Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'm going to call to order the March 4th, 2026 planning board meeting. If you could please rise for the pledge of allegiance. Pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, let's get through some administrative board work. Uh, first thing is approval of minutes. Mr. Rug, do we have any minutes to approve?

Yes. Uh, Mr. Chair, I just want to note there's seven voting members here tonight. That is more than a quorum. So, we are good to go. Can I do I can make a nomination though. Uh no, I can't. Never mind. We're all filled up with regular members. Uh I forget that uh Mr. Johnny and uh John are absent. So, okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of February 4th, 2026 as presented. I have a motion. And do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor, starting with Ann, please. Annne Champa, I. Tony D. I. Don Ferrell. I. Arthur Rug. I. Jeff Penta. I.

Sean Faber. I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. These minutes have been approved. Do we have another set? [clears throat] Mr. Chair. Uh, I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of February 11th, 2026 as presented. I have a motion. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second. All in favor starting with Annne, please. Anne Champ I. Tony D. I. John Ferrell. I. Arthur Rug. I. Jeff Penta. I. Sean Faber. Abstain. And the chair votes in the affirmative. These minutes have been approved. All right. Kelly. Regional impact determinations. We have anything? Not this evening, Mr. Chair. Thank you. And any discussions with town staff? All set.

Good. You have [clears throat] one extension request um for 42 Wentworth, which is a site plan that you approved about 120 days ago. Uh they're asking for a six-month extension to September 4th, 2026. So, I am looking for a motion to grant an extension to the 42 Wentworth uh site plan to September 4th, 2026. So, moved. Second. A motion from John. I have a second from Art. All in favor starting with Anne, please. Anne Champa, I Tony D. I John Farrell. Arthur Rug I. Jeff Kent, I Sean Faber, I.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh, this extension request has been granted to September 4th, uh, 2026. Anything else, Kelly? That's all. Kristen, you good? All set. Fantastic. Um, we are going to get before we get into our master plan public hearing. We do have a continuence tonight. a requested continuence um on the Precopio site plan. So, I am going to be looking for a recommendation. It's going to be on both of them, Kelly. Correct. A and B. There's three. Three.

Perfect. I'm looking for a motion uh to continue these to do we want to do the second week in April. They the applicant requested April one. April one. Oh, perfect. Perfect. We will um we will uh we will I'm looking excuse me I'm looking for a motion to continue these to April 1st 2026. Uh this would be old business A and B and new plans A. So moved. I have a motion from Jeff. Do I have a second? Second. Uh second from Mr. D. All in favor starting with Ann, please. An Champ I. Tony D. I John Ferrell. Arthur Rug I.

Jeff Pent I Sean Faber I

and the chair votes in the affirmative. Uh the precopio site plans on Gilchrist Road have been continued to April 1st 2026 which is the first meeting of next month. All right. Master P plan public hearing. We have a public hearing to consider the adoption of the tunnel master plan pursuant to RSA 6742 and RSA 6756. The proposed master plan is a comp comprehensive planning document intended to guide the future growth, development, and conservation of the town of Londereerry and includes the required chapters as set forth in RSA 6742, including but not limited to the vision, land use, housing, transportation, economic development, and natural resources. The proposed master uh plan is available for public inspection during normal business hours at the planning department [snorts] um and online at londonerh.gov. All right, folks. Come on up. Nice to see you again. Thank you for coming.

Thank you. You want me to do it for you? Yeah. Drive for us. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, the rest of the board. Um, it is truly a pleasure to be here tonight. Um, I'm Suzanne Neighbor, principal planner with the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission. Good evening, um, planning board members. My name is Cam Pman, senior planner with the Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission.

Yeah. And um since tonight is the uh scheduled public hearing for adoption of the master plan, we wanted to start by just doing a very high level um reflection on this process just to set the stage for that. Um so first we'll do a very uh kind of high level project summary reiterating some of the points that we shared a month ago, but we'll move through those pretty quickly. Um then we'll talk about the the public comment period process and some of the comments that were received. Um and then we'll turn it to the board um for discussion of comments and sharing your own thoughts and moving towards the the public hearing for adoption. So next slide. So first of all, this has been a tremendously collaborative effort. Um it would not have happened without uh the work of the individuals you see on this slide. We had a very active steering committee that met almost monthly for the entire year and [clears throat] a half of the plan development um and guided this process in a really fantastic and deliberate way. I also want to thank town staff who are closely involved um planning board members who reflected on this and everyone from the community who uh were engaged during this very collaborative process. Um, as you can see, there was a multi-pronged uh community outreach to get folks uh engaged in and aware of the planning process. Um, everything from tableabling at public events to posting on social media, op-eds in the London Times. I got to do a really fun session [clears throat] with the the senior center. Um, and all of that was very effective in getting responses. Next slide. from a total of more than 2,000 um surveys that were completed. And there were two different survey cycles. Um and so those of you who completed those know that each survey cycle touched upon um a a series of different topics. Um but we were incredibly impressed. This is excellent turnout, excellent sample size, especially for a community of London's size, and really

gave us a very strong foundation for guiding the content of the master plan. Next slide. Oh, this is a moving a little slow, but we also wanted to call attention to some public uh some community workshops that were held in this fairy room. We thought it was really important to not just do individual survey response, but bring folks together to have some dialogue about some key priorities and start to ground some of the feedback we were receiving about priorities for the future in specific locations in the community. Um so you'll see that in the plan as well a f in a future land use map. Next slide. Um this is the content that you'll find in the master plan. Most of the those of you who responded to the first series, the first survey, um th that content is basically summarized in part one chapters. Um folks who responded to the second survey that happened uh last fall. That content is summarized in part two chapters. And there's a plan insert that digs deeper into all of the engagement that happened as well as the the vision for future land use and the future land use map. Um I want to call attention to the final chapter, chapter 10. Next slide. This is the shortest chapter in the plan. It is one page long, but it is really important and the steering committee emphasized um that this really should be a living document and the recommendation and the content of that chapter indicates that the planning board will be leading next steps to sustain collaboration around implementation of the plan. um really align this work with strategic planning activities that are concurrent and ideally assign an individual to spearhead collaborative semianual review to really reassess priorities and opportunities and also celebrate implementation successes emerging from this work. Um and with that I'm going to turn it over to Cam and he's going to talk a little bit about the public comment period.

Thank you. So we we last saw you January 28th that kicked off the public comment period um which so which lasted from the 29th to February 28th. Um town staff as well as steering committee members posted um the link to uh provide comments via a Google form on the town website through social media meeting announcements. It was on public access TV and uh some folks did personal outreach as well. We received a total of eight comments um from the public via this Google form. Um the comments address various topics such as historic resources, open space protection, development concerns, renewable energy, fiscal responsibility, north village identity, and the frequency of the uh master plan review.

We as in Southern New Hampshire Planning Commission staff did go ahead and make some of the more uh minor corrections and I can give you a couple of examples. Um I believe the the plane board members um have a copy of the comments received. Um the first one for example um we incorrectly noted that the Morrison meeting house was slated for inclusion on the state register of historic places. We were informed that actually it is not um slated as of now. So we we made that correction. Another example is that uh we also noted an incorrect number of conservation commission members and so we made those edits. Um there are more um substantial comments um and we felt that these were should um you know to address some of these comments um that should be up to the discretion of the planning board. But we felt it was important to document them. And so we created a new appendix that would go in this master plan um that documents um each public comment received during this public comment period. Um, and yeah, did I cover that all?

You covered it. Okay. Yeah. So, with that, we'll turn it the conversation back to you for any planning board discussion about revisions and also uh for the public hearing process. [clears throat] Wonderful. I will uh I'll start with the board and then we'll go to the public. Anybody from the board have anything they'd like to add? I think we've been through this quite a bit. So, it's [clears throat and cough]

No, I would just um kind of um just really quickly just, you know, thank you Suzanne. Uh thank you Cam for kind of working with us and kind of getting this plan on paper here. Um we've had a lot of you various um conversations on this plan as a board level. um this evening, you know, we have some, you know, choices to make whether we move forward with adopting or um if there's, you know, further insight [clears throat] that we need to kind of put in. Um the one thing I would like to kind of point out though is that there are some great comments here and I think the um um if we could somewhat focus on the North Village aspect as well. Um, I just want to kind of premise this by saying throughout the 18-month process, the North Village has been um, you know, was a topic of of importance. Um, and I I think it it does have, you know, kind of that unique character that can serve multigenerations that I think we definitely want to kind of really, you know, think through. So I so the comment that is related to the north village I want to ensure that we um kind of do look at that a little bit um really kind of and potentially map it to to some of the strategies that we have currently as the master plan steering committee has kind of put forward. Um lastly I just want to kind of thank the master plan steering committee. Um that group has been you know you know stellar. Um we had you know some turnover um and and such like that but um you know there have been you know very good advocates and um you know for the town and you you know the folks on that committee really deserve kind of our appreciation. So you know that said Mr. Chair.

Sure. All right. We will uh we'll bring it to the public if the public has anything they'd like to discuss. Uh come on up. Suzanne, could you just put that microphone on the Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening, sir. Uh, Ray President through Gary Drive. Uh, oh, I do want to thank the town for for um putting me up for u volunteer of the year. Um there's a lot of other people that volunteer, [snorts] including you folks, and uh I certainly appreciate that. Uh we all try to do a bit. Um but getting back to the master plan, uh I think a lot of time was spent by a lot of people, including Southern New Hampshire, um planning that assisted the town, and uh I think that's good. Um I I took a look at it myself. Um multiple pages. Um and one thing that because I I'm very much concerned with uh natural resources and water. Uh I think uh that was brought up. Um but I think um personally I think we probably need to really look at that uh moving forward. We understand uh the master plan is a guiding document for the planning board and and for zoning and other things in town. Um it doesn't have a lot of power but it is a plan uh and a vision looking forward. And I I think it's very important that uh a lot of that be taken into account and uh because it is really important. Um thank you for what the planning board does, the town council does, other boards do, and uh thank you to the uh Southern New Hampshire planning. And

thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you, Ray. Anybody else?

Evening, sir. If you can help me state your name and address. My name is Mike Ellis. I live at Savage Shamaro. My wife and I. Um I think if if this uh if this uh project is going to uh um affect anybody, it's going to be us because we're literally right behind it. And I personally don't care. And be my guest, build your restaurant, whatever it is you're doing. Oh, this is We're not quite there yet. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. We're talking about a mass. I don't go to any of these meet. Come back up in about a half hour. Okay. You see me in a half an hour. [laughter] Thank you. Anything else from the public on the master plan?

Evening, sir.

Good evening. Uh John Wilson, Tranquil Drive. Uh, I'd like to uh call your attention uh in the master plan to page 80 item, [clears throat] excuse me, item eight. I don't know. And you probably don't have that handy. So, I happen to have basically that I'll summarize it. It basically says expand on demand transportation opportunities for non-drivers by promoting uh car services. So, as it happens, the senior resource committee, which I'm a member, is has sponsored a warrant article this year. It's it's warrant article 22. And I wanted to go over that briefly because I'd like to understand whether or not what we are doing is a good fit for what you were propos proposing in the master plan. Okay. So, article 22 is uh I guess I would describe as unique from the other Warren articles that you see just about every year. And that most of those articles uh tell you very quickly in the title what you're voting on. It'll tell you know to raise money to buy a fire engine, to approve the town budget and so on. Article 22 is unique because it does a variety of things roll rolled into one war article. Uh I won't be able to quote the Warren articles, but basically a Warren article was created to take two other two other RSAs, including the one that that we're talking about tonight, and put them in a package. and it used a warrant article

that allows the towns to add a fee onto the registr car vehicle registration fees. It also adds in the ability to at the same time set up a reserve to uh hold that money uh for a specific use in transportation. Okay. And then uh the question is is where do you use the money? Well, what the what we're doing and what we think we have general agreement with the town management and the budget committee and so on. We are going to use the money to use as match money for cart. Okay, which I think fits in pretty well with your concept of promoting cart usage. Uh, but it the Warren article is tough on to get to because when you read it, you say this is just a bunch of legal mumbo jumbo on here. And what I'm trying and it's very difficult to get across the point that down under means that mumbo jumbo is the ability to significantly increase the funding and the services that cart can provide over the years. And it me and it's also gives us funding every year that's relatively consistent. It's not like putting a Warren article on and then have to come back year after year and ask for money. This will bring in a slow but steady uh funding. So it it can be used for a service, a service that continues, okay, year after year. You can't have a service for somebody somebody and then pull the rug out from under them because you can't fund them the next year. That'd be like having the police department's war uh department's budget every year on a warrant article and then

next year comes along. So, but the point I'm trying to make is that Warren article doesn't sound like much. It never mentions senior transportation, but that's what it's for. And the question is, is that is that compatible with what you're asking for uh on the master plan? All right, Mr. Chair. Um yeah, so really quickly, I'll just address that and I think it's important to uh I can't Sorry about that. I'm not even near the mic.

Yeah. So really, um quickly, I'll address that. It for the most part, yeah, it's in the same vein. It's in the same kind of you know, strategy, right? So if we think about the master plan, it's our it's our strategic vision. what you've what you've proposed and the great work that your you and the senior um committee has done is bring that warrant article to fruition in future once this is adopted then we can start to kind of really say oh hey we have you know this warrant article over here and it maps to our strategic plan over here so now we're telling the story of what we're doing so I think the work that you have done is aligned with that um and once the you know when you know the planning board does decide to adopt this um this evening or in a future meeting then um we'll definitely kind of look at it from you know kind of you'll we'll have that data to really map it you know map the work that we're doing.

So this is a good start on one item on the M master plan right? Yep. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks Mr. Wilson. Anything else from the public on the master plan? All right, seeing none, I will bring it back to the board. Uh, I would be looking for a motion to adopt the master plan. So moved. I have a motion from Sean. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Arthur. Discuss. Oh, yeah. Sure. Discussion. Well, yeah, we Yeah, that's we can just open it for discussion. Yeah,

absolutely. So I just want to kind of again bring um bring the north village in on this and I think having the comments as an appendix as part of the plan you know allows us the flexibility to kind of um provide that document so we can guide you know the f the implementation of it. It gives us that data and that information you know kind of do to do so. So um

there's also a comment here about having about an energy plan. Um with that though I do want to kind of stress that I think that the utilities committee is working does have a energy plan um that is you know kind of fruitful and you know very vast and very um important. [clears throat] What I would caution the board with including that is then do you know having that in even the appendix of the master plan does that allow does that now provide us having that oversight of that? I don't think it does but I just want to kind of throw that kind of out there. [clears throat]

Yeah. No, I think we'd be all right. Anybody have any comments? I think uh Jeff's on to something good because I look at the public comments more as a strategic uh you know plan that would fit in the strategic plan. I mean it'll guide us in the implementation and that's what the strategy is supposed to do. I know the town council and town manager are working on a town strategic plan. Uh this will dubtail into what uh what they are doing. Mr. D. Good. I'm good. Anybody else? Good. Okay. Ch. Anything else? Um, I don't think so. Cool.

So, we had a motion by Sean. We had a second. We just had some discussion. All in favor starting with Ann, please. Ann Champa. I. Tony D. I. John Ferrell. I. Arthur Rug. I. Jeff Penta. I. Sean Faber. I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. The uh the master plan is has finally made it to the finish line. Thank you for everybody that has been involved. Thank you both very much. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you all. [clears throat] All right. See, yes. All right. Uh

we are going to get into some new plans. We've got a public hearing on an application for formal review of a site plan for renovation of an existing building to add a restaurant and associated parking in support of an aggra tourism operation at 230 Mammoth Road, map 6, lot 21, zoned AR1, MH acquisitions LLC is the owner and the applicant. If folks want to come on up. Um, Kelly and John, I will start with you too. Again, yeah, completeness. Um, there are now nine outstanding checklist items. If the board uh decides to accept the application as complete, these items should be waved for acceptance only. Uh, they are outlined. The nine uh initial waiver requests are outlined in uh Kelly's memorandum dated this today. uh the one, two, and three waiver requests. Those will uh come back up later on in in the discussion. And staff would recommend that you accept this for uh um grant the waiverss four through nine for acceptance only and uh accept kind of an initial uh granting of the those first three waivers so that you can get to the other waivers.

Sure. Otherwise, the uh process can't continue. Okay. Um All right, Kelly, anything else to add to that? So, again, just waving those items listed under completeness for acceptance only. So, you can proceed with Yep. the applicant's presentation and then the [snorts] rest of the Fantastic. So, we have nine outstanding checklist items. I would be looking for a motion uh to wave these checklist items for acceptance purposes only. So move, Mr. Chair. I have a motion from Mr. Rug. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Shawn. All in favor starting with an please.

Anne Champ I. Tony D. I. John Ferrell I. Arthur Rug I. Sean Faber I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. These first uh nine items have been waved for acceptance purposes only and have now become a uh conditional of approval. All right, Kelly, John, anything else before we get to the applicant? Fantastic. All right, folks. Good evening. How are you?

Good evening. My name is Laura Gandandy. I'm attorney with Divine Mill here representing the applicant Max apples or MHO acquisition. And I just want to take a moment to introduce our team. I have Dari from uh Tend Engineering who's our engineer. I also have Kim from TPP who's our traffic. Then I have Kyle who's the principal uh owner of MHO acquisitions and Max apples. Um so as this board is aware, uh Max apples is a staple of the London community. It is one of the oldest if not the oldest apple orchard in the state. Um it's uh Max family has been in London since 1792. You've all heard the story before that it is an integral part of Londereerry in who Londereerry is. Um we are here under the agurism statute the state statute for a farmtotable restaurant under RSA 21A34. We have appeared before you folks a couple of times uh me once but I know this project has been in front of the board another time as well. Um, last time I was in front of you, I presented the board with a packet of information with state statutes and we went through that and the waiver requirements under RSA 67432. Um, the last time we did go through the statutes and we also had the commissioner of agriculture Sean Jasper here to answer questions that the board may have had. He is not with us tonight and apologizes but he wanted me to reiterate to you his support for the project. We also had some discussion regarding the site plan review requirements and the language in the state statute where towns may require. Um we went through that with the board. We are here before you today with a full site planned and a request for 11 waiverss. The approval we are seeking is for an approximately 4,000 square foot restaurant within the existing footprint

of the existing building for a capacity of approximately 99. that will be constructed. As I said, within the ex existing building, there'll be no um expansion of the existing building. There will be some changes to the outside of the building based on the renovations to the back side of the building for the restaurant. The entrance to the restaurant will be located on the back side. So, when you're looking at Max Apples from the road, you see the farm stand. to access the restaurant, you would park and then you would walk behind the building and that's where you would access the restaurant. Um, with that I will turn the presentation over to Dari from Brown Engineering who basically review the site plan with you.

Yeah. Uh, thank you Laura. It's it's going to be a short presentation. It this is a this is a relatively simple project. Uh, there's there's not there's no land development. There's no change of use. This is a an agricultural site where agri tourism exists and it's going to continue that way. In fact, we we don't necessarily know there'll be an increase [clears throat and snorts] in activity at the site. Um we have uh made some very mi minor changes or proposing some minor changes to the site I should say which really constitute uh improving the entrance way for uh customers uh to the off uh to the restaurant um in a very small already existing area and then adding some lighting to the parking area. Um, other than that, um, I would just like to thank, uh, staff and, uh, the town engineering. Uh, we appreciate all the comments that we received in those in those memos and reports. And, uh, from our standpoint, we don't see we don't foresee any problems with addressing each and every one of those uh, comments that appear in the engineering memo. Um, other than that, uh, I'll stop there. Again, I I see this is a relatively simple from an engineering standpoint and happy to take any questions from there. [snorts] Thank you. Thank you.

So, I do have the 11 waiverss that a lot of that's going to be repetition of the waiver requirements. I think we'll I think we'll certainly take them one by one. um feel like it's appropriate to um [cough and clears throat] go walk through walk through them with us one by one and then then we'll kind of go from there. And did you have any questions beforehand? Um let's work with the waivers. Well, if I I want to get through the waivers because there's a lot of them and then we'll get to general general board questions and whatnot. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Um as indicated in the staff memo, thank you Kelly for outlining uh the waiver uh statute. Um under agurism um the state legislature [snorts] has made it a point to promote a collaborative approach between farming activities in the state and municipalities and by doing so they have recognized the importance of agurism and agriculture in the state. Um with that they have implemented RSA 67432C which is the statute that provides a different standard for waiverss than those waiverss standards that are typically contained in site plan review regulations. Um the waiver request are governed by state statute and it basically provides that municipal boards must grant a waiver from generally applicable site or building requirements if literal application would effectively prohibit an agricultural use or be unreasonable in the context of an agricultural use. The waiver is necessary to reasonably permit the agricultural use and the waiver will not have a demonstrated adverse effect on public health or safety or the value of adjacent properties. So that's the criteria the framework in which we are working. Um and the statute does reference in accordance with another statute which is RSA 6721 Roman numeral 3 letter B. And that portion of the statute talks about the importance of agriculture that it makes vital and significant contributions to the food supply, the economy, the environment and the aesthetics features of the state of New Hampshire and agricultural activities are a beneficial and worthwhile feature of the New Hampshire landscape. Agurism is undertaken by farmers to contribute to

both the economic viability and the long-term sustainability of the primary agriculture activities in New Hampshire. Agricultural activities in agurism shall not be unreasonably limited by the use of municipal planning and zoning powers or by the or by the unreasonable interpretation of such powers. So again this is setting the framework for that collaborative approach between farmers [clears throat] and local municipalities. So the first waiver request that we are seeking is to section V.10 um and sections 3.11 5.06 regarding the conservation overlay. As this board may be aware, if you look at the site plan, there is an agricultural farm pond that was dug and created to provide irrigation for the farm by the MAC family, I believe in 1950s. Um, it's been used for irrigation purposes since then. um state uh the PMC EPA, they typically exempt farm ponds from wetland classifications based on the usage that happens with these ponds because they're emptied and then they're refilled again. Um the town of Londereerry does not exempt uh farm ponds from the conservation overlay district. Other mun municipalities do. So, we are seeking to be exempt from delineating the fom, which we actually did do that. Um, but more importantly to not be subject to the conservation overlay district. Um, to not put signs up and to basically keep what you see at the site as is. So, we were in front of the conservation commission and we presented these our position to them at uh twice um and they came back with a recommendation wanting to keep the 25 foot buffer and that's

where the picnic tables are. So, keep that as is to keep the picnic tables there. And at first they talked about putting signs, you know, around the front of that. they decided not to make that a recommendation based on the language of the sign and the uncomfortable or unfriendly feeling that would have to visiting patrons with the signs. So, they uh did not require us to put um signs there or ask us to put signs there. They did want to keep that 25 foot buffer and let us keep the picnic tables there. um going along the back side of the building up along uh the back portion of the farm pond. Um they did talk about putting um the CO2 district signs there. Um unbeknownst to me, when I first met with them, I didn't realize that those signs would actually be placed in the middle of the field where farming activities take place. So, I sent an email back to the conservation commission with this additional knowledge and a request by my client to not have us put those signs. where farming activities take place. We did not attend the meeting. Um, but we did receive comments back. The way I understood the comments was they still wanted the signs to be there, but only to be placed on existing trees. So, we're not going to be putting post in the middle of the farm field in the back. Um, they also had concerns about snow storage and we are noting on the plan that snow storage will take place on the right side of the plan near the old existing barn. Um, but back to the waiver. So, our waiver is um to not be subject to putting those signs there. We believe that this would be unreasonable in the context of the farming activities to put signs on a farm where we're trying to be welcoming and inviting to visitors. So, we're asking to be exempt from the requirements of the CO2 district buffer and to be putting uh those conservation overlay district

signs. Board, I have any questions? Um, I interpreted the sign thing differently when I read it. There was a there was a second handwritten portion that I don't know who wrote it, but the chairperson of the of that committee is here tonight. Could could bring her forward or ask Well, it's right here. Place conservation signs on the trees along north. It looks like the north of the west edges. I mean, it's written right in there. Right in the notes that she sent along as you said. I'd like to hear the chairman of the conservation commission herself.

She signed it right here. Exactly what she just wrote. She's here. She just waved. Custom signage concerning message similar to She's sitting standard buffer signs. Uh friendlier could be option for the area. I mean, where the picnic tables are. Just reading what you wrote. Marge, if you want to come up real quick. Tony's got a question for you. Thank you. [clears throat]

Marge Bedo, Conservation Commission. We just thought it would be good to indicate that that area is conservation. It shows that the farm is participating in protecting wetlands. I we view it as a good thing. It's not imposing a hardship. We didn't feel if they were on the trees, they're not in the way. They're just educating people that this is protected wetlands, which is a good thing. There was concern that um the verbiage felt off-putting to people who were visiting and we thought that if in the front where the picnic tables are, if they wanted to create signs that just in a friendlier manner indicated that this is conservation, please respect it. Um we'd be okay with that. So, but I think we heard testimony that that said that your committee said they didn't have to put them where the picnic tables are, but you're saying you would like some

some kind of signage there. Maybe not the official ones that you have, right? We didn't have to put the off-putting ones, but we're just asking for a little and so how education of people. Yeah. So, how would you s do you have a suggestion for us on how we would put that in language that made sense? You know what I'm saying? I I don't know how to do that as far as what verbiage to be on there.

Well, what she says here, Tony, is this custom signage conveying a message similar to the standard buffer signs in a friendlier manner could be an option for the area [snorts] where the picnic tables are. So, I think what you're saying is is use our standard language, but make it nice. Yeah. Cute it up. You know, whatever. And just one would be fine, right? But but to beat the horse again, you you're saying your commission wants signs near the picnic tables. It would be nice. Yes, we would. And that is the 25 foot buffer. It's the fence is approximately 25 ft. So, we've instead of

post and rail fence, right? Okay. So instead of making them move the fence or adding another structure, it seems to make sense to just have that fence serve as the boundary. Sure. Because no vehicles are going to go past that. So hopefully Yes. So [laughter] the so the the I saw some cars today that were doing things that didn't think was possible yesterday.

This morning. Um, so could would would you be okay with those signs on the fence post instead of having an additional post just add to the post that's already there the the post and rail fence, right? Just to educate people, you know, please don't throw the trash, you know, respect. Got it. Throw stuff in the water. Okay. Thank you. One last one real quick, Marge. And you clear I think you cleared it up for me while you were talking. um for the signs along the north and west edges of the pond. You're not looking for it at the 25 ft buffer. You're saying, "Hey, get get the closest tree so it's not in the way or impeding

um any farm activity, that type of thing." Thank you. All right. Anything else for March? Good. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. In March, just you know, because the you're right, the conservation overlays, the protection sign, it states protected conservation area. Do not disturb. I'm going to hang you, whatever. I think it a simple sign that I would say protected conservation area period would be enough, right? Yeah. You follow that? Keep it simple. Real simple. Yeah. I I'm fine. I'm fine with it. What what I thought I heard was that the conservation commission or the applicant doesn't want to put them at the pond or at the picnic tables. And and I probably heard incorrectly, but

no. What happened is they came twice they came before us twice in the original time that Laura came then expressed concern about the verbiage of the sign we said okay you didn't have to put them there because they were offensive and then when we reviewed it again it was like why can't we just do a a friendlier version and that happened at the second time the second time they presented correct okay we didn't present the second time we weren't there yet thank you thank you Marge appreciate I could we have direction. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you.

And I just wanted to add just to clarify the point of putting signs along the picnic table. We just want to be cautious about what those signs were and that's the discussion we had with the commission saying protect the conservation area. Like people might be like, "Oh, we can't come in." I mean, people have been using this area for the picnic table. Um the owner is very cognizant of that area. So putting signs there, we'd rather not see that happen where the picnic table area is just because we want that area to be inviting. What about if we just add it be on the fence? It we just said though, it would be on the post and rail fence. The sign would be on the fence, the fence post,

right? So if I'm park, if I'm a visitor to the farm and I come in and I park and I want to go sit at the picnic tables and have my ice cream, if I see the sign that says protected conservation area, I'm going to be like, "Oh, well, there's picnic tables. Can I go? Can I not go?" So that was the type of discussion that we had and that's why the first round of discussions were okay we understand that we're not going to have you put it but put it along the backside. Kelly just if I can so the applicant's asking for a waiver from this requirement in its entirety. Yes. So that's your assess that's your analysis. If the board denies the waiver, then maybe you consider modifying a condition that states friendly signs

essentially complying with the conservation comment. But at this stage, your decision is you're granting the waiver or you're denying the waiver. You don't condition waiverss. It's not advised to do that. And they're asking for it in its entirety. So that's your consideration right now. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. We want to go on to the next one. Sure. Sure. Okay.

Um there are two that are interrelated. So there was one for the grading grading and drainage plan and one for the storm water management plan. Those are sections uh 3.07. Um and I'll ask Dar to correct me if I miss speak about some of the engineering terms. Um we're seeking a waiver from [snorts] that based on what's happening at the site. We are not proposing any external construction on the site minus the installation of the light post in the parking area. Um there was discussion about a retaining wall being put up. Um that retaining wall is my understanding will be made of rock and uh have the ability to handle any type of water flow with that. Um we don't see that there is a need for any type of grading or drainage. We're not changing runoff. We're not doing anything that's going to affect that. all of our construction and changes are happening within the existing structure. Um it would be unreasonable in our opinion to require a full grading and drainage plan and storm water management plan when there's no exterior changes to the site or construction being proposed at the site with the provisions exceptions for what I just stated unless I'm misspeaking.

No, that was well said. I agree. I concur. John, can you provide some input or opinion on that, please? So, again, um, and bring that microphone to you, would you? Thank you. We may end up having to come back to this, Jake, because again, this Yeah, once we get in looking at the the, uh, the safety of the site, that's kind of where this will lead into needing a grading and and drainage analysis and a plan. Okay. for so it's we'd almost have to put this on the the back burner right now. Okay. Anything from the board? Yes, sir. Mr.

Chair, uh what I look at is the uh the usage of the proposed new usage for the 99 seat restaurant. There's my my vision is that there'll be more traffic there, you know, more wear and tear. So, I'd like at least some idea of what's going to happen with with the water. I mean, it doesn't have to be a full-fledged, you know, drainage plan, but also storm waters. We do have uh some heavy downpours. Uh how do we deal with that? I mean, the tra more traffic in and out of there, it could change the uh the slope and the, you know, so that's one of my uh my worries. I'm looking at it to protect the public. What can we do to protect the public that uses that uh that area?

Yeah. All right. Are you talking about runoff impacts? Pardon? You you talking about runoff impacts? Yes. Yeah. Both the uh you talk about two and uh was it four, but you know, we're talking about a completely different step. You're talking about 365 days a year and you're talking about a parking lot that has never been used to the extent in which they're proposing in the winter. So, we really have unless we have some sort of crystal ball, we don't know what the effect to that parking lot's going to be, including runoff, right? Yeah, Tony.

Yeah. And and and to that point, I mean, go go go by the site now. It's not plowed, but it's going to be plowed when this new use and and by the way, I object to the to the to the comment that was made that this is not a change of use. It's definitely a change of use. You're going from a farm stand to a

to a to a full service restaurant. We'll talk about that later. The the fact is you're going to have cars coming in, especially a winter like this, which we probably haven't had in two decades. Um, with with all those salt licks behind their front tires and back tires that fall off after you park a left there, the salt leeches into the ground, runs off to wherever it's running to. And I think John's point is is it okay? We we don't have a basis. Correct. Is that correct? Correct. We don't we don't know. We don't have topos. We don't have we don't have anything

that that they they've shot topo, but again the the drainage hasn't been analyzed. This is this is the aerial photo from our GIS. Yeah. And what that'll what the the drainage area what the drainage plan will do is address these puddles. Yeah. um which is which is right by the exact people are going to be walking and and parking or whatever, but we we really don't have a basis for drainage for that site. We don't know which way really the water's going to go. Not at this time. Um especially once the ground is frozen and that that's one of the more important things in in my opinion. But um if we're going to come back to this, I'm I'm done. Sure. Thank you.

Uh you want to go to the next one? Um, do you want to make any comments? Well, I'm uh so are you interested in comments, continue comments on that? I mean, you know. Yeah. Okay, I'll have them.

Yeah. Okay, sure. Um, I mean, again, we're we're looking at change to the site. Um, as far as uh increase in impervious area, we understand. Is that not the basis of the um if I may ask is that not the basis of determining whether a storm water management or um grading and drainage is required? If there's is there some threshold at which that type of information is triggered if it's if it's area of disturbance then I guess I would argue that we we wouldn't be subject if it's some other criteria. Um Mr. So that's why when I said John I am

when I said that that the board is going to have to look at you know what the adverse effect on the public health and safety utilizing the site that's when it's that's what would kick in the the necessity to to look at trigger the the drainage. You're saying if we had to change what we're proposing in order to address public safety. Correct.

Okay. But based on what we're proposing now, that's I guess that's what we're asking. I mean, certainly if if the the course of this deliberation goes in the direction that it's determined that we have to add impervious area that we aren't proposing now certainly that you know anything could happen, but at this point I mean we're asking for the waiver based on what we're proposing. Um yeah I think can I just I think your question is as simple as what's triggering the requirement for this analysis. So the requirement is part of our site plan submission process. You submitted a full site plan. So right there. Okay. Ticks a box.

That's and then you can then ask for a waiver from those requirements which is what you're doing. Yeah. Okay. Maybe I oversimplified it. No, no. I that's a good point. I guess it's the site plan process itself that Well, but I mean it would not I suppose if there were no change to grading and drainage or storm water management scheme, then it would be reasonable to grant the waiver, perhaps unreasonable to not grant the waiver. Right. I guess that's your argument.

Well, right. I mean, I shouldn't say that to Kelly, you know. I guess I should say that to the board. I mean, right? If we're proposing no change to grading or drainage and no change to storm water management scheme at this point, therefore I contend that it's reasonable and appropriate to grant this waiver. So, thank you.

Would you would you consider the addition of the restaurant a change of use to the facility? Well, a change in the ins and outs of how the facility is used. Indeed, yes. When I stated this is not a change of use previously. Um, what I meant is it's not a ch it doesn't move the site from one use category to another. in my understanding my understanding is it's an agricultural site that um has agurism as an aspect of that agriculture now and then that will continue under this proposal that that's what I meant by that

Tony I saw you have your hand up yeah and so I I think the the the basis of what happens here is obviously point of law and point of rule policies and procedures. So typically when any site comes before us for and and follows through with the application process to Kelly's point, you got to tick off the boxes. If you don't tick off the boxes, then you got to have waiverss,

right? And in in in this case and in and in in in I'm not going to get into the argument about the the the change of use or not, but I will tell you when when there is a change of use then John please protect me uh protect me um tell me when I'm wrong but but my my recollection is when it when those things happen then the entire site is opened up for review. Is that a fair statement? Correct.

Okay. And that's really all that's happening here. We want to know what's what are the current conditions so that we can make a decision on whether what's happening there meets the requirements or doesn't because it's been there forever. And no, you haven't there's no records of anything that I that I'm aware of. Tell me if you open the drawer and it's empty. So, so that that's part of the issue. We have and you weren't here, but we have already said it was an 11 to1 vote that this site meets the agurism, right? Uh, we already did that, right?

Okay. So, all this stuff that's going around on social media and and and I've been getting screenshots for six days now of stuff and flyers that have been handed out and mailed out and all this other kind of stuff. It's incorrect. Well, for the record, I'm oblivious to keep going on, you know. So, I'm not going to go too far down that road right now, but but but the point is

we we don't have a basis to say what you want to do will work or not, whether it's safe or not. You're gonna put a walkway in and and and a surveyor is going to come in and say that that that's a I'm gonna make up a number 304.17. Great. What does that mean? We don't know. We don't we don't know if that's going to be safe or not. The town engineer and and and and the plan the town planner needs to be able to say this is inside our regulations or it isn't out or it's outside our regulations. And so therein lies the problem that that's the elephant in the room. We we we want we we said at the the last meeting we we want to work we're trying to be cooperative but we also have to to try and protect people too and and we do that a lot.

I guess if I may. Sure. John I know hold on John I know you had a question.

Yeah. I mean, the only thing is we've I know I've probably walked the parking lot a thousand times. Probably collectively up here on the board. It's been walked tens of thousands of times. It's a it's a lot of hills and valleys, you know, to to come in here and say it's it's all set, we need to go is kind of silly. No one in the last meeting was saying, "Hey, this is a bad idea." What we're saying is is that we have regulations, we have rules, and you know, we got to meet them. saying that the parking lot is good to go and you want a waiver. Withdraw your waiver. I mean, let's work together, but it's that's just not going to happen.

Well, I mean, I'm Yeah, I think we'd rather you just wait vote on them rather than Yeah, let's we'll keep going before we get to that. If you want to go to the next one, I do, please. Um, the next one is a waiver to not provide a landscaping plan pursuant to section 3.10 of the regulations. um 3.10 talks about the landscape in the town and actually mentions um orchards as being you know inherent in landscaping. So with that um we believe that it would be unreasonable to provide for the applicant to provide a landscaping plan for an existing orchard and farm stand. Thank you. Next

um the next one is the parking lot waiver and that is from section 3.09K. Um there's a provision in section V for that that we are actually looking at first. So I just want to find that for you. Section 309 allows for an alternative source um that can withstand the weight of a fire truck. And I'm just going to get to that. So in V it says alternative surfacing. The planning board may permit a complete or partial substitution of an alternate surfacing for a paved surfacing on a parking lot provided the board finds that the alternative surfacing will not be detrimental to adjacent properties in streets by reason of the generation of dust, the disintegration of the surfacing or the dispersal of storm water runoff. and that the surfacing is appropriate to the intensity of vehicular movements associated with the use and that the surfacing will support an acceptable degree of access to the property by fire department apparatus. Um the applicant did obtain a geo from a report from geotechnical services inc um that did look at the surfacing that exists currently and he did uh conclude that the roadway is therefore suitable for a low volume road in accordance with federal highway administration design methodologies and is determined to be adequate to support fire truck loading in the event of the emergency. So we did undertake that um exercise at um pursuant to section V. We believe that

that meets the requirements for an alternative surfacing. I know uh member Frell you are asking us to withdraw that. Um I am going to move forward with that request as I think um given it's a farm stand given the nature of farm stands. The conservation commission actually weighed in and they said that they would prefer not to have the parking area uh paved. We presented this to the heritage. They didn't provide any comments either way for or against it. Um but that was presented as what we are doing that we were seeking not to have the parking area paved. So with that, we believe that kind of contributes to the look and feel of what we want the farm to be. Um, it's been in existence like that for years. There hasn't been issues that have been uh reported that weren't able to be taken care of. We think uh given the geotech report that this is a reasonable request and to require us to pave it, we believe would be unreasonable in the context of the agriculture use of the farm. um and letting us use it as is is necessary to reasonably permit the agricultural use. And it's our opinion that the waiver will not have a demonstrated adverse effect on public health, safety or welfare or the value of adjacent properties.

What is the um metric for a low volume road? Do you know that? No. I'm not going to act like I can interpret the geotech report, but the board does have it. So, I'm not that's not my expertise, so I That's fine. But we don't we don't have an understanding of what would constitute a low volume road, middle volume road, high volume. How that's defined, right? Correct. I'm looking for a definition of a Okay. a low volume road. Mr. Chair.

Yes, sir. Um, and ask Kelly, could you put up put up the the geotech where the those test pits were done, please? I think they found the answer. Okay, we'll go through this and we'll come back to it. So, am I pulling this up or no? Go ahead. Second page. No, the the geotech report. all in one ducket. [snorts] I can't I can't get it to come up on mine on mine.

It's freezing. I I can do it on my personal computer, but I can't do it on the on the Yeah, mine keeps freezing as well. Yeah, I've got it up on my phone. I think it's freezes in there. I think it's maxed out. It's slow.

Yeah, it's it's too big of a file. Anyway, I can keep talking. Um, the the um the letter that was written was based on the test pits that were done pursuant to a question that was asked by the fire department. And the test pits were done right where the entrance to the the new end the I don't know how to say it. the entrance to the new space, the renovated space. There was three test pits. Correct. Three test pits and they were done on the side. So, if you're looking at the building, it's where the fire access road where the fire truck would go in order to life safety. Correct.

But but that does nothing for the parking lot itself. That doesn't that doesn't tell us what's in the parking lot. What it tells us is that the if a if there's a fire, a fire truck can park there and it won't sink. And we know that that's going to protect the taxpayers because the $2.5 million firet truck is not going to be damaged. That's what that tells us. It doesn't tell us if if the parking lot will support anything in the winter or during mud season or whatever. And there's no the to my knowledge there's no past history on that because it's not used in the winter and hasn't been used in the winter. The paved portion has and that's where people go in and buy things and and whatever. But we don't know. You don't know. The new owner doesn't know. I don't even know. There are Macs in the in the in the audience. I don't know if they know. But I don't but I don't know. and the town engineer doesn't know what's going to happen to that parking lot when it when it starts to get traffic load. So, it's great. It's great those test pits were done in that spot. Helpful. Very, very helpful. Satisfied with that, but there should be probably six more in the parking lot. So, we know it's there.

Just Just I think I have up what you're talking about.

Yeah. So the red the red is the three test pits, right? So great. So the the part the black part that you almost can't see right now is going to be the renovated part where the where the restaurant is going to be. So I guess the fire department can put up their snorkel ladder and shoot down at it, shoot water down at it, but they really can't get to it from that side. Um I don't know if it meets their requirements or not. I'm not going to speak [snorts] for the fire department. I know based on past experiences with them, they wanted to get at least threequarters of the way around a building um for for where the activity is going to be, especially in a multi-use building. Um so, um I'm I'm not going to speak to that at all other than those test pits do a great job of helping the fire department. It doesn't help this board with parking lot situation. Um alternate alternate uh Mr. Chair, can I continue?

Uh yeah, real alternate real quick on the alternate types of surfaces. Sure. Come to us with grassy pavers. That's farmy Tony. Real quick on the question on uh the fire department. They do have a comment here. Fire appar fire apparatus access road shall be provided such that any portion of the facility or any [snorts] portion of an exterior wall of the first story of the building is located not more than 150 ft from fire apparatus access roads as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building or facility. So I guess so does that do it?

I'm not sure but that is the that's a comment there. I'm not I I wouldn't be able to say without measuring it if if there is more than 150 ft there or not. Um you had I I had asked you about traffic low traffic volume. So I can answer your question first then I can respond please. Um, so in the report on page the last page, page three, yep,

if you look where it says traffic and then it says it says payment evaluation and then it says traffic, it says the cumulative number of ES over the design life is assumed to range between 10,000 and 30,000. Thus, the traffic level is assumed to be low. So, I'm assuming those numbers maybe then correlate to the last paragraph in the Do you know what an ESA is by chance? Do you know what is equivalent automobile load, right? Equivalent something automobile load.

Equivalent single axle load. equivalent single axle load for a low traffic level. So, is between 10 and 30,000 I guess you would call it trips through the lifespan of the road. What have I said? [laughter] You're going to stand out there and count. Yeah. No, no.

All right. You had one more you wanted to answer Tony on. that kind of correlates with that last sentence that we were referencing um to address uh member de Francesco's comments. The reason those test pits were chosen was at based on discussions with the fire department. They wanted to have the ability based on the length of the hose to be a certain way distance from that. So that's why that was there and it's in the regulations. So that's why it was chosen to have those three test bits. for your second uh portion of your comments. This parking area has been in existence for decades without issue with high traffic flow and count and to capacity um during the peak season.

But but may I

you keep you keep saying that but it's but it's it's not that you don't have the history that you're purporting that it has because there's no history in the winter. There's no history during mud season. There's there's there's a history of of a summer apple picking season or whatever and a little bit after that when the ice cream stand keeps going and then that closes and then there's very little activity there at all. It's not even plowed in the winter. We have no records of what what that piece of land does in the winter. Does it heave? Does it not heave? What what what does it what does it do? And Geotech could tell us that and and test pits could do that. And and and then then we have an opportunity and engineering has an opportunity to work with you and and make some decisions based on well let's let's see what we can do here. And yes, there are other options besides uh what I used to call Mercadam uh asphalt. Um and and so there's there's plenty of other things that that that can be done to make it safe for the general public, for somebody in a wheelchair, for somebody in a walker, for somebody in a cane, for somebody who's who's who's not that mobile. I think you have a problem there. I do.

The pond is a bigger problem, but we're going to talk about that later. I want to keep going to I believe we're on six. Yes. Six. Traffic impact analysis requirements. [clears throat] May I? Yep.

Um, so we're seeking a waiver from section 3.14 for the uh traffic impact analysis. Um, we have received uh confirmation from NHDOT that they have approved our amended driveway permit and they are not recommending any mitigation measures um in that area. So, we have that and as this board is aware that is a state road. So, we have that. So, we think with that um we'd ask that the board permit us to move forward with just the amended driveway report.

With a driveway permit, it is just Kelly, help me out a little bit on that or John. A driveway permit is just that. It just says yes, you can put a driveway there. does not necessarily bring a metric of if it's safe for the driveway there. Correct.

Well, they'll they'll look at that metric, but again, if they're basing it basing it on TPS's report in your package is the the comments from from the third party consultant regarding, you know, the analysis itself. The the analysis just based on a 4,000 square foot restaurant. It didn't give any background of what else is existing out there. And and in in that report, it also talks about an off-site improvements, a turning lane on Mammoth Road. So, I'm kind of a little confused and and again, we'll have to reach out to DOT to understand how did they how did they issue a a traffic uh permit, a driveway permit. Thank you. You know,

is the permit existing already, John? I'm sorry. Is the permit existing already there? Well, there's an existing permit, but but uh Laura did share with us that they were going to be issuing a new permit. Okay. So, again, with and this is similar to 295 that we talked about last week or you know a Rockingham Road, right? He has to check the boxes. He checked the boxes. But now there's a, you know, the point now that if there's concerns, we need to reach out to to DOT and look at this closer. Yeah, I've read the entire traffic report and I concur with you that it doesn't do an analysis for the full site, right?

So, I don't know why DOT would issue a permit based on analysis for only partial because if he's only looking at at that and again, you know, what what what was he? So, that's why when we have a scoping meeting, everyone's around the table. So what and everybody shares their concerns. It's not just uh him reading the report and taking the the face value of the report. So like you like I say, if you read it right, he's talking about a 4,000t restaurant. What about everything else? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yes. I just I just want to state that um you know given the last meeting I I just I just want to make it clear that this board is in support of the overall idea of the restaurant and I know the whole town is we really want this but you know with this in particular this piece in particular for me with the traffic study the number of people that complain about traffic around town if we don't do this traffic study that's what creates these these blockades. So if all of a sudden Mammoth Road is jammed up all the time and people are saying, "Oh god, because of the because of the new restaurant and we didn't have a study to look at this to study it, to give us the data that we need to make a decision, we're back. We're making the problem worse that people are already complaining about and we already know from being there that there's a light issue and there are some other issues. But I personally think that's why we put all these things on regulation to protect the business owner as well as the people in the town to make sure what's being built is safe and it's not going to have be a detriment to the town. So that's why all these uh requirements are in there and some of them are are less important than others and I think there are some in here that we could probably get past, but some of these are are important and important to a lot of people in town. Um, so I just want to say that

Thank you. Did I have a traffic engineer just [snorts] comment on the Weaver? He's here. Uh, yeah, that's fine. It's Ken, right? Is it Ken? Kim? Yep. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening. I'm Kim Hazvardian, traffic engineer with TEP LLC. uh the analysis uh that we prepared is not a small analysis. It's uh about a 50 odd page analysis including the uh the appendices. Uh we uh had [snorts] a discussion with Zach Roller at the NHDOT district office and uh he uh told us what he wanted to see and we did. Let me let me run through it. Uh first of all uh the existing condition on Mammoth Road. Uh when I was out there doing my field assessment, I noticed uh that Mammoth Road southbound as you approach that main driveway, the so-called north driveway uh has a widened shoulder. Uh and we obtained plans uh from when the DOT improved uh the road in the 1980s. And the geometry of that wide shoulder looks exactly like uh what DOT would ask for for a uh uh for a bypass shoulder to allow uh through traffic to bypass traffic slowing uh to turn left uh into the driveway. Uh, so

if we're headed southbound,

if we're headed southbound, uh, and, uh, the best I can surmise, and I think I think Zachary would agree with this, is when DOT went through in the 80s and improved the road, uh, they they put that in, I think it would be the right treatment. And also the uh northbound shoulder as you approach that driveway is uh is wide enough that it could be used as uh sort of an informal turn lane or at the very least a taper. Uh so what Zach asked us to do in our analysis is uh confirm uh that the geometry that's out there matches uh the uh the what the turn lane warrants would say. Uh so what we did was we uh generated trips for the restaurant uh using uh the quality restaurant land use and the quality restaurant land use is probably the in my view is the appropriate land use uh because uh the uh [snorts] restaurant is not intended to be a fast service pizza stand or anything like that. It's one where people go and stay for at least an hour. Uh we took those trips uh for the weekday PM and Saturday peak and Saturday midday peak hours uh and uh we added them to the trips that we counted uh at that northerly driveway and we also have counts for the southerntherly driveway but they're uh uh they're they're very small at that southerntherly driveway. Uh and uh we uh left the volumes as they were. The trip generation was straight from the IT trip generation manual. Uh the existing use volumes were from the November accounts. No, they don't capture the very busiest operation of the uh of the farm stand. But that that busy use is uh for 10 weekends a year. And when you do turn lane warrants, uh if you look at the

methodology, you're supposed to do them for average conditions. Uh and uh I believe we captured at least an average condition. uh you're not supposed to do peak conditions. Uh and uh when we ran the numbers, uh the uh geometry that's out there matches what the uh what the uh turn lane assessment says. I believe during the uh Saturday peak hour having no treatment, a shared lane for lefts and thuss into the site as appropriate. And for the PM peak hour, uh having a bypass shoulder, not a full marked left turn lane, but a a simple bypass shoulder uh using the DO's benchmarks and methods, uh matches. Um now, couple of things on that. Uh what differentiates this from a full traffic impact and access study? The main thing would be a level of service analysis. Uh this this uh assessment does not have a level of service analysis. But let's look at what a level of service analysis would give us. Uh it would give us uh the level of service for uh movements into and out of the site. Uh let's look at the left turn into the site. I've done these I've been doing these for a really long time. The left turn into the site. um is only opposed by one direction of traffic. If you're turning left into the site, you have to watch for traffic coming at you from the south. And uh that's going to work at an adequate level of service. I can tell you that without running numbers. Uh movements into the site, excuse me, uh right turns into the site, level of service isn't going to be an issue. You just turn right into the site. Movements out of the site, if you're making a right out of the site, usually right turns work fine. uh left turns out of the site on a busy road where you have to watch for traffic coming in both directions, you're going to have delayed operations. You're going to have to

wait. Uh and and that's an acceptable condition and there's not much you can do about it. You can't put a signal there. Um and I wouldn't recommend uh prohibiting lefts out because when the road isn't busy, uh you know, that would be an unnecessary prohibition. And when the road is busy, people know how to deal with left turns on on a busy road like Mammoth Road. So that's that's where we uh ended up with the DOT. We we did what they asked us to and I agree with what they asked us to. Uh the methodology we applied is is very typical. Oh, one other thing. When we did our trip generation, um we added the 4,000 ft restaurant, but we didn't take away trips from the 4,000 square ft. not being used for whatever it was being used for before. So, we we left that traffic in there. We just added the restaurant. Uh so, I believe we've captured the important information and I'd be very happy to answer any questions at all on this.

Help help me with that real quick. The the last part you just said, you didn't take away what it's being used for. Now,

as an example, uh let's say someone were taking a bank building and making it into um a fast food place. And let's say the bank generated uh 80 peak hour trips and the fast food place generated 120 peak hour trips. That's a 40 trip increase. Okay. with uh the restaurant. We just added the restaurant trips and we didn't say, "Ah, they're taking away 4,000 square ft of of uh the uh building they're using already for the uh for the for the farm stand, so we'll take away some trips." We didn't do that. We we left all the trips there as if no space were being taken out of service. The the area is cold storage now, right? Right.

Some sort of storage. It's a It's a storage. It's It's not a big generator anyway. Yeah. I I that's all I'm trying to figure out is there is no public traffic. Well, I guess aspect to the cold storage, right? Because that's used internally. Theoretically, it depends. It it depends on how you generate the trips. You might take the whole building and prorate it down or whatever, but it wasn't it was it wasn't worth even thinking about. And what we did was on the conservative side, we didn't take any traffic away. Okay.

Um Mr. Chairman, the um the artic the the memo today from the third party consultant the the conclusion piece of it is um varies excuse me varies greatly. Um I don't know if we want to get into reading it into the record or

we want to read it real quick. The third party consultant uh does not find the conclusion presents in the study to be represented or validated um in the report since the submission lacks uh significant information about the existing site as noted above. Uh it is our understanding the town is currently requesting the applicant to provide development data um to clarify the percent of increase in the traffic and the roadway associated with each project and sub substantiate the anticipated new traffic in the areas. It is clear that the project has met the minimum requirements for a short analysis per the site regulations section 3.14C. At this time, a full traffic study may be necessary uh consideration for NHDOT review and revised driveway permit which is required for this. The consultant [clears throat] uh coordinate with the with New Hampshire DOT the the town of Londereerry um scoping meeting as John was suggesting project driveway application. Um they go on to talk about additional existing conditions proposed for the change. They talk about existing traffic operations at either site. They talk about turn lanes. They talk about coordinates to determine other approved site developments for the background of volume being considered. Traffic volume figures which include both uh site driveways. New left-hand turn lane warrants analysis on traffic uh volumes. Pavement marking lane pavement markings provided is uh if it is determined that the left turn lane is met. They basically what they're saying is is okay, you need a little bit more information and before you make any decisions and a little bit more working together.

John, have you had a scoping meeting for traffic? Not not on this site. No. Thank you. All right, Laura, you want to tell me?

I have one more thing. So, I will say that that I'm I'm not um personally I'm not that concerned with the traffic on this site, but I will tell you that when you talk about the south moving traffic and that nondescript turnout right on Mammoth Road, there are several. There's one on Shasta Road. There's one the the near Shasta Road. There's a there's a whole bunch of them on Mammoth Road North. Um um and and and so this one is it has a fog line on it basically the white fog line which helps people not go in the ditch uh and and it is used just as you describe as as a turnaround. Unfortunately, I will I will tell you that my observations after being here since 1978 is that that lane is many time many times has parked cars in it. And so it can't do both things. Um and the state has been I think very kind um because it creates quite a commotion uh for quite a few months um and not addressing it or turning a blind eye or or whatever because this car is parked where where they shouldn't be on a state highway. Um so I just I wanted to get that out there to help you understand. I I know you've been before us quite quite a few times but I don't know how much you know about London. So, that's my observation about that turnout length.

Well, I I I've actually I' I've heard I've heard about what you're talking about. I've got a question for you. Sure. Uh when um when it's busy and cars park along the edge of the road, does the traffic tend to slow down in the area as well? It it does. Yeah. It's It's better than a traffic sign. So, that's what I'm thinking. Uh sides. Yeah. Cuz they cuz the cars park on both sides and there's kids running back and forth on the road. So, it it's better than a 10 mph speed speed sign because it does it automatically. That might actually be kind of an accidental example of context sensitive design. Exactly. Where where the traffic kind of slows down automatically when it kind of when it needs to. It's better than a speed bump, right?

Other than the kids running back and forth, which scares the heck out of me. It's, you know, kids are kids. I will say though, I have two concerns with that. one, we have the fire station down here and if they need to go down that road, that's the access route. So, if we've got traffic slowed down there, that could be a problem. On top of that, the lighting in that area isn't exactly the best. So, if we have increased traffic in that area, you've got cars parked on the side of the road and you can't see it or it's at night or anything else, that could cause some other issues there. So, I think from a traffic perspective, those are elimination. Yes. [clears throat] Anything else before we go to the next one?

Go ahead, Laura. Thank you, sir. The next one I believe is on waiver number seven. That is a waiver request from section 3.08C2. Well, I just bring that mic to you a little bit. Thank you. I'm sorry.

Just bring the microphone to you a little bit. Thank you. Um the next waiver request is from section 3.08C2 to not provide sidewalks. Um the regulations uh state that sidewalks shall be provided onsite or as off-site mitigation as the planning board deems necessary. So I don't know if that gives a little bit of wiggle room to if the planning board doesn't deem it's necessary, then we don't need a waiver. Um but we're asking for the waiver regardless. Um we do not believe that. uh sidewalks are necessary or reasonable given the agricultural use. Um the installation of the sidewalk would serve no reasonable p purpose. The waiver is justified because a literal application of this provision would be unreasonable and prohibit the agricultural use and activity um in the context of what is happening on the site now.

Yes, sir. I have a a comment on that. I I agree the sidewalks, but then they're going to be walking in those lanes that we're talking about turning in. So, that's that's my concern. I don't know if we can do them both because then there'll be no place for people to actually walk. I don't know where where where where are they supposed to put the sidewalks? I don't even know where sidewalk nowhere. Where where in particular is building? It says the frontage of the the frontage of the building. Front of the frontage of the building or frontage of the street? frontage of the building. That would depend on where you put your handicap parking. I'm sorry. That would depend on where you put your handicap parking. If you're doing the frontage of the building, right? It's identified as a as a as a sidewalk.

We're talking about a sidewalk to a parking lot, not a sidewalk to a roadway. Is that what this is? Correct. Okay. Correct. Oh, that's different. I was I was on sidewalk. Yeah. Yeah, I'm with you. I get it. So, again, an opportunity would be to put some wheel stops along the front of the building. That would give them the seven foot. Put some ballards in or Well, a will stop would be better. Okay. Okay. All right. Uh, next one, please.

Uh, waiver number eight. Uh, it's from section 3.08B3. And I believe there was a concern from uh the staff review that the driveways two driveways on the property may be closer than what is allowed by the town's regulations. Um these two driveways have been in existence. Um we believe that the distance between the two driveways from center to center is 221 ft. That applicant with that figure the applicant does not believe the waiver is necessary but is submitting it in response to the design review comments received. The waiver is justified because a little application would basically require moving one of the driveways. Um, this would be unreasonable in the context of these two driveways have been in existence um since 1950.

I'm confused. Well, there's I need clarification. So, so are you saying that the north curb cut which has been closed off for quite some time is going to be opened up? No. No. on the south one. She's talking the dirt one. She's talking middle and south. The dirt one by the by the by the animal farm. Oh. Oh, got it. Got it. That's all. That's a dirt road right now. Got it. Got it. All right. Yeah. So, you want to leave that a dirt road. Is that what you're saying? A dirt entryway. Yes. Has a dirt entryway. Well, that's I don't think that's the specifics of the waiver request. The waiver is pertaining directly, I think, to the district

location. specific to the location, not the existing condition, just the location. The distance between the two. Yeah. Need to go back to sidewalks. I'm sorry. [laughter] I'm sorry. There is Kelly. Just can I just read the regulation? Yep. So, it's access points shall not be located closer than 200 feet from one another on the same side of the road or closer than 50 ft to any intersection. [snorts] Is that 200 f feet center to center or edge to edge? Edge to edge. Edge to edge. Extend extend the edge of pavement to the rightway. And what is that distance? Okay. And what is it now?

Not 221 ft. It sounded like we did center to center was 221. Center to center. Right. What did you say it was? Uh 220. According to Ken, he gave me the figure of 221 from center to center. I got edge to edge is 171. So, call it plus or minus 15 ft cuz I'm looking on a thing here. Yeah. And again, part of that regulation comes back to circulation and traffic and all that, too. So, that's where [snorts] that regulation originated from. Okay. Is can I go back to sidewalks? [cough and clears throat] No. Later. Okay. Yep. All right. Laura, you want to keep going?

I do. Uh the next one I think nine and 10 um have to do with section 4.12c19 and 4.14 C27 uh to uh not provide basically details about trees greater than 15 in in di diameter. The current use of the property is a farm and agurism. The waiver is justified because a literal application of the provision would be unreasonable in the context of what is happening on the site. And the second 110 is not to provide tree protection details given the proposed work to be performed on the site in the existing use of the property.

Thank you. Anybody have any on those? They're relatively straightforward.

All right. And I think you're on your last one. The last one was um a basically a catch-all provision if there was something that came up during the discussion with the board. [snorts] Um I just put it out there as a safety measure in case there was something that we felt based on discussion with the board that we wanted to then ask a waiver for, we would do that. Um, and I just wanted to comment with the close of the waiver request and I understand the town's position and the board's position about safety and the regulations and I'm very appreciative of that and I understand that completely obviously. Um, but then there's the context of agritoism and the state legislation that exists regarding this and that is to provide some type of relief for farms. I mean that's the whole purpose of this. You have other farms in town that I believe were able to enjoy um provisions under the agurism statute that they didn't have to do certain things. Um and I'm assuming that was because of the agurism. Here we are in front of you just looking for that cooperation, that collaborative effect that I know the board's saying that they want to do and the board has it within its power to do that and that's what we're asking to do requiring everything as if this is a full sight plan and that's been the way the discussion has been leaning is contrary to what the state legislature I believe was trying to do and according to Commissioner Jasper was trying to do when these statutes were recognized and enact it. Um, again, this farm has been in existence for years, decades. Um, you've seen what the farm is like. I appreciate member D. Francesco's comments about we haven't seen what it's been like in the winter time. I understand that. But we've seen what traffic has been like. We've seen um the parking lot full. We've everybody here in town has witnessed that. Um, so we

are looking for the town's cooperation with the language contained in the state statute regarding waiverss to help a farm survive in town without meeting every regulation within the town site plan regulations. I'd like to say something. We're just concerned about the safety. We're not trying to be browbeat you with, you know, anything unusual here, but that's what we're doing this for. And it's all for the town's benefit, too, because they'll be the ones that are coming to your restaurant. Thank you. [snorts]

I Nobody wants to see this more than me. I'm a city kid who moved to this beautiful town. There's an apple on every wall in this in this building. want to see this wholeheartedly. I'm also a construction worker who pulls into a dirt driveway 52 weeks a year for 20 other tradesmen. And I'll tell you right now, you don't have winter parking and you will be in an absolute we're going to take it all home. I take it home on the road every day. So, I can assure you that that is going to be a safety issue. I don't have anything other than my own personal 28-year experience carrying tools in the mud up to buildings I've walked up to from site plans that I've started from zero at you will have this problem. All right. The safety aspect of it I I believe we do want to provide relief. That's nobody wants to see this go bad, right? We want to provide relief 100%. There's no doubt about that. At what cost to safety is that going to be? It sounds like you're just using that blanket to say, "Oh, well, we shouldn't have to meet any of this." And I I think you have to meet some of it. But I I do agree with you. Like I really want to see this. There's a few things here I think that can be easily overlooked.

Some of it, you know, the landscaping plants already it's an orchard. But I I do want to say one thing. Was Leel uh also one of these um agro tourism places? I went there. I pulled up on asphalt. Just saying. I got out and it was a handicap spot. I got and I went took my kids sledding and then we did the walk around the lights and then I've even golfed it. Pulled up on asphalt. So, just saying it's where I stand I think the safety aspect of it and getting around that back corner. We've gone to conscience up there. That's a pitch back to you from the hill as well. So, to have all that dirt just sounds like a little problem. That's all. I guess that's my opinion. Thank you. And if I could uh just respond, nobody wants to make sure that the property is safe and accessible than the property owner. So, you know, he's going if it comes if the board is, you know, gracious enough to grant some of these waiverss and that's not working,

I would think he would be the first one making changes so it doesn't affect his business operations, his plan, the safety and well-being of his customers. All right, I want to go to John and Kelly. I'm going to come to the board in general. I'm sure the board's got some questions maybe outside of the waivers. I'll go to the public and uh then we'll come back and start talking about some waiverss here. John and Kelly.

Well, again, you know, uh Laura did a good job going through the waiver requests. Again, uh in my mind, I think to to try to chew the all all 11 waivers, I think what you need to do is kind of separate them out. And Brian, you're right. Some of them are, you know, kind of lowhanging fruit, you know, and but again, separate them out as far as, you know, items that you need to look at as far as safety and health. Then the other ones are are more maybe cosmetic, if you will. So I that's the only advice I can give the board. Kelly,

agreed. So just to elaborate further on what John's getting at. So I think for example the the wetlands waiver, the landscape waiver, the tree both tree related waivers um and perhaps the sidewalk would be the group that you go through first. Yeah, I'm not done with sidewalks. Sorry. I'm I'm telling you to go go through those first and then start getting into the storm water management grading drainage. Yep. Just a suggestion, but sure. Take them any order you get rid of the easy ones first. Yeah. Yeah, I think so.

All right. I'm going to bring it to the board. Uh board, do we have any comments before we want to open this up to the public? I want to hear Tony's sidewalk. Well, the if if I read the plan correctly, they are building a sidewalk. It's [clears throat] in the back where the entrance is. Yeah. And that if I again, if I read it correctly, it wasn't 7 ft. which our standard is seven feet. No, our standard is six, Tony. So, okay. What? Yeah. So, again, the seven the seven foot width is in the in the front of the building or somebody pulls up on the building. All right. Because again, people people have the tendency to pull up until they get all the way up, right? Which is why the wheel stops are better.

That's why the wheel stops are better and that's why we require seven foot because you're going to lose a foot from But so, okay. So the walkway then in the back, how do we So that's not a sidewalk, that's a walkway. How do we regulate that? So again, I would have to go through the the reg uh the comments. Which one was it? Isn't it this? Correct. That's fourth. But then also but then five though too is is the seven foot requirement. That's what he's talking about in the front.

Correct. So, it's within that section of the waiver. Um, it's two that addresses sidewalks and then items four and five is specifically what you're getting at the walkway. Yeah. Yeah. In the back, which is going to be the front entrance. The back the back of the building will be the front entrance. So, so it's it's through that section section two. Then under two is the the five Roman numerals. So one of them would be the six foot width and then the other one is the seven foot width. Okay. So [snorts] it's covered. So they're okay. The way they have it drawn they're covered.

No. So they're at that's what the waiver would be to would also be the back one as well. If it's I don't want to cover both of them. If it's dimensioned at 6 ft. It's actually it's only dimensioned at 5 foot sidewalk. Right. So as as dimensioned on the plan, it's 5T. Correct. Our standard is what? It's six feet. It's 6 feet. Correct. So that's out of code. Correct. And we need to address that. And you're what you're saying is the back of the building and the front of the building are combined in a waiver. Correct.

And I would want to separate those out because it would talk it's apples and oranges. See what I did there? Come on, guys. Wake up. Come on. Come on. I'm gonna be here all night. Come on. Apples and peaches. You know, I could have said apples and peaches, but I didn't. But you understand what I'm saying? It's It's two completely different things. One one I'd be okay with. One I'm not so okay with.

Um, and again, it gets down to wheelchairs and walkers and crutches and stuff and two-way two-way drop two-way walkers. in to the main entrance of the building which is in the back. What we do in the front is is a totally different thing. And it has to do with people are going to nose into the into the red building and then they're going to walk they're either going to go to the back of their car and walk in the middle of the parking lot all the way around or they're going to they're going to walk towards the red building. And should there be a space between the front of that parked car and the wooden part of the red farm building? Right. And John, am I close on that?

You want to listen? I'm sorry. I wasn't listening. Just say yes. [laughter] So, so you see how the two completely different things. I know what you're saying. So, one one is it's the front would not even be a walk. It would be a walkway, not a sidewalk. Correct. You could you could paint lines there and and and it would and put wheel stops and it would accomplish what it's asking what what the spirit of that Yeah. code is right in the back. That's what you change. It's not 5T's not enough. It's not even close to enough. Yeah.

So, I don't I don't know how you address that because it's it's all combined in one. Yeah. We can discuss that a little further down. I I'm not really want to hear from the public. Yeah, I know they're I I know they're they are different, but I kind of seem contextually different as well. Well, I think part of what I think he's trying to say, and we haven't said it yet, is is that the logistics of the site are a little confusing. Well, if you want to put something in there the way it is today and leave the site the way it is, we're going to have people wandering around the site. Yeah.

Right. They haven't demon they want to leave everything the way it is. They don't want to invest and put the money in and and do all the pieces they want to do. If I was the applicant, I'd withdraw all those waiverss. I go sit down with the planning staff. I come up with what's the most logical way for the flow to work on the site so that the safety concerns are met, the fire department concerns are met and then bring it back to us cuz you really have given us nothing to work with,

right? And the reality is is that this board is still it's an aggre it's an aggra tourism um you um use that is clear. We support that. This board is also responsible for the public safety. uh we do not have the information at least in my my opinion um have the information needed that this site which is again let's let's be real here we're going from a farm stand to a 99 seat restaurant I am super in favor of that it's but the site is not conducive

conducive and I do not have really the you the information in front of me to to kind of justify if if this is good for the public safety or not. I apologize for that, but that's just the way I feel. It would behoove them to work with staff and come up with a flaw. I want to go to the public. I have a question. I want to go to the public. Do you want to hold it or no? I I want to get it out. Sure.

I noticed that there was a bar in uh the middle of the restaurant. Is that inconsequential inconsequential to the actual activities there? Is it just serve wine for the, you know, the dinners or whatever? Or is it a a fullervice bar? I believe, and I'm not 100% sure, it's uh it will be a bar in the restaurant that will be serving folks that are at the tables as well. Okay. [clears throat] Thanks. All right. This is a public hearing. I'd like to open it up to the public. If you'd like to speak, please feel free to come on up. State your name and address.

Uh Bernawa 5 O'Connell. Um I was here for the first one back in January and you know and I've also been here for 34 years. Um I want to try to come up with a compromise [snorts] compro compromise with the parking situation. Um you bring up Lebell. I was the bank with chef at Leil for four years, three years. And the reason why that's paved is because we run $50,000 weddings. So, I understand that. But I want to bring up another case. Um, different state, but 2003, the Webers, who own Jibbit Hill Grill. Now, their building is identical to theirs. Um they have 100 acres, a little bit smaller here, but um what they wanted, which was actually flip-flopped, um they wanted to have the whole parking lot paved, but the planning board did not want to do the paving of the parking lot. They wanted to keep it more rural. Um so one thing that I want to bring up as a conceptual proposition is you do construction grass. Um, now it might cost a$150 more per square foot, but at the end of the game, um, it would save them more money in different areas. Um, someone who likes zoning, um, and whatnot, um, it could save money in regards to kill two birds with one stone, the the storm water infrastructure. Um, and some notes I've taken is because there'll be fewer storm drains because it's fully permeable, um, you'll smaller detention ponds and there'll be less drainage piping. Um, that right there can save $10 to $100,000 in cost um, in other areas that they're going to have to spend money. Um, it's impervious to service limits. um there can be more parking spaces and uh fewer zoning variances that are going to be required to do such a thing in simpler quite frankly simpler approvals.

Um and it'll keep it that rural appearance that the AU auism that you're trying to promote and whatnot. Um I think this is a great idea for to have a restaurant and someone who's been in the restaurant industry as a chef for 14 15 years. If you're going to have a 99 seat farm-to-table restaurant, I'm pretty sure you're going to be charging $45 to $55 a plate. And do you really want your customers trucking through mud to get to the front door? Like, come on. I think there has to be a compromise on each side, whether we pave the whole thing or if we But we can't leave it fully dirt, but I think the grass is working on both sides.

Is that the same as grassy pavers? I I I mentioned that. Yeah. It's basically a grid. It's a grid. It could be, you know, a foot foot and a half wide geothermal grid that they lock in to walk with stone and you can you weed whack rocks off people's foreheads. It's a tough It's a [laughter] tough substrate. I mean, it was just an idea, but uh that's all I got for you. Thank you. Thank you. That's good. Anything else from the public

Junior Andy Bank Jr. Manith Road. Um maybe some of you know where. Um [laughter] uh before I say make any comments here, I want to thank the planning board for working with my family for years to uh help them navigate all the challenges of agriculture. it's this board and previous boards a pre a previous board that I worked with uh really helped us with guidance that you know helped the farm to get its uh ice cream stand in the '90s and it was another one of those little things that helped. So I stand before you very grateful for uh your time and your thought that you're going into it and I understand you have um your work cut out for you. So, uh, you have my respect for that. Um, I guess it goes without saying that farming does require adaptability. And what I can speak to is the fact that, well, I can talk about family history. Uh, like Laura mentions, uh, the much is made of the family's roots going back to 1732 here. Um we're extraordinarily blessed that we have a new steward of the farm that [clears throat] is u a respectful and good neighbor uh that really has become like a member of our family and we are like members of his family. I he may not recover from that part. Um, but farming really does require uh adaptability. And just a quick history here. You know, the farm was not always an apple farm. We're talking about ScotsIrish

settlers here. They grew potatoes. It was a potato farm first and foremost. Apples for sustenance. We have records of apples being sold, barrels of apples in the 1800s. Um, at one point it was a dairy. My dad used to talk about its function as a dairy. Um, and speaking of my late father, you know, when the wholesale market changed in the 70s and then into the 80s, I was working at the farm and saw that happen. And that was a big market change. and uh [snorts] wholesale market is just not what it used to be. Um Washington state is far better organized, much more uh much more well much better organized and funded and it I think a lot of New England growers found that it was tough to match them in the open market. So, um, simply put, my dad realized that there were some things that he was packing and sending out in a truck that he was losing a dollar every time he did it. And he started the upupic. So, potato farm, dairy, upupic. We're still talking about farming, but it wasn't always that. My family had a history of making ends meet by there were a number of generations that were uh blacksmiths. Um and something that uh that you might find interesting is that in the probably late 1800s there is a flat spot in back of the family homestead next to the farm. It's an old grass tennis court and it

was put there because they used to entertain people from the city and those city folk came out uh not just to play tennis but to recreate on the farm. They stayed there, they were fed, and that is part of what made things work. And that turned out to be very handy when the depression hit because they boarded people in the house again to get by. And a little less typical uh agricultural, you know, activity. So [snorts] then we have the ice cream stands, which we've already talked about. Farmers have to be able to do what they what is necessary to make ends meet. Now, it's a completely different game. Customers are looking for they come out and they're not so much interested in buying apples sometimes as they are in getting that Instagram photo in front of the apple tree with their fall wear on and ready for fashion. So, you try to make things work. Again, my respect to all of you for uh your spirit to make this work. Um I don't need to say we've got fewer farms in town than we used to, and the ones that are there are smaller, including Max. Um, I urge you to to continue to find ways to make this work so that this farm can continue as part of the center of town here. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. You [cough] anybody else from the public?

Hi. Uh my name is Ann Marie Rich and I'm Dean Rich from Fort Sutton Place in London

and we are here to just kind of represent uh the London United Methodist Church um food pantry. I don't know how many of you are aware that we actually have a food pantry in town right in the church. Um we service probably about um 35 to 40 people weekly. Um mostly from London. I don't know if that shocks some of you because you don't really think of London area having people who you know people living here who need to come out and get food from a food pantry but it is happening and we are growing. Um during the holiday season we actually furnished 60 plus uh baskets uh for PE families in town that came forward looking for help. Um and I I wish Andy had let us speak first because I'm not nearly as organized as he is. I I'll just say that Max u people don't realize that people don't know it but but Max apples they gave us food every they gave us fresh vegetables every week

every clients would not have fresh vegetables and he he gives them to us he doesn't charge us to you know and when

and even in the spring like we're uh there's tomatoes that come in he brings out foxes of tomatoes and he's trying to sell them down in the stand you know he's he He epitoifies he he has the feeling for these people. You know, these people can't afford fresh produce, but he provides it. Okay, think about that. And and I get uh I'm going to get I got to be honest. I'm frustrated with what I heard tonight. You you can say, "Oh, we could have problems with the with the driveway. We could have problems with the you know, pick them pick them anyone you talked about. You could you could have problems, but you can look at this. I could have a problem or I can work. I can get the work done. And that's what's missing here. You need the attitude is we're going to make this work. Okay? And we can't satisfy every ridiculous law that is on the books.

I was glad to hear that there is widespread appears to be widespread support amongst you guys to help make this work. And we really hope that some of these variances that they've asked for are something that you guys can work out. Um, every Tuesday morning we show up at the far at the farm stand and he gives us anywhere from 400 to 500 pounds of food. And without that you our clients, you do not understand. You can never imagine how appreciative they are to come in and say, "Oh my gosh, butternut squash." and you're giving it away. Apples. We have We have boxes of apples that he brings. Sometimes he brings so much that we have to share it with the a sister church up in Manchester because we just we don't want to throw it away. Um so I know you guys all realize how generous they are, but just to bring that to your attention that a lot of people don't realize what he does as far as um donating to the town. Um,

you don't see this side of of Max apples. And when I say look around the room, look around. Every one of these pictures is Max apples. Okay? Make it happen, people. So we truly we'd like to end by saying we truly hope that something can be worked out without too much burden on on the local small farmer um to to meet standards that I know you guys are interested in safety and I I I'm glad that you do. Um but there is a whole another side to this that I hope I really truly hope that what you guys have said tonight you really feel that you want this to work. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, Carol Mack. I'm the feisty one in the family, uh, 240 Mammoth Road. Um, I wanted to address a few of the points that it brought up tonight. Um, first of all, the fire trucks have been at ice cream on opening day and they park on the dirt and in that area where you're worrying about it where the test pits are. Fire trucks were also there in the beginning with the tree burning. We always had a fire truck there um before the boy scout scouts got really really good at handling the embers and things and there was never a problem with the fire trucks. So, I think that took care of that. As far as the traffic is concerned, if you go into Max Apples, which we just did the other day, um the parking lot was empty. There was nobody there. And that's the problem that farmers are facing is that yeah, it's crowded sometimes and the there are cars parked on either side of the road, but for the most part, that building is not really being utilized. So what what Kyle is coming up with is a place to a way to use the building the rest of the year. And that's when there isn't a problem with traffic. So we're not going to have cars on either side of the road at that time. This is time when the town really wants a place to meet. Andy Senior really wanted a place where people could go and meet, people could could spend time as a community. And I think that this plays into that. So, I think that we need to look at these farmers and look at the challenges that they're facing and say, "Yes, you're doing a good job. This board is doing a good job with looking out for safety and looking out for people, but I think that you also have to look at what the farmer is facing and the the difficulties that he has." And that farm has been there for a

long time. I've lived on Mammoth Road a long time. I know the road. I know the problems that it has and I don't see this restaurant as going to be causing additional problems. I think the studies that have been done are showing that it's going to work out and we would really appreciate if you would help them to to make this a reality. Thank you. Anybody else from the public? It's a long 30 minutes. That was a little bit longer than 30 minutes. I apologize.

Mike devel bought that house about 5 years ago. Um, like I said, if uh like I like I mentioned before, if um if this restaurant's going to bother anybody, it's going to bother us cuz literally you can, you know, you can be at that ice cream stand and look across the pond. You can see my house. I'm I'm probably the closest to him. Um I understand the safety stuff. I've driven trucks for 38 years. I've hauled heavy equipment. I know all about the, you know, I had one two years ago when I was, you know, delivering home heating oil and all of a sudden, you know, a driver gave away,

you know, and I got towed out. So, I've been there. I I get the safety stuff. Um, other than that, as as a as a home order and a butter, you know. Uh, the only question I did have was um uh I understand the name of the restaurant is is um is um plate the table. Uh do we know the do we know the hours of service? Are we serving lab? Are we are serving breakfast, lunch, and dinner? Are we serving uh you know, lunch and dinner? And I'm just kind of curious. Like I said, I don't hours of operation, I guess. Laura, you can answer that. You know, I've lived in a restaurants for 15 years and, you know, some, you know, some some open some open at 5, you know, some do and they open at 4. Almost every restaurant in town is closed and done by 9 as it is now.

Oh, okay. I mean, if you look around town after 9:00, you can't find a place to go eat. Okay. Yeah, I understand that. You know, I was looking at the breakfast. I'm a breakfast guy, so you see me walking through the woods. You may see me in there eating. So, um, like I said, like I said before, and you know, you know, I hope, you know, I hope the town can work out the the issues with him and, um, you know, we can get this thing going. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else from the public? Hello, Sandra Lu to Fiddler's Ridge Road. Um, I'm generally in support of this. It's a unique idea for our town. Um, but I've certainly gone to farm-totable dinners at other farms in New Hampshire and enjoyed a lovely evening. Um, I'm most familiar with farms that do it a few times a year during the growing season. Um, there places in the Lee area like four times a year they open it up. So it is different that this would be every day year round and I am really appreciative of the seriousness that you are taking it. I appreciate that you do that and I want you to do that with every applicant and I tend not to be a in favor of waiverss but this is a different situation. This is a farm we love and and that we want to support. So here's a funny um about the very first waiver request about the signage. Um I appreciate what the conservation commission is trying to do. It's seems like a simple fix. The signs along the fence that face the parking lot could be as simple as saying protected conservation area. Please enjoy this area responsibly. [clears throat] And then you solve the problem of you are invited at these picnic tables and we are educating them to be careful in and don't throw things in the pond. So I just want to throw that out there. Protected conservation area. Please enjoy this area responsibly. Could be an easy solution um to that that signage. I'm not going to have any educated input on parking lot drainage or grading. I leave that to people who know more about that than I do. I was going to make a little joke about the firet trucks love ice cream, but Carol beat me to that. The [laughter] trucks are always there having ice cream or or and other responsibilities that they have there. So, I mean, I I'll leave that up to you. As far as um I I appreciated the gentleman from who previously worked at Lebl about um you

if your if your average plate is going to be at a certain level, trudging through the mud doesn't kind of go with the vibe you're trying to make. By happen stance, Russ and I were skiing at Ragged Mountain today and it was a it's a dirt parking lot. It was plowed, so it was snow covered with a little ice on it when we went in. And when we left at 3:00 after a pre ski, it was a mud pit today. Like I was sinking in in my boots. So in just the span of one day in the middle of no, whatever we are, March 4th, the parking lot changed dramatically. So So pavement seems like an extreme ask and leaving it like it is seems like um you're not going to get the vibe you want. So, I don't have a solution, but this gentleman here made an interesting comment. I don't know what the answer is. I just wanted to give that example from today of what happened. I mean, we were we were sinking in, but is there a way to do it that's not going to really be financially a burden to to the applicant? The only one that I I I also want to comment about the sidewalks within the property. That's overkill. That's not necessary. Many of you might know, some of you might know me as being a pedestrian advocate and a walkability advocate. I think sidewalks within the property are is overkill, but there's ways to direct traffic through even a dirt parking lot by ropes and saying this is the area you walk. There are ways to do it without um you know changing the aesthetic all the way to to sidewalks. So that seems like overkill. I am concerned about the traffic piece and I really really appreciate hearing from Auntie Jr. and Carol people I respect immensely like immensely. So I I appreciate that. Um, but in the fall, we all know it has gotten to a level of concern and it's charming and we all

know to slow down to 10 miles an hour and everybody's got their flannel on that's visiting from elsewhere and going for their photographs and and their apple picking. Um, but with the cars parked and the gentleman um and I heard I was listening from home by the way in case as you can tell by my notes. the gentleman for who did the traffic study. It is cars along both sides of the road. And I know I'm not telling you anything. I'm doing it for the folks that don't live here. It's cars along the entire length of both sides. It is people crossing at many different points. There's not a set crossing point and people walking along the edge. It is an accident waiting to happen, but but we know to slow down and we do our best and nobody everything's been fine. We can deal with it. Are we able to say that if the rest know when the restaurant not if when the restaurant goes forward that we can't have parking year round on the side of 10 on the side of Mammoth Road? We can't. It's too dangerous especially when it's not daylight. The apple picking is during the day. Some of this is going to be at night. So, we have to be able to contain the parking of the restaurant on the property. I I would say would be my one opinion and I'm sure probably the intent of the applicant as well. So, I might just be mentioning that, but I think that's a little bit of something, but we have to do it in a way that encourages this project to go forward without you guys just rolling over and saying yes to everything. I think there's a a happy medium and a happy medium that leans towards making sure that the the project goes forward in a responsible way. So, thank you.

Thank you. [clears throat] Anything else from the public? All right. Number of Hold on. Number [clears throat] I know there's a pretty significant number of written ones. Um you're more than welcome to read them. I think your secretary or vice chair could read them. [laughter] They're right in front of you. Um is there anybody here that has anything else to say? All right. So let's uh before I close public comment, Mr. rug, if you could go through the ones in the file here for the board.

Um, before that happens, can I just make one comment in response? Could I make one comment in response? Let's finish these first. Thank you.

Rules of procedure coming up. Copio, that is coming up. Mr. Chair, I have them right here. if you would. Yeah, if you want to go through that'd be great. Um, Nordstrom. Okay. So, Jeff's going to read him. Mr.

First one is from Robin Gardner. Um, subject tonight's town meeting, Max Orchard proposed farm-totable restaurant. Good afternoon. I'm a London resident in favor of allowing Max to move forward and build a farm-to-table restaurant at the Mammoth Road location. In my view, this is a win-win project. It offers our community a place to dine locally, enjoy our neighbors, all with fresh food options. I also see that this project could benefit the local economy by purchasing from other local farms and growers, using them as vendors for the restaurant and i.e. beef, eggs, milk, vegetables not grown in Max, etc., etc., etc. More importantly, I hear so many in London area concerned with the loss of local farms and their land. In these modern times, farms need to diversify and many have. We should encourage and support their ideas and entrepreneurship. Max has a historical value dating back to 1732. So, let's approve this win-win project and keep them farming. Thank you for your time. Please vote yes to allow this project to move forward. Sincerely, Robin Gardner. Um 32 Sandborn Road, London area. Okay. [snorts] Next one is from um Kathleen Sabluchi. Um I am writing to express my support for Max request for a new restaurant. London area is in need of more dining options. I believe we should prioritize these types of establishments over the continued approval of additional banks and tire stores in our town. Best regards, Kathleen Salvushi. All right. Just a note, I did not read these

before, so I'm not sure what I'm saying. The next one is from Matt Lart. Subject: Londonerary board letter. I am writing to express my strong support for the proposal by Max to open a farm-totable restaurant at their farm. The initiative represents a wonderful opportunity for our community to embrace local agriculture, sustainability, and highquality, locally sourced food. I was however deeply disappointed to learn that this project is being required to undergo a full-sight plan review despite the fact that Max is not expanding the building or the parking lot. A full costly review seems unnecessary for a project that utilizes existing infrastructure and aligns perfectly with the agricultural community focused goals of this area. It is baffling to see that the planning board pushed through intense highdensity development such as condo projects while imposing heavy bureaucratic burdens on local family farm trying to diversify. Supporting a farm-totable restaurant is a vote for community health, local jobs, and land stewardship. In contrast, large-scale highdensity residential development often puts strain on our infrastructure without providing the community benefits that a local farm provides. It is starting to feel to me and members of the community that some people on the board are are prodevelop. We should be doing everything we can to help our local farms thrive. Furthermore, I was frustrated to see the con Conservation Commission wanting new wetland buffers on farmer irrigation pond that predates local codes forcing modern setbacks on a long-standing agriculture infrastructure is a clear overreach. I urge you to support the waiverss and approve this project allowing them to proceed without excessive undue

requirements that hinder our local agricultural community. Best regards, Matt Lart from London. No address provided. We have more. This one is um from resident Diana Alman. There is no subject line. I am a Lundere resident. I am in support of Max request for farmtotable restaurant. Max has been a long-standing business in this town. They are our friends and neighbors and support our community. This type of restaurant would be a great addition to our town. Sincerely, Diana Elman. We have another resident in support of Mac's proposed restaurant. This one is from um Betty Pool. Hello, I am a member of the London Area United Methodist Church and know just how much Mac supports our food ministry. Um, and Miss P did provide comments previously. So, so thank you for those. They are very generous. I ask you to support their proposed farm-to-table venture and think it would be a great addition to our town. Thank you, Elizabeth P. That's it.

And I think that's it. All right. With that, is there anybody else in the public before I close comment?

Just one more thing quickly. This is Russ road. Um couple thing a lot of discussions. I took a lot of notes. Sounds like you guys have it all handled pretty well from all any any concerns I might have had. Um, pave it, don't pave it. You know, there's pros and cons to both. Personally, I would um like to see it not paid because you have um issues with runoff, but as my my wife kind of stole it in the thunder about the um Ragged Mountain story that we when we came downstairs and after after um skiing, we came down into the parking lot and it was uh literally mud up to our ankles. So, you know, I don't know if you check with the fire department on um would they want to be bringing their trucks in there on a day like today or not. um there's something in between paving and and leaving it as it is. Um there's been some discussions about that already. So maybe just um uh just see those through so to speak. Um the other thing is that you know I hear I'm hearing a lot back and say big proponent on more restaurants in town. So I'm big proponent on that. I want to see this happen as much as anybody else. I'm hearing a lot of farmtotable talk. Farmtotable um means um consisting of or relating to locally grown and pro produced food. So that means a big um farm uh food production um uh situation that's being um used locally obviously. Uh, so I don't know if there's been if there's anything that can be applied to the plans, any notes of that kind of thing to make sure that that's what it is. if that this is what they're proposing is that that's what 5 years [snorts] from now, 10 years from now if it's up and running and it's a 7

day a week or 5 day a week um that is um farmtotable and not just a commercial restaurant which also means working together with all the other local food producers here in Londereerry. Um I see it as we we've had a long history with farms in town working together. I'm hearing a little bit of um whispers that that's not quite as strong as it used to be. Hopefully that's not true. Um but if this is a farm-totable, a rising tide lifts our boats. So if there's some way you can promote that it becomes a true farmtotable operation then you know that that's that would be what I would like to see or I would like to at least um you know have that um proposed on the plan so it's not just a commercial doesn't just become like another commercial restaurant on a road that's not really built for the for that kind of situation. So, and I think that's it for me. Thanks.

Thank you. Yep. Anything else from the public?

Uh, hello. I'm uh Bob Bonham and uh well up until just a couple of years ago I lived in London Derry since 1984 and um I saw the way that um Woodmon Orchards uh transitioned into a the to a housing development and I'm sure the pressures are there for the same thing to happen to Max and maybe it's inevitable. I don't know. But um but it, you know, keeping a business going is is kind of important. And I and I happen to think that it would be nice if uh if Max could stay and and and be something other than a housing development. That's, you know, when we first got here, although I would like to make one other comment. [clears throat] Uh, as a member of the London Area Methodist Church, um, we wanted to buy some land from Mac to expand our parking lot and he wouldn't sell us a square inch. I don't know why. Um, so I had one opinion of of Max back then.

[laughter] Um, but that has significantly changed since then with the with the uh with the generosity that they've come up with for for our church and and the uh and the food ministry. It's it's just incredible. So, thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from the public? Seeing none, I will close public comment, bring it back to the board. Laura, I know you've been waiting patiently. you had uh something you wanted to add. It's just one comment. I mean,

you've heard the sentiments of the town um concerns. Again, I echo Max's, you know, initiative to make sure the business thrives. He's not going to put himself in a position where the business doesn't thrive and he will put the safety of his customers first. But the second and most important point that I want to make is words have power. Words have meaning. When you look at the statutory language for the waiver, the last provision of that, there's been a lot of talk about public safety and public health. The language in the statute is the waiver will not have a demonstrated adverse effect on public health or safety. So that's the language that this board is to look at. the waiver will not have a demonstrated adverse effect on public health or safety. Now, the problem is like with all statutes, it doesn't define demonstrated. So, that's up to you and it doesn't get into who has to make that demonstration. Since it's up to the board, I think in order for the board to deny the waiver, they would have to say what that demonstrated adverse effect is and not granting the waiver. I haven't heard any concrete um information from the board except for stuff that was speculative as was already mentioned that there is a demonstrated adverse effect with some of the waiver requests. So, I'm just putting that out there for words to have meaning for the board to consider and I thank you for your time.

Thank you. All right. Um, obviously there's quite a bit here. There are 11 waiver requests. In my opinion, seven of those waiver requests are relatively are something we can wave in good faith and and and know that we are not creating a public health an adverse effect on public health or safety. I think there's one waiver request in here that's just kind of a blanket as you had discussed was kind of thrown in at the end. Um, you know, at the end of the day, there's there's three waiver requests in here that I think need further discussion. I I think that, you know, while the board can go through these and make a decision, you're going to then have a decision from the board. I can't speak for the board, but I'm relatively confident that there are three waiverss in here the board is going not going to be willing to wave because we have our our own feelings on on what those what what could you know result in in not making some of these needed improvements. So, out of 11, I think there's three that are really worth discussing here. My concern is if we go through this as a board and we either grant or deny these waiverss, then you're just going to have denied waivers and be in between a rock and a hard place cuz then after we do these waiverss, we're going to go for a conditional approval and then we may vote to have a conditional approval on this on three waivers that I think the applicant feels as though are unnecessary and an unfair [clears throat] burden on him. So now he's going to have an approved site plan that he can't do anything with because now he needs to now he needs to show these these waiverss that were [clears throat] denied. He needs to to meet the

requirement. Now it's giving us the the inability as a board to work around here's the requirement and what are we willing to consider as acceptable and work with the applicant on I think it would be in the best interest of the applicant to ask us to hold off and have a meeting with town staff to talk about three of these waiverss here. I think it would be in your best interest to talk to your applicant about that to see if we can get somewhere because if we don't do that then we're saying no to these waiverss and you have to meet the regulation as outlined which is putting you in a tough spot.

So with that would the board entertain a fivem minute recess so I can have a conversation with my client? Absolutely. Do we know what the three Could you tell us? I think I know what the three waiverss are. [laughter] Um, but can you give me a maybe review? Uh, 3.09K. I'm now kind of starting to speak for the board. Yeah. So, I was just going to say, Mr. Chair, we need to have consensus. I was going to say before I do that, let's let's get a I'm pretty sure I know what the result is going to be, but we need to have a consensus. Please may I suggest maybe doing the just passing the easy ones and the ones left over or That's fair. I would be open to that. Are you Are you good with that? You could pass the easy ones and everything else. But if you're going to continue anyway,

right? Why bother? Oh, I see. Well, it would give us It would give us give them an opportunity to figure out if that's But if we're going to continue anyway, why bother? It would give us, if I may, sorry. You're good. Yeah, I think um it would give us an opportunity to really home in on those items of uh most concern to the board. I think that would be the advantage. He just told you what they were. What's that? He just told you what they were. I thought I don't think he did. He's he's going to he's going to tell you there's three items that he's going to tell you we have a concern with. I'd rather I would rather do a consensus of the board for an understanding of this than a full vote to let them have their recess and then come back to us than voting. That's what I'm saying. I don't want to vote. I want

If we're voting, if we're voting, then we're voting on all of them when we're either saying yes or no, right? You know what I mean? Yeah. So, my suggestion would be, Mr. Chair, to not so that we don't bel this thing, just say the three that you're thinking of, and we'll do a consensus. Is that what everyone else is thinking? So, I've got 3.09K, which is parking, surface, standards, and alternative alternative surfacing.

I've got 3.07, 07 um which is checklist 6 grading plan requirements and then I got 3.07 which is checklist what's that 11.2 I believe which is your storm water management report and requirement. Those three to me are the ones that are very much up for discussion. I don't know how I feel about number 11 which is the general agurism relief request. I think it's too broad, but I do think the rest of them I feel as though we're willing to wave. So, seven of the 11. Is there any in there that I'm missing? I'm still stuck on the the parking lot.

The sidewalk thing. The sidewalk thing. Cuz Well, we can deal with that later. Okay. Yeah. Because the because the back walkway needs to be addressed. The back the back which is the entrance to the has to be addressed. Well, let me ask you this. that's addressed in code, right, John? That's exactly what I was getting at. Whether you can fix that when when if if the if and when it's approved, and I think it eventually will be, then you can address the size of that sidewalk. It would have to meet. That was exactly what a simple one that that uh I would hope that you can talk to your client about.

Yeah. So, so yeah, I'm I'm on board with those. I agree that it's really more in the code side of things which is gonna have to be met to open the doors. Yes, I would agree with you on I think you're good there because you got ADA stuff to think about too and ADA is not going to go 5 ft. Exactly. Not they'll laugh at you. So ADA is going to come into play on the whole site as soon as they open as soon as they start moving on things. It's very good weather and they're not taking that in consideration. Kelly, I feel like you want to say something. Can you just clarify your consensus on the on number 11, the overall blanket waiver, if you will? Personally, my that would be something that I would vote no on.

I don't think it's a good idea to ever have a blanket waiver in my opinion. Correct. I mean, yeah. Correct. Absolutely not. Blanket a blanket a no. A no. It doesn't start anywhere. It doesn't end anywhere. That's a mess waiting to happen. Number 11. So, I would personally I would stay away from that. myself. Ann, are you okay with that? Yeah. Okay. You're awful quiet tonight. You're awful quiet tonight. I'm I'm involved. I'm looking at it. So, Laura, if I'm looking at this on our waiver on the staff memorandum, which I believe you have. We're looking at We're looking at two, we're looking at four, and we're looking at five and 11. Mhm.

11. I think we all just agreed that we'd vote no to. Yeah. 2, four, and five, we may say yes to. Correct. Or we may Well, two, four, and five. If we say no to, they're out of options. They're in they're they're in trouble. Correct. They would be much more It would behoove them to go have a conversation with staff. Yeah.

So, can I can I say before they leave, can I say one thing about Laura Laura talked about um demonstrated? You have to demonstrate it. It's the same problem that we have on reasonableness, right? Two two words, problematic. Representative representatives been conquered. They don't pass a bill unless it has words like that. And they and I don't know for a fact, but I think they do it on purpose, [laughter] you know. So, so it's it's a it's a problem and it and it's going to it's it it it ends up and that's why that's how towns get in so much litigation in New Hampshire because of language like that that are in RSAs that we're supposed to look at and interpret and figure out what's the right thing to do.

It's the same concept as workforce housing. What what what is a fair share?

There you go. But let's be clear. Let's be clear to this board. We're still talking about We're still talking about uh Forester versus the town of Henker. We're still talking about that. And what that said, the decision that that said, and that's what gives the RSA teeth, right? And what it said was that that it does not support the contention that the legislature intended to require municipalities to allow agurism within their borders. Atmost the events the legislaturator's general intent to support traditional agriculture and agricultural activities and they demonstrate legislative intent to allow reasonable local regulation not to pretend pre not to preempt the entire field. Thus they did not preempt a local ordinance. And then and then when you read back down to 67432, it talks about all the specifics which Laura already talked about. Generally applicable building and site requirements such as dimensional standards, setbacks, driveway and traffic regulations, parking requirements, noise, odor, vibration restrictions or sign regulations. So when they come back, that's really where we're at. That that that's what we're talking about. So, uh, be if I may, uh, before we, uh, meet with our client, um, we're we're understanding right now the board generally has consensus that you're you're not comfortable. You're not fully comfortable on those waivers. You're not saying necessarily how you would vote. Um, you've given us indication through that that the other waivers you are more

comfortable with. um just so that we're being responsive in the event. Um and and just so I'm fully informed when we go to speak with our client. Um you're not necessarily say saying that you're done looking at those particular waiver requests. And I wonder if it may be that you know some of the work that can be done between the board and staff and between us and staff might be to augment the materials we have um regarding those those three elements. Um, so that maybe we're coming back and still seeking a waiver, but saying and I again, this is just hypothetical. I haven't spoken with the client yet, but that we're giving us time to work more on that in general.

Correct. Right. Right now, right now, what's going to happen is if it's if we stay the way we are now, I know how this board's going to vote. It's not going to be in your favor. And now you have to meet the requirement, right? come back with a waiver for the same thing, but outline what that middle of the road is. That is between doing nothing and meeting the letter of the the the letter of the the law, the ordinance. We're looking for the meeting of the medium. Yeah. Good. Well, that's what we feel that's what the statute has meant. All night long, we've been trying to encourage you. Go work it out. We're not on board. All right.

So, I mean, that's what we've been trying to say for an hour and a half. We've [laughter] been listening to you for an hour and a half. Yeah, we'll go talk about it. Could you Could you open one of the side rooms there for that to give them five minutes? Yep. All right. Five minute recess. Do we have to vote on that? I don't think we've ever taken a recess. State you're going into a recess. Chair just the recess. Remember, we cannot talk about this. Correct. We are going into a 5m minute recess.

Luckily, who was it that got caught outside and didn't have their phone? Somebody on this board got stuck outside and didn't have their phone, you know, banging on the door trying to get back in. Picture of the scene. There's no really no way other than to throw rocks against the window. Hey, did you see that I sent you that uh the TM sent the favor? Oh, maybe you uh Wait till you read this one. Get in. [clears throat]

No, it's true. Actually, so the the Hica one was a wedding venue. It really had no relation to agriculture. Oh, yeah. I know. I know what you're talking about. Jeff, where were you, buddy? The bathroom. Oh. Oh, your text said you were stuck outside. I was. Someone let you in. Yeah. Yeah. I'm glad that you you know like my colleagues on the board show. He was right on it. Like jumped up. Well, my my phone was over here. I think Jake's walking around outside looking for you. [laughter] Where's Jake? He's here. I'm outside looking for now. He's locked out. I guess he got [laughter] in. I guess he got in. How did you get in here?

All right. You can't make this up. Uh we are back from our recess here. Miss Candia, thank you. Um and thank you for the opportunity to allow me to talk with my client. Um after our conversation, he would uh request the board make a um motion and approve those waiverss that they're inclined to do and continue uh to four and five so we can go forward in having further discussion with town staff. How do we feel about that board? Yeah, he's he's going to get hung hung up on the sidewalk thing, Tony. Get hung up on it. Well, no. I think you were able to address it because it's going to get Then then I'm fine. [laughter] No, I worked out with you. All right.

I'm fine with that. So, let's um let's go through these waiverss one by one. We'll make motions on them. We can't we can't do a group motion. No. No. Okay. We can't approve them as a group. No, I don't want to. But we're also not going to make any and can I do that though? Technically, you can. You can. Yes. Cuz then I'm answering half the wa if you can group them or No. If I can not make any sort of motion on any of these waivers. So, we're going to go through and and approve the ones we've discussed. What does that do for the My opinion, it's cleaner to continue it as a whole. That's what I'm saying. I I feel the same way.

Yeah. I feel like I'm getting in something a little messy. I think to get Yeah. There we go. We would have to that way. Yeah. Well, I think I think the applicant has gotten the idea that we're going to move forward with those. Yeah. What I suggested beforehand was is to hold all the waiverss and just have a continuence before we went to recess. Your ask when you recessed was if they would consider discussing with staff that correct which we Sounds like you're more than willing to. Yes. Okay. That was the board's ask. That's our biggest thing. So, so your question of can we answer the waiverss? I don't know.

I'm not comfortable answering some and then not answering the others. I would rather say let's continue this with a a very full understanding of which I would agree that we have. Do you agree? I I do agree that's I I would rather say let's let's continue this without making any recommendations on waiverss because I don't want to answer some of them and then not answer the others, right? You know what I mean? I do and I think my client's response would be it just gives him a certain level of comfort that he understands he's now progressing instead of having everything continued. So I think you you are progressing. I I I know I really

you're progressing this. Could you please ask the applicant for a date for continuance? Yeah. What would you want for a date on a continuence? The first uh So, just just remember though again, so whatever we we work out and stuff, you may not have time to to put all the details together. So, we're still going to come here with a halfbaked cake. You follow me? What do you What do you recommend? What What do you guys meet every two weeks or We meet the first and second Wednesday of the month. every month. So, the next meetings are April 1 and April 8th. Yeah. So, it's easy for me to say, but again, it's it's I'd rather work it out with you upstairs versus

John had it his way. He'd tell you come back in November. We don't want that. Should we do a should we continue to April 1st and then if if we're just not ready in the days leading up to that meeting, um submit a sub subsequent request to continue. You're not going to be ready because there the submitt dates are Oh. to some date. Sorry. April should be sorry for April 8th. Why don't we Why don't I feel like it would be appropriate to do May 6th, right? Cuz that's giving you a month. I mean, cuz you got to realize you

I don't want to do May 6th. This has been pushed off a year. You have to be you have to realize Kyle you got to real John for the for the May or excuse me for the April 8th meeting which is the second meeting when do we have to be submitted by to get into that meeting? My secretary will tell you. Oh forgot your rank. Wow. Oh wow. Where's that? [laughter] All right. All right. All right. Where is that form? [clears throat] Kelly will let us May 6 submission date is April. No, April. What's the April 8th submission date? 19th.

So that's 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 working days from today you have to submit by to be on the second meeting in April. That's not much time to that is not a lot of time. Just to answer the question that was asked by the applicant, you can request continuance to either April date or any date and then ask for another continuence. You can do that, but just with respect to the timelines that you're confined to for submitting, that's what you're looking at. So then let's do it for the ETH. Let's do it for April 8th. So then I'll make a motion that we continue this application to April 8th. I have a motion from John. Do I have a second?

Second. I have a second from Tony. All in favor starting with Ann, please. Ann Champa, I Tony D. I John Ferrelli. Arthur Rug I. Jeff I. Sean Faber I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been uh continued to April 8th, 2026. Thank you very much. Thank you. 7 p.m. right here. Yep. No, no further notice to the to the Butters. Negative. This is your only This is your one and only. as Mr. Ragus commonly reminds us that this is the notice statute. All right. Um,

let me see here. Rules and procedures. Yeah, we got something. Rules and procedures. Procedures. We need help. Where did that nice agenda Kelly gave me? If I may, Mr. Chair. Yes, Kelly. Do you have your rules procedure which have been updated per Mr. Rug's comments from whenever that meeting was? Um your current rules state that you have to hear them twice consecutively before you can formally adopt them. So this is the first time second will be next week and then you'll formally change that requirement to do this

once reiterate process and adopt the proposed amendments. Fantastic. But if you do have questions, I will do my best to answer them. Fantastic. Otherwise, I have nothing else for you. I don't have any questions. Everybody good? Yep. Yep. Good. I have a You need a motion, Mr. Chair? Oh, you you're asking question to address. [laughter] Oh, I'm sorry. I lied. I have one more thing for you. I apologize. I do. So, [laughter] the planning staff have been desperately trying to schedule this PUD public hearing. Oh jeez. Yes. March 23rd, 6:00 p.m.

2026 of this year, which I believe is a Monday. That is when we are looking to schedule it. I just need a quorum. I cannot be here. I'll be I'll be on an airplane to Atlanta. I'll be here. I won't be able to be here either. I'll be here. Two and Monday. Monday, March 23 at 6 p.m. Weekend hits me. Sounds good. Three. Three. You have to be here or we're not going to have a Yeah. I mean, you have to be here or there's not going to be a quorum. I could be here. Yes. Ryan's here. Four. Anybody else?

So, we got to talk to Giovani. people to respond to their emails. But yeah, wait. I mean, if you go all the way to March 23rd, why don't you just I mean, is April 1st packed? Oh, yeah. Never mind. Yeah. No, that was never mind. Never mind. Never mind. Cuz I thought about that. I suggested that actually. You all wanted its own meeting. So, here we are. Yes, I do apologize. [laughter] Yeah, that happens. So, we got we got two two other people that aren't here tonight. Giovanni and who who and John Cruz and Cruzy and Jason Nice and Jason. So there's three other people. If we can get those three people at seven, you're good. That's a pretty good night. I think you have got a very good shot of having three.

So do we have to go to the house and knock on their door to get them to answer or tell me cuz I have basically one means of contacting you all. March 23rd it is. All right. I because I have to legally notice it. So that's the You'll You'll let us know if it's a go. I will. It is. It is a go. It is. We're making a decision. You can make it a go and if you don't have a quorum, you don't have a quorum. Yeah. Yeah. March 23rd, please notice. So, I have I have a thing. I'll be driving to Boston going on an airplane [laughter] again. Um, so, Mr. Chair, at at your request, I met with the Heritage Thank you.

commission at their last meeting. You had a a family last minute thing going on. Um, so I took the hour and a half lead time that you gave me and I studied really really hard. I thought it was a uh fruitful meeting. Unfortunately, there were only four members there because it was during a vacation week. Um um but they did have the checklist. The four people that were there voted in favor of the checklist which is going to be now supplied to applicants starting in right now

at the next the next application that comes in. They're going to get that checklist. There was some question about their rules rules and policies or rules of procedure rules of procedure and um apparently at the next meeting they're going to uh work on that. There was some a little bit of back and forth between myself and another member about bottom up and top down. And I explained that this one is top down and you do what the planning board asks you to do. Not sure they're fully on board with that concept, but we'll know. not a concept

at the at the next I know we'll know more at their next uh meeting which I believe it's scheduled for them to to talk about that the rules of procedure rules of procedure March

yeah so essentially the the task that's the planning department is undertaking now is providing some red lines to their rules procedure to essentially align them to be consistent with what a majority of our boards and commissions have for rules procedure which are focused on procedure, not uh regulatory enforcement items, for example, which seemingly are what the current heritage rules are. Um it's notate for the rules procedure. So get rid of a lot of verbiage in those rules of procedure. [clears throat]

Yeah. So at that meeting, ART asked that the current ones be removed because their current ones reference an RSA and it lists the RSA and it says what it says in the RSA is this, this, and this. And one of the things in spec specifically the the RSA doesn't say that which is a big problem. And it had to do with them with them reviewing all reviewing all all applications I think is what it says. So that's got to go.

Um again was there was only four of them. Um there was a suggestion uh made that that the chair of that board uh maybe get a note out or maybe you could Kelly could maybe you could do it too. um or Kirsten don't don't even um to the check this real quick to the other board members to watch that meeting because it was it is kind of informative and for those of you who have nothing to do for about 41 minutes um you you'll understand what went on in that meeting if if you just take 41 minutes to watch it have some very very good points yeah Dr. Dallas was amazing,

historically oriented, and he he um he he basically led the charge of we should be doing heritage things, not talking about parking spaces. I did notice that um when you refer to um Mr. Ellis as Dr. Ellis. Yes. You don't extend the same cure. Um [laughter] the same I don't I don't because I've never I've never seen anything in print where it's has your name with doctor. behind behind the name. Show me one of those and you'll be doctor from now on. By the way, he said, "Please don't use that. Um, if you want to say mister, that's fine. Or if you want to call me by my first name, that's fine." He didn't want me to use doctor.

You have a whole another list of names for you, though. [laughter] Sorry. One of them could be doctor. Uh, so with that, if no one has anything else, motion to adjurnn. Thank god. Second. Motion. Second. All in favor, please say I. I. Good night. Go to the bathroom again.