Planning Board - Regular Meeting

To order the September 9th, 2026 planning board meeting, please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, jumping right into it. First thing is administrative board work. I have approval of minutes.

I'm looking for... One moment, please, Mr. Chair. We have...

all right with that i am looking for a motion to accept the august 12th uh meeting minutes and then we'll be off on the september ones until next month 5th. I don't have a set of 5th in here.

Okay. I know they haven't been done, so they're floating somewhere around. Sure. I can help follow up on that. So, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion we adopt the minutes of August 5th, 2026 as presented. I have a motion for Mr. Rugg. I have a second. I have a second for Mr. Farrell.

All in favor starting with Ann, please.

Ann Champa, aye.

Mr. Bondi, we're on the aye.

Bondi, aye. Arthur Rugg, aye. Jason Manson, same.

John Farrell, aye. Sean Faber, aye. And the chair votes in the affirmative.

All right, the next set, Mr. Rugg, would be August 12th.

Mr. Chair, I will move that we adopt the minutes of August 12th, 2026, as presented.

A motion from Mr. Rugg. Second. Second from Mr. Farrell.

All in favor, starting with Ann, please.

Ann Ciampa, aye.

All right.

Regional impact determinations. Do we have any tonight?

no no not a one fantastic discussions with tom's staff i do see an extension request in here um i'll start off with that i'm looking for a motion um to uh grant a 60-day extension of the conditional site plan for approval for rock point commons 225 rockingham road tax map 15 on 126. uh we approved this back on may 13th i'm looking to brand an extension too so move up let me give you a day september Let's say, November 4th, I have a motion for Mr. Farrell. 2nd, 2nd, for Mr. Rob, all in favor, starting with.

And I. I.

And the chair votes in the affirmative. All right. Uh, anything else from an administrative board work side of things here?

Uh, this chair, I just want to let everyone know that so the financial planning is having an assistant 60th. Anniversary of the incorporation of planning commission, and this could be held on Thursday. 24th of September from 4 to 6 PM at beverage. That's local for everyone. You can go to the Southern Adventure Planning website and you can find your way to, it's a $20 fee, but I'm sure you save your receipt to bring it back. The town will reimburse, as the town of Lutterdary has reimbursed the planning board with that expense for a long time, before me. I'll send out details also, so.

All right. Anything else?

Got a bunch of discussions, Jake.

Mr. Trott here. Discuss away, sir. Discuss away. Here we go. Long-winded tonight. This is what you see.

Short and to the point.

This is the entranceway to Noria, the Noria site, the intersection of Sims Drive and Rockingham Road. So what you see here, this is a... The applicant has approached staff asking a couple of things that they're asking for. First, they asked for an administrative review of these improvements that are being proposed on site. Per our regulations, it's my opinion that this does not fall into the administrative review. for the following reasons.

Again, the proposed amendment is consistent with the approved site or as-built plan on file.

The proposed amendments may include changes in use, color, exterior appearance, lot coverage, building size, location, landscaping, or other similar improvements. Structures shall not increase by more than 10%. Existing footprint shall not increase the amount of stormwater runoff. Accessory structures may exceed 1,000 square feet. changes in planting, changes in location of internal sidewalks, changes in the location of the number of parking spaces.

The applicant shall make, again, a request in proper writing.

So again, these are very, in my opinion, are all cosmetic. What they're proposing here is not cosmetic, in my opinion, where it approaches Sims Drive. So they kicked it back to me saying, well, let's do a minor site plan approval. Minor site plan approval is, again, three. It's the planning department, the engineering department, and the building department would look at this.

Again, in my opinion, when I go through the minor site plan items, again, the purpose of the plan is to change the use or expansion of the present use.

the plan shall have minimum minimal traffic impact on the surrounding roadway network there's no alterations in the location of access to the public streets minimum lot grading minimum drainage blah blah blah again if you recall and i know there's a number of you were on the board There was some significant discussion regarding the traffic associated with this site because of its location and its proximity to the signalized intersection of Sims and Rockingham Road. The approved plan did not allow for a right-hand turn out of, excuse me, a left-hand turn, prohibited a left-hand turn out of the site heading north on Sims Drive. It also prohibited, again, vehicles. So when somebody comes into the site, they have the ability now, what they're proposing here is to jump that curb, that island, and go into this entryway here, or this exit, this one-way exit. So during the construction, I did work with them. This was all to be vertical granite curb. This was the vertical granite curb. and today it's actually it's a three inch reveal on that so it's a mountable curb out there so this is what they're proposing this stuff back here i can't quite get the this stuff in here that's that's what we can handle administratively in my opinion this stuff here is my opinion that they should be coming back to the board reopen the traffic because again there was some significant concerns with the traffic flow onto the site flow off the site into the site this is i don't think it's something that staff should just handle three people i think it should be the case should be reopened question for you john yep

If I'm reading this right, the part you said you're comfortable handling is the dumpster area. Correct. If I'm reading that right, what exactly are they trying to do? Unfortunately, with me, that doesn't look different than... Am I wrong? That doesn't look different than what's there now. Unfortunately, again, I'm not as computer savvy as the rest of you.

If I was able to pull up the aerial on this, what happens when... the tractor trailer is at the diesel pump and the tree oh you see it oh yeah you see it but again they're not smart enough to wait for the dumpster truck to back out and get out of the way no he's going to jam them in there and they did it when i was standing there it's like what is the proposed change to the dumpster i guess that's what i'm not understanding um again jake uh they're they're can you get the aerial

Please.

Yeah. So they're going to do that. They're going to make that more should be the change, right? Correct. That's what it is. What I'm looking at to me doesn't look like anything's changed. Yeah.

I don't want Zillow.

So shrinking it down Okay Yeah, sure

Thank you very much for updating the, uh, by the way, whoever did that. It's been a few years, so thank you.

So, what they're doing to see the 2 dumpsters here.

Yeah, they're pulling those dumpsters. They're pushing them to the East. Okay. Because again, when it when the, uh, the front loader is in here taking that out. This knucklehead comes out, and he can't get by. Yeah. And he jams up everything, so it makes total sense.

So what I'm seeing is they're essentially making the front of the dumpster enclosure. The back of the dumpster enclosure now is, to me, looks like it's going to become the front of the dumpster enclosure. Roughly, yeah. For lack of a better term. Correct. Okay. Yeah. Is there... There doesn't look to be any proposed change in traffic direction in terms of going back to your red lines. Although, you know, the enter, the straight, the left, the straighter, the right, the right turn out, the right here and the right here all match what is on the current site plan, correct? Correct. What their changes are is... What would we say was like a 4 or 3 or 4 interview, right? Correct. They're just saying they want to bring it down a bit to a 1 interview. Yeah. But then even the science, this.

Plans shows that the sign is typically placed on the island gone.

I think that's why, see that stone in the bottom right corner? I think they put that there because people kept running it over.

There's also changes in the islands here. This island, I believe they want it shortened considerably. Nobody can make that turn. When you come up here, you drive up, you turn left, and you go, you know, whether you pump gas or whatever you're doing here, so you turn left, But that island, if you go to the red line plan, has been shortened. It's not really shown on this.

Look, to me, if I'm reading that correctly, it's a seven-foot reduction in the island is the way I read that.

And so now, if you're over here, that's one of my concerns. If you're over here pumping your gas, now you're exposed to the guy who's going to be turning in here.

But they would be in the wrong lane. They're turning in there.

I see something here.

Well, they wouldn't be turning in there. They would be exiting from there.

No, see, if you're coming in, you're coming along here and you're turning left to pump your gas, right? The island right now, extends out here so that if you're standing here and you're pumping your gas you're protected by this island that that goes away in this design and i'm not sure why yeah i believe it's for the the truck trying to move that into yeah i mean to me it's it's evident i'm sure probably all of us at this point have driven through this gas station multiple times it's evident that getting in and out of there is a disaster with

a vehicle, never mind a tractor trailer or anything like that. So I can understand the need for the reduction. I do see what Sylvia is saying of, you know, I guess there is some potential there to, you know, you're shortening. The way I see this is they're shortening the curb by seven feet, so now there's seven feet more of exposure to the gas pumps themselves. question the what i'm more concerned about is the stuff in red top right and red that's all staying the same it's just shrinking is that what i'm like the way i see this right now is is pretty oh no it doesn't they're shortening they're shortening up the they do shorten up the uh the island on the way in which again makes sense because of the whole truck issue um i mean there's no way to prevent them from taking that left okay i'm shortening up that island is that why the island's that long this is why i shortened they're shortening it so that the truck doesn't i'm saying to the original to the original that's why it comes out as far as it does to avoid the left correct and again during the construction we reduce that reveal on that curve to a three inch multiple curve I mean, yeah.

So this is really a lot of process tonight.

So I'm not opposed to anything that they're doing. I do agree with John. Maybe this is something that should be discussed at the planning board and not internally. I do agree with that. One thing I'm looking for, as John mentioned, reopening the way I heard it was having a traffic study on this. Sounds insane.

I think, you know, Jake, I think we just need to go back to the traffic study and what was the recommendations and why was it approved the way it was?

Well, because of the whole left-hand turn issue. You got it. So how do you prevent that left turn lane, left turn out of sight?

I mean, you're not preventing it today anyway, because the sign that says the left turn, the first truck goes down there.

So again, my question is even people is how do you want it to be handled?

I mean, for anybody that was on the board, no, I knew how I felt about the fact that we were going to limit the left hand turn to a dead end. Industrial park was crazy to begin with. Understanding that, yes, that's what the traffic study has said.

i think the i think if anybody has paid attention to noria it's not as busy as it was made out to be by the traffic side no yeah there's less you know yeah to answer the town engineer's question i think it should come to the board because there's too many changes i agree the applicant is going to have to make a decision if they want to do that or not because that's a double-edged sword

And I think we need to see what do we get for public input on it also.

John, why do they have to do a new traffic? He's saying just go back to yeah, he's saying review the study.

That was what I took wrong when John first said it. I took it as John saying he wants us to do. He wants the applicant to do a traffic study on these proposed amendments, which is insane. Hearing him say no, I want them to look at the traffic study with me and understand why the curve was set up the way it was. I can understand. That said, I mean, can you just leave the curve at the length it was and have it be a one inch reveal instead of three?

I think it could be.

I mean, that satisfies the traffic study and satisfies what the real issue is here. Right.

So it's got to come back here. Yeah. And let's move on to the next thing. Yeah, thank you.

I would bring them here, and I would just have them present this and make sure they clearly have what they're asking for. But I don't think it should be too bad. I get the direction.

All right, next one. Oh, you don't want to go for it.

All right. So the next discussion is the Dunkin' Donuts site here.

On Rockingham Road?

Rockingham Road.

And that's another process question.

So they wanted so they're what we heard was they're in the process of renovating the store interior. As required by Duncan every 10 years, and in the process, adding a 2nd, drive through window. Which you can see around the corner there. the second window would require a small 50 square foot addition to bring it forward to the existing curve the purpose of the second window is to move forward customers with large or complicated orders to allow other cars to pass this will allow the drive-through line to move more quickly the second window will be to pick up no ordering or paying so it's primarily a pickup window for someone with a larger order it sounds like The proposed site plan shows site improvements, including restriping and. I guess there was a conversation with our code enforcement officer who indicated considering this as a minor. Site change, and they were hoping for administrative approval. um so we just want to make sure that you're aware of this we asked for input from fire police um and if there was anything from dot would ask for a written letter on what's being proposed on how the um traffic flow would change and if there were any additional impacts to see about stacking for the window um Uh, we also wanted to address any changes in drainage that might happen here. Um. Also, according to the site plan regs. If you add a 2nd, drive through window for whatever reason, London regulations call for 10 spaces per drive through. uh and the previous plan had 13 spaces and knowing that a minimum of 10 was needed um let's see so we think that they would need another 10 spaces if you follow the london dairy regs um also we just want to make sure about the stacking the separation uh one of the things i was concerned was how would a car actually make such a tight bend and i asked for some information on how that would work and i'm not sure we have that in this diagram anyway especially like a big uconn or something like that

I'm sure you've all seen this site too.

It's so ironic that these are getting talked about together because this is exactly what we argued about at the ruling four years ago.

It'll work. It'll work.

Yeah, I mean, I don't have the kind of car that can do basically a 90 degree turn. This is a little bit less, maybe a 100 degree turn, but still. or 80. Sorry, wrong way.

Um, so they ask from staff is that this also come to the board rather than internal. Yeah, I would agree with that.

I think this one's more difficult.

All right.

I mean, we'd like to work with applicants to make sure, you know, they meet their own internal timelines. But, um, so that's why we just bring this for discussion.

Adding a second window is not minor. That's a lot. Yeah. One person's opinion.

And they may need a waiver from parking requirements. So there's that.

I would, when they come, I would have them have some sort of radius diagram, very similar to what we do for the fire department, but for like an average sized SUV. I think would be very beneficial.

Okay. All right, so back to the planning board. We're on the same wavelength here.

One last one, people to discuss. Can you get back to the AERA problem, GIS, please? Let's see. Go down exit four, the Baldwin. If you all recall, that was that was to have. 5 buildings out there a through F. And what's occurred now is that they've got the 1st, 4 buildings have been completed. they are ready to do the last phase of the bald ones. So again, the numbers were like ABC D and E onto the west side of the Baldwin was where building F was going to be constructed. So just a little history. The full build out of the Baldwin senior living at Woodmont Commons was designed and approved by the for the construction in 2019 2020 by the town and the applicant of the applicable departments at the new hampshire des and the town had done that that they had granted their approvals construction of phase one was completed in 2023 again phase one included the construction of 190 independent living units 40 assisted living units and support facilities buildings a through e phase two building f included 66 independent in in yeah it included includes 66 independent living units driveway access to the garage below the building f and the development of the courtyard between buildings e and f and then they'll elevate a boardwalk along the west side of the campus to provide a full permanent walking path for the residents So again, the full build-out of the Baldwin campus was considered for the stormwater calculations, which was approved by the town DES through the Alteration of Terrain Bureau. The stormwater treatment practices proposed to treat the stormwater runoff from the entire site included a large detention pond, two bioretention areas, and two subsurface storage systems. uh an ao aot permit was approved in january of 23 excuse me 20 january 23 2020 the permit has expired on january 22nd 25 necessitating a need for a new aot permit so what phase two basically entails it uh it'll disturb about two and a half acres uh And since the, the original approval of building F, and the adjacent. Exterior space has been some proposed changes. And the changes are a result of lessons that they learned and the feedback from the staff and residents of the Baldwin's. During the 1st, few years of the operation of the facility. as a result the following changes are from the previous approval which was granted in october of 2020 2019. the original phase two work included 64 independent living units the revised building f includes 66 independent units the original footprint of building f was 22 000 and the revised footprint is 28 000 square feet the The bioretention area is proposed to be expanded to treat additional impervious area. An elevated wood boardwalk is proposed to move the perimeter walking path on grade to minimize the disturbance to the wetlands. The original Phase 2 work included pickleball courts within the open space between buildings E and F. These courts have been removed in the proposed Phase 2 work, and the area will include landscaping and open space for passive recreation. So staff has been working with Baldwin since they came up with the full build-out out there. They've kept me in the loop as far as where they were at with this last building, this building AF. So again, if they were to come in today and build that building for the approved site plan, I'd bring it down here just to let you guys know. So tonight, my purpose is to, again, make you aware of it. The footprint's changed. There's more units. They're doing something a little differently. And again, it's more for awareness and just to let you know we can handle it administratively. And if you agree with it, that's how we'll do it.

So even though it's bigger, that's okay?

Again, they're adjusting their stormwater. So that's where we're going to handle that administratively. So the criteria that I read a little earlier, again, granted it's a little bigger than 1,000 square feet, but they had planned for it. Everything was designed for it and was planned for it. All the utilities are in the ground and just waiting to be connected. So... As long as boards making you aware of it and you concur with their removing the pickleball court. Yeah, they're not going to have them. Evidently it's. Not so popular.

Talking.

Yeah, not good.

So again, more for awareness and just that if you concur, that's something staff can handle internally.

So sure they can perfect.

i'm gone you sure i think fantastic sylvia anything from you that's enough all right um new plans we don't have any old business we're getting into new plans the first thing we have is a public hearing on an application for formal review of a lot line adjustment 16 and 22 Delta Drive, Map 14, Lot 21-4, 21-11, Zone Industrial 2. 16 Delta Drive is the owner. And 17 and 22 Delta Drive owner, LLC, is the owner and applicant. You guys want to get that up on the board here, Sylvia? And talk to us. What do we got?

all right so this is you know when we talk about a lot line adjustment i'm sure we've all seen several um this is not the typical lot line adjustment so let me just walk everyone through what we're looking at and why we're suggesting what we are So you see this existing two-story building. And if you look just to the right of that, you'll see in gray here, this is a stormwater detention basin. And the lot line right now is right kind of in the middle there. I'm sorry, it's not more colorful, but there you go. That's that's it. This is the existing lot number 4. And then the smaller lot number 11 is here. What the applicant would like to do is move this lot line from the present location. Just behind the parking lot. So, you might wonder, well, why would they do that? Because that means the stormwater for the existing 2 story building. Would now be on someone else's law, which is unusual because London dairy typically requires pre and post. I've developed in stormwater to be handled on site. Well, I, when an application comes in and goes right to a formal application. We don't have an opportunity to talk with the applicant. And discuss the case. But in this case, I kind of stretched that rule. And yesterday, I called the engineer, Jim, and asked, what is happening here? This is not a usual lot line adjustment. What are you going to do with this storm water? And why are you doing that? And the answer was because. We'd like to make the new lot, which now would. Have this nice flat area we're thinking moving this detention pond. Further down on the site. And now you'd have a more buildable lot. So this would make it more. Sellable this new lot and also, I understand there's a buyer for the existing 2 story. Well, after a conversation with Sean and John. Uh, what we've consider, and this is after quite a lot of deliberation, we don't take this lightly. But we don't consider this just a lot line adjustment. We consider what the proposal would be would be 1st. An amended site plan for lot number 4, the existing 2 story building. And once they provided the updated, um, amendment, which would be to move their. Stormwater basin, uh, provide stormwater maintenance agreements, easements, whatever was needed. For this, um, change they would provide in an updated. Uh, plan, and then they would also provide, uh, now, uh. A lot line adjustment, so in my memo, what I've said is. There are multiple concerns the proposed lot line adjustment results in the storm water basin and drainage drainage easements and elements needed to ensure the continued functioning of the storm water system designed and built for 21, 4 to be encompassed on a newly. Configured lot 2111, according to our regulations, um, 3.07 requires each lot to provide drainage on site. So that post development runoff does not exceed Pre development runoff according to the applicants engineer. The concept is to move. The stormwater base and further to the East to make a lot more usable and sellable. Changes to the original approved site plan lot 21, 4 will require an amended site plan and should not be handled via a lot line adjustment. An amended site plan. Would detail what was needed to move the storm water basin, extend the swales, make other engineer changes. To ensure the storm water system functioned appropriately. it would also answer questions involving maintenance agreements for the stormwater basement basin and swales identify if other lots were tied into the system description of anticipated construction sequence describe if they were tied into the deeds all these easements and maintenance agreements etc And identify temporary and future drainage easements. These issues need to be designed engineered prior to the lot line being approved. So, it's our recommendation staff recommends that the planning board does not accept the application is complete. to allow the applicant's engineer time to respond to these concerns meet with staff to discuss the process and formulate a thorough amended site plan easement language and associated maintenance agreements regarding the stormwater system note all future easement and maintenance agreements should be reviewed by town's legal counsel we did get uh yesterday i think it was inadvertently left out of the application The temporary stormwater drainage each easement that is. Designated on this plan. Um, but that just alludes to this temporary easement. Um, so that's. That's our recommendation. Thank you.

So. Obviously, step 1 is completeness here. I see your list of items. There are multiple concerns regarding this application, including. What is the application are these items that are left out of the application or these. What we're looking for more clarification.

Well, right now. We're saying that this is an amended site plan. Plus a lot line adjustment. We that's not the application. The application is a lot line adjustment. As I said, the normal, the typical lot line adjustment we see. Oh, there's maybe a building that inadvertently got pushed over on someone else's lot. And the 2 neighbors have agreed to move this lot line. So that the setbacks are correct. Something like that. I've never seen in my career anyway, where a drainage that was approved as the original site plan for lot 4 is now being put on a neighboring lot. Which is basically what is being proposed here. so and so there's a lot of things missing we don't have maintenance agreements we don't know about easements there is not an engineered new stormwater basin i understand that would be in the future when this stormwater basin would get moved but we don't we don't have more specifics about this you know construction sequence um We also see, for example, in the current, if you look at. We close in a little bit on the. This storm water basin, you see. Some kind of drain line. maybe it's going away from the stormwater basin so i i'm not sure how that would function and if this was to be moved we can see that the the existing lot 11 if you look at the topography it it's a more difficult site to develop it doesn't it's nothing like this upper area and i can understand wanting additional Um, industrial area and a valid and a good lot. Um. Maybe when this was 1st, subdivided this whole area that this wasn't the best lots, which is likely why it hasn't been developed. But. Right now, when when this was approved, I'm going to guess this was approved. For a reason, and probably maybe there was future expansion here, which is why they graded it. Nice and level. This is an awkward one. And I just think, unfortunately, it would have been ideal A hindsight, as you know, is 2020, this would have been ideal to come and have a design review. So this conversation. Would have happened upstairs with engineering with the different departments. And the applicant, but, um.

So, yeah, or my question here is obviously what I'm hearing is there's a disagreement between. The applicant, the applicant has submitted for a lot line adjustment. Town staff disagrees with that and says, this is not a lot line adjustment. It's a cycling.

It's a site plan amendment, amended site plan plus a lot line adjustment.

So so the question I have for the board is. The application, the applicant has submitted. A lot line adjustment application that we want to. Consider that application complete here what they have to say and make a decision as a board, whether this needs to be a. Site plan amendment plus a lot line adjustment, or are we just looking to say.

no we don't want to touch it can i ask the question a different way yes i think you see what i'm getting at correct i think so so hypothetically let's say they do a lot line adjustment and it's granted everything that sylvia just talked about they're going to have to do on the new parcel so what staff is suggesting is is that you do a lot of all now and then do the lot line adjustment I'm speculating on what the applicant is looking at this and saying, well, if I get the lot line adjustment, I can engineer this, market it, and possibly do something with it. I'm speculating.

That's why I'm asking the question.

I'm just trying to understand all moving pieces.

That's why I'm asking the question.

The problem is when you do it that way, the existing lot doesn't have a drainage plan anymore because it's on someone else's lot, number one. And number two, whoever buys that lot is going to need to understand that. Well, we don't know. And we don't know. Where is this water coming from, going to, or any of those things?

Well, a lot of it just is not going to change where the water's going. Everything's going to stay the same. Yeah, that's going to be exciting. It's more of a waiver to our regs.

In theory, but understand that when we do some of these changes, especially on commercial sites, one of the reasons why we say you're going to open your whole plant is because we want to make sure what was originally designed or thought of X number of years ago is actually working. We don't know if it's working or not. We know it was designed. Is it working or not?

When you say you don't know it was working, are you talking the existing stormwater basin?

The existing stormwater?

We would assume it is working since it's out there. I mean, well, we could say that about any stormwater anywhere in town.

Correct. And then when people come in, that gives us an opportunity to have them make changes because it's not working.

That's how we change lighting and everything else. Correct. So what I'm asking is that, you know, would we get everything we want anyway? And I'm indifferent. Either way is fine with me. But just putting everything on the table. And if the answer is, is we're going to get everything we want, if we did the lot line adjustment. Just something to consider.

Oh, where exactly are they proposing the lot line? So, right now. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. And it's currently here. Yeah.

So it's currently in the just beyond the stormwater basin there. Now, it's not labeled as the proposed lot line. But it is right here behind the parking area.

Yeah. Okay, how can they present a lot line adjustment request without outlining what a lot line is?

No, they are, that's what that's what this is existing. The old line. The old line to be abandoned is right here. Yes. Right. So, when they lock lock pin to be set here and here. So, when they.

Are we getting into what we're going to we're going to do with this? The real question before us is, is this application complete? And if it's complete. For a lot line adjustment, we hear that if we find out that it's not adjustment, that's what I was getting. Then we make that decision.

Then that's what I was getting at is, is the application. Because there's the disagreement between town staff saying. We feel as though this is more than a lot line adjustment, which. Pretty comfortable that I agree with, but the question before us is. Are we going to accept the lot line adjustment application as complete? I still have some of the questions we're given this information. Does the applicant want doesn't go off. What do you have to you?

So, when they propose this, so did they also. Propose cross easements, et cetera for the stormwater. Are they just moving it? And is it all under owned underneath 1 entity right now? And they figured that the stormwater would be. working the way it should right now and then when they went to develop it they would do the easements etc because there actually is a site like this in londonderry where the bluebird is and the hotel is that they have a shared storm water management area across it between both parties yeah i would think they would need to have a shared storm water system but we haven't gotten into that conversation okay and then as they did not go through a design review and then when they when you're looking to have them propose that new storm water area to support say maximum build out on that new undeveloped lot as well as the developed lot Is that what you're looking for to say? Okay, you don't necessarily know what you're doing with it right now, but let's say you apply all the subdivision regulations. This would be the maximum previous area. So the storm water area, John, you're shaking your head. You're saying, you know, and then we'd at least have to designate this area. If you build last, there would be less and. Yeah, so can you answer the question? Is it all under owner? Any 1 owner right now?

I don't know.

So. Because, I mean, maybe what they're saying is like. All right, I just want to do this right now. It's all underneath the same ownership. Everything operates where it is. And when we go to change it.

or propose a new plan we'll take care of all that stuff yeah so my ask would be because we're kind of in a i would like to hear from the applicant to try and figure out what they're doing here but we still haven't worked on the application is it worth considering this application complete for acceptance purposes only and any outstanding checklist items would become a condition of approval if it were to even go that way, which it doesn't sound like it is, to at least be able to hear from the applicant so we can have a conversation. You can do that and the applicant can always still withdraw.

Correct.

so in a conceptual i would like to be able to talk to yeah i'd like to be able to talk to the applicant but right now we can't because we haven't worked on completeness so what i'm saying is that we want to accept this as complete for acceptance purposes only if this were to become an approved lot line adjustment all the checklist items would need to be fulfilled as a condition of approval so we're covering ourselves from a checklist standpoint So we can at least get them up here and talk to them.

My other concern with the board is that their 65-day clock starts.

From acceptance, correct. Which, okay, we get to day 65, what happens? Again, they can withdraw. Correct, they can withdraw. They could theoretically ask for a continuance, correct? Correct. Yeah, or it comes here. We don't have the information we need and then it's that those are your three options, correct? Yeah, right.

So basically, but this is here. I think if we're going to air, I'd rather air on the side of saying the plan is not complete because I know somewhere along. I think this pitfalls with this.

Is it not complete for a lot line adjustment?

The application was for a lot line adjustment. That's what I've been getting at here. This might not be a lot line adjustment, but we need to talk about the lot line adjustment right now.

If you filed an application for a lot line adjustment, is it or is it not complete?

Correct.

So with that, how do we want to act on it? Have they met all the criteria of a lot line adjustment?

There's a couple of checklist items that are that are not provided. tax maps, sketch, the driveway site distance plans, again, copies of the proposed easement deeds, protective covenants, and also existing drainage features out there. There's about four checklist items that are missing.

my recommendation would be for somebody to make a motion to accept it as complete and make any of the outstanding checklist items a condition of approval so we can at least talk to the applicant but i would need somebody to make a motion and that's up to you guys let's get this going for a motion on the table to accept this complete it can be voted up or down and that the acceptance, the completeness is for acceptance only, and any outstanding checklist items will be addressed as a condition of approval. So I have a motion for Mr. Farrell. Do I have a second? I have a second from Giovanni. All in favor starting with Ann, please.

Ann Champagne. Nay.

Giovanni Veroni.

Aye.

Tony D. Nay. Arthur Rugg, nay. Jason Knights, nay.

I'll just vote aye just because we need a balance on the vote. Sean Farrow.

Sean Faber, aye.

So if we, if I vote, so we're at 43 right now, if I vote in favor for it, the motion still fails, correct? Yes. All right. So I'll vote aye. And with that said, the motion still fails and this is not accepted as complete. Does that make sense? Hey, we move the process along.

Yep. I would urge the applicant to work with staff.

Correct.

I would echo that also.

Um, I'll quickly let you speak.

My name is Jim Petropoulos. I'm a professional engineer with IMEC doing business through Congress Street in Nashville, New Hampshire. I was hoping for the opportunity to speak before a vote to clarify some of the things that were said and some of the things that are misunderstood. Our client in two entities owns both lots. So it's the same company. RJ Kelly, Sean Smith is with me this evening. We submitted our application on July 30th of this year. Tuesday, September 9th is the first conversation we received from planning. 5 p.m. this evening was the first night we got a staff report. So to say we didn't work with staff I think is unfair. This is a simple lot line adjustment. I'm afraid people are looking beyond it. And that's fine, because there are two parts to this. Our client desires and has a buyer for 14 Delta Drive, 16 Delta, I'm sorry, with a tight timeframe. So when we heard that, we said, well, let's break it into two pieces. Let's do a lot line adjustment to make 16 whole so we can prepare a deed and sell this property. And then we'll come back and take the six to nine months it takes to permit a site plan on 21-11. Because that's how long it takes to design and permit a project in any town. It's at that time we would provide all the technical calculations that you're looking for this evening for a lot mine plan. The relocation, the grading, the easement language. We did provide a temporary easement to 16 in the interim so they could continue to operate. Is the basin sized enough? Sure. Your regulations require as-builts when they're done and revamped storm comps when they're done. I'm sure that was done on 16. So it's unfortunate it wasn't accepted this evening. Um, it just, it makes an unnecessary delay to this process. We feel we did everything. Pretty much straightforward and then to find out that it was a little bit misunderstood. And causes this delay is a little bit unfair.

So, my request to staff would be to ensure that we do what we need to in order to get the applicant on the 1st meeting of the month of October.

So just for the record, when an applicant files directly right to formal, your own regs say that we're not supposed to have conversations with the applicant. for the record that's so that you know that but you know it's sort of out of our hands it comes to the the applicant decides we're going to forego a design review we are going directly to the planning board we want to talk with the planning board so what i don't want to get into john is an argument here at the planning board

But the 1 thing I do want to say before we move on here, and I agree with you, that's what our regulations say. What I've heard is they reached out on July 30th and haven't heard anything from Tom staff. In July, August of 60 days, which is their application to the planning board.

They didn't reach out to the plan. That's when they submitted their formal application.

I think, Mr. Chair, I think the missing link is the lack of going to design review where all of this could have been worked out before it got to here, and now we're bound Yeah, by the regulation, and I think that. Missing the design review part that said. Maybe there was no guidance to the applicant saying, hey. Instead of doing it this way, I want you to do it this way instead. Maybe that's true. I don't know because we don't know what happens.

On that side, the thing is, if we. So they skip design review, comes to us, staff is not supposed to talk to them. If we say, well, staff should have talked to you anyways, then the next person who comes up and goes straight to us says, well, staff talked to them, why don't we get to talk to them? And now you're eliminating the entire reason for a design review. That's fair. Because people will just be able to skip to the head of the line

forget to talk to staff that's fair thank you Jason no due respect to the process some of us have been here for decades we post the planning board agenda they had posted publicly 14 days ahead of time we're delivering memos at 552 the day of the meeting had they gotten the memo a week ago, we wouldn't be sitting here. So I get the regulations and understand all that and everything, but it's a two-way street. And if we're going to post 14 days ahead of time, giving people memos with our opinion at 5.52 the night of the meeting, we need to help with that. With their opinion. With the staff opinion. We need to help with that. That's not fair to those people. They spent a lot of money

i get it i'm not arguing the process 552. come on so just to close the gap here my request would be to have tom staff work with the applicant to have this on the first agenda of our first meeting of october first wednesday of october all right Public hearing on an application for formal review of a site plan for an existing. Thank you industrial building to expand and reconfigure trailer parking areas. Installation of security fencing and control access gates. Construction of a mobile loading dock area and associated site improvements in the industrial 2 district. 1012 industrial drive tax map 28. Lot 21 C7 and 21 dash 7. Austin shimming CCB Inc is the applicant and arrow Manchester fee LLC is the owner John or Sylvia I will let you start before we start talking completeness here is there anything you want to go over I

just that one checklist item the traffic traffic report or section 312 314 for 17 and site plan regs an item 11 one of the checklists staff recommend waving this this report requirement at this time for acceptance purposes only

so i'm looking for a motion to waive uh the traffic report for acceptance purposes only accept this as complete and to waive the traffic report for acceptance purposes only which will turn into a condition of approval i have a motion for mr rugg do i have a second second i have a second for mr farrell all in favor starting with the end please and champa i and the chair votes in the affirmative this application has been accepted as complete is there anybody here for this application that wants to come up Thank you. The floor is yours. Good evening. Thank you. Good evening. Drew Olahowski with Haley Ward. Representing the applicant, CCB Incorporated.

Also here with me tonight is Austin Schimming with CCB, who is the construction manager for the project. So thank you for the introduction, Sylvia. Just again to reiterate, the project includes numerous site improvements to the existing Parcel is located at 1012 Industrial Drive. The parcel is currently occupied by an existing FedEx facility. And we are proposing numerous site improvements, including the relocation of parking areas, new trailer parking spaces, as well as security fencing and security access gates. Also included in this project is various landscaping, as well as some improvements to stormwater and drainage facilities on the site. So just quickly to address some of the comments that are brought up immediately regarding the traffic study. In discussions with staff, we did discuss that there are no changes of use to the site. There are no changes to existing traffic. That's why we didn't believe that the traffic study was needed, which is why we had it as not applicable in our application. If that is something that we would need to ask a waiver for, we would happily do so. jumping back into the application we did go through the drc process prior to submission to the planning board where we did receive numerous comments from drc responses to those comments were included in our planning board application um just real quick i'm sorry to cut you off so sylvia am i looking at what am i looking at here there's no oh is it these bottom two yeah okay thank you sorry about that sir it's the machine's thinking yep that's like 44 megs

Thank you.

OK, I'm sorry about that.

Yeah, no problem. So yeah, just restating we did go through the DRC process where received many comments on our application within our planning board application. We did provide responses to those comments and we felt that all were adequately addressed earlier this evening. We did receive the staff memo that included outstanding comments that DRC did not believe were addressed, so I did want to take some time to quickly go through some of those items. Just to preface, I don't believe that any of these comments are significant, nor will they significantly impact our plan. So we are hoping that those can be addressed as a condition of approval, but just to quickly jump into those. Item number 1 again is related to the traffic study. As I stated, there are no changes to use of the site or expected traffic demand. So we would be looking for a waiver on the need for a traffic study. Similarly, the next comment is related to a waiver we requested for section 3.10.D.2 regarding needing to show trees of 12-inch diameter or greater on the site plan. We did take effort with our proposed layout to avoid the need for clearing of any trees on the site. and so we didn't think it was necessary to go and document those trees so that is our reasoning there we did provide that request in the response letter but it wasn't provided as a formal waiver request letter so we'd happily do that comment number two was related to having a six foot sidewalk or we showed five feet we did actually update that sidewalk to be six feet on the plan we made that change geometrically and we did add a six foot dimension however there was a A previous note that called it out is 5 feet, which was left on the plan. So we can just remove that. So that's easily addressed.

Just going through some of these other comments.

There is one related to the voluntary merger of the two lots. As stated, this project is located on both 10 and 12 Industrial Drive, two separate properties, but because they are under common ownership and being used for a shared use, it was suggested that we merge these lots. So just yesterday we did provide the voluntary merger application to the town, so that's something we're fine with doing. Again, it doesn't have any impact on the project. It's more of an administrative formality, but again, we're happy to do that. On a similar note, there is an existing sewer easement on the lower lot. which again was put in place years ago when the lower lot was under a different ownership. Because this is common ownership, that easement is effectively useless. So we are in the process of extinguishing that, so that will be taken care of as well. Comment number seven is related to a 12-foot wide access easement for the proposed outlet control structure for the existing detention basin on the left side of the site. Within our comments response memo, we did state that the only maintenance expected for that structure is cleaning out sediment, which can be done via a back truck with a hose. We felt that that truck can park in the access aisle to the north or the parking lot to the south. and run that hose over to the basin without a need to go on the Hub Utters property. So we feel that item was addressed as well. Comment number nine was related to showing additional utility information on the existing conditions plan, specifically the water line that runs on the north side of the building, as well as the drainage infrastructure at the left side of the site where our detention pond will drain to. We did add this information to our site plan, but it wasn't included on the existing conditions plan. So again, the information is there. We just need to make sure that it's in the correct location. There's similar comments for that throughout. So again, I won't take more time going over each of these in detail. I just want to iterate that we believe all of these comments can be easily addressed. We don't think any will have significant impacts on the plans, and so we would request that those be addressed as a condition of approval.

So that that's all I had to add, so I'd be happy to hear any comments from the board or staff. Thank you. So all I want to do is I'll go through staff. We'll come to the board. We'll go to our public hearing. We'll come back to the board. Uh, looks like we have a waiver to discuss. And then we can talk about, uh, in approval.

So, with that, John, yeah, again, I missed Mr chairman members of the board and, uh, as Drew said. He doesn't have any questions. He can address them all. No need for me to belabor it. Okay. Yep. Almost there.

You're good? Yep. Sylvia. All set. All right. I'll bring it back to the board. Does the board have any questions?

So, I apologize, Mr. Chair. I know in here somewhere... There was a Conservation Commission question about this and I can't find it.

There was a note asking if we needed to show wetland buffers on our site from the Conservation Commission. We did have a certified wetland scientist survey the site as well as abutting properties. He did not identify any wetlands on our site or other properties which would have buffers, so we do have a letter from him stating that in the application.

Do you want to talk to Marge or does that satisfy you?

Well, I can't remember what she wrote on her memo to us.

Marge, would you mind coming up?

There we go.

Chairman, members of the board, that's why you always see that comment that says go back to those people. Because again, just like you people, I don't know what Marge, her concern was. So you know what? Go back to Marge, talk about the concern, and let Marge respond to us saying we're hunky-dory. Don't just say we think it's been addressed or it's been addressed.

Any comments, Mr. D? You good? Yes. Anything else from the board? I'm good. Ann?

Is Marge looking up something?

I have your memo pulled up right here.

There were comments from CONCOM on another case. You might be mixing it up.

So why don't we do this? You have the Conservation Commission's memo. Could you read it out loud, please? Ensure that there is no requirement to depict a wetland buffer. Did we ensure there's no requirement to depicted wetland buffer?

he just yeah we we have our letter from the wetland scientist who stated that okay so did you did you respond to march with that letter i i haven't yet i can send that to us my case yeah okay it sounds like it's satisfied we just need to talk to march yep absolutely all right the question was asked all right it was answered now it needs to be answered officially correct with a note back to the conservation commission and then we're good

correct okay so with that i will open up the public hearing mr breslin i knew you've been dying to get out back there come on up sir

Ray Berson through Gary Drive. First off, I'm not sure I understand even where this is. Could somebody help me out in that regard? What is the location of this?

No, no, no.

I need a little more than that, please. Where's the location? Is this anywhere near the rail trail?

No, it is not, Ray.

Okay, because I'm kind of lost where this is.

Pettengill Road. Pettengill Road. Wait a minute. Seems to be confusion there.

Where is it? Ray? Industrial Drive.

You know where Industrial Drive is? Commerce Ave? At the intersection of Industrial Drive and Commerce Ave. Which side? On the northwest corner.

Northwest corner.

Correct. Diagonally across from Flooring Associates.

BEFORE THE BRIDGE WAS THERE, BEFORE PETTINGILL ROAD WAS THERE AND THE BRIDGE WAS THERE, YOU WOULD GO RIGHT TO GET TO THE AIRPORT. YOU WOULD COME TO YOUR FIRST STOP SIGN AND YOU WOULD TAKE A LEFT. RIGHT THERE.

IT'S MOVING AROUND SO MUCH I'M GETTING A LITTLE DIZZY. THE TRUCKING PLACES ARE ACROSS THE STREET. IT'S RIGHT THERE. RIGHT THERE. THIS IS IT. WHERE IS THAT BUILDING?

THAT'S THE ORIGINAL AIRPORT.

And they're long time. And they're before the airport with FedEx.

Yes, yeah. OK, not the FedEx up on the Hill. No old FedEx. That is what is behind it is a runway.

Yeah, OK. OK, so getting back to what I might be concerned with is wetland impact. Is there in fact any wetland impact?

On this application, I'll let the applicant. There's not. And we have a letter from a wetland scientist that says there's not.

He surveyed the whole property.

OK. I think that's what I wanted to know.

Easy enough, thank you. Thank you, right? Thanks. Anything else from the public? Seeing none, I'll close public comment and bring it back to the board board. We have a waiver. I am looking for a motion to grant a waiver from LSPR 3.10.D.2 to locate and identify each individual tree measuring 12 inches in caliber or greater. The requested waiver will not affect the intent of the regulation as the existing wood buffer will be preserved in its entirety and will continue to provide screening between the properties. I'm looking for a motion on that. So moved. I have a motion for Mr. Farrell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second for Mr. Knights. All in favor starting with Ann, please.

Ann Champa. Aye.

20, 20, I got the wrong guy.

It's a nice, uh, John Farrell, Sean Faber and the chair votes in the affirmative. This waiver has been granted next. We are on to the site plan application itself. I'm looking for a motion to grant conditional approval of a site plan to expand and reconfigure trailer parking areas, installation of security fencing and controlled access gains, construction of a mobile loading dock area and associated site improvements. move this chair i have a motion for mr rugg who had a second second from mr farrell all in favor starting with and please and champa hi johnny veronica tony d i that's the rug guy jason nightside john farrell sean faber and the chair votes in the affirmative this application has been granted thank you sir very much thank you have a good night thanks all right i have a public hearing on a on an application for formal review of a subdivision and lot line adjustment of map 10 lot 42 into three residential lots and it just removed the lot line between map 10 lot 15 oh excuse me and the proposed new lot line 42-2 existing map 10 lot 15 will now become part of a proposed 42-2 36 pillsbury road Zoned Wilmot Commons PUD and Agricultural Residential AR1. Pillsbury Realty Development LLC is the owner and Procopio Enterprises is the applicant. First thing I have here is completeness. The staff does have concerns about the submission. Would the board like to accept this for completeness purposes only and that anything that the board may have outstanding would be a part of a condition of approval? What do we want to do? Please, not all at once.

Say it one more time, please.

so we have an application here we need to check it for completeness step one of all applications is check it for completeness staff has several concerns regarding the submission what i'm asking is do we want to accept this for completeness purposes only so that way we can engage with the applicant or are we going to say this is not complete and we're going to can we hear staff's concerns we can absolutely hear staff's concerns okay

uh so i was i think it was probably two years ago when i first looked at this and as a concept plan so i'm a little bit familiar but since that time a lot of things have changed there's a lot of moving parts to this and it's a complex plan So, the applicant has said that this is a lot line adjustments and a subdivision. Whether it's semantics or not, we, we sort of consider it a lot merger and a lot line adjustment. But our main concern is that. We feel that as a lot line adjustments and a subdivision, it should stand on its own. currently within the application various checklist items such as existing conditions wetland setbacks things you would see for a subdivision plan the application refers to the Thornton Hill site plan which was conditionally approved We just believe that that should be part of the package so that you don't have to go to an entirely different plan set. To view those, um, checklist items. So that's the 1st. 1st, couple of things with both the lot line adjustment and the. Subdivision we feel that they should be stand alone. We don't know. Um. All things considered, we're hoping this comes through. We wanted to follow, but we still feel it should be standing alone. Also, there was some concern that off site easements, which is another large move in part. Of this that, uh, there was some concern that those future easements were some, uh, in part incorrectly shown on the plan. So we suggested 2 ways to go. You could either say that this is not complete. Um, and the applicant would address these items meet with the staff and review those things and. Provide a complete package similar to the previous applicant. We would hope that that would be sooner than later. Or if the, if the planning board opts to accept the application as complete in order to allow. For your comments for a butter comments, because we felt there would be a butters here. Wanting to to talk or just interested people. People wanting to talk about it that, um. They view that we would ask the applicant to wave the, um. 65 day, uh, review and approval requirement. Or decision requirements, and that also that the case be continued to October 14th. That would provide time for staff and the applicant representatives to meet and talk about revisions additions to the application package. There's also been a waiver requested, but we can talk about that.

Yeah, let's get through the completeness 1st here. So. Obviously, we see your list of concerns. On page 1.

is there actual things on the application that are not complete like you can go down the application and say yes this is not complete or no it's not complete it's not part of the package jake so for instance up in petango road and other previously approved plans They were remember, they're creating lots now, so they needed to illustrate that those lots are. Constructible, you don't necessarily need to know. You know, every piece of grass where that's going to grow. But again, they have to be, you know, meet the town's requirements. So, again, a lot of time, but we have done in the past. They provide us enough information that shows the topography. the wetlands setback, the wetlands, the setbacks, and then they request a waiver for the improvement portion, which is what they could do in this instance, because that will be coming in with their planned 210 units or whatever it is. So they already have an approved site plan, correct? They have a conditionally approved cycle, correct? They have a conditionally.

They have a conditionally approved site plan for the lot, so they've shown you. That these are.

Again, though, that's not the, so I, we can work with them. Staff has worked with other applicants as far as showing what's going to happen in the future. All we're asking is they need a complete package now

that shows the existing topo like i say the buff the setbacks the wetlands is the existing part of this plant set correct but the existing topo the buffer the wetlands is in the conditionally approved cycling i would have to look at it again for those two lots not the three lots for the two lots that's what i'm trying to get at here so I would say the same thing I said on this last one. I think we should accept it for completeness purposes only. Everything we're talking about is going to be covered in a condition of approval. Easements are going to need to be correct, which Sylvia brought up. That's something that's going to be a condition of approval. An entire package being put together instead of referring to the Thornton Hill site plan. Okay, that's a condition of approval. Ultimately, the subject, nothing gets signed until they have. An entire package that Sylvia is referred to. And they've confirmed that the offsite easements are correct.

So motion, as you've described for the application to be accepted.

i have a motion i have a motion for mr farrell do you have a second a second i have a second from mr knights all in favor starting with ann please could you repeat the motion so so and the motion on the table is to accept the application as complete any outstanding checklist items would become a condition of approval so if there's something missing on their checklist in order for them to get an approved signed site plan They would need to meet those checklist items. Make sense. Yes, so starting with the enchantment, please. And the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been accepted as complete for acceptance purposes only and any outstanding checklist items will be part of a condition of approval. So with that, if we could have the applicant come up. John or Sylvia, before the applicant starts, is there anything you would like to add into this before they begin their presentation? All right, good evening folks.

Did you guys have a presentation?

Yes, we did. I sent the slides in previously. I don't know if you were able to pull those up. That'd be helpful.

Let's take a look. One second. Do you see that on this list? Hear this one?

Yes, please. Yeah, there you go.

What?

OK, I'm just going to say open. I don't know what that means.

Yeah, we've got to do something about these computers. What? This thing's great. We can't handle the capacity of what the applicants are sending in. Are you saying Windows 95 isn't working at all? Let's see. He's sucking all the power. So I have this.

I've used it previously. I can kind of go off the remote. If you could just hit the presentation button, then that'll go full screen, and I can take it from there. Thank you, Sylvia. Thank you, Sylvia. Yeah. Mr. Chairman, before I start, we have some slides in here for the subdivision and lot line adjustment, which is one application. And then separately, we have condominium conversion slides in here. You want me to get through the whole presentation, or would you like me to give you those slides separately? How do you prefer to do that? let's um i want to go through the whole presentation if we have questions we'll stop you while we're going let's go through the whole presentation okay okay thank you mr chairman uh so with that good evening members of the board mr chairman my name is benjamin zoller i'm a professional engineer in the state of new hampshire um with vhb vanessa hagen and brusseland we're in bedford new hampshire with me tonight i have a member i have applicant representatives from uh the procopio companies as well as laura gandia here with me tonight of divine element uh she's the land use attorney on the project So as I mentioned previously, we're going to go over a subdivision, a lot line adjustment, as well as separately a condominium conversion application, which are two separate applications tonight on the agenda. So getting into just reminding the board essentially what was previously approved on April 8th, there were two application or three applications in total, two are pertinent tonight. The Thornton Hill site plan application at 36 Pillsbury Road, this entire 95 acre parcel here was previously approved or conditionally approved, excuse me, for 250 residential units ranging from one bedroom to three bedrooms. And over here we have the Rosecrans Drive site plan application at 44 Pillsbury Road. 60 condominium style units are proposed there, previously conditionally approved, as I mentioned, all three bedroom units. what we're proposing here tonight is a subdivision plan to begin with essentially we're going to go for three proposed lots um here this proposed lot 42-1 42-2 is this central unit that you know goes from the entire north to south of the existing 36 pillsbury property and then a smaller 4.3 acre thereabouts lot right on pillsbury road 42-3 So a three-lot subdivision, that's the beginning of this application, and then I'm going to get into a lot line adjustment, which is essentially doing away with this lot line that would bound or separate the 44 Pillsbury property and the 36 Pillsbury property, which would now become proposed lot 42-2 altogether. getting into the lot line adjustment. We're proposing to extinguish the lot line highlighted here in red in between 36 Pillsbury Road and 44 Pillsbury Road. The reasoning for this or the reason for the subdivision of the lot line adjustment in general are for financing considerations.

We previously were proposing 250 residential units.

What we're going for now would be essentially turning some of those rental units into condos. So the total number of condos that would be offered to the people of London Dairy would go from 60 units to 151 units for sale.

So worded out another way, you are reducing the amount of rental units, which has a lot to do with this financing and subdivision. Yes. To the number of purchased condo units.

Yes, sir, that's correct. And it's worth noting as well that there's going to be more variety of condos that are for sale with this proposed application. Instead of just three-bedroom units that are a little on the larger side, there would now be one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom condos that would be available for the people of Londonderry at perhaps a lower price point than you would get.

The one- and two-bedrooms are part of the cottage court-style housing in this?

Yes, sir, that's correct.

Thank you.

Along those lines as well, Mr. Chairman, we're not proposing any design changes here tonight in terms of what was previously approved for development. The roadway design, the engineering design, stormwater design, traffic design considerations, we're not proposing any change to any of that at all. It would purely be an ownership question tonight, a legal consideration question, not necessarily changing the development that was previously conditionally approved for both parcels.

Mr. Sorry to interrupt, but you're adding more units.

No, sir. We're essentially changing ownership on some of those units. So the total number of units that were previously approved in April 310 units, we're still going for those 310 units tonight. It's just a matter of the division between rentals and condo property.

My undergraduate degree is in physical education. I didn't do math there, so I apologize in advance.

I don't have issues at all. Thank you for the question.

A lot of pleasure.

So getting into the condominium conversion now, which is a separate application, as I previously mentioned, this lot 42-2 would now encompass all available condo units that would be for sale. So that would be the previous rental units that were proposed on April 8th, 91 units up here, and then as well as this cluster further to the south would all be interconnected to the 60 units that are three bedrooms on the 44 Pillsbury parcel. Again, no changes to roadway design, anything of that nature. There would be, I wanted to note, reciprocal access easements that would have to be made essentially for all of these residents as well as the condo, or excuse me, the rental residents to come into the site via the main site driveway here on Pillsbury Road. There would be an access easement. And there's all kinds of other easements that have previously been mentioned, easements that would have to be granted. It's our intent as well for these condo owners to have access to the central amenity building. So even if you were to purchase a condo here, those residents would still be able to walk across the property line into the main amenity building that's grayed back here. Sorry, if it's a little too grayed back to go to the gym, to use the outdoor amenities, go to the dog park, walk around in the trail network, anything like that.

Getting into the partial real quick, let me just. Again, to rephrase something to discuss these units that are going to go from a rental unit to a unit that's owned all the units on the.

west side of this property as a whole have now become to own units the units on the east side of this property or a budding hubby road are continuing to be your rental units that's correct mr chairman so all of these units that are grayed back here they would remain rental units um the and it would be just one form of management one form of ownership that would rent out all these units the amenity building which would also contain a leasing office space all that would remain as uh as is currently

There were just some space would still be shared by the owned units.

That's correct, Mr. Chairman. And, you know, not to not to touch too much on the on the condo documents that would all be kind of described in that language as well. All those residents that are buying a condo, they would have, you know, perpetual access to the available amenities.

So whether you own a rent, the amenities are still yours. That's correct, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

getting into the partial waiver requests now that we're seeking tonight. So largely, our application is compliant with all subdivision regulations that are outlined in the town of Londonderry. We're just seeking one waiver tonight, and it's a partial waiver for placement of all monuments at right of way, street right of way, excuse me. So we have one point of curvature here. That would typically require a monument. We're seeking to not provide a monument. They're not established one simply because it's at a very high traffic area.

It's right. Right.

The location is not ideal whatsoever. Mr chair essentially. All 310 units would be accessed via the site drive. It's going to be. you know, right at a spot where there would be, you know, severe winter conditions, salting, plowing, things of that nature would, you know, degradate that monument and the pavement that it's located within over time. If there was ever a need to, you know, dig that monument up and reset it, there would be geomatic accuracy questions. Was that placed in the right location? So we feel that it's just a problematic location. It's also worth noting, Mr. Chair, that there are a lot of, you know, Previous boundary plans you know deeds of the registry deeds that would speak to exactly where that monument is if anyone needed information on it There are previous plans that are available to speak to that exact location of where that point of curvature should be located there were other touching on the staff memo, there were comments and questions about some other monuments around the property lines not being noted. We're more than happy to comply with establishing any monument around the property corners just apart from this one problematic spot right here at the point of curvature that's highlighted on the plan here.

so with that i think that's the end of our presentation um i'm happy to answer any questions uh that staff of the board might have at this time so what i'm going to do is go to staff i'll come to the board we'll go to the public john sylvia mr chair members of the board again this is my opinion is another case of not going through a going through a design review process

Again, I did sit with Ben and his colleagues, and again, I told them before you submit stuff, let's talk. Don't say it's not applicable or whatever. I could have given them guidance, and it is what it is. So I think, again, staff will continue working with them so we can get the package correct. Thank you.

Sylvia.

My only recommendation would be to continue this to October 14th or the 7th, whichever works, but so that we can have a conversation and work out the things that we feel still need to be added to the application.

All right, I'll come to the board.

Do we have the waiver for the 65-day time period in writing?

That's up to the applicant, if they are willing.

All right. I am going to open up public comment. Anything from the public? Come on up to the mic, sir.

Peter Gallo, I'm on 30 Kitt Lane.

And I've always had a terrible water management problem every time it rains. So as far as that line adjustment and water basin thing, I'm concerned that it's going to make matters worse. For my drainage problem, I actually built a little man-made stream, which is overgrown, which takes the water runoff and it goes underneath my neighbor's property. There's a drain that goes out to the street, goes down Gary, and that's how that water is managed. And it's on that end of the orchard. So I'm concerned about that. I've got to put my house on the market and sell it. And I'm wondering what the completion date is on the whole project because I'm going to be putting a house on the market now. And it looks like you guys are at least a year away from completing this project. So those are my questions.

I would assume you're four or five years away from completing this project. Talk with them. I would assume you're four to five years away from completing this project, no? In totality.

Yeah, we're going for a phased approach for a number of reasons. I have Brian Vitale with the applicant's team. He can speak to construction timelines, but it's not a one-year process. It would be three to five. There you go.

I don't think anybody's going to really care about the monument. What's so special about the monument? I just brought that up. This is curious.

Do you want me to answer that, Mr. Chair? It's just a part of the regulations, the town regulations, essentially. You have to show monuments at all points of curvature all the way around. We're just seeking to not provide that one monument just because it's not a problem.

I can remember some of them that we have in our parks and everything, so I know...

Now it rings a bell. I'm just concerned that I'm going to have worse management problems with that.

Site line move over, how close is that to my property? Because I'm right on the edge.

So the site plan for this entire project as a whole has been conditionally approved? Right. The lot lines are all within this project. They're creating a new lot line. Simply to be able to create a condominium conversion, right? That way they can sell them as opposed to rent them, right? All this lot line is doing is splitting the existing lot line in half to allow for that, right?

But where it was, the water basin one that that's the only that's the one that concerns me.

Please Thank you.

So what we're doing is basically just drawing lines on a map. There will be no physical changes to the building.

Right?

No, drainage will be affected everything based on the conditionally approved site plan.

Right?

I believe you were present for is still in effect. So what was approved? None of that's changing. These are simply just lines on the map. Right. For financing purposes.

Now, are they working on the other side of the orchard? Because I see the road is completely built over exit 4A because there's no more construction on Pillsbury Road for the last couple of months.

That would not be related to this site plan. That would not be related to this site plan. Exit 4A and whatever's going on over there is not related to the plan that's in front of us.

But there's no more construction going on on Pillsbury Road. It seems to all have stopped.

You're talking for the sewer line. Yeah.

Yeah. I could see that's what they were putting in. So they had to rip up the road several times and I ran out of gas a couple of times on all the detours. But, um, I just, uh, uh, was wondering about that. So I do answer my question. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Anything else from the public? Yes, sir. Evening. Paul Belize, 21 Kitt Lane.

We meet again. Well, now I've made a change that's on Kitt Lane's side. Okay? Basically, you're taking all those homes that were designed as one and two bedrooms and changing them into condos. Am I correct? Yes, sir. Two and three bedroom condos?

No. They are staying what they were designed as. Okay. All they're doing is instead of renting them, they want to sell them.

So they're all going to be like a two level home type of thing?

If the, and please, if I'm wrong here, somebody correct me. If the home was proposed as a one bedroom home in the original plan, it's still a one bedroom home. The only difference is- So it goes in the same place? You don't rent it for X amount of money you're purchasing it. That's the only difference.

But is it still going to go in the same location as on the old map that we've got?

Correct. Nothing is changing on that. The only thing that is changing is the ability to purchase the home.

Okay, and then the other question, if they're taking up that lot line, when they build anything new, are they now gonna move closer to the lot line being a stone wall?

That is the lot line. No, nothing on the plan. The only thing on the plan that is. Physically moving is something you can't even see, which is the actual lot line. They're saying the lot lines here right now. Everything over here is for sale. Everything over here is rental. We don't like this move the lot line.

Now, everything for you to make sure that the buffer is still there that we've talked about and all that sort of stuff. The water we talked about all that type of stuff.

Correct. And that is still part of their conditionally apparent.

Original all my questions are guys have a good night.

Thank you. Anybody else from the public?

I think that's an improvement that you've decided to go to a condos. What was the rationale for that? Just marketing market.

I would agree. But, sir, if I'm going to have you, if you want to ask the questions, we got to wait and have you come back up.

So everybody at home can see it. I forgot that was my.

i believe that by virtue of subdividing this lot this property is no longer exempt from the conservation overlay district so buffers of wetlands now would apply which may impact some of these features help me understand that before they they were exempt from the conservation overlay because they weren't doing any subdivision. So it was grandfathered in. But now that there is a subdivision that brings out the changes, the design review process, and it's no longer exempt from conservation overlay.

Can one of you two help answer that?

I can sure I believe what she's referring to is section. 4.6.1.7 of the zoning audience. If you remember the last time when we came in front of the board, your zoning administrator made a determination that this lot was not subject to the conservation overlay district. So her question is now, because we are subdividing it, are those buffets now applicable? So I think that question is appropriately answered by your zoning administrator. My response to the board would be, if you look at sections, the one, we have our site plan already approved, so that's vested under what we had previously. And under section 4.6.1.7, it says new subdivisions, condominium conversions, where there are no improvements proposed to a site are exempt. So, that would be something for the board to consider. Our position would be 1. we already have a site plan under the exemption and 2, there's a further exemption in that provision of zoning. That would allow us to do what we're doing.

Or have any questions on it. All right, Mr. Breslin, I see you getting up. Come on up, sir.

Okay.

Ray Berson through Gary Drive. I'm trying to understand this. I understand they want to do a site land adjustment, which I don't necessarily have a problem with. But this has been given a conditional...

approval is that is that correct so the site plan itself site plan yeah however many units has been conditionally approved which means that everything has not been approved It's conditionally approved. Conditionally approved. They have not met all their conditions. Yeah.

In particular, my concern is stormwater runoff, wetland impact. We know this, let's call it a brook, let's call it a stream, you can call it what you want, that comes down through that property. Actually, there's a couple. And to me, that's still a concern. So has the state approved all of this? Is there any other approval that has not been completed for this development?

I mean, OK. What are your outstanding conditions of approval that you haven't met yet?

There's some outstanding engineering comments. Those come to mind. I think there are a few comments here and there for the existing conditions plan. There are some drainage tweaks here and there. We're not objecting to any of the outstanding comments. We should be able to get all those answered in due time.

So you have no problem with the original conditionally approved plan. As it sits, you are actively working to meet the conditions of which you know you're not going to get a signed plan until they're met.

Yes, Mr. Chairman. So in particular, I'm asking about state of New Hampshire's approval.

Is there any outstanding state of New Hampshire approvals on your end?

we have an outstanding aot and alteration of terrain permit for the new hampshire des we're working through the comment response there um other permits that come to mind a des sewer connection permit we're going to get that submitted um nothing else comes to mind at this time the previous engineering comments listed out all of the required permits for us and and i mean i can i can touch on that again i can look it up i think you're good those are the big ones ultimately it's they're all conditions of approval that you do still need to meet so yes while they're outstanding

That's why they're still conditionally approved and don't have a signed site plan.

Okay. And the other concern, maybe it's not appropriate to bring it up, but tell me if it's not, and that is traffic. For all of this, that has been a continual concern, and... I don't see where all of that has been figured out.

So I do believe in Mr. Town manager, if you want to intervene at all on any traffic mitigation or whatnot, that's part of again, that's not part of what's going on right here. This is a lot line adjustment. I understand though. You're owed the answer to the question. Is is the is the applicant working with you on any traffic things items?

Yes, they are. They have been and we're pretty close to finalizing that it's needs to go in front of the council for approval. But we made say significant progress. There's very little left to do work with Laura. Now we just got a couple of tweaks that left to make to the agreement and then we'll get in front of the council hopefully here in the next 30 days or so for them to approve. I know they're looking to close pretty soon want to help them meet that schedule. But yeah, we're pretty good shape with that. They've met all the quiet requirements that have been asked of them. So

Thank you Mister town manager. So the applicant is very much so actively working with the town of London area, which is again part of their conditional approval. And until those conditions are met, they don't have a science site plan.

And by the way, I am in a butter. And so I do have concerns. Yes, sir. With some of these, and I hope you all appreciate that.

Absolutely.

Okay.

absolutely and it's not just about me no i i've never thought it has been sir it's about i've known you long enough right it's about the children okay absolutely let's be concerned about the children absolutely thank you thank you sir anything else from the public yes sir if you want to come on up let me let him go first sir look all right you're already coming yeah Question to you. Question to me. Question to me.

Go see you then to him. They decided to change it from all rentals to condos. What was rationale?

If you could answer the question on the reasoning behind saying, okay, we're going to sell some of these, that would be fantastic.

Sure. And just to provide context, the. Like, that comes out, those are already condos so those are already for sale condos 60 units based on internal financing decisions and internal business discussions. The decision was made by the applicant to now have those be for sale and internal business decisions.

They're more marketable. I think I heard a market because it makes sense. And it to me, it makes it a better project where you've got a balance between the 2 and not all rentals. And it's a little more in line with our objections from the 1st time. That's not typical London area. It's closer to what the town is all about. So I'm happy about that. And you're not going to be done for 4 or 5 years. I don't have to worry about competition trying to sell my house, but all of a sudden the construction vehicles aren't there anymore. What's going on? What are they doing? They stop. Are they working on the other side of the law?

So, just to answer that, that construction was not related to this project. That construction was related to. And John, please, if I'm wrong, that construction was related to the sewer line that was going on. Exactly. Exactly. Not related to what's in front of us tonight.

OK, well, I that's what I thought I saw all these water lines going in so they haven't started chopping the trees out and they haven't even done the excavating yet.

I don't believe that touched anything.

No, they don't have a conditionally approved plan. They don't have a they don't have a final sign site plan.

All of the work you have seen happening has essentially no relation to this project. It has nothing to do with the original approved cyclone conditionally approved cycling for this project.

It's all just, I just thought because they're putting this in, they had to add additional water drainage lines and that's why it was going there for the project because all these homes are going in. Am I wrong?

John, the first question is, do they have to add anything additional? And second, that would happen once they're under construction to have a conditionally approved plan, correct?

So that pump station will service this development? Yes. Okay. So that was what you see going on on Pillsbury Road, the Pillsbury Road pump station site, as well as the line going up Hardy Road. Right. That will be the pump station that will service this site. We are just ahead of them in terms of schedule.

You've got to click to me design-wise before understanding, so I appreciate that.

Yep, you're welcome.

All right. Thank you very much.

Thank you, sir. All right. This gentleman over here was trying to get up, and then I'll have you go next, ma'am.

Well, in place of playing with it.

Nice job for probably road. How are you doing, sir? Good evening utilities commission. This is a water and sewers question partially answered. Will these proposed changes? Well, I expect to do the calculations. I expect any change in demand on water. Our search output, and that's basically the question.

So, I mean, I wouldn't think there is, but I'll let you answer that.

That's correct, Mr. Chairman. None of these units are changing in terms of size, bedroom count. That's not changing. So all of the sewer calcs, they're all the same. Water demand would very much be the same as well.

So part two of that question would be connections for metering, measurement, billing, and all that kind of stuff. Will that be handled by Penichuk, or will you be having a contract to do it for remote metering and things like that?

We've had a variety of meetings with Penachuk. Their stance is for all these to be individually metered. We're still working through that with them. All the condos certainly would have to be individually metered. The rental portion, we're still working that out. But yes, we've had a lot of coordination with Penachuk. That's all I wanted to know.

Wonderful. Thank you, sir. Oh, about the traffic and stuff.

I live on Harvey Road. Yep. And I know Sean's working it, um, I'm about 40 track to trail as a day now, using heavy road because when you go across London, dairy road, you take up left. No, through traffic and you have to take the hill. That's the shortcut now.

I'm sure will be resolved, but just let, you know, I would ask that that gets brought to the traffic committee and hopefully we can do something about it. Yeah, it's been mentioned to him, but thank you. Absolutely. Thank you, ma'am. Good evening. How are you?

Good 19 kit lane. I just have a quick question. So the butters on kit lane, are they going to leave some kind of barriers? Are they clear cutting?

There is so that. I want to answer, although that is not relevant to what is here. I do want to answer that question. That was relevant during the site plan process. And they are not clear cutting all the way up to the buffer. I remember, did we put some extra planting back there? I believe we did correct. I see you shaking your head up and down. So so it is not clear cut to your property line. And then we did also request that the applicant put some additional planting. On the back sides of those in particular to provide more coverage.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Anything else from the public. Seeing none, I will close public comment and come back to the board and I see you have your hand up.

Yeah, well, I remember a, I don't know what you'd call it, but south of the water tank and on the Woodmont property about 300 yards down from the The demarcation line between the, uh, between the water tank and your property. 300 yards down there was like a spring that popped up in the property. And it went all the way down on its way all the way down to the duck pond. Now, could you tell me that you can pop my balloon here and say now that's gone and it's no longer there and I'll accept it. But that source of water coming from the underground, because it was underground for a section of the property on the north part.

Um, and I have to say, I don't even know what you're talking about.

Yeah, see, I know because I. Walk the property along so is that help me understand what you're talking about? It was like a feature for us.

So, I really don't know. is is there a relevance to it of the lot line adjustment itself well we're talking about this this area and i was just wondering if it was still remaining or they they um it's no longer there i'm just curious adjustment i would assume is not having any impact on i i feel bad because i don't know what you're talking about but i would assume the lot line adjustment does not have an impact on it correct that's correct mr chairman the lot line adjustment does not go through any delineated wetlands or streams see where the slice is that would be where it was

you saw this where that line was can you hit 2026 spring flight imagery please it was like a sluice way yeah that just that right there yeah all that and there was uh trees around on the edges of it do you want to That's correct. Underneath the Pillsbury Road into the duck pond. So there is no impact on that. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I add something to that?

I apologize. I know it's not relevant to a subdivision or a lot line adjustment. We did get our standard dredge and fill permit approved from the New Hampshire DEF. So we have our wetlands permit as well for all of the disturbance that we're going to need just to cross the wetlands and cross the streams where necessary.

Okay. We have an approved permit. Sir, from a procedural standpoint, I did close public comment. Um, thank you. I do apologize.

I'm more than happy to talk to you about the information about. I know exactly what she's talking.

You're all good now. Now that I've seen it on here. I know what she's talking about.

Anything else from the board I'd like to know where the helicopter pets going. Oh, that's not part of a lot. Get out of here.

All right next please. Anybody else before we start doing some waivers here. All right, so we have a few things we need to discuss a waiver and ultimately approval, or how we want to handle the line adjustment. They do have a waiver we discussed it was with the monument. That's essentially at the entrance of. Of the area, I would be looking for a motion to grant the partial waiver with regards to this monument. So, I have a motion for Mr. Farrell. Do we have a 2nd. 2nd, 2nd, for Mr rug all in favor starting with and please. Johnny, Tony, Arthur, Jason, that's it. Sean favorite and the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been granted. We do have some conversation here of conditional approval. Obviously, it sounds like staff is a little worried about a conditional approval. They were asking the applicant to wave a 65 day timeframe. My question is, what's going to change for this board between. Now, and when staff's ready for it, because they're going to have to address. Any comments with staff anyway, right? So, I would be looking for a motion to grant conditional approval. On the application for formal review is subdivision and lot line. Adjustment of map 10 lot 42 into 3 residential lots and adjust. or remove the lot line between map 10 lot 15 and the proposed new lot 42-2 existing map 10 lot 15 will now become part of the proposed 42-2 uh 36 pillsbury road zone woodmont commons pud and agricultural residential one pillsbury realty development llc is the owner in procopio enterprises is the applicant so moved i have a motion for mr farrell who have a second

second second for mr rugg all in favor starting with ann please excuse me can we have some comment on that before you make a motion uh we have a motion well it can be up before there's a vote so there's just we have um some a check checklist items from uh hoyle and tanner that i think need to be addressed and we'd also like to see a

you know the complete package we haven't talked about that so obviously all outstanding checklist items are a condition of our approval and i i don't see why we can't do the same thing with the whole package here i mean it's all meeting staff's satisfying staff's request essentially so i do have a motion from john i had a second who seconded arthur All right, so all in favor, starting with and please.

I can't ask a question.

Yes, you can.

Do you have anything else to add?

Well, just that we'd like the concerns to be addressed.

Which would be part of your conditional approval.

Okay, and I think that will work.

So, and I. 20 veronica tony d i arthur rugg i jason knightson john farrell sean faber in the chair votes in the affirmative uh this has been granted thank you folks very much we have a second application oh my goodness here i was thinking i was done with you uh i have a public hearing on an application for formal review of a condo conversion of existing map 10 lot 42-2 36 pillsbury road zoned woodmont commons pud and agricultural one pillsbury realty development llc is the owner and applicant and do i have a staff memo for this if we just consider it they're kind of just in one correct yeah all right so With that, we've already accepted this whole thing is complete. Do we need to. And make another motion for the 2nd, 1. Might as well from a procedure standpoint, I'm looking for a motion to accept this as complete. So moved. I have a motion from Mr. Farrell. Do I have a 2nd 2nd 2nd for Mr. rug on favor starting with and please.

And champa. I. Arthur Rugg, aye. Jason Knights, aye.

Sean Farrell, aye. Sean Faber, aye. And the chair votes in the affirmative. This has been accepted as complete. There are obviously no waivers to a condo conversion, so there's nothing to discuss there. With that, this is a public hearing. I'll open up public comment. Again, this is just confirming the condo conversion itself from rental to condo. With none, I'll close public comment. I'll bring it back to the board. I'm looking for a motion to grant approval of a condo conversion for. Existing map 10 on 42 dash 236 Pillsbury roads on Woodmont comments and agricultural 1 Pillsbury realty development LLC is the owner and enterprises is the applicant. So, I have a motion for Mr Farrell to have a 2nd. 2nd, 2nd, from Mr rug on favor starting with and please.

Ann Champa, aye.

Tony D, aye. Arthur Rugg, aye. Jason Knights, aye.

Sean Faber, aye. And the chair votes in the affirmative. Your condo conversion has also been granted. And now, thank you very much.

Thank you.

All right, moving on here. I see other business. We have a reappointment of Suzanne Brunel. I was reading this before I got in here.

Yes, Suzanne was appointed on the 15th of September 2025 for a 4 year term. The Southern New Hampshire planning commission, so I just find this perplexing. In fact, they called a lawyer to confirm and she says that she was appointed. So that agrees with what the, so we don't have an appointment to me. Right.

Okay.

It's in the minutes of the 15th of September of the town.

Suzanne Brunel was nominated to an additional 4 years laps last September to the planning commission. Her term expires 930 2029. so it sounds like we have nothing to do there. So, would you entertain a motion to adjourn? Yes, I have a motion. Do I have a 2nd all in favor starting? It's a motion to adjourn all in favor. Say, aye. All right. Good night folks. Thank you.

Let's see.

Hey Drew, we're all done. Thank you.