Planning Board - Regular Meeting

and Jason. So, uh, we we do have a quorum. We do have you have to appoint some of the alternates. Okay. So, we'll we'll work through that. Yeah. So, uh, good evening everybody. Uh, I'm Lyn Wilds. I'm the secretary of the planning board. our uh chairman of the planning board, Jake Butler, is not going to be with us tonight. He has a prior commitment. Jeff Penta, the the deputy uh chairman, is in transit on his way home from commuting from Boston, so he will be showing up later. Uh I don't have a time for when he'll show up, but I'm expecting him between 7:30 and 7:45. Good luck, though.

Exactly. But in the meantime, uh I'll be uh calling the meeting to order. Art Rug the the assistant I'm the secretary. Art Rug is the assistant secretary. I think we can uh run a meeting between the two of us. So uh if we do have some challenges, bear with us if we have some healing with us, but we'll figure things out. So with that said, I'd like to everybody to stand and we'll uh recite the pledge of allegiance. I allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

So, Mr. Chair, I think we'll need to appoint our uh alternates to uh for uh voting. So, how many how many voting members do we need or how many alternates do we need to appoint to voting members? three of them because we got one, two, three, four of our regular members absent. I think we have three alternates here tonight. So, uh yes. Yeah. So, we got Tony and Steve and Ryan. So, um even when Jeff comes, we'll be good with that number still. Yeah. We won't fill Jeff's position, but uh maybe Tony can vote for uh Jake. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That does not mean you're the chairman. I understand. and never assume that

Steve will Steve will vote for Ann and Ryan will vote for Jason. Perfect. So, we have uh seven voting members. We can proceed. Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, Art. Uh moving on to administrative boardwork, approval of minutes. Do we have any meeting minutes to approve? Yes. Uh Dr. I'll make a motion uh Mr. Chair that uh we adopt the minutes of uh August 6th, 2025 as presented. I second that.

Uh we have a motion and a second to approve the August 6 minutes. Any discussion? Uh does anybody have any edits or comments that were not incorporated? Uh that case, all in favor of approving the August 6 minutes say I. I. I. Opposed. Extensions. Uh, the minutes are approved unanimously. Actually, my math was one off. We got eight voting members present. Mr. Chair, uh, I will make a motion that we adopt the minutes of August 13th, 2025 as presented. I'll second that.

We have a motion and a second to adopt the August 13th minutes. Uh, any discussion? any edits, any comments that we need to work through before we vote. [Music] With that, um I'd like to take a vote. All in favor say I. I. Opposed? Extensions. And uh the minutes from August 13th are unanimously approved. Uh with that, moving on, discussions with staff. Kelly, anything tonight? Regional impact determinations. None this evening, Mr. Chair John? Nothing this evening.

Kristen. Okay, perfect. Anything from the board tonight? Uh I have one thing uh and that is the master plan steering committee has a uh the word just escaped me. Uh survey on uh it's online. I think it's being distributed around some of the businesses around town. Uh, and uh, we urge town residents, business owners, take it, please. It helps us out immensely. I have one.

Thank you. Um, thank you, Mr. Chair. So um I did write after the last meeting that we had here, the last planning board meeting, I did the next day write an email to the chair and the assistant chair that I made an error uh at the meeting when I talked about a certain uh property with of the homes were selling for $950,000. I was correct on the $950,000. I was wrong on the number of square feet. It was actually 2700 square f feet and I said repeatedly that night, 1700 square f feet. I had the listing right in front of me that clearly said 2700 square f feet and for some reason I couldn't read it. So I apologize for that. Um I'll do better next time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Tony. [Music] Uh third item on the agenda is old business. I don't believe we have any old business to attend to tonight. So, uh, we will just keep right moving along and moving into new plans and conceptual plans. So, the first item on the agenda tonight is a conceptual non-binding discussion for a site plan for a retail automotive sales business, six Dicki Street, map 10, lot 109, zone C2. Leon and Tamara Lampis are the owners and applicants. Um, welcome. Please state your name and address for the uh record, please. Good evening, board members. Matt Ruth here from TF Moran and to my right is one of the the owners of the property along with her husband Leo. So this is a site that has been operating I believe since 2014 as a wholesale automotive site uh automotive sales. It is currently by appointment only. Um the site proposed site plan is is coming forth because there is no currently no uh site plan on file that we're aware of when this started uh operation. So as part of that uh we're proposing to submit a site plan showing some improvements on the lot. Currently the lot is uh 0406 acres mostly gravel. Uh the main driveway to the um I guess south is is paved but it it

breaks from there. Um currently the cars are on what would be gravel. Uh part of the proposal is to uh go before zoning to uh request some relief regarding this, but it would be um in general we would bring it up uh more into conformance. Uh part of the issues we'd be dealing with um with this change would be converting it to retail. Again, with the retail conversion, it again would be by appointment only. So there'd be no additional traffic. Uh due to the fact that this lot has no never had any storm water systems and it's minimal in nature, we're proposing to do a infiltration area at the end of the parking lot to deal with it. Uh we did perform test bits so it is capable of handling the storm water. That would be an improvement over the lot currently because there is no storm water uh measures in place. Uh we would be removing one of the drives that goes out to Dicki Street on the north end as well as adding some additional uh landscaping and screening for the property. The intent would be to pretty much keep the uh maintain the residential security lighting that's there now. pretty much consist of um you know motion activated lights. Uh so in general the character of the the property wouldn't change but improvement wise it would uh have more green space and become more compliant with today's zoning regulations. And with that I'll leave it to the board for any potential comments or concerns they may have with this proposal.

So, we'll go to staff first and we'll walk through the uh the board and get any comments from uh the board. So, uh staff from John, any comments?

Uh Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, Matt Matt kind of summarized it pretty pretty distinct. Again, this is we've been speaking with the applicant since 2014. So, it's been 25 years we've been talking about this back to 2015 actually. Sorry. Um again it is permitted for a single family residence. We they had because again they are proposing a change in use. That's what requires them to comply with the current regulations. And as Matt indicated it'll be a number of variances and uh waiverss that they're going to be requesting. If I don't know how many people were actually on the board now, but we had had a conceptual discussion back during COVID regarding this and there was a number of waiverss and again they just they can put their finger on it right then and there. Sounds to me like they've retained TFM and they're going to have a better handle on what's going to be required out there. That's all I have at this time.

Kelly,

thank you, Mr. Chair. So, just to reiterate, uh we've we've met with the applicant for several years on on and off, but most recently, uh we met with the applicant and TFM. So really the first step that we've directed them to do is to get with our zoning administrator and finalize and formalize what specific relief from a zoning standpoint is needed. From there, the first trip is to the ZBA and then should they get the relief that they're requesting, they would come forward with a formal site plan and go through that process, which is where this board would handle any um site plan waiverss that they'd be requesting. But just to to be clear, step one would be relief from the zoning board of adjustment, then the site plan process.

Okay, Kristen. Okay. Uh we'll go through the board and get any comments from the board. We'll start on my left. Jonathan good. And this is currently zoned uh AR1 C2. C2. C2. Okay. I have seen this before. I think it's about as long as our staff has and uh I thought there would be some resolution coming. I think it must be coming now. So, uh I don't have any specific questions other than um I think they're well aware of our regulations. So, I'll let it stay that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do have some questions and comments, but I'd like to wait until I hear from the general public first if that's okay and then I'll ask my questions after that. Yeah, it's not a public not going to have a public hearing. Okay. So, the question then is what what so so to staff they wouldn't be here if they kept it as a wholesale sale operation. It's only because it's a change of use that we're here. Is that true or not? because clearly it's a clearly it's it's an up and going business that's been going for a while. So,

so I think over the years there have been changes to the site that have been recognized by the town and the applicant and they need to come into compliance. Okay. So, that is the short version of where we're at. So, so in my language, there's some enforcement issues going on right now on the site, correct? Thank you. I'm good. Giovanni, I guess my question is they were grandfathered before.

At some point in time, they came into they changed what they were previously doing in the grandfather's status. required variances, what have you. Can they still operate the way they were operating before so they could keep their livelihood and continue to do what they were at least doing prior to this? The the primary issue is that we don't have a record of it being approved for this use. That's the primary issue. so that it becomes an enforcement issue.

I don't know. I mean, how long you been doing this? Since 2014, since we bought the property. And I would state that they obviously have the state paperwork to run their dealership which you know typically requires some kind of town approval or sign off before they get that license and you are in a commercial zone. Correct. And it is zoned for auto sales. The question lies is can you pull the microphone down please? So thank you. The question, huge TV audience here. Yeah, I could see that.

I brought all my fans with me. Um, the question really is is what defines a wholesale and a retail. I mean, not to go too far into it, but when we purchased the property, the town, the realer, everybody told us it's zoned for car sales. And so that's why we purchased it. And we did come before this board in 2020. And I think Mr. Veroni, you definitely were here. Mr. Rug was here and Mr. Wilds was here. Um, and we spoke and said that we have a small unconforming lot. Uh, that we do have some green space. We can make some of the things, but we're being asked by the town to do what like Ford of Londereerry is is asked to do. And while I understand you guys have your regulations and such, we um have been doing our business there. We have excellent relationships with all of our neighbors. We have letters of their approval to present to you at a later date. And we're not looking to change um anything that we've been doing. A lot has changed around us and certainly um you know our business has changed too but not in the sense of the day-to-day running of the business. So the town is asking us to provide a site plan and that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to meet the obligations to the town and we're also trying to conduct business. We're a small family orientated business. We're trying to teach our kids self-employment um small business and we're just we keep running into this this road. And you

brought up grandfathered. Um, talking about being grandfathered and the new code and fa the new code in enforcement officer who signed on for us um was the defining factor of of saying whether we could be grandfathered or not, which we felt like he kind of came in afterward after we were operating and sort of try to pull the rug from under us. So, we're just trying to We're just trying to appease the town and keep our small business status. We're not looking to do anything crazy or change anything. We don't want to change the way the neighborhood is. We have, like I said, we have a great relationship with our neighbors. Um, there's a lot that's going on on this street and we're just in there plugging along. No, the only reason why I ask is I just I would hate to get into a situation where we don't add some element that you guys have a small family business that you're trying to run and we're trying to then change the world underneath you and make it into a such an obstacle you can't conform And I don't know. I just I'm just sympathetic to that.

We appreciate that. I mean, you're all invited to come by and see the lot. Like, it's a unconforming small lot that you can only have so much green space. You can, you know, we're we're willing to make some of the accommodations. However, some of the variances we're going to need are are a lot. That's it. I don't have anything. Tony, you have your hand up.

Thank you. So, um, a couple things. When when you were here before this board, I was not on the board, but I was paying attention and I remember the case. But I what I don't remember is really why you were here or what the result of of the fact that you were here was that you at that time, as I recall, you did not present any kind of a formal plan. Is my memory correct? No, we did um we did provide a site plan. We've probably spent close a lot of money. I'm going to say a a lot of money on engineering. Um but we just when we presented it the first time, we ran into so many brick walls um that we were just like, okay, and it was it was also COVID and it was just a funny time. And so we were like, okay, let's just come back and and see where where where where we can go with this. So we did have plans uh presented and we did hire an engineer to come. Um we provided a site plan. It was we worked with uh Promised Land at the time. Um and halfway through they weren't able to meet their obligations with us. I think really they were just they knew that we were in a very difficult position and um they were not feeling um the professionalism to follow through with us.

So do you have that plan set? So or is that on file? Just clarify that was a conceptual only. It was a conceptual not received a formal site. Yeah, that that was I thank you. I was I was going there. Tony, I think what it would be very beneficial if you had the meeting minutes from that that Zoom meeting as well as the memorandum, the memo from the staff outlining what the process was and what was discussed.

Got it. So, a comment I want to make is is and and we get this all the time and in land planning there's there's lots of different language that's that's tricky because it's it's left sometimes open to interpretation. But just because a piece of land is zoned a certain way and and and a business is allowed to be there doesn't mean they can be there. It's two different things, right? Being zoned to do it is one thing, but then it has to meet all the rules and regulations for that for that zone. Okay? So, that's part of what you're running up up to. Now, you have a non-conforming lot um that's that's been a business. The question is, is it grandfathered or not? I don't know. Um but my knee-jerk reaction when I saw this case was coming up and I've I've been to the site. I've seen the site. Um, you might have seen my red car and thought I was a stalker or trying to steal cars or whatever, but but I have I was there quite a few times trying to figure it out.

That we're happy to hear that.

Sure. And and so um but one of my things was there's a from an environmental standpoint, you have a lot of cars sitting on gravel that's that we have regulations that don't allow that. Um, and that was my the very first thing that hit me. Um, that we got an we might have an environmental problem here. Not not we, you. Um, whether that's true or not, I have no idea. I'm not a soil scientist. I just know what, you know, a little bit of how our regulations work and what's allowed and what's not allowed. And, um, I I would have a problem with that part of it. Uh the rest of it is is going to be a legal wrangling that um I mean I I always lean towards grandfathering but I don't know if it can be or not.

So thank you. So I have a couple of questions.

Okay. You go. I was just going to say um you know I think there's there's a history to to this also probably that area because right on dairy uh most of it grew before we had zoning so uh I think uh what's there was was existing I know when this came before the board I think it was 14 uh we had a walk at the neighborhood and everything and uh I mean it's a very very tight area I mean there's a lot of uh probably no formal plans or anything. They're just, you know, drawn on a piece of paper, but been operating a while. So, but I think uh our code enforcement had uh you know commented and that's the reason why it had come come here and I know they had uh were working on plans anyway. We had no like formal plan to to go by but at least you know conceptually and um you know we figured it would take its course you know going through with uh with staff but uh it hadn't. So really know what was uh what was happening or anything but here it is. I think having those minutes certainly would refresh my mind. Some of them are starting to come back a little bit now thinking about it.

I have some if somebody wants to make copies. have a couple copies.

Yeah, we we have them here anyway. It's just just getting to them. Uh but uh I think this is very it is a difficult situation. You've got an existing business. The neighborhood's been like that for a while. The uh the neighbors never seem to have an argument about it. We haven't had the complaints or anything. So, um I think uh proceed through what what variances you you're going to need. That's really your first step as as our staff has said. And then uh work with the uh the engineer to come up with a with a plan to see what you can do for meeting our regulations. And uh I mean we do recognize that it is an existing situation. But I think the probably the major problem is just the uh closeness to the uh to the highway, the tightness of everything. It would be uh you know a lot like traffic. How many cars can you really know safely accommodate? Um but uh work at it. I'm not going to promise anything because I can't.

No, that's No, that's fair. Well, I I and I will reiterate. I mean, we've been there since uh 2014 15 doing what we're doing. We haven't changed. Everything around us has changed, but we haven't changed. We still we don't we're not looking to change. We're not looking to do anything differently than what we're doing now. I know before you there was there was something there also. So, it's not When we bought the property, there was a gentleman in the garage that came with it. Let's put it that way. So much better use. We like to think so.

I would I would also like to state for the record that we did, you know, because of the use and potential uses before we did dig in record search wise to for any potential environmental issues. Uh nothing came up in our research. Um again with this plan, it would bring it into conformance. Um, they don't wash cars on the property. That's another thing that I'm sure people would be concerned about. Um, and most of their cars, if I'm correct, come right from the auto auction. Is that correct? That's correct.

So, all that stuff is dealt with over there and they just drive them over. So, again, it's a it's a small family business and the intent is to bring it into more conformance both zoning wise and site plan wise. That's that's the intent. Um, you know, there are obviously some issues as far as buffer separation and whatnot, but again, it is becoming more proposed to become more compliant with both site plan regulations and zone.

So, a couple of questions I have just uh going through and listening to everybody else's concerns. Um, what is the biggest difference in your mind between a retail establishment and a wholesale sales establishment? I'm glad you asked that because the biggest difference for us is we planned to have one business. After we purchased the property and went through the state and and learned that we couldn't have retail, um we said, "Okay, we'll we'll we'll do wholesale here." But we had to open up another business in another location. We have to pay rent. We have to pay double insurance. We have to pay double taxes. we have to incur double the expenses of one business by having two that that's the biggest difference. Um the inspector did come to us and um he did say you know he said he he said to us like you are you guys have retail business here here and we said no we don't we have a wholesale business here we have a rental we have retail we gave him the address we welcomed him there to visit um and then he came back and he said to us okay well since you guys are all set with your with the retail and I I know that you know you're you are what you say. Change your sign to say wholesale to public only. And we were like okay because again we're looking to appease. We did that and then it just it just things just changed from

pardon anywhere since then. We haven't gotten anywhere since then. Exactly. We've we've we've gone above and beyond we feel like. And now we we just want to we just want to uh do what we need to do. Uh do you what type or what level of repair and refurbishment would you be doing there? We don't do any repairs there. Uh we do some detailing but usually from the um auction the cars are usually detailed.

Um question for staff. It's right on Dicki Street. I think the town line's like really close. Do we have to include dairy in any discussions with this? Not from a regional impact standpoint, at least in my view. Yeah. Just from a butter, how about with the butters? Uh if there are, it will likely trigger the butter radius that we now require for uh properties in dairy. Okay. And there's no issues with doing that. And we don't have any issues with our neighbors in Dair,

which is wonderful. But I I would say that you may I don't know if you have a a formal lighting plan or you know what your business hours are going to be. I would think that we would be looking for something along those lines to make sure you're not selling cars 11:00 at night. I know you won't, but you hours of operation. We we have to have a set hours of operation uh that we that we live and work by because we respect the neighborhood and our neighbors. Yep. And lighting would fall in the same category as well. So, I know lighting is a concern for everybody. Um, John, do we know if they have water and sewer up there? Um, we have water, town water in septic. Yes.

And, uh, obviously storm water is going to be a concern on your part with the gravel. Yep. Is that something you think you'll be looking for a variance on is not uh paving over

the the intent was to pave everything on if you look at the the plan that's before you on the northern edge of the property. We're trying to focus the storm water into a uh pretty much a fil a filter under a a filter strip with permeable pavers to give it someplace to go. It's it's all sand right now. we were able to get down pretty much 66 in to fractured ledge. So the intent would be to manage the storm water where right now it just kind of goes directly into the ground. So you know with the addition of pavement if there was any kind of issue of of leaker oil same as on a regular commercial parking lot you'd be able notice it versus directly into a gravel surface. So the intent would be pretty much to be the same amount of same amount of um sales spaces as they have today with three spaces for the office. And again part of the intent would be to keep the lighting which is currently residential type with spotlights and you know motion detectors and that would the intent would be to keep that

so as not to you know create light trespass and do you know normal commercial lighting. Um, so that's the main main focus is not to really change the overall character, but to bring it up into compliance as far as site plan regulations and zoning goes while at the same time trying to be, you know, cognizant of their their budget being a small business. Sure. And what's the the approximate square footage of the gravel parking area?

It is probably about larger than it is now. I didn't include the existing condition plans, but we are pulling it pulling everything in on the uh western side and the southern side, which is adjacent to the restaurant. Um, as I said before, there's currently a driveway in the northern edge of the property that actually goes into the neighbor's property that is being removed. That is gravel. So, that will be pulled off. So overall the impervious will be reduced considerably because it's pretty much a stone stone back sure

material. It looks like the property record showed as being 4/10en of an acre in total as it is. So I mean it's it's not a big piece of property by any means. Um any other comments from the board? Have one more question. Sure. Thank you Mr. Chair. when you said that when you bought the property it came with a mechanic which is or I don't know if you did mechanics or body I understand I just following up when you bought the property did you do a phase one assessment on the on the ground it's a phase one environmental assessment typically you buy it before or do it before you purchase to make sure it's clean of any environmental issues

no and you haven't done that since we we've started it because I knew it would be a potential. So, we did the research on it and didn't come up with any kind of records of anything in the vicinity. Uh we didn't formalize or finalize it, but we did go through all the research and records available because there individuals in our office who do that and we felt it would be best to get ahead of the Sure. I I appreciate that and that that question had to be asked and answered because it's going to come up again probably, but Yeah. Yeah, that's why we did it because we uh we knew what would come up. Yeah. Thank you.

I got one other question for suggestion. Um if there is any concern I heard Mr. Chairman say like you know hours of operations and things like that, you may want to include that on your site plan. Yeah. When you get here just to alleviate any concerns like that when you're here. I believe they're currently called out on the conceptual. I mean, pretty much at this point, we've we've gone through this, then designed it. So, now we just got to go to zoning to try to gain the relief. So, yeah, all those things are included on there as far as ours.

Thank you. So for me hearing it just uh speaking as probably a board member not the chairman because I'm not the chairman but uh I I think having support of your neighbors is huge number one and I think nailing down some of the things that would affect your neighbors such as hours of operation and lighting and uh even storm water runoff I think is going to be critical in making this happen. But um I'm not sure what else you're looking for from us. Uh, I think generally are we looking at being supportive of the plan going forward? I know there's going to be some ZBA hurdles that you're going to have to uh jump over, but um I don't think I'm hearing anything.

No, I I think is to continue along uh work with staff. They're going to be the most most helpful for Absolutely.

And the staff has been very helpful. Good. I I think too from an understanding standpoint both for you, the person to your left understands what I'm going to say, but there's a bunch of people sitting behind you that that aren't going to necessarily understand this or the people watching on TV tonight that that we as a board because it's a non-conforming lot, we know that it's it's going to be almost impossible to conform with the town regulations. And so as a board, we're going to have to at at some point either say yes, we can live with not following that regulation or not one way or the other. And that's going to happen a lot. There's going to be a lot that that that's going to come before us here. And and you're going to have this discussion with with the person that you hired about that as well. We're going to have to I I really don't want to use this word, but We're going to we we're going to have to forgive a lot of the regulations in order for that business to to happen on that site. We know it's allowable. The question is can it can it perform? And and the answer is no. It can't. It's it's impossible because it's non-conforming. By definition, it cannot. So, there's going to be a lot of things that we're gonna that that that by majority rule here are going to have to say, "Well, we're okay with with not meeting that rule. We're okay with not meeting that or or well, if you do that, we can give up that." And so, there's going to be things like that happening after you get past CBA. All right. So,

absolutely understand that that's what you're up against. And that's what we're up against as a board trying to figure out what's what's the right thing to do here. What's the best thing for the environment? What's the best thing to do for the neighbors? What's the best thing to do from from a standpoint of our rules and regulations? And those are all the things that we deal with on on this side of the table. So, right,

welcome to the process. Well, we we you know, like I said, we we've already been before this board and have tried to um you know, hold up our end of the bargain. So, we're still, you know, we still want to do that. And like not, and I I'm going to reiterate, nothing is going to change what what we're doing. like our like we've said to Matthew really for for us it's just the ability to uh um release some of the other responsibility that we have with the other business because like I said we're being double you know everything is double for us and it's hard to survive especially with the economy the way it is right now um with trying to balance it all. So, it's definitely a hardship for us.

Any other questions for us? Okay. I think to reiterate Mr. Rug's point, uh, work with staff. I think, you know, you you've heard our concerns, our questions. Uh, you know, I think generally, uh, we're supportive of your project, and I'd like to see it go forward. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you very much. And with that said, uh, our assistant chair, Mr. Jeff Panda, arrived uh during that discussion, so I'm going to turn the reigns of the meeting over to Jeff for the rest of the evening. Thank you, Lynn, for navigating that. Um, just a quick housekeeping, Mr. Rug, do we have did you appoint a replacement for me? No.

Okay, we left it open, Jeff. There are no replacements for Boston traffic. It was like, oh, I've been there, too. So, it's fun times. Fun times. Okay, now you're official. Now you're official.

There we go. All right. Thanks all and I apologize for my tardiness. Um, all right. So, next on our agenda is a public hearing on a request for waiverss from the London Site Plan Regulations, LSPR3.07.C.1. C.1 to allow more than a full pipe flow between structures in the town of London area. Typical details for site and roadway infrastructure exhibit D108 for NSHA and six London Road map 10 lots 118 and 121 zone commercial 2 C2 and town of Derry New Hampshire tax map 26 lot 53 Windham realy limited company and Windham realy LLC with the owner and applicants. Good evening, gentlemen.

So, just to kind of um the Mr. Chair, could I add a few comments before you get get going? Sure.

So, just as a reminder to the board, this project was conditionally approved in March of this year. So, again, the prop the site plan itself has a conditional approval with uh a number of conditions associated with set approval. So, the applicant's currently working through that process. Uh, while working through that process, the applicant um made the determination that they need or would like to seek additional waiverss, which are the two waivers before you this evening. Uh, as the board is familiar with this process, staff does not have the authority to wave site plan regulations, which is why even though it is conditionally approved, it needs to come back to you for your review and decision. So this evening again, you're not considering the site plan application itself. You've done that. You're specifically focusing on the two waiver requests and I'm sure the applicant will provide their justification. It's also in your packet.

Excellent. Yeah. And thank you, Kelly. Um, so just to kind of reiterate, we you know, just from a flow standpoint, we've already accepted this um for approval and or for completed the we already accepted the application for completeness um and and such. So we don't have to act on that. All right, gentlemen. Do you want to kind of provide your presentation and then we'll um get comments from the staff,

board question and answer, open the public hearing and then board deliberation. when we were here uh and got conditional approval, we were we did have discussions related to the uh storm water uh basin which was discussed as being a pretty a wet pond, not a normal detention pond. Um at the time it was discussed that due to the ledge located on the property um we had challenges uh related to um getting enough storage for the storm water as well as um the discharge point located along uh London Road. In that discussion previously before the board, we talked about how the drainage structures in the 25-y year would be full simply because there's not enough sight relief on the property. The drainage is running about as flat as you can get. Uh this is all necessated by the discharge point. Uh like I said on on Londereerry Road where we're trying to tie in our outlet control structure again because this storm water basin is considered a wet bond. It maintains a permanent pool, thus limiting uh storage. Um that's standard with a typical detention pond. We did originally have uh some slope issues that we were dealing with with some potential um mechanically stabilized earth walls adjacent to it. um those ended up being I believe above the requirement for um

or considered a structure. So as we went back through this we revised that to comply slopes to comply with uh the height requirement for zoning as well as the rip wrap requirement for 2 to1 slopes. So, as part of the the waiver request, you know, typically is a 4 foot wide BM that's around each basin. This would not have that, but would have access to the outlet control structure, which is less than 20 ft from the edge of the parking lot. And again, the the pipes for this particular project are are full, but there is no there's no modeling showing that there's any danger of icing or those actually coming out of the drainage structures that are proposed. Um, those are the requests before you. A client did want me to to just get the boards take. We had originally proposed a 8 foot fence, decorative fence to mimic the stone type uh patio next door. Um the client would like to get the board's uh input whether that could be changed to a standard vinyl, white vinyl fence at 8 ft and and planted with arbor vites uh in lie of the the stonefaced type uh fence. The belief is that the again the arborites are going to provide more more height as they grow in front of it. Um and belief is that the fence will almost become uh invisible once those arbor vites are for you. So that's that's what's before you

as a board is as the waiverss on the drainage. Um again they were discussed and brought up previously but they were not able to be applied for at the time of the previous hearing. Thus the reason we are here before you again.

Thank you. Um I'm going to go to staff Kelly. Uh so just to reiterate procedurally you're considering the two waiver requests um and all so that's what you're considering this evening with respect to the other conditions associated with the conditional approval. Those would remain um in accordance with that March uh notice of decision. That's all I have. John.

Yeah. Um Mr. Chairman, members of the board, it's my opinion that that this isn't ready for conditional approval this evening. Uh I think one of the biggest issues out there is that they're trying to put too much impervious on that site. Like Mike, like as Matt indicated, they had to redesign things. And again, by him having so much impervious on that site, that's why that that system is uh searchcharged like it is. Um there I I don't think that some of the the detention pond as indicated on that plane is constructible. I think they're going to run into problems. We're going to be back here again when they just looking at the con you know what our comments are. So that's that's my point right now. I'm not going to get into but I think it can be it can be redesigned and maybe there there needs to be some reduction on the impervious out there. Thank you, John.

Yeah. All right. So, I'm going to open it up for questions from the board question. You going to start at one end or you just random? Whoever puts their hand up first, I'm an equal opportunity. Uh

I I just had a question of uh of John. How much of a redesign would this uh uh well we keep talking about there's there's ledge out there there's ways of I know this engineering firm can knows how to they know how to blast ledge and make volume make make that permanent pawn but even when they do that again it's because there's too much being proposed out there. So they can make the pond deeper to make the permanent pond like he keeps referring to. But then as you put the pond deeper, you're still going to have to have some side slopes to it. And that's where he runs into problems because he's he's limited by the amount of impervious out there.

So to really design the drainage pond correctly, it's going to need more room. This is similar to this is similar to village on technology hill. We're trying to put too much out there. in my opinion. I have a question, Tony. So, we're not allowed to talk about the fence that they asked about. You can discuss it. They have not formally submitted any relief or waiver. I think they were my understanding is they're asking for your input on that change um informally or would it have to be in they would have to

I would like to I would like to actually you know kind of focus what's on the agenda item um first and then that works for me. I have a question for staff John the 4 foot wide BM Yep. around the ponds keeps coming back to us and slapping us in the face. Correct. And so I was thinking today as I was driving past a wholesale car lot in London Derry, but almost in Derry, that wondering what wondering what the what the spirit of the rule was for the 4ft burm all the way around

to be able to maintain it. If you go to the grading plan on this, the grading goes right to the budding property line. So again, Matt indicated you can have access to the sediment for bay which is great in the in the dischar in the outlet control structure which is great but it's also to have access to the slopes themselves so that it can be maintained. We have other outside slopes uh also but the interior slopes as well. Interior you can you can hire a diver and you can take care of that. Yeah, I used to do that. That's how I know. But um so um I'm Yeah, I was just curious. That's what the intention is.

Thank you. And so and so the other thing is when I first saw this, I think we got it like two weeks ago and I was just flipping through it trying to watch a little league baseball game that I wasn't interested in. Um, it it seemed like the the phrase more than full pipe flow just I started giggling because it's either full or it's not going through or there's so much flow that the pipe comes out the ground. It it it actually water comes out of the lifts it lifts it lifts the pipe up.

Comes out of the grate.

Yeah. and and so um that seemed to be a problem to me. But and and then I came across the a phrase that that I've used in in other other um uh for other applicants was that this is a private site not open to the general public. And then I got to well okay that that's fine. So if they if they make a mess out of their site, they're they're going to have to live with it. But then I started thinking about water and conversations John and I have had in the past about about a problem on one site draining into someone else's land, which is something that we absolutely cannot allow. Um and it just seemed to snowball into a mess. And so I don't know what to do about this. I I I don't I don't know what to say.

The thing that you you're going to start seeing though too, Tony, is it that oh well, they should be maintaining this in accordance with the regulations. Well, they don't. Let's be honest. We have another site that that's that's what the the predicament is. Was never maintained. Was it ever built like it should have been? No idea. I have a question um for you gentlemen. Um, could you just kind of explain again why you are unable to meet the town standard for this drainage?

It's not unusual. Well, I guess my answer would be this. It's not unusual to have sircharge pipes in in storm events due to lack of topographic relief. You know, when you're running a pipe at the minimum slope of say 0.005%, it's not uncommon if you don't have 8 ft drop at the end of the pipe for it to freely discharge. You know, that case is going to be controlled either way no matter what we do by the simple fact that the outlet on Londereerry is only 4T different from our highest point. So, we had gotten waiverss for pipe cover and everything to deal with that. And the challenge is there's not you're talking about a flat site. The topographic relief is little to none. Everybody always hopes that you could you can get it to freely discharge. That's not always the the case. Storm water ponds fill up in different storm events and searchcharge the pipes. And again, until enough head pressure pushes through from those drain structures to push out into the pond or there's enough elevation change, then you get the relief. As I stated, the the structures do not top out and neither does a pond come anywhere close to flooding the the property in a 50-year or even a 100. We've verified that. So, it's just a matter of the the topographic issues that are related to it. Um, and again because of proximity to, you know, residential houses and stuff, we don't want to be going in there and blasting out a ton of ledge, which is just to me problematic for that type of neighborhood. If we can hammer out enough ledge to get the, you know, the storage. And again, with the wet pond, you're getting it, you're getting treatment because it, you know, it's it's allowing things to settle out as well as the forbay, which is

pre-treatment. That's a better option than trying to go deeper, which we can't. The slopes are maintainable. They're 3 to one,

which are mobile slopes. Um, and again, not typically a problem for an excavator to go down on a on a slope with a 3 to one. I mean, it's done all the time. So, the this is the reason that the waiverss are in front of you. Um, so if I heard this correctly, and members of the board, please correct me. um applicant as well. What you're proposing is a potential solution um to reduce the neighborhood impact particularly with blasting. Is that kind of what you were saying?

Yes. It's been designed to take into the consideration that we have ledge about 5 feet below the surface elevation in that area. So again, without blasting a huge hole and and esavating, you know, out and creating, you know, potential issues for Butters due to the the tight neighborhood, you know, we're we're dealing with it in the way that we feel is the most, you know, efficient based on the situation and circumstances that are there. you know, this this property already has a pond out front which you know is similar in in nature as far as depth. Obviously, that one that one we believe drains. We didn't you know it's it's operating and functioning. It's been I believe for the most part maintained and dealt with and I you know this is a similar situation except it's a you know again a different pond because of the fact where we have no play no way to under drain the pond because of elevation and ledge and again that's tied into the outlet out London road so we can't you know we can't let it just infiltrate we have to kind of we have to dam it up to some degree to create to create the type of treatment that you know it should have as opposed to getting treatment as it it percolates through the ground and whatnot. So that's the situation we're facing here and why it's different than you know the other pond and again why we have search charge of the pipes in the 25 year storm event. But like I said none of those structures nor the pond you know are of concern in a bigger storm event. Again, it's not, you know, if you you were to think about down south where you have little to no relief, it's not unusual for storm structures to be searchcharged. It it happens on a lot of sites we deal with simply because you

could have a,000 ft run of pipe, you know, with different structures, but you're running so flat to try to get to the lowest point that you could possibly get with groundwater or ledge that that is an issue that happens. So it does stay, you know, searchcharged and built up in the pipe for a certain amount of time and it just acts as pieces of that pond and only is it typically concerned if it comes out of those structures to create icing or flooding issues.

So thank you. Um, John, followup question on that. The the solution that they're proposing, obviously, it's against our town standards that's established. Um, but what it potentially might have some risk down the road in I excuse my me being naive here. The pipe kind of kind of expanding out or kind of elevated pipe would never become buoyant. What was that? The pipe would never become buoyant. What you guys are referring to is yes popping out of the ground. It would never it would never become buoyant.

Okay. What ends up happening is that that pipe is searchcharged. All the sediment start accumulating in it. The pipe is not does not function as it should. So it accumulates in the pipe. Correct. Yeah. There is sumps in in the structures but again over time they're not maintained. That's where the sediment will sufficient flow through the pipe to correct any any sediment along. Quite often we talk about velocities feet per second. So that's those are the cleansing velocities. So again with that the water is just sitting there doesn't have any velocity right.

So sorry. Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chair. Um Kelly or John how does from what was approved and what they're asking for the variance from the approval. How does this differ when when he get the conditions of the approval, John, they had to again because one of the question was always about the the retaining wall in the in the detention pond and when he finally got the determination, he had to redesign everything. So he kind of so it kind of ballooned into more issues. Okay. So um

so can I just clarify that a little further? So the expectation with the conditional approval is for them to comply with these two regulations as they're written. Yeah. So that's that's why they're back here. Now, to John's point, that so that was still the expectation regardless of the determination on the wall. However, like John said, the wall then created some additional improvements, I'll call them, for lack of a better word, that triggered uh these two requests to come forward. Okay.

Is that Yeah. So, John, then like what do you think they found in the field that does didn't allow them to conform to that? To conform with what? Like was the ledge higher than expected? Was Matt saying they they suspect it to be a five feet? Yeah. And what was it at?

I would I would just like to clarify the the searchcharge of the pipes and the outlet structure were were known at the last hearing when we got conditional approval. It was brought to this board's attention. The only change that has occurred since was the 4ft burm around the pond which we need relief from because of the walls what are considered walls because they were above the three feet. So originally we had a slope stabilization that was allowed the 4ft path around the outside and then when it was determined that because it was a they're they're earnfilled bags that are then hydro seated and create green versus a structural typical structural wall. When those were determined to be of concern regarding building setbacks, we had to redesign, thus changing how we got two to one slopes and stepping those bags to be less than 3 ft high. So that pushed in on the perimeter of the basin. The basin overall didn't particularly change and the pipes were searchcharged at the time when we came before this board last time. Um so

so that define searchcharge I mean like searchcharge means it's it's it's backing up into the pike into the structure so it's not free flowing it's not like you know so when you reference allow more than full p full pipe flow typically so before we understood that that was already the case

that was already the case before like I said that that didn't change it was discussed uh before this board simply because we got comments I don't know 30 minutes before the hearing So I wanted to make sure it was on the record. So I did talk about that and I did talk about the outlet structure. So those things didn't change regardless of the change to the wall. The only thing that changed was the reduction or removal of the 4ft wide path around the edge of the pond. So designwise when we looked at it before and and went back there's no possible way to there was no possible way to make it work. It didn't, you know, was that the way it was and was noted by staff comments and Stantex comments in the previous year.

So then the four what you're asking for is uh you can't accomplish the four. You want to bring it down to what? There is no perimeter around. There is no perimeter. So four to nothing.

Correct. because the access access to the pond is is within 10 to 15 ft from the edge of the parking lot, which allows a truck to get and back out the the outlet structure. Again, part of the requirement with the the town and the MS4 is inspection and maintenance, which is required. As discussed with John, we we know that without the cleansing velocities is going to require more maintenance, but you know, the INM requirement is something that a lot of unless it's a newer site aren't doing with this with the site plan approval, it's it's part of the record and they're supposed to keep records and submit to the town. So, with that, we anticipate that, you know, these are going to be maintained. It's not like previous old approvals that you know didn't have that caveat. Now going forward all these are are supposed to in theory be providing you know records to them so they can provide you know have it for EPA conversations and and meeting the standard. So, so that the more than full PL pipe flow between structures was was we understood that when we granted the approval last time

it wasn't as much. It wasn't as much as how do you get more than full pipe? Now the per now the permanent pond is been raised about 15 in. Okay. Why? because of

well we with the change of of the slopes we had to um I'm just trying to think back to how it how it ended. Um we had to change the contours which then change the permanent pool because originally we had the wall right you know like right there. So we had a little more freeboard to deal with and by changing the slopes to make them grade down to it with the two to one with rip wrap you know it forced it it forced things down which made me have to adjust. So there's less freeboard on it. Basically

the freeboard is met. It again just a matter of the pipe the pipe was searchcharged before. If it went up more it's it's you know that's quite possible but it's still the same scenario of being search charged. It was likelihood of it overflowing. What's that? In a 100redyear storm or nothing pops out and nothing over overflows. Yeah. And it has nothing to do with the fact that you there's some sort of cost savings measure. I mean outside of reducing imperous. It's cost savings. Well, with the impervious or like what I'm trying to get at is is this a way to get around blasting a little bit deeper or

you physically couldn't blast deeper because all you're doing is narrowing out, you know, you're you're narrowing the area. You know, what we're trying to do with a wet pond is you try to take the longest create a longest path from inlet to outlet so you get more treatment time as it runs up. So, I'm making pretty much a snake of a basin. So going deeper I won't is not gonna do anything because I'm limited by my space on the exterior for the slopes. Okay. And then so basically if you had to conform you'd have to knock down on your impervious area on that. That's correct. Okay.

And and you know how much that's going to affect it? I don't know because every you know it's it's unknown how much impervious would have to be removed in order to to get it to that point because like I said the problem is do you have a ballpark? I don't because we just this room or so that's just not an option. Well they prefer well part of the issue I understand that but I mean to part of the issue is we just don't everything's an option. Yeah. Part of the issues, like I said, we don't have the topographic relief. You know, this pond is furthest away from the outlet. You know, it's as far as you can get from connecting to London area where you know, the existing pond is like right adjacent to it.

And the and the answer is imper how much of the impervious we have to cut into. Correct. That would be the question. Yes. It's unknown how much that would impact, but again, that you know, again, that impacts their whole I think that's an answer we kind of need. Sounds like an engineering. It sounds like an 100%. That's an answer we need.

I want to unpack the cleansing velocity. Your proposal is eliminating that. And could you just kind of explain what the maintenance plan is? Standard maintenance is uh inspection of the structures in the spring and fall which is standard routine to remove sediment. Um it's typically verified by the depth of sediment in the uh catch basins. As far as a sump, um this, you know, the typical is two feet per second to to keep sediment moving, which ultimately would end up in the sediment bore bay. Either way, um so again, it's it's the sediment is all caught whether it be in the catch basin or or in the the for bay. Um, and with the, you know, increased or required inspection and maintenance, they're going to be required to vacuum out those things on a regular basis. So, sediment may may build up in the pike. Again, if you if you have a 24, you know, 25 year storm event and other the other events, you know, it's not going to be searchcharged. So it may get washed out in a different storm versus the 25. You know what I'm saying? So it all varies based on the elevation of that that pond at the time.

That's a that's a professional engineering opinion. Yeah. That it just would Yeah. You get different. Yeah. You get different storm events. So you're going to have free flowing flow at certain events. And you know, with the rains that we get lately, you get what, two to three inches in a matter, I don't know, half hour. You know, that's that's going to move through that pretty quick because those sumps are always going to be filled with water regardless if not sediment.

Tony, did you have something else? Um, yeah. I I mean I'm I'm back to the the fact that it's a private site that the general public has zero access to in the event that the site changed hands. If it if it was a different use, it would have to come back here anyway. Um,

and so I mean to me if if the pipe doesn't clean itself and it backs up onto their private site that public has no access to, they're going to either buy waiters or they're going to call a cleaning company and vacuum the thing out or push it through vacuum or whatever,

however they're going to do it and and decide how they want to do it. Um, I also want to clarify for for people listening that when you when you when you make something deeper, when you make the bottom deeper, most of the time you have to make the top wider, correct? Which uses up space, more land. So it's not you don't have a tomato can going straight down that you can buy a bigger tomato can that has straight down sides. The the the when you do this you got to go back that way on the top. So

it's only if you're dealing with over overburden though Tony dealing with ledge you can have a you can have a straight straight side. So this is

if it's ledge you can make a container. So, we're um we're in the public um this is a obviously public hearing. We haven't heard from the public yet. Is there any other questions from the board for the applicant or to town staff before I open it up to the public and then we can move into deliberations after the public hearing. All right. See, I will now open up um this gender item for the for public comment. Does anyone from the public wish to make any remarks on this proposal? Seeing none, I will close public comment and move the board into deliberations. All right, we were starting to get into our deliberation deliberative state before. So folks, what do we want to do here?

Uh Mr. Chair, Mr. Deputy Chair, Vice Chair, I think uh I've heard enough I believe there's enough I I think there's an engine engineering solution out there and I support staff's position at this point in time that they work toward that engineering solution. I I feel the same way. There is an engineering solution. You know, I think we need to take a look at the amount of imperous surface there that is relates to the amount of water you're going to have going going into the system. So, that could be the control of the whole thing.

Um I Yeah, I think we should wait to for I think that we need to make John happy. I think that uh John doesn't like the plan and not not making John happy, Ryan. It's No, no, no, no. Meaning, meaning meaning like follow the rules and and just I know you have some concerns. So, thank you. Y

Well, it's um Yeah. So, that's a kind of a definitely a great point there. I as a board we do have the you have authority the the statuto authority to you you judge these things impartially. So, we definitely want to maintain that. The only thing I will say is that we got to be cognizant of the fact that we already allowed them an approval at full pipe flow. So we shouldn't am I wrong on that? No, they're asking for I believe that's incorrect because although it was presented that way, the condition of approval is to comply with the regulation.

So they would need to adjust the plan accordingly. Right. So although it was pointed out presented that way, if I'm wrong with that, you're wrong. Thank you, John. You take great pride. I just want to make sure that's clear. It was discussed at that meeting, but the approval I'm just saying in the what I was trying to say is that we shouldn't make make them re-engineer it to higher standards than what we already approved it at. And I'm saying you're not changing your expectation from March.

Okay. Yeah. So, I I think I think that that to to follow up on that, I think we I my opinion is that that night we approved it subject to additional engineering being supplied to town staff. And then when that happened, it it kicked back here because it didn't work out the way everyone was thinking. Does that make sense? Well, it does. I just I I I just want to say, you know, if it was if it was approved at this level, we don't need to re-engineer it to a higher level afterward.

No, I think I I'm I'm confident that that some more stuff had to be given to town staff, the town engineer, and when those calculations were made, things changed. Am I is that a fair state? It was a It was a comment that needed to be addressed as an order of condition.

Sure. So, so I think I think what what I'm hearing is if the if the exercise was done of here's how it how it can be fixed, but we don't want to do that. If we take out x number x number of square feet of of asphalt, this is what the calculations look like. Now, I think if that exercise was done, that would help the board make a decision. I'm speaking for me. I'm making assumptions on on what I'm hearing um a little bit. Um I know it's expensive to to to do that, but I I think it would be helpful to have that information to help us make a more informed decision. That's one person's opinion. Understood. Um, you know, if if it's the town's position that a oneto one, you know, ledge slope is appropriate on the inside of a basin, which I don't feel it is, is acceptable. You know, there's the option to do that. I mean, again, what I, you know, I just want to reiterate to the board that, you know, because of the design of this pond, it's you you're doing typically a three three to one, you know, 3:1 length versus width. So removing pavement may help, but we also have the relief issue. And so I can't sit here and say that if we go back and look at it, it doesn't, you know, the only way to solve it is rip out 90% of the pavement, which at that point makes this project unviable. So

But yeah, exactly. And that's what I'm saying. If that's what it comes back at, right, that helps us make a decision. Yeah. I I think right is that I think that's where we're going. So

So if if I guess it's really just do additional calc if you can do additional calculations and let us know what that looks like so that we can say that's unreasonable or that's reasonable or whatever we right now we don't we don't have anything to go on. We're just guessing. Right. Sure. We can easily put the numbers in reducing pavement and see what it pops up as. But, you know, as I said, I think it's it's still going to be a challenge because of relief that we're dealing with. You know, where if the 4 bay was able to be up higher and just free drain, then it' be life's never perfect. So, it sounds like there's an engineering solution in there. So, I'd like to entertain a motion for this item.

Mr. Chair, I will make a motion that we uh table this to um how much time would you need? Probably the first uh Wednesday in October, couple days to determine if it's feasible. I would suggest I would suggest that that they look at the rest of the comments too because there's some concern like I said the constructibility of that

pond in the vicinity of lot 116. Again, some of the contour lines are they go away. So, you need to you need to blow that up to a a readable scale. Right now, you just can't make sense of whether or not it's going to be it can even be constructed. Do we have those comments? Hold on, Kelly.

So, just I think you need to be clear what the board's asking for in order to make your decision on the two waivers. If it's something smaller in scale like the minor exercise from what I'm understanding that you're asking the applicant to go through, then it sounds like you could continue this to next week's meeting if it only takes a couple of days. If it's something more than that, then you should consider continuing it to October. Needs to do the calculations and they need to be reviewed. Make sure that they make sense. Yeah, there may be some back and forth.

Well, um back and forth between Yeah. and staff and applicant, right? Um so there's a motion on the table. Art, could you just repeat that again? Yes, Mr. Chair, I move that we table the uh this discussion until uh the first Wednesday in October. Is that October 6th? It's October 1st. October 1st. October. Oh, so we're tableabling. Oh, yes.

So, we'll be tableabling the discussion, but we also for what? We're tableabling it so that staff and the applicant can work on the on it. It seems like it seems like we're at an impass a here. Further engineering on it, you know. So, we have some. But can I can I add a couple things, Mr. Chair? Sure.

So, they're before you for a waiver because we've gone through the exercise between the applicant and staff and it hasn't met the standard of the conditions of approval, which is what staff is upholding. If the board needs additional information for the two waiverss, you should be specific as to what you're looking for because otherwise we're going to be in the same situation. So, do we know what we want? I think

like No, I'm like serious. Like, do we like know like if I can get like a like an actual like um motion to say either I'm I'm at a point where I'm just like let's just put in town standard. I I think we've absolutely we go down this road all the time and we try to you know but if I'm hearing that we're that the applicant is just not meeting the town standards and I'm not really hearing anything that's I think my question is is

what reduction in impervious surface would make it more acceptable. there must be you know like 90% less 87% less to me it's it's part of the equation develop an equation you know you can solve it so if I I know you know let's say if we reduce it to 90% impervious surface you can meet the standards that's all we need to know yeah I'd like to see is like almost like a sliding scale so we're going to yes we're going to we're going to remove it's more of a mathematical size than which way does the water flow or anything. What I heard the staff say is that they already

they've already done all they've already done it. And what I heard the board say tonight, what's that? It's for us. Right. Right. Right. Right. So, they already know and they've talked through this. And what I heard a lot of the folks on the board say tonight was that they wanted to get an idea what that is so we can measure like does that justify waving it or or does it blow away you know to make the site unusable and should we work with them on it right?

Yeah. Like like we like we do with a lot of things and a lot of the different rules and regulations and ordinances and not ordinances, but rules and regulations. Um, we make exceptions all the time based on what's reasonable and what's what's not reasonable, right? So, so the question is, I would guess this site is not usable in the way they want to use it because it doesn't meet the drainage standard and will never meet the drainage standard if they do what what they want to do. question is how much how much can they show us how unreasonable we're being or not.

Right. I think that's really where we're at. Come back and give us something that we can look at to say, okay, if we meet the rule, this this 100,000 square foot site can only have two parking spots of tar. And then and then we say, well, that's unreasonable. or you know or or or anything in between. So so my suggestion would be that we don't have enough knowledge to tell you how to go about it other than to say we want you to come back with some kind of a sliding scale of show the impact.

If we do this, this is what the flow is going to look like. If we do this, this is what the flow is going to look like. If we if we tink down in in that pond and can come out with an absolutely cubic uh uh uh piece of granite that will hold 100,000 gallons of water. This is what you know what I'm saying? Something that we can get our teeth into because otherwise right now we're just left to draw our own conclusions as to what you're asking. That's a good point. Yeah. We just want to see that it's unreasonable and here's why. Mhm. Matt, you have the comments? Uh, are those new? This is these are September 3rd.

It was posted and sent. I'll resend it to you. So, you might want to look at those because again, I think we're going to run into the same situation like why are you back here now, right? So, you you've told them that, you know, you can't do it or whatever and you still can't even build a pond. Yeah. Like I said, I think that the biggest challenge is gonna be topography without carving a So it's that's fine and that's fine. Whatever the challenge folks folks, let's bring it back. Bring it back. We need to understand the impact. It needs to be in writing and it needs to be in front of us before we discuss it. Kelly, is that as clear as we can make it

clear? Okay. So, you got a motion on the table. you discussed. You need a second to discuss it. Um second by Ryan. Oh, nice. Ryan, you're uh awesome. This is your first one, right? Yeah. Great. Congrats. All right. Sorry about that. Bring out the cake. All right. All in favor of the motion. I opposed. Chair votes in the firm. Thank you folks. I appreciate that time. Thank you. Got to get some candles for Ryan. First first time in the in I had to beat Sean this time. He's quick with the second.

All righty. Thank you. So, next up,

lots of practice is a public hearing on an application for a lot line adjustment to adjust the lot line between two parcels, 31 Lfield Road and 39 Lichfield Road. tax map 12 lots 11-5 and 16 zoned AR1 Vicky M Eden revocable trust and Gail Seans is the owners and applicants and if I am correct Kristen you are or Kristen sorry you are driving this from the staff standpoint

right excellent okay so but before we even get to that point We have to um vote on completeness of the application. Um my understanding is there's several checklist items that require a waiver. So potentially recommend that um a vote to accept as complete for acceptance purposes only.

Chair, I will make a motion that we uh uh wave following items for acceptance purposes only. This would be uh on the men me memo date is September 3rd, 2025 from Kristen and it will be numbers one through six. Second that. All right. Motion and a second by Ryan. Um all in favor please say I. I. I. Opposed. Chair votes in the affirmative. All right. Thank you. All right. Applicant all set to present.

And Ryan is totally empowered now. We might have to hold them back. You make the next motion. Ryan second. You all set to go? All set. Thank you.

My name is Eric Mitchell. Uh my office prepared these plans. And with me also is Jeffrey Eaton. He's u one of the owners. Uh this property is uh not the property the application is for a lot line adjustment between two parcels. Uh Jeffrey owns one and uh Ruth Seikens owns um another one. The um two parcels are on both on tax map 12. Lot 11-15 is the um I'm sorry, Gail Seans. U it's her lot. Um and lot 16 is the in the Eaton Trust. They're both on Lichfield Road. Um the lot line adjustment is to take uh 2 uh 37 acres from the U Seans lot and add it to the um eaten lot. And what that would do is that it would take the lot area from uh Seekins which is 29.5 uh and it would make it afterwards 27.13 um and on the eaten lot would get larger. Uh currently it's 11.34 and it'll become 13.71. Uh so uh all that being said, we're taking uh a little over uh uh well 2.37 acres from the lot and adding it to the um eaten lot. Uh the Eaton lot has 336 feet of frontage and the uh Seekins lot has 162 feet of frontage. The Eaton lot has an existing single family house on it. The Seekins lot, which is the large lot, um is vacant. um that was part of a subdivision approval back in 2015 by this board to subdivide U frontage lot and leave the remainder and I think there may have been some lot lines

adjusted on that too. Um the plan was approved by the board on the seeens lot um but it was not uh the house has not been built on it. The um house on the eaten lot was built in 2022 and that was uh with an approved septic system. Uh the lot was existing at the time so there wasn't any u requirements for approvals by the uh planning board. Uh we have asked for waivers as was indicated. Uh those general waiverss are uh primarily checklist items because this is a lot line adjustment and two acres is going from one big lot to another big lot. Uh we're not creating any new house lots. We're not creating any new uh septic systems or anything else like that. Um so we've asked for waiverss uh not to have to uh u do wetlands delineation the whole site showing the conservation district uh and do a highintensity soil survey. Uh the um uh owner's signature is on the plans is required and uh we will have that uh for as a condition of approval to do that. Um Gail Seans is lives out of state and so to get the plans down to her to do that takes a little bit but we'll get that for the uh for the final. Uh there's also a waiver for the plan scale to allow one inch equals 100 ft. The um typical is one inch equals 40 feet and that might require two or three sheets just to do this lot line adjustment. All the information is adequately shown on one sheet. And so to uh uh save space in everybody's storage area, including the registry in the town and my office, one sheet seems to work out well. So that is uh you know another one of the waiverss.

Um, and with that, um, I know that there's some comments, uh, that have been, uh, I saw online that I looked up and saw, um, and, um, I'm willing to answer any questions that the board might have. Excellent. Thank you. Okay, before we get to um, questions for the board, um, staff have any comments, Kristen? Um, just what was in the memo? John, you you don't have any comments

under design review items. Uh item number one, he indicated right away along the Lichfield Road at lot 11-5 appears to be less than 25 ft from the center line of the road existing roadway uh pavement. We understand that we typically ask for request minimum of 25 ft off the existing roadway center line be pro be provided along the existing roads for future winding. So that's that's along the eaten parcel. Uh no we're so we're asking for Jeff is on your parcel the seeans we had we had obtained that back in 2014. We'll take a look at that.

Thank you. Uh item number two, we're requesting that they provide a monument along the northerly lot line. Item B, correct the abuted uh lot label on the southerntherly lot line. Item C, revise the lot sketch uh labeled to tax map sketch. Uh design review item number three, the applicants uh the applicant's application submission includes separate driveway site distance plans and profiles, but the submitted plan does not include the plan reference or note relative to the associated plans. So, we're just asking them to update the plan accordingly. Indicate where those plants come from. That's all we have. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. Questions from the board. I'll start on this side first. Any questions for the applicant?

Not currently. Uh changing of the lot line. You've mentioned something about there being a prior uh development that owned that particular on the Seekins property which is a larger lot. Yeah. Um that cut out the um frontage lot. I can look up the number. Um 37

37 liter lot 12-11 was cut out back in 2015 from the uh the seeans lot uh which required us to uh one get state approval for that one lot but also next door to it where the seeants still has their frontage. We had to do um show that that was a buildable area on the front. Okay. and the house is already built on the um eaten lot. So that wouldn't have changed anything what we gave for variances or anything back in the past. That's that's ultimately what I was getting at. Good question. Thank you. Stone walls. Anything going to happen to those after uh the land just with the

Nothing is happening. All what I'm accomplishing out of this is I'm the one looking to purchase it. Um is just to give myself a larger buffer. I've got a 30 acre piece of land next to me someday, right? I mean, I suspect someday that it won't be a vacant piece of land. Um, right now I sit in my backyard. I see the deer, the turkeys. I love it. I've got only about 70 ft of woods right now. Um, after I put my house in and with this lot line adjustment, it'll give me closer to 300 feet of woods. That just ensures my privacy. This is the house I'm looking to die in, right? And that's that's my intention with this. I like the forward thinking on that. Yes. And the other thing I think Eric knows this is when a stone wall is no longer a lot line needs to be zed out on the plans.

Stone walls need a what? If it's no longer a lot line. Yes. That on the plan to z it out to Okay. Make that distinction. Yeah. We I think we labeled it lot line to be removed, but I can z it out on the plan. Yeah. Thank you. Other questions? Straightforward to me. No, nothing for me. Okay. It's a lot of lot of work to look at deer. Yeah. No, it's my last house I had about 50 feet from the neighbor and so it's Yeah. Yeah. Just looking for the privacy.

That's one way to do it. Um anyways, so this is a public hearing. Is there anybody from the public that would like to make any comments? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the board for deliberations. Got uh nine waivers. We have nine waivers in total. Look at that. Do those all together. So, else wants to make a motion to go. Yeah, let's

I'll make a motion to approve all nine waiverss together. Yep. And this is according to the memo from Crescent Far is September 3rd, 2025. And uh has the wetland related, there's three there. Conservation overlay district, one there. S related, one there. Uh actually two more to that. And then waiver plant scale and owner signature time. So that's it. So Ry has made the motion. I'll do the second. Okay. So I have a motion and I have a second.

All in favor of I. The motion on the table please say I I opposed. Chair votes in the affirmative. Okay. We have acted on the waivers and next up is you'll make the motion Ryan to adjurnn. No motion. All right. Why don't you make it? Motion to grant approval for um lot line adjustment.

Lot line adjustment for 31 and 39 Lfield Road. Yeah, I'll read the whole thing just to be official for the record. So, u I'll make a motion to grant conditional approval of a lot line adjustment plan to adjust lot line between two parcels. 31 Lfield Road, Tax Map 12, lot 16-0 owned by Vicky M. Eaton Revocable Trust and 39 Lfield Road, tax map 12, lot 11-5 owned by Gail Hseins in accordance with plans prepared by Eric C. Michell Associates dated August 12th, 2025 with the president conditions to be fulfilled within two years and prior to plan signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in the staff recommendation memorandum dated September 3rd, 2025.

I have a motion. Do I have a second? I second. Second by Sean. All in favor? I opposed. Chair votes in the affirmative. You have an approved. Thank you. So, thank you all. Did you find it? Okay. Next up in the agenda, is the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission reappoint of Suzanne Brunell.

Mr. Chair, I'll make appointment uh I'll make a motion that we uh request that town council appoint Suzanne Bernell to a position on the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission. And Suzanne has been a member of the commission for eight years on the ZBA I think a portion 10 years and as a well established attorney. I'll second that. Mr. Chair, I have a motion a second. But before we go to the vote, I just have a few clarifying questions. What is the term of a Southern New Yorkshire planning commission? Is that a three-year term? Three years. Four years. Four years. Four years. Okay. Excellent.

It's all specified in RSA 36. Excellent. All right. Motion a second. Call it a vote. All in favor? I opposed. Chair votes in the affirmative. Excellent. I have one more piece of um just a really quick statement that I just kind of want to read and provide just an update on our master plan if you would so enlighten me. Yeah. And after that, Mr. Chair, I also have an item. Thank you. After you.

Okay, sounds good. I'll go first and then Tony kind of makes it. Okay. So, I just wanted just to kind of you know, as we all know, we're we we're going through our master plan um you know, updates and you know, we're finding you know, opportunities for you, efficiencies and improvements. Um, so I just want to read a quick statement, you know, for the public and for us just to kind of you think through here. So, as we continue the work of revising and adopting London's master plan, I believe it's incredibly important that we pause to assess the steps we're act we're taking. This is not just about completing chapters. It's about ensuring the plan we adopt provides long-term stability for Londereary. We need to confirm that the structure of our work aligns with the town's broader strategic priorities and that we produce that what we produce complements and supports efforts already underway across departments and committees. That alignment is essential for collaboration, consistency, and credibility. Equally important are community engagement strategies must go beyond collecting input for its own sake. They should connect directly to the to the actions and outcomes we intend to pursue so residents can see a clear link between their voices and the plan we ultimately adopt. So in the short term we are continuing and I just want to be clear here we are not stopping the work that that is in that we are doing in the short term or I'm not proposing that we stop the work that we are doing in the short term our immediate responsibility is to complete the tier one chapters which you know includes land use vision housing regional contexts and demographics while at the same time the community serve bay for the tier 2 chapters as Mr. Rug um updated us earlier which includes natural resource,

transportation, economic development is open and those chapters will follow the the framework that we previously defined. As we move forward, we need to really be clear how we move forward. I want us to reset and begin refining the action plan that will carry this project through its next stages. To support this work, our September master plan steering committee meeting will be cancelled. so leadership can dedicate the necessary time to sharpening the framework and preparing for the months ahead. As part of that effort, I'll you'll prepare a proposal for the planning board that connects directly to the town's strategic plan which is now in development. It will ensure that the master plan is not only forward looking on its own but also fully integrated with the town's broader goals providing a clear implementation road map that ties priorities, resources, and actions together. In summary on that point, we're not just creating a document putting on the shelf. It's going to be an actionable dynamic plan that ties into the work that volunteers do that our staff does and that um you that our town is continuing to go through. That is definitely one of one of my priorities and as you know as I bring forward this proposal formally, you'll see that theme. um for the tier one chapters. Our next public session will be a planning board public hearing which is which we're looking for a date in October so we can review in advance the tier one chapters. So to close this out ultimately I want us to transition towards a more dynamic and actionable plan. One that just doesn't again just sit on a shelf but provides measurable steps, priorities and timelines that can guide decision-making in the years ahead. And I believe that's really the standard that the community deserves.

So I just wanted just to kind of address it that way. Um our last master plan steering committee um probably formally kind of say this. I would I didn't act in the way that I probably should have and I apologize. That's not what the town deserves. But I want to ensure that we are com I'm you this the town understands I'm committed to this work that this board understands that I'm definitely committed to this work and that the chairman of the planning board understands that I'm that I'm committed to driving this work and ensuring that the that it is a dynamic and actionable plan with full support. So, we cannot do this without the the great support we have from our town staff um and Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission um as well as the dedicated volunteers that are um kind of going through that. So, um, for the folks that have, you know, had the opportunity to watch that master plan steering committee, you probably saw some of the items that were discussed rather, you know, and very animation and I apologize for letting it get that far. So, that said, looking forward, um, you know, definitely a great opportunity to really kind of envision what these master plan updates truly are. Tony.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, c can I comment on what you just said? I'd like to comment on that, too, if I could. As long as it's positive. 100%. I'm kidding. Of course. So, so no. So, in listening to what you just said, is it fair for me to say, if people ask me to say that the master plan steering committee is pushing forward as they have been? However, there's going to be a slight retooling. That's a fair assessment. Thank you.

Um, I'd just like to say, you know, sometimes we hit bumps in the road in projects. And, you know, I I've I love how you fled this all throughout. I think we hit a point where we got a bit of frustration, not just with you. I I shared it with you. Um, and with that, you can take it one of two ways. is you can dive deeper into that or you can take a step back, retool and make something better. The vision that you've outlined forward and knowing the the further deeper details is a good one that's going to take us in a much better place than we ever would have got before. So, this took something that, you know, we had a little bit of a down spot and we took it and made it into a much more positive outcome. So, I'm I'm very happy with what we're is coming out of this and it's it's we're all better for it.

Thank you, I think you've been doing a good job, Jeff. And uh I know that you have it. I think uh we hit an inflection point, which it from times to times it does happen. And that's when we kind of reflect a bit and then uh move on. So uh you've got my support. Have anything get too tense, just let me know. I agree. There are times you have to step back from things a little bit or even take a meeting off. No, you have a uh a vice chair.

So before my you know head explodes with an ego aspect, is there any other comments not directed towards kind of me um leading the master plan that we would that you want to kind of talk through or ask about? No, I I just think that we just need to be cognizant of it when when it's complete that we are asking ourselves the whole time, how does this project that we're looking at now fit into that master plan and and support businesses and support local and we got to do wear so many hats. But if the master plan is the master plan, you know, we need to respect that. There's a lot of work to put on it. I think you're doing a great job and and I just think that we need to make sure that we follow that plan and we should all be pretty familiar with it.

Yeah. No, and that's a that's a great comment there, Ryan. Um, just it's our it's it's it's our document, you know, it's again that's definitely one of the reasons why I just don't want it just to sit in a shelf. And I think with what the staff is doing right now, you know, what Kelly and her team are doing, you know, what Tom manager is is is doing regarding um a strategic plan. This is a great opportunity to kind of align that with that strategic plan and seeing where those, you know, kind of where those items are. In addition, you're not having, you know, one you don't you're not having two I don't know what the the animal analogy is. I haven't eaten yet today. Um, you're not having two I'm going to butcher this.

Not having two pigs run in this, your different direction. That's not what I meant. Horses. Either one of the pigs. Yes. We all got to be in the same race. What? I'm about two bunnies. How about two bunnies? Apologize. What I'm trying to say is take a moment. You're not having, you know, the train number A, you know, going to that direction, train number B going to this direction, and having it, you know, you not having um relevant inflection points. And that wasn't that was that analogy made no sense either. So, I'm just going to stop there. Tony, you had something else, right?

I did. So, thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, moving right along. Um, at uh Monday's nope, at Tuesday's uh town council meeting, I believe um one of the counselors misspoke and didn't mean to say it, but I want to clarify that the planning board does allow public comment and that there were two opportunities for the general public to uh speak on two at least two different cases tonight. might have been two and a half, whatever it was. There were multiple times tonight where the general public had an opportunity to speak. Um, no one did, but the opportunity was there. And this board does um allow public comment for the cases that are before us.

Good reminder, Tony. Thank you. All right. And with that, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. Go ahead. Uh my motion. Yeah. on the table.

This the state has started on its 10-year highway program. So, uh got any projects or anything? Uh send it to uh to staff. Uh but also uh there was a DOT individual virtually at the meeting and said basically next year anyway they're going to be just repair and maintenance because they don't have any further money because the principal on the I93 expansion has come due as a little over $20 million going to be going into that and that takes it away from highway projects. So, uh be patient. Uh there'll be more more coming and uh it does not affect uh federally financed projects.

Sergeant Cruz, do you have a comment? Motion to adjurnn. I'll second by Ryan. All in favor of journing, please say I. Opposed. Chair votes in the affirmative. Thank you all.