Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening everyone. I declare open the meeting of the Planning Council of September 2, 2026.

Please rise for the oath of loyalty. I swear loyalty to the flag of the United States of America, the republic that it represents as a nation under God, indivisible, with freedom and justice for all,

Uh, let's get right into it. Council's administrative work. I don't see anything. Uh, you two have something you want to talk about? Fantastic. President, do you want to nominate substitutes or something?

Ah yes, Sr. Rugg.

We really don't need it. We have six voting members here. So, uh, the only vacant place is Jeff's. You can nominate, you know, Ryan or Jason for... and Brent to vote instead of Jeff.

Praise Mr. Knights, being the oldest.

He's not a great guy.

Um, we don't have any administrative work from the council. Let's move on to the suspended questions. We have, this gives us seven voting members.

We have a public hearing for a formal request for a urban planning for a warehouse of 105,000 feet and the relative improvements of the site in the industrial zone 1 to 12 of Jace Bridge Road. Tax map 15, lot 103, 12. There is a bridge to the LC, it is a requirement. Charles H. Evans is the owner. This practice was updated on August 5, 2026. Everyone has the memory card. We had some problems with the staff's memory card on the computer, so I just wanted to make sure that everyone had it.

Mr. President, members of the Council, just to remember this point, it has been updated.

Since the meeting of August 5, 2026, the Council has accepted the question as a complete one. The Council will have to examine the question for the urban planning, a request for deferral, it is not necessarily a conditional use permit. We will deepen the question later. The comments of the design revision and the response from the public. Just to remind everyone at what point we are.

How's your finger doing? I can't hear anything but it works.

I still have it. And look for the double dimension of this. But the last time I was here, uh, Mr. President, I had my finger all messed up for a fishing accident. So many improvements. It was at least fun to fish. I did it up to that point. He wasn't there for this.

And this time he has a presentation.

And tonight is my wedding anniversary, so my wife is watching me online right now. Someone is connected. It's her. She's a lucky woman.

We'll be as quick as possible. We are a lucky man. If you're here, you're a lucky man. And your wedding animation? Talk.

Happy birthday.

It also depends on you.

Okay, fine. If we want to get out of here, we have to let him talk.

We can send him back next week, if you want.

Birthdays are very important. I'm not saying anything.

He'll talk very fast.

Okay. You have the word, gentlemen. This is our decommand. Oh, we have to ask to change slide. I don't remember. I'm sorry. Thank you.

All right.

It seems so. Oh my God. So, Mr. President, members of the council, my name is Tyler Murphy of Blend LLC. I am the proponent of the project.

Rich Whitehouse, VHB, civil engineer of the site, landscape architect, traffic engineer.

Laura Gandandi, lawyer at the Divinement and Branch in Manchester.

We really have to go deeper into the matter.

This is just a quick overview of the communications that we want to include in the presentation. In practice, it goes through the first contact with the city and the municipal engineer regarding the project and all the aspects dealt with so far. And very quickly, this is the same slide or the same drawing included last time. I know we didn't make the presentation, but it's just a very quick panoramic view to reorient everyone. This is the 12 of Jack's Bridge Road, currently an unimpeded site, partly free land, trees, etc. It is located in the Miles Standish Business Park. We propose a warehouse of about 10,000 square meters with 104 car seats and 28 loading benches. And as I mentioned last time, the design of the building that we will see in a moment and the general arrangement are extremely similar to those of the 26 of Jack's Bridge Road that I also authorized. That said, I pass the word to you Laura for the last request to deliver.

As the council will remember, the last time we were here, the council approved four of our five requests for derogation and one is still pending, that is, the one relating to the trees of higher diameter, 15 inches, which must be assigned and indicated in the plan of the state. So we discussed and there was a conversation regarding the marking of those trees within the limits of the construction area. After having thought about it further, I know that you had thought of granting a partial grant by adding a few more clauses. We believe that it would be clearer if the Council was willing to grant the grant and to add as a condition for approval some of the notes that we have inserted in our project package. We will therefore ask the Council to grant the grant for that section. We have added clear notes and I believe that one of the Council members is looking for a specific formulation The notes that we have included, which we believe respond to the concerns of the Council, are shown on our landscape plan sheet. The notes are the perimeter controls of erosion must be reasonably placed on the field to protect 15-inch trees or more in diameter, keeping a 15-inch cushion area around the trunk of the trees. And the second note is that trees of 15 inches or more in diameter, which could potentially be interested near the limit of the works, must be assigned before installing the erosion control. This is the formulation that we have elaborated after the discussion with the Council the last time and we think that it is more orderly to grant the request for a derogation rather than to make a partial derogation or a derogation with conditions that tend to create confusion or a derogation with confusion. So we will not insert all those trees in our plan of the state of affairs, but we are addressing the concerns of the Council, counteracting those trees within the limits of our work.

The staff examined the note and, again, I find it a bit confusing. I think your first note should come first. In this way, mark the trees from 15 inches to the limits, so you don't cut. It's a bit the opposite. You will bump before putting ... And then you will understand which are those from 15 inches.

Exactly. I understood perfectly what you mean.

I think it makes sense. And what is it? Same formulation, just inverted. And I think that the positive side of these projects, these projects on a large scale, is that the limit of work is not as sensitive as it could be in a residential project, so we are happy to move it and move it away from those trees. It's not as precise as if it were someone's yard, a proper review. How much do you think it is? It seems to me a fairly open lot. It's pretty open. You know, there are at least four acres already free today, and then you'll probably have to clean up another three and a half acres or four. Again, it's a bigger lot than the 26, but the amount of land to clean is more or less the same.

This is what we have.

All right. So, let's talk about derogations. Is there something wrong? That is, yes. So that's the only derogation, the suspended one. What do you want to do, guys? I make a motion to approve the derogation as presented, but by inverting the A and the B.

I have a motion from Mr. Farrell. One second.

One second from Mr. Rugg. All in favor, starting from Anne, please.

Anne Chang, in favor.

Johnny Veroni. In favor. In favor. Jason Knight. In favor. John Farrell. In favor. The President votes in affirmative. Mr. President, one second of patience, please.

An additional comment. We also recommend adding the notes to the C100 sheet. Those are the general notes and the legend, so that the appaltatore sees when he examines for the first time all the basic elements of this specific project, which are written there and not in a sheet that is very far back in the package. It is right at the beginning because it is the second sheet. And the second thing is that during the pre-construction meeting these aspects are examined so that the appaltatore is aware of the intention of this council, that is, to protect those perimetral trees.

Problems? It makes sense. Mr. President, I just wanted to point out that there are now eight members. Thank you, sir. So our verbalizer can see how much it amounts to the total vote. All right, let's move on to the next step here. Is there anything else you want to talk about or you want me to continue? All right. Next slide. So this really was in the previous presentation again because we didn't have it. This is more or less where we stopped. So I was verbally passing through all the slides and then obviously the architecture, so visually we just stopped. So let's take a closer look at where we left off last time. What you are looking at here is again a rendering of the building as you descend along Jackbur's Road, moving away from Nura and moving towards Harvey Windows, etc. You can see the elevation in front and the road that goes up slightly. The architect Randall Paulson of RPI is the same as 26 Jacks Bridge, maintaining the theme of the similarity between these buildings. So this south elevation is what we consider the facade of the building, the one you are looking at right here. So that angle of the rendering corresponds exactly to where my cursor is located. And it's too far because you can see it in this image, it would be down there. passing over these are the buildings so this is the back and the walls of the building reflect the story the building as I have already mentioned is predisposed to be potentially double located there are therefore two offices two parking lots with a sort of division so two groups can operate and this is what you are seeing here The scheme of the colors is that of the same drawings presented at the Heritage Commission and examined with them. These are very neutral tones. You know, it could happen that a locator is inclined to come back to advice in the future if he had specific colors for his brand, but at the moment it is for what we are authorizing this is the design in the scheme of the colors of the building, again very similar to number 26. Yes, Mr. Rod.

I just wanted to point out that Heritage was in agreement with the design and everything.

They didn't have any problems. In fact, I don't think there was much to discuss. Here it is. Oh God, again. Proceeding. It is good to go beyond this point. The screen of the site. So this is something that has certainly emerged during the last audience. It emerged also for 26. So, I stop for a moment. Rich, would you like to illustrate to everyone what is on the screen? So, again, Rich Whitehouse of BHP.

As Tyler mentioned, this topic had already emerged before. The original intention, the presentation, framed the visual screen of the site as required by the regulation, as facilitated by the existing vegetation that is located along the border of the property on the back. The comment received during the process of revision of the project was that much of this was excluded from the control of this project and its owner. And so there would be no guarantee in the future that if those trees were demolished the screen would remain in accordance with zoning regulations and the rules of the regulatory plan. So what we did was to pass the same approach used for the 26J Bridge Road warehouse, that is a metal mesh review on the back of the site with darkened doors so as to have a 100% opaque physical barrier along the entire rear perimeter. This figure, which you see in two screenshots, represents the visual of the vehicles that travel on the highway in its highest point, which in this view is the left side of the screen or image, looking towards the farthest point on the back of the building visible from the highway. This is the most prudent approach to ensure that the loading bay and the waste compactors proposed on the back of the building and in the area of ​​manoeuvre of the trucks are not visible from the highway. So the profile you see at the bottom of the screen reflects that line that goes up to the right. That would be the visual line at eye level of a driver or a passenger on the highway looking towards the site representing the line of sight up to what would be the upper part of the doors of the loading bay on the back of the building. and you can see, well it's a bit difficult to distinguish but what it represents is that the upper part of the proposed review intersects that line of view which means that what can be seen beyond the review is above the charging ports while the compactors are well below the height of the doors if all this makes sense I stop for a second

And I think only as a last comment, essentially what you see in the VHB project should still be a slight difference because they are different properties, but it should actually be the same thing you see at the 26GX Bridge since 1993. So your experience and the view should correspond, even if some dimensions are a bit different, the experience and the visual you see should coincide with what you are currently observing at the 26GS Bridge.

In reality, another point in favor of this site is that the existing vegetation is present today and will provide an additional screen if it should ever be removed, you know, from the DOT or from anyone else. We still have the review that works as a screen, but in the meantime the view of the highway is really more than mature trees, which you know of the landscaping slope and the overwhelming metal network review.

I think I didn't get it. There's a rather significant barrier for the road. It looks like a huge hill. So, Grattuale, I imagine that the reason we are planting it is my question. I don't know, you guys could have talked about it at the last meeting, but I don't understand why we are planting it.

The plantations along that slope? Is this what you are referring to?

Well, I'm sorry if I think that the thing you want to get to is let me ask you this question. The intention is that there seems to be a lot of existing vegetation and a barrier there, so the review seems unnecessary. I can understand the review. So you have the building, you have a precinct, and then you have a hill on which they are planted. Trees and bushes, and then you have the existing mature vegetation of the highway. Right. The hill. What is the hill? Is it covered with masses? Is it just existing vegetation?

The hill, then, the hill is a proposed filling slope, just to bring the new quotas of the site to those existing. The original idea was the seed for a permanent vegetative stabilization and then we received a comment that required vegetation, that is, trees and similar ones to be planted along that slope in addition to the seed.

So, Jake, if I can involve you again... So, the regulation reads like this. The loading bay must not be located on the sides of the buildings facing a public road, except for specific approval of the planning council, where such a request is granted. The Commission will require an opaque wall, a review of the natural terrain, vegetation or another solution to provide a screen as effectively as possible. So this was the comment. Yes, I understand why. It's there. I understand the reason. I just don't understand why you're right there. If it makes sense. So, anyway. I'll try again in another way.

And by the way.

Thanks for the total black. He already didn't get the porn number. I think you should check your email.

Make sure there's no error in typing, because tonight is the only one without something of mine.

You can see his age, because that one is blue. Because the lights are so blurred in here. So the point is that they can't control anything on the side of the highway compared to the reception and the transport department will come to a certain point to spoil everything as they usually do and then let everything grow for another 30 years. And when they do it, that building will technically, according to our standards, will no longer be a standard because you will see the doors of the cargo compartments. and that is a right of passage so this is a double or triple coverage if this happens we get that if that happens we get this and no one will ever see the charging ports so how do I do

Very well. I could only add one point. I just want to be clear about the verb. The planting on that slope does not have the purpose of providing a screen. It is a response to the revision of the project.

It serves for erosion. Is that more or less what I mean? It is not a matter of layout. It is more a stabilization of the soil.

It is more than anything else a way to distribute the trees around the site and I think that perhaps the intent was to beautify the slope a bit if it is visible from the highway. I just want to put it verbally that those trees were not positioned with the intention of faking because we have the review that does 100% of the work when looking at the grid and at the bottom it shows that the review blocks the upper part of the charging port, the review by itself and that is the exact figure that obviously we have reconfigured for this site but it is the exact figure that we have produced for the 26 of jaysbridge road So it's done as Tyler said, it's done exactly in the same way in which, in practice, the visual line towards the upper part of the loading doors is interrupted by that screening.

So you only see the building above. So I guess my question for the advice is this. I see an area that will simply turn into an infested vegetation mass with plants that will be half dead in two years. We believe it is necessary. For me it's the same. On the pendulum, though. On the pendulum. As far as things on the pendulum are concerned, it seems to me that it will be... Well, once dead, something else will grow anyway, I know.

I think it's important to have something there at the beginning.

And even if it were a rock, it would grow like something in the middle. That's right. Put some organic material too.

It's not a rock. Correct.

Okay. So, for the most part, we need something with roots. For the first year or two, then we let nature do its job.

The current plan provides an anti-erosive cover with the seed on it. So the cover guarantees the stabilization of the first day up to about 14 or 30 days, right? As the seed begins to sprout and put roots.

And then, as I said, the original intention was to leave everything in the meadow, to let it grow, maybe by pruning it once or twice a year, or not.

And then, again, the plants were redistributed just in order to respond to the comment received about the fact of not having a single large herbivore there. That's right.

Yes, ma'am.

So this was originally a comment of mine, let's try to visualize it. It will be a slope with an inclination of two and a half to one. It is very steep, so you are right. The survival of these trees is complicated and I looked for the two species that have been chosen for this. What are they? One is an acer and the other is a white bee and on steep slopes. They dig it well. My comment was about the protective screen, exactly for what Tony said, because the Department of Transport will intervene, there is a project, their trees will be eliminated, since this requirement is reaching the limit of ownership with leveling. There is nothing, there is no cushion area. So I talked about a cushion area. It was to beautify the slope, just to clarify. It is for the barrier and it was not only for my thoughts, it was not only about the fence or something else, but also the lighting and the fence, so that people on the highway and those who use the site, since there are trucks around and things like that, there are no fences, conflicts or security problems. So this was my concern, to create a barrier and perhaps a careful approach to the fact that they are doing this, you know, online review with the Um labels, which I thought was a good idea. Initially this piano showed a wall, and so there was no such steep slope and there would have been more space to actually put it, well, I'm not happy about not being the only one, that's all I can say. I'm so happy about this moment.

Excuse me. No, it's okay.

There were the Simpsons,

A lot of animated cartoons? Yes. Anyway, when there was a containment wall, there was more space and you could have made a plantation on top. So I was a little surprised to see the plantation where it is, on that steep slope, but it is what the applicant proposed. And I think it works. I think it works.

All right, I think we're in place. We have answered the question. Absolutely. All right. What happens next? So now we are all about to venture into... Well, maybe not all of us. As far as I'm concerned, I'm about to venture into unexplored territory. Um, this is our last slide. Um, and I wanted to take a moment to face some of the concerns of the staff here and provide some context.

I think it's worth noting these elements here for advice instead of avoiding them.

One is the entire park currently served by a private fencing system and by the relative pumping station. The pumping station has two pumps and one of these turns out to be in bad condition and then Bob Carey has practically defined it. What is the term I'm looking for here?

Non conforme.

Non conforme. Om Terea Pump, un'azienda locale, se ne occupa. Hanno rimosso la pompa non conforme, l'hanno riparata e sto aspettando la data in cui verrà rinontata, ma si parla entro i prossimi 5-7 giorni lavorativi. the flow from this building the intent, if approved, is that this construction begins in spring it is a 18-month construction so we are about 22 months from the moment when the Fognario system will receive the flow of this building it is more than enough time to correct the problems at the pumping station that is expected to come out of their substandard condition in the next 5-7 working days additional corrections are necessary if the city wants to detect the pumping station so turn it from private to essentially public which is tiring working it is worth noting that it is not on the site it is simply the whole park so the park building is subject to what I am saying and that immediately after the bus station on the right so Todd will talk about it in two parts. The first part is to revoke its current state of substandard, with the replacement of the entire pumping station as a city inspection about a year or two ago. Both things are in the working phase, we are doing the first part to advance the NHDS permit for the Fognaria part so that it passes from private to public. Ammetto che stiamo camminando sul filo del rasoio presentando il progetto per 12 Jack's Bridge. Questa è una questione di proprietà cittadina che riguarda l'intero parco. Quindi sono collegate ma anche separate per certi versi. Versi. Laura, I don't know if you have something to add. I just wanted to make this clarification, but it is worth noting that the comments you see in the staff memo and in the related documents are certain that John has other opinions about it, but this is the general picture of what is happening. We are practically at a good point. It is not something that influences the site itself or the decision for the building today.

In reality I will add one thing, if I can. As this council knows, you can conditionally approve a project waiting for the approval of the permits. So we will ask the council to consider this possibility. Given what Tyler said, we do not foresee the connection to the Fognaria station before another 22 months. In this period of time we will be able to bring the pumping station to norm for the city.

And I repeat, it concerns the entire park. John, I would like your opinion before saying what it is. Let's talk about fixing this pumping station for about three years. So we closed with repairs of luck. The last time we met the owner of the pumping station, we had given him a detailed list of work, but everything was abandoned until these problems arose. so we recommend not to sign the plan until that pumping station will be improved and as Tyler says if they don't start before spring then let's move and fix that station and I think we are ... is it broken? it is broken, it is not only under the standard it is a broken pumping station according to the opinion of the engineer it is broken when it is a duplex pumping station duplex means two pumps two pumps when one works and the other is broken Let's be honest, you know this. So this is the problem. Instead of wasting money by replacing a single pump, let's take the right ones. I understand what you don't understand, I understand what you say. The substation absolutely needs to be repaired. I think the point where it blocks me a bit is For me it must be done before the building opens, right? So for me it is not a condition of approval, it is a condition for legibility.

Anyway you want to see it, do you understand what I mean?

I see it as something that pushes you away. You see it as a condition of approval, I understand it. It would be, you know something?

Even the owner agreed.

Charlie Evans, when we discussed it in an email to me, that was the point. What do you think? I simply. Where I block is that you have a pumping station, which is not necessarily the responsibility of who is building the building. I guess it's here that I block on how we can condition it to something that is not directly connected, since the entire park is needed. It must absolutely be repaired. This is where I block myself. In the sense.

And so the question is why that would be the ideal situation. It will be repaired tomorrow. All right. Start building.

Right. In the spirit of the law, of the norm, it is really a certificate of agility before they can occupy it, before they start adding to the disaster. Have you seen what it does? It must be done.

But my initial question is why is the city taking over the gas stations?

Charlie Evans asked the city to take over? So again, how much would you like to transfer? What? How much would you like to transfer?

Well, once again, he has to step up.

Look how I see it. There is a requirement for which the city must take it in charge. So we don't have to take care of this thing. It is written here in the memo. The pumping station should be powered and completed before the closure of the urban plan.

What this entails is to set a deadline in charge of the owner, he waits for the owner, he does not have the city to collaborate with the applicant to make sure that it works, we do not want to get in trouble.

And I do not believe that the planning council has the authority to clearly interfere with the health care network, they should not get involved. So if the city does not take care of it, they will have to turn it into a condominium or an association of owners and make every building responsible for the pumping station, right?

However, Charlie has it.

I think Charlie is describing you today, essentially, while we are sitting here. So you have to do it. There is no way to do it. We don't have to make Tyler happy for that reason. So it's not our problem.

And this is the point I wanted to get to.

So, fantastic. John, make a deal with John. I think this is...

Without a doubt.

Let me go, it's between you and me.

No, I think that if he's already in a state of failure, he'll send him back forever.

We'll give him more space to say, well, let's keep sending him back. I don't know why. I don't know why.

Who was it to accept that the city and I don't think we should take charge of it.

There was no agreement. There was no agreement in that sense. It was just a request.

There is a resolution that was presented to the municipal council years ago about If someone builds a private pumping station, he must satisfy the capacity of the project. So we will not take charge of the pumping stations of anyone who pumps 10 gallons per minute. No, we will take charge of a real pumping station with standard pumps, in short, with all the right options. So there is a delivery that we can make for this. And they can present a petition to the municipality to do it. So we are working together with Charlie. Once the municipality is in charge, the contributors will be responsible for the maintenance.

That's why, that's why I want everything. Remember that the Fognaria network is a corporate fund.

Here it is, this is the missing ring. So they are the users. So they are the users. It is a fee for the users of the Fognaria network in the city of Londonderry, who will be responsible for the maintenance of that network. that property, or whatever you want to call it, that structure, that equipment, those pipes, anything, in some way, will be resolved between that entity of the municipality that is separated. It's not even... And it's self-financed. Self-financed. This is my point. It's self-financed. And so... We are light years away from all this.

So, in the general picture, None of this is about us.

Correct. Not at all. But yes, it emerged in the documents. So I thought it was time to take it out and, you know, to take it in hand and talk about it all together, because it was in all these documents and in various formats. So at some point we're just trying to... No, I agree. Don't wait for Charlie to solve the issue. What I wanted to get to is... ...add something that is not necessarily... Correlated to the building. It seems a bit strange. I understand what we're doing. You don't understand what I'm saying. I understand what we're doing. But look at it this way. For me it's just a bit unusual.

It's like for external improvements. Would you approve a non-depot without external improvements?

So the question is, does this advice want to trace a demarcation line, as John read, or not?

Well, adding a lane, a road, is done before we sign the project.

It shouldn't be a problem. All right, then I can accept it. Next point, filling over the fognaria line. Once again, we asked for a professional opinion or documentation on the fact that they are adding more filling over that fognaria line. The intent of that fognaria line is that, once again, Charlie asked us to take care of the pumping station and the line itself. They are adding another 9 feet of filling, whatever the number is over that line. We are asking them to provide us with a timbrated plan by a geotechnical engineer, but they have provided us with a version. It is not timbrated, it must only be touched. That's where we came with this story. And I think it's correct. And John, that was my fault. We have the timbrated plan. I sent the wrong PDF, the one without timbre. So it's my fault, John. Exactly. And then as far as touches are concerned, you know that Aries Engineering is a local studio that has worked on all these properties. And so I think that as far as the retouching, the examination of additional elements and their annotation, whatever they are, I think that Aries can obviously take care of them. But I think that the fundamental question was structural, it is a question of structure. Is the structure of the tube able to withstand additional filling? And we hired a civil engineer who has been part of the project since the beginning to take care of it. And it's my fault if I provided the PDF without timbre, but tonight we have it here, but... So in a good year, in a good year in which the ice is scarce, you will start the work or you will give way to the construction in seven months. It is hoped for March. I hear a lot about Super El Nino, I hope it will be in seven months to build a pumping station.

Well, the building will not unload in the foaming and this is the shortest timing possible, 22 months from today. No, but what I said... Oh, you mean before starting the construction?

You have seven months before building anything to make it work with the pump or to obtain the equipment to make it such, to make it certified. Anything you have to do to make it acceptable for the city of Londonderry or for any department or office of the matter. At the moment you have seven months to do it. President, I would say there is more than enough time to complete what you are trying to achieve.

In this sense, and John didn't do anything wrong regarding the comment on the feet.

But, say it again, he doesn't own the... I don't know, it's not even on John's website, right? But all this stuff is emotional. I understand what I mean.

That's something between him and...

I know, but do you understand what I mean? I'm officially in contact with Nicola from the AAA pump, so...

I don't think we should get in the way. I'm not trying to get in the way. I'm just trying to talk. Let's go.

We are talking everywhere. Are you getting lost? Then the last point here, again, it is worth noting. A third parity revision. I don't know, Rich and Laura, if you want to talk about it a bit, I'm happy to do it, but maybe it makes more sense for you. You know, there was a response to the comments.

We have provided a second response package to the comments. I think it was August 18 and about two hours ago we received the third letter of comments from Stantec or rather two letters. one for the area plan, the revision of the area plans, and the other for the revision of the traffic study that was provided. The letter relating to the traffic study seems essentially, you know, with the little time I had, to say that they agree with everything we have done, you know, we have resolved all the concerns they had, or the comments they raised, or the comments they raised.

And I suggest that you have heard Christine, who is the traffic engineer, the last time she was here. This time it didn't come just because it was practically a closed question, but

So she worked to provide an additional memory that analyzed a couple of things differently in different ways in different ways. And so, as I said, this seems to be a conclusion letter in which they seem to agree with everything we have provided. There are a few comments remaining on the plans of the AI on which we will dive immediately and on which we will work to solve them as we have done with the other packages. But we believe that most of those comments are, I don't want to say signposts, but essentially more than anything else control points that indicate requests for derogation and similar things. Verify any comments from other city departments, which is quite standard, which we see in all the letters and then some technical comments on which we will focus, but which we believe are of a much smaller nature.

We didn't think there would be anything that would change the site, this point has been reduced, but it is worth noting, right? We want to be clear about it, but you know, of course, these are things that we will follow and that we will adapt as a conditionally approved. But I wanted to at least point it out.

It's just another thing to note, I know that in the Pro Memoria di Revisione del Personale it talks about a conditional use permit for performance standards. 1. We do not need a conditional use permit, we just have to respect such provisions by law. So are they things we have to respect? It's not that we have to ask for a conditional use permit, so I think there's just a little bit of confusion about it. 2. We take such provisions and we will respect them.

This is the sound of the airport. And John, you had mentioned at the beginning something about... I heard you say something about a cap at the beginning. Do you agree with... Yes, Laura is right. Laura is right. Very rarely do I say that a lawyer is right.

This time it's a performance. Having an incredible evening here. Thank God all this is being filmed. He's right.

It was a performance standard. It's not a condition of use permit. So we don't have a cap to manage here.

No, in your archives there should be the answers on how they intend to deal with noise, vibrations, atmospheric pollution, odors, reverberation and heat, footpaths and pedestrian structures, lighting. So it's all part of the performance standard.

John, do you want to briefly review the conditions and comments of the design revision? Point number one still concerned, as already said, the requests of Daryl. The second point is to obtain all the necessary permits and provide copies. point 3 was about the condition of the existing pumping station on which I think we have discussed enough and I believe that the advice includes the concerns point 4 was the one related to the filling above the pipe point 5 was the screen on the back of the building of which Tyler spoke point 6 was about some leveling works within some existing services the concern is that there is a reason why those services have been created and have not yet provided me with the documentation but again what was the intent of that service I remember that all the rainwater of some of those lots goes down along the border of the property towards the large wetlands that are to the south of this specific lot I didn't do the research. It's not my responsibility to do the research. I know enough to be dangerous and the thing must be deepened. And the best way I can explain it. Point 8 concerns some clarifications on the details of the construction. Yes, the set still only concerns the monumental sign. Point 9 contains some comments related to landscape planning and lighting plans. Point 10 concerns the analysis of the drainage of the project as indicated by Rich. Yes, the staff is satisfied with the brief analysis that has been prepared and is acceptable. We are just asking that the applicant continues to assist the city in obtaining the DOT permit. And the 12th was the confirmation from the various departments that the conditions or their comments have been addressed. For now that's all I have. Those are not in this package. Where are you looking? Help me. This is it.

Maybe I remove it?

Sorry guys, I remove it. All right, if you want. Then you have it back. All right. All right. Commission, do you have anything else? Yes, I have a motion for the approval of public evidence, Jack. They haven't arrived yet.

My God. All right, Silvia. Thank you, Tony.

All right. So, apart from what John talked about, The only other thing really quite minor is a simple thing. They also talk in the landscape plan of a note that instructs the appaltatore to remove and pile the stones of the existing wall, For the reuse determined during the construction by the landscaper and the owner, I only suggest again that that note be moved up or copied and added to the C1 in the legend and in the general notes, so it is not hidden in the landscape plan. It is the only other. The point I think I have All right, with this I will open the public hearing. Anyone from the public?

I close the public hearing. Are you ready? I'm ready. I make a motion for the approval, conditioned for 12 J. Beelzebub, capacity map 15, 803.1. For all the previous conditions and the general and subsequent conditions that have been discussed and are in the promemory, I have a motion from the SIG. I have a second. I have a second from the SIG. Knights, all in favor, starting with Anne.

Anne Chan, in favor.

Giovanni Berni.

Tony Di, in favor. Arthur Hague, in favor.

Knights. John Ferrer. Brentelle, in favor. John Cruz. And President, vote in favor. This regulatory plan has been approved. Thank you all. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Well. James Maio, Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission. I would just like to point out that I followed the issue with the municipal staff, preparing the amendments for a public hearing, including the provision of informative material. I don't know if they used it, but I prepared a memorandum with a proposal for the relationship of the staff and some motions for the public hearing. I do not know the exact procedure for the implementation of your public hearing. I assume you will have one today. And I'm here to offer comments or answer any questions you may have about the regulations provided. But I think at this point you already have the material for a public hearing.

All right Silvia.

If you want, I can provide a very brief overview of the four points in the list.

It would be ideal.

The first, residential parking, according to the legislative updates. So this is quite simple. It's just about updating urban planning to reflect the fact that the city cannot require more than one car per unit based on the changes to the state law. It does not appear in many points, but essentially what you have in front of you. They are amendments only to the urban planning, not to the regulatory plan or to the subdivision regulations. That is a separate task. Goodbye and recommend for sending to the municipal council.

James, if I could, there are so many documents here, I'm not sure which one I should open. And this is the residential parking lot.

What you see on the screen is a comparison between the text of the current amendment in black and the text of the amendment proposed in red. And just to reiterate it again, it is necessary to put our regulations in tune with the new RSA approved by the State Legislature and the Congress. Exactly. You will be in accordance with RSA 84. 16 part 7.

And, overall, our task this evening is to agree to transmit all this to the Municipal Council for the approval of...

It is correct, because the Municipal Council is competent on the zoning ordinance What is not covered by this are the regulations of the site plan or the zoning. This concerns only the zoning element. Because at the last meeting, if you remember, you preferred to transmit it to the municipal council, approve the modifications to the zoning and then go back to correcting the site plan and the zoning and anything else that falls behind. So yes, thank you, I want to expose things in order. So the second point here is, I'm sorry Silvia, I know that the numbers in the plot do not correspond to those in the order of the day. My apologies, because I didn't know it would end like this. But the second thing we have here concerns classic roads and private roads.

Let me get there. I will show the versions in comparison so that everyone can see the difference between the existing language and the new one.

And just to recap, what we are trying to do here is to clarify the language of the city of Londonderry, so that there is no categorical exclusion of the roads of class 6 and of the private roads. This does not open the door to development on roads, it is not suitable. What it does is simply change the language so as not to exclude a road just because it is labeled as class 6. and this is according to RSA 600-74-41, which states that it is not allowed to limit the development of 6-class roads. What can be requested is that the 6-class road be built according to road standards. Therefore, the box that I have provided essentially equips a 6-class road to the same standards applied to any other road.

There are several elements to consider.

Yes, it is true. It is the expression of the road of class 5 or higher, it appears in many points of the zoning. And so all these changes go from, let's find a good example.

Can you go a little further on Silvia?

From this side.

So this here, the current language refers to section 4.2.1.3 of the zoning ordinance. Voce B, facciata minima. Quindi il linguaggio attuale parla di facciata minima su una strada di classe 5 e superiore. Ciò che stiamo dicendo qui è che la metratura minima deve essere calcolata solo per una strada di classe 5 o superiore o una strada indicata in un piano di lottizzazione approvato dalla commissione urbanistica oppure una strada di classe 6 o privata idonea a servire i lotti secondo l'RSA 667.1. Ha senso.

and therefore in many places there is a reference to class 5 or higher. We have modified this point to include the roads of class 6 and private ones, provided that they meet road standards. The main part of the modification for this point concerns the lotting regulation because it is there that your road standards are described in detail.

A question about if it is a road of class 6 and it leads, let's say, to the road standards, but I think you mean the common standards, right?

Is it still a class 6 road at that point? No, probably not. Yes, that's a good point. The Municipal Council would give it to make it a class 5. But yes, to respond to D'Arte, the Municipal Council should declare that it is no longer a class 6 road. Yes, they have to make the declaration.

Yes, because potentially today someone could be at the end of a 6th grade street and want to ask questions, hear them say, no, you're on a 6th grade street, you can't build there. And this, you know, according to state regulations, it's not true, they can build there. They just have to provide adequate access that satisfies the municipal standards for emergency access, you know, access to emergency vehicles, whatever the municipal standards are, for... We did it.

Can we see the old floors again? Well, are you something on the streets of class 6? Too late.

No, I just think it's, sorry if I ask an obvious question, but it's like saying I want to lot a land.

Well, it brings it to the municipal standards, it creates a road according to the specifications and it is no longer a road of class 6. It's a normal road, so... I don't know. I mean, is it really needed? At least it will be clear. What does a developer have to do to build on a road of class 6? And it's not easy.

It is a normal road on the right of passage of class 6.

Stop, as long as it's the Municipality.

It happens. The other thing is that if the Municipal Council must change it from 6 to 5, this at least covers that intermediate period, that void. I see, boy.

All right. Do you want to move on to the next one? Continue, please. Let's do the... All right. So, the next one concerns the Vecce-Sol housing units.

Can we make the acquisition of the approval and leave the add-ons for last?

Can we keep it for last? This is actually a particular situation.

No problem. Let's do A2 then.

So for the ADU we are modifying the definition to adapt it to the one used by the State, which, however, coincides with that of the building regulation to define a housing unit, which eliminates a bit of confusion and, you know, incoherence between the definition at the municipal, state level and the building regulation. It will all be the same as regards what a housing unit is. And then section 5.18 is modified to allow an attached or separate unit. And it reveals different dimension standards of design, parking and similar to align the municipal provisions on the ADU to the RSA 674, 71 up to 73. And so it seems that everything is changing, but in reality it is only exposed lower and it is ... Much of the formulation has not changed. Where have we changed things? We have provided clarifications on the fact that parking requires only one car seat. That car seat can be satisfied both in place and out of seat through legally binding agreements. We have worked a lot on the size of the unit So, before the previous regulations, they provided a proportionate rate of the size of the adu compared to the house up to a certain minimum size, which allowed you to reach up to 750 square feet with an adu, but then the state regulations say no, 750 is the minimum you can allow. La città precedentemente consentiva un importo maggiore. Se scorri in alto, Silvia, posso vedere cosa fosse. Qui il 40% è l'area abitabile. Quindi il 40% è l'area abitabile, ma non definiva la dimensione minima.

O la massima.

O la massima in piedi quadrati, ma il massimo il 40% è la dimensione della casa principale. And this in itself was not in line with the state regulations that have a specific measure for the minimum size. So what we did was intervene and define the minimum size at 980 square feet. But then, when the main house reaches a certain size, we are back to a proportion to essentially maintain what the city already has in its records, if that makes sense. So, for example, let's say it's a house of 1400 square feet, right? How much is the 40%? Can I do it with the calculator right now?

560. 560. 560. So 560 square feet.

It's less than the state minimum, or rather, the state minimum should be 750... Exactly. You did not have any clause to clarify it in your zoning order. So what this does is clarify that you can build an adieu of 950 square feet regardless of the size of the main house. And then, once the main house exceeds a certain size, which here is 2175 square feet, because when 40% equals 950, from then on you can build a larger adu, which corresponds to what you already have in the records. So the point of telling you all this is that I try as much as possible to conform to what you had already understood. So what it does is guarantee that the adu cannot be larger than the main residence.

Not necessarily, since you have a clause that states that it should be subordinate to the main house. So, in the event that an ADU is larger than the main house, I think that in that instance it would be interpreted that the main house is becoming the ADU and the new building would be the main house.

So they would be reversed.

It would be strange.

And in that case, many things emerge, right? as the way in which the utilities are connected and many things that change at the site level that should be addressed. Moreover, you still have to consider the green spaces, the distances and everything else. So it's not as simple as you might think to go and say, well, I'll build a 950-foot adobe next to my 800-foot house. The city could say, no, in reality what you're doing is building a main house and turning your existing house into an adobe. Thanks. There is another one, of course, but we have already talked about it in the past and I think that... No, one thing to note here is that the State requires that any existing structure, regardless of its non-conformity, be qualified as an ADU, but you know, you already knew it.

I'm sure of it, but... And this only allows an ADU, correct?

Correct. This takes the most conservative path allowed by the State.

And there were, I had several people who came and I met a family regarding the ADUs. I'm just curious because there was a lot of confusion regarding the fact that the state allows two ADUs and, you know, you know.

The rules on tiny houses are different from those of the ADUs. They classified them as something completely different.

Yes, we weren't talking about it. They are different rules.

Yes, I think people take what is happening in the State and try to adapt it to their particular situation. So there is a bit of distortion and adaptation in progress. So I'm really encouraging, I'm really happy that you will update your regulations and then we can simply indicate that the London Derry regulations are updated with what the State allows. It's because it's difficult for anyone to sit in my office when someone says, well, the state allows it, so it's allowed to me. It's just a big discussion and it becomes a headache.

Well, and if the city does not pronounce on a particular issue, a homeowner could have some arguments about why he is right. So, you know, this is part of the reason why we are doing the alignment.

The state law would have precedence.

Exactly. As if it were for the city.

Yes, we will hear it again. This story of the Tanny House will be a problem... Seven quarters. It will be a problem. We have to do a workshop.

Yes, actually the office we're talking about right now... Yes, I understand, it's not related. I know what you're saying. It's something else on the way.

The State Office for Planning and Development will also have workshops together with webinars.

This is something they are about to approve, or they are trying to approve.