Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, hello and welcome to the September 1st, 2026 meeting of the Litchfield Planning Board. Will everyone please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty,

So next up is roll call of members present. Jared O'Connell, chair. Travis Tucker, vice chair. Russell Blanchett, member.

Diane Plansky, selectman's rep. Jesse Ngo, member. Lita Riley, member.

And we also have with us Joan McKibbin, our planning board administrator, and Jay Minkara from the NRPC. So first, or next up, we have public input on non-agenda items. Do any members of the public wish to comment on anything that is not on our agenda tonight? Okay, seeing none, next we have an applicant to the planning board, Sean Flynn. Yes. Would you like to have your interview now or after the agenda items?

I will do it now.

Okay, then you may come up.

All right. Hello. Thank you for the time. My name is Sean Flynn. I live at 9 Martin Lane here in Litchfield. And I applied for a position here on the planning board.

So why do you want to volunteer on the planning board?

To be more involved in the town, more... I had been on a committee a few years back, the CIP committee for a couple years to try and get more involved in the town. My work schedule changed so I left and my work schedule changed again, so I was looking for more opportunities to, I think I could help keep up with the progress in town and developments.

Okay. What's your background?

Sorry.

What is your background? What kind of work background do you have?

In regards to So I work at the FAA Center in Nashua. I've been there 15 years in the operations side of it. I coordinate and plan and work between air traffic side of things and the technical side, coordinating and planning work and outages and I've done that for 15 years. I've lived in town here for 13 or 14 years on Martin Lane.

How familiar are you with the ordinances, regulations, and the master plan of Litchfield?

I'm familiar with it. I've looked it over. For years, I've been very interested. I was a big fan of the NRPC website and kind of geeked out when I first met Jay years ago. I was like, oh, wow. He has that effect on people. So I've read through them, and I'm familiar with where to look, and I don't know everything, but I made myself familiar with it. where to look things up. And I went over the master plan, some of the newer stuff that showed up in there.

Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?

Yeah, I was just hoping you could speak a little bit. We all kind of come from different sectors a little bit, and so maybe I think you can bring perhaps a unique skill set. Obviously, I didn't have a background in land use planning specifically, and we all kind of come from different lines of work. So can you maybe speak a little bit more to why you're interested in this board specifically and what kind of skills you think you might be able to bring from your line of work?

I've always... had an interest in the municipal, the planning of it, and projections, and in the zoning, what can be put where, and how that develops, and conservation part. And it's always been an interest. a hobby interest, I guess. I've never been on a planning board. But... You did do CIP, though.

So that was kind of interesting, right? The CIP? Yes.

And that turned out to be more budget than I was looking for. I wanted more in the planning and projections and... but at the time it was a chance to get in, you know, to work with the town and be more involved, you know? So I had the opportunity again recently, so you had a few openings on different boards, but this has always been, my interest has always brought me to that. My skills that I can bring, I'm not formally educated in any civic or anything that way, but particularly I'm very interested and I really like the process.

I think you'll appreciate how our goal is basically to design our regulations and ordinances such that it matches what the town wants to see in terms of either economics or what they want where. sometimes those needs are kind of counter to each other unfortunately because the more economically beneficial things don't bring in as much money as they cost sometimes but yeah one common misconception is that we can just deny things because they don't like what the town doesn't like it but unfortunately it really doesn't work like that we have to plan ahead so that everything all the requirements are set in place that we can deny something based off of it not meeting the requirements, and pass it if it meets the requirements. Yeah.

Yeah, I understand. All right.

Yeah, we also every once in a while update the zoning districts and stuff, which the last time we made notable changes was the mixed use village district in the northern commercial. The next one that we have to consider is the bottom end of town with the potential for development with the selling of the circumferential highway land. So those are some of the things. And during this meeting, we're going to be, we have a public hearing on the natural resources Yeah, on the natural resources section of the MES plan.

The Chapter 3 one? Yeah, I looked into that. I looked at some minutes from the circumvential highway stuff because I wasn't real familiar with it.

Yeah, it's all on the bottom end of town where they were going to run the highway.

Yeah, I'm a map geek. I've always liked that stuff.

Yeah. Any other questions for the applicant?

I see that you have a degree in computer networking, so you come from a technical background. And just looking over your application, you know that you listed civic commitment and local engagement. You want to give more time and service to the community, which is pretty notable, right? It's not everyone's capacity to be able to give some of their free time to do it, so thank you for even considering the planning board. Oh, thank you. You also wrote areas of expertise, project coordination and planning. Can you tell us more, like some things that you do in your day job that deal with project coordination and planning?

Sure. Most stuff I can talk about, but it's a federal job. It's a lot of contracts and coordination between our federal regulations and, I mean, locally on a smaller scale. Like I'll coordinate with Manchester Airport when they want to take a runway down for a little while. It's actually a pretty big deal and there's a lot of moving parts who's involved and that's going to coordinate. So I represent the center in Nashua, which is the main air traffic control center for New England. A little bit bigger, but I'll say New England. And that affects other areas and equipment. Not just other airports, but we have radars on mountains, and we have radio stations all over the place. Military is a big military presence in New England, and so I work representing the center to deal with... somebody from the military that will have somebody from Boston Logan, New York center down in New York City. I'm just a coordinator plan before work even gets done and and risk assessments and and mitigation.

The man you need water out of chaos.

Yeah.

That sounds like it must be really interesting work, though.

Yeah. I started out on the technical side and on the maintenance side of it in the power systems and then went and changed into that probably eight years ago. Yeah.

Thank you for sharing. It sounds like a lot of your background skills include... you know, communication, right, being detail-oriented, right, when you're reviewing contracts and plans of that sort and being able to coordinate with different agencies and representatives from different groups. At first I was questioning it, but, yeah.

yeah but a job like that you know requires you to ask you know lots of uh clarifying questions and sometimes a little bit of pushback right yeah yeah and it's regulations and standards and and you know that i need to be aware of and know when we go into these you know not litigation but back and forth. Yeah. Yeah. I like it. I'm not I'm not going anywhere. So I like it.

Any other questions for the applicant?

I mean, what I heard in all of that was you're no stranger to doing a lot of reading, which is good, because I think a lot of people underestimate that, sincerely. And frankly, if you're not willing to put in the time, then it's kind of pointless. But it sounds like you've already taken a look at minutes. And I know how long those minutes are. They were like 17 pages. So I applaud you.

I like the research part of it and them putting it all together. My wife makes fun of me sometimes.

That's her job. Don't be wrong.

That is her job. Thank you.

So, yeah, I mean, that would be my only concern, and in this case, not a concern.

And I guess, lastly, for me, is the commitment of two times a month fine at 7 p.m.?

Yeah, yeah. Perfect. The application you filled out, just to bring to your awareness, said 7.30 on it, but the website and everything else said 7.00. The application I had anyway, that part of I see it's probably updated.

Yeah, it was 730. Many years ago. Yeah. That's an option.

Okay, but thank you again for your time.

Okay. And you wish to be a full member and not an alternate?

Full member and what?

And not an alternate?

Correct, yeah.

So any other discussion by the board or questions? The next options we have are either to recommend or not recommend the applicant to be appointed as a member to the planning board by the board of selection. So what is the will of the board?

Okay.

Mr.

Chair, I move that we approve Mr. Flint, right? Yes. And present him to the town selectman for review.

And appointing to the planning board as a member.

Correct. The meeting next week a second that I'm meeting Thursday, but I think the next meeting after that is.

The date to be in the motion.

No means to you is that you would be interviewed by the time select occur, OK.

So you can work with you can coordinate with John and probably Kim about what meeting you like to be interviewed for.

Do we do a vote?

Not yet. We're in discussion phase. So yeah. And then if they appoint you, you would have to be sworn in by the town hall staff. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to recommend to the Board of Selectmen to review Mr. Flynn to be appointed as a planning board member by the Board of Selectmen. Okay, do we have any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. All those opposed, abstained. Motion passes 6-0-0. Yes. Okay. So, yeah, thanks for applying, and we'll look forward to you joining us. Thank you. So, yeah.

You'll send a note to Ms. Kleiner about the motion for today?

If that's the best way to handle the process, I can do that, yeah.

Great.

And should I reach out or?

Someone will call him, right? I think someone will contact you. Yeah. Okay. Which we need to come to.

Okay. Well, thank you very much again. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good night. Good night. Have a good night.

You too.

Okay. So next on the agenda is the public hearings. It gets open. It's a public hearing on the natural resources chapter of the master plan.

So for that I will crowd tonight.

So I'll hand it over to Jay.

Okay.

I'm trying to decide whether I really want to leave through it all. So just kind of overview, this is one of the chapters that is most out of date. So this is why we decided to tackle it. And we also decided that this was a logical priority because the conservation commission had updated their conservation plan a couple of years ago. So that was kind of the lead in for this. So for the, I think everybody has had a chance to go through, this is a very long chapter. Um, and it's very long just because there is so much data in it. And so, um, you know, it kind of kicks off, I guess you would say going through a huge amount of information, There are sections, pretty much all the sections include discussion, maps, and various tables. So going through soils, going through really, actually the soil section is quite lengthy. And then a lot of time spent on water resources. So there's a large section on wetlands. Again, everything is kind of talked about, mapped, regulations are addressed. And then we get into, of course, floodplains. There's a really robust section on surface waters. And kind of, again, everything, talking about from the river to streams to ponds. Probably what's most notable in that section is the discussion around Darrapond, which I think, as we know, has a lot of challenges around water quality. And there are recommendations to look at addressing that. Wattsbrook, I think, is another one that jumps out as an area that has a lot of challenges. Watersheds, not too much really to talk about there. And then groundwater. Again, pretty robust discussion on groundwater. What's most notable here is probably the discussion around PFAS. Because PFAS contamination is one of the most significant changes that happened between the time the last master plan was updated. And I think there's a nice little map in here that actually talks about all of those impacts. I'll go back up to it. Wish I could get everything. I guess I could if I shrunk it, but I'm not going to do that. So significant discussion there. There's also a very robust discussion on agriculture, just because of the importance of it to the town. And then you get into a lot of, well, forests is another big, big section. And then we get into a section on invasives. So more than one section, we've got a pretty robust discussion around invasive insects, but also invasive plants, lists of what are on the DES, watch lists, prohibited lists. There's also a significant discussion around wildlife, wildlife habitat areas, what are the priority wildlife habitat areas and corridors, endangered species, significant sections on animals, birds, reptiles, et cetera. And then you get into, well, I'll go back to one of the more significant ones, because ultimately most of the recommendations There is of course a lot of conversation around conservation lands and how much we have. Also current use. Current use is mapped. I'm gonna jump to what I think is, maybe I can bring this more into focus by shrinking it. There we go, I shrunk it just a little bit. Because this map I think is one of the more significant ones. Because ultimately a lot of the recommendations focus on A couple of things. Regulatory changes, but there's a heavy focus on ultimately what should the conservation priorities in town be and a lot of that's going to be focused on acquisition. acquisition by the Conservation Commission primarily of land and or easements. And so what this map does is it shows the highest ranked habitat areas by the state and it overlays the current use parcels on them because the current use parcels are of course still privately owned and so those are often logical targets for acquisition. So that's the logic behind that map. And again, a lot of talk around land use change. This map shows how land has changed since 2001. Discussion on all the varieties of regulations, whether they're state, federal, or local, that touch on conservation and natural resources related issues. And then an identification of what are some additional protection measures that we could employ. Overall, this field has pretty good regulatory system. One that was just called out is some communities do designate prime wetlands for special protection. That's not something that we have done, but it's something we could do. And then again, as I noted, a heavy focus on what should the priorities be around acquisition and conservation easements. And then a little bit of a discussion on funding sources. There aren't too many, but there are some that are out there and the town has taken advantage of them in the past. And that gets us to the end. 87 pages. So pretty robust.

Sounds good. Thanks for the presentation. Have you had a chance to update it with the images and amendments from last time?

I did.

Yeah, this is not the latest draft, then.

Oh.

Yeah, I think I should.

Yes, because I did include your image. The image that the group preferred should be in there.

The insects, right?

Yeah. Yeah. If that's not the draft, then I apologize, because it should be.

I did just print out the one that you, the last one. Does this have that on the last one?

Ah, this is not the most recent one. But I did make that update.

The relevant page is 39.

Yeah, no, it's not in this draft. This is not the most recent draft.

I apologize for that.

Yeah, so there is additional language in the invasive insects section and the additional image that Jared, let me find it.

I just printed that one out.

I will find, which you'll have to bear with me while I go into, should have stayed in the website.

No worries.

So the bearing with me is I have to now go remotely access my own website, which is .

Yeah, that was the only portion that changed.

It'll take me a minute.

No worries.

But I will get there.

So while we wait, I guess I don't see any, but do any members of the public wish to comment on the natural resources chapter? Seeing none. So if someone does walk in, it's still public hearing.

We know how to draw a crab here. Should have kept our

It's definitely a cool chapter.

I was going to say, it was a great read. Great resource as well.

I think I've looked through this chapter before I became a planning board member. It's really cool to see where the groundwater is.

I didn't even know you couldn't plant half those things. It's a tough one.

My dad loves those burning bushes.

Burning bushes, yeah.

Right? Well, they sold them at Home Goods. Yeah. Yeah, Home Depot. Yeah. That and many of the other ones, the butterfly bushes or the ones that you really shouldn't have. Peach trees. Is it the peach or the pear? Pears. Pears.

I have two pear trees.

Oh, well, I was taking a walk with the dog the other day, and I noticed that my pear tree has a lot of little babies going right up the street. I like my pear tree.

beautiful. So pretty.

I'm not. Did I just say they were my babies? Yeah, they definitely have. I'm hoping they're not in the wetlands area that is beside me. I'm actually going to go take a peek but out on the lawn area going up to like the circle, the cul de sac. There's like a bunch of them.

Do you know what type of pear tree it is?

He's gonna be Bradford.

Yeah, I think that one is might be invasive.

Of the one essentially.

When you plant them, you don't know that is an Asian native tree.

And now I see why.

But when we plant them down, I mean, if you have them,

I don't know. I think you're supposed to. Mine, the chunks are like this big. Right. Mine have become big, too, but it's only been in the last year or two that I've noticed all the babies up and down the road. Oh, we haven't noticed that one. Yeah, because people said it to me, and I was like, I've had this for years. I don't see any. Not yet. Guess what?

They're definitely cool looking trees. Oh, the white is beautiful.

Yeah, they are. But they have re-forested themselves. Probably more than I would have thought. So we'll be taking some of them down anyway.

I learned so much about the ecology of town. And I had a conversation with my boss, and she talked about her Bradford pears and how pretty they are. But that's it. That's the only good thing that they are.

Yeah. Oh, the burning bushes. I mean, I have a neighbor across the street who, when we built our houses all around the same time, and she put a ton of them in, and they're all still there. But I don't see them weeding them. establishing themselves.

I've got a huge one of those.

I haven't seen that.

Cool. Thank you. Maybe tell the folks at home what we're looking at. It's got a bug on a tree that we approved last time.

We have a paper copy. Beautiful.

What was that?

I was just saying beautiful. So yeah. I have a question for you, Jared, while you have that. Was the next page, I think, with the chemical treatments? Yeah, we had discussed some language that we wanted to change. I just wasn't sure if that has any difference from this version that we're looking at.

It does. So I think it's, what was it, page 39? 39.

And 40, yeah.

It's the bug one, yeah.

I found it. I have it up. I'm getting it up on the screen now. So this is the additional image.

Yeah. Technically, that image is of scale and not hemlock woolly adelgid. Oh. So that's OK. Sorry about that. I will amend that. I sent another image of adelgid, but it wasn't the best quality because it's currently not visible on trees. OK. And then... So yeah, the most damaging invasive insects in the region is the emerald ash borer, which attacks and kills all native ash tree species, often within a few years of infestation. The adelgid has become well established through much of southern New Hampshire, feeding on eastern hemlock trees and causing widespread decline in mortality if left untreated. Other invasive forest pets affecting the region include elongated hemlock scale, winter moth, spongy moth, balsam woolly adelgid, and balsam woolly adelgid. While the Spartan lanternfly has not become established in New Hampshire, state officials continue to monitor its arrival due to potential impacts on vineyards, orchards, and ornamental trees. That was in the news this week, of it being introduced and discovered in New Hampshire. No way. Oh no.

I guess I'll change that line. Yep.

Yep. I saw that too. And then somebody posted, they were looking at one of these, and I think it was pretty local to here. And it looked to me like it was those as well. Oh, gosh. Yeah, my sister. They say the winters are going to be too tough for them, right?

I don't know. I know that my sister went down to New Jersey recently, and she said that they're so annoying and just all over the place.

I think our winters will kill them. We've got a mild winter coming up.

Oh.

So the next section is the loss of ash trees and hemlock trees can significantly alter the region's landscapes and ecosystems. Ash trees are important components of floodplain forests and wetlands, while eastern hemlock provide year-round shade that helps maintain cool stream temperatures, essential for brook trout and other aquatic species. The decline also increases erosion, changes wildlife habitat, and reduces the scenic character of forests and conservation land. As climate change produces milder winters, many invasive insects are expected to survive and spread more rapidly, increasing pressure on the region's forests.

If I may, I don't think these two paragraphs have been edited in any way, right, Jay?

The next ones? These two that we're just reading now, I don't think so.

That we're just about to arrive at? OK. OK. Can we maybe skip just to the next paragraph? I think that was the one that I was looking for.

So the effect of management of invasive insects relies on early detection, one?

Chemical treatments, one. I think it's on the next page.

Okay, this is printed out of order, so we're going to have to look at that. Chemical Treatments is on page 41.

This one's significantly longer than before. Do you want to just read that for them at home?

I don't have it. The page is missing. Do you want me to read it?

Yeah, if you could. My eyes are a little...

Chemical treatments can be effective for protecting valuable landscape trees, historic trees, or trees in parks and public spaces. Systemic insecticides can effectively protect individual ash trees from emerald ash borer and hemlock trees from hemlock woolly algid and elongate hemlock scale when applied by trained professionals. Care must be taken because these insecticides can kill bees and other pollinators if spread near flowering plants. It is important to carefully read product labels and follow instructions and application requirements. Chemical treatments are generally not practical or economically feasible for large forested areas. Thank you. Sounds good.

if i recall we didn't want to be the ones recommending we were more or less saying you know defer to the professionals like read the labels read the labels yeah carefully it is illegal to not follow up to apply the product in a way that is not specified on the label um

Sounds good.

I'm comfortable with that as well because it says they can be effectively when applied by trained professionals. So the latter language that we add, read the labels, we're not claiming that it's going to work effectively if you do it yourself.

Let them know that there's downsides to it.

Cool. Thank you.

What about it?

Did we mention that?

Which one?

The long-horned beetle. Is that the name of it? I have no idea.

I don't know.

It is carefully selected natural enemies such as parasitic wasps that target English emerald ash borer or predatory beetles that feed on unluckily adulterated.

I will change that.

That's the only reference to beetle.

So I'll change the description for figure 10 from hemlock woolly alga to scale.

Hemlock elongate scale.

Yes. And note that the lanternfly has been spotted. So if we're not watching for it, it's here.

Unfortunately.

Unfortunately, yeah.

Unfortunately. I guess it was a matter of time.

Okay, so would these be considered substantive changes?

I think they're pretty minor. Certainly correcting the label on the picture, I think that's just an error. It'd be really your comfort level on the spotted lantern fly. I think it's pretty minor.

I would say both are fairly minor, just accuracy and historical accuracy on the other part. Things happen.

So we have the option of determining as a group that that is a non-substantive change, and then we can vote to adopt it today. As amended. As amended, because this is a public hearing. Yes. Or we can vote to... have another meeting where we discuss this on a second public hearing. I was just going to say, we're waiting to draw a bigger crowd.

I don't know.

Everyone's comfortable with it. I'm happy to make a motion. Motion to accept the updated chapter 3 of the master plan, natural resources. And we are voting to approve, correct?

Adopt.

Adopt, excuse me, as amended.

Yeah. Okay, so we have a motion to adopt chapter of the amended proposed chapter three natural resources for the master plan.

Do we have a second second second by Jesse? Any further discussion?

All those in favor of adopting the amended Chapter 3 Natural Resources Master Plan section, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed, abstain. Motion passes 6-0-0. So, nice job, everyone. This is a nice update, and thank you for the help, Jay. Absolutely.

So, although it's not on the agenda, the next one in the queue, if we're willing, is Economic Development, which was last updated in 2002. 2002. 2002. It's a little bit out of date. Yeah. But also significantly, the Economic Development Committee that had been meeting for 18 months?

Quite a while.

Quite a while. So they wrapped up their work. We have a report, so it probably makes sense

just add it that that would be the next one right so basically the goal would be to take their report and update that section based off of that but also we'll have to discuss other more other things like the circumferential highway changes that's that's that's right that's the other

big obvious change, and we have also talked about the possibility of zoning changes, so those would all weigh in. So yes.

Okay, so when do you think we will, when do you think it would make sense to put that on our agenda?

I think it would... It'll take a little bit of time, I would say, to pull that all together. But one thing that might be worthwhile is, I think we did have a presentation on the report from the Economic Development Committee, but just kind of getting that out to everybody again, just to put it in everybody's mind, I think probably makes sense.

Sounds good. And I'm assuming you're going to put a lot of the work into some of the changes, but you also have to discuss as a group, as a board, what changes we want in terms of that. Right.

And we'll also give everybody, I mean, it's there, but we'll get everybody a link to the existing chapter. There's very, very little in the existing chapter. That is still valid, obviously. Most of the assumptions were based around the circumferential highway. So it's just a completely different reality that we're in now. It made sense for the time.

We had a lot of eggs in that basket. Yes.

Yes.

Most things would be pretty different here if we had that bridge.

Everything would be different.

Very different. No farmland. That's true.

It'd also be a lot more convenient than having to either go up to I-13 or go down to Hudson for getting across the river.

Right. And obviously there's a relationship to the circumferential highway land and to what, if anything, do we do or change in the southwestern part of town.

There's things involved. So when is the Circumferential Highway Exploratory Committee going to have its recommendations complete?

We're going to talk about that at our next meeting. We didn't have a meeting in August because of the budgetary meetings. I've been in budget meeting after budget meeting, and it just didn't make sense to throw another meeting on there, the 250th occurred, et cetera. So we're going to be getting together with Jay and the rest of the committee and figuring out a good date because I want to get as many people I might have done some work on some of the things that were requested during our last meeting, so there'll be some new topics to discuss.

Has there been any discussion on the land use goals of that area?

Yes, there's been lots of discussion about that. There haven't been any decisions of what would be best for us yet. We're still looking at all of that area. And honestly, I'm kind of hoping something's going to pop out at us and just say, oh, well, this makes sense. But we're not there yet. I've done a lot of talking to the DOT over the past month. Yeah. Yeah, that'll be our next meeting. We'll be talking about a lot of that.

Sounds good. Yeah, we're definitely going to want probably near final or final recommendations before we get too far into the next one.

I think that's right. There's a lot of just data that we can pull together. But clearly the substantive part, the recommendations, the direction that we want to go in,

Yeah, we can start by basically incorporating what was found in the Economic Development Committee.

And that survey was very important, in my opinion. It was one of the largest surveys we've ever put together because of when we did it, where we did it. We did it at the polls during a very busy, busy election. I think we had 20 people. 500 reactions to the survey. It was one of the largest ones that I've seen in a small community.

The largest, I think, that I've ever seen.

And it was all people who voted in a very, you know, both sides of a very big issue in town. So I felt it gave us a very wide range of responses.

Yeah.

That survey was gold.

And when we feel like it's a good time to have a workshop, I think we had a presentation that I thought would be, that came out of that, that we could look at again, that I think would be really helpful.

So do you think we're ready to do that in one of our upcoming meetings, or should we wait a little longer?

I think for setting the stage, I think we could certainly do that. I think we could do that at an upcoming meeting, just to kind of get the wheels turning.

Sounds good. Joan do you know what is on our upcoming meetings agendas?

This September 15th we have the sidewalk at Corning Farm and October 6th we have the small section of solar in Litchfield.

Okay so at that size we could probably put this discussion in either of those

I think it was October 6th or October 15th. I can't remember. I think there was something on the 15th.

October 15th?

Oh, September 15th. September 15th is the sidewalk. And then October 6th, I believe, is the solar.

So maybe we could target that meeting, if you think there might be something else on the 15th.

No, I think there's nothing else on the 15th. That deadline's passed on October 16. It just about passed.

OK. So we could do either meeting.

I'll be gone October 5th through the 15th, but I can ask John Bernal to come in and sit in for me if you'd like.

Okay. We could do the next meeting. Yeah, we can. We can do the 15th of September. Yeah, so. You'll be here.

Everyone's homework is to read the economic development. Yeah, I was on the committee. On the economic development chapter, actually.

Probably still have that survey. Yeah, that'll work.

Yep. It's a sidewalk. It shouldn't take too long.

No, that won't take long. OK. Thank you.

This is the one that Ms. Queen and came in and gave us a presentation on. Yep.

Yep. Yep. Yep.

Yep.

So sounds good. Definitely will be good to update the over 20-year-old information. Yes. Crazy how old that is. Why hasn't the planning board updated that?

Has it just been too busy? It's just been kind of a yes and a matter of priority.

You know, in 2007, 2008, and 9. So you know, have a little bit of time.

There wasn't much economic development occurring for a while. Other chapters took precedence. And then we have fallen into periods where the agendas were just so busy that there wasn't time. And so, yeah, we've had some significant developments come along. And that's just inevitable.

This is like a really good time, though, because we do have stuff that's actually occurring. We have that Economic Development Committee report. And that took time to develop. And a lot was looked at for that in 18 months. And then the circumvential highway, that would have been, you know, we would have been updating for information that we didn't have. So it's actually, I think, pretty timely.

Yeah, it's a good time to update it, for sure. It is. So I think we're done with the master plan discussion. Now we have the public hearing for low impact development. Yes.

Jay? So let me call up these. Next group of changes. because there's a lot of them, but they're mostly fairly small. So just kind of setting the stage, you know, a little bit again, so that most of Litchfield falls into what's defined, you know, by EPA as an urban area, and by many federal agencies have an urban area. So that makes it subject to MS for municipal stormwater requirements. And what the town has chosen to do, just because the urban areas are kind of scattered, weaved through the town, that it just made sense to have one consistent set of regulations for the whole town. So we've done that. And as a part of the town's efforts, or to assist the town in complying with the MS4 requirements, the town has contracted with an engineering firm, CEI, to help guide it through the process. So what we're looking at now are recommendations that came from CEI to help the town meet its requirements. Just kind of looking at it and looking at the memo, the town is required to review its land use regulations as it pertains to what's called low impact development, green infrastructure, and impervious areas, and develop a report assessing its current regulations and provide that to EPA. So that's part of showing that we're in compliance. And as a part of that, and I'm quoting from the memo, we have to develop a report assessing existing local regulations to determine the feasibility of making, at a minimum, the following practices allowable where appropriate site conditions exist. That's green roofs, infiltration practices, rain gardens, planters, et cetera. And so essentially that's a key piece. And then we have to develop a report assessing current street design and parking lot guidelines and other local requirements that affect the creation of impervious cover and determine whether changes can be made to support low impact design options. So that's the requirement. What they then did was go through all of our regulations that kind of touch and concern these issues, which is basically all of the site plan and subdivision regulations, all of the appendices that we have. And then they came up with a series of recommendations that we could make to further, I'll just broadly say, the category of low impact development and reducing imperviousness. So that's how we got here. And so they came up with pretty specific recommendations. What I then did was go through our regulations using their reference and in some cases modified language or made some changes. as it seemed to make sense. So that's kind of the stage. And then I'll go through the regulations that are proposed. And then I think that the board can decide what we want to do. I will say, though, I do think that the town does need to make a good faith effort. I don't think it necessarily means that you have to adopt every recommendation that was made I think what we will what we have to do is you know determine if we can make these changes so that's kind of the stage and then whatever we decide to do there will be a report to APA to say this is what we have found and this is what we have done So that's the stage. And then a lot of these are going to seem disjointed. What we're doing is really going through these in order of how they appear in the regulations. So it might seem a little disjointed. But the first one is relative to underground utilities. I think we talked about this recently, and basically it is an allowance to place underground utilities under the paved section of the right-of-way if it's necessary so that we can use swales for drainage with approval of the road agent. Fairly minor change, probably won't come up too often, I think, as we have discussed. Oops. next is a change again these were in the subdivision regulations to layout of streets and essentially what this is saying is reducing the impact of street construction. So I'll just read it. The change would be to add language to this section saying street layout considerations shall include reducing street length and minimizing total paved area, including cul-de-sacs, wherever practical, with the goal of protecting site hydrology, reducing cut and fill, and protecting sleep slopes and important natural resources consistent with low impact development best practices. So that's not mandating. But it's basically saying we should strive to have minimal impact.

I have a question for that. Yes. When would this give the planning board any power to say, we see a lot of opportunities to lower the impact. Can you make them type of thing to the applicant?

i think it would i think that's what we're first of all giving the signal we um we are encouraging low impact development that should be the template that you use if you are proposing and then yes i think the board could look at those and the board's uh consulting engineer could also be looking uh in reviewing those plans to cg have you um taken efforts to reduce you know your impact reducing cut and fill reducing road length etc where possible, so absolutely.

Sounds good. And I did want to speak about the 20-foot width.

Yes, I'm coming to that next.

Yeah, I was driving down my street, which is normal Litchfield road widths, And I still had to really slow down for a pedestrian and wait for another car to pass. So even with the current widths, you've still got to do that sometimes. It'll be a little bit more frequent if you have narrower roads.

So this is, I would say, the most significant change, probably, that has been recommended. And that is to reduce the minimum required road width from 24 feet to 20 feet. And that kind of carries through to a couple of sections. And this is probably the section I think that we've had the most conversation around. So I'll run through them and then just make a comment on it because I think we're going to have a fair amount of discussion around it. We have. So it carries through in a couple of sections where the 20 foot is referenced. So there is an area in the text. I didn't highlight The table that we just looked at and then we also have these diagrams there are actually three of them that You know showed alternative cul-de-sac Configurations and the only change to them is just the reference, you know, you change the reference from 24 feet to 20 so there's no other change to those designs. But yeah, so I've also been kind of thinking about that a lot and wondering if there's really a distinction between a 20 foot wide or a 10 foot lane basically in an urban context versus a more rural context. That's kind of where my thinking has been. Where you have multiple lanes, say two lanes in each direction, and you have a 10-foot lane width, and you have a paved shoulder, and potentially parking lanes, which are common in an urban area, even if you have two moving lanes, if you have two parking lanes, that's just a very different environment than if all you have are two moving lanes with unpaved shoulders, most likely, and no parking lanes. So that's just my editorial comment. As I've been thinking about this a lot, I just wonder if there are guidelines that make more sense in an urban context versus a more rural or suburban. But that's just a comment.

So it's interesting they consider us urban, though.

They do consider much of Litchfield urban. It's based on population density, so that's why. So basically if you took, this is kind of off the top of my head, but if you took Litchfield, why did I say it was, they kind of weave it through the town. Basically it's the subdivisions, right? The subdivisions are considered urban and then you have gaps that are considered rural But they're so mixed in now, you know, when you kind of look at a map of the town.

That top section is just a huge chunk of suburban.

Right. And then kind of central, all the subdivisions kind of coming off of Albuquerque and, you know, Pinecrest. And then you've got these blocks that aren't. So, yeah. But it is interesting what's considered rural and what isn't. So that's a biggie. And then I can keep going. Again, this is appendix. So that was appendix A, by the way. We were in the subdivision regulations. Appendix A is the guidelines for street development. Then we get into appendix D. And again, this is really, this is again, this is looking at low impact design. So it's a pretty minor change. It's just additional language that says, clearing should be limited to the minimum necessary to construct buildings, parking areas, roadways, sidewalks, drainage, septic systems, utilities, et cetera. So basically saying clear the minimum that you need to get in the components of the development that you need.

Oops.

And again, low-impact development in Appendix D. This is just a note that low-impact development can include vegetated green roofs, repurposing stormwater as part of site design, as acceptable techniques. And I have to see if it will let me scroll down just a little on this page. And then this section, again, this is additional language for street edges that notes open drainage systems along residential streets. Basically, open drainage is encouraged. So where protection of red-white edges are concerned, alternative designs such as curves with openings or leak-offs, flush curbs that enable the use of bioretention treatments, swales, and open drainage instead of pipe drainage may be used. So basically, it's a saying where Essentially, where you can't use a Swayl, these are other alternatives that you could use and still be, I would say, compliant. Very, oops. See if I can go up a little bit. And this is, again, this is another minor change to another section. We are now in the site plan review regulations and it just notes additional language, low impact storm water structures such as bioretention areas and filtration trenches or grass wells are permitted within required buffer areas. It's actually consistent with the recent change in state law as well. This next little red italicized language is existing. And then finally under site plan regulations, just a recommendation, and this was only one place where there was a recommendation, was just changing from one space for office areas, one space for 250 square feet to three spaces per 1,000. It's just a slight reduction in the parking requirements. And then, Under our section on buffer yards, once again, very similar language to what we just mentioned, but low impact development, stormwater management practices, and they list several examples, tree box filters, rain gardens, vegetated swales, and similar treatment areas are permitted within required buffer areas. I believe that's the last change. That's the last change.

Like on the second to last page on where you talk about offices, the three spaces per 1,000. Yes. Didn't that say 1,000 square feet, not just feet?

It should. Good call. Yes.

Thank you.

Those are the changes.

Thank you. So in the last meeting, we had not come to a conclusion on if we want to go forward with the road widths. Did anyone have a chance to look into data on safety for traffic and pedestrians of the narrower widths?

I also think, if I remember correctly, I think we wanted to get some feedback from the fire department and police and kind of other stakeholders in town that might be affected. Yeah, do we know?

I think that we got it last time that they're going to deal with it because they have to, but they don't love the changes.

They don't love it. They talked about it at the TRC.

Yeah. Nobody was enthusiastic about it.

Yeah, I kind of made a mistake the last time. I probably kept us here longer than we needed to, but I think the wider the better, to be honest.

Especially since we don't have sidewalks. We don't have parking on the sides of the roads like they discussed. Because that would add width to it. But I agree the wider the better.

We could add conditions to narrow roads like only roads that whose curb where the curbing is sufficient for parking or if there's a sidewalk which kind of slightly defeats the impervious area benefits, but it's the safest option regardless of road width for pedestrians. Or, yeah, what are your thoughts?

And I think the other thing that I kind of think about there is these are all non-arterial streets, and it's like I don't really imagine sidewalks in any of the subdivisions in town or any future ones. And I kind of imagine people do park their cars on the side streets. People like to go for walks and walk their dogs. I mean, at that point, if we're just replacing pavement with sidewalk pavement, I feel like we're kind of... You know what I mean? I don't really think it's a meaningful swap.

I've been in plenty of towns where there's a really narrow sidewalk that's probably four feet at most just going through everyone's lawns. It's kind of nice to have that. It obviously is safer than walking or running on the street.

But does that meet modern requirements for what a sidewalk is supposed to be? Those four-foot sidewalks.

Four-foot is, I think, the ADA minimum.

then you're adding paved area.

Yeah, if you do a 20-foot road with a 4-foot sidewalk, that is the exact same amount of pavement as a 24-foot road without a sidewalk.

Yeah, it's not really the intent.

You're adding cost over above the width of the road. You're adding cost to the developer, which gets passed on to the homeowner.

And gets passed on to the town, because then the town has to maintain it. The town has to plow it.

Yeah, this is a thing where I'm not suggesting we require sidewalks, so that could be nice in some ways. I'm saying it could be an option of a narrower road with a sidewalk or a wider road without one. But, yeah.

Well, the narrower road should slow down the speed in the subdivisions, too. It would, yeah. Do you think?

It should. It would. It probably will. As long as it's designed well and isn't just a straightaway.

Where are we going to see this first? I mean, is it going to be off of Brenton or is it Tallarico? That one's already built. Okay, so we're not going to see it there. This is new build, right?

Yeah, this is new build. That subdivision is built to modern roads.

So then we're talking about the mixed use?

Oh, mixed use often uses private roads.

That's approved, right?

Yeah, we have one that's approved, one that isn't. Although... Importantly, these are minimum. If somebody wants to go wider, they can. It doesn't say you can't. It just says you can't go less. So it's whatever you can.

Oh, okay.

Yeah.

So...

Well, what I heard Jay say in the beginning of all of this was that every town needs to make a good faith effort in saying that they looked at this stuff and how it fits into their town. I think we have some latitude here in what we deem appropriate to the town while weighing and balancing the environment, of course, but at the same time, we're looking at safety and convenience and existing roadways. I mean, you're not going to want to all of a sudden go into some little enclave of a of a neighborhood where you're now all of a sudden pinched. I don't see that happening. I mean, to your point, it's a minimum. But don't think for one minute that the developers are going to say, yeah, but I want to put in like, I want to spend more money and make the roads bigger. They're not going to. They're going to go as small as you let them. you know but on the other hand the EPA is gonna want to see that you've done something we have we've discussed ad nauseam today if you take all that away yes well we're not taking it away because it's a new build and the percentage of town that you're talking about a new build for I don't I don't see where it would have that much of an impact so what is the width of Cutler Road

Cutler Road is smaller than 24.

That's like four feet wide.

That's way too narrow.

Two and a half on the curb. I used the NRPC's GIS software to just check the width, and it says 22 feet.

Yeah, that's about right.

The Cutler?

Yeah.

So it's two feet below our current minimum.

I wonder if that's consistent through the road.

Yeah. So I'm sure everyone here has driven down that road. Every morning, every evening.

What's your opinion on the width? It's way too narrow.

How about Pinecrest?

Because it's not consistent with the rest of the town, right? So then all of a sudden you feel pain. Does it slow you down? Yes, of course. But all the curves and stuff would slow you down.

It's a suitable width if it were a neighborhood road. It's an arterial road. It needs to be wider.

So then the if if we think that that's an acceptable width for a non-articular arterial road Then we could decide we could vote to amend that to 22 feet except 20 if that is the bill to board That's true.

It's not all or nothing.

Yeah, split the difference because right now we've got 20 feet proposed 24 feet is our current standard and

22 is a reasonable split of those and it does show that we've made an effort in good faith to appease EPA's requirements and what does the road agent have to say about that though I was going to say haven't we appeased the EPA on all the other areas this is the one that we hold firm on I mean I don't feel I wouldn't want to make any amendments here without the road agent yeah unless you're making a compelling argument I'm not hearing it

I do I do agree I think you know we've looked at kind of our town we've tried with you know permeable surfaces and what things we can do it's just like I have to think you know living in a in a future development I mean someone parks their car or you you drive kind of a commercial vehicle you regardless of you know what people do and work for town a lot of people drive big heavy trucks and you know someone's got their little sedan parked on the side of the road. You know, it just, I don't know.

Hawaii is Pilgrim. Pilgrim's another one that's really winding, really narrow. Where's Pilgrim?

Pilgrim is about 24, I think. It doesn't feel like it.

Where's Pilgrim? Because if somebody parks on the side of that road, everybody stops.

Goes over to Pedro.

Yep, found it. Let's see what this measures.

I mean, having not grown up here, you know. 24. Nobody here practically drives a sedan. I mean, everyone drives these big trucks.

So, I mean, it's, you know, it makes parking difficult. It makes driving in lanes difficult.

I mean, it's, you know, it's absurd. I'd like to... think that a more urban environment in its classical sense, you do see a lot more of the smaller sedans and whatnot, smaller SUVs, whatever.

More sidewalks, more parking spaces.

Yeah.

And what we have here.

I don't know. I don't feel compelled to smoosh.

No, and as a planning board, I would make one recommendation without Kevin Brown sitting in front of you while you discuss it.

Yeah.

because he would he he holds the the keys to the roads in town and knows the safety.

So so we have already heard from him that they'll deal with 20 foot but prefer 24.

There's our answer.

So for 24.

So in that case do want to somewhere in the middle do want to stick with the proposed 20 or I want to scrap it together.

I would say I think Kevin is going to say obviously they're going to deal with whatever comes because they don't have a choice. But I'd say kind of finding a sweet spot in the middle when I feel like we all kind of have reservations and specifically I don't feel comfortable, you know, kind of just on paper finding a mathematical sweet spot if I think we all kind of have good reasoning as to why making the minimum standards more narrow, you know, could be a problem. and that it doesn't necessarily fit with the character of this town. I would leave it as is, unless that's kind of where I feel.

He had a bigger problem, I think, with the cul-de-sacs, too. 20 foot with the cul-de-sacs for plowing.

He did, although we did make a change to the overall width. Because initially it was 70 feet, and we changed it back to 72. Yeah, to 75. So that was initially, yes.

What do you think, Jay?

I think, so I'll summarize, but I think if that's the direction, I'm just going to summarize the changes that include and don't include. So the 20 foot, the reference to the 20 feet impacts one area in, let me find it. So 20 foot is referenced in section 730.01. of the subdivision regulations where it did say 24. So that's a section that would be impacted. And the table in Appendix A and the diagrams that showed the cul-de-sac designs. So that's where the 20 foot is referenced. Just to kind of summarize, if you didn't do the 20 feet, what you would still potentially be doing if it was your wish is in the subdivision regulations we would still in section 414 address underground utilities as we mentioned. So there would be still potentially an amendment to section 730.01 of the subdivision regulations referencing lower impact street layouts. And then section 730.05.01, which references the use of permeable pavement. So those are changes to the subdivision regulations unrelated to the 20 feet. And then there are changes to appendix D, design standards. Again, referencing minimizing clearing to what is necessary. to subsection 3.5.2b, low impact development. Again, adding that vegetated roofs and repurposing stormwater are allowable alternatives. And then in the site plan regulations, an amendment to section 120.1.6 referencing open drainage and noting that there's alternatives that you can use like leak offs, you know, etc, which is basically breaking up the curbing where you can't use swells. A potential amendment to section 120.12 which notes that you can use things like bioretention areas can be located in buffers. A potential amendment to the parking standards and for offices reducing it from basically four parking spaces per 1,000 to three. And then there was one more I just missed. Yeah, it's just another section. We had two sections on buffer yards. mentioned in buffer areas, again, mentioning that you can put storm water systems in buffer areas. So if that makes sense, those are the areas that you could adopt if you wished that don't relate to the 20 foot width. So I guess the question would be, if you don't want to go with the 20 foot width, if there's a sense that all of those other changes are sufficient in that they address significant recommendations that were made. And those recommendations, because there's two areas we need to think about. One is low-impact development and making sure that we're accommodating certain things like green roofs and bioretention swales, and then the other is imperviousness. I think you could argue, if that's your wish, that the combination of those requirements do impact both imperviousness and low impact development requirements. Probably the biggest changes, again, if that's your wish, the impact imperviousness would be sections that allow for pervious pavement and the emphasis on reducing the impact of clearing and road impacts by keeping road lengths to the minimum necessary and reducing cuts. Those are probably the areas that I think would touch.

Make the EPA happy.

So I can't promise it would make them happy, but it would address a substantial portion of the recommendations that were made.

I just really think that without the sidewalks and without the parking spaces that you just put a 20-foot road in there and then you're in trouble. Because for the most part, our streets don't have sidewalks. They don't have parking spaces along the sides of the road.

Here's one question I have.

That's in addition to the 20 feet, right?

Do people think they would be comfortable leaving 20 feet of pavement in specifically the cul-de-sac circles? Because the cul-de-sac circles are an area of a lot of asphalt. with no meaningful thing in the center. I'm glad that they finally allowed circles in the center of the cul-de-sacs. My parents live on a street where it's all pavement, and they have to bring a loader out there to clear all this snow. Ridiculous. But if you look at the exhibit H of the cul-de-sac layout P design, it looks physically like the width visually is less around the circle than it is on the road. But obviously they say the same lengths. So I'm wondering if we would be comfortable allowing just a narrower circle. That's going to grow in.

How would you transition down though from 24 width?

I mean, you could do it, but... Is the 20-foot road going into a 20-foot tunnel?

Like, if you look at the diagrams, it shows the lanes being narrower. Because you think of it, most people just go around the direction where they go right.

Well, it shows 20 to 20.

20 to 20 on this diagram.

I'm saying keep it 24 like it was originally on the road part, but then on the circle part. Keep the change to 20. Because most people treat it as a one-way.

Tell that to the people who live at the end of the drive, or at the end of the cul-de-sacs. If you're not going around one way or the other.

And it's still 20 feet, so it's still enough for two cars to pass it.

As a person, I thought, I do think, I do treat it like it's a one-way when I go around them. It feels natural, right? It does, yeah. I do treat them like a one-way. I travel around it. That's true. I'm not typical probably, but I mean, yeah.

And also, it's a curve, so people slow down. It's not a fast area, so I think it's the safest place for us to keep recommendations on narrowing.

I would argue, take a look at, sit in my driveway and watch our cul-de-sac at the end. It has a big, wooded, like there's a massive tree. in a big green spot, and there's always kids playing, you know, using chalk on the road or whatever, drawing right there, and as you come around that curve, you better be prepared that they might be there.

And I think for fewer feet will significantly change.

Yes, lessen the visual in any way on the road. I don't know.

I am personally in favor of keeping the 20 foot only for the cul-de-sacs as a part of the design requirements for the cul-de-sac. And we can make it clear that's a minimum. Obviously, it doesn't show that it's a minimum on the diagram. It shows that as the requirement.

I think it says it in the regulations, though.

Yeah, but it isn't clear. It says, like, 75 foot minimum for that. But this is not just a standard road. It's a big circle.

But that certainly could be added.

How difficult would it be to maneuver a delivery truck through a reduced width lane like that at a cul-de-sac?

You should still be able to fit a fire engine through that with 20-foot widths. Obviously, they'll treat it as a one-way. Right. But that's why we're keeping the 75-foot radius for the bigger vehicles.

But that radius is going to grow in until it reaches the pavement.

Mm-hmm.

And every practical example I've seen around here, vegetation just grows in until it hits the pavement and then overgrows a portion of the pavement, creating a canopy that you have to be in the middle of the road to get through most neighborhoods.

So I go back to what's the EPA going to do? If we've debated, if we've talked about it, is there a fine? What's the impact here that we have to measure or weigh against? Good question.

I think our meeting minutes will show that we have discussed this at length and with good intention to meet the requirements.

And big reservations of what will happen if we reduce roadway.

And even when we went through the... Consultants report in March. I mean a lot of those things were not relevant to us and the ones that were I mean Jay implemented and I think even I pulled it up even the section where he speaks about The reducing road widths which was on page six the final line is be sure to involve public works and emergency response officials in this decision I don't I don't feel personally that we've sufficiently If we're going to change that, even if it's just making a more narrow cul-de-sac to throw another bone, I feel that we've really done all that we can. I'm not the most comfortable with just on paper, this will look nice and does something when it could really create a situation for future residents and future homeowners in town that might not be something desirable or even safe. If the canopy's overgrowing and kids are coming out from... When I was growing up, we played in the cul-de-sacs off of Albuquerque, and you could just kind of pop out. You're not thinking of it. Kids aren't paying attention to that. That stuff I'm not the most comfortable with, just approving on paper in here, if that makes sense.

Mm-hmm.

I would say you know where I stand.

I say we leave it. I say that they're classifying as urban and we're getting urban, but we're really not an urban community. I know that they're basing it on density, but we don't have that kind of... You don't have, I mean, if you're looking in Manchester, when you go down Manchester Road, they have parking spots. They're either going out diagonal or they're going up and down the street, everywhere you go. And then there's a sidewalk right beside it. So let's talk about adding density of roads. That would do more to put more road out there. if we actually complied with that. Because if you did a 20 and then it wasn't working out, then you've got to add so much more to it. So I think it's defeating its purpose. I mean, that's just my thought.

context matters I mean I live on a cul-de-sac and yesterday I came home and you know there were you know two kids you know on a dirt bike and you know they wanted to ride on the boulders in the middle of the cul-de-sac and when the weather is nice out you know our cul-de-sac is you know meeting spot for neighbors, people are out on the street. My son is out there, you know, on his bike, right? So, you know, the context, the context matters.

It's, yeah, I think it's just a different, I agree.

Yeah. And on winter days, there's a lot of hell driving going on in the cul-de-sacs. Kids are just taking their little beaters out and zipping around and sliding through the cul-de-sacs.

Narrowing that out is going to increase the danger.

It's going to be how comfortable you feel with what could happen and what they can do. What are they going to do? What is the penalty?

And also, not to interrupt you, but I don't think it's that we're just kind of flying in the face. I think we have made good faith efforts across six months, all of us, especially Jay, to really see what fits with our town and what is doable and what kind of creates conditions that might not be favorable to our town and its future residents. So I think all things considered, we've done our due diligence.

I agree.

Yeah.

So I just did some math on the, just to give you some numbers on the amount of impervious area with the 75 foot right of way with an 11 foot area between the right of way and the road and then comparing a 24 foot road to a 20 foot road. You'll have 1,546 square feet of impervious area with a 24-foot road, 1,351 with a 20-foot road.

We're talking about saving less than 200 square feet of pavement.

Yeah, just under 200 square feet of impervious pavement.

I guess just reading... potentially relevant section of the memo, but it does note Table 1 attached, which was the recommended changes, and it says, Table 1 provides a detailed assessment and recommended regulatory changes that should be considered when updating relevant sections of the town's regulatory mechanisms.

So we've considered them.

I mean, whichever way you go, I certainly think the board has made a good faith effort to consider these changes.

So if it is the will of the board to revert back to 24 feet, then we can probably make a motion to continue.

Would it be continue?

Or we wouldn't have to re-notify, right?

No. Yeah, I mean, I think, again, it's up to you. But one way to do it is to move forward with the proposed changes except for the proposed changes relative to reducing the width of the lane width or the minimum road width from 24 to 20 feet. as shown currently in the proposed changes to Appendix A, Table 3.2, and to the proposed changes to Appendix A. Just get to the right sections. Exhibits F, G, and H. And to Subdivision regulation, section 730-01, which also referenced changing it from 24 to 20 feet. So if that makes sense.

So basically selectively adopt what we proposed?

Right, you'd be adopting everything except the changes to those sections.

Okay. Would it make sense to be that specific in the motion?

Or can we say?

Can we say so moved?

I think assuming that the minutes have captured. the section changes that were just mentioned, then yeah, I think you could say moved as proposed, moved as amended.

As proposed.

Right.

So moved what he said. Second.

Motion. Second. To adopt the proposed changes minus the sections that updated the road width.

I think that's a good job.

Do we have any further discussion?

Okay, all those. I think we've had a very good conversation on this. Yeah, I think the board has done their due diligence in meeting the expectations.

Yeah, I'm kind of upset that nobody came out and told us one way or the other. So silence is consensus, everyone.

If you don't pay attention to this stuff, unfortunately.

We're in.

We're in. OK. So all those in favor of adopting the proposed sections of the low impact development recommendations, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? Abstained? Motion passes 6-0-0. So most, a good half of the proposals are now adopted. Okay, that was a good discussion. Very neat discussion.

So now we have the EPA calling us. What?

That's right.

Lita, what was your mailing address? P.O. box. I'm with you.

It's defensible. I agree. We had two meetings. It's easily defensible.

Yep. Okay. So those are all the main items on our agenda for this evening. Next we have committee reports. I do. Oh, you do. Want to go first, actually? I'm going to go first.

All right. I'm just pulling it up now, but we had the Capital Improvements Plan Committee meeting last night. Our next meeting will be on September the 9th, next week. Last night, we had Kevin from the Highway Department come in. We also heard from Gail Musco from the library and... We also heard from the recreation commission and all of those folks kind of walked us through their requests and It was really informative to me I think to the committee and hopefully to to anyone that watched it at home they kind of went through the priority rankings and that will help before we kind of officially move to to a going to the process with with categorizing those uh... requests and putting them on the plan uh... the next meeting on the night i believe will be eight actually just pulling up right here speaking correctly the ninth will be the continuation of the town presentations where we hear from the uh... please And we hear from fire. And then on September the 14th will be school presentations. There's also a selectman meeting that night. So if you are following that process, stay tuned as to it will probably be over in the fire station community room if that is available. And then October 5th is the wrap-up. And then we'll touch base with the planning board before then. So busy month for the CIP, obviously with the selectman as well. But it's been very informative, and I would encourage everyone to keep following along if they are. And it kind of speaks to what's going on in town, how it affects all of us, and also is informative from a planning board perspective as to kind of how impact fees are used and what they can be used for. And I think it might allow us to have a hopefully more robust discussion in the future. So, yeah, that's all I got.

And what happens if you don't use very important thing to consider because if you don't use your impact fees by the time that you post in the river back to the contract. So that is money that we can use to improve our time it has to be spent.

On the appropriate things. On very appropriate things.

All things that are appropriate.

I saw that there was a calculation done for the library when they asked for impact fees. Did they count grants?

So what was decided, impact fees need to be used for something new. And so what was decided is that, like not to repair, but to improve and to make new. So what was decided is they need a new septic system. So instead of, because of the amount of traffic that they've had go through the building, because of the amount of new people that have moved to town, based on the impact to the library from the new people that are living in town that we would allow the larger septic system to be put in. I believe it's gone from 800 to 1200. It's gotten considerably bigger to accommodate the increased number of people using the library. So that was the thinking that went into the library. They took what it would cost to put it, which they don't even make anymore, an 800, I think. And then they subtracted that from what it would cost to put the new one in. So it is the spirit of the law, for sure, that it's impacting the town due to increased usage of when it was originally installed.

Did that get approved?

It was approved at the selectman's level, yep.

Sounds good. Yeah, it was definitely an interesting methodology.

It was. We did use the same methodology when we put in some new voting booths because the size of the town has increased. There's more people voting. You needed more booths to accommodate it. It is definitely pushing a little. However, it is the spirit of the law. So I have absolutely no problem as a selector in voting for that because of that reason. So that was something that I stepped out on an edge on for the voting booths, but it definitely is the same spirit that I'm comfortable with because of that. The Selectmen's office has been, meetings have been crazy. You talk about sidewalks. We entertained public discussion on the e-bikes that are out there. Very interesting discussion on what should be allowed on the bike path because it is a shared use path as well that it was put in for bikes. So that was an interesting discussion. We're going to have more discussion on that. There were some very strong feelings on both sides, the kids using them and adults using them. and people that are afraid to be run over by them. So that's really interesting. The library, that was very interesting for that impact fees. We are considerably over our tax cap. At this point, we have entertained all of the budgets. Our revenue budget came in and has increased to help us a little bit, but we have some big contracts that are out there right now. We have our ambulance contract, which is a huge increase even changing ambulance providers we have used hudson for very many years without changes to their contract and when that contract came up this year i believe it was 200 higher and that pushed us right out of our tax cap we simply couldn't afford them We went to Londonderry. We're still going to be quite a bit higher than we were in the past years, but we've also gotten some good changes in it where if an ambulance bill went to collections and wasn't paid, the town absorbed it, Londonderry is going to get the revenue from the ambulance rides, and then they're also going to have to deal with the non-payment of those ambulance rides, which is a higher amount than I thought it would be. So that was a big thing to us. Our police contracts are up, and that's going to be another hit to our budget. We have roads that need work that were defeated last year. So yeah, it's going to be a really tough budget season. The selectmen are on it as much as we can be. And that's pretty much what I've been doing a lot of.

Thanks for the update. Both of you. Any further committee reports?

Oh, I have other committees.

Do you want to hear about the Heritage?

The Heritage Committee is working really hard on trying to get a memorial for the side of the road for Chief Pass Conway. And they've got all the paperwork ready. Now they're just looking for a location. And then it's been a couple of different location ones. The 250th is over, which is a few less meetings. What else do I do? This. I guess that's it.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so next is the minutes. So has everyone had a chance to review both minutes? I think based on our discussion, there were amendments made to the prior minutes, right?

And there was a name correction on this August minutes.

Yeah, to morning rather than call me. I read through that and it looks it looks right.

Which ones are you doing first?

Yeah, July 21. Has everyone had a chance to review the July 21 meeting minutes? Nothing worth correcting stood out changes to that one.

Fourth, I wasn't here.

Yep. On the fourth, we have me, Travis, Letha, Russ, and Jesse. OK.

I'll make a motion for the July one if we want to do them separately because I know I had one thing in the August one.

Let's do it separately since different attendance.

I'll make a motion to approve the July 21st meeting minutes.

Okay. We have a motion to approve the July 21st, 2026 minutes of the planning board. Do we have a second? Second. Okay. We have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of approving the July 21, 2026 minutes, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstained? Abstained. So motion passes 5-0-1. Next we have the August 4th meeting. Does anyone have any amendments for this one?

I only think it's real minor, but it was just for the sake of accuracy. At the bottom of page 7, it was just change Mr. O'Connell noted to me, Mr. Tucker noted, because you were actually already on the board that year. So that was just for the sake of accuracy.

Yeah, I did. I wasn't sure that I said that.

Yeah, and I did say that. So that was it. That's all I had.

That's the only thing I kind of noticed, too. So good catch.

On page seven, you're saying?

In the bottom? In the bottom of page seven. It's not me. It's Travis. Yeah.

That was all I found.

I had something on page six, but I don't know if it was said this way. Top of page six was a motion, Russ Blanchett moved to take the public hearing for September 1 as presented. And I didn't know if it should say all proposed changes to the proposed changes to public hearing. I think I went back and looked at it, but I don't remember now. See what I'm saying? Move to take the public hearing. Yeah, I think you're right.

Did we make any changes? Because I know we had the same type of discussion last time.

Yeah, we didn't make any changes. It should say that we just moved to send it to public hearing.

Okay. Send to public hearing.

OK. Yeah, because there was a whole discussion around whether we should send it or not.

And if we wanted to change it or keep it 2020.

We decided to let the public give us some feedback. And they so graciously showed up tonight.

That was exactly the intent.

okay so actually while we're there I noticed that for the board interviewed David Robitaille who expressed interest that should read a planning board cable TV committee energy committee and zoning board yeah because those were the four that he listed on his application and spoke to there is no cable committee there is an application I know yeah it's just a

It used to be.

It used to be. What happened to it?

It was dissolved and rolled into the Board of Selectmen's functions. Oh, OK.

The town administrator takes care of that now.

All right, so it sounds like we should also maybe make some changes to the application too.

Yeah, we've had two things that are out of date on there. Oops. It's not our form, though. It's the town's form.

So just notify Ms. Kleiner that you have some opinions.

I'll make a note in my email.

She loves to update stuff. She's really good at it.

Okay, so hopefully people have not been applying in vain to the cable TV committee.

You're not going to hear back. There's still opportunities to volunteer. It's just not a committee anymore, right?

No, it's not even volunteer anymore. Oh, it's not volunteer anymore?

Oh, what is it, not paid?

Yeah, LCTV is a paid job now. It's a town employee.

So back in the day, they...

The committee that oversaw the cable contract also operated LCTV, but it was always paid contractors working as the operators.

So the cable company used to give the town money to run it.

Cool. Okay, so we have the name change, the change to the slight change to the motion and change to the listed committees the applicant was considering. Any other amendments to make to the August 4th meeting minutes? Okay, in that case, would someone like to make a motion to approve them as amended? So moved.

Second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the August 4, 2026 minutes as amended. Any further discussion? All those in favor of the motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Abstained?

Abstained.

So motion passes 5-0-1.

I do have one thing to add and it's important because it affects you guys. The select board has interviewed two different engineer groups and we're going to be meeting on Thursday and we're going to be discussing those two groups that we've met and I believe we're going to be coming out Thursday with which one we decide to go with. So you'll be, it won't be too much longer that we won't have a

A town engineer. A town engineer. Yeah, because that will be important once we get the next... Yeah, I'm sorry.

That was on the top of my head, but sometimes things get mixed up.

Are the minor sidewalk changes, do those need to be reviewed by an engineer?

No, I don't think so. Probably not.

Okay, so we just take the word of the...

I give it to Jay for that it is... Yeah, I mean, we're taking a look at it, but yeah, I think it's pretty minor.

Because the sidewalk could mess up drainage if it's done properly.

Well, it's out of the right of way, actually.

Yeah, otherwise we'd have to have DOT approve it. Anything in the right of way, DOT would have to approve it.

Yeah. And I know the applicant, Mr. Muro, was talking about how when he got out there, he was surprised to find that there was still some room between the fence and the right-of-way. So that will be next meeting? Yes. Sounds good. Yeah, it'll be nice to get a sidewalk there. Very nice. It will.

It's looking good so far on the other side.

Yep.

Getting more sidewalks in town will be good because that is not a walkable road at all. I've ran on that road for sections to get to other parts. It's just the minimum time they're possible.

When they were putting the fence up at the conservation at Morris Falls, my grandson stopped to help them. I was like, keep them off the road!

Okay, so next, do we have any other business for this evening? Okay. In which case, would someone like to make a motion to adjourn the meeting?

So moved.

Motion. Do we have a second? We'll second. Okay, we have a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor of adjourning, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay. That motion passes 6-0-0. So thanks for watching the September 1st Planning Board Meeting.