do the same so we can actually get this thing through the finish line. Thanks.

Absolutely. It's it's just to add shortly to that