Planning Board - Regular Meeting

evening I'm gonna call the meeting to order July 16 2026 meeting of the planning board well first time on our agenda is to get a couple of alternates to sit mr. Perry and Logan Roy for yellow and Karen Connor respectively yes yes okay we have approval the minutes of June 18th 2026 to approve the minutes any discussion All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? I'm going to read it once. The request of Reagan Electric Co Inc. as owner and Chinberg Development as applicant for property 94 Langdon Street and 98 Cornwall requesting site plan review approval has been withdrawn, so that will not be on our agenda this evening.

We do have a public hearing.

Our procedure for public hearings is that there will be a presentation by the proponent, followed by questions by planning board members. then public comment, up to three sessions. There's a first session of up to three minutes, which is oral comment only, a second session of up to five minutes, where you can make a presentation if you need to, and a third round, if needed, another five minutes, oral presentation only. If you wish to speak in the second or third rounds, you must speak in the preceding round.

After that, the public hearing is closed and the Board deliberates.

we have a request of griffin road realty llc as owner for property located at 218 griffin road requesting a wetland conditional use permit from section 10 10 17 50 for the construction of a new mobile home trailer loading dock new security fencing gates added ada accessible parking spaces the project concludes removing existing asphalt in the loading dock area and replacing the concrete and installation with a new chain link fence, all within existing impervious areas. This project proposed a permanent impact of approximately 5,181 square feet within the 100-foot wetland buffer. The property is on assessor's map 263 lot 1-5 and is in the industrial district. Who is here to present this application?

Good evening drew Olahowski with Haley Ward representing the applicant CCB Inc So thank you for the introduction again. The project is located at 218 Griffin Road The site is currently occupied by an existing FedEx distribution distribution facility We are here tonight seeking a wetland conditional use permit for the installation of a concrete pad as well as a new chain-link fence both within the city of Portsmouth 100-foot wetland buffer The reasoning for this project is FedEx is looking to revise their scheme in which they load packages onto the delivery trucks. With this new scheme there will be a mobile loading dock trailer which will be temporary and it will back up to the existing building. This dock will have several bays on it which the delivery trucks will back it up into and the packages will be loaded on the trucks from there. because these delivery trucks will be parked there for longer periods of time it was necessary to replace the existing asphalt in this area with concrete just to better withstand the the heavy trucks in that area so as it was mentioned the concrete pad is located within a entirely impervious area again we're just replacing asphalt with concrete to help provide more strength the other improvements for the project are fairly minor as mentioned there's a new chain link fence some additional gates and signage to improve security but overall it's a fairly straightforward process last month we did go before the conservation commission received a favorable recommendation there were a few conditions of approval which we were able to address without any issue so with that we feel that we have addressed all of the standards of the wetland condition use permit so i would look forward to hearing the board's comments or questions thank you

thank you questions to the applicant could you explain the difference in the amount of square footage that you're actually impacting in this plan versus what the conservation commission um actually approved i believe it's about 428 square feet difference

Yes, so the difference was the additional area that will be saw cutting. You can see on the plan just to the north or that upper section of the blue area. We felt we needed to replace it a bit. Extra payment area just naturally slope down into that concrete pad versus having an awkward lip there so that that was the difference.

Alright, so it's actually already asphalt now and you're just adding more. Yep, exactly. Thank you.

Is the loading dock going to be covered? it will be yes is that the roof overhang that is the dash line or is that just the saw cut no that's the saw cut line the dock is that thicker gray block at the bottom so just the dock will be covered or the will the truck the mobile just the dock so the mobile loading dock won't be it'll just be a truck parked on the concrete that's correct is that a hand up

I have the same question, but that's not a handout.

If you have this answer, great. If not, no problem. Is this a temporary solution or a longer term solution for FedEx?

It's the long term solution.

So I know you had an initial plan that had quite a lot more tractor trailer parking. You don't need that anymore?

FedEx was very interested in taking care of this initial aspect of the project as soon as they possibly could, and we knew that adding those additional trailer parking spaces would be a much lengthier review process. So at the moment, we're not proposing those. We are just going with this one aspect. In the future, there might be the trailer spaces added, but at this point, we are not proposing those.

Okay, so this may not be a long-term solution.

The loading pad itself is a permanent fixture to the site, but we're just saying there might be more to come in the future.

Okay. Put that hand down.

Just a question on the Conservation Commission notes you mentioned. I think the plans that we have in our packet are the same ones presented to them, but the CONCOM did have a couple of requests for additions to that plan. Is your intention to revise this before submitting for a building permit, or should we have an updated plan right now already?

We did address all of their conditions. I'm not sure which plan you're looking at, but we did address those.

417, right? The letter from the CONCOM is dated June something. Or to the point I couldn't find any of the notes they requested on the plan, so I figured I would just check the date to make make this simpler.

We did not add a revision block after the concom submission, but we I can assure you we did address all of their comments and that was the plan that was submitted. I'm curious which notes you might be referencing.

There's a note about noting on the plan that no construction. I guess numbers four. I suppose number four would be the most important. important one there the construction materials being left on site and then notes two and three the wetland delineation stand by a wetland scientist delineating the vegetative buffer strip is there an update i'm missing somewhere again i i can check with planning on that because i know we did address all of those comments i'm not sure why that's not showing up on the this plan set Okay, yeah, I mean, they seem like very simple. They're not like changes to your design, right?

Yeah, exactly. It was just some minor notes about erosion control, and we were fine with adding all of those.

Okay, yeah, I just, I assume we can make that continued commission.

So to be clear, it's not just being fine. You've agreed to those notes, and they will be on the plan? That's correct. That's finalized, okay.

Okay, yeah, understood. That answers my question.

Any other questions?

No other questions? Thank you very much. I'm going to open the public hearing. If anybody here or on Zoom wishes to speak, 2-4 against this application.

No, there's one person, but they haven't raised their hand.

If you're on Zoom and wish to speak, raise your hand virtually. And if not, time's running out. I'm going to close the public hearing.

Mr. Chairman I move the board vote to find that the conditional use permit application meets the requirements set forth in section 10 10 17 50 of the ordinance and adopt the findings of facts as presented I'll second any discussion all those in favor aye any opposed I will motion to the board to vote to grant the conditional use permit with the conditions outlined in the staff memo

I'll second.

And with the change that the applicant acknowledged, getting those notes on the plan.

Could we consider that as presented? That was part of, during the presentation. As he presented, yeah. Yeah, okay. Understood.

Understood. As presented.

All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. We have a preliminary conceptual consultation, which is not a public hearing for the request of St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox churches owner for property located at zero Lafayette road requesting preliminary conceptual consultation for the construction of an 11,200 square foot, 15 unit apartment building with associated site improvements. This property is on assessor's map lot two 29, not six a and lies within the gateway one, not the single residence B district who was here to present this application.

for this discussion, rather.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Joe Coronati. I'm with Jones & Beach Engineers representing Martini Northern. We have Ben in the audience from Martini Northern. They have this property under agreement. This property is located on Ledgewood Drive. It's owned by the Greek Orthodox Church. It's been an existing lot of record for many years. It's just been sitting on Ledgewood Drive. It's a wooded parcel. There's no structures on it. There's basically an old path running through it. and the site is in the gateway corridor g1 zone so they're proposing a 15 unit apartment building one building associated parking in the under the building for the residents and then visitor parking out back it's a This is obviously just a conceptual discussion. We don't have a lot of detail on these plans. There'll be much more when we come back to you. We have been to a preliminary TAC meeting on this. We got a lot of good feedback from the technical side of this that we'll have to work through. Here tonight, we're really just looking for your initial input and if you have any questions that we can answer and just to present the project in front of you So I guess I'll only add a couple more things. When you're looking at the building, you'll see the parking under, the garages on the left side. There's that hatched area on the outer limits of the building. That hatching area will turn into things like stairways, elevator, mechanical rooms, storage for the residents. So we'll have more detail for that. It'll take up. some of those parking spaces so there will be a few less parking spaces when we come back we have to add excuse me ada spaces things like that that'll all be detailed then the building will be two floors above the parking so it'll be a three-story building And we're showing, I guess, the dumpster locations, the stormwater location. We do have a small wetland on the property, the lower right corner. The wetland's smaller than is required to have setbacks from it. And so there are no setbacks to it. We also don't expect and we will not have any impact in that wetland either with this development. We know that. wouldn't be something anybody would look favorably upon from the city or the state. So we'll be staying out of that wetland. We are aware there's a, when the Restaurant business tour was in front of you for additional units. They do have some proposed proposed sidewalk being constructed in front of this and we will be showing that on the plans in the future as well as how we would tie into that for our access if needed and And I believe from my understanding that the cul-de-sac will remain at the end of Ledgewood and And so I guess that's all I have. I'll be happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Questions of the applicant?

Comments?

Andrew?

I think it's a generally non-offensive project, and it looks like it could fit in quite well. I know that TAC will ask you about fire truck access. Is there a proposed turnaround or anything to that extent on this site, or do you need one?

there's we will be working with the fire department we're so close to the ledge wood that access from the roadway I think could easily be obtained from the road and they might not want to turn in and get that close to a building in an emergency situation but we will work through that to see if we have to provide a turnaround it seems just such a small site to add a full truck turnaround on that i think a lot of them will any maybe even access from the cul-de-sac might be more useful where trucks can turn around in that area and delivery trucks everything like that and then walk up to the front might be yeah useful as well it's just a consideration uh my second question or comment would be adding some generous and

appropriate plantings in the front of this building i know it's a commercial corridor but always nice to have some buffer between the road and the building when possible and the third comment is just about lighting we want to keep this building safe and that's a pretty dark turnaround in the middle of the night so some appropriate lighting to accompany the building or within compliance of being dark sky compliant or whatever it is in that specific zone would be a nice thing to do

Yes, I would agree on all that. There are times the ball fields will be lit up, but I know what you're saying. Those lights are very close in a couple places to this.

I had a couple questions about access to the site, and this might actually tie into the previous question about fire trucks.

is is there an intent to tie in the parking lot you're showing here with the existing parking for the church would you be able to just simply drive through to that larger parking on the other side no the the church property is is actually um is actually sort of kitty corner they connect basically at a i believe it like the the back right corner it's like a they connected a point so we would not be connecting to any of their um

Okay, so that would be basically through the stormwater feature, right, where you're showing here? So that wouldn't really work?

Oh, yes. We're not anticipating going onto that property at all.

Okay, yeah, understood. So then my secondary question would be, my dog and I are very frequent users of the kind of informal pathway that goes through this little forest right now. I would assume a lot of people go into the school. For what it's worth, we pick up a lot of trash, so I feel like we're useful. But, you know, when you've got an existing pathway and then some development goes in, often people are very confused on where to go. Is there an intent? Does that tie in with your previous statement about the sidewalk, or is there an intent to make this walkable to the high school? Again, if just

it's right by the school i would think people would want to be able to walk with kids directly to the school is that an intent to tie that in as well right the um the proposed improvements by the uh the tour restaurant oops i don't know if this uh you hold the top button that should there the um the tour restaurant proposal includes bringing a new sidewalk all the way down this side of the property and then into the school as a more formal, actual, wide, flat sidewalk that they can walk. If that, for some reason, doesn't happen, I think we could figure out a way to continue the trail, at least from our building, over to the school in the meantime.

yeah I would just encourage that because I think a lot of people use that and it probably would be a benefit to the development I would assume that's it for me is that existing trail on your property it cuts right through the property it's right through there so tour is proposing to make improvements

just off of your property correct negating the need for that i believe it was part of their public part of their approval they're filling up a four-wide multi-use path to connect to the high school so that that's going to happen it's going to happen yeah yes it's part of their approval it hasn't happened it hasn't happened yet but yeah it will happen if it if they build the project right yeah

applaud the the parking under the building that's a great idea to the extent you don't have to put in that much surface parking to the rear and preserve some of the forest that would be nice but can you describe the forest is it mature mostly mature trees or maybe logan knows if he walks through the dog all the time yeah i'd say it is mostly mature mature hardwoods from what i recall um got a little bit since i've been in there but the um

Yes, it's mostly mature. We will be proposing a berm and a planting plan for this back edge, which is something that I think Ben has been talking to the abutters about.

That's a good idea to talk to them and this is not a requirement just a suggestion as you know but if there's a mature forest in this area and there won't be much of it left rather than just Clear the lot and rub the entire thing if you can save some of it. That would be a benefit My way thinking anyway bill what's the business proposition I

Sorry, what's the business proposition?

These would be apartments owned by Martini Northern.

Owned by?

Martini Northern would be the... And the rental? Yes.

At market? Yes.

Just back. um when you're designing the entrance to the driveway it is going to be sort of so catty corner to that back entrance to tor which will be a fairly main entrance when that's complete so just paying attention to and looking at whatever complications because you know there's a lot of people already going in and out that to the other residential units i just want to make sure that when you're planning that you think about all the traffic that might go through there and people can speed through there a lot so

if we're going to have kids and whatnot walking on the sidewalks and whatnot just be conscientious of that please just very briefly to um voice my support for what we're seeing here it makes makes great sense to me i i just want to echo the same comments that you've had that were made about the trees um the more of the mature trees you could save in a in a you know selective way the better that would be my only comment tonight other than that

I also appreciate the parking beneath I think that's wonderful my only other comment is an aesthetic one and I know it will tie into your access but coming in the driveway looking straight at dumpsters might not be the most aesthetic thing for the residents so if you can there's something to think about you gotta get the trash trucks in there I know but we will take a look at that see what we can do to

how we can modify that if possible because I think you it would be screened obviously but I understand the yeah I dumpster screening isn't usually the most beautiful yes just one last thing there will likely be a significant amount of package deliveries here I'm assuming there's a space dedicated for that activity as well

looks like a good idea yeah looks great any other any other comments or is this stormwater feature only servicing this property and will not service the creatures at all that's correct yes okay we'll look forward to seeing you with more information thank you very much thank you thank you Next item in the agenda is under City Council referral. I think it's actually a request of the applicant directly to the Planning Board. Request of Banfield Realty LLC as owner for property at 375 Banfield Road requesting to be rezoned from Industrial 1 to Gateway Neighborhood Business, G1. Excuse me. This property is on Assessor's Map 266, lots 7 and 7-1. Who's here to discuss this application or this proposal?

And did the board get the PDF of the PowerPoint earlier today?

Did you get a chance to look at it?

Great.

thank you mr. chairman and hello members of the board my name is Chris Kelly I'm an attorney with Hinkley Allen in Manchester I represent the property owner and the applicant of the subject property Banfield Realty LLC and Green Valley Realty LLC also with me tonight representing the applicant are Rob Graham the project leader and Adam Worrell from Procon We're before you tonight to ask this board to vote to recommend to the Portsmouth City Council our proposal for a zoning amendment that would rezone tax map 266 lot 7 and lot 7-1 from Industrial I to Gateway Corridor G1. uh adam and the uh adam will be up uh next to provide the specifics and vision uh for our application and request but i had one initial point that i'd like to share with this board as you may know this property is the subject of some complex litigation related to its environmental condition I note the applicant has taken significant steps already to get this property cleaned up but the relevance of this litigation to what we're doing tonight involves a timing issue that we think this board should be aware of The litigation is at something of a standstill until there's clarity around the likely future use of the property. I'm happy to go into as much detail as I'm able to about that litigation, but basically, until we have a sense of the likely future use, the parties to the litigation don't have the information that they need to appropriately scope out the parameters of potential settlement terms. So time is of the essence as it relates to this request. We view this application as an important step that needs to happen before we're able to resolve the environmental litigation and then clean the property up and ultimately put the property to a use that helps the city achieve its master plan goals. as well as to provide a beneficial project for the city as a whole. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. Morrill, unless there's any questions for me.

One question about the litigation, and maybe the city councilor knows this and I don't. Still pending litigation, is the city a party to that pending litigation?

It is still pending litigation. The city has been released and the court has accepted their release, but there still is active litigation between the remaining parties.

Okay. And it relates in part to the cleanup and the future use of the property?

It generally relates to the cleanup of the property and who will bear responsibility and cost and expense of that.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if you'd like, it was publicly announced at our Monday night meeting that we were released from that litigation.

Thank you very much my name is Adam Morrill as Chris had mentioned I'm with Procon and I represent the architecture firm working with Rob and the other applicants on this project so I appreciate you having the slide up today and I just want to sort of preface this by saying we do include later in this slide and it was part of the original application sort of a concept study of what a potential zoning change would would put forth for a potential project density or layout just to sort of illustrate what could be potential with that rezoning but again that's not the subject of tonight's process but just to put a little bit of clarity into what this could result bring to fruition so here we have our introduction slide and it really comes down to why the site was selected for potential rezoning In Portsmouth, there's the cluster of larger sites that are located proximate to employment opportunities, are within a zone that doesn't necessarily have restrictions on lot size or the overall character of the city center locations that are proximate to public transportation, jobs. well as the need for housing and housing opportunity and compatible adjacencies and so that was one of the major reasons why this site seemed to make a lot of sense for potential rezoning uh to the g1 g1 gateway corridor district if you could switch the next slide we can start to review some of those pieces in a little more detail On this slide, this is really a context plan of the existing conditions of the neighborhood and adjacent sites. In blue, you'll see the subject parcel, 375 Banfield Road. Items A are the community campus. You'll see the community campus center as well as its field to the east. To the north of the property is the St. Patrick's Academy private school. across the street, across Banfield Way, I mean Banfield Road, is the Camp Seaweed Girl Scout complex. as we go further to the west you'll see the New Hampshire Seacoast Greenway trail the rail trail running through the the left-hand side of that plan and then as you start to look at the dots the F dots you'll notice that single single-family or residential uses are located on both sides of Banfield Road both within the residential districts as well as in the industrial districts neighboring the property as we work our way to the right-hand side of the plan you'll start to see the wetland delineation so you can see that there's some in this zone some major restrictions on the developable areas within this space and as we flip forward to the concept plan you'll see how we responsibly can create development without impacting those wetlands Next slide, please. And so there's three major pillars on why gateway zoning is being requested. Number one is the opportunity to create diverse housing opportunities, which also includes workforce housing, which is one of the bonus incentives within the gateway district. Obviously, housing is not an allowable use within the industrial zone. Next is the opportunities that this site has specific to it connectivity to the public, the Portsmouth Community Campus, recreation opportunities, natural resource protection districts immediately adjacent to the parcel, as well as the Seacoast Trail. There's a lot of opportunity here to create a parcel that, instead of being a private industrial complex, is a better suit for that connectivity and open space improvement. And last, as we go through the plan, uh we believe that gateway corridor would provide a better land use transition from the existing industrial based on the current use of adjacent properties including the st patrick's academy as well as the other single-family homes within the industrial district you can jump ahead to the next slide please as well so I'm sure you're all quite familiar with the draft master plan so I won't belabor the point but we did reference that significantly while we were contemplating and studying different opportunities for this site the big things that I really want to highlight are the goals of the master plan which include invest in quality of place, which includes those recreation trails, other opportunities to improve the quality of life within the community, retain and create diverse housing, promote fiscally responsible development, cultivate our economy, and protect core identity. As you look at the right-hand side of this screen, some of the key takeaways in that draft study were further study of the gateway districts, potential expansions and refinements within that zone. I believe in your memo it was also noted that the general area just to the east of Banfield Road was noted as a specific opportunity zone. While this parcel is not immediately within that zone of influence, it is adjacent to it. and hopefully as we discuss this tonight you'll see the opportunity and existing land use and there is a compatible match for that goal the upper right hand slide we have a little star that indicates a subject parcel and that lands immediately on a bike priority connector opportunity under the transit and bike incentives or objectives of the master plan then the proposed concept that we have would meet potentially two of the housing styles that are included in the balanced growth of the community including the market rate large multi-family and mixed income and affordable housing next slide please and so we really have these six priority objectives of this as well as the goals that those aligned to on the master plan providing housing supply and choice providing workforce housing creating a gateway corridor in this zone that's a better land use pattern relative to the existing context than the actual use of the Banfield Road community The mobility and connectivity, through the next slides you'll see the proximity to public transit, bike path opportunities, recreation trail opportunities to reduce the dependency on automobiles. as well as public realm and open space improvements creating buffers and preservation of those wetland spaces and access to recreation and again to reiterate the point this is a rezoning request tonight and the full site plan technical review would still be preserved assuming a favorable recommendation of this rezoning request next slide please So here's a zoning and land use diagram. Again, the blue subject parcel is located in the center of the map immediately to the east of the community campus, St. Andrews and the Girl Scout complex. As you start to look at this plan and some of the overlays, The green parcels that are highlighted along Banfield Road are parcels within the industrial district that are currently single family residences. A few of those do have fabrication garages in the rear, but they do operate as single family residences. and so you'll see that this parcel is surrounded on all sides by the municipal district single-family residences institutional use for the st. Patrick's Academy and we've also started to highlight where the coast bus stops are with the potential for a recreation trail connection to the municipal complex to further support the transit opportunities of potential users in this zone. One other thing that I want to note, while industrial would still remain on the balance of the district, potentially on Heritage Ave, Constitution Ave, and the outer ends of Banfield Road, those current uses are really focused more on those transit routes to Lafayette, Peverly Hill Road, and the outer roads. So this space between those single family homes and almost all the way down to heritage really acts as a transition space between the existing single-family residences and districts and what is currently industrial district. Jump ahead two slides. so this is the conceptual layout of what a gateway zoning could yield on this site you'll see item a is about a thousand linear feet of recreation public improvement trail that would wind up along the wetland zone transit transition across the site with a potential connection you'll see item B where's this connection there's an existing trail off of the community campus that connects up to st. Patrick's and there would be the opportunity to propose a connection directly to that trail to support pedestrian and bicycle traffic through this site for the greater objectives in this plan two buildings approximately 238 units with we're proposing the opportunity to do parking below those one of those buildings we're really looking at the existing grading of this site as you're on the north side of the site the grades higher and then it starts a transition lower to the wetlands So we're trying to maximize the efficiency of that grading, limit our impacts on those wetlands. You can see in this concept, we'd really have sort of that building outside of those furthest buffers from the wetlands and still have a site that is feasibly developable under the parameters of a gateway district.

Next slide.

to really summarize there's really three main pieces of this if worth noting we believe that gateway zoning aligns with the master plan goals of the community of the city of Portsmouth provides a better long-term planning outcome than the industrial district would currently provide and we also believe that it's beneficial beneficial that this reserves the full site plan and approval process assuming a favorable outcome of the rezoning and so with that we're happy to answer any questions or comments that you have on this concept thank you thank you the letter from Chris Kelly mentions a previously approved industrial concept for this parcel

Can you speak a little to that?

Yeah. So previously there was an approved industrial concept. I believe it received approval in 2023, 2022. And on site currently there's been some land clearing and some remediation efforts on the site. But that's about as much as I know about that concept. If you have any specific questions, we may be able to answer those. But there was another industrial concept that was approved for this site.

Do we know if that's still being continued or if they've been granted extensions on that?

They were granted permits for it to vest the site plan approval.

i don't know i don't know the status of what work has been done since then but i know they demolished the buildings and done some grading and obviously remediation but with respect to the contamination on the property for the purposes of your initial plans are you just assuming for the sake of discussion that the site would be clean yes Whatever would have to happen and whoever responsible as the attorney said that's not Part of tonight's discussion. We'll just make that assumption that it would be a clean site, right?

Yes, Andrew Are you aware of an April 7th meeting where the st. Patrick's School presented at 2100 square foot library and it turned into a traffic conversation I was not aware of that no that might be some good due diligence for you to look into before proposing 238 units because there's currently a pretty bad traffic congestion point on st patrick's school or at st patrick's school and uh right now the city can't figure out the solution to that so i don't think another 238 plus residents are going to streamline that problem

understandable and of course as part of a site plan review process the full traffic study would be done with potential remediation for that yeah and I'm giving you that comment now thank you do I understand that your premise is to zone only this site as residential So there's currently two sites. Forgive me for not knowing the lot numbers. It is on the cover sheet. There's one lot and a .1. The north site? Yeah. This would be rezoning both.

So it would be just that single site?

It would be rezoning both, sorry.

Okay. So I'll... be a little philosophical maybe or something. So several of us were on this board when we approved the prior division of the site into two parts and approved a warehousing portion on the north part and left the cleanup on the south part in limbo. At the time that was not what the TAC had recommended and it was something of a contentious vote by this board but it was approved by this board. We're now at a point where we've got almost a year into a master plan process where we've tried to think about the whole city holistically. Certainly housing is a priority. But we haven't yet arrived. We've identified several all-call clusters where we will want to do development activity. This was not in any of them, to my knowledge, to this point. We generally do not have a favorable view of spot zoning. We generally try to think more strategically about broader areas rather than to zone a single site for whatever purpose. And there's a reason that things are industrial. And one is to protect residents from the kind of inherent environmental implications of certain types of industrial activity. which is certainly a valid consideration at this site. So I understand your urgency of wanting to get forward to understand what the value of the property is for you. I'm not understanding from a city point of view why we should feel that sense of urgency given that we're in the middle of a process of reviewing the entire zoning of the city and we'll look at the area around there and not at a spot site singularly. Do you have a different thought on that that could help me understand better why we should do a spot zone for this site?

and so we definitely respect the process of going back to the master plan I guess the point that I made or was trying to make in my initial remarks is we have the same objective when it comes to the environmental condition of the property at the same time we see the current condition of the site being surrounded by uses that are not necessarily industrial and see and have a hope that the trend for this area, even during that master plan process, will be towards a gateway zone. And so our point being that in order to get the property safe for people to live there, frankly safe for industrial users there, there needs to be cleanup. And there's a bottleneck that currently exists with that litigation that until we know what the potential use of this property will be, we won't know how much it costs. And therefore, the parties that are part of the litigation, they can't come to terms with one another because that's really the crux of how we would settle it. So I guess what we were asking is to sort of get a jump start or a head start on that process because that will indeed take time and that's generally it is that we're looking for a jump start on that process so we can you know ultimately get the property cleaned up and then ultimately get more housing which I'm sure everyone understands is a need that would be great today if it was served as opposed to later.

As a baseline, a couple of years ago we approved a warehouse program. So for the value of the property, would you use that as a baseline thought as to the value of the property?

Yeah, I would say that right now what I understand about the environmental condition of the property likely could be put towards some industrial uses. As I noted in my initial remarks, the existing owner, the applicant, has had to put in substantial dollars to get it up to an industrial level uh where some industrial level substantial dollars to get it up to an industrial level uh where some industrial level need to be uh based on the current condition of the property so it's it's it's very hard to say what the baseline is um i've been waiting for everyone else to get to talk first

i have had a lot of thoughts about this and been spending a lot of time thinking about it and i'm the first person to sit up here and say we need more housing and i've already changed a bunch of industrial areas with that said i've kept them to adjacencies to the corridors and banfield road i don't see as a corridor i have a little bit of heartburn thinking about that narrow little road i drive down it all the time to go to the post office and i just don't know if it's currently built and structured to be able to handle this much intensity so i do agree that putting this out to the master plan and really making a focus i wouldn't want to just change these two lots we need to look at the entire roadway we need to look at all the lots and really sort of do an analysis as to whether or not what would be appropriate um that's going to take probably more time than the applicant's really going to want but that's sort of my thought process is with the city as a whole really needs to look at the road as a whole how narrow it is there's no room for turn lanes which i think are what we kind of need to start to think about especially with all the issues at the school there's a backup there because of course every child there gets brought to school by their parents so pick up and drop off is just no one can get up and down the road So without, you know, having some extra width to that road and trying to figure out a way, I mean, it is all rural directly across the street or single family. Um, it's industrial then surrounded there other, other than what the municipality already owns. So I guess I have a lot of want to really take a deeper dive into looking at not just these lots, but all of the adjacency lots, how they're used. how will it affect the national resource protection lots, how they're used, how will it affect the national resource protection lots that we have across the street and the rural lots that really are part of the rail trail and part of all of our infrastructure as far as drainage goes back there. So yeah, I probably have more questions than answers, but I would want us to really

my personal opinion is to step back and really take a look at the whole roadway and all of the lots and see what really for the long term makes the best sense for the city that's just my thoughts and councilman could i just add a couple notes uh definitely appreciate your thoughts um the only thing that i would add based on that um is first point is we have been in discussions with st patrick's uh on some of these coordinating aspects the traffic etc again I like mr. moaning this is not site plan review approval requests so we certainly would want to address all those things and we will certainly during that process but but certainly appreciate your thoughts on that yeah and with all due respect that you know I think given that this yeah and with all due respect that you know I think given that the city has been dismissed from that litigation and it's now between

your applicant and maybe another party or other parties plural um it's not i don't feel it's very wise for us to jump ahead to a parcel that we have not yet talked about in our master plan process and spent quite a bit of time on in the rest of the city's master plan endeavor to just come in dive in do this sort of because you asked now when in reality we've spent quite a bit of time focusing on other areas and that's not to say that banfields can never be residential or mixed use in that nature i understand where the request is coming from but i don't think it's um like i said very wise for the city to concentrate efforts on something that does not demand that of us right now it demands it of you which i apologize that you're in litigation but it does not demand that of the city and by that nature i don't think we need to be looking at this today

certainly respect that just just if I may I think our position is as we see this as a potential win-win for the city and all us if you might that be so the faster the litigation gets resolved the faster that property is put to a productive use that would ultimately you know serve a city to a productive use that would ultimately you know serve a city

have the obligation to respond to it so they have the right to make sure and i agree with that definitely uh we don't have the obligation to put it at the top of the list when we've otherwise prioritized what we're having this conversation yeah yeah that was my point no certainly respect that just just trying to show that we feel there's alignment in interest

The package that you put together, I think you did what you could. We're trying to work within the confines of the existing regulations, the existing master plan, and what you perceive as we all perceive as the draft of the future master plan gateway to my way of thinking under our existing zoning might have been seen as perhaps your only possible relief valve, but you're just proposing, correct me if I'm wrong, a residential project. Is that correct?

I believe right now, yes.

So if there were some other different zone that allowed that, that would serve your needs if something like that existed. I don't have your name. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry, Robert Graham. I represent ownership of the property. Our thought was that we understand that we are separated by municipal property to the corridor, which is the Route 1 corridor and the gateway that's out there. But corridor, which is the Route 1 corridor and the gateway that's out there. But that gateway area there is all commercial. That's where the businesses are. up constitution heritage avenue those are all businesses there they need the employees this is where workforce should be we're trying to do a nice workforce project nobody ever really wants workforce projects this is a opportunity a piece of land to do something in that zone where people can walk and ride a bike all of these directives are part of your master plan we are definitely trying to win win here it definitely benefits us The proximity of this property is in the middle of a tremendous amount of commercial uses with all employees who could walk and bike to work. And it's part of this zone in terms of, yeah, it's... It's adjacent I agree, but that is the gateway into this end of Portsmouth and that is how that entire zone lives and breathes and Nobody can live there.

There is no residence there So we just thought that made sense Thank you, there's a difference between a gateway I think in the sense you're using it and gateway in our zoning and the reason I I see it as a more difficult fit our gateway zone was intended to be more of a mixed use walkable nodes type of places and not just and i'm not demeaning a residential project workforce housing i think it's fair to say this board wants that so you're not looking at nine people who don't want workforce housing that's it's quite the reverse the city unless it's been extinguished the city has an easement through this property to that back is that still the case Given the traffic condition on Banfield Road, I'd encourage you to explore maybe making a formal connection to the east, which would involve discussions with the city council.

Well, we have discussed that prior. They have indicated the amicability. That's actually in our concept tonight that we're showing you, to connect through over to— Not just as a path, but as a road. It is a road and a path.

we are we want to explore both of those things that is that's the connection to the corridor my point is from an engineering perspective if you could have a additional traffic route going to the east through this connection you're taking a lot of heat off banfield road it makes this project a lot more viable in my mind i i i'm agreeing with you it's on the plan but there's not a full road once you get the city property, so.

It is, it connects to the city campus property.

It's item B, proposed connections to community campus. If you zoom in a little bit, you'll see that there's the recreation trail, which is otherwise noted as A, but you'll also see the extension of the drive in front of the sort of the horizontal bar building extending.

So you would see it as a full road connection? exploring that opportunity I mean obviously this is not binding tonight but for conversation purposes I'm just I'm just trying to explore this i mean given what the attorney said in terms of uh it seems to me your additional threshold is what you have for zoning and the amount of cleanup that would be required for industrial is far less snow to be required for residential so it seems that's your base threshold that you why not have a conversation that that is your base it may not be economically viable so it's not your ultimate plan but it seems like you've got a step beyond that and with people that aren't in this room oh i was just curious where the road would come out at community campus because that would be a whole different traffic issue because there's a child care center there and

there's some weird like where you go into the parking at community campus and getting around the building is already a sharp dangerous turn so i just i wasn't sure where it would come in that was it certainly and i think like adam was speaking to it's at a conceptual level yet there's a lot of uh

dominoes that would need to fall before we would know what even the layout would be we don't have property rights passed where we show it on our plan which is why it's not shown as the connector so there's that but that that certainly would go before the council and would need to receive approval and all those things would certainly need to be addressed and mr chairman just getting back to your question related to the baselining and why don't we have those discussions now um i would say yes it's a situation where we are incredibly um concerned with holding the bag if you know we use that as the baseline and really what's going to happen here in this property is something that's going to require multitudes of millions of dollars more than that baseline to to ultimately construct and get back our investment so so that that's why we don't really see going and to the negotiating table with an industrial baseline as really even a viable economic consideration okay so industry is not viable given the status of the site yeah I think that from our perspective it does not when you factor in the environmental liabilities that are present

I want to encourage continued creativity with this site. The uniqueness of it in so many ways, not just its size, it's a massive site. Its history, obviously, is very challenging. Banfield is a challenge no matter what the use is going to be on that site. There could be an industrial use I understand that it's not viable right now But there could be situations on these sites that intensify Banfield, I mean the future will hold development on these sites all of them eventually. There's no there's no question But I think we keep this discussion open the idea of of workforce housing here is very exciting to me. I understand that the term gateway, you know, you question the term gateway, as do I. On the planning department's own webpage, I mean, the city council adopted gateway zoning amendments to increase the supply and diversity of housing stock in the city, period. there's more but that's that's a statement that was a reason for gateway zoning amendments so I the request I think is I think the request is valid to continue to consider I understand there's challenges but no I hear you and that's why I'm we're having a conversation and even though we have an obligation I think it's a conversation worth having

i don't personally like the site plan but that's a separate issue altogether the idea of having workforce housing out here on a clean site which cleans up the site and provides for housing that's a win-win for a gentleman sitting there as well as the city i understand that Tying into that, I've been heavily engaged, as most of us have, with the conversations of the master plan update. And absent this information, just looking with base information as we do in a non-biased way, looking at what the land can support, where the roads are, where the streams are, where everything is, this site didn't rise up to the top of that pile. So the comments that my fellow members are making are quite valid. as is joe's comment you know how do we keep the conversation going we do need to make a recommendation which can either be further study whether they're you know a full connection out to the east through the city's property there's a lot of details that would have to be figured out even in conceptual form and i have no idea where the council is on something like that how they might react to it but the board could the board it's how does the board feel do you guys want to try to make a decision on this tonight or do you want to think about it further first ryan i just wanted to mention you know there were a number of

lots in this area that we'd put on kind of a list and sort of held in advance until the master plan was being finalized that was from like the october meeting i think would it be worthwhile simply adding this to that list of things we are definitely considering and taking action all at once i know we discussed that i think last month that maybe we would possibly wait a little too long on those anyway but um add it to the list of things to look at holistically

That's one idea, yeah. Yes, Bill. I'd like to make a motion that we not approve or disapprove this item at the moment, that we hold it in abeyance until we can consider it in the context of the master plan.

I've got a technical problem with that motion. If you bring up the zoning ordinance, we are obligated to make a recommendation based on the applicant's request. So we can't, if you feel there's information needed to make a decision, that's different. and i think the master plan adoption master plan provides guidance it doesn't provide specific direction so i'm i'm troubled by holding it up for that that's why i jumped in before there was a second i think it's right the first part of the zoning ordinance

Mr. Chairman if I may you know certainly we want to resolve this in the best way we can if there are suggestions about a potential path forward where we keep the conversation going but we have some idea from this board what what that direction might be that would lead to a potential multi-family housing use that we're certainly open to that and we can come back so we don't sort of have have undue pressure on you if that's of any assistance

We could ask the, you know, now I'm going to get into the master plan, we could ask the master plan consultants to consider a different, another zone which would allow multifamily.

I was going to ask, is there another zone that would work for them to move forward with a residential project like this? Maybe not, it doesn't seem to be a gateway zone, but something else. but i also don't want to have a bunch of spot zones so i don't want it to be completely different from everything around it so you know they sell the property and someone wants to do something else but it's zoned for that's one of the reasons why gateway troubles me a little bit because gateway is a very wide door for a number of uses well beyond what they're proposing frank

i do just want to say i work very close to this site i drive on banfield pretty often too so i'm sympathetic to the idea of getting workforce housing here if you could get it going to campus drive west road i work very close to there and it would it would add a lot of traffic but it would add a lot of options as well so i'm sympathetic to that But the core issue here seems to be that we would be spot zoning something, and that's generally poor practice, and I'm very hesitant to really do that just for this site.

understood could I suggest maybe an option would be to schedule a meeting with TRC or someone who were the master planning consultants who we could then work with and sort of get into the weeds on what zoning might work here to accomplish our needs and then also lay your concerns

well the master plan consultants constrained by a budget and a you know a scope of work if you were to propose a different zoning amendment with zoning tailored to what you're proposing that could be looked at for sure and i know i would consider it i think i think is consensus of the board that you would consider something like that wait a second um is that we we can either act on your request or you can change your request let's be sure mr. Graham okay do we need a break I five minutes to a five-minute break let's have a five-minute break

Excuse me. the thumbs up was for the guy behind you call the meeting back to order go ahead Thank You mr. chairman after the break and during the break proposal I think we would like to make this point is to ask the the board to consider the the second option on the staff memo which is to include the the Banfield Road corridor in the master plan for consideration Okay.

So we'll consider that a slightly modified request. And the Board can either act on that tonight or it could continue it to next month. Yes, Bill.

I'm not sure what it means. We have a number of pieces of property in that quadrant that are kind of on a wish list. And does this mean that we add that to the ones that are in that quadrant?

I'm just rereading it so I refresh my recollection. This is different. This is just changing from industrial to gateway neighborhood G1, adding it to the master plan to get feedback from them.

But it's also as part of the broader review of Banfield Road corridor, which I think is important.

So if the question is, do we want as part of the master plan to do a broader review of the Banfield Road corridor, the answer would be yes.

My answer is yes. I don't know about anyone else.

Just strictly in terms of reviewing it, right?

To see whether or not it's appropriate, right?

so back to my point earlier technically we could ask the master plan consultant to consider it in this regard assuming they felt it falls within their scope which it probably does they could come back and make a recommendation we are still obligated to make a recommendation to counsel but it could be pending receipt of this information yes I like this direction for a number of reasons one is

i'm doing very much a 180 on on my consideration for this lot i'm being convinced that you know we have a housing problem we don't have an industrial problem and the amount of lots on banfield so when we talk about you know spot zoning sure no one wants to do that but what's being proposed now is a greater conversation I could be convinced that we might want to rezone all the way up this side there are several other large Lots on this side of Banfield that could we could do this all the way up and literally with the amount of property on this side of town it takes a massive bite out of our housing problem yes Banfield Road is limited but we can't be afraid of the road I mean we can't be the traffic can be dealt with It can be patterned. The road can be changed. It's not a small road already. There are some changes that could be made. But there are massive tracts of land out here that this could be a very good thing.

I'm all for expanding the area looked at. I can say if we make a whole bunch of residential out there, that becomes traffic that competes at the same time of day as opposed to mixed use. So there is a big difference there from a traffic perspective. But that's why I mentioned the additional road connection possibility. That's another possible relief beyond a rezoning request. Okay.

in your want for us to basically it's a City Council referral can we make a motion to vote that our recommendation back to City Council is that this request be put to the master planning process as consideration as a broader view of the Banfield Road corridor I'd revise that slightly to say we recommended ago

as Peter outlined it for the broader view and pending receipt of that then we'll make a recommendation to counsel right so you don't want us to actually make a recommendation I was I was caught on the fact that I thought you were trying to get us to actually give an answer to counsel any direction that we go and that's why no we're obligated to do that but it can be what I'm hearing the board I'm not seeing any heads but I'm not seeing a lot of nodding of heads either so if the board wishes to go this way that is a way that we work so the recommendation would be would be delayed a little bit until we get some feedback from that consultant recommendation would be to make a recommendation to counsel pending receipt of further information from the master plan consultant on this issue

I, too, you say you don't see a lot of nodding or shaking of hands. Is there, are we, in our recommendation, is there a way to suggest, well, I guess we're not ready to, our support or not for this idea, not for the specific idea as presented, but the idea of housing in this area. I guess we, that's jumping the gun, isn't it?

Well, to pick up on that, I don't support the specificity of the suggestion to go to Gateway, but I know our consultants aren't going to be bound by that. So I'm not troubled by that.

just to revise my rather pointed comments from earlier you know there's kind of an uphill battle here the city was dismissed from the lawsuit so it's your urgency and litigation is no longer our consideration number two the last residential project that was proposed on banfield road in in this capacity at least was at 225 banfield road it was 60 units got shut down third there's already a traffic problem here we know that it would be unwise again to move forward with this knowing that problem exists fourth i can in some capacity see more housing on banfield road not saying no to that by any stretch of the imagination and i actually think that if you look at 70 constitution avenue which is the viridian apartments it's 95 units that was a foreign idea when it was proposed in 2015 And by 2017 and today, people live there enjoyably, and that's a beautiful mixed-use center. So I agree to propose this and push it forward or recommend it to council to then incorporate into the master planning process. is the only answer in my opinion the master plan consultant as well as the master plan committee as well as the general public then will have a much better and more comprehensive ability to provide insight public comment and work through some of these pain points and thresholds so that we can arrive at a much cleaner presentation down the road What that does not do is give these guys any sort of finite timing. So that's my opinion that it's best in the master plan. Unfortunately, our master plan probably will not be done until December. So buckle up.

I think I'm ready to make a motion. I'd like a motion that we vote to refer the request from Banfield Realty LLC to rezone 375 Banfield Road from industrial to possibly Gateway 1 to the master planning process for consideration as part of the broader review of the Banfield Road corridor so that the planning board can then make a recommendation to City Council.

Second.

Discussion?

Can I comment on her motion? That's why we have discussion Do we want to include gateway or just say I said possibly just That was an important word I added in there Do you want to say gateway at all?

Well, that was their request so we're sending it as the request to possibly be there but let's get the feedback and Look at the broader view and let's get all this data that we're all dying to have great.

I

For the discussion.

I think it's encompassed it all, in my personal opinion.

Sorry, didn't mean to step on your feet.

I can't see you because Peter always blocks you. He's writing down everything I just said.

Any other discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? There's a direction. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Take us online.

We'll have a good time with Ellen. I have a request of jury Portsmouth 505 Inc. as owner for property located at 505 U.S. Route 1 bypass. Requesting a one-year extension for the site plan approval and wetland conditional use permit for an electric vehicle charging station that was granted on July 17, 2025. First request? Yes.

I make a motion we vote to grant the one-year extension of the site plan and what I'll add conditional use permit to July 17th 2027 second any discussion all those in favor aye any opposed it is extended look at the room wait we're really everyone left I know our ratings have plummeted haven't they nobody loves us anymore nope no love so don't want to keep everybody late

There's a couple of things that aren't on the agenda, but I'm going to just sort of lump these things together and we can get into the specifics. We've talked to the HDC about having a joint meeting with respect to, I'm going to just call it the McIntyre project because that's what we all call it. I forget what it's called currently, but you all know what it is. joint meeting of boards is permitted an applicant to make a request for a joint meeting or we boards could make a request for a joint meeting I talked to the chair directly the HTC she liked the idea and it's been brought up to the applicant the applicant has accepted the idea so we would like to do that now that will mean extra time but it's a very big complicated project and I think it it needs it and it's an opportunity for us to as a board to have input at the early stages of this big project and it's a big project so I have an update on that just talking with the engineer for the project they're hoping to have a work session with TAC in August

don't think they anticipate going back to HTC in August but maybe we would look to have that joint meeting in September as they further develop okay so that's kind of their timeline they wanted to have a work session with tack first before they go back to the HTC and they're definitely open to having a joint meeting with both boards but it may be shooting for

early September okay so we can we can definitely pull both bodies to see what would dates work but logistically it'll be interesting I know we've had a couple of workshops but it'll just be a lot of people to have broad-based discussion and that will technically be a planning board meeting

it's by statute i have to share it because it's a planning board meeting with the other board present yeah yes i think it's a great idea i mean there's been plenty of projects over my whatever how many years i've been on this board um that i would have wished we had known what the htc was saying well we're then seeing it after the fact and they're like wait well that changed from preconceptual design i really like that why did it go away so to have them meet with pac and get their first initial tack issues sort of resolved and then get to all of us look at it at one time, I think it will be very helpful.

I agree. I think it's I think some applicants have actually I don't suggesting this applicant has done this but I've seen some applicants what I'm gonna say game the system by going to one of the other board and then going well I can't make a change because I've been to that planning board and they're impossible we each know what was said to the other So also by statute, and you'll see it, this was in the packet, a revision to our rules. We have to have a provision in our rules that address joint meetings. So that is something we need to vote on tonight. It's really simple. That's pretty straightforward. So that's in there.

Yeah, do you want to do that one first? Should we just do that?

Yeah, let's bring that up. So that was emailed out and then uploaded to the web page.

We basically took another community We took another community and Changed paragraph to slightly because they had a little bit hinky, but basically just tracked the statute.

So It's just adding the red text to our rules I'd make a motion that we add the joint meetings and hearings section to our

rules and procedures second any discussion all those in favor aye any opposed done all right site plan regulations we Peter's been working very hard to get parking out of zoning and into site plan and in the same steps a few other things we've noticed well we're you know once you touch the document try to clean it up a little bit with a little typos here and there unfortunately we have to have a public hearing to modify that one so we don't if everybody has a comment tonight good time to bring it up yes

great thank you very excited that this is coming forward but when i started to look at it inside our site plan review regulations i realized that we it's still somewhat complex and even though we can wave a lot of it i'm just wondering if there's a way to make it slightly simpler and not quite so as in depth as it is does that make sense if we have so much ability to waive it i'd almost personally rather just say give us a demand give us a an engineering thing telling us how much you need based off of what you're building right based off of where this building is and what you're going to do with it how much parking do you need that's what i want somebody to tell me each time super simple great very trusting aren't you yeah do you think that that is going to produce the same outcome every time no because it'll be in different places

sure uh point in case west end yards coming back to us for more parking right so if we had just gone that route and originally we would have said yes not even knowing what we didn't know so i'm just thinking i'm not saying they're going to be right but at least we have a basis to put it off of we already do i know but it's still so in-depthly complicated

many communities have simpler parking requirement I just think it could be simplified a great deal okay that's what I was hoping for a right so the initially it was just like porting over it's just taking everything from the ordinance and putting into site plan but I think we could make that even less I was looking forward to talking to Peter about something so now there's yeah I just feel like it just still is because it was so in-depth in the ordinance, which I kind of felt like it had to be.

But now I feel like – It's a good point, Beth, and since we don't have to do it tonight, let's give it some thought.

I don't mean to kill all your work, but I was just thinking let's slash some of it.

No, it's a good point. It's a good point. You are an attorney.

really I like more words right when you stated earlier that these decisions would require a public hearing would it be different to a public hearing like this is it dedicated to public hearing dedicated to that these changes to site plan review yeah it wouldn't be it couldn't be