Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, good evening everyone. Soon as I get my cheaters on, we can get started. All right. So, the hour of 6:30 p.m. having arrived, I will call to order this regular meeting of the planning board. This meeting is being broadcast live on the city of Keen YouTube channel and channel 1302. The video is also streamed on the city's website and is posted on the city website by the end of the next business day, barring any technical difficulties. Uh all actions taken during this evening's meeting will also be posted on the planning board web page on the city website. Copies of the printed agendas are available on the wall pockets uh as you entered the meeting room. The public and other board members will be recognized to ask questions and comment on the agenda item under discussion. After being recognized, all remarks are to be made through the chair. I will not recognize an individual a second time until everyone who wishes has a chance to speak. Anyone who wishes to address the committee is asked to go to one of the microphones in the room and identify themselves by name and address prior to speaking. Our minute taker tonight is uh participating remotely. Board members, please be sure to turn on your microphone when speaking. If the minute taker is unable to hear, they will ask you to speak louder or turn your microphone on. I will now call to order this regular meeting of the planning board and declare a declare a quorum present.

So, without further ado, I'd like to uh request that staff uh uh read the roll call. Thank you. Harold Fairington, present. Robera Master Giovani. Mayor Jay Khan here. Councelor Mike Remy here. Sarah Vazani here. Ryan Clansancy here. Kenneth Cost here. Armando Rangel here. And for the alternate Stfan Mayu, Tammy Adams, Michael Hayer here,

and Joey Kosa here. So I think we have room for one person. That is correct. Okay. Um, I guess we could flip a coin, but um, Mr. Hayer, would you be willing to participate as a voting member tonight? Yes, I will. Thank you.

Okay. Okay. Great. So, noted. All right. Let's move on to uh minutes of previous meetings. uh we had a special meeting on September 26th and then the regular uh monthly meeting on September 29th. So I'll entertain a motion uh I guess one at a time but entertain a motion for approving those minutes. Council Remy, can I try for both? You could do both.

All right. Uh move to approve the minutes from the September 26th, 2025 and September 29th, 2025 meetings as presented. Second. [snorts] Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Uh any uh any comments or corrections to the minutes? Normally, I'd read them, but I wasn't here, so I was recovering. [laughter]

my nasty nasty bout with uh traveler sickness. [snorts] All right. So, uh let's vote on each one at a first one at uh one at a time. So,

oh, one motion. Okay. All right. Well, let's vote on both then. Thank you, uh councelor Remy. So, uh, all those in favor of, uh, the motion to approve both sets of minutes. Any opposed? Unanimously approved. [snorts] All right. Next on the agenda is a final vote on conditional approvals. And where do I have that? So, this is a for those who haven't been to a planning board meeting recently, this is a standing agenda item. As a [snorts] matter of practice, the board will issue a final vote on all conditionally approved plans after all of the conditions precedent have been met. This final vote will be the final approval and will start the 30-day appeal clock. So, may [snorts] I ask the staff if there are any applications tonight that are ready for a final vote? Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are no applications that are ready for a final vote this evening.

Okay. Thank you.

So, next uh section of our agenda is extension request. Uh so, we have two extension requests. We will um we will deal with these separately. So the next item on the agenda is an extension request for PB 2025-06 cottage court development surface water protection conditional use permit [snorts] and major site plan Gards 0 Court Street. Applicant Fieldstone Land Consultants PLLC on behalf of owner Guitard Homes LLC requests a first extension to the deadline to satisfy the precedent conditions of approval for the proposed 29 unit single family cottage court development [clears throat] on the undeveloped lot at zero Court Street. TMP number 228-016-0000. The parcel is 9.7 acres in size and is located in the low density district. So at this time is uh anyone here represent? Okay. Yeah. Please come forward and uh um let us know what you have in mind here.

My name is John Lefave with Fieldstone Land Consultants. Um, it is our firm that uh represents this project. It's not my particular project. It's my understanding that they needed a little more time to pull together the items that were requested. Okay. Anyone on the board have uh questions for Mr. Leave. Seeing none, we will uh I will entertain a motion to approve the extension.

Uh move to grant a first six-month extension to the time frame to satisfy the precedent conditions of approval for PB202506. Second. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. any uh you can hang out if you can hang out for a minute. Have a couple of things to put up on the board so for the next meeting. Okay. Okay. Um any uh any discussion,

Mr. Clansancy? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um it's the first request and it's something we typically do, so I'm fine going ahead with this.

I think they have a a right actually to the first first extension. But thank you for pointing that out. Okay. Um any other questions, comments? I know uh we're all looking forward to having this this project uh move through. Yep. So, um with that, let's uh call a vote. All those in favor of granting the extension to PB 20225-06 so indicate. Any opposed? Unanimously uh approve the extension.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Uh, we have a second extension request for PB 2024-14, cottage court conditional use permit, hillside protection conditional use permit, and major site plan for Timberlain Woods development zero Drummer Road. Owner Christopher Ferris requests a second extension to satisfy the precedent conditions approval for the proposed cottage court development. consisting [clears throat] of six buildings and a total of 36 units on the parcel at zero Drummer Road TMP number 515-015-0000. A hillside protection conditional use permit was requested for impacts to steep slopes. The parcel is approximately 13.1 acres in size and is located in the low density district. Mr. Chair, I need to recuse myself from miss

Thank you. Thank you.

Miss Fazani [snorts] is banished to the gallery. Uh, is anyone here representing the applicant? Okay, I don't see Mr. Ferris. So, uh, in lie of questioning the applicant or questions for the applicant, um, the board members have questions for staff or for, uh, or discussion items. Mr. Cost, I think it's in everything I read, but just if you could remind me that the reason for the extension, what what isn't ready yet? Sure. So the reason for the extension is because the applicant has not yet met their conditions precedent to final approval. Um they submitted an extension request on Friday. Um and we issued an amended agenda packet to reflect that extension request which was the last day that they had to submit an extension um and keep their approval. Um they did submit that same day a security estimate that was uh approved by staff. So they did make some movement on their conditions, but I believe there are still some outstanding ones including um submittal of the architectural elevations. Um and so Mr. Ferris did submit a letter um that's in your packet. Um but that's all the information that I have. Mr. Hayer,

it feels like this might It says the second this is a second extension request. It feels like that's correct. Feels like we've extended this one once I guess maybe just once prior I suppose but yes

it seems to have been been dragging on. So I'm glad he's we're making some progress towards it. Are there what if there's another extension requested? Is there what's the process there? Is there a limit to the number of times something can be extended? Just curious about that with the particularly with the last paragraph of his letter mentioning project doesn't anticipate project construction starting till late spring 2027 which is a full 15 months away from now anyway. At least at least 15 months, right? maybe a little bit longer. Um just curious what else might be coming there.

Sure. Uh so um applicants are allowed to request up to three extensions and so the first extension is typically pretty much a a give me. They do have to submit the request and the board has to approve it. But typically this the practice of this board has pretty much been to automatically grant a first extension request. A second extension request usually involves a little bit more questioning about the reasons for why the project is being delayed. And then the third extension is really only supposed to be granted if there's really um a compelling reason. Um so for example, when COVID was going on, a lot of applications needed extensions. Um but then after the third extension, they're they're out of luck. Uh so each time they get a six-month extension to the uh time frame to achieve the or to complete all the conditions precedent, it automatically gives them a one-year extension to the time frame to achieve what's called active and substantial development. So once they get their final approval, they have two years um to uh start make some actual movement on the ground of actually installing some of the infrastructure to support the project or a foundation something to show that they've actually started work on the project. Otherwise, they could lose their um they could lose not their approval necessarily, but they would have to start, you know, complying with any changes that may have happened um in the regulatory world. Um yeah, so it's yeah, they only get up to three extensions. And part of the reason that it feels like this project has dragged on is because it was originally approved as a CRD subdivision and it did receive three extensions for that. So

yeah. Yeah. And I just would point out in Mr. Ferris's uh letter to the board that he uh a lot of this delay he is based on uh LIHTC schedule which is the financing that he's using. So uh to some extent that's out of his hands. So okay any other questions or comments? Well, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, sure.

You said that back to Mary, you [clears throat] said that they could request a 90 a six-month extension. This is a three-month extension. Uh, it should be for six months. Yeah. Well, I think we don't we don't really have a 90-day extension. Yeah. Oh, you're saying his letter. Yeah. So,

in his letter, it says it. Yeah. So yeah, if this extension were granted, unless the board decided to alter it, it would automatically be for six months. We just always do an extension for six months at a time. At which time when he completes that architectural plan submits them assuming they satisfy uh community development. Uh at that point the clock would start two years. Uh so they would have to come to the board and you would have to certify that they've met all of their conditions and then that would be their final approval and then they would and so actually the date of the active and substantial development I think is calculated based on when they received conditional approval. Um but that's automatically getting pushed out each time you give them an extension on their conditions precedent. So, I'd have to do the math, but basically because of giving them two extensions, that's pushed it out two years. So, they would have plenty of time to start the project. Yeah.

Thanks for setting our expectations. Mr. cost. I'm not sure this is tied exactly to the extension, but you know, the site is um been disturbed quite a bit over time and I I don't know if activities going on there or not, but I'm guessing maybe not because of this. So, is there anything to worry about, you know, with either runoff or sediment and, you know, making sure whatever sediment controls are in place are still in place? Does the city occasionally inspect that? Because if this is going to go on for two years with unprotected land, um it could be a you know an issue for runoff and other things.

Sure. So the site was forested like they they got an intent to cut and cut down trees on the site. Um but it's pretty much stable right now. I believe the last time we went out and looked at the site uh was when the board did a site visit for the cottage court development. I think that question came up then and the applicant's uh response was that you know at this point in time there's already saplings and stuff growing up out of the ground. So even though the the ground was disturbed at one point it's pretty much stabilized now with vegetation growing. I don't believe there's any activity happening at the site um there shouldn't be but I haven't um heard anything. So, my understanding is that it's just sitting there waiting for um things to move. [snorts] Okay. So, uh so at this time I'll ask for a motion for the extension. Councelor Remy.

Sure. uh move to grant a second six-month extension to the time frame to satisfy precedent conditions for PB 202414. Thank you. Second. Second.

Thank you, Mayor Khan. [snorts] Uh any uh discussion. [snorts] Okay. Uh, seeing none, we are I'll just comment that we were all in favor of uh more housing. Uh, 36 units is nice. We uh Mr. Ferris uh was cooperative enough to change his design of his buildings to accommodate the board. So I uh I think it's only right that we continue to cooperate with them and uh grant the extension. So that's my opinion. Other opinions? Okay. So let's call the vote. All those in favor of the extension. Any opposed? All right. Extension is granted. Okay, next is a boundary line adjustment. Oh, welcome back, Miss Fisani. So, our boundary line adjustment is [snorts] uh numbered PB-2025-9. It's 39 35 and 39 Kendall Road. Uh applicant Mrs. Ashley Fero on behalf of owner Mi Mr. and Mrs. John Fero and Mr. Charles Henry proposes to transfer approximately 0.09 09 acres of land [snorts] from the

approximately 0.58 acre parcel at 35 Kendall Road to the approximately 0.45 acre parcel at 39 Kendall Road. TMP numbers are 540-013-0000 and 540-012-0000. [snorts] The parcels are both located in the low density district. [snorts] All right. Do we need a completeness assessment on this? Okay. Does staff have a recommendation for completeness?

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Evan Clemens, planner. The applicant has requested exemptions from submitting exist uh separate existing and proposed condition plans as well as all technical reports. After reviewing the request, staff has made a preliminary determination that the requested exemptions would have no bearing on the merits of the application and recommend the board accept the application as complete. Uh, thank you, Mr. Clement. Um, I'll entertain a motion to accept the application as complete. So moved. Thank you. Second.

Second. Thank you. Uh, Councelor Remy. Uh, any discussion about completeness? So, I'll call the vote. All those in favor of uh determining that this application is complete. Any opposed? Application is deemed complete. So at this time I would invite uh the applicant to present. [clears throat] board members and those present in the audience. My [snorts] name is John Lefay with Fieldstone Land Consultants. Uh I'll give you a little history of the project. Um our office was contacted by Ashley to stake out her property line so she could construct a fence and to her surprise, the property line was not where she thought it was. Um both neighbors were shocked to see where the actual location was. Um they wanted to pursue a lot adjustment. Uh we surveyed the property and in doing this lot line adjustment, we'll be doing a couple good things here. Um, currently the driveway on

So, currently the driveway uh right here doesn't meet the requirements of a 10-ft setback. It's a grandfather's use. Um, and also this house corner is too close to the property line. So by doing this slot line adjustment, we'd be bringing both lots into conformity and solving the neighbors problems as to where they're occupying the yard space. Uh it's a very straightforward application. [snorts] I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Sure. Thank you. Um [snorts] so board members have uh any questions for Mr. Lefave? Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Uh at this time I'll uh invite staff to provide comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Evan Clemens, planner. Um I'll keep this brief. Uh so the subject parcels are located on the south side of Kendall Road approximately 100 feet from the intersection with Ley Road and Blackbrook to the west and south of the properties. Uh the property at 35 Kendall Road is 0.58 acres in size with approximately 100 ft of frontage. And the property um [snorts] at 39 Kendall Road is 045 acres in side in size with approximately 88 uh feet of frontage. Uh the purpose of the application is to do a little bit of a land swap between the two parcels. Um as Mr. Lefave said, uh to kind of uh eliminate some minor nonconformities that exist uh on the properties and uh basically put the uh the property line where both property owners sort of expect it to be. Uh there'll be a small uh change of frontage as well with um 39 [snorts] Kendler Road getting uh I don't know something like uh 10 or 20 feet of frontage.

10 ft of frontage. Um so uh uh staff does not believe that this application rises to the um the merit of a uh regional impact and most of the subdivision regulations are not applicable in this application as both sites are uh developed with single family uses uh and there's no new proposed changes to either of the sites. So things like uh scattered and premature development, preservation of existing features, um fire protection and water supply and utilities. None of those standards are applicable. It is worth noting that uh there is a small corner uh southwestern corner of both parcels is located with the 100 uh year flood plane. Uh that is shown on the uh the boundary line adjustment plat. And again, no development is proposed in that area. Uh so that standard has been met. The uh uh recommended conditions of approval if the board is so inclined this evening is owner signature on the plans. submittal of two myars uh $51 made out to the city of Keen to recover uh uh recording costs and then uh expect inspection of the lot monuments by the public works director or their designate following their installation or the submitt of a security to cover uh the cost for those monumentations to ensure that they have been set. Uh that's all I have, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you, Mr. Clemens. Uh, any questions for staff? Looks like a thorough job. Thank you. Uh, okay. So, um,

this is not officially a public hearing, but it is our practice to invite, uh, public comment. Is anyone here uh in the in the audience who wishes to speak on this? Okay. I do uh do have a letter that's in our packet um from Mr. Charles Henry. Um as it's short enough I can read it. As one of the interested parties, I support and request our boundary line adjustment. Historically, a father built two houses for his sons along with his own house on three adjacent properties. However, the end of my driveway and mailbox are actually over the current property line for number 39. And my boundary line for number 35 extends into approximately one-third of their backyard. as congenial neighbors. We are both in agreement to fix our property borders. Okay, that's from Mr. Charles Henry.

Council Remy, I'd be I agree that I don't think there's a lot of complexity to this one. Um the conditions seem pretty straightforward and I agree there's no regional impact. I'd be ready to make a motion if you're good with it. Yep, I'm ready.

All right. Uh move to approve PB202519 as shown on the plan identified as lot line adjustment plan prepared by Fieldstone Land Consultants PLLC at a scale of 1 in equals 20 ft dated August 25th, 2025 with the following conditions precedent prior to final approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair. One, owner signature appears on the proposed BLA plan. Two, submitt of two myar copies of the plan. Three, submittal of a check in the amount of $51 made out to the city of Keen to recover recording fees. for inspection of the lot monuments by the public works director or their designate following their installation or the submittal of a security in a form and amount acceptable to the public works director to ensure that the monuments will be set.

Thank you. A second. I apologize. Um the the myar the number two should be two myar copies and five paper copies. You're going to have to print your own papers now. I already Yeah, you know that's that's fair. Friendly uh I'll mend my motion if that's okay with the seconder to say including the five paper copies. I didn't even I didn't even acknowledge a second yet. So, you didn't. All right. I I did I was looking over this. I'll modify my uh statement to include five paper copies. All right. Thank you. I'll take a second now. Second,

Mr. Mayor. Thank you. All right. Um motion on the table now. Any uh opinions, discussion? Seeing none, let's move directly to the vote. So, all those in favor of the motion for the boundary line adjustment, please indicate. Any opposed? All right. Boundary line adjustment is approved. Thank you, Mr. Lefave.

I want to thank you all for your time tonight. Thank you. Okay. So, now we're moving into the next section, which will be public hearings. We have four public hearings tonight. I am going to change the order slightly. Uh we're going to start with item C. Um item C is item C is PB-2025-20 major site plan solar array zero Rose Lane applicant Rose Lane Solar LLC on behalf of owner the city of Keen proposes to construct a mediumcale groundmounted solar array on the parcel at zero rose lane uh tax map plat number 113-00002-0000. A waiver has been requested from section 21. C I'm sorry 21.6.2. C.3 of the land development code relating to the required screening for supplement supplementary mechanical equipment. The parcel is approximately 13.2 acres in size and is located in the industrial district.

I'll need to recuse myself from this vote. Okay. So, thank you, Armando. So, uh we'll start with uh staff recommendation for completeness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Forson, planner. Uh the applicant has requested exemptions from submitting a grading plan, landscaping plan, lighting plan, and all technical reports. After reviewing each request, staff recommends that the planning board grant the requested exemptions and accept the application as complete. Thank you, Miss Forson. Um, I'll entertain a motion to accept the application as complete. So moved. A second. Second.

Thank you, Councelor Remy. Um, okay. So, any questions about completeness of the application? Seeing none, I will call a vote. So uh all those in favor of accepting this application as complete so indicate any opposed. All right. Application is accepted as complete. So I'll invite uh the applicant's uh representative to present at this time.

Good evening Mr. Chair of the board. My name is Megan. Can you turn on your microphone, please?

I sure can. Thank you. I thought the red light was bad. My name is Megan Yulan. I am with Revision Energy. We're a employee owned solar company and I'm here tonight on behalf of um we are the developer for the project and we'll be constructing the project which will be owned by a local impact investor. Um, this is a medium-scale solar energy system that is proposed to be located at the former wastewater treatment plant site. Um, and it will participate in New Hampshire's low to moderate income community solar program and Keen Housing and its residents will be the beneficiaries of the project. Um over the project lifespan, it's projected to deliver over $100,000 of clean energy savings that Keen Housing will use for building improvements and to enhance resident services. Um the the site is somewhat unique because it is the former location of the wastewater treatment plant. Um we are proposing to construct the system adjacent to the current activity and use restriction area which is the the capped um capped area that contains contaminated materials that were removed um removed from the site when it was remediated. the portion of the property that the solar array is located on um is the remediated portion um and it is being built on an engineered surface that exists there. Um so um for both of those reasons the construction proposed is a ballasted ground mount array uh basically that is

steel baskets or steel cages that hold ballast rock. um that provides the foundation for the array racking and the panels and all of our electrical runs will be ballast mounted as well. So they are above ground and there is a small amount of utility equipment that is located on the southern um southern edge of the site uh before we connect into the existing grid infrastructure with one new utility pole. Um the site is currently fenced as is. It's the six foot chain look chain link fence that exists on the site. Uh we will be modifying [clears throat] that fence along the southern side along Rosane. Um and extending it to the the west and and north of the proposed solar development. Um see this solar array is um about 240 KWDC. It produces around 253,000 kilowatt hours of clean energy annually. Um, and we are aiming to construct in spring of 2026. We expect it would take a few months um for the construction process. We have proposed a temporary construction entrance um that is using the entrance that currently exists on the kind of southwest corner of the site. There is an existing gate there. That fence line will need to be modified to accommodate delivery trucks. Um but that uh it will be rebuilt to match the existing chain link fence along Rose

Lane. Um we did request a waiver of the landscaping plan and screening plan. Um this site is located in the industrial district. It is surrounded by other industrial properties and there is vegetation on four sides. One of the unique things about this property is that Rose Lane is actually part of the city property. um and is not considered a public right ofway. So there is very limited visibility of the project from any other abuing property. Um, as far as the kind of construction considerations, we'll have silt socks around the perimeter of the work area. Um, we'll be using tracked vehicles on the site like a skid steer to minimize vegetation disruption. Any areas that are disturbed during construction will be reveated, receded. um once construction is complete. And the site was specifically the solar array was specifically designed to remain on the portions of the site that are less than 5% slopes. Um so it will not result in an increase in storm water runoff or change the drainage patterns of the site. I'm happy to answer questions. Um that that's the overview of the project.

Okay. Thank you, Miss Olen. Uh board members have questions. Mr. Cost.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Sounds like a to me a good use for the land. When I looked at the aerial photo and when we were out at the site, um, right now it's it looks like a fairly large track of land without a lot of fencing, especially to the west if I'm right. And I'm seeing water and I'm just thinking of animal habitats and I know the fence is an animal type wildlife type fence that allows small animals but what about um the ability of larger animals deer or something to be able to get along in some of that area that looks like it might be cut off to though.

Um the fence will does not continue down to the edge of the river. So, there's a good 30 to 50 feet of woodland area between the project fence line and the river. Um, the fence will exclude deer from the project site. We don't typically want large animals in in the equipment area. Um, but it does not um does not prevent them from accessing around the site. And I think [snorts] um because the site is an engineered surface is a little bit uh I guess atypical from what you'd usually see. Uh I do know the public works department needs to kind of keep that free of animals like uh

so so they could still cross they could still cross over more to the west where the the the water courses and all of that. Right. Right. Right. Right. That that was my because of you know the whole idea of fragmented open areas we're losing them but it looks like that that's not an issue here. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. I have a couple quick questions. Uh more for my own information uh edification but you uh characterize this as a uh mediumcale array. Is that that's correct? What how do you uh how do how do you categorize them?

Um that was by drawing a line around the perimeter of the solar panels and the associated electrical equipment and that came in at 23,100 square ft which fell into the definition of medium scale in the zoning ordinance. Okay. And maybe I just didn't hear correctly, but uh the $100,000 that you mentioned, that's an annual savings or project lifetime. Project life, which is 25 years.

25 years. Okay. Thank you. [snorts] And uh We do have a letter here. I'll get to that in a second. But um typically is there any impact on storm water uh runoff on a solar solar solar array?

We did have to file an alteration of terrain permit uh for this project. It was not because the um project itself exceeded the threshold for disturbance, but because there had been past um land disturbance on the property in the past 10 years. Um so the alteration of terrain permit rules um exempt drainage analysis if your project is on less than 5% slopes if it's oriented less than 60 degrees from contours and a couple other factors which I can't pull up off the top of my head right now but the project did meet those criteria. Um so there isn't expected to be any storm water impact. Um the rain rainwater will infiltrate between the array rows. Um it's not expected to generate any issues at the drip edge. It's a well vegetated site. The water should infiltrate and and sheet flow essentially. Um, so I would say no, there are not uh storm water concerns here. [clears throat]

Thank you. An interesting question. So is a solar panel an impervious surface or is or is the grass under it impervious? Miss Brener.

Yes. So the way that the city of Keen regulations treat it is that the actual footing is impervious, but because um the way that the panels are designed, they allow water to infiltrate around their edges, they're not treated as like a continuous imperous surface. Um so for the imperous surface calculation they had to give us the area of the footings and then we have a separate um requirement for what's called the solar footprint which was that um perimeter that Miss Ulin was describing where they have to draw a line around the array and then there's a a separate calculation that they have to meet for that.

All right. Thank you. All right. Any other questions? Mr. Clansancy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, just since we're asking questions, I'll probably I'm mulling it over, but would uh your group be opposed to the vegetation mixture for reveation? Would you be opposed to native wildflower mixture instead of a grass mixture? Um there's not going to be a whole lot of earth disturbance on this area. So a lot of the grass that's existing will remain. Um typically it's difficult to establish wild flowers where there is already um kind of an established grass habitat. So I don't know that that would be a particularly successful effort on this site. Um but that would be my opinion. Mr. Hayer.

Um, and just to understand the parties involved here, the you mentioned the array will be owned by a local impact investor. Yes, that's the Rose Lane Solar LLC entity that will own. Okay. And the land itself remains in ownership of the city. Yes. And there will be a lease agreement between those two parties. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Miss Holland. Thank you. So, at this time, I'll uh and ask staff to provide their comments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Forson, Planner. Um I think Miss Ulin did a very thorough job of describing the proposal, so I'm going to try to take you through it relatively quickly. Um but the subject parcel as mentioned is 13.2 acres in size and it's located about 700 feet north of the Swansea town line. Um the land is largely undeveloped and has been remediated um and was done remediated in 2018 because it was part of the former wastewater treatment plants lagoon area. So the western side of the site as you're um standing along Rose Lane looking at the property you'll see some caps. That's where um all of the materials that were taken out of the former wastewater lagoon were um put in and capped. And then um towards the eastern side of that site, it's just sort of flat, which is the area where the solar array is proposed to be installed. [snorts] Um as Miss Ulan mentioned, Rose Lane is actually a driveway. It's not a public right of way. Um, [clears throat] so the property owners towards the end of the road, um, at 32 and I think 36 Rose Lane and then 14 and 16 Rose Lane have deeded access to be able to access their properties over the city's land. Um, and then this is considered a mediumscale solar array based on the calculation of that solar footprint. Um, and the range for something to be considered a mediumscale solar array is that that footprint has to be somewhere between I think it's 20,000 square feet and one acre in size.

2,000 square feet and one acre in size. Thank you, Mary. Um, and the parcel is split zone. So, Rose Lane, uh, the portion of it at least that connects to Main Street is located in the low density district. And then the majority remaining portion of the parcel is located in the industrial district which is where the array is actually going to be constructed. Um a mediumscale solar array is an allowed use in the industrial district without a conditional use permit application. So this is only subject to major site plan review versus needing a solar energy system CUP as would be be required if it were located in another zoning district. um staff made the preliminary determination that the project doesn't have the potential for regional impact, but as per usual, you will need to have that discussion for yourselves. Um in terms of departmental comments for the application, our plans examiner noted that a building permit application would be required. Um and also noted that a flood plane development permit had already been issued. Um the city engineer had some comments related to truck turning movements and the installation of temporary signage during the course of construction. Um at the time of the staff report, Miss Ulan and Mr. Ruof, the city engineer, were still going back and forth kind of trying to um make sure that the truck turn movements were going to be acceptable and that the um signage was going to be installed in the proper locations for visibility. Um, and those comments have since been addressed, so they're no longer of concern. Um, to quickly go through the application analysis. Um, again, drainage, the site is relatively flat, so we don't expect there to be any significant impacts from drainage. Um, and as Miss Yulan had noted, the project does meet the threshold for the submitt of an alteration of terrain permit. So,

planning staff do recommend that the um submittal of an approved AOT permit um be included as a condition of approval for the application. Um for sediment and erosion control, um again, silt socks are going to largely be used around the perimeter of the site along with silt fencing to keep disturbance to a minimum. Um, also just due to the nature of the site and the fact that remediation has occurred, obviously we're trying to keep disturbance to a minimum. Um, so planning staff recommends the condition of approval for this middle of a security to cover the cost of erosion control measures. Uh, snow storage and removal. Um, the project narrative states that the city currently clears and maintains site access, which is on the southwestern portion of the site adjacent to Rose Lane. um snow is not proposed to be removed from the array area. So that standard appears to be met. The only landscaping applicable is the grass seed mix that's proposed to be used to remediate any areas that are disturbed um during construction, which will mostly be the uh stabilized construction entrance to the south of the array. Um so planning staff recommends that that be included in the security that gets submitted. And then um screening the applicant has requested a waiver from section I think it's 21.6.2 C.3 of the LDC. And that's basically um they're requesting a waiver because the supplementary mechanical equipment like the emergency shut off the transformer that's going to be installed that is really not going to be visible from any public rightway or adjacent properties. Um the parcel that it would be most visible from would be the Army Reserve Center which is sort of to the the south or the southwest. Um but the city actually there's a large sort of very

tall bank um or the Burm that separates the two sites and there's also a line of trees that are owned by the city. So that's going to serve as screening um really in lie of any type of fencing or other more specific screening. Um the board obviously is going to have to deliberate and decide whether or not you feel comfortable granting that waiver. So I have included the um waiver criteria that would need to be satisfied and those are included on page 73 of the packet. Um there's no lighting proposed to be installed, no impacts to sewer or water. Um, in terms of traffic and access management, the project narrative states that the array should only be accessed between two to four times a year. And that would just be for um preventative and reactive maintenance concerns. And then um filling and excavation, again, that's not going to be a significant part of this um surface waters and wetlands. The Branch River is located to um the east of the property. actually forms the eastern property boundary. Um, but the proposed project area is going to be well over 30 ft away, which you can see the wetland and surface water edge delineated on the proposed conditions plan as well as the 30-foot buffer that's going to be maintained. Um, there's not going to be the handling or storing or processing of any hazardous or toxic materials other than what is obviously already been remediated on the site, which they're trying to stay away from. Um there will be minor noise that's uh generated by the solar inverter and transformer. Um but that's only going to be during the day and is going to comply with the sound limit requirements in article 18 of the LDC. And then the architectural and visual appearance standards are not applicable to the application um just given the nature of the proposed work. Um, so I

did include a recommended motion which was actually subsequently updated following the issuance of the um, agenda packet. Um, so I'm happy to go through that if anybody has any questions, but I think everything is relatively straightforward.

Thank you, Miss Forson. Questions for staff? Councelor Remy. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, two. First one's easy. What What changes were between the packet and what we're looking at now? Just so I don't have to like try to side by side these.

Sure. Um, this is Megan again. Um, so one of them was, if you're looking at your staff report, it was uh condition 1C, which was the submitt of an updated proposed conditions plan showing law coverage calculations. Um, so that item was removed. Um, or I should say the lot coverage calculations portion was removed. They still need to submit a plan that's been stamped by a wetland scientist. And then the other item that was removed was the submitt of an updated truck turning exhibit.

Okay. All right. My second one is I don't understand why they need a waiver because it does seem like it's screened on all four sides by vegetation. So, I'm I don't understand why if we just discuss that and state that it seems like it's screened, I don't understand why they need a waiver. So, that was something that uh Miss Brener and I actually had a discussion about while we were in the process of reviewing the application. Um, and really, we had actually reached out to Miss Ulan to say, "Hey, we don't know if this waiver is strictly necessary, but for safety sake, if you want to move forward with noticing it as part [clears throat] of the application, we can do that." And that's what they opted to do. Um, I suppose if you were to play devil's advocate, you could say you could say hello.

We can hear ourselves. I don't know if anybody in the audio room can hear us, but we can hear ourselves. Okay. Um, if you're playing devil's advocate, you could probably say that the equipment, like the supplementary mechanical equipment near the fence line is going to be very minorly visible from like the Septic Pro property or from the asphalt plant down at the end of Rose Lane. Um, it's a private driveway, but that it's a driveway, but this the screening standards apply to equipment that's either visible from the public right ofway or from adjacent properties. So that's kind of why we kept it in there just for safety sake. Understood.

Miss Miss Visani. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess my question for staff is just um are there any additional comments on the letter that was received? Was it um we were able to um Oh, if I may, Mr. Chair, this is Megan Forson again, please.

Um thank you. So, um, we were able to connect with the public works director before the end of the business day today and he was able to provide us with some additional history on, um, sort of the connection of the three sites, the Granite City, um, Davis Oil, and then the city-owned parcel. And it sounds like a few years ago back in 2018 when the wastewater treatment plant was being capped and remediated, um there were some discussions about potentially um installing some additional drainage infrastructure. um public works is basically aware of this whole situation um and had been working with the adjacent property owners to try and come up with a solution to drainage issues which I believe eventually um sort of fell by the wayside. So that's not something that I think the board needs to consider as part of this application. It's not applicable to this scope of work. Um but but city staff would obviously be happy to um help coordinate a meeting between city staff and these property owners if they'd like to pick up discussions related to um the drainage conditions.

Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. May I um just add to that really quickly? Uh so the now public works director uh did take a look at this plan and confirmed that the proposed development that's being considered tonight is not expected to have any sort of impact. Um, I believe it actually slopes away from the property. So, there's no impact expected from the runoff from the solar development on this person. Um, but there is an ongoing issue that city is well aware of. Great. Thank you.

Thank you for that explanation. Sounds like a uh an issue for the mayor. Uh, I have one question. Um, the Did we update anything based on the discussions about construction traffic? I mean, anybody who lives along Lower Main Street knows it's a nightmare to get on and off. That's a technical term, nightmare.

Easily addressed. Okay. But I didn't see anything in our that's still in progress. Um, are you Mr. Chair, if I can just clarify, are you referring to the comments uh pro that had been provided by the city engineer under the department comment section? Yes.

Okay. Yeah. So, um, the applicant um addressed all of those comments with the city engineer. they uh submitted an updated truck turning exhibit um showing truck turning movements into and out of the temporary construction area. Um so the city engineer was satisfied with that. And then in terms of the temporary construction signage, um they also addressed that by showing some updated signage locations. I think he just wanted them a little bit potentially further away from where they were initially shown. Um so those comments have since been addressed. Um, and I don't think they need to be included as conditions of approval in any way. Okay, Councelor Remy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have one more from the letter, and I just I'd never heard of a comprehensive fire safety analysis in the scope of our work before. Obviously, we don't want fire next to a a bulk propane storage facility. I don't know that there's any additional risk associated with solar panels other than it's just in electrical infrastructure. Um but is that something that we have a response on that or I don't know if that's for the applicant of Miss Brer.

Thank you Mr. Chair. So that is another item. Um so we just received this letter today but I was able to reach out to the fire marshall and received a response from him. Um, if you'll give me a second, I'll pull it up. But essentially, he wasn't, you know, opposed to the idea. I think his when they initially reviewed the application in and of itself, they didn't feel like the solar array needed that type of study, but given the fact that it's immediately adjacent to a propane storage area, it could impact the fire assessment for that use. Um, and so let me pull up his exact response. Okay, so he said if the roles were reversed and the propane installation was going in, they would be required to do a fire safety analysis. So it does make sense as this new abuing installation could affect the validity of the adjacent property's current fire safety analysis. I think it it is a prudent ask. So that was his response to that um recommendation. could um one of my thoughts would be and there's a question of whether this is practical of um I don't know how to review a fire safety analysis if we put it in as a condition precedent and put it to the fire marshall to come back with a satisfactory response on it. Is that something that we could do? And if the fire marshall disagreed that it was all clear, then uh it would come back to us obviously as they wouldn't be able to meet a condition precedent.

So I would um ask the applicant about that. So I don't know what time frame would go into getting a study like that done um or what the cost or I'm really unfamiliar with it to be honest. I meant it more from a practical perspective from a management for the city. It's one of those where sometimes we're hesitant to put things in there that are the city may not be comfortable weighing in on without the board weighing in on it for the city staff doesn't want to weigh in on. This is one where I think it's above us to decide if that's an appropriate fire safety report without the fire marshall's feel on it. But I will go back to asking the applicant if they're open to doing one and what that means. But just practically if that works for city staff.

Yeah, I'll speak for the fire marshall. I think that uh [laughter] it would make sense for him to to review it if that's your question. Yeah. It Yeah. I follow up. [snorts]

Yeah. Follow up. Um I guess it's kind of towards the applicant is if that was a request that not necessarily to hold up the approval tonight, but to say that you need before you go final approval, you would need to send that to the fire marshall. Is that something that would be satisfactory? Uh to be honest, I I'm not familiar with a a fire safety analysis. Um I can say that our projects are designed and constructed to meet NFPA code. Um fire risk from a solar array is very small. Um

and that makes it's just electrical infrastructure being right next to a propane storage, whether it's solar or anything else being that close. Understood. Um because I I don't really know what it entails. I have a hard time

responding this evening. It has been a very complex site for um this particular project. So additional costs are going to be difficult. Um, obviously we want to appease any safety concerns, but I I would think that we would perhaps have a request to have a conversation with the fire marshall or would like to have the opportunity before being walked into be required to provide one because I I I frankly don't know what specifically they would be looking for or what what that would entail um outside of what we typically provide as part of our building permit. Um because I do know that that gets typically reviewed as part of the building permit process as the fire marshall would review the plans.

Um so that would be my my response for this evening. Appreciate your response and that's we all got the letter right before this as well. So yeah, just trying to react in real time to it. Um it might uh it might make sense given uh what the applicant just stated to instead of making this like a condition precedent, it could be a condition prior to the issuance of a building permit. um because that will be required before they can start construction. And then um and it could also be worded in such a way that it could even be a determination of the farmer

as to whether it's even necessary and then if it is necessary, they should supply it before the building permit is issued. Um that would give them an opportunity to dig into this issue a little bit more. Yeah. And it seems like a prudent compromise. Yeah. And oh wait, it's up to the fire marshall if it's a negative impact on either building owner because I don't want to harm Davis Oil by putting in a solar array here. Mr. Hayer, could you

I think Mari read my mind. And I was wondering if there's other permitting uh uh processes that would need to happen here where this could be attended to as part of a building permit issuance or something like that without impacting the u the zoning or the sorry the planning permit at this point. So sounds like we have a have that in place. Other questions [clears throat] Mr. Clancy?

Uh thank you Mr. Chair. Um, I know for large scale arrays there's a decommission plan, but because this is city property, has the city uh put any thought into the end of these 25 year lease and what happens afterwards or

should I address this question, Mr. Chair? Um, the lease agreement between the city and the project owner will provide for the project owner to remove the array at its end of life and to cover those costs. Okay. Thank you, Miss Miss. Thank you. Um, is there anyone in the audience who uh wishes to comment on this uh project? Okay.

Thank you. Uh my name is Steve Walsh, 80 Silent Way, Keen, New Hampshire. Uh my family owns and operates Davis Oil Company. Uh you obviously have my comment letter and I don't know if I need to read it again for the record uh where it's already on the record, but I'm happy to answer and explain some of my reasonings for um some language to be included in the motions this evening. Um the first one would be the storm water issue that we have. It's uh it's been going on for many years. Uh if you follow my comment letter, which is pretty brief for a long history, but the lasting part of this was in 2018 when we were told that the capping of the plateau of this property at Zero Rose Lane was not going to impact us at all. When the truth is it absolutely did. And I sent pictures today. You are welcome at any rainstorm to go visit the site where that water got directly diverted towards our property instead of down the hill to where the solar panels are going. I will be the first to say that I am not against solar panels and I hope this project can succeed. I've had solar panels on my house for over 15 years, so I have nothing against solar panels. What I am asking for and you have some very brief uh documentation of relief that we have been assured of over the years has not been done. Zero Rose Lane [clears throat] holds a very small piece of property for some drainage to go to come onto and relieve

14 Rose Lane. That's what we're asking for, not to shut down the solar panel project. I would love to see it go with the conditions of the two pieces that I have mentioned. Storm water is one of them. The second one would be the fire safety analysis question. When we added propane two years ago, we were required to do and pay for a fire safety analysis that included identifying emergency response protocols for if there was an event with our propane system. We met that and it was passed. It was part of the conditions. What I'm asking for now is what has this affected or what will it affect by adding the solar panels near our propane plant that ultimately could be a source of ignition? I'm at what what's the protocol to turning these things down in the event of a of a god forbid there's ever a propane leak. That's what I'm asking for. not asking to try to put uh somebody bankrupt on a fire safety analysis, but I also want to make sure that we're able to continue to buy insurance for the business that we're in. That's what I'm asking for on that. And again, it's not against the project. I'm hoping that Zero Rose Lane before it gets developed can give us that small piece of relief that I know our current public works director knows about. the past city attorney knew about it. Um, the past public works director knew about it for many years. So, those are the two conditions that I would like to see added. And yes, I think it could be added, you know, uh,

can pass this and make it conditions before a building permit is issued. I'm not asking to stop this project. Thank you, Mr. Wall. No, thank you. I'm happy to remain if there's any questions. I don't Miss Vizani. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, how much is a fire safety analysis? Since you said you had to pay for it, would you mind sharing? You're testing my memory now, honestly. But I want to say I just have no concept of it.

I would honestly think theirs would be less than ours. I mean, the basic of it is done. We've already paid for it where all the fire hydrants are and the response time to each one. Um I think we paid in the area of maybe $5,000 for it back then. Um but again, right,

use ours and and add to it if if you wish, but I I do think that uh we were required to do it and I was like, why do we need to? But but it makes total sense and especially when you've got you know you do have a mix of um you know could be a volatile fuel and also a very good source of ignition or very large source of ignition as our neighbor. Thank you.

Okay. Thank I there's another gentleman who wanted to speak as well. I am happy to come back up if there's more, but thank you all very much and thank you for your time. Thank you both for your response last week for for me. Mayor come.

Yeah, I I guess you'll be interested in this, but I I guess I want to then ask the staff uh that this request is really not from the city. It's from a lease held uh developer. Uh the city issue seems like it needs to resolve on a separate track. Uh so I don't I don't know how to address a condition in this that we can put on the lease holder. Uh and that that's Mr. Welsh I I understand your your question. I mean, you're the issue

that you want the city to to answer for you, but it seems different from what the applicant can address.

Uh, Mr. Chair, may I respond? Yeah. So, I I would agree with that. I think staff would recommend that you keep any conditions for the project related to impacts of the project. Um, however, I do think it is very important for the city to work with the property owners to address the drainage issues and one of the things that sort of came to our attention through this is that one of the properties that is contributing to the issue is in violation of their site plan. So, we will be following up with that piece of it. I also think that um the city engineer well now the public works director had come up with a couple of potential solutions and the barrier at the time was that they weren't able to secure permission from the property owners to get the easements required to make those improvements. Um so I think the city already has a plan prepared to fix the issue. Um, and we just need to figure out how to get all the parties involved to I think there's there's two private property owners and the city that have to be involved in the solution. Um, and so it's going to be a little bit tricky, I think, to get it all coordinated, but um, now that it's on our radar, I think we will make sure to follow up on it,

Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. So, uh, I will, um, I know that was the original intent to have three property owners contribute to this, but the fact is that we do have a direct connection between 14 Rose Lane and Zero Rose Lane and not have to connect with 16 Rose Lane. I know the hope was for the for a shared cost from 16, but um, I don't believe that's completely accurate. Okay. Yeah. Well, this is not really the right form to adjudicate or negotiate this this issue.

Uh, no, it isn't. But the the city does own that piece of property and we'll be leasing it. So, I I look at as if it was a private piece that it may not be. I understand how you would based on your letter how you would be uh a little skeptical. Am I good? Yep. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. Please come on up.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Push the button. There you go. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, Peter Hansel, 61 Bradford Road. I'm basically here to um give my support to this project. Uh when I was on the energy and climate committee for six years, one of the things we we did was look all around keen to find sites that uh solar arrays could be put on. We came up with three and I'm happy to say that those three are in active um review for for uh solar arrays. One is at the airport. Uh good a good size array down there that I'm sure you're all familiar with. Uh one is at Cedar Crest behind uh near the the cemetery over there. And the third is this Rose Rose Lane. Uh we have we're we were tickled that the city took this up and and went forward with all three of these projects. Uh I just want to emphasize um that uh the timing is is is critical. Uh certain incentives run out at the end of this year and we have to get uh project going and and in some some form of uh construction prior to the end of the year. So uh delays are are could be a problem on this. So I just wanted to emphasize that. also say uh how much in favor of of this project I am and it it'll be good for the city. It'll be good for those offtakers uh which I think is um keen housing most of the people there that will be able to take advantage of the lower um the cost savings from from this array. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else uh like to comment on this project? All right, seeing no one else, I will close the public portion of this meeting and uh we'll move on to um to a motion at this time. I'll

take I'll take a swing at it. See how I do. Um, so before I say that, I also agree that there's no regional impact. Um, and I think we all like the idea of the project. It's just a matter of there's some details that we got to figure out here that we just heard. Um, so I'm try to make this the right way here. Approve PB 202520 as shown on the plan set identified as revision energy rose lane solar site development Keen New Hampshire prepared by Horizon's Enering at a scale of 1 in equ= 60 ft in January 2025 and last revised on October 23rd 2025 with the following conditions. One, prior to final approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair, the following conditions precedent shall be met. A owner signature appears on the title page and proposed conditions plans. B. Submitt of five paper copies and a PDF copy of the final plan set. C. Submitt of an updated proposed conditions plan stamped by a wetlands scientists licensed in the state of New Hampshire. D. Submittal of a security to cover the cost of sediment and erosion control measures uh reveation of the site following construction and asbuilt plans in a form and amount acceptable to the community development director. E. Submittal of an approved alteration of terrain permit number from the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. Um F.

Yes. Uh that No. Oh, you want to do it as three instead of F or um as a condition subsequent because it would be for building permit issuance. Yeah.

All right. So, uh I I'm following. So, two, subsequent to final approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair, the following conditions shall be met. Prior to the commencement or a prior to the commencement of site work, erosion control measures shall be installed and inspected by the community development director or their design for compliance with the approved plan and all city of Keen regulations. be prior to the issuance of a building permit. Uh the fire marshall or their design shall sign off that there is no impact to the no either uh there's no impact to the fire safety analysis for 14 rose lane and no additional fire safety analysis is needed for zero rose lane or that one has been completed. I'm trying to think of how to phrase that the right way, but um basically I don't the intent of my statement is to say that there is no harm to 14 lane's plan and they don't have any additional costs incurred by the installation of this system and that if an additional fire safety analysis is needed as the determination of the fire marshall that one is done.

Yeah, that sounds better. I think it captures the intent. The intent. Yep.

At the determination of the fire marshall, their designate.

Second. Someone someone wrote that down. No one wrote it down. the recording tomorrow. Oh, okay. Okay. I give you permission to clean my language to the intent and we'll Okay. So, we uh have an active motion um deliberation, questions, comments. Council Remy.

Yeah. Um, so I did not include anything in there around the um 14 Rose Lane's uh request on the storm water piece. I um we need to take that. I mean, I'm a city councelor, Jay, the mayor. We may count here. We will make sure we follow up with the city on this to make sure that something's done with it. It's I don't think it's appropriate to attach to a project that's not going to affect it or make it worse in any way. Um but I don't think it's acceptable that it's gone this long. So good, Miss Visani.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree with councelor Remy that there was no um regional doesn't appear to have regional impact and I'm happy that we included the piece about the fire analysis, the fire safety analysis. I think that that will help um any potential issues and I'm yeah ready to move forward with a vote. All right. So, let's call the vote. All those in favor of the uh motion to approve. Any opposed? Uh motion as amended is approved. Thank you.

Okay. So, next uh Mr. Chairman, may I excuse myself? Yes. Thank you. Thank you for uh participating in that.

All right. So, the next item on the agenda is a request to revoke PB-2024-08 cottage court conditional use permit town homes at 15 Colony Court. Excuse me. [clears throat] Per New Hampshire RSA 676 uh section 4- A applicant and owner PMA LLC proposes to revoke the planning board approval of a cottage court uh PB-2024-08 to construct a two-unit building on the parcel at 15 Colony Court TMP number 535 5-012-0000 as the two units are now allowed by right. The parcel is 0.18 acres in size and is located in the medium density district. So, do we need completeness uh on this or this? haven't really dealt with a revocation.

Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Evan Clemens, Planner. Um, this is sort of um an administrative and a in a lot of ways an enforcement request. It It's sort of the opposite of an application. it it's uh uh taking a land use approval that's been approved by the planning board um and is uh um stripping it from the record of the property. So there's no real application there. There's no need to do a a completeness. Um 676 is is normally uh this is something that you would uh threaten a project with if they were not in compliance with their site plan. Uh however, there are very rare cases such like what is before us this evening where uh the the zoning regulations have changed in such a way where um the uh what is being actively developed on this site is now allowed uh without any special approvals and to uh keep this project under the cottage court. uh actually puts uh restrictions on the property as we all know with cottage court with none of the benefit um at at this point for the property owner. Um so if this had been uh conditionally approved but not finally approved, the the the property owner just could have said, "Hey, you know what? Never mind." uh but because that this project has been finally approved and development is underway uh this is the most appropriate process. Um just for uh clarity's sake uh the literal written statute return uh refers to recorded projects and while uh the city of Keen doesn't record site plans and conditional use permits um the process it's not uncommon to use a process in statute for not its literal

um uh the the most literal way it's been used but still fundamentally the same way. So, we're still going to um uh if the board votes to revoke the application, we'll uh record uh that decision so that in the chain of title with the property, there is some history for future property owners. Um especially if in the future there uh this property changes ownership and they come to the city and they look at the property file and they they see, oh, it had this this cottage court conditional use permit thing. what is this? Um, so there will be a copy of the the the revocation there. It'll also be with the the uh the registry of deeds for the chain of title. Um, and that's what's required with the statute. And it's just the the cleanest way to to set the record straight in perpetuity for this project.

Thank you, Mr. Clemens. All right. I I don't know is the applicant here or I'm a representative of the you are. Oh, okay. Would you like to address us at all? Well, I don't I don't believe there's any addressing needed. If you have any questions, I'm happy. My name is Rick Lewis. I'm the project manager. Um, but I think I think all the paperwork is in order for this and so if there's any questions I'm happy to that I can answer, but I think Evan is okay. So, uh, thank you for being here. Uh, any questions for Mr. Lewis? Council Remy, just so we have it on the record. You guys are supportive of this. Excuse me. You're supportive of this. Just so it's on the record. Perfect. All right, then we're good.

Yeah. In this case, it's the property owner who has initiated this request of of you guys. Yeah. Well, you came all the way out. I figured I should at least ask him one question. Now it's on video. Good. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. I appreciate that. Do you want a motion? Yes, please. Well, u one sec. This is technically a public hearing, so you do need to open it for public comment. Uh any members of the public here to comment on this? Seeing none, I will close the public uh portion of the meeting. All right. And I will entertain a motion.

All right. Uh thank you. Uh, in accordance with New Hampshire RSA 6764A, move to revoke conditional use of permit PB 2022408 for a cottage court development on a property located at 15 Colony Court. I'll have a second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Rangel. Um, all right. Motion is on the table. Any uh discussions, questions, comments, yawns? We're almost done.

Yeah. Yeah. All right. So, let's call the vote. All those in favor of revoking the conditional use permit. Any opposed? No. Okay. Success. Thank you, Mr. Lewis. Thank you very much. Just one um uh now that we're between items, if the mayor is gone, I think there's one more position to promote someone. If we can bring everybody up as a voting member. No, she can get no me. You know, you know me. That's my philosophical approach.

Mr. Sure. I believe that um uh so prior a few months ago, I thought that the only position that couldn't be filled by a regular alternate was the city councelor position, but it turns out it's all of the exeicial position. So the mayor, the city council, and administrative official. Yeah. All right. Sorry, I tried. You can I was trying to get you in. You can note that councelor Remy was was on your team. Do we point of order? Do we have forum without the mayor? Yeah. Yeah, we have six. Seven. Eight. You count? Oh, no. Yeah, you're right. Jo, we have seven. Yeah.

So, what was the what was your your point about the exicio position? Jay can't be sat because he's the mayor. Yeah. So, the board has to can't be subbed. Yeah. Regular member. Still have a forum even though. Yep. Same for me. And there's actually one open seat that can only be filled by a member of city staff uh that lives in the city of Keen. And we don't have anyone in that seat right now. The uh Yeah. [laughter] So, we're we're getting smarter about this.

The uh the one thing that the board might want to consider in the future is asking city council to designate specific alternates to fill those spots. So, you as long as somebody is designated to fill the mayor's spot or designated to fill the administrative officials spot, they can do that. city council spot could only be filled by another city councelor. So, okay. Yeah. That's for a future meeting. Future meeting. I just was trying. Okay. Uh the last uh last public hearing item is amendments to planning board regulations. I assume, Mary, that you're uh

Yeah, I think there there's another subdivision, Mr. Chair, to be reviewed. Ah, I missed that. Sorry. Okay, you're right.

That's what I get for bouncing around. All right. So, uh, next item on the agenda is a, uh, PB-2025-17, five lot subdivision, Markham Image, uh, 150 Congress Street, applicant, Fieldstone Land Consultants, which is why Mr. Lefave is still here. PLLC on behalf of owner Markham Image Corporation proposes to subdivide the existing approximately 31 acre parcel at 150 Congress Street TMP number 598-00002-0000 into five lots that will be approximately 0.17 acres uh approximately 3.52 acres approximately 4.08 08 acres, approximately 6.40 acres, and approximately 17.69 acres in size. The parcel is located in both the industrial park and conservation districts. Okay. Uh does staff have a recommendation for completeness?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is Megan Forson, planner. Um the applicant, I apologize for that. Um, the applicant has submitted requests for exemptions from submitting separate existing and proposed subdivision plans and all technical reports. After reviewing these requests, planning staff recommends that the board grant the requested exemptions and accept the application as complete. Thank you. Uh, any questions for Miss Forson? I will uh entertain a motion for completeness. So moved. Thank you. Second. Second.

Thank you, Mr. Rangel. Um any discussion? Okay, let's move to the vote. All those in favor of um finding the uh PB 2025-17 as complete, please indicate. Any opposed? Okay, application is complete. So, I'll invite uh Mr. Lefave back up. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Uh board members, Mr. Chair, my name is John Lefave with Fieldstone Land Consultants. here tonight on uh behalf of Mark Mama. I think they have a unique spelling instead of a G, they have a J. Um I pronounced it Amage, I believe it's correct. Um but what we're looking at here is a project that's been before this board two years ago. Um basically, uh Mark Mage has a a lot of space that aren't using. And for the history of this property, um originally it was Plat's Box Company. Um there's a couple different box companies and there was a need to have lots of space. When Markham had purchased the property, they needed some unique space. Um since things have changed over the years, they now have an abundance of space that they no longer need. Um two years ago, um they were approached um by a woman that wanted to put in a bakery in one of the buildings have um kind of like a prepared food. she would get groceries in, produce, prepare foods. Um, everything seemed wonderful. Um, in order to achieve this goal, because of where the buildings are situated, it's it's impossible to meet all of the subdivision and zoning requirements. Um, we had gone before the zoning board to get relief for an undersized lot to create the lot for um the sale of that one building. And unfortunately um she could not get financing for that project and it turned into a pattern where where Markham was once again stuck with this space and they said all right let's look at this more uniquely um what space are we going to use what space we have surplus and how can we better arrange um this to meet some of the community's needs um I know there is a need you know from the communities to

be able to use some space there's not a lot of industrial space available or office space available. And here we have vacant buildings that you know are sitting here um that were constructed pre-zoning regulation which makes it very hard to to subdivide them. So, we got together with Markham, we came up with a um subdivision concept that created the least amount of [clears throat] necessary variances and we brought that proposal to the zoning board of adjustment and we received the required variances to then proceed here tonight with the subdivision plan. Um on the property, um there's a building that is occupied by the Algamated Squash and Chowder Development Corporation. Um, it's a racket club. It's uh the oldest that's in existence in the United States. So, it's a very unique property. Um, it was once housed on, I believe, to be Main Street on a bank property in 1976. The bank property being sold. They needed to find a home. Um, the Markham site allowed them to move the building to their site. Um, they have a lease agreement. It's not really a lease agreement moneywise. It's a lease agreement property-wise. you know, go ahead and use it. Um, but you know, that seemed like a good idea in 1976. Now, they have a building on their property. Um, it would be nice that they kind of separated them where they had their own home. They're on their own property. They can get their own insuranceances. Obviously, things have changed over the years. So, one of the variances or actually three of the variances were unique to the circumstances of giving the uh the Amalgamated Charter and Development Corporation a home. So, um, as part of this proposal, they'll have a permanent residence and be able to carry on this history. Um, the other variances that we asked for, one dealt with parking, um, one dealt with, uh, not being able to

meet the, uh, size requirements for the zone of four acres. Um, was that last one? I to remind myself, building.

Yes, building setback. I apologize for not having that tip of my tongue. I'm going to grab the mic. So because of the unique circumstances of these two buildings being in close proximity and there not being 30 ft here and there not being 30 ft here. This was one of the variances where we had to come up with a lot line and we tried to split the distance between um what was existing. Um we tried to look at the whole site basically on what kind of goes with what building. So we tried to understand um what features go with what building parking um kind of yard space everything and we came up with this proposal that's in front of you tonight. Um the buildings are separately metered utility-wise. No issues there. Um there's no changes in proposed development. Existing site, no improvements. No proposed improvements. Abundance of parking. Um landscape in place. So, I mean, what we're really trying to do here is um help mark them so they can find future owners for these buildings um and help mark them because they're they're basically maintaining, paying for insurance, heating, paying water bills on vacant buildings. And it kind of makes sense that we have some properties here available for their the community to utilize. and um the regulations that were proposed

um for the industrial zone. I don't know that they took into consideration proximities to existing buildings and how they would be treated in the future. So here we have a property that started small grew grew grew grew. Now there's too much and we're stuck with these buildings that you know that basically vacant. We're trying to you know I think it makes sense to to subdivide it um if you were to lease it out. Um, not a lot of people want to do lease properties. You're limited to what you could do for improvements. Um, the person leasing the property doesn't see much incentive from it because they're still maintaining the building. They're still paying a lot of taxes and stuff and then they're stuck with a building that's been changed by somebody else. So, a lot of people that want to to to utilize the space would want to purchase the property. So, I think that that's also been something that's been comment on commented on to them that nobody wants to lease the property that want to buy it. So, I mean, this is how we ended up here tonight. Um, that's the brief history of the project and, uh, I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Uh, Council Remy, thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, most of the divisions to me kind of like you can follow along and see where the divide is. I'm trying to figure out what lot four is like. It just looks like it's a breaking off an undeveloped wetland parcel.

So, when we had um came up with this concept, we had a smaller lot for um I missed it when we went for the variances. I think that city staff, we had all looked at it, came up with an agreement of what we needed for variances. Then we were doing under staff review. We had noticed that it would need to be slightly larger because of the zoning division line. We have a conservation district. We have an industrial district. So, we had to get some additional space. So, in [snorts] grabbing that tail, that would be helpful for anybody if they needed to put in drainage. Um, if they wanted to have a a maintenance building, um, it's something that could be valuable to that lot. And quite frankly, it's it's it's not valuable to the larger lot. So it was to meet the requirements for um like I said we tried to make the least amount of variances um in our request and I think we limited it to six variances. Three of them being the amalgamated squash club um and then the other three being you know the best that we could do to capture the yard space and you know everything else required by the var uh zoning ordinance.

Yeah, that part made sense. I just am I'm trying to I can see clear uses on the other pieces and just having an industrial park parcel that's kind of very limited access compared to the others. I appreciate that it's a larger piece than it looks like just because the scale of those other lots when we're used to looking at maps something that big is tiny right in here that's four acres. Yes. So it's hard to imagine that. Um, and I think that might be part of what's causing my issue is that looking at that larger lot, lot three at whatever, 16 acres, uh, the scale is not what we're used to. I'm going to grab this one a little easier. Um, so because the zone line's right here, we need to actually have the four acres inside this area.

Mhm. So, we had to come down to grab some of that area. We we also have area in the conservation right here. So, it's actually a a 5.41 acre lot. So, it's it is rather large. Yeah. And that's I I was looking at the industrial park piece, but this little summary is great. If we ever have complex projects like this, we should keep this little summary format. And there's there's no uh there's no develop there's no structure on lot four. No. No. That would be one lot where if they wanted to do something, I imagine they would have to go through community development and go through all the hoops to put something on that property. All right. I just something that's

I was just making sure I didn't miss something. No, I presume that's I mean the lot four is Sorry, did not wait for recognized. Sorry, Mr. Chair. Uh I presume you put lot four in position so it could be developed in a future state if property owner wanted to sell and and had a buyer for that land. It could be used as a industrial uh for uses permitted in industrial park.

Correct. So they could sell it to somebody say that wanted to put in a real estate office or some office space building some parking. Uh maybe they would have to meet the requirements because of impervious surface put in some drainage. We got the area down below. I mean so I mean there's a lot of opportunity for that lot. Thank you Mr. Cost. Thank you sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, so this is a no-brainer question, but the the squash court parcel is parcel five, right? Because it's not so I'll have to get up. Yeah. Okay. I just want to make sure that that's the fifth piece. Yes.

Yeah. Okay. The chart says that. Okay. Um [snorts] what I can't tell is are there um will there be access to all these lots or easements or how will that be worked out? So we have some some easements on the plan. Um if [clears throat] you look at lot two you'll see there's an easement um from optical A to the middle lot and that's so that they would have access to their loading docks.

Okay. Um we have an easement um along uh lot four um as they would both be able to benefit from that access way. Um the rest of the property we're proposing a cross easement uh in the form a legal form a declaration um where um existing utilities would be allowed to to remain um across the the properties that where they where they currently are where they currently reside and for what they serve.

And and one more question. So, so you have the variance already for the for the like the buildings [snorts] on lot three and two being close together. So, if you So, if that gets sold, I don't know which one Markham [snorts] is keeping, but if one of them gets sold, that doesn't ever come up again as a problem that it's too close to each other. Is that the way that works? Yeah. And one of those buildings is actually um a utility structure. A what? One of those squares that you see is actually a utility structure. The Mark and Mage building. We did receive the variances for the close proximity.

Okay. And the the ultimate intent if the company got its way would be to be able to sell these lots to others as you said and let them own and renovate and do what they have to do. Okay. Yes, that's correct. Thank you. Okay, we'll ask uh staff to provide their uh

uh thank you, Mr. Chair. I apologize. I was uh That's right.

just asking Evan a zoning question. Um this is Megan Forson planner. Um so as was discussed this uh parent parcel here is 31 acres in size and is proposed to be divided into five different lots of varying sizes. Um if you look at the agenda and then you look at the request that's listed in the staff report, you'll see that the lot sizes listed are obviously different. I think Mr. Lefave did a a good job of explaining why that is. It was because lot number four was made larger. Um, so all the other parcels were made slightly smaller in response to that. Um, I have to say we were all very excited, I think Mary most so about the fact that we have the oldest amalgamated squash court in the United States [laughter] here. Um, uh, and uh, as Mr. Lefave mentioned, there was obviously a total of six variiances that were granted by the zoning board um, related to setbacks. substandard lot sizes, parking lot pavement setbacks, and then just the permitted use of the um amalgamated squash court itself. Um after reviewing the application, staff do not feel that there's the potential for regional impact as part of the application. In regards to departmental comments, the city engineer did provide some comments just related to water and sewer services and um having separate shut offs for each of those things to each of the buildings. As Mr. Lefave mentioned, each of the buildings currently has its own water and sewer hookup. And if there were to be any change of use in any of those buildings into the future, those utilities would have to be reviewed by the city engineering department just to ensure that there would be sufficient service sewer and water capacity available for whatever that proposed use was going to be. So those comments have been addressed um to the satisfaction of

the city engineer. um to quickly go through the subdivision regulations. Um there in terms of the lot sizes and the zoning relief and um the proposal's compliance with zoning um lot one which uh is let's see lot one was granted um a variance for a substandard lot size because there's only three and a half acres proposed where four acres is required in industrial park for lot number two which is going to be your lot sort of right below where Martin Street is um that lot was uh granted a variance for reduced side setback and then all of the other four variances I think were related to reduced pavement setbacks, substandard lot sizes, reduced rear setbacks and then the use variance for the amalgamated squash court. Um in regard to the character of the land for subdivision um that standard along with the standards for scattered or premature development and preservation of existing features are not applicable to the application given the fact that the site is already developed. Um, for monumentation, the applicant has stated that when and if the application is conditionally approved, they will move forward with installing the new lot monuments, which will then be inspected by the public works director or their design. So, planning staff are recommended recommending that that lot monument inspection be uh made a condition of approval. Um, in regards to special flood hazard areas, um, a portion of lot number four has a special flood hazard area indicated. And so, planning staff are recommending that the plan be updated to include a note saying that any future uh, potential development on that site obviously be done in compliance with the applicable uh, flood plane regulations. uh for fire protection and water supply

and utilities. Again, kind of already addressed that those items would be reviewed in the future if there's any change of use that takes place. And then for site development standards, um the only applicable standards are traffic and access management. And really that comes into play because there are a few access easements that are proposed. There's one on lots two and three I believe for access to optical A and then there is another one proposed across lot four that would allow for access on Thank you very much John for access on to lot three. Um so planning staff are recommending two conditions of approval. one related to the submitt of draft easement language to our department for the city attorney to review and comment on and then one related to the submitt of the recorded easements once they're actually in place. And then um the only other site development standard that is applicable is related to surface waters and wetlands. That portion of the uh lot number four that's in the special flood hazard area also does have some wetlands in it. So they will need to maintain a 30-foot surface water setback in the future if there's any development that happens on that lot. Um but they have already added a note to that effect to the plan. So that standard is met. Um I did write you a nice long recommended motion which I'm happy to go through. It's your typical owner signature, submitt of plans, uh recording fees, and then um the submitt of an updated plan just indicating all of the zoning approvals that were issued and the decisions rendered. And then that note related to the special flood hazard zone. Um and I think that that's it. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Uh questions for staff? Okay. Thank you, Miss Forson. All right. Um, public comments, crickets. All right. I will uh seeing that there's no public here, I will close the public portion of the meeting and and I will uh entertain a motion. Take a stab at it. Uh move to approve PB 202517 as shown on the plan set identified as subdivision plan tax map 598 lot to 150 Congress Street Keen New Hampshire prepared by Fieldstone Land Consultants at varying scales on August 22nd 2025 and last revised on October 20th 2025 with the following conditions. One prior to final approval and signature of the plans by the planning board chair the following conditions precedent shall be met. A owner signature appears on all sheets of the final plan set. B. Submittal of four full-sized paper copies, two myar copies, and a PDF version of the final plan set. C. Submittal of a check in the amount of $255 made out to the city of Keen to cover the cost recording fees. Uh D, submittal of an updated proposed conditions plan sheet SB1 showing the following. I all zoning applications submitted in the decisions rendered. Uh I I two or um note uh number five uh shall be updated to state that any further development within the special flood hazard area will need to comply with all applicable local, federal, and state regulations and may require the submitt of a floodplane development permit to the community development department. E. Submittal of draft easement language to the community

development department for the review by the city attorney. F. installation and inspection of lot monuments by the public work director or their designate or in lie of this a submitt of a security to cover the cost of the installation of these monuments. Two, subsequent to final approval and signature by the planning board chair. The following condition shall be met. A. Submittal of a recorded easement agreements to the community development department to be saved in the project file. Thank you. Second. Second. Thank you, Mr. Rangal.

And as the follow on, I will say I agree that there's not regional impact to this. Um, but otherwise, I think the project makes sense. Um, you know, whether we shift lines in weird ways, that's not what we're here to look at. Like I don't Some of the lines are funny shapes, but it seems like it works. And um trying to fit the best thing into the the shape. So my comments, I think, yeah, I agree. Uh freeing up some land is uh is a good thing for Keen right now. Um almost regardless of what goes on it except for a casino. Strike that. Um

Miss Vazani. Yeah, I agree. I I thank you, Mr. Chair. I I commend you for coming up with a um creative way to use these vacant buildings. Uh vacant buildings are difficult to maintain, costly to ensure, and can become a real issue for the public in general. So, uh thank you for putting all that work into find a way to use them. Thank you very much.

Anyone else? All right, we'll call the vote. Um, all those in favor of approving PB 20225-17 subdivision indicate. Any opposed? All right. Subdivision is approved. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, board members and members of the staff. Um, on behalf of Market Mage, um, it's been a pleasure to work with the city in, you know, finding homes for these vacant buildings. Um, everybody we've worked with, planning staff, zoning board, planning board has been very helpful and we just want to thank you for your time. Our pleasure.

Thank you.

Last one. Last one is a amendment proposed amendments to the planning board regulations. Planning board proposes to amend the site plan review thresholds in section 26.123.A of the land development code. The proposed changes include the creation of thresholds for commercial and multifamily street access permits, a modification to the threshold for new additions, and a creation of a threshold with regard to the number of new residential units proposed. And there she is. Take it away, Miss Brener.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, um, I did put together slides, uh, but it, if the AV folks are able to turn on the screens, great. If not, I don't think they're necessary. They're really just showed the proposed new threshold. So, um, if you have your packet in front of you, um, at the very back there should be the memo. Um, and all of the proposed changes are shown in boldface underlined with um yellow highlighting. Uh, is everyone able to see that? Yes.

Perfect. Okay. So, I'm just going to uh go through the um the proposed changes. Uh, but first really quickly, just a quick reminder that your authority for site plan review comes from state statute New Hampshire RSA 67443. This allows the planning board to review site plans for non-residential and multif family uses. This statute also um gives the legislative body the ability to allow the planning board to delegate its authority um specifically its powers and duties for site plan review to a um committee of technically qualified administrators. Um, and so the city of Keen has done this and you have delegated your authority for minor site plan review to the minor site minor project review committee, excuse me. And so what we're talking about today are the thresholds that separate um minor site plans from major site plans. And then pretty much anything that doesn't fall into the category of site plan review would be underneath a third category that we call administrative planning review, which is essentially a staff review with no public hearing or anything like that. And it's just to review um the project to make sure it meets the site development standards in the LDC. Um so the main goal of these proposed changes um is to increase the utility of the minor project review committee. Um that that committee was created. It's relatively new. Um it was created in 2021 and since it was created there's only been a few projects that have gone to that board and in fact in the last year we haven't had any. And so um we think part of that issue is that the the threshold for minor project if a project

meets the threshold for minor project it often there's something that raises it to the level of a major project. Um and so things tend to either fall into the administrative or the major pro uh site plan review and um the the band of projects that can go to the minor project committee is just too narrow. So part of this is trying to widen that band a little bit and increase the number of projects that could go to the minor project review committee. For the applicants that have gone through that process, they've really appreciated it. It helps um shorten the time frame. It helps speed things up a little bit. It's a little bit less daunting to have to go, you know, it's during the day and it's staff that they've probably worked with um and have good relationships with and it's, you know, it takes a lot of the unknowns out of the process. However, it does still require um all the same noticing that major site plans require. So the you have the 10day posted notice in the paper. You have to do notice to a butters including everyone within 200 feet of the parcel boundary in Keen. Um you have to hold a public hearing. So there's still that like public accessibility and transparency, but the time frame is a little bit shorter, and it just seems to be a process that people really appreciate. Another sort of goal of these proposed changes is to address specifically projects that create new residential units. Um, this came up with one of the administrative projects that staff approved in the previous year. Um I think this board had raised some questions about that project and so that kind of was another reason for starting this conversation. And then um another sort of goal is uh to address street access um or driveways. So, this is something that staff sort of noticed and so we haven't really talked about it

with you all yet, but basically um street access right now, anytime that uh a commercial or multif family street access is being modified, even if it's to remove it, it has to go through site plan review. And this board has delegated its authority with respect to single family and two family street access to the city engineer. Um but you haven't done that in any instance with your um commercial and multif family street access. So, what uh we're proposing is that anytime that a street access is uh or yes, the street access, a driveway essentially is proposed to be narrowed or removed um and it complies with all of our standards that that could be something that's reviewed administratively. um if it's a new commercial street access or if it's being modified but it's complying with all of the driveway standards in article 23 of land development code it could be reviewed by the minor project review committee and then if it's um a proposal that involves an exception to the criteria that would raise it up to the level of major site plan review. So, it kind of builds in an incentive structure um for people to comply with the street access standards. Um well, kind of rewards people who are able to meet the street access standards with a lower level of of review that they have to go through. Um any questions so far about the intent of these changes? Uh it looks like councelor Remy has a question.

Oh, councelor Remy. Thank you, Mr. there. Uh the only thing I'm and I guess this isn't really on the intent. This is actually reading one of them. Um it looks like any residential property outside of the downtown district would not be subject to anything more than residential review for an expansion of existing use if it does not add units. So if I wanted to double the size of my house, it doesn't trigger anything more than administrative review unless uh I'm at unless I'm making it more than 10,000 square feet. or um just the way I'm reading this, there's nothing in here when we talk about the percentages that touches on residential um outside of the downtown districts. And so therefore, I don't know that I want there to necessarily be a restriction, but it would only go to administrative review for any size addition to an existing structure that doesn't add units. And I don't know if that was the intent. If that's the intent, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure that was an a choice and not an accident. Um just because sometimes the language gets it's commercial buildings or structures. If structures was meant to be general and not commercial structures then that I don't know I guess I'm getting in the weeds on it but do you know what I'm trying to say?

Yeah. So it might be helpful for me to start going through the specific changes and explaining the rationale and then if um and I'll just explain what my rationale was and then if you want to change it that's totally that's completely fine. Um is it okay if I just jump in then to the changes?

Okay. Yeah. So the first one um in section A of 26123 applicability um that very first paragraph at the bottom where it says um that this will be required um or this type of review shall not be required for single family and two family dwellings or their associated accessory uses provided such dwellings are not attached to a mixeduse building or located on a mixed lot containing non-residential uses. Um, in our sort of planning world, non-residential uses, we're talking about single family and two family. And so, just to clarify that, that means multif family as well. So, if a lot has a multif family use on it, that would be considered a mixeduse lot. So, that's just to clarify for someone who's reading that that was the intent. Um, so you know, for example, if there's a parcel that has a, I don't know, 8 unit apartment building on it and somebody is adding a single family home onto that same lot, it might be subject to some sort of um, review to make sure that they're meeting the site development standards because the lot has a use on it that's subject to the site development standards. Okay. um under major site plan, one of the things that I added was um that exceeds any of the below thresholds, which is how we've been treating it. Again, I think I just wanted to put that language in there to make it really clear that a project that meets any of these thresholds is going to go to the planning board. Um under number one B. So this is I think getting to what councelor um Remy was just talking about with the percentage um increase for additions. One of the pieces of feedback that we um heard

actually from two of you was that the downtown is of more interest to you all than areas outside the downtown and that changes in the downtown um might have a lower threshold than changes outside the downtown for review. So, uh in response to that, I sort of kept the additions where they currently are for the downtown zoning district. So that's um any additions to an existing building or structure that's greater than 15% of the gross floor area of the existing principal building. And then outside of the downtown districts that goes up to 25%. And I think um for example when you get out into the industrial districts where you have these massive buildings it's um it's actually we found that it's pretty easy to meet that threshold. So again, trying to increase that um middle band where projects can go to the minor project review committee is the goal with this change. Um so the next one is uh C projects that involve the creation of 25 or more new residential dwelling units in one year. So, to be honest with this one, we kind of got feedback from I think there were five board members that individually emailed staff and there was sort of like a wide range. It was weighted more towards like having a higher uh threshold than a lower one. Um, but this is probably the the standard that I'm most interested in hearing your feedback on. Um the idea here is that again any of these thresholds that are met would send a project to uh the planning board for major site plan review. So I'm imagining you know this

could involve like the interior conversion of an existing commercial building to residential units. Um so there might be very little impact to the surrounding area or to the site. Um, so I aired on the side of making the threshold higher. So that's where that 25 number came from. Councelor Remy.

Yeah. And just so the combination of these two is what I was scratching at. So if I it's the word commercial in B that I think if you having the word commercial in there means that it does not apply to residential regardless of multif family. So, if I was to expand a multif family but not add units, make all the units twice the size, it wouldn't trigger a review the way I'm reading this. Is that right? Yes. So, B, I think the way B is written um it says commercial buildings or structures. I don't know why I only said it for

because it the opening sentence does not say commercial. That sentence adds the word commercial. So I think if you strike commercial, it meets the intent. Actually, yeah, I think you're right because the beginning part of B just says additions to existing buildings. This one says additions to existing commercial buildings. I think you would just strike that from 1B, 2B, and that's all you would need. If you strike the word commercial from those two, I think you meet the intent of having it apply to residential as well. I I mean I don't really care if someone wants to double their residential and it doesn't it meets all their requirements. I don't know that we need to review it but seems like a big jump to

yeah I'm trying to remember um the rationale there but if anyone else has any thoughts on that but it is a little confusing because you're you're mixing terms basically. Mr. Hayer

thank you. Um yeah, my note when you're going is there any reason not to add a is there any like are there technical aspects you wouldn't want to split one B into two different to a B and a C because I think I think some of the confusion might be just the if it's this and 15% if it's that it's 25 does it make it I mean do you do you have the flexibility to make a new a new bullet point a new C or something in there just to separate the separate them. I'm just wondering if that would help clarify what we're trying to do. One's highlighted, one's not right. Well, that everything's highlighted. It's brand new. So, Right. Why isn't that just

change the like I feel like it actually is talking about a different thing first. Right. Right. That's why I was Yeah. I think it's like because I hear I'm like, "Wait, that's actually the same thing." Yeah. Yeah. suggestion if if it's if it doesn't turn into we have to go to the New Hampshire legislature to change legislature to change it. Seems like if it's an internal policy, we could we have the flexibility to word smith that a little bit differently. And I'm aligned that they're saying the same thing. It's just that they're almost saying the same thing because one is applying to all buildings that this applies to and the other one excludes residential. The second half of the sentence excludes residential. Yeah,

that's wrong. It seemed like people were nodding their heads when you were talking about removing the word commercial. Does that seem to be um supported by everyone or is anybody concerned by that? For me, I feel like I've just now that I read it differently, I I'm reading it like there's additions to any to existing buildings or structures that are between 10 and 15 of the existing principal building. That's anything in the downtown district.

Stop. And then like because I just think I just got caught up because it was a longer sentence. So now it's or I would like add another maybe another bullet point to it just so that it separates those two. I think it just might be a little bit confusing for if you read that second sentence. Yeah. So then it would be um additions to existing commercial buildings or structures that are between 15 and 25 in other zoning district have to go or 25% in the upper one. Yeah.

Right. So yeah, I think um though that could easily be split into two, you know, it could be um B and C or it could be B with a subsection I and I I it could be, you know, either way. Um, but I guess my question is if everyone is anybody opposed to removing the word commercial so that the um threshold for additions outside of the zoning districts would apply to multif family residential in addition to commercial.

Okay, I'm going to take that as a [laughter] let me Mr. I mean just clarifying we're b it's kind of like we're just saying it's basically any building downtown, right? Yes, that's what we're saying. So the second Yeah.

Yeah. And and I just have a question. It's what's the difference between a building and a structure? I know structure is like a flag pole, but I mean what [snorts] you would add 15% to a structure like like a gazebo or something. Is that a structure is something else? Okay. Yeah. And I would say for the purposes of this section, we don't look at like so it has to be the it's based on the increase in gross floor area as compared to the principal building on the lot. So like somebody enlarging a flag pole is not going it. Yeah. So, when we're talking about structures, we're talking about structures that can have gross floor area, which I'm not sure

if I can think of an example that wouldn't be a building, but um but to answer your question, all buildings are structures, so it might Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm just simplifying it. I mean, a garage is a structure, right? Even though it's not inhabited, doesn't have, you know, heated finished space. Yeah. Do we need structure? We'd be losing something by taking structure out. Yes, we need structure. We might not.

We we have had our ordinance attacked for um very semantic reasons that have provided for dramatic reinterpretations of how the code is read. So, um we frequently say buildings or uh andor structures throughout the LDC. Um and it's staff preference that we continue to do so. Can I take another swing at trying to explain what my concern is? Go ahead. All right. [clears throat] So, right now, if you are outside of the downtown district, so ignore the first sentence, right? You're looking at the what we want to break out into its own bullet.

If you were going in a multif family unit outside of the downtown districts, there is no regulation currently addressing those properties because it's phrased as commercial today. In the in the new language, it says commercial properties. A residential or multif family property would not fall under that. And therefore there's no regulation or there's no escalation clause for a residential property outside of the downtown districts because it to your point make to Sarah point if you split them at that or nothing touches residential for the second half. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but right now, because the yellow language doesn't exist in the code,

there is there is today. I'm saying if we make these changes, we remove the restrictions on residential outside of the downtown districts. Yeah. Your concern would be I'm sorry, I'm assuming some level of discussion formats here. What is your concern as council like or what what are you hoping we avoid here? I would so I would remove the word commercial and then it applies outside of the downtown districts all commercial all things that this applies to which is multifamilies and commercial would fall under the same rules as opposed to highlighting commercial for that and having no

call out for multifamilies with some other rule. They're just there's not covered by this anymore. They would all go to as long as they're not adding units, they would all go to administrative planning review. [snorts] I'm not opposed to that because go build housing, but I want it to not be an accident.

And I think the more I'm thinking about this, the more I think this that the inclusion of the word commercial was an accident. At one point in time, I think I had included commercial at the beginning as well because I was thinking that the residential would be handled completely separately, but then I went back to having this applied to residential as well and I must have just forgotten to remove commercial from the second half. So, I I apologize for that. But yeah, I think um I would recommend if the board is open to it removing the word commercial so that it's consistent how different uses are treated across the city. Okay.

Yeah. I I don't know if we need to vote on it, but I'm I'm in favor of that. Okay. So, I will split um B into I'll call it additions and then I'll make a subsection I for downtown districts and then a subsection I I for all other districts and split that into basically two sentences. Um, and then it didn't seem like there was any, um, feedback on the threshold of 25 or more new residential dwelling units. Um, is everyone good with that number? Yeah.

So, no, that number is fine here, but when we get to the minor site plan, I I I do have some questions which could, you know, change that. I mean, okay. So, we'll wait to get to that. So for clarity sake for projects that involve creation of 24 that would be could be a 24 unit could be handled by the administrative committee. Is that what we're saying with this? The minor a m the minor it's got three tiers here. Yeah. Right. Okay. So the the adminor so the minor project review this could be handled internally essentially without coming to this full board. Yes. Okay. Yep.

As long as it's under 25%. 20 years. Well, I think I mean that was one of the impetuses for these some of these changes, not all of them, but was a little more transparency to the community uh or you know to the neighbors uh where these things are going. um thresholds. Some people push back against that, but right personally I think we as a board felt it was um important to kind of swing the pendulum a little further towards transparency for the short term.

For clarity, everything above 10 would require noticing of the neighbors, right? Because it would go to minor site plan and that would still be noticed.

That's correct. Um, so yeah, so this is just to clarify right now. I'm just going through the thresholds that would go to the full planning board, but yes, there's two levels of review that would kind of fall below this level. Um, okay. Um, the next change was with respect to commercial or multifamily street access where an exception is requested from the street access permit criteria in article 23. Any [snorts] questions about that one? Okay. So then going to the minor site plan criteria, I added the phrase any of again just to make it really clear that any of those thresholds that are met would send it to the minor project review committee. Um, I could do the same thing uh for B that we did with the major site plan where I could split this out into two subsections I and I I um and strike the word commercial from that second half of the sentence. Um but essentially this would say this states that um additions to existing buildings or structures that are between 10% and 15% of the gross floor area of the existing principal building in the downtown um would go to minor project review committee. Outside of the downtown um it's between 15 and 25% would go to minor project review committee. Did that

go

cost? Oh, thank you. So, so I mean this is so there's downtown and and downtown like main street and Roxbury coming off of Main Street and all the all our main downtown developed stuff. Maybe Bilbo in the future. Um it it seems to me that's like I think I've been you know all my notes to you were about this but to me even a you know a 2,000 foot building on Main Street is a big deal I think. Um, and maybe not so much, you know, off of Main Street too far, but in in, you know, some of the other neighborhoods, but I think on Main Street um some of these thresholds just that I think they should be um lower for, you know, for Main Street. They should go to major site plan review. If I was gonna build put a 5,000 a 499 a 4,999 square foot building on Main Street, that's a big deal. It's gonna have a lot of impact. It's going to do a lot of things. And so to not come before the planning board and consider everything and not that I don't think you know staff and all the professionals can can do that. Well, it just seems like those are really significant impacts and changes to to particularly I don't know if we define Main Street or M you know central commerce district if we have some term for this area. But I I I just think we want to really watch what happens. Um especially when you get further down, you know, like we're Athens pizzas and stuff like that. There's just so much opportunity for stuff and and so it seems to me that we would want to be a little tighter on those areas in particular.

You're in your example you said the 499. I mean that that seems like that's allowed today or or that would be a minor site plan review based on this a right that's that's a is existence yeah a already exists so can you turn on your microphone please can you turn on your mic we're not changing right so you're you're but but a for a 49,000 square 4900 square foot building today would would qualify for a min minor site review plan if I'm right and you're what I hear you saying is you wish it would be a major site review plan that's

I would think uh 2,000 square feet I don't know what the right number is how small we want to go but there's a point where I think a building on Main Street is going to have an impact um you know almost regardless of the size okay and so I guess what I'm just pointing out is that nothing changes here addresses your concern that a 2,000 square foot building would be required for major site And don't forget there is an overlay in kind of Main Street. Does that control does that take precedent over this the overlay that Jereman's talking about?

Uh so the downtown has the formbbased codes and it's also in the historic district but the historic district because we um adopted the formbbased code um new construction doesn't go to the historic district commission. Um, so right now I think what you would probably see is that if there were new construction proposed in the downtown like along Main Street that's less than 5,000 square feet in gross floor area, we would probably rely on um one of the other thresholds to send it to the planning board. To be honest, uh just because I think we we know that that would be of great interest to the community. um and that it would have a lot of impacts on the community. So I think where we would probably hang our hat would be um H or I you know modifications to the site or building which at the discretion of the community development director or their design

Lawrence major site plan review. Um this is something that when the committee that was formed to work on the land development code uh was going through this topic, they really struggled with because one of the major goals of the land development code was to make it um like more of a checklist and reduce uncertainty and make it more streamlined and efficient for people who are trying to use the code. And so we were trying to make everything as black and white as possible. And I think where that committee sort of ended up landing was making sure that there were a couple of thresholds that built in some gray area for this very reason because they they were struggling to come up with like a clear line that made sense and so they they wanted to give staff some flexibility there. But I I do hear what you're saying and I think that um you know it might make sense to make a separate threshold for maybe downtown core and downtown growth um would get to what you're talking about.

I mean I'm looking even at E one acre downtown. One acre is a big piece of property on Main Street. You know it doesn't matter if it was in that industrial park we just looked at but in Main Street it's a big big deal. and and so I think just the sensitivity of that and we are going to see development I think and things happening not hopefully so that's all I'm getting at and even with the uh the new one on C you know 24 units if someone wants to build a you know small multi-story building on Main Street with 24 units that's 23 units no 24 units that's significant on Main Street and and just seems We want to protect that and have input into it where we can.

Miss Fazani.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um [snorts] I I know that there a lot of this has not changed from the previous um review structure. So the land development code indicates that that is worded exactly the same way as it was worded before. So I will comment really only on the changes. Um I was definitely part of um one of the five that would have sent in the larger numbers. And part of that is because there are other things in here that would indicate um or would require it to go to a major site plan review if this 10 to 24 new dwelling unit hit any of these other things. So that was sort of what I was thinking. So, say you have an empty building, a large empty building, and it's going to be greater than 10 to 15% of the existing building. So, I I thought of that part of it, but just trying to kind of meet some of the other towns and cities in New Hampshire that have these structures that have a little bit easier time. I was kind of going off of more of we should move, we should progress and make it a little bit easier. Um, and definitely the transparency piece of it I think is important. So, for that reason, I'm okay with it because I do think you have some that piece about the community development director could certainly come into play if there was something strange going on with it. If there was something like, okay, we can't just have this random bright green building going up. So, that would be my feedback for it. And thank you for doing all that work because I know that's a lot.

Just real quick, Hold on one sec. Where where do you want us to end up tonight? Yeah, thank you.

So, ide caught myself. Um, ideally, you know, if the board is not ready to adopt this tonight, what I could do is take your feedback and bring back another version for next month. Um, so if you feel like you're running out of steam and and want to just come back to this, I think I've heard um some good feedback so far. And uh I guess the the one piece that I do want to hear from the rest of the board on um is to uh Mr. cost point about the downtown and that uh I think it's uh threshold 1A which says new principal buildings or structures greater than 5,000 square ft in gross for area. What I'm hearing from Mr. Cost is that he wants that number to be lower for the downtown. Um, I guess for the rest of the board, do you feel like the other thresholds uh provide enough of a safety net or would you like to see uh sort of a bifurcation of that similar to what uh we're doing for B?

Council Ram.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm I'm okay with it being where it is right now. I I understand exactly where um Mr. Cross is coming from. I just um I think it's okay based on how strict the formbbased code strict but how like specific the form-based code is and how much work was put into that and the entire intent of going to a formbbased code was to limit the number of meetings that somebody wanting to put in a building that met our vision for downtown um had to go to and the idea was to say this is what we're okay with so as long as you meet this you don't need to go through all the hoops I don't want to walk that back. Um, partly because I voted for it when we put it in. Um, but I I think that's I understand both sides of it and wanting to make sure it's done there, but that the level of depth in that formbbased code I think is really like covers us there is pretty it's a lot.

I'll go back and study that. Mr. I was saying I'll go back and really look at the formbbased code and you know if it does exactly what council Remy is saying I'm happy but if if it's full of little loopholes or something we could still build a something but I don't want to uh I mean I don't want to just kind of ramrod over you Mr. Cost so maybe it would be good to uh to hold this for one more month. Yeah, and I appreciate that and in that time I'll look at that and you know understand it better because obviously the form based code is great and on paper see if it makes me happy.

So I I'll just if it's okay with the board just power through the rest of these proposed changes. Uh so there's not that many more. Um the next one under two which is for minor site plans for the residential new residential units. Um, that one I put at 10 to 24. Um, the reason for the 10 is because it's at 10 residential units that we require a traffic analysis [snorts] and so we're going to require more staff review of it anyway. So, at that point, I figured we might as well go to minor project review committee. Um, however, alternatively, we could raise the threshold of a traffic analysis up to, you know, 15 units and make it 15 to 24. I'm kind of either way is fine with me. Um, I think that, [snorts] you know, now I'm thinking about different areas of the city and in some areas of the city, the addition of 10 units might be problematic, but in many areas it wouldn't. So, it's kind of context dependent on whether or not there would be really any major impacts to the surrounding area. Um, but yeah, that's where the 10 came from for the lower threshold. [snorts] Okay. And then the last [snorts] one under minor project is for new street access or requests to widen existing commercial or multif family street access. Um, and so for example, if somebody wanted to completely remove a street access or narrow their street access and then they wouldn't even have to go to minor site plan review and that could be reviewed administratively. And so because that would allow for staff review, I did add um under administrative planning review that propose modifications to commercial or multif family street access that do not

meet the threshold for minor or major site plan review shall be referred to the city engineer for review prior to issuing a decision just to make sure that the city engineer is reviewing any applications that would be approved by the community development director or their design. we pretty much, you know, [snorts] would do that anyways, but this is just codifying it. And that's it for the the proposed changes to site plan review thresholds. Um, so I think uh, Mr. chair. It sounds like there's interest in coming back next month with um revisions and I had actually planned to talk or to propose to the board that um uh to bring another set of revisions to the site development standards and uh application procedures next month. Anyways, so um I will if that's of interest to this board, we could just combine them into one.

Yeah, I think that makes sense. Okay. I mean 90% of your changes we're fine with uh for this version, maybe more than 90% for some of us. Uh so yeah, I think maybe we have the uh mental capacity to handle more changes at the same time. And I think there's no um public hearings for next month. So, it'll just be the uh [laughter] it'll just be um any sort of last minute extensions, final approvals, things like that that come in, advice and comment, plus this um the changes to your regulations. Okay.

Thank you, Mary. It's good work. All right, let's uh see if we can wrap up. Uh staff updates. Anything from staff?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I uh just mentioned a second ago, I was planning um to bring proposed revisions to your um regulations next month. Um, and these are part of a series of running updates that we've been keeping a list of. Um, so a lot of these items are cleanup items. There's also a couple of changes that were uh spurred by changes to state law. So, for example, they the state legislature increased the time frame for active and substantial development, which we're talking about earlier today. It used to be two years in state law increased to three years. the substantial completion increased from five years to seven years. Um so just updating the code to reflect those changes and then again address it. Most of it's to do with submittal items. [laughter] It's a lot of very dry um changes, but it will make the code a lot easier to use. So that's what we're planning to bring to you next month. And then if you're interested, we could also um continue on with the site development trainings since there's a light agenda for the next month.

Okay. Thank you. Uh any new business? I have one. Uh Megan kind of when she brought me the papers to sign the other the plans, she volunteered my house for a holiday party. So, we'll see. I don't know if it's I don't know if that's allowable, but it is uh the conservation commission has done it before and so have a couple of other boards. So, you can't talk about business. That's easy for me.

But we'll have to we'll have to figure that out. What kind of a a date works. All right. Uh, upcoming dates of interest. Joint committee of planning board and PLLD, November 10th at 6:30. Planning board steering committee, November 10th at noon. Planning board site visit sounds like that probably won't happen, but November 19th. Um, and the time is kind of floating. Uh, today we actually got quorum at a five o'clock time slot. Uh and then finally uh planning board next regular meeting November 24th 6:30 p.m. Uh more time is more time and with that I will adjourn the meeting at 9:15. Thanks everybody.

Oh sorry.