Planning Board - Regular Meeting

of board work. Um, do we have any minutes to approve? Looks like Mr. Mr. Chair, June 4th and June 11th. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes of June 4th, 2025 as presented. I'll second that, Mr. Chair. I have a motion on the table for to approve the minutes of June 4th, 2025 and a second. Um discussion go through a roll call vote starting with an Ann Champ I. Bonnie Veroni I Tony D. I Lyn Wilds I Arthur Rug I Jason Knights eye. in favor. I and the chair abstains. Minutes for 64 are approved. Mr. Chair, I will make a motion that we uh approve the minutes of June 11th, 2025 as presented. I'll second that, Mr. Chair. I have a motion and a second on the table. Any discussion? Hearing none, let's request a roll call vote starting with an Ann Champa. I Javanni Vani I Tony D I Lyn Wilds I Arthur Rug I Jason Knights I Sean Faber I and the chair votes um I was not here so I abstain there we go Mr. Chair, before you go any further, could you announce one more time the date uh and the time of this meeting? I think we started before it was taped. Yes, absolutely. You wouldn't mind just for clarification so when people are watching they know exactly which one this is. Sure. Thanks, Tony. And thanks for pointing that out. So, we are currently in the July 9th, 2025

London Planning Board meeting. and that is to ensure that it is being caught on the recording. The dates being caught on the recording. Thank you, Mr. Chair. All right, moving on to administrative uh Nope. Kelly, is there any regional impact determinations this evening? None this evening, Mr. Chair. Discussions with town staff? I have nothing this evening. Nothing. Nope. Kelly, I have one item for you. Um, so I am looking for the board's confirmation uh as to whether or not you are in agreement with an administrative review. Um, and that review is for a 10x10 irrigation shed located uh within Woodmont Commons along um Main Street. So again, this is an irrigation shed. So it's strictly to support irrigation and its functions. Uh it's proposed to be um on this uh already existing concrete pad uh right here in between the loop here at Main Street. Um, and we already are in receipt of an admin review application, but given that this is within the PUB, uh, I just wanted to clear it with the board first. Um, I do have some renderings for you as well. So, as you can see, they are trying to make it fit within the character of this area. Um, with this design. So, um, staff feels

it's appropriate. Um, but just wanted to again clear it with the board before I go any further given the fact that it's within the Woodmont Commons PUB. I see that heights again, please. Thank you. Mhm. Do you know what the roofing material is going to be or? It's like metal. I believe it's metal. I think that's what it says. It's like standing seam. Yep. What building is it in front of? So again, this is the existing pad. This is 30 main. Okay. So it's between 603 and the highrise there. Okay. Thank you. Right. So, it's not, you know, like I say, it's already the the pad already exists there. They're just looking to put it right on there. Kelly, could you put that monitor on? I can't get that TV to turn on. Excellent. Sorry. No worries. All right. Or have any other questions? No. As long as it's consistent with the uh style and design there, that's important part. Okay. Okay. So, Kelly, you're just looking for a consensus to All right. Nothing else. Let's move on to And there's no other discussions with town staff. That's all I have for you. Excellent. Kristen, great. All right. So, let's move on to old business. Um this evening we have a public hearing on an application for a formal review of a site plan to construct two commercial buildings totaling 3,200 and 7,500 square ft with associated site improvements at 59 Rockingham Road. Tax map 13 lot 60-3 zoned commercial C2

Rockingham Road Holdings LLC is the owner. Freestone Holdings LLC. Adnan Salvetric I apologize. It's okay. Um is the is the applicant. This has continued from our May 7th meeting and June 11th um 2025 meeting. I've just read the case into the record. It was accepted as complete on May 7th. Um, so other than that, I think I'd like to invite the applicant up to present and floor is yours. After your presentation, we'll I will kick it over to staff for input. The board will have a discussion, then we'll open up for um any public comments. So, sure. Um since uh last meeting um there was some discussion about um firetrack access and the loading docks. Um Earl and I sat together and even though the vote at the end of the meeting was that what is there met um the standard, there was some concern that um if the firetruck were there that um it could be an issue. So we've went back to the drawing board and we relocated the loading dock and widened the pavement area. Um and um there's an updated drawing that shows that now even if there is a fire truck at the loading dock, sorry, if there's an 18-wheeler truck at the loading uh and it's not a loading dock, it's just an overhead bay um that the road is wide enough that a firetruck could go to the either side um and access both sides of the building. So, we've um uh we've done that. Um unfortunately that had downstream effects of affecting the drainage calculations and um

some of the other documents that go along with the plan. So the engineering department did not have time to review those changes. Um so we're we'll be looking for a continuence to give them time to review all of the changes resulting from that. um additional payment that was being added. Um the the second item that we need a variance I think I a waiver a waiver I'll let Earl explain the second. Sure. So one of the key components of this design if we can go to the um well yeah so that's going to be the main if you is can you expand on that one? It's yeah so um if you look at the top part we're because this is such a slloy site we have utilized terrace walls which is actually above this diagram. We'll start there. So we we're using a a series of terrace walls and that's been okay uh with engineering but we also use them on the back side of the swale which is now the the the the second. So um in this if you look at uh this is what's on the left there is what's been on the plan since uh submission number one. Uh what's on the right is after we had a geotech look at it at the recommendation of engineering he went through and said you can remove bunch of that stuff and actually met with John too to try and clean it up. The main aspect here is that you're having on the inside where the drainage swale is or where there's uh detention, you're we're using the 3:1 slope. That's part of the detail for the London area. And then it has a 4ft top of burm

requirement. And then it has a 3:1 return slope. And we were proposing to um uh instead of doing that 3:1 return slope to use one of those landscape less than three foot high walls. Um and so we went through an analysis which is on the left which I won't go into it. It approached it from like six different aspects. Uh the main thing was we ended up suggesting just send it to the geotech. uh he um so Harry Weatherbe has reviewed it and and said yes, there's not a an issue with the design in terms of holding back the water. That was that that was kind of the um the rub as well as there was an issue of maintenance. My argument has been there's less maintenance w with the wall because you can now uh you won't have the 3 to1 slope, you'll have a fair fairly flat slope at the bottom. And the main thing is it's a legislate uh site as well. So most of this detail although it's in different places, the key comp place is right along the right of way line uh to route 28. I've uh met with the the state engineer for DOT. He's approved this design. He's okay with it. Um, so now it's just a matter of uh can we um but I I understand because it doesn't have a 3 to1 return slope, it requires a waiver. So if if the waiver is not granted, we will have to either lower it into the ledge, which would be about 300 lineal feet of blasting to uh to facilitate um the the treatment soil and the detention soil. Um so it's and we would

also have to make up that distance on the other side and it it uh it would mean major redesign if it's not accepted. So that's why we're trying to say let's get this settled so that if if we have to redesign we can try to do it and maybe meet the next meeting and maybe not I don't know but if if it's acceptable the design the what we've submitted would be uh as far as I know good to go but it has to be reviewed. I understand we redid the drainage cals. We did uh responded to the comments. Um and this is the only comment that it doesn't meet. It needs it needs it needs a waiver. Uh that is a real issue with the design. So, um I think we've done our homework to make sure it's not a unstable situation and I'd be glad to answer any questions and hopefully it won't be uh considered something that is unreasonable. [Music] Thank you. I'll um turn over to staff. Yeah, I uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Again, I think Earl kind of summarized it pretty well. So, our standard, if you're looking at the the diagram on the RA on the right, 3 to one side slope coming in, 4 foot top BM, and it should be a 3 to one side slope coming back out. And in that drawing, he does have that shown real real lightly. The concern is always, you know, that that water that's there's up to two feet of water that's going to be on the lefth hand side of that retained in that in that swale. That swell actually acts as a partly as a detention pond as well. So the concern is again you got two feet of water there. You got the potential for the piping to occur

between the uh that 2 ft of water and then that piping occurring beneath the wall and breaking out in that in that slope or undermining that wall. That there you then you lose it. The 3:1 slope again it's maintainable. that's always, you know, that's that's our standard for that reason because it can be maintained. Um, I think again Earl Earl summed it up pretty well and it's your it's your decision. And may I just I mean part of the comment was maybe this is over our uh over our capabilities and that's why we went to a geotech to to review the soils and review the um it's also much more uh a a key component is the water is only there for a very short duration um during a it's designed for a 50-year storm. Um the little diagram on the rest on the lower right is a height of graph which may not mean anything to anybody but we're designing for cubic feet per second that happens on a very sharp peak. If you went with the full 24hour um average flow it would be less about 10% of the two and we're only talking 2 cfs which is pretty minimal. So, you'd be down to a few garden hoses if you did it over uh on average of the 24hour storm. But I don't want to get too technical either, but the the that that that's one of the major considerations is it's a this is designed to be dry uh not to be it's not a dam of a pond that would be sitting there. Thank you. Um Mr. Mr. Chair, just a couple of notes for you. So, just procedurally, um the

the request this evening is strictly to act on the two waiverss. Uh and then again, continue the applicants requesting to continue to an August meeting. Uh and then lastly, just to note um for the board as well that the 65day re review clock is set to expire. Uh because this application was accepted as complete on May 7th, 65 days from then puts us at July 11th. Uh that means that you you know that 65day window is when you have to come to a um decision on the application. the applicant has stated they're uh willing to grant an extension of that 65day clock. However, we just need to clarify how long that period of extension is. So, if you just want to clarify that with the applicant at some point this evening. Do we have the second waiver in writing? You have both waiverss in writing. on the summon. Oh, I was looking on the fly. Um, thank you, Kelly. Let's start with the board. Does the board have any discussion items, questions for the applicant before we open up public the public hearing or open up for the public? Yes. Um, first off, I'd like to thank you for addressing the thing that you didn't have to address. Um, it was a, as you know, we we were all here for the conversation. So, I I I appreciate you you uh Okay. spending the time and the money to to to

do that. Um John um with this what is the you're you're let's say you're concerned you know the concern of the water are we talking potential water failure uh you know in a worst case scenario kind of thing. Worst case scenario. Yep. Okay. Yep. come down to mine the wall that is there an option kind of in the middle that you know uh okay I think we've chosen the middle option with the geoteex recommendation to make sure that the soil is heavy in the silts so that it it won't be it it really will hold that water uh so we have added that to the detail and the soil will be tested to make sure it's not like a sand that it would allow that water to get right to the back of the wall. So, um and we have tested um similar soil and it was going at about it would creep through the soil at about 4 in per hour and and again, we're only talking a couple of hours that this thing's going to be full. So, that was the other geoteex. will never reach uh steady state cuz the by the time the water seeps to the wall, it's going to be gone out of the out of the ditch. So that I think the key thing is the geotech um that John recommended that that I have it reviewed by I think uh he stamped it uh as a report and um I'm comfortable from that standpoint. And is this a case where if this doesn't if Let's say we deny the waiver. Can this still be built or is this a case where it would have to be then put into the

ledge and then we'd be blasting 300 ft of of of soil. Uh which I think would be counter to environmentally friendly design. Okay. Thank you. That's all. So just to confirm, you said that this was reviewed by um NH Dot engineers. Uh was it this geoticular piece? Geote techchnical services inc there they I have his report. No I think I think Sean what you're asking is is Earl did bring this to the attention of the district engineer. Yeah. So again when when any any development here in town abuts a state rideway like that this the state gets involved as far as looking at the drainage and so that's what Earl is evidently that's what Earl is saying and they've offer they've we've received their approval. Okay. And I guess I didn't hear it. So, John, you're okay with the numbers? You think the analysis is correct? The analysis appears correct? Yeah. I don't support the the request, the waiver, but it's not my decision. So, C can you put up the the diagram again, please? So, the So, the last time I came personally came into something like this, I I ended up with a with a with a vinyl barrier uh to help with the piping. Piping, my understanding is when the water seeps under and makes like a little hole and then it keeps on going and then next thing you know you get water coming out from underneath and that starts the failure. Correct. Right. In a typical example, when when this is all when this is all dirt, then it just implodes from underneath

and drops down and and then you get and then you get a real problem. Um in in this case the the difference because there's going to be hardly any water in there at all. I don't know. I don't I don't see the I'm not an engineer. I'm going to shut up. I don't see it. I I I I get the failure and I get and I understand how they fail and I've seen the result of them failing. I don't necessarily That's all I'm going to say. Thank you. And by the way, I also appreciate um trying to be a good neighbor and and making the changes that you did not have to make. Your suggestion was good. I appreciate it. you suggested widening toward the septic. We went out and looked at it says, you know, we really can do that. So, let's let's make it happen. Thank you. I I I really do appreciate it uh for myself and and on behalf of the other board members and um the rest of the the taxpayers as well. So, thank you. Thank you for that. And um as again my my comments at the last meeting were were not meant to be unfriendly, but I'm I'm very protective of the men and women that work in the fire department and the police department. And I'm it's always in the back of my head that that we're putting people out there every day and what they do on their own is dangerous enough. So we need to we need to try and help that. And and I thank you. I Thank you enough for that. So, and we took it as constructive criticism. There was no and we we looked

at it again. So, we we agreed with um a lot of what the some of the board says. Thank you. Appreciate it. Anyone else from the board? Is there anyone in the from the public that would like to speak on this project? [Music] Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. All right. Um, now the board will enter into deliberations. Board, what do we want to do? We got two uh two waiverss. Um, the first one I think is uh scale and I don't think staff has a problem with that. Waiver number two is uh what we've seen up there and I don't think uh John has made a recommendation for that. Am I correct? Correct. Just to make sure. Yep. But I will uh go ahead. I'll make a motion that u we grant waiverss number one and number two. I'm reading from the letter uh from Sanford Surveying Engineering dated July 3rd, 2025. I'll second that. Mr. Chair, I have a motion and a second. Um board, is there any discussion? Let's run it to a vote. Um roll call vote starting with an Ann Champa. I Veroni. Tony D. I Lyn Wilds I Arthur Rug I Jason Knights I Sean Faber I and the chair votes in affirm in the affirmative and those waiverss have been granted and the the reason uh should get the minutes is that there's no significant detriment to the public good.

Excellent. All right. So, um the other um point is we want to definitely clarify the um how much time you'll need for to for your the continuence of this application. As Kelly mentioned um prior, we accepted this application on May 7th. The 65day review clock is set to expire on Friday, July 11th. Um so and we have an email that you you confirming the grants to grant the extension of the review clock. Um how much time would you want to extend that too? Uh at this point we're just waiting on engineering approval. Um I I think 65 gives us hopefully it's just one meeting but if um any new issues get brought up it will give us some time to address them. Do we get August 6th or August 13th? So it looks like you prefer I'll base it off their availability. Um at this point what we submitted doesn't need to change at all. So that's is August 13th or 16th. I'd go to 13th personally. There you go. Okay, Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion that we continue this plan to August 13, 2025 at 7 p.m. Uh, right here. Motion received. I'll second the uh motion. Mr. Chair, motion is second. Roll call vote starting with Ann. Ann Champ I. Javanni Veroni. I Tony D. I th Wilds I. Arthur Rug. I Jason Knights I John Faber I. And the chair votes on the affirmative.

This application will be continued to August 13, 2025. Thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you very much. Appreciate your time. Excellent. All right. Next up are new plans. No. Well, we have two new plans this evening and then a conceptional discussion. So let's start with the public hearing on sorry a public hearing um on an application to reszone 3385 Brown A tax map 28 lot 009-0 from AR1 to C2 city the Manchester co Manchester airport the owner and the applicant. The case has been read into the record and are at this point want to have just the applicant intro introduce themselves and make the presentation and we'll continue on. Yeah. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is David Briette and I'm an engineer with the consulting firm McMarland Johnson. We're the consultants for the airport along with me today is Jenna Douglavich who's the assistant director for properties and contracts at the airport in case you had any questions for that. Um it's a pretty straightforward application um years ago because of transitional zones and protective safety zones. There was a bunch of properties in particular I believe it was a Highlander um that was removed. Um there was some residential

properties at the time that were in a lease and those leases were held by um folks who work at the airport. So once those leases expired, that's when they decided to raise the buildings. They never did go back to reszone it because it was originally zoned residential. Um the surrounding area is uh commercial and so we just like to reszone it so that it's commercial um which will help in the development of the uh pickle ball courts and championship um venue that you heard last month. Um so the action tonight would be asking for you to um recommend this to the um the uh council town council for their final acceptance of the resoning. [Music] Any input from staff? Nothing from me. I'm all set. Kelly, just briefly, Mr. Chair. So as the applicant indicated, this is fairly straightforward. I have up on the screen uh so you can see the property that's zoned AR1 and then the surrounding commercial area. It's pretty blatant that this is ordering spot zoning uh at this point. Um the definition of it, right? So, uh, outside of that, when reviewing resoning requests, um, one of the items to look at is our current master plan, which is still our 2013 master plan to ensure that we're being consistent still. So just briefly um the 2013 master plan designates this area as within the industrial village special district um which talks about concepts of self-sustaining industrial village south of the airport near Pentingill road uh to promote industrial office and retail development acting as sustainable

closed loop eco village where businesses feed each other for productivity. Kelly, before you continue, if we haven't silenced our cell phones, could we I was doing good through that. I thought had a beat down. I was ready. Um I was digging it. Point is, Mr. share. Uh from staff's view, this is consistent still with our current master plan, which is the 2013 plan um for this area and it's uh staff is of the opinion it's appropriate to reszone to be consistent with the surrounding zoning. Thank you, Kelly. Um any discussion from the board? Is is there still a piece that's going to be unzoneed, a little triangle at the top, or is that just a blip in your That's just a little blip in the uh overlay. Thank you. I have a question. Is that the area where there's a stone wall in front of it? Uh I don't believe so. I'm not exactly on the other side of the wall on the Manchester side. Uh that's Brown A buttset right there. Yeah. Yeah. Uh because I remember before um it was the Elms and they had tennis courts over there. Yeah. That's to the right. That's same area generally. Yeah. Yes. Okay. And skiing and everything else. Yeah, that's right. Swimming. It's it's directly across from the existing tennis courts that the the executive had reszoned. Um and in part of the reason of the reasonzoning is that um there's a 50- foot buffer that's required around the residential zone and that uh makes it a little more challenging for the pickle courts to go in. Um there was um in hindsight it probably

should have been reszoned once the building was demolished. It just never got done. So that's why we're here tonight. Thank you. Thanks, Ann. Anything else from the board? Did you get any um comments from the residents around there? Because you have um single family homes around that area, right? Um they're a little further to the west. Um and then further down to the south. Um have not received any comments. I don't know if there's anything that came into the town. Yeah, but this is a public hearing and so the butters were notified. Oh, okay. Excuse me. All right. Thanks, Andy. Thank you. All right. Hearing nothing else, I'll I will open up the public hearing. If there's anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this project, please come forward. Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and move the board into deliberations. All right. Um, so board in front of us is a the application to of the reszoning application that we would need to vote to make a recommendation to our town council. Mr. Chair, I will move that we recommend to the town council approval of the reszoning request to reszone 3385 Brown Avenue, tax map 28, lot 009-0, owned by the city of Manchester, Car of Manchester, Boston Regional Airport from Agricultural Residential 1 to Commercial 2. I'll second that, Mr. Chair. I have a motion and a second. Um any discussion from the board? None. Let's move on to a roll call vote starting with an Ann Champa. I Javanni Vani I. Tony D. I Lyn Wilds I Arthur Rug I.

Jason Knights I Sean Favor abstain. And the chair votes in the affirmative. We have opposite voted to send this off to the council to recommend that that piece of that that area gets resoneed from AR1 to C2. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, board. Thank you to staff. We'll let you know when the when the council meeting schedule. All right. Next order of business is a public hearing for a formal review of a condominium conversion at 99 Rockingham Road. Tax Map 13, lot 43, zoned AR1, 99 Rockingham Road LLC is the owner. SNH Land Services LLC is the applicants. Good evening. Good evening, board. So, we met back on May 12th when we submitted our subdivision as this piece of property has been in our family for geese over 50 years. So, phase one was to subdivide. We're still working uh with the town on that on the final conditions of that. And this is kind of step two as we've 99 was completely rebuilt uh and completed. Now, we ultimately want to split it in half and have only one side and the other side uh as a duplex. Excellent. Um and before we move on, I I apologize. Um we we need to um make a vote for completeness. Mr. Chair, apologize. I'll make a motion that we uh uh deem this application complete. That is so the board has sufficient information wish to make a decision. I'll second the motion, Mr. Chair. I have a motion in a second. You know the roll call vote starting with an Ann Champ I. Javanni Vani I Tony D I Ben Wilds I

Arthur Rug I Jason Knights I Sean Faber I you and the chair votes in the affirmative. This this this starts a we have 65 days which should make a decision on this. That's all basic that's starts the 65day clock. Yes. That's that's your verbiage right? Yeah. Excellent. All right. So, thank you and proceed. So, I'm Kevin Landreas, my wife Caris Landry. I don't think I said that as well. So, ultimately, this is just step two, splitting the existing unit that's built uh into into condominiumizing it so that we have the two units. Um, and then eventually when we do the other parcel of land, we'll be back asking the same request for that unit as well. So, it's just a two unit condominium where we'll own the right side and then we'll be looking to sell the left unit one. All right. Any staff input? I have nothing this evening. All set, Mr. Chair. board. We have any input for the applicant? This is usually very straightforward. It's considered a subdivision by statute though. Um, is there anyone I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there any one that would like to speak on this project? Yes. Can I just ask a question? Sure. Yeah. If you just come up to the to the microphone and um just your name and address, please. Um, Heather Grineer. I'm at Two Melody Lane, which is right across from them. I'm just wondering when you do subdivide, will the other side also be just a duplex? Correct. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else from the public? Hearing none, I will close the public

hearing and move the board into deliberation. Mr. Chair, I will make a motion to grant conditional approval for condominium conversion at number 99 Rockingham Road, tax map 13, lot 43, zoned agricultural residential 1. 99 Rockingham Road LLC is the owner and SNH Land Services LLC is the applicant in accordance with plans prepared by SNH Land Services LLC dated May 2025 with precedent conditions to be fulfilled within two years and prior to plan signature and general and subsequent conditions of approval to be fulfilled as noted in staff recommendation memorandum dated u that would be at the top here uh July May 9th, 2025. I'll second that. Mr. Chair, I have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Starting move to a roll call vote starting with an Ann Champ. Ann Champa. I excuse me. Javanni Veronnie. I Tony D. I Lyn Wilds I rug I Jason Knights I Sean Faber I. And the chair votes in the affirmative. You have you are approval to um you move forward. A conditional approval. Conditional approval. The conditions. Sorry, Kevin. Sorry. Sorry, Kevin. For what? Straightening them out. Huh? For straightening them out. It's It's my first time running the meeting. So, what are the conditions? Just to make sure your legal documents are recorded. Oh, final final reviewed and recorded. Y it's so much nicer coming. It's so much nicer coming from you. He's just like very stern. That's why I'm here. Thank you. I'm just going to take a look at them to

make sure that there's nothing uh stating that the town is liable or responsible for anything. It's really between two private ownerships. Just verifying that. So once you verify that, then we can file them with Yep. Thank you. Thank you. Have a great night. Thank you. You too also. All right. Thank you, Kelly, for that. Um All right. Next order business is a conceptional non-binding discussion for renovation of an existing building to add restaurant and parking at 230 Mammoth uh Mammoth Road. Tax map 6 lot 021 zoned AR1 MH Acquisition LLC DVA Max Apples is the owner. Christopher Mr. Sullivan Simmonia Architects is the applicant. Um just as a you know kind of a note of procedures. This is an informal discussion with the board where the applicant is just looking for our feedback. There's no votes this evening. Thank you, gentlemen. All right, thanks for having us. Chris Solomon from Sammonia Architects. Um, here to talk to you about um some renovations and proposed use of uh the Max Apples facility. I'm sure you guys are all familiar with that. Um, I've got some boards. I don't know if you have it as well up on the on the screen or how would you like to go through that? Kelly, we don't have it in our We don't have the file. don't have the just have the plans but nothing the plans the plans are the very bottom there. No, it's Landry. Oh, okay. I was trying to figure out where the It's on the website. I'll put it was uh we got it. It was on our emails. Yeah, it was on the email. Sometimes, you know, sometimes I make mistakes. So, no. Oh, we all do. Um well, I can go through and kind of

just familiar you guys with the overall site plan and then jump into kind of the proposed plan. So, um, Max apples, would you the microphone? Um, oh, yeah. Try it out. Yes. We just want to ensure that your voice carries. All right. Just so the people at home listening can um so Max apples there existing facility. Um, here we have Route 128. Um, pull into the existing facility. This is the existing um kind of farm and agricultural facility. Um there's another out building over here. Existing parking spaces just over 100 people and a gravel lot uh ledge pack lot here. Um the property then extends. There's a field back here. So that's kind of existing and there's an existing kind of road cut back to the main road over here. You come in, there's ice cream shop or stand on this side of the property. No, it's in the main building. It's part of the large building, excuse me. Um over here. And then we have the existing. And there's a a small little kind of chicken coupe pen over on the corner. Um, so that's the existing. Go to more of the zoomed in and proposed. So what we're proposing, so again, um existing entrance way here, existing kind of agricultural building. Um we're proposing to uh use part of this apple storage facility for a farm-to-table uh restaurant uh within the building. We have met with the state agricultural commissioner to review this. Um they've deemed that it's a deemed a proper use of an agricultural facility to be using know stuff on the property in terms of agricultural use as

a farm-to-table um restaurant for agurism. Um so that would be an existing facility in here. There's a existing kind of apple storage um part of the overall barn structure. we would be doing some some renovations to the actual built structure itself to accommodate that. Um we're proposing roughly a 200 um seat uh restaurant facility within this this building. Um come in. We've got again that existing gravel lot. um some parking in front of the building, ADA P spaces, um gravel lot here, and then a proposed um to bring us up to we're at uh 134 parking spaces total is what we've we've looked at is what the facility will need. Um so that includes spaces for um staff of the facility. Um food and drink and beverage and again that ice cream facility. Um and then the restaurant itself with 108 spaces serving that brings us up to 134 total. So those existing gravel lot um and then a a proposed kind of new lot. We will be doing a new septic system in the back here in this um kind of back field for supplying um you know the the um septic facilities for the for the facility. Um we will be sprinkling the building um or portions of the building for the restaurant. We'll have water storage on site to provide sprinkler systems for that. Um we have provided a um light study for the property as well. Um we'd be providing some some lighting here. Existing is not um lit. And that's about Yeah, we just kind of zoomed in on things a bit more. Kind of focusing on this this property. Do have there's two

to three weeks out of the year where um they are using this facility for kind of the main hub for apple picking. Um that's kind of a more intensive use. um early morning hours throughout the the mid-afternoon. The restaurant's looking to operate um late afternoon for dinners into the evening. Um so those uses kind of won't overlap. Um those two weeks out of the year, they wouldn't be having the restaurant open for apple picking. It would kind of come after afterwards. So um for those couple of weeks out of the year when this parking lot's full, essentially the facility is maxed out. You're not having more than um 134 cars on the property. Uh they do have some back kind of overflow parking that they've been using in the fields back here. Um that has been in use for about 50 years for parking there for the apple picking season. That would continue. Um most of the apple picking happens across the street and on other other parcels in town. So people come here and then they leave um and then the restaurant would open later in the day uh for the property. I think that's about um about it. We'd be maintaining this existing kind of main entrance way. Um you've got a median here. You come in um exit discharge and that's about kind of what we're going to be doing. It's kind of the overall summary of the project. Uh a restaurant is not a permitted use in the agricultural one zoning district. And we have a ordinance. You have to get a special exception from the zoning board of adjustment. It's uh 5.13 farm retail sale and consumable of non-farm products. The title lender has recognized the value of maintaining its farmland as viable farm enterprises. In support of the economic visibility of

such operation, the board of adjustment may grant a special exception to allow retail sale of non-farm grown products such as ice cream, baked goods, Christmas trees, honey, etc. The total retail value of said special exception sales shall not exceed in value the total sales of the primary crops. The board of adjustment shall impose such conditions and restrictions as it deems desirable or necessary to protect the residential character of the neighborhood. The applicant shall comply with the conditions set forth in the granting of special exception and the failure to comply will result in the revocation of the special exception. In granting such special exceptions as zoting board will consider the adequacy of parking surge disposal capacity required permits days and hours of operation. That's our ordinance. And then RSA actually I um I apologize. I wanted to kind of go to Kelly first. Sorry about that. Okay. So just Kelly's got just to be clear that determine has determination has not been made yet what Art just cited. Um and I understand that in initially this the applicant stated this initially but um the applicant is proposing to utilize the agurism statute which has specific provisions um and requirements of its own. Um, within that is the ability of the municipality to make a determination as to what what if any local ordinances and review processes may apply. We're still in the preliminary stages of making those determinations at the staff level. We've requested to have another meeting with the property owner um and his civil engineer uh because we have met a couple of times now with um the gentleman here, the architect and um Kyle Christensen,

the owner. But given the proposal um and given the fact that a civil engineering plan set has been developed to some degree, we feel it's appropriate and necessary to to have a conversation directly with a civil engineer. So we are waiting um still to schedule that and proceed with that meeting to provide additional review and feedback. But um like I said at the beginning of my comments um this very well may fall within that aggra tourism uh state law uh and that would be the means by which this would be allowable. Um in terms of the use I'll say it again for the record so I can be abundantly clear. We haven't made that determination yet. Um so we're still reviewing that. So without that determination this is premature. So, we recommended that they come to the planning board to get your initial thoughts and feedback um because that it's appropriate for this board to do that. Um this board doesn't need to make determinations about um what level of review is required. That's something that um typically the zoning administrator would handle. Uh and so that's the purpose of this e evening is just to get your initial initial comments. Now, if your initial comments are that you don't think this is appropriate use of this property, that's fine. But just um for the purposes of tonight, like the chair stated at the beginning, it's just strictly to get your initial initial comments. Can I ask a question? So, we making those comments based upon the fact that you go through this process and you can get all the other the zoning issues uh uh straightened out and it's approved. I would recommend that you make your comments based on the fact that they're planning to utilize the aggra tourism

statute. Okay, that's that's what I'm asking. And if I can just add a couple of things again. So back on April 15th, our last my from my notes, our last meeting again, we had brought up the the as Kelly indicated to engage a civil engineer because again there there's things that they're proposing here with as such as you know the the uh the gravel parking lot that's not permitted in our in our regulations. So again, you know that there's no additional storm water. is the wetland setbacks out there. It's glad I'm glad to hear that they've recognized if they've solidified looking at 200 seats in the in the the restaurant because uh my recollection my notes was undetermined at that time. They know they have to upgrade the the septic system out there. The traffic is is going to be a another one to totally analyze. And I in my opinion, they need to put it in writing what they propose to do. That way we're reacting to what they're saying, not what we understand that they're going to do. I'm a firm believer in what are you going to do so we can react. So, so Mr. Sher, is it okay if I asked staff a question? Um, yeah, just Yeah, absolutely. So, are you saying then that that it it probably or could probably be that they'll have to pave all that gravel over because our ordinances or our regulations say you can't have correct that. And so that's going to change all the drainage. Correct. Okay. So, um, can I continue? Yeah. Um, staff, any other comments for now? Uh, just to just to highlight a couple more points that I didn't hit on before.

So, some key pieces to the statute do include um taking into consideration of course public safety and health compliance um as well as consistency with the historic use of the property which is of course relevant in this scenario. Um so that's all part of what uh we'll continue to look at as we as we go forward. Sure. Thank you. I suggest to the board to review RSA 21 col 34- A uh Roman numeral 2 sub paragraph B sub paragraph 5 there's detail in there I think um this conversation we're there's going to be a lot of lot of discussion there's going to be a lot of you know um huge impact um to our town huge impact to kind of you how that um you know how Mammoth looks. So I want to definitely ensure that you know everyone you know has that opportunity to share that feedback. Um you know share your initial thoughts. It's conceptional you know discussion. Um you know there's you know there's legal there's you know master plan implications. There's such like that. Um you know that said Tony had his hand up first. So yeah. So, um, I mean, my my first knee-jerk reaction was that the ice cream stand for the it seems like you have conf conflicting seasonal use all over that site because you go there on a Friday night, you you almost can't get in the parking lot just because of the ice cream stand. Now, on that same Friday night, you're going to have a 200 seat restaurant in

operation. I don't see it. But from that same standpoint, just so that you know where I'm coming from, I don't believe there should be an ice cream stand there either because that has nothing to do with what they grow at the farm. I don't even think they have apple ice cream, you know. So, they're not they're not But that's that's a whole separate issue that I'm not supposed to talk about. I'm getting some scholars from over there. So that's why I'm not looking over there because I get the I get the stare down. But I I do want you to know that that a lot of the stuff that we do here comes from this book, which I'm pretty sure that you're familiar with. It's a New Hampshire planning and land use regulation book that the state uh produces on a yearly basis that gives us guidance on what we should do, shouldn't do, or might not want to do. Okay, I just want to read something to you because I'm not I'm not convinced that the agurism thing is appropriate for this site. Okay, so what I want I want to read to you and this is from uh 67432A. If you if you're taking notes, if you're not, that's okay, too. Um, but it says that all of these RSAs 67417, 6721, um, uh, 3B DA, RSA 67432 do not support the contention that the legislature entired intended to require municipalities to allow agurism. So, I'm going to say it again. The RSAs, and I'm going to paraphrase it and and you can do the same thing when you when you come back to us and and and do what you got to do, but the legislature

um did not intend the municipalities to allow agurism within their borders. At most they evincense that the legislation's general intent was to support traditional agriculture but to allow reasonable local regulations. Okay. And that is in the notes to decision um on page 423. So, I'm going to lean heavily on that um because I think there are some there are some issues with the thought uh on that. Not to mention that there are houses behind that are AR1 and houses to the side that are AR1 that I believe are separate owners. Um that's what I have to say. Thank you, Dan. Um, what percent of the building is going to be used for the restaurant? Maybe 20% at most. How much? 20%. It's a small kind of corner in that upper leftand corner would be useful. Upper left. Well, how did how do people get to the upper left corner of that building from the front parking lot? So, it' be just kind of this corner here. Um, you can kind of see there's a faint line here. This would be the restaurant in this back corner. Uh, you'd walk in, there's a hallway here. You walk into the building. This is all in support of the apple orchard. Okay. And the store in the front of it still. The store kind of runs down this this section here that would remain. Um, so it's just kind of this back corner here. Okay. So, we have had um extensive conversations with the with the state um and the agricultural commissioner, the

state of New Hampshire, and he's in full support of the project. Um the if we want to go through the rest of the comments, I have some questions for for you all. I would like to definitely kind of go through if anyone else has um comments provided. So, let's Why would we kind of Johnny Lynn Art Jason Sean Ste? We're always at the end. I'm fine. I'm joking. Go ahead, Johnny. I like any type of um AC exit or access from the back end of the building there. Uh yes, I mean the in terms of uh fire access, you would have full um access which we have met with the fire um or excuse me the police department and the um you would be able to come back here. There's an existing um developed paved surface. Okay. So people can't enter the in the back there. They're not going to be able to enter the You would be coming in in this in the front door. Okay. Yep. But for for egress purposes only fire fire safety, you'd be able to exit the back of the building. Okay. This side of the building is kind of built into the hillside here. Mhm. Thank you. So, um, I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this, but what's the motivation behind wanting to put a farm to kitchen dining room uh, restaurant there kind of continued use of the of the farm and to keep this a a viable business. Um it would serve as kind of a a catalyst for people to come and visit um to both kind of better better frequent um the Apple Orchard, its existing uh retail facilities

um and then to support kind of the overall um kind of business plan of of Max Apples um having people come here and enjoy farm fresh uh food and um and be on the farm. Yeah. No, that's what I'm kind of figuring. And probably you got to probably do be very creative when you're in that type of business to make it sustainable and make a profit. And when you get to the end of the road and you can't make a profit out of it, then all of a sudden the farm becomes a development, which everybody's saying that they don't want to see that parcel be developed. It already gets a pretty heavy traffic load onto that property. People are accustomed to going there. It is in a residential section, but it's a fairly welltraveled road, convenient road. It's not down a side road somewhere. Um, you still I'm assuming maybe I should just ask you versus assume you're you're you have a use that you want to tie into the agricultural nature of the property, right? Where you're doing farm to kitchen. Yes. Yep. They've been a long-term business in the town. I don't know. I mean, I think, you know, as long as they comply to the staff's guidelines and make it safe and and uh I think we should I I like the concept. you you're you're allowing uh a land owner uh I don't know if he's a resident of the town but uh you I mean you're allowing a business of the town at least

to sustain their operations so they continue to do what they do and uh I don't know as long as you comply to all the regulations and you get your zoning or agricultural uh us is allowed. I think we should work with them. But I have another question. Are are the uh does Max I'm just going to go down the Okay. the board. So, and then we'll kind of um have leftovers after Lynn. So, I read I'm going to tie off of Tony's comments here a little bit too, but I read through the RSA this afternoon. I didn't get a chance to really digest it, but uh the RSA 2134A 21 and 34A to me seems to indicate that a certain amount of the content of the restaurant would have to originate on the farm. Yeah. And I don't know if that's poundage, if it's dollar volume or anything like that, but uh today it seems like pumpkins and apples are the two big things on the farm and that doesn't seem like it's a real big draw on a menu that I would want to go look at. So I I guess uh cutting it short, what I would like to see is what you're or how you view that you're meeting that RSA because I just look at it today. I think it's got some stipulations in it that I would like to see met or I think have to be met in order for you to proceed with this. So I I think that'd be important for me. That's exactly what I was going to say. how much of the produce that you'd use in the farm um farm restaurant is grown on the property because we see fruits um grown in some flowers or whatever, but um as far as vegetables, I'm not sure about um the um you know the amount of that grown on the property right now. And then

taking that one step further, you know, is there would there be a plan to introduce livestock on that property because obviously you have to have some protein in in a restaurant like that and today there is nothing like that. So I just don't know. There's a lot of, you know, unanswered questions in my mind at this point in time that I I can't say yes or no. I just would like to see more information. Thank you. Yeah, I'm still looking for more information. Also, I'm kind of uh you know drawn between is this fullfledged commercial operation or is it agrourism? And uh so far you haven't satisfied my uh answer to that. But my question would be and I think it follows what Ann and Lyn is saying what percentage of product in your restaurant will come from the farm? Can you give me a number or give us a number? right now I cannot but we could definitely I think having that number would would definitely be helpful for us. Any thoughts on a from a site standpoint? Yep, we're going to get to that. Thanks, Jason. Um I going to echo what Giovani said. Um Max is probably with the possible exception of Stonyfield is our best known business in town. It's no doubt our primary tourist straw. Place is a mad house for the two weeks that you say. And then other than that, it's pretty quiet other than Friday nights when it's not raining for the ice cream. Um the growing season in New England is rapidly changing. Um this uh even with the ice cream which I do support um it's not going to the ice cream is not going to sustain 600 acres or whatever maxes

of of de um farm. This is from my perspective a way to make the uh property and the business more viable moving forward. Uh it gives us an additional draw into the town. Um it is um suitable with what we are doing here especially kind of a farmtotable sort of thing. Um it is an established business that's been around according to that sign since what King George or something like that deeded it. Um I think this is a suitable next step for this. Um I do think the devil is going to be in the details on this. I don't know how you take 20% of that building and it's a 200 seat restaurant with a kitchen. Seems like that's an awful small area for that amount of people. Um, but that's something you guys have to would have to work out. Um, in general though, I think that this is an opportunity to make this a more viable concern going forward. Um, and you know, I theoretically big picture, not knowing any details, not holding me to anything. This is something that I I think could possibly be a positive. Joe, um I'd like to echo what Jason and Giovani said. I think if Max apples were to shut down, people in town would be outraged pouring into town council going, "We've got to do something to save Max apples. We've got to buy the property and spend taxpayer money on it." And this is a way to make it more viable to ensure that it stays there and doesn't become something else. And it is in a use that isn't just straight up commercial. There is a path to get there

without opening up the floodgates to everything else in that zone. It's tied to the property. Um, so I think that's good. The only concerns I'd have from a site perspective, and it's not easy to see on here, there would be no additional driveways opened up and there would be no development towards the road that the the current development would be back away because I just don't want anything to get closer to that road. Correct. Yeah, there is one. There's this is the main curb cut here. Everybody comes and goes. There's an existing curb cut over here. becomes and it's blocked off right at the road that we would we would prefer to keep that blocked off from a a town standpoint. If from a life safety standpoint, if the fire department requests us to open that back up, existing curb cut, we would open that back up, but it wouldn't be open for for normal use. Be just for emergency use. I just want to maintain that sight distance on that road. Um, it looks like you got a lot of work ahead of yourself. Um, between the runoff and the paved area, filtering the filtering and treating the water. Um, I want to know who's going to tell my son that his favorite goat's going to be a pocket spot, but if I my son loves that corner little little there, but uh I think it's great for the time. So, I think from the standpoint of um, you know, feedback and you'll get back to kind of further discussions, but I I have a few items. One, um, Max apples is a staple of the town. That's everyone in this room understands that and we appreciate you all being stewards of that property. Um, it does change what Mammoth Road is today. This project would do that. So as you kind of go through and continue through the

process, it will be changing what it is today having operational hours, food to um you know farm to table um you know dinner. I'm assuming there's liquor and there's a liquor license and you know kind of other you know um you know components involved whether that's al you know cider or that's you know pumpkin beer or what whatever the innovative you know business you know solutions might be there um mammoth roads dark um and so I want you know have that in the back of your mind there's safety I really want to ensure that is covered. Um, from what I'm hearing as well from the presentation, this is definitely going to be a fullsight plan. I don't think this is an amendment to an existing. It's a fullsight plan. Um, you're going to get past increasing your, you know, just, you know, from my simple mind, you're increasing um your um your bleach field and your um your septic system rather. um the gravel to pavement kind of aspect. We need to really look at that. Um and just, you know, with an eye to towards safety, you know, what does it look like at 9:00, 10:00 coming out of of of that area. Um, I would want to, you know, kind of see a traffic study and, you know, what what traffic would be and, you know, and how that might kind of how that's going to impact kind of Mammoth Road. Um, definitely working with, you know, our town staff on kind of the regulations. Um, one thing that probably is um

definitely needs to be said, if this property does transfer ownership, um, what happens to that restaurant? You have a nice good farm to table, does it turn into a clamshack? Um but that's kind of the reasons why going down the agricultural um or the the appropriate regulations is important. Um so I I I think you all know that but I just wanted to ensure that you know it's said in kind of public record there but um follow up Mr. Chair when you're ready. Absolutely. Thank you, Tony. And it's a definitely a significant change. Um, I'm looking at the I might come back on the parking lot aspect. So, Tony, why don't you go ahead. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chay. You hit on one of the questions I wanted to ask staff about um change of ownership. So, Kelly, if if in fact this is allowed to be a restaurant, and I'm not sure how how the language works in this, what what would happen in in in the event of a change? So, the only way this is going to be, well, I shouldn't say the only way, the way that's being proposed, let's see if I can try again. The manner in which they're asking for this to be permitted is by way of the aggra tourism statute, right? So, uh, staff would need to be in agreement that it's meeting the terms of that statute for this to be an allowable use, that being the restaurant, which is really farm-totable. Um, and so within that, the provisions of the statute speak to percentages that have to come from the farm itself. So,

if it changes ownership, I'm under the assumption that it's still going to be a farm at that time because it would have to be to remain compliant with their approval. Uh, if it if the new owner at the time doesn't want to do farmtotable anymore and hit those percentage requirements and they want to get rid of the farm in its entirety, then they would be changing the use. And at that time we would need to re-evaluate um what that looks like, what other reviews and approvals might be needed um if they're going to differ at all from that original approval of the farm. Thank you. So to be clear to be clear, if this thing gets approved, it's it's not really a restaurant that's getting approved. It's a farmtotable operation. Yeah. And so when I started I said there's one way. So I said that because technically they could seek a variance for the use if um staff doesn't come to the determination that they fall within the aggra tourism um or possibly the special exception route that Art was talking about. I'm just not certain of that at the time at this time. But irregardless, whatever approval is given is going to be specific um to this proposal. And so if a new owner comes in and they want to differ from the terms of that approval, it will need to be relooked at by staff. So put another way, they would need to have A in order to be allowed to have B. Correct. Yeah. Is that is that fair? Yeah. And I should say just from a review standpoint, the way that the town handles um even tenant changes for example within um like some of the strip malls we have, uh we technically call that a change of use because it allows

us the opportunity to review um who's going in. Is it the same use that was already there? What's different? So we already we have that kind of um check and balance if you will for anything that comes in and and ask for from anything from a building permit to a site plan. So um we would have that same expectation. Yeah. So my advice to the applicant would be to not call it a restaurant, call it a farm-totable operation. Yeah. Cuz once you talk about a restaurant and an ar and and and that's just the just the nature of what it is. I have some other things but I think Giovani wants has a followup on that question. No actually when when you it actually I was just going to ask so if they they really need the farm operation to exist to in order to have the farm-totable dining. So it's in a way it's supporting their current use which is I think everybody appreciates. Well, but to that point, there is still some question on whether the farming that they have can produce enough can produce to support what they're saying they're going to have or they change what they farm to support the restaurant. And when you read through the RSAs and you have to go back and forth and back and forth and back and forth on and the different RSAs, it does mention I think Lynn said something about a certain percentage of what you serve has to be has to come from from the farm from the farm or whatever grown. And then there's and then there's the and then there's there's there's all kinds of issues here. And I'm I'm going to get all random, but this site, this parcel is not a farm. It's the parcel next to it that's a farm that happens to be owned by the same owner. But where the Max Apples building is is a separate lot. Yeah,

it is. Right. So, so if you if you want to follow the letter of the law, and I don't usually do that, but if somebody wanted to follow the letter of the law, they would say there's no farm on that property. There's a farm on the adjacent property that this owner happens to own. But you see, this is this is where you this is where you get into stuff. The agurism statute defines what? They defined the term farm in that statute. No, I understand that. But the farm is on a different parcel. So there are lot lines, right? They don't have irrevocable lot lines. They have actual lot lines which is a whole separate ball of wax. So I'm not asking for an answer now. I'm just throwing you're correct that the farm land the land that is farmed is separate from where this building is. So that's something that's going to have to be addressed. We will have to review how that compares to the terminology and definitions within the agurism statute. Right. So and then there's there's another part of 2134 that says the products have to be derived principally from the production of the farm. Principally what is that? What percentage is that? I don't know what percent principally is but but I want to go back to 67432 again as well where you mentioned that the head of the state agurism and I know this official commissioner Jasper commissioner okay the commissioner is in favor of this and as a state the state is in favor of agurism but the statutes specifically say in the notes and I and I I gave you the first part of it already. The second part says that the RSA's demonstrate legislative, which would be

the state intent to allow reasonable local regulations. So, you're going to get by that, too, because it's an AR1 and you're proposing not a restaurant because I don't want you to use the word restaurant. that's going to be a problem. So, so, so there are there are some issues. To be clear, I'm not against what you're trying to do. What I am against is we have regulations that need to be followed and and and you're going to have to connect all those dots to to make it work. So, um, thank you. It's well said, Tony. The only thing I would like to add, this is more of a practical thing, is work with staff on on this and also work with your rebutters and your your neighbors surrounding you because they should know what's going on because otherwise if we do have a public hearing on them, they'll be here and they'll probably complain. So speaking of abutters, thank you Mr. Chair. Have you asked your butter if they're okay with a a commercial vent coming out next to their house? I know what their I know what their last name is, but they don't but they don't own that anymore. But you have a church next door, too. I know the church is in in favor. Yeah, the church the church is not next to the offered their parking lot. that this building is right on the lot line and the big white house is also on the lot line and the the hood for the commercial kitchen is going to go right at right at the big white house. So just saying you need to talk to your riders like Arthur said. So I know they have the right last name but that's that doesn't mean they want to they want to smell a commercial. The board have any other a commercial not kitchen?

Any you have feedback on the property and looks like you You have anything in? Excuse me. Did you I'm sorry. I thought you had something. No, I just um I I think if you're going to have a farm-to-table um restaurant there, go all in and bring up the amount of um Max Farm produce that's there being used and, you know, even get meat from local, you know, places that might want to join you on that, you know, farmtotable business. And even if you want to think about winery at one point, you know, grow the grapes for your, you know, your wine served at the restaurant. There's a future in that. I mean, if you brought it all from Max from the ground up, I think that would be a great idea. Mr. Chair, could I just add one point that I neglected to highlight? Um, so I know that a lot of folks uh are aware of the easements that the town has over the max properties. We do not have a conservation easement over this specific parcel. So I think that's important to note because I could see how there might be a little confusion. So the parcel that we're discussing specifically doesn't have an easement over it and that's part of the reason why the lot lot lines weren't consolidated so that they could do that. In this case, I one person's opinion, I think it's going to hurt them for what they're trying to do because we'll talk about it at different meetings because it's going to come up again, but I I I think it's going to be a problem. Any other feedback from this side? I have a question on Yes. parking lots. So, it's very clear that say for a new parking lot development that would need to be a paved surface.

This is an existing gravel lot um that's been in use for this commercial building. People coming and going. Um we would prefer to keep this as a from the state's definition a say a ledge pack or crush bank run. Anything that a vehicle drives over is considered a paved surface. Um I know in your regulations for a new construction it needs to be asphalt. We would ask that we'd like to keep this as a gravel lot to keep the the feel and the look of this existing uh facility and not have it become a bit more developed. So that's one thing that we'd be asking for. Um I I agree that I think it would look more in keeping with it. The only thing is I I grew up around here and I went to Max from the time I was a kid and when it's really busy that gravel lot where people are parking, you know, this far, you know, they've got a $100,000 car and they, you know, there's no lines, so people are just kind of parking wherever they want to park. Um if you've got a lot of people there for a lot more than those two weeks that and you don't have defined spots, people just park wherever they want to. And so that that could be an issue. See, that would actually lessen the use of the property. So if we have 130 parking spaces, you have somebody every other car is taking up too much room. Now you only have 70 cars. So that would be kind of a a decision of the business owner in terms of are we losing spaces because once the lot's full, nobody's coming. So, um, totally agree. I dealt with that in my own parking space at my office. Everybody needs they think they're really close, but yet you know that door is all the way open and you're not hitting a nice car and you don't want any you don't want to be within a car door's width of the next car. Yeah. So, um, from that standpoint, yeah, I would agree with I mean, the paving would

allow for a higher density of use overall, you know, relatively speaking. Um, you know, the gravel lot from say from a state's perspective as well. Um, that could is considered impermeable already. Um, so no water's percolating through those those soils. Um, so keeping it in its existing form um would be ideal. That would be yeah, definitely something as you If this project does come back, you know, in front of us, we would want to kind of those are the details that we want to definitely see. And, you know, we we the expectation is that you would be following our town's um ordinances and such like that. Regarding to the parking, I did um this evening actually park next to a green Maserati and I absolutely opened and slammed the door. Um but sorry, Mr. Chair, I I I have I have a followup, please. Tony, thank you. Uh, first of all, it's an Aston Martin. I don't know. I got It's not mine. It's not mine. Okay. No. And and to be clear, when I park in that lot, I have two orange cones in my frunk and I put one cone on each side. That's just how I handle it. But when you have collector cars, that happens. But the I have nothing to do with Aston Martin, it's not my thing. Um, but I think um, one of the this parking lot is going to be another set of dots that you're going to have to connect because there are some people that are going to be evaluating what you're doing and are going to interpret what you're doing as a commercial application, which is a change of use. Once you have a change of use, you don't have you lose your grandfathers. So, so it depends on who's going to interpret what which way. I I hear what you're saying, but our regulations and our ordinances don't see

favorably to the parking lot that's there now for the use that's there now, but you're going to do something different that's not now. So, just something to think about. The use of the handicap and elderly out front would probably be beneficial for rampage and pavement. Let's you know the whole frontage for for ADA purposes alone. So you probably going to have some asphalt no matter what. Mr. Chair, you would probably benefit many to have that whole front area, the existing six bases plus the six handicap. I wouldn't even say towards the road with the uh other what looks to be about 18 to 20, but at least the ones against the building for the sake of the elderly and the handicapped would probably be a smart idea to have paved. Agreed. And from just keeping the floors clean on the inside of the building. I want to say something about those parking spots. Changing them over now to handicapped. Uh Max always has during the fall tables out front in front of that building where those handicap parking swats would be with their crosanthemums and and their products. They have them right all over the front. They have part of that parking lot closed off too. So um things would have to change if you're going to have a handicap parking there. Johnny, did you I mean, if they've got all their approvals, they have to go and do a site plan, right? I mean, if they got their agricultural farm-totable variance, whatever it is, it's likely they'll do a site plan. Yeah. So, I think I think a lot of these issues will be He's a tough guy to arm wrestle with, so you might want to talk to him about pavement versus gravel. I know his answer. Yeah. Any other questions for us? Um, I don't believe so at this time.

Anything else? Thank you for coming in. Much appreciated. Thank you. Good. Good discussion. All right. That was the last thing on our agenda. We have no new business. Well, it's way too early to end. I would stop it. No, you're not going to take a motion. We have a few things to talk about. Tony has We have no new business to talk about. Who's the chairman? Leave. Who's the chairman tonight? John Lee. I am the chairman. Maybe that's Kelly. We're set. You're set. We are all set. I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. So move, Mr. Chair. Second, Mr. Chair. Tony has his because there was two public votes starting with an champ I Tony D I Wilds I rug I Jason Nice Sean Favor I the chair votes on the affirmative we have adjourned this is outrageous