Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. Going to call the meeting  to order. Recording in progress. And the recording   is in progress. Nice. I'm going to ask Mr.  Perry to sit for uh Mr. Coviello. And Logan,   will you sit for Miss Connor? Yes. Yeah.  Okay, we have approval of the J June 18th,   2025 minutes. Anybody had a chance? Everybody had  a chance to look at those. I had moved to accept.   Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I  I Any opposed? I hear it carries. Um we have a   determination of completeness site plan review  for request of Gary B. Dodge Revokable Trust   is owner for property at 294 Lincoln Avenue,  requesting site plan review approval for the   demolition of existing garage and construction of  a new attached for Bay Garage with associated site   improvements. This property is on assessor's map  130 lot 24 and lies in the general residents GR   district. We just need a motion for determination  of completeness. So moved. Second. Any discussion?   All those in favor? I. Any opposed? We have  public hearing. So for the members of the   public the procedure of our public hearings uh  we have presentation by the proponent followed   by questions by the planning board members then  we have public comment up to three rounds. Uh the   first round is three minutes which is just oral  comment. The second round if ne needed will be   up to five minutes. During the second round if  you have spoken during the first round you can   present a plan or an image or something like that  if you wish to do so. And then the third round if   if that's necessary is an additional five minutes  oral comment only. You cannot speak in the second   and third rounds unless you speak in the preceding  rounds. After that hearing I close the hearing and  

the board deliberates. Next on the agenda we have  uh two items like to consolidate items 3A and B.   One is a request of SLF realy group LLC as owner  for property at 400 Spalding Turnpike requesting   amended site plan approval to change a temporary  access path to path to a permanent access path as   well as requesting an after the fact wetland  conditional use permit for permanent wetland   buffer impacts that were not included in the  original wetland conditional use permit for   that project. The new request is an increase in  wetland buffer impact from 1,644 ft to 3,685 ft.   That property is in assessors map 238 lot 2 and  is in the gateway corridor G1 district. So we need   two motions to consolidate and then to continue.  Move to consolidate. Second. Any discussion? All   those in favor? I. Any opposed? Move to postpone.  Second. Any discussion to the August meeting? Any   discussion? All those in favor? I I. Any  opposed? Next item on the agenda. We need   another consolidation. Um, request of GI Portsouth  505, Inc. as owner for property at 505 US Route   1 bypass. Requesting first an amended site plan  approval and second a conditional use permit for   electric vehicle fueling space B to install four  EV fueling stations for eight charging spaces. In   addition, they are seeking a wetland conditional  use permit in accordance with section 10101750.   This project includes 1,434 square feet of  impacts within the wetland buffer, including   303 square feet of temporary impacts, 170 square  ft of permanent impacts in wetland buffer, and 958   square ft conversion from pavement into grass  areas within the wetland buffer. This property  

is in um assessor's map 234 lot 5 is in the  gatework order or G1 district. Move to combine,   consolidate. Yeah, consolidate combine. Yeah,  combined. That works too. Do we have a second?   Second. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?  We'll hear them together and vote separately.   Right. Yes. Okay. Just confirming. So now  we proceed with that one. Right. Yep. Mhm.   So who is here to present for Gir I or Jerry?  I'm not sure how to pronounce that. Hi. Um,   thank you for having me. I'm Rebecca Mouser  Hoy with Queston and Samson Engineers. Um,   on behalf of the ONI Gear Reportsmith and the  applicant, New Leaf Energy. As you mentioned,   we submitted the site plan amendment, the  conditional use permit, and the wetlands   conditional use permit for the development of  EV charging stations. The projects includes   the four level three dualport charging stations  located on the western portion of the existing   paved parking lot. It'll provide eight EV  spaces, one of which is an ADA space. And   the chargers will be publicly accessible  for hotel guests and the general public.   It's a very strategic location by the Portsouth  Traffic Circle, including routes 1164 and I 95,   which connect New Hampshire to Maine and  Massachusetts. The site is located in the   gateway corridor G1. And the project enhances  and encourages the intended use of the G1   uh district by adding a new allowed accessory  use. It also encourages users to access the   surrounding businesses and the Portsouth area.  Um, since our submission, I did want to note   uh we we met with the Hong Kong um last week on  July 9th. Um, from our original meeting on June   11th, we were asked to to look at the the site  plan and review if we could move the charging   stations farther away from the resource area. So  based on this feedback, we were able to move the  

the stations to the right um while maintaining  the eight EV spaces and the existing parking   spaces for the hotel. Um this move resulted in  increasing the conversion of existing asphalt to   seated area from 959 ft from the original plan to  2,135 ft. So this was an increase of pvious area   um converting from pavement to to seed mix of  1,176 ft. So based on this revised design, the   project now has a new net impervious area of 1,962  feet square feet within the Hutchin Brook buffer.   Um I do have the updated plan set. So I've been  chatting with Peter Stiff and I'm going to pass   this around. So this at the request we are asked  to add a planting plan. You have to talk with the   microphone. Sorry. Could you pull the microphone  down a little closer? Is that better? I'm short. So um based on the um conservation commission they  recommended for approval with six conditions. So   on this updated plan set um we revised this  based on the six conditions. Condition one   we included a note on the planting plan which is  L1.0 um to install a permanent wetland boundary   markers. Addition number two from the conservation  commission uh was to create a planting plan and as   noted that was L-1.2 and the details on L5.0.  On the planting plan we added um additional   plantings at their request of the concom which  includes tusk sedge, two river birch trees and   nine summer seat sweet shrubs. Um it also proposed  seed mixes within this area of the New England   wetland plants conservation and wildlife mix and  erosion control mix. Condition number three, we   added a note on the planting plan that yard waste  and existing brush shall be removed offsite. For  

condition four and five, we added a note on the  planting plan to include signage for no dumping   and please clean up after your pep. In condition  number six, we included a note on the um planting   plan that includes a planting and maintenance  plan for the restored area. So the area that   we're changing from um pavement to seated area and  um a maintenance plan for the Hodgen Brook buffer. So um I can keep going if I don't don't know  which order you want me to go through. If you   want to go through the wetlands conditional use  permit um conditional use per the amended site   plan or if you want to ask questions  on the the planting plan. Well on the   agenda the amended site plan was first then the  conditional use permit and then the wetlands. Um so the findings of fact for the um meta  site plan review um based on the approval   criteria the project um meets the applicable  ordinances and codes apart from 10-5B8310 and   10.1113.20 of the zoning ordinance which we got  approval from the zoning board. Um this was for   parking spaces in between the principal  building and the street. Item number two,   um the project was reviewed by the technical  advisory committee and recommended for approval   and they found no unsafe elements of the  proposed development. Item number three,   um adequate erosion control. Um as noted, there's  a net return of approximately 1,962 square feet of   pious area. So this will help um with erosion  and runoff. And the project does not propose   um any alteration of the existing storm water  management. There is a catch basin on site   that we are maintaining um the the storm water  flow to that catch basin. Um item number four,   the project does not propose any uses uh with high  pollutant loads that would impact groundwater.  

Um items five and six does not require municipal  water or wastewater services. Item seven, um the   project does not include any uses um that would  cause the emission of undesirable elements such   as smokes or particulates. Um item number eight,  as noted uh we went before the technical advisory   committee and the Portsmith Fire Department had no  comments on the project. The project will include   adequate provisions for fire safety, prevention,  and control. Item number nine, adequate protection   of natural features. As noticed, we are enhancing  the natural buffer to the Hudson Brook, including   those river birches, the summer suite, Tusk Sedge,  and the the native seed mixes. Item number 10,   the project will not impact any known  historical features. Um item number 11,   um the project will not alter the traffic flow in  or out of the site. Um the project is currently   paved and impervious and currently being used for  parking. Um that also covers item number um 12 as   well for traffic controllers and management.  Adequate insulation of external noises. We do   note that the project includes a new transformer  which will emit a slight hum um which is very   typical of this type of equipment. We do note  that the hotel is located 80 to 90 ft away from   um the transformer and the closest abuing property  is across Hudson Brook about 250 ft away. The   project for number 14 does not expect to increase  the site demand for any services listed including   solid waste, disposal, police, emergency medical  and other municipal facilities. Item number 15,   the project uh will not significantly al alter  the use as a hotel. Um item 16, the project   is an EV charging facility and does not propose  any changes to existing accessways or sidewalks.   We do note that we do add um an ADA space in this  area. And item number 17 um the project does not  

propose significant alteration of the use of the  area. 18. Um as noted before um the landscape plan   was developed at the request of the conservation  commission and we are increasing from our original   design um the wetland buffer and just note that we  are also increasing the um wetland buffer greater   than the existing conditions that are there. So it  is um better than what the existing conditions are   currently. And item number 19, the project meets  and exceeds all applicable city design standards. Questions of the applicant? Yes. I'm just  wondering, have you taken into consideration   the work that's going to be done in this area  very shortly by both the state and the city?   The covert is very close to this location  where they're going to replace that bridge   and shut the road down. Yep. After they do  the connector road that we talked about at   city council last Monday. So I was just at the  site visiting it recently. Um so I just want to   make sure that any of this work isn't going to  hinder or change or because of the work that's   being done there. Yep. Thank you for that. Um we  have at the technical advisory committee meeting   um we did talk with I believe the city  city engineer just about the location of   the utility pole um and making sure  that everything was on the property   and not within the rightway because that  bridge will be replaced. So the project   should be within the the property and not um be  affected by what's going on. Okay. Thank you. Is your schedule about the same as the Klay Road  schedule? Do you know when you're talking with   the TAC? Um I I think they're hoping if we  get permitting that they would hopefully get   it done by the end of the year. Okay.  Any other questions of the applicant? It was hard to keep up with you. I think you  went through uh quite a few of the criteria.  

Did you go beyond site plan? Nope. That was the  findings and facts of the site plan review. So,   if it's helpful, I don't need to go through all  of them, just a couple ones perhaps for the next   couple. Why don't you continue going through and  then we'll open the public hearing for everything   and then we can vote individually if the board  is okay with that. Okay. Why don't you continue   going? Um, as far as the conditional use permit,  um, the approval criteria, um, for for mainly the   height and scale, um, EV charging stations are,  you know, 4 to 8t tall with a base of 12 to 12,   um, in so it's not going to be, uh, any bigger.  The infrastructure is not going to be bigger than   what's there. Um, there's two large hotel  buildings. Um, so it's compatible with the   adjacent nearby properties. They're all, you  know, commercial buildings around the area. Um,   it may attract new customers to the hotel  in the Portsouth area. Um, and as noted,   it's a really strategic location. As far  as utilities, um, as noted with the TAC,   um, we did meet with Eversource Energy on site to  talk about where those utility poles will be, and   they will submit the required interconnection, um,  applications prior to that construction. Um, item   uh, 10.24323. 24323. This is talking about the  city master plan and the roads infra pedestrian   infrastructure. Um you know as noted with the  master plan the roadway infrastructure in the   vicinity which as you just noted um is going to be  changing uh to help improve the infrastructure and   the um the roadways in that area. So I think as  far as mobility uh with the EV charging stations,   everything that they're doing in that area will  help. Um and we don't really expect a a huge   traffic increase uh with the eight the eight  spaces. Um as far as the project that adverse  

impacts um will not have a significant adverse  impact on the budding or surrounding properties.   It will not generate odors, vibrations, dust  fumes, exterior lighting or glare. Um as noted   there will be um slight noise generated by the  transformer. Um, and as noted again that the   natural scenic uh resource, we're really improving  the buffer here at the Hudson Brook and and worked   hard to kind of move to move that out of the the  buffer as far as we could and maintain the current   um number of stations and the current number of  parking spaces. So, uh, in conclusion for this,   I I went through this a little faster. Hopefully,  that's that's helpful. Um the proposed EV charging   stations um are an accessory use and we don't  believe they'll diminish the abuing property   but help kind of support support the economy and  and that area that's growing and changing and   um be able to to provide this service to  people passing through Portsmith and close   to the highway and um we think it's a really  great location. Questions on the EV charging. Keep going. That's good. Um the  wetlands conditional use permit   um kind of went through the the conditions  that were noted um before the six conditions   and how we addressed them. Um as far as  the approval categories, um the land is   reasonably suited for activity or alteration.  This is an existing parking lot. Um we're just   adding uh some striping and existing additional  parking in this area. So it is reasonably suited   for the installation of the infrastructure. Um  looking at the alternative locations on site,   we picked this location because the parking  uh is currently at a deficit at the hotel.   So we didn't want to take any existing parking  spaces away. I think we removed one which was   um uh was a low enough number and it's kind of  back in the property and will will help enhance   that that area. So a lot of the site is within  within the buffer zone. Um so this really helped  

um increase the number of parking spaces for the  hotel this location. Um there will be no adverse   impact on the wetland functional values of the  site. Um so as as I mentioned we are improving   the wetland buffer zone and we did hear um  the planning board's concerns and request   and and added the native seed mix and additional  plantings. Um there's, as noted, there's the two   river birch and nine um shrubs that will go in  that area along along with some um plugs that   will help with any kind of erosion or runoff that  comes off the parking lot. The alteration of the   natural vegetative state or managed woodland. Um  the permanent impacts are are fairly minimal. It's   173 square feet for the transformer and equipment  pads. In total, we have a net gain pvious area   moving from the concrete to the grass, the seated  area of almost 2,000 square feet. So, it really   uh outweighs the the permanent impacts that we're  adding. Um, and we're improving the impacts in the   jurisdictional area in the buffer and this overall  will be an improvement to the existing conditions. Questions on the wetlands conditional use  permit? Mr. Bill, do I understand that your   first uh thought uh was a greater intrusion on  the wetlands buffer than your final answer, but   that the final answer was still not the ultimate  least intrusion that you could possibly have? So,   our first um pass at this, we were restoring,  we were taking 950 square ft of concrete and   um converting it to grass. So even in our first  iteration, we were still increasing the buffer   um by almost 1,000 square feet. So when we  went to the conservation commission, they said,   can there's a big access road, can we move it over  so we can get even more buffer um and protect this  

brook even more? So we we moved it as far as we  could to maintain the eight spaces and maintain   the existing parking. So we didn't want to take  up any more parking for the hotel. So that was   kind of as far over as we could move it. um and  then get, you know, up to 2,000 square ft of um   and the implications of moving it further would be  what? Um to the right even more. Yep. Um it would   be in the access road. So that's the access one of  the access roads into the hotel. So, we wanted to   maintain, we worked with our transportation group  and maintain um enough turning radius for the   cars to go in and out of the parking spaces and  enough um width for the access for the hotel. So,   we didn't want to move it any farther  into that and lose those that dimension. Any other questions? Thank you. I'm going to open the public  hearing. Public hearing is open on all of   the issues on this property. Is anybody here to  speak to against this application or on Zoom? Seeing nobody, I'm this is last call. Anybody   here on Zoom wishes to speak to  four against this application? I'm going to close public hearing. Make a motion. Uh, Mr. Chairman, I move  the planning board vote to find the site   plan application meets the requirements  set forth in the site plan regulation   section 2.9 evaluation criteria  and adopt the findings of facts   as presented. Second. Any discussion?  All those in favor? I. Any opposed?  

Uh move that we vote to grant the amended site  plan approval. Second. Any discussion? All those   in favor? I. Any opposed? Mr. Chairman, I move  that the planning board vote to find that the   conditional use permit application meets the  requirement set forth in section 10.1017.50 of the ordinance and adopt the  findings of facts as presented.   Second. Was that the right section? 10.101750. Is that the right section? That's the wetlands.  This is the wetland condition. Get the wax out   of my ears. Okay. Any any discussion? All  those in favor? Any opposed? Now you can go   to the other one. No, we have to keep going.  Vote to grant the conditional use permit with   the following conditions 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5  and 2.6 and that'll any discussion? All those   in favor. Any opposed? Thank you very much.  Oh, there's one more. There's one more. Oh,   sorry. EV. You have the EV condition. That's  the one I was looking at. We didn't get to it   yet. Keep going. One more. Move we vote to find  the conditional use permit application meets   the requirements set forth in section 10.243  of the ordinance and adopt the findings and   facts as presented. Second. Any discussion on  that? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? One   more. Vote to find the uh vote to grant the  conditional use permit as presented. Second.   Any discussion? Yes. I have to say if there was  ever a place to put a transformer for EV charging,  

that's a really good one. And I really like the  fact that there's a ADA compliance as well. Yeah,   a compliant EV charging spot. I don't know if  we've seen that before in the project. Bridge   Street Lot actually has one right next. I  think the hospital proposed that. Anyway,   any other discussion? All those in favor? I. Any  opposed? Okay. Uh, Mr. Koviello, I saw you come   in the back of the room. So, Mr. Perry, you will  unfortunately be an alternate unless things change   further during this meeting. Apologies for my late  anyone's going. We still value your participation.   As you know, next item on the agenda is request of  Gary B. Dodge revocable trust owner for property   at 294 Lincoln Avenue requesting site plan and  review approval for demolition of the existing   garage and construction of a new attached 4 bay  garage with associated site improvements. Property   is an assessor's map 130 lot 24 and lies in the  general residence or GR district. Who is here to   present this application would be Gary Dods. Good  evening uh Mr. Chairman and members of the board. I'm Gary Dods, the owner and applicant of the uh  property at 294 Lincoln A. It's also a corner lot   on the Miller uh A. So, um the project uh what  we're trying to do here is uh create a 4 bay   uh garage with a uh office space  on the second floor and storage.   Um the existing um property is a single family  home that was converted 30 years plus uh into   a uh three apartment dwelling. It has a detached  uh nonfunctional garage and I put up a temporary  

uh garage port just to hold some of my  things. Uh tonight we're looking for approval   um to get the project started. It's  been a long process. Uh in your packet,   um you it's referenced um we went to the BOA and  uh we were looking for getting density or building   coverage variance that was granted. If you  look at uh S1 of your site plan in your packet,   um it shows the existing conditions. Um basically,  we've pretty much cleaned up the lot. Um the old   garage will be taken down. It's 5T from  the neighbor's lot. to the left. If you're   looking at Miller side, um it's 14 feet from the  actual uh roadside of Miller. Um so the old um garage will be eliminated and the removal of that  temporary garage will be or garage port will be   removed as well. And our proposal is uh to rectify  with an office space above for myself. Um it's all   within the city setbacks. It cleans up the lot,  makes it more conforming. Um aesthetically, it's   more appealing curbside for the neighbors and for  the neighborhood. Um the site of the new garage,   if you go to C2 in your packet, uh basically shows  the layout of the proposed garage. It shows the um   it's attached to the house, not like uh a driveway  in between it. Um three bays facing Lincoln Aav   and one bay facing uh Miller. Uh with the TA  committee um uh we had a very um good discussion   there and they formulated a a letter that um we  have no problems addressing their concerns. Uh  

one of them has already been addressed. That was  the test pits and uh we are working with the city   right now on that easement for the sidewalk.  As you noticed that the sidewalk I own half of   it. So it's uh we're just cleaning everything  up, making everything look good. Um and then   um basically the last part that I have um I'm  with my engineer here um Eric Winerin from Aldis   Engineering. he'll handle any technical aspects of  the drainage um because there's been a lot of uh   plans that uh well we had to go through a lot of  hoops anyway and uh so um I'm not sure exactly how   you want to handle the waivers. So I'm going to  ask the board and Mr. Chairman how do you want to   proceed with those? I made a list up um and it's  in your packet. I don't know if you want me to go   through them individually or would you like me to  find out which ones are most contentious? I guess   does the board have any questions on the waivers  or do questions before we get to the waivers. I think they're listed in our packet and  we have a staff recommendation on each. So,   if you wish to go through them, you can, but I  don't think you need to. I don't want to waste   your time and we could all kind of move along.  That would be great. Um, I guess uh the last   thing that um that I would um like to propose  is that I don't know if there's anything that   um that needs to be talked about per the drainage  that we have um or Altus engineering design for   the actual property. I don't know if there was  any questions on that. It's pretty extensive.   It's just a garage, but obviously we don't want  water spilling on the neighbors lots, so I'm  

all for that. So that'll get you in trouble.  Yeah. You know, try to be a good neighbor. Questions about any aspect of this? Is you're off  the hook? Yes. I just wondering if we could get   a little bit more um about the flow of water and  how it's going to be maintained on the property. Good evening, Eric Weiner with Alta. U so when  the property was developed, there was no closed   drainage. Everything sheet flows across the  site primarily from Lincoln diagonally across   uh down to Miller. And so when we designed the  site, we provided stone drip edges on the south   side of the garage expansion area and then um  redirected the runoff that's on the um north   side of the garage in the um west side of the the  house into a low point for a catch basin. And then   um what we've done is we've created a um I'll call  it primary u directional flow into a detention in   infiltration area. Basically a very tiny leech  field and so when that overflows after the   um lowflow condition it'll flow north into  um Lincoln AB. So everything um we kind of   redirecting in a in a different direction but  still into the city drainage system and going   in and directly into the closed system providing  pre-treatment and providing infiltration and   reducing in all the storms analyzed in accordance  with the uh city criteria and it yeah it is a   small site and very straightforward. Um we did the  test pits and um to accommodate TAC. Thank you.

Um architecturally, is the flat roof going to be  eliminated or is that does that remain? You're   referring to the little addition that was  added on to the to the building. Yes. Um,   it's actually a three-sided hip and so it's  going to be a two-sided. It's going to they're   just going to extend that so it goes right into  I don't think it shows it on that plan. Um, yeah,   probably um the the elevations help. Uh, I just  didn't know where that begins or ends. I don't   know if we show that. Um, the older building.  No, we don't. Basically, it's a three-sided   hip coming off the main house. It it kind of goes  like this and like this. And that part that comes   and hits the new building, they're just going to  re they're going to reframe the ridge and make   it sloped like that. So it just it doesn't  go the water doesn't run into the building,   the new building. Okay. Okay. Cuz there's a set  of stairs that goes right up on if you actually   go to the other picture on the other side  where it shows the three bays. Yeah. Well,   it's kind of hard to see. I can't really see  it there either. So sorry. It's not going to   go hip flat. No, it's not flat. No, it goes  right into go. it goes right into gutters,   you know what I mean? And that that would be  eliminated on that side and then the the ridge   would be um extended all the way out. Um so it's,  you know, so it's like a point and then it would   be just like two slopes coming down and then the  the catch the rest of it. The second question is   merely organizational and I was impressed by it.  You have two addresses. You have 250 Miller and   294 Lincoln address. Yeah, there's two addresses  there and then 250 Miller just doesn't exist. Oh,   no, it does. I didn't I didn't mention it. I I  just figured it's on the Miller side, but yeah,   I have two addresses because uh the tenants uh  have everybody has their own entrance. Yeah.   So 250 Miller has their own entrance. 294 Lincoln.  The front door is the second floor and on the side  

door is 294. I call it A or one. Got it. You know  that then is usual. I just Yeah. It is a little   odd because it's a corner lot and it's a little  odd to see that the driveway went kind of like   through the the property. You know, it's a nice  It was a nice little roundabout, but it just kind   of odd because the garage was so far away from the  actual property. It It looked like it belonged to   the neighbor. So, um like I said, we're cleaning  up the lot. Everything gets cleaned up. All the   We meet all the setbacks and everything. So,  I think this is the best proposal. Um um I   just wish we didn't have to spend so much on the  drainage, but sometimes you have to spend money. Yes, Bill. There's a small office also. Yeah,  it's a offices will be on the second floor of   the the main part of the the the building right  there that's attached to the older structure.   It's the bigger piece cuz it has the stair. Yeah,  right there. It has the stairs and there's just a   bathroom. Uh go one more and it'll show you the  upstairs. There you go. Um and then it just has   a bathroom. The rest of it's just storage up  there. Unfortunately, I have a lot of stuff. Had you thought toward having that  be living space? I guess you could,   but uh that's not my intention. My intention  I have a I have a couple of projects that I'm   still working on and I need some drafting  space and that's my that's my goal is to   have enough area where I can actually  lay out plans and stuff like that. Um,   I I don't have any intention of making it  a uh an apartment at this time, though. Eric, I had one quick question on your drainage.  You mentioned it was all sheet flow today,   and I see you still got a little sheet  flow. Just so it's simple on the record,  

with what all the improvements you're doing,  there's no net increase of surface flow off   the property post construction. That's  correct. Uh I'm sure it's in your report.   I just want want you to say it simply if  you can. Yes. Um so in the report in the   two-year storm we're reducing by 0.14 CFF  10year 0.01 the 25.05 CFF and the 50 is.11   cubic feet per second. So it's really close but  that answers the question. Y I I would like to   point out in the findings of fact whoever  wrote it uh may have said that the there   will be an increase in noise and it probably  means there will not be an increase in noise that was pointed out by my client. Yes, Tony. Did I miss it somewhere? I I  I probably did. Why is a is this single   family home? Two family three family. Three  family. That was the question. All right. Why   I was wondering why it was a single family home  and it was convert before I owned it and I've   owned it for 30 years. So it was converted at  some point as a three family home. All right.   I I didn't know what criteria made it come to  us for a site plan. It's three family. That's   why. Yeah. Unfortunately, I had to come to see  you nice people, you know, so it's all right. At least you get to come into  an air conditioned space,   right? Any other questions of the applicant.  Okay. Thank you. I'm going to open the public   hearing. Anybody here or on Zoom who wishes  to speak to, for against this application? Zoom. If you'd like to speak on Zoom, raise your hand.

There is somebody on Zoom. If you wish  to speak, raise your virtual hand. Apparently not. Okay. One more call. Anybody here  or on Zoom wishes to speak to   four against this application? If not,  I'm going to close the public hearing. Who would like to proceed? Um, your honor, I would make a motion that we vote to  find the site plan application meets requirements   set forth in site plan regulation section 2.9  evaluation uh criteria and adopt the findings   of fact as I'm going to amend number 13 to read  the existing residential use will not create any   new noise. Second. Any discussion? All those in  favor? I I. Any opposed? I'll continue to make   a motion to vote to find the requested waiverss  will not have an effect of nullifying the spirit   and intent of the city's master plan or the  site plan review regulations and to wave the   regulations as requested. Second discussion. We  need six votes on this. Any discussion? Yes. Um   I just think it is a somewhat it's a small lot.  It is only three units, which is our minimum for   site plan review. So, I don't think that all  of the requirements of our site plan review   regulations would apply to such a small lot and  a minimal change. It's just a a garage. Granted,   a big garage, but it matches the size of the  house most likely. It's basically improving   the existing condition. It is. Do we need a  roll call vote for the six or You just need   six members. It doesn't need to be roll. You  need to have at least six members that say yes.   All those in favor? I. Any opposed? It  sound like more than six to me. I will  

uh make a motion to vote to grant site plan  approval with the following one condition 2.1. Second. Discussion. Yes, Paul. Discussion  on uh 2.1. An easement to be provided to   the city for the sidewalk on Lincoln  Avenue prior to the issuance of a   certificate of completion. Same thing as  a certificate of occupancy. Rick. Yes.   Okay. Correct. Any other discussion?  All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Right. Thank you. And have a good night. Well, next item on the agenda is a request of  city of Portsouth Department of Public Works as   applicant for and the Peas Development Authority  wastewater treatment treatment plant as owner for   property at 135 corporate drive requesting site  plan review approval from the Peas Development   Authority for construction of four new buildings  and demolition of existing control operations   building and associated site improvements  including utilities, parking, electrical and   storm water infrastructure. This property is on  assessor's map 303.6 and lies business commercial   or ABC and natural resource protection districts.  Who is here to present this application? Hi, I'm   Mary Feedler from the city of Portsouth. Um, it  was a pretty good introduction. Um, this project   was prim primarily driven by a need for additional  aeration capacity at the wastewater plant. We've   exceeded our allocation of 90% to our industrial  users. In order to do that uh aation improvement,   we had to provide additional blower capacity and  membranes for aation. Uh and ultimately what that   means is we need new electrical service,  new electrical building, new generator,   new conduits and feeds to all the buildings um to  support that. So basically we're right on the edge  

of being able to um have the electrical capacity  to do that improvement. um as is associated with   that. The new uh primary uh sledge pump station  uh is required. Uh the new electrical building to   to support the new feeds was required and then  the chemical building and the expansion to the   lab admin building. Those are uh alternates based  on um funding availability. Um our design team is   a ecom and with the sub to Eric Winer and I think  Eric was going to can discuss some of the site uh   improvements but ultimately this was a site  that was constructed in the late 1950s. It's   been upgraded various times. It last in 1997.  Um, so there's no on-site storm water treatment   devices. Um, there's a large culvert system  that crosses from the Home Depot side of uh the   Spalding Turnpike. It goes underneath the site and  goes into Hodkin Brook. Um, a large portion of the   site is in the wetland buffer. It was constructed  there. Um so we're proposing two bio retention   cells to mitigate some of the the new impervious  impacts and uh as requested by PE's development   authority during their site review. There's some  uh nuisance ponding on the the driveway to the   Tony uh Rain Park. Uh so there's a little inlet  there that goes into the existing triple barrel   coververt system. Um so I don't know you want  to have Eric talk through a little bit more of   the details of the storm. Yes. And while he's  coming up, I I skipped ahead and there needs to   be a consolidation of this with the related next  item on the agenda which is you're also talking   about. So if we just get a motion to consolidate  moved second. Any discussion? All those in favor.   Any opposed? And the second item that you'll  be discussing is also the same property looking   for a wetlands condition use permit from PDA  for upgrades to the treatment facility which   includes the construction of the building storm  water infrastructure utilities and grading of   23,600 ft of buffer impacts including 20 2950  ft of permanent impacts 18,550t of temporary  

impacts on site and 2100 ft of off-site temporary  impacts same property. So Eric please. Thank you.   Eric Weiner with Alaltis Engineering. Um, sounds  like a lot of impacts, but it's a 12.7 acre parcel   and we're only working in the buffer. We're not  actually impacting any wetlands on the site. Um,   nor are we w disturbing any natural areas that  all of our site disturbances are within previously   developed areas. Um, and so uh what we're doing  is providing storm water management where there   is none today. And so we have a couple um rain  gardens that we're um proposing. One in the   center of the site uh and treating some of the the  runoff from the develop portion and then there's a there and then there's a larger rain garden um in  the lower right hand portion of the site. Um the   the runoff from the site will be decreased in all  storm events and um we're actually treating more   runoff than what we're excuse me than we're uh  proposing. There's a um about 2,000 square feet   of new um or extra treatment we're providing for  this site. So, we've been through the conservation   commission. Um, they've u endorsed the project  and we're looking for your endorsement to go back   to the PDA. And what Eric talked about earlier is  that in that lower right hand corner of the site,   the water runs to uh the access road to Tony  Ron Park, the softball field. And that area   gets pretty muddy. There's no drainage across it.  There was a wetland on the I'll call it the uphill  

side of the um the road and so the water ponds  there and just kind of oozes across the parking   lot. So or the access road. So what we're doing  is just outside the wetland providing a culvert.   We're rebuilding that um portion of the driveway  raising it up a little bit. So creating more of   a catchment to prevent the water from running  across and then uh culverting that um back to   the uh triple um pipe under the access rod. This  is all in Hodgegenbrook. Um the Hodgegen Brook   runs parallel to the site along uh corporate drive  and as uh Eric mentioned also significant portion   of flow is coming from the Home Depot on site in  that side of the Spalding runs under the Spalding   turnpike. Um daylights between the Spalding  and our site and then goes back into a 36 inch   culvert and runs through the site and discharges  um into Hodgegen Brook. We're not dealing with   that at all. It's just um flow that's running  through the site. We're not um treating it. We're   not detaining it. We're not doing anything with  that. Um and I can Do you want me to go through   the criteria of the conditional use permit? I  I feel like we addressed it pretty soundly. I   don't think you need to, but if the board wishes  you to, they can ask questions. You would You   would like them to? No, I'm good. You're good. I  thought you said this long. Uh just I will just   um reiterate where I didn't uh cover it before.  Existing impervious on the site is 85,565 square   ft. It's going up to 89571. So it's a change of uh  4,6 square ft and we're treating uh 6,800 square  

ft. So, we have a surplus of treatment that we're  making the site better by 2,800 square feet. Um, I   think that uh covers it. We are new catch basins.  We'll have deep sumps and pre-treatment and then   uh we are under the 100,000 square foot threshold.  So, we are not applying for an alteration or train   permit. Any other questions? Any other questions  of the applicant? Yes, Bill. I've got a couple   lines of question that um one on uh one of the  documents that Peter Rice signed off on said in   accordance with chapter 300 peas development  authority zoning requirements part 304A peas   wetland protection the project will require a  conditional use permit from the planning board.   Is that accurate that that this planning board I  mean we'll we recommend to the PDA and then the   PDA serves as their planning board and votes  on it. So it it's just a recommendation. It's   a recommendation. It's not an approval. Correct.  Correct. Okay. Um the second is in uh some distant   future if the Federal Aviation Administration uh  decides that maybe it's okay to have housing at PS   uh one of the questions along the way is  infrastructure capacity and one of the questions   is waste treatment. So, uh, in the unlikely event  that that happens someday, does this facility   and this upgrade have the capacity and the  technology to handle 100 or 200 housing units? So,   this project specifically addresses reliability  and redundancy at the facility itself. It doesn't  

expand capacity. Does not expand capacity.  Correct. So this is maintaining existing   capacity and making sure we have our um sufficient  allocation for industrial users or industrial   growth um limited industrial growth. Um it doesn't  account for future housing developments or things   like that. The the plan originally when this  project was first initialized was because a large   industrial user would which were going to request  additional treatment capacity but that was changed   and this is basically just just reliability just  refreshing old and aging infrastructure. So some   of these buildings like this one of the buildings  we're taking down has been from the 50s and it's   so contaminated we can't basically touch it. So  it's really there's no expansion of treatment   capacity. At one point along the development  of the project there was like a 50% throughput   capacity that yeah that dropped off along the way.  Currently our our our revised NPDS permit gives   us additional treatment capacity. So basically  we have a permit that says we have additional   treatment capacity but we would have to add on  a third sequencing VAT reactor and do ancillary   treatment upgrades as well to to facilitate new  capacity coming online. So the answer is as you're   intending to do on the project there's no increase  in capacity. We didn't have the funding for it. So   there was but it it'll be enough to handle Lansza  and their yes current contracts and expansion   plans. Yes. The their expansion is using different  um manufacturing processes that require less waste   water. So the primary driver of their waist stream  is actually cleaning practices um and and their   new facilities are not using kind of the old old  style um batching cleaning processes. So their   their new capacity and their new expansion will  be covered under the capacity in their existing   permit. So it's and they've invested in reuse  um uh environmental they have a a corporate  

policy on managing their environment environmental  sustainability. So they're reusing what water the   recycling and they're limiting their discharges to  the waste treatment uh system. So um so the answer   is LNA doesn't need anymore for their their  planning horizon is what they've indicated.   and I may be able to help a little bit and  and I'm skiing a little bit over my tips here,   but so maybe you guys can chime in if you  agree. One I understand about waste is that   um every every wastewater treatment plant has a  has a different signature depending on the users   and what you're and so this being very industrial  intense um waste, you know, even if they were to   expand size, if you got 150 homes, it might change  the signature. So we'd have to they they'd be   doing things a little bit differently based upon  all of those little factors that what's coming in.   Right. Correct. Like a domestic discharger might  actually be fine just because it's a carbon driven   less. This one here is essentially this plant acts  as like industrial treatment facility. So we're   treating high nitrogen waste. Um so additional  carbon would actually be pretty good. We'd have to   run them. We have to go through the models and see  what those uh any potential development would be.   But again that would be a future analysis. that's  just not considered as part of this project.   If you did get funding, what's the additional  capacity that the plan would have uh additional   funding? I mean, when we started looking at I  think the to get to our the the new raise permit,   it was in that 70 million type range of additional  capacity to get the additional capacity. So, no,   not dollars, gallons. Oh, it was 5 500,000 gallons  a day. It went from 1.2 to 1.7 I think was the   uh from 1.2 22 to 1.7. So additional half a  million. Okay, that's what I was wondering.   It costs 78 million. Yeah, I mean just the nature  of this one, there's a lot of the tanks are quite   large and just sequencing back to actors, there's  quite a bit of infrastructure that goes into kind  

of additional capacity on this one. How much  of the 1.2 are you using? Uh I think last year   we averaged 6 on an annual daily basis. Um but it  was a dry year so um we average around 0.7. So we   we're we're using quite a bit. Again though the  state considers the um our industrial permitted   waste allocation too. So the paper allocation.  So it doesn't mean what we're actually seeing.   We're regulated on sort of what we've allocated  to our industrial users too. So and that's where   um that was kind of the driver for the additional  aeration capacity. All we had to do is adjust the   FM ratio and get a little bit more aeration and  we were okay. This is a little wastewater 101   here. You said it was a dry year. I'm assuming  because in wet years you get infiltration,   you end up treating a lot of storm water. Correct.  Yeah. Yeah, I caught that. Yeah, it was both   plants saw significant uh sign significantly  lower flows this year. Any other qu Yes,   Bill. No implications for the softball fields.  Well, they'll have a nicer access road. Say   what? it'll have a little bit nicer access road  where we're doing the uh the improvements there   that usually are kind of it's a muddy mess there.  So that as you can see at the bottom there where   the the the access road we're going to improve  was about 120 ft of that. So it'll be dressed up   a little bit and we'll have uh less standing  water adjacent to it as requested by PDA. So any other questions? I'm going  to open the public hearing.   Anybody here or on Zoom wishes to  speak to four against this application on Zoom? Lost our viewer. We lost our viewer.  Yeah, we lost our view. Our viewership is really   plummeting tonight. Last call. Anybody here?  Nobody's on Zoom. Wish to speak too far against  

this application. We close the public hearing.  Any two recommendations? Mr. Chair vote to   recommend safe plan approval to the PDA board.  Second discussion. All those in favor? I. Any   opposed? Um also vote to recommend approval  of the wetland condition use permit to the   BDA with the following condition 1.1 wetland in  excuse me wetland delineation shall be certified   and stamped by an Hampshire certified wetland  scientist. Second discussion. All those in favor.   Any opposed? Thank you on that one. Next item is  request of the city of Portsouth public works as   applicant and the Reicho family revokable trust as  owner for property at 15 Margery Street requesting   wetland conditions per for the installation of  a new 6-in sewer service for the property to   redirect flow to a new pump station's collection  area and abandoning exist abandoning the existing   service. Property's existing driveway will be  demolished and reveated and a new driveway will   be constructed above the proposed sewer service  with a 12-in culbert under the proposed driveway.   This property is on assessor's map 232 lot 41 and  is in the single residence B or SRB district. Who   is here to present this application? Feedler  from the city of Portsouth. Uh this project   was primarily driven to remove a discharge to  a cross country easement. Uh this is part of   the Marjgery Street pump station pro portfolio of  work. We've completed the pump station on the end   of Marjgery Street. We've also disconnected the  Chase home uh from the cross country sewer line   in question. U so the city's just under a legal  obligation to remove this last one. Uh working   with the property owner, u we've identified  this is probably the preferred alignment. Uh   the reality is the majority of the home and all  the lot is is in the wetland buffer. So um there   really isn't a technical solution to avoid um  impacts to that buffer. So, we're prop we're  

proposing redirecting that uh existing sewer line  um through the city's uh paper street and down the   basically a new alignment for the driveway as in  coordination with the homeowner. This is separate   from any of the homeowners other development  work. Um this is driven by that need to remove   this sewer connection from the cross country sewer  line. Um we're it's about 295 linear feet with two   uh uh two cleanouts I think uh to accommodate  bends and the culvert is to accommodate a   drainage feature that needs to be bridged as  part of the um the driveway installation and   uh basically the the driveway will be a  pvious surface as I think directed by um for some reason. Okay, questions of the applicant.  Yes, Bill. So, if you stand on Marjgery Street and   look up the driveway to the building that's at the  back. Yep. Uh the driveway is very close to to 49.   And what you're proposing and to the left of the  driveway there's a vegetated swale currently that   has rain water or whatever go through it. Mhm.  What you're proposing is to put a culvert where   that swale is and then to put a driveway on top of  it. No, the that swale is kind of not on the edge   of the property line either. So essentially we're  we're taking the existing um gravel driveway,   we're moving it to the other side of the swale,  encroaching a little bit on it, and then it's just   where that crossing is further down. So it's um  uh if you can see where that is, the swale is kind   of middle between the house and such. So, it was  requested by both property owners that we reign   the driveway during the construction activities.  Um, we actually needed to move the the pipe down   a little bit to get the grade that we needed.  So, it was better to put the driveway on top  

of the the new sewer line and it worked best with  when working with the two homeowners um for that.   But the I guess what I'm asking is is the swale  itself is there any dimmunition of the uh kind   of the wetlands implication of the swale being  there? Well, we have our consultant right Pierce   was here, but my understanding is the our in our  consultant or wetlands specialist that was not a   wetland. That's a disconnected. It's a it's just  a topographical feature. So there aren't really   implications or impacts to a wetland specifically.  This is this is only work in a wetland buffer.   Okay. At least that's my understanding.  That's not misspeaking. Yeah. So, it's a   topographical feature that we're bridging with  a pipe essentially. So, and we couldn't find any   criteria. This was um when this was constructed  or whatnot. I mean, this is kind of a funky site   because my understanding is that the the house the  Riel property this was that was original building   on and they basically subdivided the lot and built  the other one is my understanding. So, you know,   when we approached the homeowner about um you  know, relocating their sewer service, they both   them and their neighbor were like we're asking if  while we're doing our restoration activities just   to realign it so they can uh kind of resolve some  outstanding issues. So, this was really just uh as   requested by the homeowners. I'm just curious, I  don't know if I'm allowed to ask this, but is the   Marjgery Street pump station working well? Yes.  Because it hasn't been online very long. It's   doing well. Yes. Uh we have identified some excess  flow. So, you know, we're looking at some uh INI   and other things from the neighborhood, too.  So, but it's actually working great. Uh they're   really nice pumps. The station's good. I think I  think we're really happy with how it came out. So,   I think the neighbors have been happy with how  it's looking. Excellent. Love to hear it. And   just for historical reasons, is this pump station  um as part of the removal of the sewer line to the   south? Yep. So basically it was the pump station  took all of Marjgery Street, Roo Street and stuff  

like that. And these two homes basically bypassed  the edge of the edge of the road and went directly   into that cross country line. So Chase home and  the rials they had to be disconnected as part   of the the essentially portfolio of work. So  and you know and the the Chase home actually   we just worked with them and got it done as  an emergency because their side sewer their   basically their sewer line was failing and they  were pumping out weekly. So we got were able to   get that taken care of. that was outside outside  the wetland buffers and this is sort of the last   one to take care of. And I know the homeowners  are doing their development, but this is entirely   separate. We have to do this to get it done type  thing. The cross country pipe's just going to be   left in place. Just walk walk away. Well, it  depends on what the outcome of all the ongoing   uh proceedings are. Enough. Any other questions?  Will those two timelines coincide that you kind   of alluded to some of the development over there?  Are those going to coincide at all? Well, we we   tried to coordinate with the homeowner um to make  sure we'd avoid any impacts to like any of their   development, proposed development. So, ultimately,  our thought is we'd get our the city would get our   scope done first. So, then there wouldn't be an  impact to any other work or anything else that   was planned or occurs in the future. Thank you.  Any other questions? Thank you. Open the public   hearings. Anybody here or on Zoom wish to speak  24 against this application? Almost surprising.   It's not mustwatch TV anymore. It's not. Seeing  nobody, I'm going to close the public hearing. Would you like me to make a motion? I  would love you to make a motion. code   to find that a conditional use permit  application meets the requirements set   forth in section 101017 650 of the ordinance  and adopt the findings of fact as presented.  

Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I.  Any opposed? Vote to grant the condition use   permit as presented. Second discussion. All  those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Okay, I'm excited. We're good. We have a  couple of city council referrals or at least   one. Get bring that up on the screen.  I had to read this like three times. Like what are we doing here? Feel like it's a very new. Thank you. I had to  look at that on the GIS map to figure out where   the heck it was. I thought I knew every  street in the city. I've never heard of   Frank. And I actually test myself with this.  Every time we see something new, I'm like,   I I got to know where that is. And I just I had  to look it up. I wouldn't have said it was a   street at all. It It's a parking lot. It's There's  undoubtedly some interesting history there. So,   this is not a public hearing. This is uh but  it is a public meeting of course and there I've   had additional discussion with the deputy city  attorney who is present as you will see in the   back. He's looking very happy and you know pleased  to be here. So there are two, as I understand it,   the both the um I guess this orangey shade and  the gray shade are m currently maintained by the   city. But there's a question apparently a good  question whether the state DOT owns the orange   part and this whether DOT might own the gray  part. I'm sure everybody read the reason it  

has come to us with the one recommendation uh  in discussing this further. I'm concerned and   I think the deputy city attorney is it would  you like to come up and speak to this Trevor? Trevor McCord is deputy city attorney. Uh thank  you uh chair members of the planning board. Um I   yes thanks for for asking. I mean, I can tell  you too much history about this. I've done way   too much research on this. If you have questions,  I mean, you know, maybe we can talk about it at a   different time, but for your purposes, um, there  is a distinction between the gray area and the   uh the peach area in the front. Um, the the short  story on the history is that the button factory   and a lot of the surrounding land was at one time  owned by the state of New Hampshire. Um there was   uh some sort of technical facility there. They  conveyed out land at various times to various   different people um in part the city uh but did so  in a less than clean manner. A lot of deeds that   uh don't describe with precision uh what is being  conveyed out. Um in any event, I don't I don't I I   couldn't tell you why. It does appear that the  peach portion of what is now Frenchman's Lane   um was not ever conveyed out that that's what the  the conclusion of um um the consultants for the   adjacent property to the I guess that's the east  or if you look up on that plan that's what their   consultants have have concluded. There is a uh a  1995 survey which was performed which concluded   the same thing. Um the gray portion is is less  clear. It may have been conveyed at a point in   time to the city. It may have been conveyed  elsewhere. Certainly there was no vote of the  

city council accepting that area of land. Um  and that would have been in in the early '7s   when that when that occurred. Um so it is a little  bit title is a little bit complicated. Um and and   as I know from working on other projects on behalf  of the city, um when you have complicated title,   it makes things really difficult in the future if  you want to get um federal or state grant monies   to conduct improvements or if you want to convey  land out um um in exchange for consideration,   it just makes things a challenge. So, so it's my  opinion if this the city accepts this as a public   right ofway uh formally. Um that it be done only  with clean title. Um um so that would that would   in involve getting title from the state for the  the front at least, but probably a quick claim   for the entire thing. And like I would recommend a  quiet title action be performed by the uh adjacent   property owner. It is for their benefit. they're  the ones making this request. That would be my my   first recommendation. If the city wants to retain  ownership or claim ownership of Frenchman's Lane,   that would be the result. Uh I would recommend.  Alternatively, it could be uh um and I I I'm not   sure if this is what the property owner wants  or not, but it could be turned into a private   road. I'm not sure that there's any how much of a  real interest there is in having this be a public   rightway. the public works director didn't seem  to um that wasn't his recommendation to keep it   as a right of way. It it poses problems for for  plowing and maintaining. There's nowhere to really   bring the snow. You have to kind of claw it out,  which is not unusual in Portsouth, but it's it is   a challenge. Um, and if if you were to go through  that route, given that there are other properties,   there's parking spaces, there's the button  factory, which receives access via this road,  

it would be my recommendation that it would  be conditioned on um the the some sort of an   an easement or or other relationship between all  the abuing property owners where the rights and   obligations uh rights to access and obligations  to maintain are clearly spelled out between the   parties. just so there's certainty in the future  that people can access those those parking spaces   um the button factory has access to to a right  of way um and everyone is clear who is obliged   to maintain it because without such an  obligation it usually falls to the city   um and that is I think the skinny version of that  but I'm happy to answer any questions anyone has So what is the benefit to the neighboring  property that brought this issue forward? I mean,   how if the city was to obtain rights to this,  what is their benefit? Um, well, their benefit   when they when they're as they develop this  property, I believe what they want to do,   my understanding of what they would like to  do is have access in the rear of the parcel   um for parking underground underneath the  underneath the building. I mean they will lose as   you can see a lot of these uh the parking existing  parking spaces that they have do encroach into   um Frenchman's lane what is Frenchman's lane um  so they would lose those parking spaces but I I   I believe it is their plan to have underground  parking here that so I mean total mess but I   guess I'm thinking the liability of the city  taking ownership even if it was through a quiet   action title. What would be your recommendation  if we were to try to assist and do this as far   as a forward motion beyond that? Because I don't  think the city really wants the liability or the  

upkeep of it once even if we were to obtain  ownership. Um I'm I'm sorry. What's it's a   roundabout way of saying if we do end up with  the property, what should we do with it? I I   don't think we want to keep it. Well, if you end  up with it, if the city ends up with it, I mean,   the choices are either to have maintain it as a  public right ofway and with all the trappings of   of a public ride ofway or to basically offer it to  the abuing property owners and bring them to the   table. All of them, right? There's really three  there are three property owners uh that would   be impacted by this and try and get them all on  the same page, which may or may not be feasible.   the the the property to the west or at the bottom  of the drawing you have is a uh it is a condo   association. So that may help or that that may  help or may not may not. I had a recommendation   sort of a two-step recommendation which was to  it's my understanding I know from excess highway   acquisitions that the state can't convey to a  private land owner. They have to offer it to a   municipality first. So they h would have to offer  it to the city first. If the city refused it then   the adjacent land owners could take ownership take  ownership. But I guess there's some issues with   that and the city has been maintaining it. So I  was thinking recommending to the council that the   council see claim deeds from the state for both  the gray and the pink or the peach or whatever   that color is. And then the land owners work  with the legal department to try to find a way to   um cover the joint and several liability for the  maintenance and use of the road. Whether it if   if it were then to become a private road. If the  city wanted to keep it, the city could keep it,   which was what we're doing now. We're maintaining  it now. But it could be maintaining it. It could  

become a private road, but it shouldn't become a  private road without these issues being addressed.   Because the way it came to us, if like if that  peach was conveyed to the private land owner,   I wouldn't be comfortable with that because now  you've got the private land owner owning access,   what's currently access for a lot of property  owners without it being resolved. Yes, Joe,   you've already said it a couple of times. I just  wanted to state um I did check with the general   foreman at public works is as far back as we  can remember we've been plowing that so it's   not as though we'd be taking on any new right  um responsibility it's especially informative   when we look at the satellite image on just how  many lots this really affects there's there's   driveways and parking lots the question I asked  was um it's the only technical frontage for the   button factory agree if it's if it's a road.  Um I thought, but I mean it's complicated. Um I initially thought keeping control of it, the  city keeping having control over it would be a   better thing, but I I don't I don't know. Um well,  that's why I was thinking two steps because if   the city gets the quick claim deeds, then at least  they've got a cleaner title. It may not be perfect   for sure. Quick claim DS don't give you perfect  title, but then the city's in a better position   to know how to proceed and have discussions  with adjacent land owners. Yeah, that was my   point. I mean, right now, I think we're all in  agreement. Let's go get these from the state and   then and there's next steps after that. But let's  let's set them agreed on that. Bill, I've got a   question and some observations. Uh so when this  gray section reaches the end of what's shown here,   it turns and runs parallel to uh Islington. Who  owns that uh property? That road is that is that  

city property or is that private property?  That road, the portion of Frenchman's Lane,   uh when you turn at the end of the gray area.  Oh, at the back. Yeah. Yeah. and and go it it   turns 45 degrees and runs parallel to Islington  and Gallaghers is on the right and there's seven   shops in a building on the left. Oh, up up  behind uh like the street restaurant. Yes.   Yes. That's private property. That's private  property. This right here. So So the idea of   it being a pass through is really not correct. Uh  there there may be easements, but those could be   private easements to cover that. Yeah, of course  that's what's happening right now just by default,   right? Driven through there. So the other two  observations is is currently on that peach part   uh there are nine uh parking spaces going  against the computer building uh with markings   that they're reserved for the computer people.  So they are but they don't own it, I guess.   Uh and another observation, the gray part has  has a new coat of asphalt on it within the last,   you know, reasonable period of time. Uh the other  is old pavement, but uh somebody has repaved the   the part that's uh by the button factory. Yeah.  Uh I I'd be uncomfortable. One other thought that   this is of commercial value. Uh so so the city  should get commercial value out of it. Uh so it   it isn't a matter of turning it over to somebody.  Uh I don't think uh that area south of there is   where Louis was going that we talked about a  couple weeks ago or maybe two meetings ago. Uh  

all of the spaces along that uh seven uh uh entity  building uh are were full this afternoon and you   had to kind of wait to park at any of them. Uh and  it wasn't really even uh you know the busiest time   for the restaurant crowd yet. Uh so so that's  a valuable piece of property and so so one I   wouldn't expect the city to turn it over without  getting value for it. I think we should get what   we can get from the state. Uh but I also think  you need to take account of all the stakeholders   and not just respond to the people that have the  computer shop. Agreed. If I may, Mr. chair. Um I   I appreciate that you brought up the value of of  this this area. So for a little bit more context   to how we've gotten here, the the computer store  folks, they did approach the state initially about   this. Um and they got kind of far down the path  of trying to acquire this land from the state.   And without boring you with all the intermediary  details, uh the state asked them to go get a an   appraisal for that parcel of land because they  they don't they're not in the business of giving   land away to uh private private entities, right?  Um and when they came back with an appraisal,   they showed a value of zero dollars and the state  didn't accept that. They said, "Well, no, there's   there's clearly value to this. You know, we don't  accept a z appraisal here." Um and then that is   what has led them to kind of approach the city  just for context. So Andrew, you had Yeah. And it   follows both of those points made by Tony and and  Bill. Um speak in the microphone so everyone can   hear you. I think if we if the city did not take  on an overwhelming amount of liability and owned  

it with quiet title and should one of the property  owners, doesn't matter which one necessarily want   to do something, we can choose to be entirely  reactive here because we will have some controls   via site plan and conditional use permits and  things of that nature. So at that point when   one of those property owners comes forward with a  plan or proposal uh they would have to have some   sort of agreement amongst the neighboring parcel  owners and so that would then inform us okay have   they come to an agreement how will it be managed  who will have liability etc. uh and we would also   then understand the full extent of private  easements across those various parcels. And   so saying zero dollars was probably their issue,  but um I I don't see an issue into holding it and   then reacting accordingly. Ryan, would there be  any reason the state would say no to the city?   Um if if the city were to take ownership of  it and maintain it as a public rightway. Yeah,   they would they would certainly do that. I it is  my belief that they would do that. They would give   it to us without charge if we were to keep it and  maintain it as a public right ofway. And if the   city wanted to quash any title issues, the city  could lay out a highway over the alignment. It   it could. Just occurred to me. It it could I when  I brought up the the quiet title action, it was,   you know, because there is private benefit that is  that is uh clearly occurring as a result of this   um transaction. That's why I recommended the quiet  title because then that could be performed at the   expense of the private property owner and not at  the expense of the the city and the taxpayers if   it gets to step two. But if it if it only goes to  step one where it's conveyed to the city Yeah. and  

the city maintained ownership then maybe the city  you know would I don't know I still believe chair   respectfully that there's that there's value um in  in having certainty to this title to that private   property owner um they they have clearly pushed  it this far and um they've not made in their   formal request to the city council they did not  indicate that they wanted ultimately that they   wanted title to this to this land. They actually  have not indicated that to this point in in that   writing request to written request to the city  council. I only know that because I've had prior   dealings with uh with their representatives. Okay.  Would it make sense? Does it make sense to you the   two-step process of recommendation? one, seek  quick claim deeds from the state, and then two, work with the legal department to figure out the  various interrelated issues because there are a   number of legal issues here that need to be worked  out. I don't think we can resolve those tonight   from the sound of it, unless you feel otherwise.  Well, I I don't know that there's anyone else who   could claim if we had the quick claim D. From  my review of title, it doesn't appear to me   that there's anyone else who could plausibly claim  title to either one of these areas. Uh so if you   had that quick claim deed from the state and then  you conducted a quiet title action in in superior   court, to me that would resolve um the title  issues to to those lots. Now, what the city does   after it has title, um, that's a separate issue  and and perhaps part of your recommend you could   either recommend one way or another or you could  make it clear in your recommendation tonight that   you make no recommendations about what happens  to it after that. Yes, Tony, there's some real   estate terms being thrown about and I think I  understand them. So when you say a quick claim,   my understanding is that you're basically the  party you're asking is just saying it's not ours,  

take it, you know, but then the quiet claim  is getting it legally cleaned with the county,   right? Is that is that my understanding  correct? So So very close. So um yeah,   so a quick claim deed is basically it means  whatever I have to the extent I have anything I   give it to you. That's what that deed does. It's a  yeah, that's a little more complicated than that,   but that's for all intents and purposes,  that's what that means. A quiet title action   is a proceeding in superior court where you have  to meet certain statutory criteria and you bring   everything to a judge and you say, "Hey, listen.  I I think that, you know, title here is uncertain.   I think I've done everything that I can to make  sure that I've notified everyone and there are no   adverse claims to this. Would you please provide  me with clear titles so that we can all move   forward and move on with our life?" And there's  there there are a lot of requirements to that. But   um again in simple terms that's what that means.  Thank you for the explanation. Absolutely. Yes. Have you considered instead of quickling deed  just release deeds of the state of any possible   rights they might have? I hadn't considered  that. Just a thought because I know the city   does it sometimes when we just want to release.  We may have rights, we may not have rights,   but we'll release any rights we have. So, sure. I  don't know if that would make a huge difference,   but a thought. Okay. Thanks, Joe. Um, just  speaking to the the two-part um process you   had outlined, the um I'm in total agreement that  we seek um to get this from the state. Um when we   start to consider what we might do with this,  will we engage in conversation with the four   abuing property owners as well? Um something  just isn't sitting right with me that we're  

landlocking potentially the button factory, the  owner of that build. I mean, I I would imagine   there'd be a lot of conversation with all of  the property owners that touch Frenchman's Lane.   Well, if I could help with this, we're our charge  is to make a recommendation to the council. Maybe   rather than a two-step recommendation, maybe  it's a much simpler one-step recommendation.   And that could be to seek a quick claim or release  deed from the state for all of Frenchman's Lane   and then to whatever the council wishes to have  additional discussions and I assume the land   owners will have additional discussions  with the legal department that may bring   it back to us for an addition an additional  recommendation based on future information.   But at least that would be step one. Great. Why  would why would we not pursue the quiet title? If if the if we get the quit claim or release  from the state, this is where I'd love to have   a separate conversation with deputy city attorney.  Um I think the city would have to do a quiet title   or the city could lay it out. The city lays  it out. That might it's a question of which   is going to be quicker and easier. Sure. Um  and I don't know the answer to that tonight.   Neither one is going to be particularly  burdensome for the city to do. So, yeah,   if I may, perhaps I've over complicated this  for you all and and for for that I apologize,   but perhaps what might be a little bit more  straightforward is is if I could if we could   get a recommendation just in the first instance,  should we pursue this from the state? And then if   you feel comfortable making a recommendation about  should we keep it or should we be interested in   conveying it to the private but but perhaps that's  too far per perhaps for tonight the thing that we   all should that I should be asking you is do you  recommend that we pursue receiving title to both   areas from the state. That's what I just said.  Yeah. I think it's better for us just to say that  

we think it's a good idea for us to obtain title.  how they obtain it and how clean they get it would   kind of be a further conversation. That sound like  a motion. Sounds like a motion. I'll second. Yeah,   sound like a motion. Second. Yeah, hold on.  Hold on. Hold on. So, can can we talk about   a couple principles though that that we are in  agreement that the everybody who has access that   it should not be disposed of in a way that denies  access to any of the currently requiring parties.   That would be step two. And that's not a part  of what we're recommending tonight. We're just   we're just recommending that the city obtain the  property in whatever means. So we could then do   that as as the next step. Yeah. I mean any any  future action would would be predicated on no   adverse effect on uses. Let's keep in mind that  any further action might also be hindered by how   whatever the state says and how they grant it to  us. True. that may be come with condition. The   state in the process of conveying it, the state  may have some provision in the exact so we don't   we can't make those decisions until we actually  explore how we're going to accept it. I think the   recommendation became simpler as we talked about  it. Yep. Yep. Obtain the property and whatever   means is most appropriate. I have recommend  the city council obtain the rights to both   sections of Frenchman's Lane. Yep. That commit.  Is that I said whatever um by by whatever means   is most reasonable, effective, legal, any term  you want to use. I don't care. You're too poor. You comfortable by whatever means.  By whatever means. Okay. Together   discussion in a particular set. All  those in favor? I. Any opposed? Have a  

recommendation. Thank you very much, Tro.  Last time Trevor brings in legal matter,   I know. Grill him on feeds. He's not going to  want to come visit us anymore if we're not nice. Well, we are uh doing well with the time zoning  amendments. We have uh a few to talk about. I can go quickly through the first one  which is easy the easier of the three   mechanical units. Um if you remember  a couple months ago this was before   u planning board and voted the plan would  recommend removing the section. Yeah. Okay. um on   mechanical units. This is the one that variances  are repeatedly being requested and always granted, right? We don't consider u mechanicals as part  of building coverage. They're exempt. You get   a motion. Hold on. It goes beyond that, I think.  Um, and so we, you know, the the section that was   removed spoke to mechanical systems that were  less than 36 in and above ground level with   mounting pads not exceeding 10 square ft. So that  was struck from the ordinance. Um, but it does   show up in other places in the ordinance. So this  is kind of a cleanup. It shows up in the building   coverage. So we just need to from other places it  already shows up, too. It shows up in the building   coverage. um structure. So mechanical units that  so striking the less than 36 above the ground   level with mounting pad not exceeding 10 square  f feet. So that would strike that language. And  

then in the definition of structure um because the  intent was to just have them be exempt. So um if   anything anything erected over 18 in is considered  a structure. So for the purposes of the ordinance,   we would exempt mechanical systems and they they  would not be considered structures, right? So   you're just taking out all of the aspects of size.  Yep. Just so there's no confusion. So that they're   fully exempt. Yep. Makes sense. I'm I'm going to  regret asking my question. Go ahead. You might   not. If you've been um to UNH Durham lately and  seen what they put in for the um energy um the   water tank, have you seen this? It's like millions  of gallons of tank where um it's it's behind   the science buildings. It's on um I don't know  the roads. My god, I'm I'm going to twice some   alumni from the school. Um, I can't think of the  roads. Kingsbury. It's behind Kingsbury. There's   a dining hall and it's in the front of the dining  hall. It is a giant piece of mechanical equipment   meant for water storage and energy efficiency. I  mean, it is probably the diameter of this room,   this tank. Are you concerned about something  like that being exempt? How does that Yeah,   I was foreshadowing. Yes. I don't know that  that would be considered a mechanical HVA   system or right mechanical we're talking like  power generators uh AC units AC many splits   um condensers that sort of thing that go outside  of a resident or I understand I understand that's   the intention the the etc is where I think I'm  getting a little bit hung up on too um what about  

a solar device. Is this strictly for residential  or was it cover residential and commercial? It's   it's anything. Anything. I was going to have  that same question because generators can get   pretty darn big, too. Well, right outside that  door is a generator that we just put in a few   years ago. It's the size of a Mayflower moving  truck. Massive. It's the largest generator I've   ever seen. It runs very quiet. Yeah. It powers  every circuit in this building. Is the point   here basically that 36 in is probably too small,  but somewhere in there there's a reasonable size   we're trying to find. Well, at what point does it  be? Sorry. Yeah, I don't know where the initial   language came from that had 36 inches that  you know that specific dimensions. Um I'm just   thinking of like I see those those like double  stack heat pump things. They're over 36 inches,   but no one I don't that's what we're trying to  not have to have a variance for, right? Stupid.   But then the, you know, full building generator.  Well, I don't think we meant that. Maybe we're   really talking about maybe we shouldn't take  out the pad square footage. Yeah. Yeah. Well,   the square footage just might be too small,  right? We could at leave any mechanicals that   don't take up more than a certain amount of  square footage are exempt, but maybe over a   certain size. That wasn't really the intention  of the council when they removed that was to like   not have everybody who put I think it was more  from mini switch so you could take out generator   power generator. What if it said residential  mechanical systems then they'd be smaller   except for would that include apartment buildings  that could that would have been an apartment. So are EV charging stations considered power  generators? No. They have a specific. They're   under EV chargers. They consider it etc. I agree  with the etc. The etc has to be strong. That's  

just too much. Maybe just take out the etc as  well. Yeah, I'd take out that etc. HVAC power   gener and power generator equipment instead  of etc. I I quite like the four feet component   and structures underneath it. Um because that  does have a limiting factor to size, dimension,   and capacity of these mechanisms. Well, that's  on Yeah, that's on the roof. At at the risk of   offending somebody on the board, I don't think  we have the technical knowledge here to write   the language of what we're trying to do, what what  addresses the concerns there. And I think I think   we need to talk to a mechanical engineer and make  sure that that we're we're having the appropriate   language here because I don't know where I I I  understand I'm bringing up an extreme thing of   this 30 million gallon tank that's part of heating  and cooling of the university. That's HVAC. Yeah.   Yeah. It's so I I'm like I just I don't have the  skill set to write. We can we can talk to the   inspection the plumbing that's what my request is.  We we figure out what what makes sense. What makes   sense? Yes. And how size or something or that  would certainly do that. Yeah. As you as you if   I could as you pull the thread here, I'm realizing  that when you're approving when buildings are   being approved downtown and often the contention  of the mechanical systems on the roof, it's   because they're you know the additional heights of  them and they become they're massive and they're   usually very contentious to what they look like  and where they're placed and neighbors see them   and um if and I'm trying to understand why this  what what was the original thinking behind this   to simply make it easier for you know residents  that get split units because everyone wants them   then then the language should be very different  but what about windmill yeah isn't isn't this also   now a cleanup because we've already eliminated it  and it's already been eliminated right we already  

eliminated this that's that's the issue so it  needs to be addressed it was but you've got you   made a good point so if we think we've got city  staff who can help yeah we can let's let's do   that and bring it back. Thank you. So much for  your easy one. Yeah, right. I know. We I said I   was going to regret it. I know. But it holds true.  We want to make sure certain ones we It's not the   intent of taking it out, right? We want to make  sure the intent of taking it out stays the same,   right? The next one is building footprint.  And uh this came about when the the 15 the   one Congress building was before us, right? Um  and the fact that most city blocks downtown,   all the buildings are connected. Um, which  per our definition of building footprint   would be if you put an addition on one end of  the block, you know, it would really you your   building footprint would be non-conforming and  would then trigger, you know, you have to get a   conditional use per or something. You know, that  whole block should be counted as the footprint,   you know, per our definition. Um, so the chair  and I worked on this and this would be strictly   for buildings in the downtown overlay CD4 and CD5  because that's where this condition exists. Um,   you could ex existing buildings only and existing  buildings only. So you could redevelopment. Yeah,   you could redevelop it. um as long as you're  not covering any public I mean privately owned   public places um with a building you could put an  addition on that is up to 10,000 square ft and it  

still needs to meet all the facade modulation  and um entrance spacing and that then it would   be exempt from the building footprint requirement.  So where this comes from in case folks don't know   um there's a general idea and I agree with it  that in mixed use walkable areas you don't want   a Walmart a big big box building which has big  footprint. So that's where the prohibition of   large-siz buildings comes from. problem is as  as Peter just mentioned um all of Market Street   under existing definition that's one building  on one side of the road and one building on the   other side of the road even though it's actually  multiple buildings owned by multiple people and   it came up on the one Congress as he mentioned  because as soon as those two buildings touched   now it became one building that exceeded the  square footage. So created a problem. U this is   a way to preserve what exists. And we even put in  a provision if uh you know one of the big aircraft   flying overhead crashed and wiped out a block.  How that would be addressed by reconstruction.   Probably unnecessary. I hope it's unnecessary, but  that's in there. Um so that's where it comes from. And if people understand it  or if you don't understand it, I think I'm good with it. It makes sense. We  probably should. This is This is your easy one,   Pete. Yeah. Sorry. Had him backwards. As soon as  he says it's easy, it's hard. And when he says   it's hard, it'll be easy. We'll just always  go opposite of Well, it's it's it's easy with  

you. How about other folks? I have a general  question. So, obviously, I think the easy bit   here is that this applies to existing buildings  that we really like how they look and want them   to do the thing they're doing. That makes a lot  of sense. Uh, is there any thought, and I'm not   suggesting we change anything right now, but um,  in that same very dense downtown district, if   there were a parcel that did not have an existing  building, but wanted to do something like building   another market street, just generally, why would  we stop that just because it wasn't already done?   like could, you know, would it be considered that  that downtown district could all do what it's   currently doing as long as it meets all the other  requirements for access and and whatnot? It's a   it's a much bigger Well, you've got a you've got  an available land problem with that hypothetical   um because there's not a lot of open land and  that that's where the 10,000 square foot came from   was looking at available land that hadn't been  developed like the Piscataqua Bank parking lot and   places like that. what what could fit in places  like that? Um to rebuild an entire market street   somewhere else that Oh, I I just mean in in that  existing area, right? Because to my knowledge,   what we're doing right now says if you have an  existing building with this footprint situation,   you can add on 10,000 square feet. But if  you didn't have an existing building, again,   maybe there's no land that this applies to at all  in that area. Well, then there's other, you know,   for CD4, you can have a 15,000t building. In CD5,  you can have a 20,000 square foot building. So, if   you were building a new building, you would have  to conform to that unless you wanted to get an   incentive to have a bigger footprint which would  kick in. Okay. Yeah. Know that that makes sense.   I was just curious given so like essentially if  you have an existing building there is some Well,   I suppose it's only 10,000 square feet. I might  be going kind of in circles in my head here,   but that's okay. Yeah. I didn't want there  to be a restriction basically saying like,  

hey, if you have an existing building, you can do  this thing that no one else can do in that area,   even though we all think it's a good thing. I  might be able to help with this. Historically,   this got created because of buildings like Portalk  3 because it was a giant building that didn't look   like separate buildings. Yeah. And so this was our  way of trying to make sure not just one building,   new building structure got built like that. That's  that was where it was born out of. So that was the   fear is that they weren't going to make what  we wanted and that was why it was okay. Yeah,   I think that does answer my question. I don't know  if I had a question but it was a general statement   with a lot of questions in it. So Joe um at some  point in this discussion can we address the letter   that we received from J&B realy? Uh this actually  is something that's not in front of you guys   anymore. It's really the situation. It's gone to  council. But let's finish let's finish with this,   but we can we can touch on it. But um the  only other thing on the building footprint,   the coverage issue, um bringing not to pick on  anybody, but Portalk that's a private street   between those buildings. And as you've probably  seen in some downtowns, sometimes those get   buildings get connected covering the street  making a tunnel. This would preclude that   without a variance. Covering a street like that  is not a good idea. Mixed walkable neighborhood. Make a motion. Sure. Like to recommend  the city council hold first reading on   the proposed zoning amendments as presented for building. Second. Yeah. There was there was  a deletion. You going to just the motion be as  

as attached? Uh, right. As amended just before our  meeting. As amended. As amended just before Yeah,   we got it early. Planning board's meeting of  Thursday, July 17th, 2025. Second. Any discussion?   Yes, Bill. It's a nit. But on item two, uh,  it says no privately owned public places are   covered or closed. Should it be public or private  places? No, it it it was priv it was public,   but public places is a defined term, but  it it can be they can be privately owned,   which is like the Portalk Street. So, um,  public streets are the council's purview.   So it's I had this discussion with the gentleman  who just left, deputy city attorney, and he was   not comfortable having anything referencing public  streets. I think this is more especially talking   about spaces that are open to the public, but  they're privately owned. Correct. Yeah. Which   are important because we have a lot of community  space in our city that's privately owned. So we   want to make sure that we are not keep it, right?  We keep it the way it is as originally approved. So any other discussion? All those  in favor? I I Any opposed? And solar. What do you got on solar, Peter? I love talking  about solar. We now have a solar expert on the   board. We were waiting for Logan. I know. I  wanted Logan's expertise on this one. Finally,   not sure if I'm ready to be grilled  by a planning board again. Solar,  

but here we are. Um, can you tell us about  your solar expertise? Did we change that one,   too? This was a referral from city council back  in December. Um the city had a um review of the   ordinance by souls smart I think last year  sometime and we developed some language um   for really groundmounted solar as a principal use  um and also distinguishing between well also added   roof mounted as a definition for existing roofs.  Um we've also added um sections um pertaining to   inside and outside of historic district for  roof mounted solar. There's a provision in   the ordinance where it has to um it has to it can  only be 33% of the roof's edge. So outside this   historic district it wouldn't be subject to that  um requirement but inside the district it would um and we have definitions of solar energy systems  roof mounted solar energy ground mounted um and   then we've added in the use tables a category for  and this will be a principal use for groundmounted   solar energy systems. in certain districts by  conditional use permit. And the reason these   districts were picked um is because they were  they're the ones that have larger lots. I mean  

because um we can't foresee a a principal use of a  a groundmounted solar system on a small small lot.   So, um, do we have any principal uses of solar?  Ground mounted solar? No. I think the land in   Portsouth is too expensive for that to ever make  sense. I don't think it's Yeah, I'd love to see   someone try. I'd like to say just my when we  first started talking about this, my biggest   concern was having someone have a ground mounted  solar array that's bigger than their house, right?   Because it's true, they can be really really tall,  like taller than the house, wider than the house.   So I just wanted to make sure that we had some  sort of reasonable standards around and I don't   know if this truly because every house is a  different size but I guess that was my concern   as far as what gets drafted and used. So the the  definition well for a for the exemption or not   exemption but for accessory uses permitted to  residential uses a ground mounted system less   than or equal to 100% of the footprint of the  principal structure. Um well that'll look great. But for Yeah. And then the setback for a ground  mounted would be the height. And this needs   to change. We need to edit this. Um already  another edit. Well, it's just to specify the the height would be the highest point of the  ground mounted solar energy system at its highest   because because some of them, you know, obviously  rotate, right? So, whatever the highest point,  

um, and Logan might be able to help with that  language. Um, the idea is if it falls over,   it stays on your lot. And so, the setback would  be whatever the highest point is, you know,   um, that that distance equal from the Yeah, that's  a setback from the lot property line. Okay. Okay.   So, it stays on the lot, but it might hit the  house. And that would be for accessory use or   um principal use. So, yeah, if your neighbor  wanted to get a really big one, it would have   to be set back, however tall it is. 50 ft tall, it  has to be set back 50 ft from the property line.   I' I'd be surprised if anything were ever tall  enough to somehow exceed the normal setbacks.   I've never seen it. Well, some of our setbacks are  pretty pretty short. Could be. It used There used   to be one on Green Leaf that was substantial. Oh,  it's still there. It's still there. Oh, is it? I   thought it was a quick question. Could on section  10517 roofnesses and other rooftop features,   can you help clarify the language because it the  um the 3 statement says all roof pertinances and   other features that exceed the allowed structure  height for the zoning district shall not exceed   33% of total roof area. And then 31 says um inside  historic artistic roof mounted solar energy system   shall not be subject to the 33% limitation. So it  are the is it subject to it or not in the historic   district? It it is in the wait yeah it should say  these both say the same thing but it should say   inside the historic district roof roof mad shall  be subject be subject to. Okay. So that the knot   should not be in B. Yeah. And is that just um  an appearance thing? Like you want the historic   district to look a certain way and so that's why  we're limiting um I Yeah. Oh, sorry. Go ahead.  

We're limiting their solar panel um how they can  have their solar panels as opposed to outside the   historic district. Is this a visual thing? Yes. I  guess. All right. They'd still have to go through   the HDC to get approval regardless. Right. Right.  Well, we recently changed that. I've been waiting   to pull on this thread. Let's pull. So, we there  was a there was a gaping hole of what we approved   and we all were like at the time that, hey, we're  going to come back and, you know, HGC wasn't   happy. It was um as this is my recollection. Don't  worry, it's city council changed it. what we what   planning board pushed through did not was not  what really got approved. City council changed   it to I don't remember. I've had a lot of stuff in  my head since then. You need to know I just know   we changed it because I remember not being happy.  Sorry. They took they took away the HDC authority   on solar basically. That's the simplest way to say  it. I'm gonna that's my that was my understanding   but that was not so the end of the story staff  level exemption for roof mounted solar can can   be exempt if it is one not located on a roof  surface that faces or is visible from a public   way does not exceed 27 cubic feet and does not  extend more than 3 ft above the roof plane. So   if you meet that criteria, you can you're exempt.  Have we seen any of that in the historic district   since um these changes were adopted, right?  Because what we had approved I don't know   if we've seen any at least be able to review it.  Maybe one or two taken away. Um and then there's a  

whole section on roof mounted roofs mounted solar  energy systems um and associated conduit. Yeah,   it's coming back to me. It was it was basically  the frame put the footprint the framework that   we had developed, but it was supposed to then be  reviewed by the HGC at least to make sure it fit   that framework. That part was done away with and  it's done administratively. Can you just repeat   how many exemptions have been I I think maybe  one or two. I mean, I I have to ask Isaac. Yeah,   that's kind of speaks volumes to me. So, here's  here's what I said back then and I'll repeat what   I'm my concern is today. I think they're trying to  find language in an ordinance that had to do with   a street and address and where you're standing in  front of that building. And my concern is we have   some iconic views. I mean we mean we we just nixed  a police station because of the view out of this   building. I would say probably a more iconic view  is as you come down Newcastle Avenue into the city   looking at over basically the entire realm of the  HTC. It's like the Lion King. All this is yours,   you know. And um and we have approved a a zoning  ordinance the the city council has that would   allow, you know, um solar panels on that roof.  Effectively, uh you know, changing that view,   good or bad, I don't know. But it's not being  reviewed at this point. I at that time we had that   discussion. The council pushed this through and  that's fine. I always thought it was going to come   back. I don't want to burden this conversation  with that, but they are related. They're   intertwined. Um, and so I'm fine with this. I just  hope that we don't go too long without bringing   that back to make a recommendation to the council  with something that may be a little more vetted. A   really good master plan idea. Sure. Yeah. Can Can  we be sure just just to the point that I brought  

up? So that is not supposed to say shall not be  subject, right? 10 51731B shall be subject shall   be okay. Just the knot needs to be removed from B.  Yeah, correct. We shall not have the knot. Remove   the knot. So there was that and the setback change  correction. Right. So what do you think about that   language? I have a quick question. Um why did we  choose 33% and maybe our solar panel expert or   no that was that was the basis of my question is  it seems kind of arbitrary I don't know where it   came from I mean it was in the ordinance I don't I  don't think you can make a real number because the   the size of a roof mounted solar system right is  dependent on the usage of the building so if you   use more energy you would need more panels if you  use less energy and also where the sun hits the   building I would assume yeah although the utility  approves it not based on necessarily production   are based on like theoretical DC size which is  just the size of the number of panels. So they   don't care if your system is a really dumb idea.  The utility doesn't care. They care how much it   could theoretically produce. So what what ends  up limiting this right is and it differs from   residential or commercial. But you know Eversource  won't say oh you can have enough solar to power   five of your home. They would never allow that.  It should power one of the home. But it doesn't   matter. It kind of does, but for the most part,  it's just dependent on theoretically how much it   could produce it. 33% could be 100%. It depends  on how efficient you are. So, I think it's an   aesthetic thing. Yeah. Again, it was meant to be  a minority part of the roof. A third of the roof,   I guess. Okay. So, what's the other change  you're talking about? Um so the the definition of ground mounted solar has the setback requirement  shall be the highest point of the ground mounted  

energy solar system. And if you think that needs  more clarification about what that highest point   is um so you'll be able set back from property  line. You don't say what the setback is from   from law. It should be should be the setback from  lot lines shall be the setback from property lot   lines shall be the highest least equal to the  greatest height of the whatever they call these   things tracker what do you call these things the  one you're talking about on green leaf is a dual   axis tracker which does tend to be high so it it  moves in more than one axis a single axis would   be it just goes east west and then most are  just Is there one term is there one term that   covers the thing that the solar Ground mounted.  Yeah, ground mounted. So the the greatest side   of the ground mounted solar system. I do have  a secondary question of this ground mount thing   though. Uh so roof mounted I think extremely  obvious. There's a good definition of that. Uh   and this plays into like a hole in the electrical  code a little bit that's clarified in 2023 code   which hasn't adopted. But, uh, car ports like  you'd see on a parking lot or parking garage   are per the code supposed to be treated like a  ground mounted system. And that has to do with   a lot of electrical requirements. But per this  definition, you could argue that it's solar panels   mounted on a structure, not a structure mounted  on the ground. Generally, like in the industry,   like roof mount, ground mount, and carport are  three separate things. They work differently. Um,   but it it might be worth clarifying. I I I  would personally think it we should clarify   that a carport solar array is groundmounted. It's  not a structure with solar on it. It's not a roof   mounted array because then you start getting  into the question of is that a roof with solar   panels on it or is it a structure that's just  being built for solar and then which setbacks  

required like what do you consider setback is  going to be what do you consider like at the top   of a parking garage if you built you know solar  panels that cover parking spots. If you build a   structure solely to support solar panels is that  roof mounted or ground mounted? It's on the roof,   right? Or is what you're saying is or is there a  secondary or is the primary use of the structure   something that's covering um cars or is it cars or  even a covered walkway or that just happens to the   entire roof happens to be covered with it should  be really semantic because I think we all want it   to be treated like ground mount with the property  line setbacks and all of that. But if you start   calling it roof mounted, which some municipalities  based on how the zoning is written start doing,   it makes the electrical like way more complicated  unintentionally. Uh so we should have three   definitions is what you're saying or just clarify  that solar carports are considered ground mounted   and that there you go. Not that it snows anymore,  but in snow country, can you have a a a carport   with just solar panels as the roof or do they need  There's different requirements for snow loading.   So depend on the supports for those panels or the  size of the individual panels. Um the structural   requirements differ. Didn't we just see this very  thing that he's describing uh out at Lonza? Didn't   they just propose this to us a year ago? They're  doing right some solar in their solar canopies   in the parking lots. Yeah. Y okay. Um if if I  could that point that I was making earlier about   shall or shall not also applies to um the other  section paragraph the section above it's identical   language for some reason it's redundant it's 10  58 21B B and C same thing or C I should say not B

Joe Almas got his eyes on Which one was that? 10 10. It's just both  references to the HTC have that need to   have the knot removed. Have the not the not  I have X's over 10.5821B. There's two notes.   Next. This is the paragraph immediately  above where I was referencing before. Yep. Correct. Haven't we given you enough to make changes? Well,  so I just want some more clarification on this the   solar car ports. Um because currently our ground  mana definition says solar energy system that is   structurally mounted to the ground and is not  roof mounted. Um, see I guess that leaves that   leaves two cases that are kind of ambiguous. One  of which is carports that are at ground level,   which I think we all agree should be subject to  the ground mounted stuff. And then if you mount   a carport on top of a parking garage, is that roof  mounted or ground mounted? I think it makes sense   to consider it ground mounted with respect to all  the zoning in terms of the setbacks and all that   other sort of stuff, but you could argue that  it's on top of a building and therefore is on   a roof even if the building didn't have a roof.  I'm going through this a little bit. I can see   the difference. I think it makes sense for all  those to be treated like ground with respect to   what we want from setbacks and everything else.  And the the electoral code and whatnot takes   care of itself. like it has requirements that are  safe and all of that, but it gets really weird if   there's this confusion as to what we consider  mounted on a roof or not. So, we could say a   solar energy system that is structurally mounted  on the ground and is not roof mounted, including

carport canopies. Is that like the I think I  would say a carboard canopy is built, you know,   for the purpose of supporting solar panels  or something like that, right? Otherwise,   it wouldn't be there, right? Because you could  also, you know, if you have a carport and want   to put some panels on top of that, that makes  sense to treat that like a roof. Structurally,   it may not have been. The language you just used,  built for the purpose of supporting solar panels,   that's a roof. It doesn't have like a roof  structure under it, though. So like if the panels   weren't there, there wouldn't be anything to stand  on. So it's not a roof. It's just support. It's   just supports that actually cover stuff that holds  it up. They happen to provide a secondary benefit   of shade and maybe rainwater depending on how you  design them. But that's a secondary benefit. The   thing is there for the solar panels and it's nice  for cars. I think those could be an issue in the   historic district. I I mean I'd be surprised to  see I guess maybe you could fit them somewhere. So carport canopies built for the purpose  of providing solar. Is that what for the purposes of containing solar panels, right?  Structure built for the purpose of holding or   containing or mounting solar panels. Yeah.  Usually I've seen supportingly supporting.   I went through every verb I couldn't find  the right. Yeah. I don't know something.   I think they all mean the same thing. I mean, I  think the intent should be clear. It's a pretty   common structure. Maybe not so much in New  Hampshire, but they are all over the place. Is that so many changes that  you want to bring it back to   us or should we move putting that in  as an accessory? Where was that going?   That was just going in the definition  ground mounted solar energy system. So it would read, so you could have  a carport equal to up to 100% of  

the footprint of the principal  structure. I don't like that. What does the former chair of the HTC think of  that idea? Can you repeat that? I'm sorry. If   we have a carport that could be up to 100%  of the footprint of the principal structure as an accessory use I don't know are we talking just for residential  or for right that's under the accessory uses   permitted to residential uses. Yeah. Um so that's  only residential use that it would apply. I'm I'm   back to Tony's point about our precious South  End and I agree it's pretty precious. I wouldn't   want to see not that anybody would do it, but  allowing a carport 100% footprint the same size   as the building. But wouldn't the HDC still have  purview over a carport whether it had solar on   it or not? Yeah. Well, I don't know what the  council kind of took the stuffing out of the   regulation. I know. I tried I was a no vote.  But if uh if contractors are selling solar   panels that provide a space underneath, is it  a groundmounted solar or is it a carport? Well,   I think we're going to we're considering a ground  mounted solar. You could make a third category if   you wanted to. It just seems more complicated.  I think I think it needs a I'm okay with the   definition, but it needs a limitation on size.  I think we're talking about Well, let's put it   this way. If I was a if I was a property owner  in the historic district that wanted a carport   or that wanted a groundmounted solar panel, I  would call it a carport that I'm putting solar   panels on top of. That's what I would do. You'd  have to design it over an existing parking space,  

right? So, it would be a carport and they'd likely  get it the way things are written right now. Well,   they'd likely get it the way it's being proposed  to be revised. You think they'd get it now? So, what if F, the roof mounted  solar energy system less than or   equal to 100% of the roof area of the  principal structure on a lot unless   it's a carport? I think it's G we're  worried about, right? How about we put   in outside the historic district carports  shall be considered groundmounted solar? Do you don't want them in everywhere Is it a  carport or is it a groundmounted solar and I   park my car under it there? And lies the like  I don't think the solar contractors are selling   carports. They're selling solar panels that are  mounted like one two sides and a flat. I think   there be some misconceptions about how these are  held up but it's not a card port. They're totally   different structures generally like if you're  if you're designing something just like a ground   mounted system normally it's like the minimum  amount of steel to hold those things up that's   structurally required right and and they're  right up against the ground so you could see   examples but you couldn't walk under it I mean you  could walk into the back end but there's steel and   wire and stuff in the way whereas a carport has  concrete foundations steel I beams or structural   or you know could be more cosmetic as well but  the requirements to hold that up is completely   different. Um, right. But it would be they would  be just be raised higher. They wouldn't be they   wouldn't be on any sort of like wood frame. I  mean, there are ones with wood frames actually,   but do we want to try to resolve this carport  issue tonight? No, probably not. I've opened a   can of worms here, but it comes up more than  No, it's an important It's an important can   of worms. Appreciate that you did because  I didn't know that until just looking at  

I wouldn't have thought of it. Well, I think  this is something I do quite a bit actually,   which is explaining what a carport is to  planning boards because could you bring   some images of what you're talking about and we  and is there any other jurisdiction that already   defines this that we could find a definition  that could we could work with? I will I will   look into that because usually the easiest part  is when there's no definition at all and then I   get to explain to the planning board and they go,  "That looks pretty good." That's the end of that,   right? Unfortunately, we define everything. It's  when there's a definition that's written really   awkwardly and they're like, "That sounds kind  of like a rooftop for our thing." Even though   no one thought that's what that meant. And if  you've got one in a historic district, you know,   not like uh it's raining in Dubai. Yeah. Yeah. I  know. I've done some stuff in like downtown DC,   which is similar. There's districts and stuff  like that. So So what about solar panels on a   backyard playhouse? I mean, where can we go  with this, right? Like if you could do that,   why don't we put this push this forward  a month? Yeah. More than 120 square feet. Where can you mount the solar panel that  we haven't thought about? I think this   one needs to come back to us with a little  bit. Yeah, let's come let's come back. So,   I don't I'd like to get folks out of here on  a nice rainy night, which since I walked here,   I'm kind of wondering what's going on  with that. I can drive you home. Um,   master plan there. There's some news to talk  about. Um, we're looking at probably having a   discussion with a consultant on the Well, we're  we're thinking maybe if we could meet an hour   early at the next meeting like at 6:00. So, that  would be August 14th or um the following week   would be the work session. Um, I don't think it's  going to be I mean I think it'll be like an hour. um they have like you know maybe a 20 minute  slide presentation and then they want to have  

a discussion. Um, so our regular meeting is the  14th. Uh, we were thinking if we if we started   at 6, I'm sorry, not the 14th, the 21st.  I think uh 14th is housing committee. Um,   so the 21st if we start at 6, we could have a  presentation and discussion with the consultant.   Okay. Or we could look at the 28th. How do folks  feel about that? you want to come in early on the   21st. What's that agenda looking like? Well, I  I'll know that um on the 30th or maybe the 23rd. We can also have tenative and figure out how big  our agenda is going to be. And if if folks are   okay starting early, if it's not a huge agenda,  I was going to say the 28th is the start of a   holiday weekend. So it's Labor Day weekend. Yeah.  Already I don't think anyone wants to come here   Thursday night of Labor Day weekend. Personally,  how much time are we going to have? And is it a   presentation or is it a discussion? Both. Both.  Both. So August, didn't we? Didn't we postpone   some things tonight to that meeting? Uh we  postponed the Yeah. the Ford wetland CP. Okay. So,   what time are we saying other than that, Peter?  Six o'clock. I haven't I haven't gotten anything   in yet. So, so we could have kind of a curtailed  agenda. Well, there are a couple projects that got   out of TAC that I'm I think are big. Um, one might  be 361 handover, which would um be a big one. and

trying to remember the other I'll  know better. Let me see when the   deadline is these are so I mean we  probably want to give priority to   applicants in there certainly July  30th. July 30th is the deadline. So we could tenatively put it in  until you until we know for sure.   But it sounds like it sounds like if the 21st  doesn't work, there's not much appetite for the   28th. Correct. Okay. I'm for either one, but  I don't want to make waves. What day is it?   21st. 21st is at six o'clock. That's what we'll  shoot for now. If the agenda fills up and looks   dramatic, yeah, we can I mean, it's the hour  before, so it just means we're here longer,   right? I started at 5:00 p.m. last Monday and  was here till midnight. Come on, join me. So,   they've started there's a poll survey online. I  don't know if you guys have seen it. I did it.   A what survey? Also, there's also a four question  survey on the same page. Sorry, can you back up? A   what survey? P L I S. Okay. Uh it's a trademark.  So recycling it's 40 questions I think. Um they   use that but things like that are happening  like that survey. Um I I didn't have an input   on the questions. Peter may have I don't know  if councilor Moreau did I added my own question   today. Okay you can do that. You can add comments  after I answered all the ones or gave my opinion   on the ones that were existing. The reason I think  it would be good for the consultant to come in is   it is a planning board matter to be working on the  master plan and I would like the board to interact  

with the consultant and talk with them about how  that process is going to proceed and working with   staff and all that stuff coming together and  you had your hand. What other stakeholders have   we like is coast bus involved in any of this in  any way? I mean it seems it's a year and a half   process that just started. So give us time. Okay.  Because it just I mean it seems like the biggest   public transportation group should probably  be a part of the master plan if we want to   talk about you know affordability, walkability,  things like that. Uh that stuff was one of the   questions on the thing. It was all questions. Do  you support the statement and Okay. It was like   all for all against. So I guess I should go on  and do the survey. Yeah. Some of the recent uh   developments like social districts is that part of  the one thing that's not on there. I' I'd like to   see a visual preference survey so that folks can  look at development that's happened and see what   they how they feel about it. Um the consultant  says she told me that they would be doing that,   but I think that should be happening soon. We  can get some feedback on that stuff. Yes. And   with that, unless anybody has anything else,  I'm going to adjourn the meeting. Thank you.