Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Morning everyone. I'm going to call  the meeting to order. September 18th,   2025 meeting of the planning board. Have a  full board this evening. And uh first item   on the agenda is approval of the minutes of  the August 21st meeting. Move to approve.   Second. Any discussion? All those in favor?  I. Any opposed? I'll abstain. I was not at   the meeting. Same. Next two items we have uh  two requests by Walter Dehat Trust as owner   for property at zero Bfield Road. Preliminary  and final subdivision approval and site plan   review approval. Uh both we need a motion to  continue with those matters to October. So   move second. Any discussion? All those in favor?  I. Any opposed? Going to have a series of public   hearings. And for the record in everybody's  memory, maybe everybody knows this by now,   but um procedure for the public hearings is  presentation by the proponent, questions by the   planning board, then public comment 24 against  the application. And it's not open mic night.   Um provide your name and address and you speak  first round, second round, third round. If you   wish to speak in the second or third round, you  have to speak in the first round. First round is   um 3 minutes oral comment only. Second round is up  to five minutes. You can do a presentation during   the second round if you wish. And the third round  is a maximum of five minutes oral presentation   only after which the meeting the public  hearing is closed and the board deliberates.   We have the next items are two requests by SLF  realy group LLC as owner for property 400 Spalding   Turnpike. First is uh motion. You want a motion to  see hear them both? I was going to read it but go   ahead and motion to hear items A and B together.  So I'm sorry. Second hear them together and act  

on them separately. Right. Yes. Yes. All those in  favor? I. Any opposed? First one is uh request of   SLF realy LLC as owner for property 400 spalding  turnpike requesting an after the fact wetland   conditional use permit for permanent wetland  buffer impacts that were not included in the   original wetland conditional use permit for this  project. The new request is an increase in wetland   buffer impacts from 1,644 ft to 3,685 ft. The  properties on assessments map 238 lot 2 and lies   within the gateway G1 district. I'm going to read  the second part so that the applicant can proceed   to explain all if you wish. Don't have to, but u  it's also an after the fact conditional wetland   permit for permanent wetland buffer impacts that  were not included um on map lot 238 lot 2 seems   to read the same. So it's just the same thing  twice. Who is here to present this application? Thank you. My name is Stephanie Tetr. I'm here  on behalf of Eversource uh from Thai and Bond.   I had provided a set of slides that are coming up  on the screen now. But in summary, to recap your   introduction, this is to review an after the fact  wetlands conditional use permit and an amended   site plan for Eversourc's E194 U181 structure  replacement project at 400 Spalding Turnpike. So,   a little bit of background if you switch to the  next slide. To recap, the work was completed in   2024 under the city's conditional use permit  LU23-60, which was approved June 22nd, 2023.   That work, that approval included replacement of  45 wooden utility structures with steel structures  

along the length of the rideway. The subject area  that we're talking about tonight are structures   19 and 19 on the U18 U19 U181 E194 lines. Um, and  the subject of our current proposal is uh a result   of an access deviation where the original access  that was approved in 2023 authorized a little over   6,000 square feet of direct wetland impact and  some wetland buffer impact. Prior to construction,   Eversource was able to secure an access agreement  with Portsouth Ford at 400 Spalding Turnpike and   that allowed them to achieve access to those  structures from a more direct route and avoiding   that wetland impact. Next slide, please. So, this  is just a quick overview of the site. You can see   there's a delineated wetland on the left side.  We're calling that wetland one and a wetland   on the right side, wetland two. In the gray  hatched line area, you can see the originally   um approved access route. Oops. If you hold the  top button, there you go. Uh thank you. So, this   was the original access route that was proposed  and approved in 2023. Prior to construction,   Eversource achieved uh the ability to access  directly from Portsouth Ford's property through   this alignment here. the lime green buffer  or the lime green line is representing the   wetland buffer off of wetlands two and wetlands  wetland one. This black box here is showing the   workpad location where the two structures are  located and were replaced. This gray box here   is additional wetland impact that was approved but  was not actually constructed. Next slide please.

So again, the asbuilt access increased the wetland  buffer impact from 1644 square ft to 3685 ft,   but that eliminated 6,286 ft of direct wetland  impact. On May 14th, we pro presented this   project to the conservation commission.  They recommend approval to the planning   board with two conditions. One was to install  wetland boundary markers at the location of the   proposed access gate and the second was to add  a note to the amended site plan that prohibits   parking or storage of vehicles any unauthorized  non-compliant use of the right of way. So that   note was added to the plan and Eversource  has agreed to install those boundary markers.   Following that meeting and adding that note to  the plan, an updated site plan was filed with   the city on May 28th and that was in advance of  the June 18th planning board hearing. Next slide,   please. So, at that June meeting, we  were again recommend or requesting   approval of the conditional use permit and  an amended site plan for Portsmith Ford.   The site plan is amended due to our proposal to  replace this boulder barricade with a steel gate   and to retain the permanent wetland buffer impacts  that you can see here, this gravel access road. Thank you. Next slide. This is a copy of the  amended site plan prepared by TFM. It's revised   through May 27th, 2025. And as noted in the  previous meeting, it's a little bit busy. So we've   developed a set of revised figures to clarify what  exactly we're proposing here. Next slide, please.

So during that June 2018 planning board  hearing, the planning board requested additional   information prior to their to your ability being  able to make a decision. Those items included more   information on easement access, storm water flow  due to grade changes of the constructed accessway,   more information on the wetland impacts and  pre and post construction, more information   on alternative access points that were considered  prior to construction, and clarification on the   lot boundaries in the wetland exhibits. So the  following sets of slides detail a response to   each of those items. Thank you. So easement  access, the gravel access road and the work   pad to replace the structures was completed  within Eversource's 300 foot wide utility   easement. The improvements that were conducted  were necessary to achieve safe access to maintain   those structures. And the proposed gate structure  and the proposal to retain that access way on   the amended site plan is necessary for future  access for maintenance or emergency situations.   The access minimized disturbance to that direct  wetland impact that was otherwise proposed,   reduced cost by achieving a more  direct route and minimizes future   wetland impacts for future maintenance or  emergency access. Again, the steel gate   is proposed in lie of the existing boulder  barricade to facilitate access in the future   without having to move those boulders and to  prevent unauthorized use of the right of way. Next slide, please. Thank you. Um, the next item  that the planning board requested additional   information on was a storm water analysis  to review storm water flow that may have   changed due to grade changes from from the  existing access road and potential increases  

in storm water runoff. So to address  that, we completed a hydroclide model.   uh the model assumed a curve number of 85 and  that is indicative of a gravel surface with   hydric soils group B without vegetation and that's  important to note because currently vegetation   has reestablished through the gravel. So this is  assuming a worst case scenario than what actually   is existing. So grading for the access road  was minimal. It follows the existing contours.   It's perpendicular to the slope and parallel to  the contours. And that is important because it   doesn't concentrate runoff. Um, and the  gravel surface only increased about 635   ft compared to what was pre-existing.  And if I didn't mention that already,   there was a pre-existing gravel access road  there from prior utility maintenance activities.   So that increase in gravel area and the  improvement of the gravel access road based on our   hydrocad model results in a negligible increase in  peak storm water runoff. We analyzed this for the   10 the the one year the 10-year and the 100year  storm events. And these tables show the results of   the analysis comparing in both cubic feet and in  cubic feet per second in terms of flow and gallons   per minute. So you can see for the 1,0 and 100year  storms there was an increase of 03 and 04.04   gallons or excuse me cubic feet per second in peak  runoff. In addition to those three storm events,   we also analyzed a 1- in rainfall event, which  is a more common, more typical, flashier rain  

event that we see in the sea coast. uh and that  resulted in a net increase of 01 cubic feet per   second. So I have another slide coming up that  shows an overview with the contour lines and the   storm water flow paths, but the work pad area that  we saw on a previous slide is located on a little   mound out there. It's about 6 or 8 feet taller  than the lower portion that's next to the wetland   and the access road is in between. Um so there's  there's minimal grade change there. There was   minimal grade change due to the improvement of the  access road and the access road alignment follows   the contours and reduces increases in storm water  runoff reduces the potential to concentrate storm   water runoff. Also related to storm water uh  we wanted to note that during construction   erosion controls were in place and the road  now today has since reveated and is stable. Next slide, please. This photo is taken facing the Portsmith Ford  uh utility access or like um maintenance bay   is there. These are the two structures that  were replaced in 2024. This is the work pad   that was constructed or improved to conduct  those replacements. This red line is showing   the constructed or improved access road.  Um and so you can see this photo was taken   in August this year, August 8th. Um it has  substantially reveated and hasn't resulted   in a significant change in grade or erosion  or runoff potential. Next slide, please. So the next item to address from the June  18th meeting is wetland impacts pre and  

post construction. So the two wetlands that you  saw on one of the previous slides are on either   side of the mound that I described. The mound  that is the work pad and where the structures   are located. They are separate wetland units. They  are hydraologically distinct from each other and   that's also evidenced in their separate plant  communities. The one that was on the left of   the page is dominated by a fragmitees stand which  indicates a more saturated much wetter condition.   The wetland on the that you did see on the right  side of the page, which is on the left side of   this photo as we're facing it here, um is more  characteristically an an herbaceous and woody   shrub plant community, a relatively drier than  the other one. They are distinct wetland units.   So in this photo you can see the red arrow is  pointing to that wetland that's down slope from   the improved access route and the yellow arrow  is pointing to the crest of that mound that is   the work pad. And so the two structures that  were replaced are outside of the photo to the   right and the other wetland unit is farther  right of that as we're looking at this photo.   Um so based on that and based on the restoration  and the current condition of the buffer,   the plant community within the wetland  was not impacted to begin with. And the   plant community that has reestablished over the  improved gravel surface is characteristically   similar to what was pre-existing there and  what is adjacent to it on the hillside. Thank you. Next slide. So this is the figure  that shows the topography. You can see the   black contour lines snaking throughout the image,  the wetlands one and two that I've referred to,   the previously approved access route that cuts  through the wetland and the constructed access  

that goes through the wetland buffer area.  Here um you can see here that it does in   fact largely follow the contours. um it  does not concentrate runoff towards the   wetland. Here these blue arrows were added to  indicate primary storm water flow paths. Um and this image was updated also the the  base map image was updated based compared   to the images that you had previously  seen the previous plans which show   shows the more current existing gravel  alignment that was constructed in 2024. Thank you. So the next item to address from  June is alternative access analysis. Where we   had previously proposed the 6,000 or so square  feet of direct wetland impact, the opportunity   became available to access from a more direct  route with no wetland impact. So as built,   the access road that you see here and that we are  requesting to retain is the least impacting and   most practicable alternative. It avoids that  direct wetland impact. It uses a pre-existing   gravel access route and minimizes disruption to  Portsouth Ford's operations. That access route is   there. That older barricade is there and minimizes  any need to coordinate with Ford in the event of   an emergency. If Eversource needs to get to these  structures in the middle of the night or at any   time. Um and the steel gate again is intended to  prevent unauthorized access to the right of way. Okay. So the final item that was requested  from the June 18th meeting is clarification   on existing easements and the property  boundary. So this figure was developed.  

The red area with the red outline highlights the  subject property. That's Portsouth Ford's parcel.   And you can see that within that the gate is  proposed on that property as well as the access   route that we are requesting to retain. The other  easements that are shown here and that appear on   the TFM site plan. Those are city easements  related to municipal sewer infrastructure. Um   they are not relevant or not available to  Eversource for utility maintenance. So in   terms of using those easements for Eversource  using those easements to access the right of   way for utility maintenance, they're just  not they don't pertain to that activity. Okay, thank you. Next slide. So in summary,  our proposal is to retain that permanent access   through the wetland buffer for utility access  and maintenance in the future. It's located on   Portsouth Ford's property and within the limits  of Eversource's right ofway. The requested   approvals under land use application 25-50 are  the conditional use permit and the amended site   plan and the activities pertain to 400 Spalding  Turnpike in the city of Portsouth tax map lot 238   lot 2. The next two slides are just repeats of  the site plan or the um more simplified version   of the overview if we want to review those  further in discussion. Thank you. Questions   of the applicant. Tony, so was this property  originally Air Force property? I noticed the   deed had Secretary of the Air Force. Yeah, it was  um that deed that was in that image was the 1955  

conveyance to Eversource for the right of way for  the utility. I had no idea it went out that far. Could you give us a little bit more information on  like the width of the gate and where like how are   we going to make sure that it's actually keeping  large vehicles other than ever sources from going   and using the road? Sure. So, the proposed gate  is a 16 foot wide steel gate. Uh, if you were   on site, you could see that, you know, to the if  and facing into the ride ofway. To the left of the   gate, it really slopes right up and it's thick,  dense, woody, shrubby vegetation. And to the right   is the wetland. So, it sort of naturally blocks  off and the gate will extend across whatever   might be presumably available for access. Okay.  Thank you. And the wetland boundary markers would   be set just on either side or on the right side  of the gate, I should say. Okay, great. Thanks. Will Eversource have the only key? Yes.  Yes. Any other questions? The applicant?   I don't have any more questions. I just say  thank you. I really appreciate you getting   us this additional information. and it's  made this a lot more understandable. So,   thanks. Sure. Thank you. No other questions  applicant. I'm going to open the public   hearing. Anybody here or on Zoom who wish  to speak to four against this application? Three. I apologize as I wish we could have  left up one of those picture slides of   um the different property things. Your your name  and I'm so sorry. You're right. Um my name is  

Christine Wade and I live at 1380 Woodbury A.  Thank you. Um then this um our property goes   down. My mother is actually the one that owns all  of the property. Oh, and you put it up. Thank you.   Um and so there's a couple questions that um  we still have and maybe this is I don't know   um one of the um things that is being  presented tonight is is that they wanted to   um that they want after the fact uh permission  from the 1600 square ft to the 3,000 square feet.   Now, I apologize. I top bottom for the top top  button. Top button. Okay. So, it originally was   supposed to come right through here to these two  telephone poles. So, um the very uh the original   um amount they were going to go up was up to here,  which was the 1,600. They went up 3600. So, double   the amount. And the 6,000 that they saved, I  believe from what you did a beautiful presentation   of was this 6,000 wetlands right here saving.  We're asking why if you go from here to here,   why didn't you cut across still this way between  the two telephone poles that need to be um I saw   I didn't realize I wasn't that far away. Um that  do need to be fixed every 50 years or so. But the   thing is is we are now going up not over to our  property because our property is this white line.   You're going up the extra and then coming down at  an angle which we all know a hypotenuse is longer   than it side but math teacher high. But anyway,  um what we don't understand is they've been doing   proper maintenance on these ones from somewhere  right around here. they didn't have that ability  

and we apologize because they did try to contact  us and we didn't get um to meet with them to walk   the property with them. Um but why couldn't this  right here this little piece that they didn't   um actually decide to make the pad of that was  um approved from the conservation um committee   um why we didn't use that. So, there's a couple  questions again that you know you they want to   make a um uh double the amount, make it permanent  and make it permanent. How? You just saw all those   beautiful slides of the grass coming back in  the temporary thing that they had had from   the conservation pro uh permit and now they want  to make it permanent and permanent house. Thank   you. Thank you. Anybody else here or on Zoom  wish to speak too far against this application? Hi, I'm Patricia Katkin. I own the property  that they're coming over on. If you could put   the picture back up. My my concern is exactly  what she's saying. Why did you go all the way   up and then come down across my property? My  other concern is when you went up and over,   you went through a stone wall. Um, I would  have liked the stone wall to be put back. And   I would prefer that you only go up halfway and  across where the easement has always been for   this for the um electric company. And I think  that's about all I have to say too. Thank you.   Thank you. Any other first round speakers? Two,  four, or against this application? Yes, you may.

Thank you again. Stephanie Tetrol from Time Bond  on behalf of Eversource. Just to clarify, there   is no further work proposed within the right ofway  currently. What we're proposing is to memorialize   what's there today. That deviation occurred prior  to construction, resulted in the improved gravel   access that is there today and that is reveated  today. There's no further work proposed to retain   it. And we we use the word to ret to permanently  retain it, but there's no intention to pave it   or further disturb it in any way. just to  retain the gravel bed that's there now that   has vegetation over it that would be suitable to  drive on again if if needed if and when needed. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish  to speak to four against this application? Still nobody on Zoom. Going to close the first round  speakers. Any second round speakers? have up to five minutes. So again, um, here to here was approved by  the conservation. Why can't we go this way?   You said 1955. My grandfather still owned  it in 1955 because he had the ability to   buy peace at that time. So yes, there was an  easement for the airport and everything else.   But the thing that I'm getting at is that um  you know we're talking about the storm analysis   for this vegetation that's grown up. I guess the  biggest question or it's actually a little bit of   two which is we're saying that we're going to make  the whole I'm so sorry I pushed the wrong button.   We're making the whole thing a permanent  as opposed which again if you want to go  

from here to here permanent what there  was originally said great we just don't   understand why we're going all the way up  but maybe what we would like to ask for   is a continuence to walk this property with  the city and um Eversource and Brady Ford if   they choose to do so. Thank you. Thank you.  Any other second round speakers? Excuse me. Thank you again. Stephanie Tetrol, Ty  Bond. Um, relative to the alternative   that is suggested of turning left shorter to  when we when we have proposed here. Again,   the route there was pre-existing. So, we're  utilizing a pre-existing route without having   to disturb more vegetation and more ground  further to cut that route left. It would be   difficult equipment access. They're using large  equipment to turn there. So, that radius there is   suitable for the equipment that was used and may  presumably need to be used in the future. Third,   that route would be perpendicular to the slope  and contrary to our justification for the storm   water analysis in it not concentrating runoff. So  that alternative would be directly shooting storm   water runoff towards the wetland. Um again,  we've attempted to contact the the interested   abutters here multiple times over the past since  the June meeting. Um we would offer a sitewalk.   We did offer a sidewalk and it's part of that  outreach. Um, and that contact was not successful.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other second  round speakers? Only one could possibly be as she said she they did multiple  times try to get a hold of me.   I've had s knee surgery since just before all  of this happened and I've been in and out at   for physical therapy and I've also had to be out  of town a few times and was just not able to,   you know, get in touch with her. So, I still  don't understand why they can't. If you can   turn a machine up in that top corner like  that, why can't you from the street turn   um where the original um the original uh  rightaway that they had? Thank you. Thank you. That's it for second round  speakers. Any third round speakers? Three minutes up to and again I apologize because I don't go  to enough of these to know Christine Wade   1380 Woodbury F. Um again we would still like  to um have a continuence to walk. They have   contacted my mother. she was in and out and  I didn't have the contact and that was on me   because I did not give it to them. Um,  but we would like to go with the city.   We do not want to be by ourselves trying to  show or figure out this land variance type   of thing with conservation wetlands and  everything else. That's our biggest fear  

of walking this type of thing. Thank you.  Thank you. Any other third round speakers? Last call. Any other third round speakers?  Going to close the public hearing? Yes. Now,   um I'd like to make a motion to find that the  condition of this permit application meets the   requirements set forth in section 10.1017.50 of  the ordinance and adopt the findings of facts as   presented. This is only about them having the  correct information submitted for us to make a   decision is not about the decision yet. Second  discussion on the findings. All those in favor?   I I Any opposed? Um I would also like to make a  motion to grant the condition use permit with the   following conditions. Um I'll read it in uh 2.1  and it's accordance with section 10.1018.40 of the   zoning ordinance. applicant shall permanently  install wetland boundary markers which may be   purchased through the city of Portsouth planning  and sustainability department. The commission   recommends placing two markers on either side  of the proposed gate at the bottom of the access   road. These markers must be installed prior to  the start of any site work. Um if I get a second,   I'll I'll speak second. Um I understand the uh  I totally understand what's going on here, why   why was done was done um why it was different than  the original plan. Uh, and I understand the um the   property owner's uh case. Um, it's an interesting,  it feels to me like it's an interesting legal   civil matter whereas, you know, they have the  right to get on the land to maintain and their   um their their equipment. Um, this appears to be  the less detrimental to the wetlands. And so I  

think as a city we want to support that. it is, it  creates a different disturbance for the property   owner, but that that feels to me like this is  a that's a civil matter. Uh whether whether   um how that disturbance occurs, um this seems  to be a lesser impact in the wetland. So,   I'm I'm in support of this alter alternative uh  option. Any discussion, Beth? Um I'd just like   to add a few comments to that. There was a lot  of talk about the um additional area that was   uh basically to the left of where 19 and  19 are. And there was written into our   um letter that we received that they had a hard  time being able to use access from that point   because we had asked at our last meeting and  that's mostly because that's where Ford bays   are and that's where a lot of activity for  the dealership happened. So it would make it   much more difficult for them to sort of take over  that area especially with their heavy equipment.   So I certainly understand that the fact that  their access road all the way it is might be   in the buffer might be longer but a lot of that  was existing as far as they didn't change the   grade or anything they just made it a little bit  more stable. It's nice to see that it's already   started to grow back and with the gate there  not allowing anyone to go over it should all   grow back and I think be the least disruptive.  So I think it really fits into our criteria. I just have one comment on the uh boundary markers  and the deadline of before the start of work   because this is an after the fact conditional  use permit. The work's already done. Generally,   the driving force to get these things complied  with is wanting to do the work. I'm not saying   Ever Source doesn't want to do this work, but they  don't have anything they actually need to do. So,   I don't know if we're able to put like a a date  on there to say this has to be done by a certain   time rather than before work because there is no  work. Oh, I see what you're saying in the motion.   put the gate in, but that's only it's prior to the  gate. Yeah, but like what's Evers Source's real  

business reason to do that? They could just wait.  Normally, they want to go fix the fix the poles,   but they already did all that. That's my  only point, right? The only work is going   to be an installation of the gate, which  may or may not need a building permit.   So, it'd be appropriate if you wanted to change  this to a date or give them a certain moment.   Yeah, that that was my suggestion just to, you  know, since we're since it's after the fact,   since we're fixing something that probably  should have been done in the first place,   there ought to be a timeline there. Suggested to  amend it to year's end. I'd say before freeze,   right? That sounds right. The year's end because  you want to do it before a hard freeze. So,   sure. Because they won't be able to dig into the  ground. Okay. with the second. Second. Um, so I'm   sorry, what was it? By year's end, by year's end,  December 31st, 12:31 25. I'd just like to add, um,   I was unmoved by the explanation about not being  able to make the turn sooner. I think you could   make the turn sooner, and the grades actually look  like they could have worked, but the fact of the   matter is the driveway is there and to build  a new driveway would require new impacts. And   then you get into the question of restoring what  was already impacted. And I think overall this is   the best solution to leave it the way it is. The  the other thing that I was considering chairman   was in some cases this equipment might be very  large that may have to go out there to I'm so   sorry. Yeah. There there the current configuration  allows for large equipment to be brought out onto   the site in case there's maintenance of a much  higher level. Yes. just the the point was well   taken and I agree that if they can make that other  turn, they could have made a turn sooner. So,  

but it's not necessarily relevant. Any other  discussion? All those in favor? I I Any opposed? On the site plan? Yes. A motion to vote find that  the site plan application meets the requirements   set forth in site plan regulation section 2.9  evaluation criteria and adopt the findings of   fact as presented. Second. Any discussion on the  findings? All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Vote to grant the amended site plan  approval. Second. Any discussion?   All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Next item on the agenda is request to Market  Square LLC as owner for property located 1   and 15 parentheses 21 Congress Street requesting  conditional use permit from section 10440 use 1.71   co-l livingiving said property is on assessor's  map 117 lots 12 and 14 and lies within the   character district 4 CD4 and character district  5 CD5 historic and downtown overlay districts.   who is here to present this application. Hello.  Good evening, Chairman Shelman. It's Marie Bod   from CEO for McNab Properties on behalf of the  applicant, One Market Square LLC. Thank you. So, good evening to all the members of the  planning board. Some of you I have not met   before and I am encouraged about where we  are today. So knowing that most planning   board meetings involve an intense flow of data  more so from the engineering and architectural   professionals in this room tonight because most  of that is behind us with this project. My intro   will focus on the co-living through the lens of  a future resident as well as the operational and  

logistics side of occupancy with McNab Properties.  As you well know, our development is uniquely   positioned at the steps of the iconic city's north  church as well as right in the heart of Market   Square. And what we know is we'll be delivering  a project that will allow our occupants to be a   contributing member to the pulse of and the heart  to our historic city. While co-l livingiving is a   residential term our city is only beginning to  embrace the concepts excuse me concept is well   tested worldwide originating in Denmark co-living  spaces for 8 10 12 or even more residents have   grown to become increasingly popular not just  with single occupants professionals but also for   smaller dad child mom child families as well as  seniors. This once perceived undesirable communal   living is now very mainstream and sought after by  many. Sometimes referred to as cluster apartments,   cluster flats and even co-ops. There are reasons  for such growth. Most powerful and often asked is   regarding affordability. In our development, we  intend to meet this criteria in many ways. first   by utilizing Portsouth's median household income  of 30% of gross monthly income as a guidepost and   establishing our rent, not a requirement as was  stated in the um planning board's posting. Rent   will include all utilities, that's water, sewer,  heat, hot water, air conditioning, electricity,   as well as internet and furnishings. You may ask  how is that possible? And one of the many reasons   is with less capital cost in construction for  example not requiring separate meters and all  

the costs associated with such but also in buying  power and contracting for bundled services. This   means no utility security deposits and ease  of movein and move out for our residents.   Also on the financial front, our business plan  including the affforementioned inclusive rent   structure will also provide for employer sponsored  payroll deduction avoiding any security deposit   and requirement for those where there is not  an option a more modest security deposit of   $750 and rent only due the day of movein. So you  don't have to pay your first month's rent and   security deposit. Another considerable advantage,  taming loneliness by providing a built-in   community. Whether that allows one to network  with another for a new job, offer to participate   in ride sharing. Remember those days? I do.  Providing communal space might not in excuse me,   might involve game night, whether that's football  or board games, and even possibly communal cooking   and sharing of a meal together. Speaking of food,  many individuals and even couples have a hard time   finding, excuse me, hard time meeting budgets  with food shopping and high cost and waste. And   then there is the roommate who might have eaten my  last whatever it was. Our rooms, whether single,   double occupancy, or one obviously one-bedroom  apartments, will include a combination of private,   semi-private, and shared bathrooms, but also  will feature a full height refrigerator freezer,   allowing for all residents to  store their high value items.   program will include growing our existing  labor pool of in-house janitorial staff,  

maintenance technicians, property and leasing  managers, as well as one designated on-site   manager as cited in the application,  providing the best of 247 coverage. With   our corporate offices only one block away and a  rotating 247 on call service already in place,   the existing resources will be exponentially  enhanced. Beyond the required signage, annual   permitting through the city clerk's office,  and 247 management oversight, our employees   will be on site daily. That is Monday, Saturday  through Sunday, however you want to look at it,   Sunday through Saturday, providing janitorial  services of all communal spaces, kitchens,   living rooms, bathrooms, and even restocking  of typical household condiments and communal   kitchens. By having these resources on site  daily, we have the eyes and ears into all nooks   and crannies of the operation. We are fully aware  that the overall success of the project will be   measured in the market in the annual city repering  in the first lease up through the weight list and   in the constant reletting. We as operate as the  operator will ensure a secure and safe environment   while allowing the occupants a way into solace  if they choose or into more socialness. Back   to food for a moment. Long before tonight, we  formed an entity called Tenant Restaurant LLC.   Our development plans include, and have been noted  in these meetings, working with local restaurants,   many of whom are our tenants, for afterhour  cooking and next day stocking in on-site food   lockers. So, you might ask, how will you do this?  And I remind all, when this project first was  

reviewed as a potential apartment/co location, we  obtained cups. We had much public conversation and   some of that ensued about our future occupants  and one of the handicaps that they might excuse   me one of the hardships that they might have which  was in regards to walkability to a grocery store while others commented on the more excuse me  difficulty logistics of shopping for one or   two as the cost and wastefulness that I referenced  earlier with access to so many restaurant tenants.   ments conversations and communications to enter  into wholesale food agreements for our residents   will always will be provided and have already  had conversations ensue. The first conversation   that we have also provides an opportunity  this evening to announce a very exciting   opportunity for everybody here. Buckley's  Cafe and Market, the Buckleys that own Surf,   will be opening at the former Hearth location.  They will have this partnership will have   serve the downtown with fresh meat, seafood,  produce, as well as homestyle comfort foods,   baked items, and specialty items is only one of  the offerings we presently seek to facilitate.   So I conclude before turning this over to  the engineers and the architects to ask or   excuse me answer more of your more detailed  engineering and architectural questions I   would like to introduce John Shagnen Tracy Kak  and Terren Parker but please let me say at the   onset literally creating the citations for co-l  livingiving receiving the encouragements of this   very board onto the mayor and others of the city  council in drafting this new zones language and  

even expanding it into other parts of the  city where you analyze and intended analyze   the intended unintended limitations all in fairly  short order. So we thank you. We arrived at this   existing time and place and we hereby request the  board utilize its authority to wave the request   as noted for approval as submitted. Thank  you and I will turn it over to John Shagnen. Thank you, Marie. John Shaggman from Haley  Ward and we're here tonight for a conditional   use permit application for co-l livingiving  at one through 15 Congress Street, map 117,   lots 12 and 14. And those lots will be merged into  one parcel. projects located at one Newbury Way,   10 High Street with frontage on  Congress Street, High Street,   and Fleet Streets. It's within the  Portsmith character District CD4 and   CD5. Uh this development was approved by the  planning board um on January 16th of 2025. The proposal presented herein, though,  involves adopting the section 10.815   815 co-living Portsouth ordinance and incorporate  co-living as part of the project. The upper floors   of the JJ Newbury building will remain residential  as approved previously but will be revised to   create co-l livingiving. The first floor space  along Congress Street will remain residential will   remain retail and restaurant use. The revision  to co-l livingiving reduces the parking required   under the Portsouth zoning ordinance as the  co-living component does not require parking since  

the facility is within 600 ft of a parking garage.  The site now will require 21 parking spaces where   21 are proposed. The site had received a parking  cup under the apartment proposal to provide 21   spaces where 53 were required. No changes to the  existing and proposed imperous surface areas on   the combined lots are proposed. In our opinion, no  variances are required for this project revision. As Marie mentioned, in order to provide additional  affordable and innovative living options within   the city and to allow the adaptive reuse  of this building, co-living is defined and   created. It's created as a special use subject  to the provisions and requirements of the ports   of blue ordinance section 10.81520 through 70  which is included in the cover letter and I   will not go through those but simply state as was  explained that the developer understands those   and intends to comply with those requirements  under the approval criteria for 10.4 10.243   243 for a conditional use permit. The  permit can be granted if the planning   board determines that the proposal conforms  to the conditional use permit criteria. We   would submit the proposed design will be  compatible with sections 10.24321- 26 as   follows. The proposed design has been fully vetted  and approved by the historic district commission.   The height and scale of the existing buildings  that were approved in that manner will not change. Retail and restaurant at street levels are  existing and the uses will remain. And Newbury  

Way will be improved as an accessible pedestrian  way with utilities and site amenities improved   as proposed and previously approved. The public  infrastructure is available to serve the proposed   use. The surrounding streets have the capacity  to serve the proposed use. The proposed new way   pedestrian corridor is supported by the master  plan as part of an overall connection running   from the McIntyre potentially to the Vaughn  Mall. Traffic impacts have been studied and   this change does not require any additional  study as the changes in traffic generation are   expected to be a reduction as co-l livingiving  is intended for residents who do not need or   want their own vehicles. The proposed uses and  their associated sounds are consistent with the   surrounding uses. On-site residential managers  will ensure compliance with property usage and   noise regulations. Retail and restaurant  uses are consistent with surrounding uses. Other aspects of waste management, odor control,  lighting have all been vetted and approved in   the previous site plan application and approval.  There's no wetlands or natural resources in the   project vicinity. We would say that the property  values will not decrease as a result of this shift   to interior co-l livingiving as the exterior  quality of construction is consistent with   the previous approval and will not change. Still  as before, the intent is that when Congress LLC   will be responsible to pay the entire cost  of design and construction of the high-end   Lad Street improvements as previously agreed  to in the signed memorandum of understanding  

with the city. Water and sewage systems will  be not be impacted by the change of residential   use to co-living. Storm water management  is not impacted as the drainage patterns   and infrastructure improvements will remain as  they were approved by the planning board. Site   lighting is not going to change as the lighting  shown on the previously approved plans provides   a welcoming and safe pedestrian and vehicular  experience. Site utilities including natural gas,   underground electric and communications will not  be altered by the revisions. I believe there are   no changes to the landscaping. Terrence Parker  is here if you had any questions. I'd like to   turn it over to Tracy Kak to talk about the um  interior changes to co-l livingiving. Thank you. Good evening. Tracy Kak, Arch of Architects. Um  as John mentioned, the residential uses of this   building are on the uh second and third floor.  There is a fourth floor on the one congress part   of the building which is apartments remains  unchanged. Um the overall organization of   this building I just want to point out as you all  probably know it's kind of almost an entire city   block and it was built over time plus the new  addition that's proposed where the parking lot   is now. It's essentially five connected buildings  built over a couple hundred years. And the floor   levels between these connected buildings uh vary  in height between 2 and 7 ft. Um if there were   separate buildings, we would have between 10  and 12 sleeping units per floor per building.   But we're connecting the buildings. So it sounds  like there's a lot, but it won't feel like a lot  

because they're subdivided into pods, suites of  10 to 12 sleeping units. And where those pods   connect, there's a floor shift. So um presenting  this in the the strictest interpretation where   um it's a floor level unless you have to go up  a stairwell. Um it is presented as such. So on   the second floor, the left part of the drawing is  the JJ Newbury's building. Uh to the left, Newbury   Way would be on the top and Congress Street is  towards the bottom. Uh that half that left half   of the building is three co-living pods. They each  have 10 to 12 sleeping units. Um all of the uh   sleeping unit size and co- uh common space sizes  exceed the minimums. And to the right side is the   one congress. The existing building is that little  piece on the lower right, which is two apartments,   two one-bedroom apartments. And on this floor,  um there's a uh 12 unit suite uh in the addition   where the parking lot is. And the next page is  essentially the same except for um the the left   side, the JJ Newberry side is uh identical with  the three co-living units and four one-bedroom   apartments. To the right is uh in pink, those are  apartments, not co-l livingiving. And in fact,   all the units uh to the right on this level are  also apartments. So there's a mix. Um, and if you   go to the next page, that's the fourth floor. The  pink are the apartments at the one congress side.   And on the left in green is an open air roof  deck with uh solar and mechanical equipment. Uh, no changes essentially to the outside.  

um there other than maybe a few windows might  need to shift in that back alley adjacent to 155,   but essentially um the facades and  heights are as approved by HTC. So that's kind of the layout. uh  as you know underground parking   on the one congress side and the  first floor will remain retail   um retail and yeah so happy to answer any  questions otherwise I'll hand it back to John just to wrap up um thank you Tracy so in  with the application you had for you is   we're requesting that the planning board wave  strict compliance with the co-l livingiving   uh standards that had been established in your  creation of the zoning and um I believe the Tracy   has spoken to some of the reasons for that. So you  have the ability to do that under the ordinance.   And what we seek relief for is on the second floor  uh where there are four core living suites with   a total of 49 sleeping units. 74 residents on  that floor where 40 are allowed. on the third   floor where there are 34 sleeping units, 57 co-l  livingiving re residents for that floor where 40   are allowed and also as mentioned earlier the  one full-time uh resident manager um where four   would be required by the way the ordinance  is constructed but uh Marie talked about the  

uh coverage that will be provided 24/7 given the  applicants maintenance staff that will be in the   downtown area and present at the facility. With  that, unless anybody else has anything to say,   we'll ask you for um any other questions and ask  that you approve this change to co-l livingiving   uh tonight. Thank you. Okay, questions of the  applicant. But John, just I I heard you say 57   residents on the third floor and I think it's  51. 51. Yes. Okay. Maybe I heard you wrong,   but that's what I heard. No, it was a a slight of  the pen there. Sorry. 51. Yes. It's a small It's a   small one. It ran into the five and looked like  a seven. Okay. Questions for the applicant. Um,   how many? Because I was I'm sorry. I was  not on the board when the initial approval   was. How many apartments and residents were  proposed in that? That's a good question. Um, I could look that up if you give me a minute.  Okay. It would have been number of apartments,   not necessarily residents. That's right.  Right. Yeah. At that Do you know the number   of apartments? Yeah, I I can look that up if you  give me a minute. Yeah. have some other questions   for team members. Bill, you had your hand up.  Did you have another question, Brian? Well,   it's based on because if we're going from one  number of apartments to potentially having 125   residents, but they're saying nothing changes  in wastewater treatment, all of those things.   To me, it seems like they would have to look into  that many people living in a space with I mean,  

in terms of sewage and things like that, wouldn't  Okay. Well, let's let's wait and see what he how   he answers the question. And I think Bill, you  had a question or maybe he needs to look is it   a question anybody else can answer other than  John? I've got a couple questions. I'm not sure   if they're for John or for one of the others. Um  certainly the city uh the the council and this   board and other boards uh have leaned into this  concept of congregate living. Uh it's a way to   have the true cost of the facility be lower rather  than subsidized either by the developer or by   government. Uh so it it's definitely a right path  and I think we're all supportive of that. uh one   of the early comments you made and as you as we  do uh a little bit of research into what's going   on outside the borders of Portsouth uh we you can  find quite a number of other locations cities that   have this kind of a arrangement. Uh but generally  the scale is small. Uh in your introductory   comments you talked about it being 10 or 12  people. Uh to my knowledge there's really one   of these in Portsouth currently and that's I think  11 people. Uh so when when we uh collectively when   we uh reached the idea of doing uh 40 uh on a  floor and 80 in a building and putting it in   the downtown area kind of in the golden or in  the crown jewels of Portsouth, uh there was a   little bit of leaning out over our skis and doing  that on scale. Uh so I'd like to understand you  

uh we we collectively set a boundary of 80 and and  you're saying well let's do 50% more than that.   Uh is there a is there a safe way of doing this  that that can be tested uh and rather than have   the largest co-l livingiving organization in the  world uh you know show up in downtown Portsouth. Hi Tracy Kak I'll try to answer that. Um so and  as well as the previous questions about capacity.   So the the way that the building is engineered and  designed for both utilities and life safety is the   same really whether almost identically the same  whether it's apartments or co-l livingiving. There   are some nuances where the life safety is a little  bit more strict with co-l livingiving but the   occupant uh rate of the building is calculated at  uh one occupant for every 200 square ft and that   determines the structural load of the building.  It determines how wide the stairways are. It   determines the number of plumbing fixtures,  the sizing of pipes, the everything. So, um,   whether it's managed as a co-op, co-l livingiving,  or apartments, it doesn't really change that use.   Um, the common areas, as you see here, are  are big. They're kind of oversized. They're   much bigger than the minimums in the co-living  ordinance. So um and because we are subdividing   this co-l livingiving into pods, the ordinance  for co-living does not mention um subdividing  

into smaller units. If we did the maximum amount  of bedrooms in one pod, you'd have 40 people   sharing a kitchen and and that seems not like a  good idea to us. And and perhaps there might be   roommate problems. So, we've subdivided these into  10 and 12 bedroomedroom units, which is not unlike   um some of the really large houses you might have  seen in cities or college campuses where where   people live together sharing buildings. It it it  isn't really about the mechanics of square feet   uh and plumbing. It's really about sociology  and community. And she was answering her   question. Excuse me. I think she was answering her  question. I was trying to answer both but that but   the amount of people living together in close  quarters that's why we've subdivided it in into   um on this plan there's uh four co-l livingiving  pods plus six small apartments. It's not just   one big freef fall. Uh you won't have keys to  the other pods. You can only go into your pod. It it it really requires quite a bit of you know  kind of a leap of faith in the dynamics of the   people I think to do that it's a concern could I  ask a question in a different direction yes um so   you you talked of the um u the the 30% of AMI as  the financing piece um If if you were coming to us   asking for a a variance on the construction of a  building, putting an extra story on it beyond what   the code allowed, uh we the second part of that  conversation would be about some affordable living  

component that would have an AMI uh component.  So, so you've brought this with an AMI component,   but I guess on a voluntary basis. Uh I is there a  thought that this could be uh a requirement that   uh for the exception to what the code allows  for uh that there be a uh component of the units   that be at some income level and that you're  particularly intending to do that anyway. Hi   Mark McNeb. I'm going to field that question in.  I want to also um kind of talk about occupancy   of a city block. I think that um the other plan  when they were apartments, you have to remember   the building exists. It's been here 200 years.  Space can't go away. So if you limit the units,   are you saying you want me to have vacant space?  So JJ Newberry is an existing building. When we   had it approved for apartments, we were around  20 apartments. Now, keep in mind those were three   and four bedroomedroom apartments. Nowhere  in Portsouth when we talk about apartments,   onebedroom, twobedroom, threebedroom, fourbedroom  are we required to come in and say how many people   will be in a bedroom. So, you take a two-bedroom  apartment. If you call it co-l livingiving,   we have to come in and say, "Oh, there could be  two people in those two bedrooms. In a two-bedroom   apartment, there can be two people. There can be  four people in a two-bedroom apartment or more   on sofas." So, I think that we have to really be  careful that we're applying a different standard   to co-l livingiving here by saying how many people  will be in those rooms and we don't in apartments.  

So of the 20 apartments we would have there if  we had three bedroomedroom and 60 bedrooms and   two people that's 120 people. So everyone needs  to keep in mind this is a city block and it's   an existing building. So the problem with a a  subjective standard, you know, 40 per floor,   we just kind of had to arrive at something. Nobody  really knew what that number should be, 40, 30,   60. And that's why the ordinance was written.  So, well, by allowing the planning board to   wave any of that because you really didn't  know. So, if this was a brand new building,   you might say, "Hey, wait a minute. Why don't  you do this?" JJ Newberry's existing. I'm not   going to put an office in the middle of the  second floor or the third floor. These floors   are all going to be residential. So, got to  be used and they can't be vacant. We think the   most appropriate use is co-l livingiving. Um,  but the number may sound shocking, 125 people,   but keep in mind it could always have been 80, 90,  or 100. This is a block. It's not 40 or 30. Um,   in terms of the, you know, committing to what an  income level will be, that's not what co-living is   about. That's what that's what other standards  in the zoning are about. If you want to add a   floor and you have to give that criteria for  workforce housing, that's not co-living. See,   the beauty of co-l livingiving is by making the  smallest space, somebody isn't going to rent it   for the same amount as if it was a two-bedroom  apartment, you had a washer and a dryer and   a parking space. The the good thing about co-l  livingiving is it has to be the most economical.   Otherwise, people would go to one and two-bedroom  apartments. Um, that was the good thing about how   the planning board and the council passed co-l  livingiving. But co-living is not workforce  

housing and no co I would not agree to those kind  of limitations. Um, if you're workforce housing,   you add a story that's a that's an easement you  put on the property that's for 30 years. Um,   we want this to pass as the co-living ordinance.  Our criteria is we have an existing building. Um,   so in a way you can call that hardship cuz what  do you want me to do? If you say 40 per floor,   tell me what I should do uh with the rest of the  floor on the second floor and the third floor. I   any ideas? So I I don't have a solution other  than we think this is the most appropriate use   of JJ Newberry and uh with all the elevation  changes. Those are the numbers. not because   we've expanded the walls of the building.  It's because that's the space we have. Um,   so I think the board can, you know, have different  criteria on a new building versus an existing   historic building. You know, I could understand  that. Um, but that's the building we got and um,   we would prefer to do co-living than conventional  apartments and three or four bedrooms. But if we,   let's say you said, "Okay, well, we want 40 per  floor." Then I'm just going to make the rest of   the space a three and fourbedroom apartment. I I  I don't know what that really gets us. It might   get to 10 fewer people. It's not going to take 125  people and move it down to 80. So uh because our   old plan that's approved now could have upwards  of 100 people if you made us say how many people   would be in a bedroom like you're doing on co  living. So, I hope that answered your question   on the number and why this building um we need  this number of units otherwise we abandon space.

I have some different questions. Have you thought  about whether or not people would have cats or   dogs or pets and how that would be handled? We we  have thought about it. We have a you know we have   a number of apartments downtown and in general we  are we are pet friendly. Um, so you know, we would   have a criteria of where and what units pets would  be allowed in what size and a limitation because   you can't have a free-for-all when you have that  kind of density. So, there has to be restrictions,   but there's a big difference between a house  cat and a 50 pound dog. So, um, we we haven't   formulated the full rules yet. Uh, but you will  have rules, huh? You will have rules. That was   We will absolutely. It or it'd be chaos. Um, one  of my other questions is, is the rooftop that you   have that's over the JJ Newberry building, is that  available to everyone that lives in the building   or just certain people or certain units in the  building? Everybody in the building. And then   you I noticed you have laundry on the basement  level. Is that also for everyone in the building?   That is correct. And I guess my last one is you  show trees on your landscape. Will you actually   have trees on the roof? There will be. Um there  will be it'll be a green roof. There'll be a lot   of landscaping. Anybody who knows all my buildings  downtown, you know, sees the amount of landscaping   I do and trees and I'm a real fan of that. So,  great. If it's done right up on the roof, it it   will be a a a really popular place to hang out.  And um Andrew, you had your hand up. Yeah. Um I   think you guys are incredibly smart. I think we've  certainly taken a lot of time and effort to get   to this point. And I'm glad that you think it's  the most appropriate use such as co-l livingiving   in this building. But I can't for the life of me  figure out why you're asking for 46 more residents  

when we approved 40 very intentionally. And I have  gotten no less than 10 phone calls this week about   this building because I sit on this board and  people asking me how did that become 125. So not   only that when we sat here and we went through a  work session we went through basically every issue   or red flag or headache that could come from  this type of concept. and we sat here and we   talked about how scale and quantity of a project  like this has to be uh considered to to really   work and I think that's really how we landed  at 40 per floor both through economics safety   comfort things like that and we talked about it  for quite some time now my comment in that work   session was I was most recently in college on this  board and I was most recently living in a dorm   room and I can tell you that without management or  supervision of a dorm it becomes very unruly and   it was absolutely my idea that I want to stand  on to have management 247. I do not care about   your economics of having more than one person in  this building managing these units. I do not care   that it is not necessarily economical to have two  people 247. Why not do it like a hotel where you   have shifts? I appreciate that they're going to  have a unit dedicated to them in the apartments,   but it just is very tonedeaf to suggest that it's  not economical to have more than two people. So,   that's point number one. Number two is yes, your  building exists and yes, there's a finite amount   of space, but it's not our job to tell you what  to do with the excess amount of interior space of   your building. If you have a concept and we have  a zoning ordinance, it is your job to fit within  

that zoning ordinance and now you're presenting  something that falls outside of it. So my point to   you is if you are coming here to tell us all the  reasons why you should get this additional density   within this project, I would hope that there is a  better logic applied than just economics or just   the circulation of people or just the utility of  the interior space of a building that you choose   to buy. So to that end, I have empathy because  this is a great idea and we went through a lot   of different iterations to get here. I do  not have empathy about asking for 46 more   residents in a building that you can do several  other things within our zoning owners, too. I also have a severe issue with the amount  of safety that will be considered or applied when you're talking about co-ed living,  shared bathrooms, shared kitchens, and a lack of   security. So if you have anything to the extent  of a survey or any sort of data to suggest that   you have 125 people that can get comfortable  with all of these shared amenities, I'm right   there with you. But until that is proven at any  scale, I'd be hardressed to think that women, men   certainly will feel comfortable with all of these  items or aspects and attributes of this idea. If I'm wrong, please tell me. Well, I don't  think that that's in your purview. If you're   going to say that the economical feasibility of  why we want to do this, um, you shouldn't really  

concern yourself in my opinion that whether we  I'll pause you there. It is stated in your Well,   one at a time. One at a time. It's stated in the  proposal that it's not economical to have more   than one management person. It's not my words. Did  you not hear my part of the presentation? However,   um I think again when we were in work session  and in all kinds of conversations throughout   this process, we were whatifing quite a bit.  And I remember sitting with the city council and   Mayor McGelan when somebody asked to put in some  extra caveats. And the concept and the premise to   get to where we are today was that we keep it as  simple as possible and allow this planning board   to make the final determination with each and  every application. You may also recall that at   the very beginning of this whole process that we  were isolating yes on the JJ Newbury, yes on the   one market square project. Um obviously people on  this board and in the city council felt it was an   appropriate ask because it not only went towards  this one building but to other zones and areas   within the city. So um yes we are constructed or  we have constraints with regard to this and Tracy   tried to articulate some of the reasons and um  obviously we've exceeded the common area spaces.   So whether um there's a concern about safety I  don't believe that's in your purview. Um, it's   up to the applicant who is suggesting applying to  come into the homestead, so to speak, whether they   want to consider that type of lifestyle or not.  But I don't believe it's up to you to decide that,   Andrew. Sure. In a literal form, yes, it may  not be within the purview of the planning board.   However, in the zoning ordinance and criteria of  any project, we are looking at public interest.   We are looking at community infrastructure,  community values, and all of those things are  

considered within this proposal. So safety is a  headliner generally, whether it's this building,   the neighbors around it, or generally the public.  So I get it. Yeah, fire life safety and the number   of occupants in a number in a three-bedroom  apartment could be argued all day long. But I   still have those concerns and I'm allowed to  have those concerns because that contributes   to how I make my decision. And when I'm making  my decision, it's not only conceptual, but it   is matter of fact. And so the matter of fact is  that you're asking for exceptions to these rules   that we have just created with you all involved in  that decision. And and I just can't see why and I   haven't heard the explanation here to convince  me otherwise. So be it. Thank you, Tony. Tracy gonna let her finish her conversation with Mark. I  have a question for Tracy. I think you're best to   answer this. If if these were broken up into two  separate applications between one market and 15   um or Congress, sorry. How many I I can clearly  see where these two buildings are bifrocated with   that dark thick line vertically on the screen in  front of me. I'm assuming that's where they are.   The property addresses are bifrocated, right?  That's exactly what we were just talking   about. If we kept it the way it is now, is five  connected buildings, we wouldn't even be here   asking for this. What we want to do is open the  corridors. Yeah. You'll have to go down a stair,   a half a flight of stairs just to facilitate.  But you're jumping ahead with my question. Yeah,   I know where you're going. No. Oh, not really.  Um, the the I'm going to call just two buildings.   Okay. The How many units are on the floor? one  floor on the left building. So on the left. So I   guess you're there's a thick black vertical line  going down the middle of the buildings. So you  

mean the Newberry building right there? Yeah. Is  that 34? How many units are on the left? 34. Most   of the more are on the left than on the right.  And again the second floor um has that additional   co-l livingiving to the right. The third floor  doesn't have that at all. So on this floor only   um on the left we have uh hold on two two one  um there are three co-l livingiving pods. Um the   part towards the bottom of the page is a pod and  then on the left we have two pods and then there   are four one-bedroom apartments. So to the left of  that wall, if you take those three co-living pods,   there are 34 sleeping units and then you you have  we could just call those all single occupancy and   you have 34 people, but we're assuming half of  them will be double and half will be single. I   I I hear Andrew's concerns and I'm trying to break  them into two parts, handling one part at a time.   I feel like the number of units are you're under  the unfortunate situation of having multiple   buildings where you could come back twice and meet  the criteria in calling calling that black line   one building building A building B and come back  and meet that portion of the criteria. Yes. All   right. The second portion of the criteria is the  on-site support. You know, if you were to have two   applications, the the zoning ordinance as written  requires on-site care 24 hours, right? Correct   me if I'm wrong. You're requesting one person  24/7 and then an additional I I I thought I saw   something about additional person like during  working hours or something. Yeah, let me feel  

that because we had this discussion in the office  without uh Tracy and and John. We felt that if we   had two full-time people on site, or even if you  said three full-time people, there isn't anything   that regulates their behavior. People are out,  they're sick, they're on vacation. So, our the   the employee, the person that's on site, they have  lives. And so, um, we felt we have better coverage   if we have a full-time person on site and 247  coverage offsite because the 24/7 offsite is never   on vacation. It's like a doctor on call. We feel  that's a better product than just the linear of a   subjective this number of people on site. Look, I  went through all these meetings with the planning   board and the beauty of it all was because it was  flexible. Um, we were comfortable with arbitrary   numbers, 40 or one person per X, uh, because  we just didn't know. And there was a lot of   discussion on don't even require someone on site.  There was a lot of discussion on just 247 if it's   well posted. So, we believe it's better coverage  if we have off-site and on-site versus the the   literal just one, two, or three people on site  because they may not be available 24/7's always   available for for problems. So, that speaks to  that. And um in terms of these two buildings, I I   just kind of want to put the scale in perspective.  We have between all of our parcels here together   almost 1.2 acres. What's McIntyre? Two acres.  We're about we're a little bit bigger than half  

the size of McIntyre. So now put those numbers in  perspective on those kind of this is a whole city   block. It's multiple buildings. It could be five  buildings. So, what you're seeing here is for that   40 per floor, um, you're seeing that test have  difficulty with buildings this size, you know,   and it and it's not personal. I mean, you know,  Andrew, what you feel is fine. I disagree with   you, but you don't have to be so angry about  it, you know. I mean, it's just it it's your   ordinance. You know, you've it it we're requesting  it. I hear what you said. We answered it. Um but I have a couple of observations before your  your comment. Um the section of the ordinance   that allows us to modify sections. It doesn't  say waiver, it says modify and I agree you it   provides some flexibility and it's based on design  flexibility and overall project quality. To me,   you've made the argument for 83 units. you you've  you've supported by the design you've presented   and that's that's more not a lot more but a little  bit more than what the ordinance says. I don't   think anybody in this room tonight can tell us how  many people are going to occupy those 83 units. So   I'm wondering if I've got other questions but  seems to me the overarching one is this this   larger one that people are stumbling over. Uh  what if this were approved for 83 units and um   a start of 83 people with the idea that you could  come back with evidence of how it's working after   a year or whatever we talk about to see how this  is functioning. The reason I mention this Mark,   first of all, let me I'm going to back up because  this project has a lot of benefits outside those  

walls that John touched on. I don't know if  people remember the improvements to uh the   streets outside, the lowering of the grade between  here and the uh parking garage to make that into   a much more fantastic pedestrian space. You know,  those are huge amenities and this project, I thank   you for bringing it to us a year ago. The idea, it  was very useful. I think it's going to be a very   useful addition to the city. But we do have to get  it right as best we can. And the other thing about   anything we approve, it's not personal to you. It  goes with the land. If you walked out the door and   got run over by a bus, you know, Marie, because  she's the CEO, she could sell it to, you know,   somebody as bad as John Shagdon, and we we have  no idea what he might do with it. And I'm kidding.   But the the point is it is a an approval that  runs with the land. do know that and I don't have   problems I don't personally have any problems with  the team. I think you presented a good uh proposal   but I'm back to who among us knows how many people  and I understand you don't want to come back   because you hate being here but um a way to get  it started is that the 83 units in my mind you've   made you've made the argument for 83 I I could  see going there. So that's I would suggest you   know you know I think you're you know I appreciate  your um your cooperiveness and and and looking at   it the way you do. Um I wouldn't want to make them  all single because I wouldn't want to say no to a   mom and a kid or dad and a kid or a couple that's  you know I wouldn't want to say no. So if we   entertained any type of that, I think it would be  more of just limiting and saying that, you know,  

um coming up with a number so that we have  flexibility to have couples, but that would not be   what we're after to say they're all single because  there's a lot of couples and um and that would be   discriminating. We can't have any couples. We  don't do that on apartments. Um, well, let's   look at let's look at the math. You've got 34 on  one floor. If you allowed 40 people, that'd be six   six of those units, it could be double occupancy.  Now, you're you know, you you have a fair point   on that because we've wrestled with this. We have  no idea how many are one or two. We just know we   wouldn't want them all one. But we think there'll  be a lot of single. Um we're just stabbing in the   dark on how many would be single and double. Uh  and again it's a dialogue you just don't have   with apartments in and so this is new. Um so I  think that if you did some approach um not where   we're at but not at the 40 because we've made an  argument for JJ Newberry for this building and the   size of the block and it could be five buildings  that it should be allowed more than the 40. That's   why the waiver's in there. So, I would propose  if the planning board wants to go down there,   um, do something higher than 40, but not 60 per  floor, 50. Do something that has more flexibility.   The building needs it. Okay, we've thrown out some  ideas and I think we need other board members to  

talk about it. And Ryan had her hand up. So,  it's been mentioned a couple times now. Um,   I mean, how many children would you foresee  living in this situation? And then I really   would have an issue with safety in some situations  that are shared bathrooms. Like if we're talking   about children sharing a room with a person like  what are the safety features that you're thinking   about? Well, it's part of you know part of co-l  livingiving brings all these things forward and   um and it's a different product than conventional  apartments. the you have to keep in mind the way   we've designed this um more than 50% of the  units have private bathrooms. We're forgetting   about that. So if we leased it to a mom with a  young child or something, it would be a larger   bedroom with a private bath. I would never have  it. The co there's a big management component in   this type of housing. um as it is with animals, as  it is with rules, as it is with substance abuse,   as it is with two people in a room or a mom or a  kid. I would never put that in that environment   where they would have a shared one. That's why  we've been so um meticulous about the design by   having so many with private bathrooms. You open  your door to your suite and you close it and your   bathroom and your closet and your bedroom is in  your room. That's a really big difference from a   dorm or a boarding house. That it doesn't say that  in your proposal though. But but I'm telling you   now, we're here presenting and the plans show  it all that way. They show the bathrooms. What  

Tracy? I mean, how many approximately are have  private bathrooms? Half. Half. We we we got 40   units with your own private bathroom in your room  and a full refrigerator in every single room.   So this isn't quite what we're doing with JJ  Noir isn't quite, you know, it's not a dorm,   it's not a boarding house because the amount  of private bathrooms. So we have a lot of   flexibility to be able to rent to a couple or  rent to a mom with a kid um and deal with that. Was that a hand? I don't know. Right. Um  the other thing is cars. So I know you   talked about co-l livingiving happening  in other cities. Most of those cities,   any European city, Boston, New York,  big cities have public transit that   is far superior to Portsouth as someone  who relies on the public transit. Um,   so how are you guaranteeing that this isn't  gonna if you have 120 residents, let's say six,   let's say 90 of them are adults. How are you  ensuring that that's 90 cars that aren't then   having to park in Portsmouth? We don't. We're  we're abiding by your ordinance. This is co-living   ordinance and it uh that's not part of your  perview. Can our parking garage handle that? The ordinance is with when you're within this  distance of a parking garage. We have no parking   requirement. So then asking for extra residents on  top of what we've given in the co-l livingiving. Yeah. Comment on on the parking. Certainly. My  understanding is this. My understanding is as  

a city we have decided to treat parking  like a utility in the downtown district.   That's correct. So we don't require any  residential to provide their own parking   in the downtown by design because we don't  want them to build parking and affect the the   um aesthetics of the city. Not not exactly.  No commercial. Right. Thank you. But um yeah,   it's existing building all those things abide by  it. It's not there's not a requirement to have   provide parking for residential downtown. There  is um for non-residential there's no parking and   then you get a credit of four spaces um for  residential. So residential and hotels have   a parking requirement for hotels. It's less.  Yeah. Oh my sorry I totally blinked. And but   this the state law now is one per unit. Right.  That's correct. Correct. And there's there is a   suggestion that that residential component go  away but right now it's in there. So anyway,   but parking is in in co-l livingiving. This  is co-l livingiving. Co- livingiving is not   apartments. It's not um it's not a boarding  house. Those are different different uses. And   this is exactly as we talked about in crafting  this ordinance. Could you explain the kitchens   though? It I didn't quite understand. It seems  like there's not not a lot of stove space and   that sort of thing. Maybe it's just not detailed.  We haven't designed a lot of the cabinetry yet,   but we do have enough um dining seats, tables, a  variety of table sizes and heights. We have bar   stools at a common counter for those who want to  socialize, a private table at the edge for those   who want privacy. Uh there's um a wraparound  counter space uh kind of a U-shaped kitchen   counter with an island in the middle. Um I don't  have the exact dimensions with me but the length  

of the that just the kitchen counter area is  approximately 20 ft by 10 ft deep. So 200 square   foot kitchen at at the at the minimum and that  doesn't include the dining which is uh far greater   than that. Um there are two full-size refrigerator  freezers in the common kitchen. a large stove. We   haven't decided how many burners yet, ovens,  microwaves, toasters, all those things. Uh,   and as mentioned, in within each sleeping room,  there is a full-size refrigerator freezer as well. Um, I'd just like to make some comments after  listening to everyone speak. Um, there are,   as I look at this, there are a lot of private  bathrooms. In fact, a lot of the units that don't   have private bathrooms, there's like two units  that might have a bathroom just outside those   doors. So, it's clearly labeled or looks like,  you know, those are open to anyone, but clear it's   going to be used by the two units that are closest  to it that actually have that. So, and there's   only, you know, there's a minimal amount to each  pod. And with the size of each of these buildings,   if you, as Tony was sort of relating to, if you  had the one pod on the one side of the building   and the three on the other side, you're under or  or very much closer to the 40 person that the the   ordinance was written for. But I can tell you  from being there when we wrote that ordinance,   we had no idea. We had no idea what size the  building would be. So, how could we really come   up with a number that was going to work? And I  think the bigger concern was around the rules that   are going to be in followed and the management  of the property. And I think that's where the   city council had a lot of discussion around that  when we were approving this. and we decided to   leave it the way it is because the planning board  could ensure whatever they were approving would   work for this 247 management on on-site or not  off-site as long as it's within the vicinity of  

the downtown I think is a fairly um substantial  for any condominium or any even if it was just an   apartment building would be a very nice we don't  even have that in most of our apartment buildings   or require it so I don't see any heartache with  having an on-site person that actually lives there   plus 24/7 available all the time. I get it's a  lot of people. I get there's issues with parking,   but we don't require parking under our ordinance  when it's this close to a parking garage. The   city would like to have if people if there  is a need for more parking, then it's going   to be the city that's actually going to build  the spaces and provide it in one way, shape,   or form. That's how we've set ourselves up as  a city is to use that as a revenue source and   to provide that as a as Tony put as a utility.  So, I don't have a whole lot of heartburn about   any of this. I think it's well laid out. I  think it will be well managed by by having   the requirements and we're approving it with  one on-site and 24/7. So, even if it was sold,   that would go with it. There would have to be  someone providing the exact same that it was   approved as of to as of whenever it gets approved.  So, I I get it's a lot more people, but I did   question even when we were writing this is whether  or not people was the right or bedrooms were the   right. We don't really have that, you know, we  don't have it knocked out. So, I think we have to   approve one and have it go and something go wrong  before we could say this isn't an appropriate size   based off of the square footage of the building  and how it goes. Those are my two cents. Cool. Uh,   Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask you right now  we're we're asking up questions of the applicant,   not having discussion among the board and we're  going to have open up to a public hearing. I'd   like to get to that and then some of the things  I'm hearing is more discussion among the board.   The reason I was allowing more discussion with the  board is because this is the opportunity to have  

an interaction with the applicant and I issues  have been coming up that require applicant input   and I as soon as we stop that it gets much more  stilted. So I appreciate your comment. It's a good   one but that's the reason why I've been sitting  here encouraging the conversation bill. I I just   I'd like to know if if there are any comparables  on this scale anywhere that you can point us to. I know that there are and I know that there are  some uh there actually a number that have gone   very large scale in Florida and San Francisco  and they haven't done well because they've been   tried to be managed by capital companies  and not real estate management companies.   I am familiar with them in San Francisco. Yes,  to that question. I know we were asking the   applicant. My my sister lived in something like  this when she moved to New York maybe 5 years ago.   Um a similar co-living sort of situation which  for affordability reasons was the only reason she   could move and get her first job there. Uh just  anecdotally I would say between living somewhere   like this and having to find roommates online  in terms of privacy and safety she would have   preferred the former for sure rather than random  people online in a shared bedroom. So you know   it's not obviously to Ran's point Manhattan is  a little different than downtown Portsouth for   a variety of reasons but uh it it does exist and  people use it for sure. Next comment step up to   the mic a little bit but sure thing. Thanks  uh Frank and then Ryan. So this is more of a   microlevel question on safety, but in terms of  uh access to the building and access to rooms,   um have you given any thought as to  the mechanism for that? Would it be   like a physical key for the room, a fob  for the building? Um that kind of thing.

Throughout our portfolio, we utilize FOBS. So, a  resident that has access into the building would   then have access into their pod and then into  their room. They would not have access into other   pods or other rooms. Clearly, any of the common  areas would be available to all residents. For   example, the roof deck that Beth asked about.  Um, but individual rooms would be key card.   There's security tracing on those key cards, so  we can tell almost like a hotel when they've come,   when they've gone. Not that we've ever had to  really do that, but we do have that built in.   Yeah. And so it's key card all the way through.  Correct. I mean, there's a master key, of course,   for the fire department and all that, but  yes, it would be a key key fob. Gotcha. Brian,   you had your hand up and then Andrew. Um, so I  did notice a lot of solar panels on the roof. Now,   will that provide power just for the building  or do you plan on trying to like sell it to   Eversource or is it even enough to power the  building? I know nothing about solar panels. We   do have an expert on our board, but sure. Uh, we  do have um some um sizable PV arrays on both sides   of the project. on the roof. It is not enough to  um bring this quite to a net zero energy building,   but it does offset the uh energy that's pulled  from the grid. Um currently, as far as I know,   we're not building a great big battery storage  unit in the basement. So, if there is excess,   it would be sold back to the utility and then uh  as a credit when needed. So Andrew, I'll answer a   little more solar because we have two buildings  with solar downtown um with close to the same  

amount as this. Um they don't even remotely give  enough power to sell back to the grid. Um a block   like this will be monthly electric bill of $40,000  and um solar might be 1,200, 1,500 a month, 5%,   2%, 4%. Those are the kind of numbers on a  commercial building for solar. Um, buildings   downtown that have restaurants and retail and all  that that we have in there use a lot of power. Um,   so we found from our other buildings that we have  is it's definitely worth doing. Um, every bit of   solar helps, but uh it doesn't even remotely  um cover the electrical usage. Okay. Andrew,   do you find it unrealistic to do shifts for your  management of 247 people or how is that thought   through? Andrew, what do you mean shifts on site  or offsite? On site. um you you expressed how they   could be sick on vacation or just living their  lives, but in reality, if this is their job, they   may be on shifts. So to have more than one, they  could be on shifts. I can definitely appreciate   your your question and your desire for that. We  have found we're the largest landlord downtown.   We have found there's nothing better than 247 Um  because you know we have so many restaurants and   and we have 247 stuff happen all the time and we  have just found that uh the quality available on   our 247 programs and the depth we have on that  is so much better than an individual. Um we  

want both. We really like both. Um that could be  different for different applicants, but for us,   you know, when we have eight restaurants downtown  and we we run seven days a week, um we have to. So   this just uh dubtales right into our organization  that that is more intense quite frankly from   restaurants and those type of uses um than it is  from our residential uses. So dovetailing on that   is a better program. When we approve this project,  it would be for the life of the property as the   chairman had stated. So although your organization  is fit to do so, we are looking well into the   future here. But it's an annual renewal. Sure.  The city council has an annual renewal. So you   you the board can easily state um that you know  the condition that it's looked at. how effective   is the onsite and the 24/7. So you do have  that that's why the annual renewal of a license   um is there. So that's a perfect thing to put in  it. Um it's I mean that to me that's subjective.   It's it's a lot harder to get a really good sense  of what's happening on the property 247 without   that. We have both. Sure. But two eyes less  than four eyes less than two. I'm just telling   you from my experience. Sure. And you haven't  experienced this. And if we're asking for more   capacity and more people, that to me indicates  more responsibility and more management of those   people. We we prefer how we've proposed it. One  on site and 247. We're comfortable with that. Well, following up on that, um the  ordinance would require two 247  

folks on site. Um I'm somewhat leaning  toward the reduction of that to one,   but I'm having a hard time with the just  somebody living there. Sometimes they're there,   sometimes they're not. They might be on  vacation and we can't tie an approval to   the McDav management company. It could  just has to be a management company. I think we can tie it to a property management  company though. Could be a property man but they   vary in the city and they will vary in the future.  So I mean in thinking in researching this topic   myself and looking at some others the idea of  having a person in this building responsible for   management was a big thing and and even I think  you thought so too when we first started talking   about this Mark um whether there's a need for two  of them I can be moved on that point but I think   there's there is a need for one that's my opinion  Joe um I don't want to suggest that this might   um be um this issue that we're having with  the management of the building might be   self-correcting, but the fact of the matter is if  there's if there is an issue with this building   uh where we experience some of the things that  we're fearing, it's a nightmare for them more   than any more than us. And it would be I think  it's I I do think it's almost self-correcting.   If if they're living with a building that  is dormike, for example, that's not lasting   very long for them. They're they they will have  to correct it to survive. Um the fact that we   have an annual renewal is an amazing tool for  us. Um um and for for for that reason. Well,  

and let me explain a little bit more about, you  know, my living situation. I live amongst all   the hotels downtown where people are here for one  night, two night, and they're here, they're here   to unwind and and kind of be loud and have fun.  This co-l livingiving concept, the people are a   little more invested in the community. They're  here, they're here for a longer period of time.   I have less fear of um kind of misbehaving and  mischief and safety in and this concept than I   do for a for a a hotel of of the same size. Um  and it's also a little bit disingenuine for the   community to as its number one concern in our  city as a creative affordable um um housing   options. Um and then to have one before us of  this of of a of a large size um in let's face   it a wonderful location um and to and to not  want to you know shepherd it and and and and   try it out. We have great I think we need to be  confident in the language that we put forward. We   have a lot of ways to enforce enforce um enforce  this and um I say let's give it a try. I mean did you did you I was just going to suggest  I think we've we've exhausted our back and   forth with the applicant. It's probably time for  the public almost Ryan had some We keep talking   about affordability but none of you gave us a  number. What would rents look like? ballpark,   just an estimate, everything included.  What do you see rents looking like? I'll jump once. They said they were going  to base it voluntarily on a percentage of  

u median income, but that's just  something they offered as an idea. So,   if you did that based on today's median  income in Portsouth, what would rent be? I I want I want to get some idea of what  affordability median income in Portsouth   is 60,000 a year. So 30% would be 18,000. So it  would be a little more than 15,500 a month for   that metric. All utilities included in that 1500.  You're not That's correct. Everything's included   in that. We're not setting that tonight. We're  giving you a guidance. Um and and you know the   the perfect test the perfect thing of co-l  livingiving is that the marketplace if they   have a two-bedroom apartment that somebody  can get with a washer and dryer and parking   um it has to be fair amount less than that or  or this won't be popular people won't come. Um, so there's an afford there's definitely an  affordability component to it. Has to be. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant?  Uh, not a question. I just want to bring up   a comment that was brought up that we hadn't  heard before and I and I agree that it is a um,   it's a valid concern and that would be pet control  in the building and where and how pets are handled   around the building and so forth. it could be very  quickly become something that we all experience as   a that could that could be a major problem if it's  not managed properly. I have all the confidence in   the world that it will will be managed properly.  But I I appreciated that comment. Um also the idea   of what happens inside this building and safety  regarding who's in what room and so forth. I mean,   we we never apply that kind of scrutiny to  apartments, buildings, and as far as what happens  

inside rooms and who's adjacent to where it's  that's a very slippery slope, I'm afraid to give   too much attention to. I certainly don't want to  get into a conversation about who is in there, but   this is a different type of use than a post is.  And just as a point of clarification, the annual   renewal is just to ensure that the conditions  are still being complied with. That's it. So,   it's not like this thing gets a full review  every year. That That's not the way it works   and it shouldn't work that way. So, any any other  comments before I open the public hearing? All   right. The public hearing. Is anybody here on Zoom  wish to speak to four against this application? Hi, my name is Barbara Ward. I live at 16 Nixon  Park in Portsouth. Um, and I just read about   this project this morning. I really didn't know  too much about it. And I I guess one thing that   concerns me is we spend a lot of time coming up  with ordinances and it sounds like you've spent   an awful lot of time with the applicant, but it  always seems like developers come back and want   more. And you guys work so hard to come up with  something and they work with you and then they   want more. And I I really appreciate the thought  that this hasn't happened before here. We don't   know how it's going to work. My son lived in  a very similar situation as a grad student   um in a much smaller um much smaller version  of this and I know some of the issues that it  

has. Um, and I really appreciate some  of what Andrew said about, you know,   going with what you've all worked on so  carefully all the way through and what   um, Rick has said about, you know, we don't know  exactly how this is going to work. And it's a big   decision for Portsouth because it does go with the  building. And I just want us to give it really,   really serious thought and not just always say,  "Okay, you can have a little bit more." Okay,   you can have a little bit more. So  that's all. Thank you. Anybody else? Hi, Peter Smith, 206 Court Street. Thanks,  Andrew. I appreciate your comments. Um,   I just do want to point out a couple points  of data. Um, first, you're talking about   limiting occupancy on a per room basis.  I'm not completely aware of the details,   but House Bill 457, Chapter 188, that was just put  into effect limits the ability of municipalities   to restrict the number of people that can  occupy a rental unit. So, that's one point.   The next one is that if we look at the master  plan um page 13 the table it covers the downtown   planning area. In that table you'll see that  there is 1,16 units in the downtown planning area.  

Now, there's no census data from the 2019 uh  yeah, 2019 to 2023 census that covers exactly   the downtown planning area, but there is tract  691. And what that shows you, and that fully   encompasses the downtown planning area and extends  to the rest of the business district downtown.   What that shows us is that the average household  size is 1.66 in the downtown planning area. So   what's my point? My point is in the area that  this is going to be built, there are approximately   1,835 residents. This individual project in this  one combined building represents a 6.8% increase   in the population of downtown in the downtown  planning area. And the three projects that McNab   has proposed for co-living right now, all of  which are in the downtown planning area, would   be a 10.6% 6% increase in the population of that  area in three buildings, one of which is only 16   people. So, I just want to put that out there. Um,  it'll be a great exper experiment. Um, it's just   a question of, you know, what size do you want  the first experiment to be? Thanks. Thank you.

Good evening. Elizabeth Brder, property owner  159 Mcdana Street. What's being passed out to   you is the actual law about parking. And the only  reason I'm bringing it up, it has really nothing   to do with them in particular. has to do with  all the developments going in. The New Hampshire   U Municipal Association gave out a thing and it  said it's one space per unit, but actually the law   states specifically that multif family units of 10  units or more may require up to 1.5 parking spaces   per unit. And to explain that, on the next page is  the actual law written out. And the analysis says,   "This bill limits residential parking spaces to  one per unit with exceptions for certain workforce   housing." Maybe he can figure out a way to make  that work for him, but he's already getting it for   nothing. And multifamily developments. So, multif  family developments of 10 or more. And if you look   at the back, it has the actual writing of the law.  We have a couple of lawyers on here. You can read   it later. about. But anyway, I just wanted to  point that out that the municipal association   interpreted that law differently than what it  says. Maybe something you need to look at and   call up about. I was going to think I was thinking  about all of these different things. Um, my nephew   just moved into a pod in Florida. Um, he's on in  his first year of college. The pods they have,   it's an enormous building, but the pods they have  are four to six people per pod. And I was trying   to envision living in this place. It sounds  great. They have a lot of great ideas for what   they want to do, game night, all that good stuff.  But then I was thinking about making my oatmeal in   the morning and what that's going to look like  when 12 people, not necessarily all of them,   but a large quantity of them get up and have to be  in the kitchen at the same time. I personally like   to get up earlier than my husband because I want  the kitchen to myself. But that's just me. But I'm  

just saying that that the kitchen area is seems  to have a lot of spaces to sit and I'm concerned   about whether these pods have any flexibility in  terms of if you find psychologically that having   12 people eating breakfast with you is a little  bit difficult if there's a way that they can   maneuver these rooms to make the pods smaller. In  other words, have four to six in each pod. Having   stayed in youth host, I prefer a room with four  to six people as opposed to having 12 strangers   in the same room. But in a hostel, you sleep  in the same the same sleeping area and that's   different. But it has that same feeling of that  many people. So my question for the developer is   whether or not there is any flexibility in making  those pods smaller. I heard what was said about   the the positioning of the rooms. The other thing  um I thought about is um the management and to me   I own rentals and I'm up 24 hours a day with my  phone on so people can call me in the middle of   the night when something goes wrong. So I think  the management should be there awake 24 hours a   day like in a hotel. They should not be sleeping  in their room because if something's happened to   me in the kitchen, I want somebody to be on  duty looking at the cameras just like in a   hotel where the desk clerks can see that. So, I  think you can add conditions as you choose to and   that could be protective of the next time they  renew. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else wish   to speak? Two four against this application in  round one. Yes, we got one on Zoom. One on Zoom. Go ahead, Aaron.

Hi, this is Aaron Pru from uh 99 MN Avenue and 118  Pleasant Street. And um I just started um learning   about this project just in the last couple of  days. So I don't have all my thoughts gathered.   I just want to say that a lot of the comments that  were made by the planning board um concerns I I do   agree with. I do think that this is an interesting  experiment to see if it can help with some of the   affordability issues that we have with um you know  local workers. And I'm not so sure about families.   Um, I I know that a point has been made that um  we can't make decisions on what other what other   people will decide is okay living circumstances,  but I just don't know how safe it is to have young   children sharing uh kitchens with strangers and  and living areas with strangers. Um but uh just   some of the other things I wanted to bring up.  I I have heard the point that parking can't be   discussed, but I think it should be discussed  and I think it needs to be brought up. Many many   people have concerns about it. Um the ordinance  that was passed in May, I think the majority of   the the citizens in Portsouth are unaware of it  and we have a major parking crisis in Portsouth   right now. I had a client call both um call to  find out about parking passes for both garages.   Both have waiting lists. And with a project like  this, it sounds like there's examples of these   um of these co-living projects in large cities,  but I I don't think there's been a specific   example of one in a city as small as ours and in  a city that it's it's not easy if you don't have  

a car to get to the grocery store, to get to the  drugstore, to get to your doctor's office. Um,   so I'm I'm just trying to wrap my mind around and  I think I think a lot of people in Portsouth when   they start to hear this are trying to wrap their  mind around where are all these cars going to   go. That does have to be talked about. Um, some of  the uh some of the other points that were made I I   think it's an excellent point about having on-site  management 247. This is a a bit of an experiment,   you know, from a a sociology standpoint. Um,  really the only things that it's been been   compared to are dorms and boarding houses. And in  both cases, you very much need there to be someone   on site 247 who at a moment's notice can be  available for issues that might arise. Um I'm just   uh looking at my notes here. Um another comment  that was made just with respect to um this being   a better situation than uh than someone trying to  room trying to rent a house with four other people   and finding roommates. Well, in that situation,  you can interview those four other roommates   and pick the house together. in this situation  where somebody's coming in and they're living   with a hundred other other strangers and sharing a  kitchen with them and potentially a bathroom with   them. I think that's a much more uncomfortable,  you know, potential situation than a small scale   someone, you know, renting room uh a room in a  house where they can speak with everybody else   who's going to be living there. Um, but that's  all I'll say for now. I just want to say this this   really needs to be looked at very very closely.  This is a a huge project and if it doesn't go well   um that could be pretty detrimental for downtown  Portmith. Thank you. One more. One more on Zoom.  

Go ahead Barbara. Hi, this is Barbara Jenny from  94 Pleasant Street. Um thanks for your time.   Um, I really appreciate all the consideration  that this board and council have put into um,   uh, this type of housing, and I really hope you  will exercise your right to say no to more. Um,   time and time again, we're seeing, as other, um,  speakers have mentioned, developers coming back   with, oh, actually, we need more. Um, and they  need more so they make more money. Um, and I   can tell you, it's not just me, but a lot of the  citizens citizenry um, are feeling frustrated. uh   and feel like developers keep getting everything  they want. And Mr. McNab seemed put off by the   board member this evening who expressed uh uh what  he called anger. Um and there are a lot of people   feeling angry. So I I really appreciate um you  know being honest and I hope again that this board   will limit this project to what was discussed at  length and and agreed upon earlier. Thank you.   Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak too far  against this application in the first round? Remember, you can't speak in the second or third  round. So, if you don't speak in the first round, else on Zoom, going to move on to the second  round. Anybody? Any second round speakers? There's no second round speakers.  I'm going to close the public   hearing unless somebody raises their  hand and close the public hearing. Uh would like a 10-minute break? Yes. I would like  to use the bathroom. Yes. Take a 10-minute break.

scary. Call the meeting back to order. It's board  deliberation time. Yes, Paul. Uh, thank you, Mr.   Chairman. Um it it's been very helpful for me to  hear from everybody tonight on this application.   Uh when when we get these applications,  we're alone with it and I get my initial   um impressions and reactions to what I'm seeing  in an application. Uh but it's not until I'm here   with the board and the board is conducting its  business that I get to really get the full scope   of everyone's perspective on it. So, what I'd like  to share with everybody is my initial reaction to   this application. Um when when I when I saw the  and I'm thinking about the property 1 through 15   Congress Street and what I saw was that the the  architects and the engineers went to work on this   piece of property and using co-l livingiving came  up with a number and it was a large number and I   was encouraged by that because I'm looking at this  property saying wow this property can support this   number of people living in it. Um, I would imagine  that if an architects and engineers went to work   on this property for other uses of this property,  they could come up with similar densities. So,   I wasn't having any heartburn over the number.  Um, I was thinking back to when we first started   this discussion and there was a very impassioned  group of people here from the community pleading   with the board to to approve co-l livingiving.  So I was encouraged that Portsmouth is getting   a project that we're not serving just the  smallest number, the minimal number of   people. We're serving a greater number,  the maximum number of people with this.  

There are certainly some concerns over property  management um the density that this is an unknown   for the city but I I I really am encouraged by  the fact that the city this board we approved   co-l livingiving we have a project before us  that's going to do co-l livingiving big like   we're we're we're not just dabbling here  we're going all in on co-l livingiving   and I'm I'm in support of this this project  as it was presented to us tonight. Thank you,   Mr. Tony. So, uh I appreciate Paul's comments and  I'm um largely in agreement. Um I don't think this   is perfect yet. I I think that you know when we  were talking earlier, we didn't have drawings.   So I I wondered if truly if we had this set  of drawings when we were trying to craft the   ordinance if we would have crafted it differently.  And I think that's part of the hardship we're   feeling right now. It's like I probably would have  done this this this differently. I I don't want   to throw the baby out with the bath water here.  I'm going to have a lot of metaphors too. Um um   it's just the way I am. Uh I think we can get some  place that is workable. We're all okay with. Um,   so I don't I don't want it to be like, hey, this  is it or that's, you know, that's it. I feel like,   you know, if we feel 40 units is the max,  then the developer will probably be like,   well, fine, I'll do 40 and I'll just build more  expensive apartments and it'll be better for   his proform. Um, and so I don't I I I think we  can get there, though. Um, but I do hope that   we're reasonable and and trying to realize what  the end goal is. I was going to read it today,   but the the post got deleted online. Um, someone  was requesting someone's parking lot to park   their car because they want to live in their  car and it's like, "Hey, I can't live on the  

city streets. I'm getting ticketed. Can I rent a  spot on your driveway?" That's what we're dealing   with in this town. And so, I I think we have to  be careful not to um, you know, make perfection   enemy of the good here. So, um, I hope that we  work forward to something um, that's palatable. Andrew, probably no secret that I'm pretty  passionate about this at this point. Um,   I will also remind everyone that I voted  in favor of having co-l livingiving in   the first place. And I voted in favor  of having having the language as we   had written it. And I'm still for it. Still  for the concept. Can't express that enough. Everyone has contributed to the language that we  have written. We sat here several times and and   through several iterations to get to the language  with real anecdotes and real examples. We looked   at them online and sure Joe your point about  it being a self-correcting or self-governing   community is accurate. I to using an anecdote or  experientially I say that often about HOAs where   we put in HOA rules or stipulations and most often  it is my statement that HOAs will self-govern   themselves because people are invested in that  certain area of land or certain neighborhood   and I do think that that will be the case here. I  sincerely do. I am choosing to be an optimist in   this sense but I am also choosing to be pragmatic  and I think that there is a lot of hypothesis here   and there's a lot of I thinks I tried to count  them by the applicant several times but there's a   lot of I thinks we are building expectations based  on conjecture we do not know how this will go and  

when I sat here and we talked about quantifying  co-l livingiving Um, you know, that's how I became   comfortable with it was the actual quantification  or the quantity of and I get that it's about 1.2   acres. So, it's nearly 55,000 square feet plus  or minus and and it's in the downtown corridor   where we have a huge sensitivity to the to cost  of living. But the non-binding statements that   have been made about management or about how  this will operate, whether it's this applicant,   this current owner, or a future owner, to me is  is too grandiose and too empty. Um, I will also   agree with Tony that we are not far off and and  I also agree that we can't let perfection be the   enemy of good. I really like that statement here  because again we voted to approve this language   initially and I still think it's applicable and  appropriate. Um but but to uh overlook some of the   core aspects of our original language like the  management style and like the number of people   would be an injustice to the city I think because  this is a nent concept for Portsouth and something   that we have to take very seriously because it  is going to be plus or minus 125 people in the   downtown corridor that maybe they've never been  here before. Maybe they do live here now, but   ultimately this board would then be responsible  for those people in some matter because we're   saying yes, go put that many people there. And I  understand how that can apply to any residential   project or any hotel. But this concept being new  would get red flagged and and scrutinized heavily   if we let it happen and it didn't go well.  The last new concept that this group brought  

before us was the hearth. And we all know how that  turned out. Now, I'm very happy that they have a   backfilled tenant that is going to contribute to  downtown, but that was the last new concept. And   I'm unwilling to deviate from the language that  we have until we have more proof or evidence. Bill, I I' I'd like to go forward with what it  is that after a year's worth of work by a lot   of people uh good wisdom uh came up with a premise  as to what workforce h or what uh co-l livingiving   would be. I' I'd like to go forward with that  within the boundaries of what we asked for.   uh and I'd like to establish a set of uh  performance criteria for our own judgment   uh so that we will know when phase two comes  if we're accomplishing what we think we will   accomplish. I think the uh what that success or  non-success criteria are is just vague to us at   this point. I don't So I' I would I would break it  into two pieces. Do what we said we wanted to do.   uh establish some criteria, evaluate how  what we said we wanted to do, how it works,   and then assuming in a reasonable short period of  time, if it works, then we go to phase two. But,   uh, to jump off the tower, uh, without a good  set of success criteria and a 50% increase over   what we thought was prudent, uh, seems  to me not to be the right thing to do. Mr. Chairman, um I have a question and I it's  more of a legal inquiry and it would be if this   board were to continue or to consider uh moving  forward with this if there were a way to include   in the annual renewal process and the inspection  uh somehow the evaluation of the effectiveness  

of the property management um to to determine  whether one individual living on site plus the   247 offsite was sufficient. I don't know how to go  about that. I don't know if there's a way to have   that conversation. Um I don't know if I'm the only  one wondering about that. I was actually thinking   something similar. If I'm I'm stuck on having one  person 24/7, 365 on site. I can't go less than   that. But if after a year there was a report that  said that person did nothing and that off-site   management did everything and it was well done  that would probably make me lean towards revising   that to removing the requirement. Um an idea you  know we're just talking Andrew. Yeah I mean again   we included that language very intentionally and  I don't know when it has ever paid to be less safe   than more safe. So having more safety or more  management than you may need in the first year   that this has ever existed in Portsouth seems  to be quite opportunistic and probably helping   in the long run. That report after a year, yeah,  it's probably going to be fine and it's probably   a self-fulfilling report that's going to say we  have no issues and off-site management is fine   because it's cheaper. But in reality, why can't  we start with more management? Well, and in fact,   if we went to one, we'd be starting with less than  what we wrote. But um I think there's there's a   logic there's an arithmetic logic in my mind for  you know we all came up with these numbers to   Paul's point the engineers and the architects came  up with what they've rationalized to me is the   number of units not the number of people none of  us know the number of people so we're all guessing   at the number of people I mean you could fill  it up with singles and that would be wonderful   um you could fill you could get demand for nothing  other than doubles and we'd all be wrong. We  

we anticipated incorrectly. So I I think and I'm  sensitive to the developer comment that, you know,   he wouldn't want to turn somebody away because he  didn't have the ability to have double occupancy.   So I'm I'm at a number that is more than what we  wrote but less than what he's asked for. That's   where my head is at. Turning people away is just  the nature of supply and demand. Understood. But   under the spirit of what we've been trying to do  as public policy and creating affordable housing,   that's that is attention against that. PHA has  weight list a mile long. Okay. Andrew uh Joe,   um the um the idea of coverage on the building,  whether it's living uh on site 24/7, I'm I'm   hearing it's it's mostly to do it's it's less to  do with whether or not there's a toilet clogged   or there no paper towels in the dispenser. It's  about safety. Correct. So, so there is a way to   measure safety over the year. I mean, we're  talking about the security of the building,   not so much the internal management of it,  like whether someone feels like they were   greeted properly or if they're if they have a  problem with their key, who do we call our our   it's I'm feeling like our biggest concern is  the safety of the facility. So perhaps these   ideas that we have about altering the language  or adding to it or making stipulations are more   geared to the security of the facility. And that  that can be measured because we we know if there   are calls to the police station, we know um  if we see vandalism, if we see, you know,   um so it's less about it's less about the  internal management of the cleanliness,   the light bulbs being out, toilets going,  that sort of thing. Um, for us anyway,   I assume I assume people are mostly concerned with  safety and how it affects neighboring buildings,  

noise, safety, th those sorts of things. Those  can be measured. Those are those are measurable   um effects over over a year. And that's the  important thing. They have to be measurable   for us to make it a good addition. Do we Sorry.  Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to make a couple   comments. I agree with what's being said about I  think the focus being on safety and management.   Um because right now right we've got two things  the number of units and and the management ratio   of those. Um my main thought here is uh you know  the management like we said could start lower or   higher and be increased or decreased to meet the  demand. But uh once the building's built and the   units are built you can't really go and say oh  we you probably could have allowed 125 but now we   can't go back and build them. So I' I'd rather put  the condition on meeting that management threshold   rather than reducing the number of units to meet  the one person if that makes sense. I think I   understand what you're saying is sorry just I need  clarification on that is what you're saying is you   have less of an issue with the numbers of units  your your issue is with the management of those   extra units right and specifically that you  could bring this within the management ratio   by just decreasing the number of units but then  you can't go back and say oh we were wrong let's   build the 40 that we wanted in the first place  you can't go put them back quite as easily as   you can say oh we didn't need that person or we  need an extra person or whatever it might be. Um, we keep talking about 125 residents, but these  could theoretically be month-long leases. So, you   could in the a year of that building potentially  have way more people coming in and out just by  

the nature of how the leases are. And so I think  having more management when you potentially have   a lot of turnover very quickly given that most  supportmith does not allow for one month leases   but this co-l livingiving does allow for that.  We're talking about 125 people time could be   theoretically times 12 months. Not saying that  every month, every unit's going to turn over,   but we could be seeing a lot of turnover. And  so I would rather more management to make sure   that like it's done well. You know, the lease,  you know, people are aren't turning over for the   wrong reasons. Like they're, you know, I just  feel like safety is a big concern. And part   of it's just me as a young woman thinking about  roommate situations. I've gotten into that were   very unsafe and scary and what this could mean um  for people and potentially then future projects.   This is the first and I'm sorry it has to be  you because if this doesn't go perfectly well   or it doesn't go well, think of how many more  projects can't happen. I think this is why we   are looking at it with such a different standard  because it is the first and could potentially if   it doesn't go right just because of management  or something could derail many other projects.   We have seen projects not go through because of  public outcry because of previous projects. It   might be a completely different developer, but  I think the fact that this is the first means  

it's setting a precedence that a lot of people  are going to look at. And when we first started   crafting this language, a lot of what we were  hearing about was boarding houses of the past,   of Portsouth's past, and that's what people were  stuck on. So I think we need to be very careful   when we look at this project because it does  set a precedence and can impact future projects. Bill, there are some very basic principles of  project management. Uh and and one of them is   is that you you ramp up on a on a plan. You  have measurable milestones along the way.   you have safety factors built in. Uh you  don't try to optimize the economics from   day one. Uh you you get things going  in a quality way and then at the end   uh later on you you drive the costs down.  So if if this is a fairly typical startup   uh project, I mean those are the steps you take  and and I don't know why we would think that we   would just want to start assuming total success  uh with minimal safety and minimal cost. Joe,   um just want to wrap up my comments so we can move  forward. Um I've we we've heard a couple of people   comment tonight who admittedly said they're seeing  the project for the first time. Um, and we've also   used the term experiment a few times. I I just  want to repeat the confidence that we should have   and we we've we have looked at this. We've put  a huge amount of thought into this. There's been   a huge amount of discussion. There's been public  there's opportunity for public to have input. Um,   so I I might be a little more optimistic about  it, but I'm I'm envisioning a a bit more of a a   more positive experience. I mean, this building  could be filled with wonderful people. I mean,  

I I I don't believe we're going to that this is  going to feel like a prison, a large, you know,   prison with prison riots every night downtown. I  I I genuinely feel like this is going to we that   we this is going to be a success. Will there be  challenges to the applicant? Yes. To manage it.   Yeah. Um I can't help but draw comparisons to  hotels um just because of the sheer numbers of   people. People will have to check in. They'll  have a key. They'll There will be house rules.   They'll have to enforce all of that. Um I also  do not believe this is an exercise in greed. Um   there are far more profitable things that could  be constructed here. Um so I I I if if the I   and Andrew, as you know, I have a huge amount of  respect for you as a board member here and I want   to address your concerns somehow. Um and if if the  concessions is that we with the additional units   we simply we give if relief is being requested  for the additional units but maybe there isn't   relief given to the on-site uh live-in caretakers  that that is an option for this board to exercise. I would definitely feel exponentially more  comfortable with more management and more   people who are intimately familiar with this  building with these units and with the operation   or moreover who is allowed to or expected to be  in these units because maybe it is that we have   100 plus or minus uh great residents in these  units. That would be excellent because again   people moving to Portsouth I choose to believe  they're great people. It's not them I'm worried   about sometimes. It's the other people that  are coming in, the guests of those people,   the people that are not familiar with the  private spaces of co-l livingiving. And so,  

how do those guests uh circulate and interact with  co-living? How do those folks manage that? And in   my opinion, again, I sorry to go back to the  dorm room example, but it is true. dorm rooms,   co-ed living, shared bathrooms, shared kitchens,  shared common spaces. You always have issues and   there there is always somebody on duty as an RA or  D. And to me, that person has a higher authority   and they are looked at and well respected in that  community or in that pod because of that authority   and to me that having that presence alone helps  with the self-governing, helps with the safety.   So yeah, I could be more amendable to the  number of people and number of units here,   but I am less flexible on the management  style because that to me is conjecture that   none of us in this room have done. And I fully  respect the applicant as I've stated before,   but the applicant still has not done this and nor  has the city of Portsouth. And I'm unwilling to   deviate from jeopardizing the value of such from a  1.2 2 acre lot in downtown Portsouth for a concept   that nobody in this room knows how it's going to  go. Even as an optimist, I'm unwilling. It seems   to me that we we're getting close to possibly  somebody making a motion, which I can't do. Um,   but we've got a number of people in We've  got 83 units. They've made the case for that.   It's it's so I'm sold on that. They made the case  of 83 units. Um if you took the math that I did   for on the 34 units as 40 people and multiplied  it out, it comes out to 98 people. If you wanted  

to round that to 100, which is what Andrew just  happened to say. Um that's more than 20% more than   what we thought, but there's no particular magic  to what we thought. We were trying our best to   come up with a number and I think we did. Um I'd  be inclined to support something of approximately   100 people, 83 units. um at least one on-site  manager 247 365 with a management company as   was proposed and the option to come back in a  year to re bring a report from public safety   and DPW as to what's happened over the past  year if they want to remove that requirement   for the on-site 247 365 person's my thoughts  you get all that Peter no motion Yeah. Um,   that's not a motion. I I I guess my question  on that would be you're basically decreasing   the amount of people. Would the I mean, they've  already offered to have the one on-site person   plus the 247. So maybe in a year after the  report comes back that it's all working really   well. Maybe the number goes back to what's  No, they're saying they'd have one full-time   employee. That's not 247 on site. Oh, you want  247 onsite. Plus the management company. Oh. I just I guess I don't see that being a total  that's why it could be re if if if you're right   it could go away after a year. Sorry again. Did  we put an age or on this building? No. No. I'm   sorry. What was the question? That's restricted  too. Restricted. It was age restricted at all.   Uh my thought goes to you have to be a certain  age to generally rent a hotel room, rent a car.   um generally be a certain age, go to college.  Um so now I'm thinking about you could be 17  

and living in this building or you could they  could be 10 and living in this building. Well,   if they have contracts, they have to be 18  to sign a contract. Sure. That's legal age   to sign a contract. So So just a thought, but  they did say potentially a parent and child   could live in the building. So there could  be children in the building. The child's not   signing a contract. Yeah. No, no. I no trueer  contracts. Just thinking about demographic.   I'll get the motions going. How's that? Sure.  Um I'll make a motion that we vote to find   the conditional use permit application meets  the criteria set forth in section 10.243 and   to adopt the findings of fact as presented.  Second. Discussions on the findings of fact. So technically that would that would indicate  that we feel that it meets the requirement for   safety. Yeah. No, it's there's sufficient  information basically to proceed. It's not   it's not approving anything yet. It's just saying  we've got enough information. If you feel there's   something missing for information that this is  the time to bring that out. You're locking in   this zoning ordinance this building code. They're  locking all that in with I understand what I feel   is missing is the concept of safety. that I I  don't I don't hear the things that I would need to   feel the safety is there. That's in the next one,  I believe, in my opinion. Yeah. I'm not sure where   that would you have to tie it to the regulation  bill. So, if it's not Well, there's a difference   in they're they're presenting I'm sorry. They're  presenting um what they believe is a management   system which will provide the safety. Whether or  not you believe it's adequate is different. So the   the the the fact the fact of their presentation  the fact is they've presented they've addressed   the management issue. In other words, that  information is before you. You now you decide  

whether or not it's adequate or not. Another or  if if they completely ignored the management and   safety of the building, you could say that  that has not been presented. Correct. Yeah. You get that? I I understand. Okay.  All those in favor? I. Any opposed? No. I'll keep going. I'll uh make a motion to vote  to grant the modification from section 10.815.26   to allow more than 80 residents per building  and more than 40 residents per floor. Second. I have a suggested amendment [Music] if  that's okay. We're listening. I was looking   for the chair's acknowledgement.  I'll take the city managers. Um,   uh, I'm wondering if the off-site management,  I might need help with the language here,   has to have an office located, a staffed  office, not just some, you know, we work   space. um that staffed off office office  within um a half mile of the residence. I there could be a condition. I'm trying to think  if there is such a thing so long as there's you   know I mean we there's presumably one I just  don't want to be 45 minutes oh they're coming   from Rochester they're coming from Hollis whatever  New York. Yeah. Yeah they'll be there. Yeah,   they're coming. There's a proximity requirement  for the for the Well, there's on staff on site.   That's that and and I think the management has  to be within some certain distance. Yeah. Um,   back to the motion though. I didn't understand.  You just said above, but you didn't set a number.

Me? Yeah, you. I was reading what number two  stated. Don't we have to say a number? Nope. It's   just more than 80 residents per building or more  than 40, but the department is we're allowing the   modification. Open-ended. Well, it's as presented  in the application. As presented, right? Well,   as presented. You didn't say as presented. I will  add I will add in at the end of what I stated. As   presented. As presented. Okay. Second. Second.  Agrees. And then I made a suggested amendment.   And the suggested amendment relates to the  management company which let me clear clarify   it. The on-site staff will be 247 not going  on vacation and that we there's no coverage.   There's somebody there 24/7 and then the  management company would be located have an   address located with people on staff in Portsouth  or within a half mile of the property. The the   motion is just for the people. It's not for the  management waiver yet. We could get to the only   thing that was brought forward was section 25.  This is a preview. It's a preview. The preview   ruined the movie. But go ahead. Right. That's  the only thing she She read the whole thing. No,   she didn't. Yes, she didn't. I read number  two and adding the words as presented at   the end. But you read only section 10.815.26.  Correct. Right. So trying to make sure everyone   understands what this specific motion was for.  In other words, is this only half a motion for   the correct or it's only half of two. So she's  doing 2B, not 2 A. Correct. All right. Yeah.   Yeah. Is that your intention? My question  is she has we have the opportunity to go   back and and continue making motions. Yeah.  Yeah. Yeah. Okay. That's what I seconded.

I'm I'm admit I'm gonna I'm lost. So, all right.  Just let's The motion as made and respected and   seconded and being discussed referring to  1081526 as presented would permit exactly   as they presented as 120 whatever it is. Um  125 residents but it doesn't speak to the   management of it. Nothing about management. That's  a different section. So, as presented, it' be 51   residents on the third floor and 74 residents on  the second floor. Yep, that's how I understand it. I don't support that, but that's what  it says. And that's that's the motion. So, we're having discussion about  that motion. We're talking about that   motion. The number my my number  is lower than that. My number's   at 100. Yep. And I'm I'm Okay. Yeah.  Yeah. I I might be the only one here. Andrew's writing something furiously.  Did you want to say something or No,   just so I didn't forget later. He's  doing the mini cross word. We're at 125. Okay. It be appropriate to  ask for a roll call vote. No,   but I was just going to wait to tell you that. If you ask for it, we have  to do it. That's my point. I think we should do it because I  think it'll be a muddling of the yeses,   the naysay, and I would request a roll  call vote. So, so what is it requested? So,   it shall be. Mr. Wolf, no. Mr. Simonus,  no. Mr. Juliano, yes. Councelor Moran,  

yes. Mr. Bowen. No. Mr. Romeo, yes.  Mr. Coelloo, yes. City manager,   yes. Chair Shelman, no. So, five yeses, four  nos. So, it passes. Motion carries. 5 to four. So, second motion um to grant the  modification for section 10.815.   815.25 to allow one full-time on-site manager  and one off-site manager available 24/7. Second. Um, with I'm sorry, I'm just  pausing. I'm just make sure I can't see   you. um um instead of one full-time manager  on site at all times for 40 residents for and   um as part of that stipulation, the  on-site manager is fully available 247,   not on vacation. Um you know, you have to  find someone else to fill in. And the off-site   management is located within a half mile of the  property. um um staffed the off site is 247 365 which is what they propose. Yes. If I understand  you correctly, you're proposing to grant a   modification to be one fulltime 247 on-site  manager and off-site 247 as well within city   limits. Is that what she said? I didn't I said  half I said half a mile. Half a mile. Okay. I   couldn't I can't I guess I need to clean the ears  out. I I would I'll follow with that for a second.

Can I add to that that there would be a  report back in a year and if on-site 247   isn't found to really be useful that  if we get a report back that could be   then waved at that point. Yes. I I I  thought we'd we'd work on the report   back a little bit. This is probably  the appropriate time for that. Yeah. Did you get all that, Peter? Report back  from the applicant. What about police and   uh sure. I mean, I don't know that they  would actually know, but I guess we could   ask for a report from city departments  as well if they've heard any complaints,   I guess. Yeah. What are the implications of  that report? That they they wouldn't be able   to remove the on-site 247 in a year if it's  found that there are too many complaints or   that it's a necessity. How many is too many?  And what classifies something that's less bad,   more bad, not bad? What you say is not  an unreasonable number of complaints. It's arbitrary. It's discretionary, but  you have to put something in there because   one complaint. Is that a problem?  150 complaints. If that complaint   is sexual assault in a shared bathroom,  Yeah. It's like a traffic accident on a   newly approved development. One is too many.  That's why you put some discretion in there. I mean, you could try to list them. No, I don't  want to. We have a lot of hands over here. So,   there are two separate subjects. One is the uh  report back and a definition of the report back.  

and the others we're seeing one one full-time 247  person uh as opposed to the current regulation   which calls for three or four 40. Yeah. So that  so we're be it' be three this number it would   be three three and an eight motion on the table  currently says it would be one one on site and   then a management company. Now the the interesting  thing with this applicant is that the management   company is in fact across the street. So in  this particular now when if the propertyy's   ever transferred that's a very different situation  just so yeah don't forget that right and at which   point they would have another year to report back  if it at the end of the year if it seems like it's   a necessity then it remains. Are we asking the  residents? Because maybe a woman moves out after   a month because she doesn't feel safe, but she  didn't necessarily go to the police and say like,   "Oh, this guy was creepy." Because we all know  women frequently under report these issues. And   if it's the only place they can afford to live  for the month, they might put up with a lot. So,   are we finding a way to ask the residents how  safe they felt or if there were issues that maybe   didn't make it to the police? Well, as written,  we said city staff. So, if there was a complaint   to any department wouldn't just be one if we leave  it open as staff. So that would allow for people   to report to the city manager if they wanted to.  If this was a hotel or a department store or some   other use never do this. Would would there be  any way to even No. Include this as a condition  

of approval? No. I just I'm I'm just confused  at who even in the city is responsible for verifying compliance. Is it code? Is it be code  enforcement is verifying compliance without an   approval? Yeah. And without that person here to  kind of guide us like you know here's how I see   that going. You know I I I'm seeing management on  the property. I just don't know how granular we   can get here tonight to say it was remor getting a  report back from both the applicant about how the   management appears to be working from their point  of view. Sure. And then staff in case there's   been any complaints that there would be a report  back so we would at least have that information.   I think we I think part of the reason we are  being so specific is because many of us felt   strongly that there should be people in the  building and in this case the request is that   there should be for their numbers there should  be at least three it's 125 so like technically a   fourth if you want to follow the letter of the  law and they're requesting it down to one. So   the rule we wrote and we were very adamant about  some of us was that there would be one person who   lived there for every 40 one person on site. So  I think this isn't like a hotel in the situation   that there is a law there is a regulation and  they're asking us to wave that regulation.   Technically, it's been built in and written  with flexibility for modification. That's   why the planning board allows it because we  don't know if when we wrote that if that is  

exactly what needs to happen, right? So, there's  modification ability built into the ordinance. Um,   and that modification ability is granted to this  board. So, this board gets to make the decision   as to whether or not a modification to what we've  written is acceptable or not. The only way we can   do that though is with numbers and data. So I  mean I which we won't have until this actually   is in place and we get reports back which is  why the report back in a year is been added. Joe, um I I genuinely believe that these are  all very valid concerns. I I do think it's   it's it's a bit curious that we I don't recall  us ever asking these and maybe we should. I'm   not saying these aren't questions we should be  asking, but for hotels, for um other housing,   large housing projects, I mean, the potential for  all of these awful things to happen could happen.   And I and I get that this is unique and new thing  for us, but I also want us to be aware that we're   we might be asking a little bit more than we ever  have on a project. And and look, perhaps we're in   a place now we just have to simply have to say  to the applicant, you need to you you you must   we we're wrestling we're wrestling with this  trying to give the relief, but we don't have   to. If it's two on-site living, then so be it.  But then I asked myself, if there's something   happening on site, you're not calling two people,  you're calling one. You're calling one person. And   idea was one per floor. They're it's still it's  still the same phone number potentially, right?   And that person's going to call whether it's the  police or a plumber or an electrician or I don't   necessarily one of the 125 other residents.  What's that? One person to call 911, right?

Versus what what is the benefit of having two? Are  they wandering the building like a security guard?   Are they We're not getting it. We're not getting  that granular as Paul said. And I agree with him.   We're asking for this coverage, but we're not  really understanding what the the developer said   himself maybe one of the people is on vacation  or they're sick. So having more than one person,   but what we're saying is it's it's there's never  a situation where there isn't someone there 24/7.   It's it's not one person, it's it's the position.  It's the position. So multiple people are working   the position potentially. When someone goes  away, someone else has to be in that unit.   It it's the idea you there's  always somebody in the building,   right? You can call, right? Always  somebody right there. So you don't   have to wait. It's snowing outside. It's icy.  They can't get across the street. You know,   the question I'm asking is how is that how is it  better if it's one person to call or two people   to call? Someone's going to answer the phone no  matter what the complaint is. That's why that's   why we're talking about one instead of two or  three. Right. Right. As long as there's one. If   there's one there plus a management company  as backup, that seems like it would work. Shall we have a vote? Can we perfect this this  uh amendment report back from the applicant and   staff about um so one so I was thinking about  this one year from the issuance of the CO. So   that's when it's Yep. um report back from  the applicant and staff about demonstrating a reasonable help me I'm pulling strong reason we  wanted to have this wording that you suggested I   liked giving us ability to act demonstrating a  reasonable um level of safety no unreasonable  

no unreasonable that's a double double negative  I know it is. I hate double negatives. How how   would unreasonable how would restaurant  regulation word that? Like how would the   health inspector word it if she were inspecting  a restaurant and they had certain violations? Well, thinking to the effect of if they are cited  with violations, they're very clear what those   violations are. So applying that same logic, how  can we use that in this instance? If if this is   what Beth had in mind with her amendment, what  I envisioned was if the applicant wanted to come   back to have the that restriction removed, they  would come back to the planning board and have a   conversation so it could be aired in a meeting  like this. So we would all be talking about it   and you know, we get the staff report, people  would talk about, well, you know, there was this   that happened, this didn't happen. uh they've got  good data. They've shown over a course of a year   we didn't need this person. So will you will you  we remove him? We consider it or the deputy chief   of police comes and says you know we've been here  every week past year it's been a mess. So I'm on   board with that in that logic and that concept.  But my mindset would be to add more protections   than less in this instance. And as we have it  written, yeah, they may need 3.8 of them, but I'm   fine with two. You know, can we start with two and  then in a year if they want to remove one, they   can request that? Well, the motion is one. Are  you proposing an amendment? I'm not going above   one. I don't think in the circumstances of what  we have that it's a necessity. I I guess I Okay.

But but but it's one with the also the on  24. Yeah. Right. Correct. Correct. Sorry,   I'm shaking my head. You're nodding your head. I'm  nodding. Yeah. Okay. Peter, you comfortable? No,   I don't. I'm not. Maybe the Maybe the better way  to say it. I've been thinking about it. Maybe the   better way to say it would be to come back to the  planning board uh for the board to measure the   effectiveness or lack of need of the on-site  manager. You tied it to um Mr. Mr. Chairman,   you tied it to them coming back for a request,  right? I thought independent of that in one year,   we as part of this one-year renewal, it would come  back. If they also part of that one-year renewal   want a request, then all that will go into the mix  in terms of the analysis. But I wasn't tying it to   so the so it's two parts then one would be the  report that gets submitted because it's the city   clerk who does the renewal. So report would  be prepared as a part of the renewal. Second   part is if the applicant wanted to remove that  requirement they could come here. Regarding the   first part would will it come to us? No not  the renewal. No, not we can't we can't make   a stipulation of that. I mean, you could you  could if you wanted permits issued by the city   clerk's office. We don't have authority over the  city clerk, right? Why would you want a copy of   it? You could see it. I want the authority,  but what about the what about the recommend   recommendation? We do that all the time for city  council. It could be that it comes to us for a   recommendation to the city. You're suggesting an  ordinance change. I don't want to change. Yeah, I think that the report back is only  one year after the year. It goes to the  

city clerk and if they want to change the  circumstances based off of those reports,   then they have to come and ask us because  that's changing in approval. But they don't   necessarily have to if they don't want to  change it. I agree with that. I'll live   with that. It's fine. I'm just trying. And  that that would be the case anyway. I mean,   if they wanted to, it's actually if you just  stipulate this and they want to change it,   they'd have to come back, right? That way, we're  not putting it in the hands of the renewal of   the annual renewal to make that determination. It  would be the board's decision. Strike that then. So, are we removing this second condition or  do you still want to have a report? Read it   to me. Well, what I have you do is report back  from applicant and staff um with their annual   renewal with their annual renewal. Yeah. Because  that would be when it would be a year from CO,   right? To get your annual renewal. So, they can  report that back to staff and if they wish to   change the circumstances of the 247 on-site  management, they would have to come back to   the board to make that request. after that one  year and those reports have been submitted. So,   so just playing this out a little bit, if  they if if they do not get their renewal,   what it means is they they it defaults to a  different level of management. What does it   mean? If they don't get their renewal, they  don't get to keep having Living, right? Yeah.   So, we're just asking for them to submit these  reports with that renewal so that the city has   that data because we're looking for data to  continue to move this and especially as we   expand it farther in the city, we need that data,  right? If they wish to change our approval that   we just are working on. In other words, we don't  need the on-site to be there 247. They can just   be full-time on site. They would have to come  back to this board to then request that change,  

but they'd have the data to back it up. Does  that make sense? Yeah, I think that's pretty   clear. What doesn't make sense is the fact that we  would shut a building of this size down if someone   doesn't meet a requirement rather than that's in  the ordinance. It's in the ordinance. Yeah. Rather   than the the result of not make would be a change  to how they do how they manage the building. I'm   not I'm I'm not looking to change the ordinance.  I'm just realizing or re-realizing now the gravity   of that renewal. Right. And as we spoke to it  earlier, it was another reason that gave me   confidence that they're not going to screw this up  because if they do, they can't use one of the most   valuable buildings in downtown. They have to close  it. That's what we're saying. They'd rent they   remodel and turn it into Yeah. Right. All right.  So, this may help as part of what's submitted to   the city clerk, an annual inspection report by the  property manager indicating continue in compliance   with the CU and the requirements of this section.  So, they have to do that annually. That was in the   original language. That's in the ordinance. Yeah.  Um, Right. And so you want you want a copy of that and you want Well, because if they want to change  it, they would have to come back anyway. Right.   Exactly. But we'd have then that data that's been  put together. So that's why the staff reports   that there's any complaints could be part of the  renewal and that way if they want to come back   and change it, the data has already been compiled.  Does that make sense? Thank you. Somebody agreed.   I still don't have clear language, but  still not clear on what on what what this   condition is. But you know the original  motion, right? Yep. Got that. To allow   one full-time 247 on-site in addition to 247  off-site management property, right? Within  

a half mile of property. Then the condition  is one year after certificate of occupancy as required by the ordinance there will be a  report back from the applicant. We're adding to   that from city staff as collected for the renewal  and really that's all we have to say because if   the applicant wants to come back then they'd have  to come back if that they want to change it. So,   I don't know if that really needs to be part  of our motion. I don't think it does unless   he wants to change that. We're leaving that  open. The only reason you do it is if you   we're limiting the additional review at a  later date to just that issue and then we   and that would probably be what I I would  intend. That's that's I think that's why   you said it initially. I I think it is too. So,  we're leaving open the door for the applicant to   return after that year is completed and make  the request if they feel they have the data   to back up removal of the one full-time  247 on-site person to just be full-time. I know it was a lot of words. How long are the  permits good for? One year. One year. Annually,   it has to be renewed. Y it is. We already  have the year built in. Yeah. Yeah. Frank has a question. Jeremy, stop looking. Jump right in, Frank. We all do it. Just ask it.  I'm trying to quietly get his attention. Um, exert   yourself. Just just to clarify, so potentially  the applicant is coming to us with data. Um there   was mention of the city also having data to look  on during this process. Is that one is that part   of the overall process or are those two separate  things happening? So all of that data is going to  

go to the city clerk for renewal and then if the  applicant decides to come back to the board that   data could then come to the board including the  staff reports. So, if we're asking for those staff   reports, if we need to look at them because we  want to know what's been going on from the city's   perspective in that building, we would have that  if they request a change in management. Uh, so   that's if they request a change in management, not  during the renewal process. Not not because of but   Right. It's not inherent to the renewal process.  Correct. Okay. Correct. It would not be a standard   that would happen every year, just that first  year. Gotcha. And because of the possible request,   everybody understand what we're potentially voting  on here? And you don't do you want a roll call on   this one or not? I think so. I think so. That  that's a that's a roll call request. All right.   Uh, Miss Wolf. No. Mr. Simonus? No. Mr. Giuliani?  Yes. Councilor Moro? Yes. Mr. Bowen? No. Shame.   Yes. Mr. Coelloo. Yes. City manager. Yes. And  chair? Yes. Okay. Motion passes six to three. Um I'm going to make a motion that we vote  to grant the condition use permit for co-l   livingiving with the following conditions  in the staff memo 3.1. Second. Discussion.   Would you repeat the motion, please? It's as  written. So vote to grant the conditional use   permit for co-living with the following  conditions that's in here. The applicant   shall pertain permit from the city clerk's  office according with accordance with the   section 10.815.50 prior to certificate of  occupancy for any co- livingiving facility. Obviously the other modifications  are already take effect. So

any discussion? All those in favor?  I I Any opposed? No. No. Uh it's past   10 o'clock. So I need a motion to  continue or we motion to continue.   Second discussion. You want to continue  through the agenda? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay.   Just have to ask. All those in  favor? I Any opposed? Continue. Trudeau, right? Uh, yes. Yep. Next item is a  request of Roger Elizabeth Trudeau and Carol A.   Clayburn, Billy J. Labor and Revocable Trust of  2014 as owner for property located at 10 and 40   Crescent Way requesting approval of the lot line  relocation between two lots with 288 square ft   being transferred from assessor's map 212 lot 163  to map 212 lot 165. Proposed lot line relocation   will straighten the common line between the two  lots. Properties located assessors map 212 lot 163   and 165 less in the general residence B district.  Who is here to present this application? My name   is Chuck Adams. I'm with Haley Ward. Uh I'm going  to try to make this as quick as I can. Um so the   uh the application in front of you uh is for a  lot line adjustment as you just mentioned. Uh   that lot line adjustment is between assessor's map  112 uh 212 163 and 165. Um there's a triangular   piece of land that is going to be perfect.  Uh here it is. Top button. Yep. You hold it.   Perfect. There we go. This triangular piece of  land uh is going to be transferred from map 212  

lot 163 to map 212 165 uh straightening the  common line. We are asking for a waiver from   uh subdivision rules and regulation section  9 for improvement and installation bond   uh for the installation of monuments. Uh  as you can see on the plan there is an   existing monument here and an existing monument  here. Uh these two lines will be abandoned and   uh the monument will become a relic. Um it's  really it's pretty straightforward and simple.   If anyone's got questions, it is questions to  the applicant. Yes. Um I mean what's the intended   um purpose of the transfer? I thought we had  a I might be wrong on this. thought we had a   um kind of a rules and regulations trying to  avoid these really acute angles and property   lines where possible. Like we we do in subdivision  rules, we do have the fact that the lines have to   be teed up, but this actually is fixing a really  probably ancient property line. It's going from   the So right now there's a pretty significant  jog in the line and we're looking to straighten   that out. Yep. Yeah. This exists right now and  it's going to Yeah. But then you end up with   all this strange wedge up here whereas before it  was you know I it's a matter of opinion I guess.   Mr. Chairman ask a question of the uh absolutely  representative are you representing both property   owners? I am. Yes. And both of them are in support  of they are they were both here. They they left   about 20 minutes ago. They'd had enough. I'm  sorry. I implored them to stay but they weren't   uh they were you know it's late. I get it. Any  other questions to that? Yes. And both lots are   now con will be conforming. They are conforming  and both will be conforming. Uh they're both in  

general residence B. Uh requirement for that zone  is 5,000 square ft. Uh the property uh map 212   163 is currently 42,497 ft. So it's about eight  times larger than it needs to be. uh it's going   to be reduced to 40,410 and uh we're actually  making the map 2121 165 is is going to increase   from 20,000 694 to 22,782. So both conforming.  Yes, it's a short answer. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Public hearing,   right? Yes. Yeah. Yep. Anybody here or on Zoom  wish to speak too for against this application? Seeing nobody, I'm going to close the  public hearing. I'd make a motion we vote   to grant the requested waiverss to the subdivision  standards from section uh 4.95.8 requirements for   preliminary plat and requirements for final plat.  Second. Oh, are you sure? I'm sorry. They were so   quick. I'm like I was reading my options.  In strict strict conformity would pose an   unnecessary hardship to the applicant and waiver  would not be contrary to the spirit and intent of   the regulation. Second. Any discussion? All those  in favor? Any opposed? And I make a motion to find   that the subdivision lot line revision application  meets the standards and requirements set forth in   subdivision rules and regulations that adopt  the findings of effect as presented. Second   discussion. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?  I make a motion we vote to grant preliminary and   final subdivision approval with the following  stipulations 3.1 and 3.2 as in the staff memo.  

Second. Discussion. All those in favor? I.  Any opposed? Next two items are postponed. We have a preliminary conceptual  consultation request of MC LLC as   owner for property 134 Pleasant  Street requesting preliminary   conceptual consultation. This property is  assess map 116 lot 30 and lies in character   district 4 and historic districts. Who  is here to present this application? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. John Chang from  Haley Ward. With me here tonight is Marie Bod   uh from um the uh WMC LLC or or representing   them Tracy Kak project architect and  Terrence Parker landscape architect. On behalf of WMC LLC, we're here tonight for a  concept plan review as required in the ordinance.   The property is shown on the city of Portsouth  with assessage map 116 as lot 30 located at 134   Pleasant Street adjacent to a right of way which  is part of the Parrot Avenue parking lot. The   project is within the character district 4 CD4  and historic districts in the city of Portsouth.   Site is currently developed with an existing  building and a surface parking lot. Current use   is a banking facility with drive up and offices.  project consists of the adaptive reuse of the   existing structure with horizontal and vertical  building expansions and below grade basement   parking. New exterior treatments and entrance  locations are proposed along with reimagining   pedestrian friendly sidewalk and landscaping  improvements. The proposal is to increase the  

banking footprint keeping the drive-thru in  the same location and adding co-living. The   co-l livingiving will be designed in accordance  with the recently adopted 10.815 co-l livingiving   section of Portsouth ordinance subject to  potential modifications as the design evolves.   So you have here a site orthopo which  shows the um location of the site and   u the red it also does show the 250 ft setback  from the highest reservable tideline or resource   line of the north mill pond which is a New  Hampshire dees uh jurisdictional buffer required   um special area. Going to the site plan  or the next sheet. The next sheet is the   existing conditions plan. Shows you what's  there now. Parking lot adjacency here. This   is the Parrot Avenue parking lot. The property  line is here. And there is a rightaway along   this part of the Parrot Avenue parking lot  that is adjacent to this lot. Next sheet is a site plan and the site plan shows pedestrian  connections. So along Pleasant Street, there's a   pedestrian connection to the banking facility,  which is going to be this building here. Uh the   main entrance to the banking facility adjacent to  the parking area and the handicap parking spots.  

The residential facility is uh in this building  here, which is a repurposing of the existing   building. This being the existing building, this  being totally new and be a main entrance here.   Another secondary entrance to that um pedest uh  residential component adjacent to this ramp which   will go to serve the parking at below grade  level. The plan shows a revision to the west   end of the current Parrot Avenue parking lot.  So pointing out down here and comparing to the   existing conditions plan, if we could go back  to the existing conditions plan for a second,   there's currently a rather odd sort of vehicular  hiccup here where vehicles come down and go this   way through uh the Parrot Avenue parking lot. And  what we're proposing to do also, it does, I think,   uh, provide for, uh, folks who want to  get to the Parrot Avenue parking lot, uh,   a shortcut from Court Street, but that shortcut  goes through private property and is something   that is not desirable. So, um, this is realigned.  And if you go to the site plan, I'll show you how.   What we're proposing is that the connection here  goes straight through and it ends up here with a   oneway and then um that jogging maneuver is taken  out. It allows for three additional parking spots   to be created in the Parrot Avenue parking lot and  it creates a situation where if you want to bypass  

and not go the correct way into the Parrot Avenue  parking lot, you're forced to go all the way out   to Parrot Avenue and back around. So, it would  discourage that cut through from Court Street. So,   that's something we want the board to  consider uh in the feedback tonight. Talking about utilities, municipal water and  sewer systems shouldn't be impacted by this   change in use. Uh storm water management drainage  patterns will remain the same. We'll have some   opportunities to add some increased storm water  treatment. Site lighting will be introduced on the   pedestrian corridors to provide welcoming and safe  pedestrian um experiences. Parking lot lighting   would remain at the same levels. site utilities  and and and solid waste will be handled with   um facilities internal to the building. Uh  solid waste that is and then um natural gas,   underground electric and communications will be  revised and there is a plan in your set showing   some of those utilities in um concept fashion.  Um, I think at this point in time I would go to   the landscape plan and if Terrence wants to  talk about the uh landscaping for a bit and   then we can go to the architecture and um look  for your feedback on this concept. Thank you. Good evening everyone. Um Terrence Parker from  Terra Landscape Architecture. So there's the the   proposed landscape plan. So, we're trying to um  maintain all the large trees that are on the site.   Um there are some tree removals in the back. I  don't if you know at the back of the fire station,   there's some big uh lindons there. Those are  going to be removed because they're on very little   pieces of soil and we're changing all that. But in  replace in replacement of the lost Lyndons on the  

back of the fire department site is there going to  be a little a parket park that the the large green   area on the the left side of this particular  drawing. And as John mentioned just now,   uh there's we're going to in where where  there's additional parking in the parrot   lot. Um there's going to be planting along there  too. Um with with some cutth through sidewalk,   not sidewalks, but paths, gravel paths. Um and  on the Pleasant Street side, it's all kind of   um you know, the traditional low low planting  landscape. So, it'll be lush and green on on the   bank side of the Pleasant Street. So, it's very  appealing to passers by because there's a lot   of foot traffic right there. Um, and along the  Parrot between the Parrot lot and the the main   bank and residential parking lot, there'll  be additional trees. You can see the light   green trees um on the lower the lower right  side there. Um, so wherever there's wherever   there's potential for green space, there's  going to be a lot of green space. So, um,   but the the key feature here is the the pocket  park that's on the um on the fire the fire   station side of the the lot and the preservation  of the large uh honeyloust and oaks out there. Uh,   so if you have any questions, I'll  be glad to answer them. Thank you. Hi there, Tracy Kako Architects. Um, this  is essentially two buildings connected by   a bridge. We are in the process of going through  HDC uh to define the characteristics and styles   of the buildings. But the way they're laid  out, the existing buildings on the left,   the new buildings on the right, that little  part in the middle is a bridge at the second  

floor only. Um the entire bottom level, both  old and new, is underground parking. The   um that's an upper level. If you could please go  back. Um yeah, that that's actually one more. Yep,   that's ground level. So at that's the underground  parking. It's all parking. We have more parking   than is required. Uh that's ground level. At grade  the um new building on the right and the lower   part of the existing building are bank. There is  one co-l livingiving pod at this level towards the   back of the existing building. And then the next  page um and the next page is the second floor.   We're calling the existing building A and the new  building B. So you'll see level 2 A and 2B. Level   2 A and 2B have a height difference of about eight  or nine feet. It's actually a full story, but   the building on the right, the first story is uh  has like a 14 foot first floor because the grade   slopes six feet from one side to the other and has  to be handicap accessible. So, uh the floors don't   align. Um but that's why we're calling it level 2  A and 2B. This is level 2 A on the left, which is   two co-living pods. Um and then the next page is  level 2B. That's higher. That's the bridge level.   The bridge itself is three studio apartments and  then the new addition is one co-l livingiving pod.   Uh on the left you see the rooftop of the existing  building which would be roof deck um and some   mechanical. Then the next page is the upper roof  of the addition and the lower roof below. Um we  

have a to so even if you called this one building  it's kind of not it's two buildings in a bridge   but even if it's one project we have a total of 55  sleeping units with four co-l livingiving pods and   three apartments. Um we have more than twice the  square footage of common area that is the minimum   in in the ordinance. So we've um we have uh the  minimum required common area for for everything   collectively is 5900 ft² and we've provided  almost uh 5900 we've provided 13,800 which is   um about 8,000 square ft extra beyond the minimum.  So these are very spacious units. There's a ton of   common area. Um same as the previous project,  about half the units have their own bathroom.   The units are oversized. They'll all have  the same amenities with the refrigerators   in the bedrooms as well as the oversized um  kitchens with double refrigerators and dining   for everybody. Uh common laundry in the basement  and uh um I can let Marie speak to any service or   management or other issues you may have. Happy  to answer any questions on the architecture.   Yes, Andrew. Um there are stairs at the bank  front. Is that correct? Uh we have um you kind   of mentioned it slopes down at Pleasant Street.  Yes. So there are two stair towers I believe in   the current design. There's a a new stair tower  addition on the west side of the existing building   towards the fire department. Uh yep. And then  there's a new stair tower in the new addition.  

So that star towards the fire department looks  like a substantial building. Is that accurate or   um it it it goes up to the roof deck, a full story  uh for egress. Uh we're required to have two full   stair exits from the roof. So um the existing  building, as you know, is a two-story building   and it's sunk down in a hill. So that stair  tower is just high enough to have that stair   come up on the roof. Um in the next rendition, I  think we're going to eliminate the elevator from   that stair tower. So the roof of it will be able  to come down probably about 3 or 4 feet without   the elevator overrun at that location. So by  the average grade at I'm looking at um PV 1.1 The average grade is for both buildings combined  over the whole project. It's not per building. Yep. So, yeah. No, I'm not disputing  the average rate. I'm just trying to   get a total height of that stair tower. Oh,  of the stair tower. Okay. So it has average   grade of 18 and a halfish and then another 20  25 and a half and then another 4 feet 10. So   just trying to ascertain. Yeah. So the the  north side of the stair tower the grade is   about five or six feet higher than the grade  at the south side of the stair tower. So I   guess it depends where you measure it. But if  you measure it from average average grade um

well it's it's uh let's see 11 and five. So  it's 16 well it's 16 feet from the roof behind   the parapit. Do you want to know how much it  sticks up above the roof? Please. Um well,   we're going to omit the elevator overrun,  which is 4 feet 10 on this drawing. And   it looks like it's approximately um  8 ft above the parapit of the roof. And again, that's for um a fire stair so  that you can exit the roof safely. Yeah.   And now I'm looking at the north elevation as  well. And it just sort of creates a brick wall   uh where there are existing residences on Court  Street that will be staring at that brick wall,   I think. Um and so we can certainly add some  windows in there. And I I don't think HDC has   even gotten around to the back of the stairwell  yet where um they're still focusing on the street   fronts, but we will certainly look at that. And um  we do like to put windows and all the stairwells   for safety and to encourage people to use the  stairwells. We can certainly add windows on that   side as well. Um and by eliminating the elevator,  it will um shrink in to the building probably   about 8 feet as well. And then on PB 2.1 um at  the front of the view from the Langden house.   Yep. Are there stairs going down into the bank  branch entrance? There are. It's not showing in   this view because we have the 3D city model from  the website um overlaid with our topo. Um I see I   think it it shows better in the landscape plan  than this 3D view. Um we I I'm just commenting  

on the handrails. Is that is that accurate?  Um there will be handrails um in the next   uh I think in the plan you have or at least the  next one we're looking at detailing those stairs   to flare out. What I'm getting at is just how  it interacts with the sidewalk really and the   setbacks and total interaction with the sidewalk  there. Y so yes that that will be those will be   important details. Uh we will show those on  the landscape and civil plans for sure. Um,   we are inspired by the way that the Langden  steps and fence meet the sidewalk. It's very   graceful and we're trying to u be respectful of  that. This building is more dimminionative than   the Langden across the street. Um, it's set  down literally down the hill from from the   Langden and we're breaking down the mass. Um, but  still trying to have an entrance at that spot. Any other questions? Yes, Tony. Um, probably more  for John. Um, that that ramp down to the parking   is is both two directions, right? Yeah. It's  the only way out. It's not in and out. Yes. Y um   and so the the users will ideally come in off of  Pleasant or Yes. Are you allowing for them to come   in off of um Parrot? Uh the one way is after the  um entrance to that. So I guess they could come   in off of Parrot. Yes. If they were coming from  that side of town. Mhm. I'm just wondering if if   there's a way if people come down this back access  behind the fire station and they realize the you  

know the Parrot Avenue is no longer accessible and  they're like, "Well, I'm just going to turn in um   to the to the this to your parking lot going the  wrong way." There's there's no angled parking to   tell them, hey, you know, this is this is wrong.  It's just it looks it looks like a welcoming left   turn there from those people. I was wondering  if there's a way to increase the barrier, allow   an exit out to Parrot by a left turn from that  parking lot, but prevent a right turn and um going   towards the fire station and then from the fire  station trying to find way prevent a left turn.   You get what I'm saying? Well, there is going to  be on the plan it shows do not enter signs. Uh,   so that would be the barrier in a way. Um, I guess  we can think about what you're talking about,   but I think it's a better situation than what's  there now with the awkward 290 degree turns. Um,   we'll think about what I mean, I think the people  that use this, it's it's probably an initial   problem as people form new habits of trying to  get through there. I'm just I'm asking you to   think about that. Um I don't have an answer for  you what to do. I was just wondering if there's   a way to address that a little bit. So you're  not welcoming that that conflict of a you know   it's it's a it's a significant distance from there  to the to the Pleasant Street. So I could foresee   you know two cars coming in and looking at each  other. Which one's going to move? Um, so just   just you know when you come back for the for the  uninformed and the and the deer in the headlights   it is 16 feet wide so they can pass each other  potentially. Okay, fair enough. If you Yeah,  

if it's still it's in my mind. If you if you can  think if you if you don't have a solution for it,   we'll deal with it. But um it's was just a  thought. And then um there was a comment made   about the ex the more parking than you need as  required. Um then why not provide more housing?   Um is it is it the paying paying reverence to the  building across the street and not wanting to go   up too tall the stories? Um there seem seem like  an opportunity to provide more housing on on the   site if there's more parking available. So,  u I don't know if Tracy wants to answer that   question. Uh it seems like you're damned if you do  and you're damned if you don't. I'm just thinking   there's plenty of guest parking. We're right next  to the Parrot Avenue parking lot. The history of   this lot is interesting because uh the first one  of the first uses of the of the 134 Pleasant as   it was a supermarket came in. God forbid. And  at the time, the grocerers downtown objected   very strenuously because it was right next to a  parking lot, which gave it a big advantage over   the other grocerers downtown. So, they wanted  the city to put a huge fence up between the   supermarket and the Parrot Avenue parking lot.  But anyway, before I turn it over, you don't   need to. I I I think we just, you know, parking  has always been an issue apparently. Um, and this   this is more just commentary. I guess I'm I'm a  little disappointed in our zoning in that we're   still allowing drive-through banks in downtown.  We don't. That's actually a problem. You need   You're going to need a variance uh by moving that.  We're not moving it. Yeah, you are. You're moving   to another building. Yeah, you move it to another  building. That wasn't an intentional tea up, but

Yeah. Yeah. The the lane is  remaining exactly the same,   but the window is moving to another  building. Is that the lane? The lane   is moving a little bit, but it's moving to  another building. Read read 10330 carefully. we will take that under advisement and uh maybe  we'll go back to moving it somewhere else like   we had previously and made them better. Anyway,  I did want to point out if you go back to the   existing conditions plan for a second what Andrew  was talking about. Um you're was talking about the   this part of the lot at one point uh I believe  and right now there's a retaining wall here. So,   this property is a lot higher elevations like 22  uh over the finished floor here of 14 and then it   goes down to about 17 here. So, this building  is sunken in a little bit already. Currently,   the dumpster exists here. So, for the people that  are living in this building, they currently have   a dumpster and uh parking. And if you go to the  landscaping plan, that's what Terrence was p   talking about. So that's all being replaced with  a beautiful pocket park adjacent to that. So just   wanted to hopefully talk about that to address  what you were might have been talking about with   how the site interacts with that portion of the  adjacency. Yes. Um I really appreciate you doing   underground parking. Thank you very much. That it  adds parking and we all know parking is especially   when you put it underground is lovely. Um I guess  uh I also love the fact that you're actually   cutting off that corner to Paradav and creating  three more parking spots for the city. We love  

that. Um the entrance that you're kind of moving  up closer to the neighbor to the north. I guess   my concern is that's I just don't want cars to  get confused. So, I guess just really think about   how that entrance is labeled because you kind of  have that nice circulation that goes around, but   back to what Con Tony was talking about, you get  the circulation around, but because people on the   other entrance are going to be on the south going  two-way, um, you know, the come one's coming out   from the drive-thru, it's going to get confusing  because then half of it's one way and half of   it's two-way. So, you really want to think about  what you put in there as far as maybe landscaping   islands or signage or just some way. Yeah. Because  you've got that ends one way and the other end's   two-way, right? No, this is entirely two-way. This  is entirely two-way except right here. The So,   how do you It narrows down. So, so these parking  spots are encouraged to go out this way because   they're all fully two-way. The aisle is is I  think the arrow makes that very confusing. So   So you can come up the ramp and still go in. No.  No, no, because we had to narrow it down to get   uh a full complement of parking spaces here. So,  how do you get out of the parking garage? So,   you would come out and you go this way. Oh, and do  you have an easement to do that? That I believe we   do. So, the the city fun picture. Yeah. Yeah.  Yeah. I think I included that plan in the when   the city sold there's so many plans the land uh  that the courthouse sits on to the state to build   the courthouse they kept access and in fact the  there are three parking spaces along that corridor  

that will be somewhat realigned. So to follow on  that thought, you say that lower half is two-way   so that people parking there can actually park out  and go back out to Pleasant Street. Yeah. But they   can't then and they can only go out this. So it's  really just keeping people from coming in there,   not Okay. Yeah, that that's kind of the idea of  that little keep out. I didn't fully understand   traffic. So they Yeah. So they're not using  as a cut through to get from Court Street to   Pleasant Street, right? Okay, I'm good. Anything  else for the applicants? Just really quick,   you had alluded to the deviations in  variations in uh elevation. Do you think   that warrants a storm water management plan or  consideration to the Butters? Absolutely. Yeah,   we we'll be doing a full drainage analysis. Okay.  Yeah. I think everything flows from northwest to   southeast. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Thank you. Yeah.  Thank you. Appreciate your time. So, no other   comments on the design at this point, right?  Okay. Handsome building. Great. Thank you. All   right. Next item is also conceptual discussion  of um request of met Metobrook in Corporation   as owner for Porsche and Porsche Chevrolet as  applicant for property at 549 US Route 1 bypass   requesting preliminary conceptual consultation.  This propertyy's on assessor's map 234 lot 51 and   lies in the gateway corridor G1 district. Who is  here to present this application? Good evening. Uh   thank you for seeing us. Um, we know it's been a  long day night. Uh, Alan Rosco from TF Moran. Um,  

I'm here with Corey Cowwell from our office  and with council James Scully. Um, so yeah,   we're here to present um our current version  of additional development being conducted at   uh the Portsouth Chevrolet on the Circle. Um, tell  you a quick story about how we got here. So we've   been working on this for quite a bit of time and  uh we came forward and had a work session with the   TAC group in July and the result of that meeting  was we were suggested to go to the conservation   commission and do a sitewalk uh to talk about the  open space excuse me the community space um that   was required for the development. Uh and from that  site meeting, we were asked to look at whether or   not uh the development site provisions would help  us um with this project. Um so this plan shows the   result of that analysis. Um the original drawing  um where the building is the main building on the   intersection uh that is shown as one building  right now but our initial plan had that as two   buildings to address the um building frontage  length requirement. Um but to an to analyze   the development site provisions we presented  this drawing and um we think that there's a   better way to do it. Um, this could work, but  it would require two variances. Uh, the two   building concept um puts us back into requiring  uh conditional use permits, but in terms of risk,   we think that the uh development option we had  presented earlier was be the best option. But   we're showing you this to show you where we are  and we can, you know, take the ball from there.  

Um, but uh we are required to have this meeting  with you folks and we're happy to do so. Um,   and uh, excuse me. And if there's any questions  on uh, the overall development, but it's uh,   mixed use and the main building will be uh,  48 units of uh, rental and mixed use on the   first floor. Four-story building, approximately  60,000 gross square feet. And there's a secondary   uh standalone structure which is proposed to be  a coffee shop uh adjacent to the main entrance   on the bypass. Um and that's um designed to meet  all of the local requirements for drive-throughs,   bypass lanes, parking um dimensional requirements,  and so forth. So, uh we do see the need to have   some conditional use permits here for um you know  the number of units. Uh but uh beyond that uh and   and some work within the buffer I should say that  about the wetlands buffer. Uh but beyond that   um this should be close to as of right development  as possible. Uh one of the benefits um of doing   this additional development um we're kind of uh  carrying on the coattails of the earlier project   that was uh approved in 2010. Um not all of the  project was built, but the drainage infrastructure   and the storm water facilities were. Um with this  project, we were going to have a reduced imperous   area that was already approved in 2010. So all of  the storm water facilities are already in place.   Uh and all of the utilities have been brought  onto the property, you know, water, gas, electric,  

and so forth. So all of those items are already  in place for us to do this additional development. Questions to the applicant? Yeah, Tony. Uh you  said you're going to need two variances uh with   this option. Yes. It'll be for building length.  You mean the number of units? Not variance. You   don't have to go with conditional use  permit. Conditional use permit. No,   we ex with this option, we exceed the building  front length. Yeah, that's in our perview though.   And I don't think you have to go before the ZPA.  Correct. So you exceed the building length. Yes.   200 feet is the maximum. Um, and if with with  one building, we exceed that, right? And so   you're going to have 48 units per building.  So you'll need a conditional use permit. 48   total. And then ask for you have to do workforce  housing for um number of build units per building   if we follow the development site provisions.  Yes. Right. This is this will be a development   site because it's more than one principal  building. You have three buildings on the site that that makes you have a development site. Okay. You have the this building, the  coffee shop, and the existing building.   I is the affordable the only option? I thought  they could provide a public benefit. Well,   if you do one incentive, if you do one  incentive, you have to do workforce   housing. If you do multiple incentives, you  have to do workforce housing and public realm.   But it looks like they're just doing one  incentive, the dwelling units per building. Um, and you did not have an intention  to do workforce, housing. Um, no,  

not at this time. We we had uh talked about  it earlier and we thought that the the way   to go would be just to do the conditional  use permits. in terms of risk, you know,   um just didn't seem like the uh  variance would be acceptable. Well, I don't want to speak for Peter, but you're  going to have to get a variance if you don't want   to do workforce housing, right? I mean, I think  they have to get a conditional use permit. The   condition So, they would get a variance from  having to get a conditional use permit. Well,   if they're not going to do affordable, right?  Then they that doesn't mean our we we we don't   have the ability to do we have the ability to not  require that. No. No. So that would be a variance   through the ZBA. Yeah. Right. But I don't know  how the zoning board would grant that when it's   laid out in the ordinance that the planning  board by condition permit shall allow up to   36 dwelling units per building. there. That's the  conditional use permit and that's the incentive   that then kicks in workforce housing and I don't  know that the zoning board would say okay you   can have a variance and I mean I'm just saying  yeah we none of us know we have this laid out   um yeah but you know we can have we can have  conversations with the applicant is not the   code worded that it's more than one building  is it or is it more than two it's more than   one Building building type is a development site.  So there' be a conditional use permit for that. Can I talk about something else? Um the traffic  flow. I'm just a little confused. You have this   bypass lane so that you can go to the drive-thru  or bypass it, but can you also just drive straight   into the parking area? This is, sorry, this  is around the coffee house building. Um,  

I just wasn't confused if you were forcing people  to go all that way to get to the parking lot. So,   it was like just one traffic going around  or is it two-way in and out there? Yeah,   it's going to stay the same way  operationally as it is now. So,   well, no, the cafe house isn't there. I'm talking  about the entrance to that building. Right. But,   okay. What I'm trying to say is uh when folks come  in the main driveway, I'm not talking the main   driveway. I'm talking like into that circulation  with the drive-thru. So, you have a parking lot   to the south of the building and you have a giant  line of cars going to the drive-thru, but then you   have that bypass lane going around the building  so they don't have to go to the drive-thru,   they go to the parking lot. So, my question is, is  that main entrance to that parking lot two-way or   one way? Are they just supposed to be exiting?  Are they entrancing and exiting? Two-way. Yes.   because people can park and walk in or go around  and and traverse and come back. So, you really   don't need that bypass lane is my point. Well, we  do by code. Have to actually. Yeah. And I I would   like to see a bigger bypass lane because I know  I'd be taking it if I was sitting in that queue. I wouldn't go if there was that queue, but that's  neither here nor there. that much of a queue in a   in a drive up lane, you're going to have some  potential safety issues because people getting   frustrated. And I've I've actually had a case of  an accident exactly caused by something like this.   So, I'd encourage you to put the bypass lane  all the way around. Not obviously past where   you order, but before you order. So, is it just a  matter of taking the curbing out? Yeah. Yeah. So,   not adding not adding more lane, but just giving  them the opportunity enough room to get out of the   drive up lane. If some a frustrated driver is not  a good driver, you're the 10th car back and you  

want out, right? Yeah. But you're locked in. When  you find out the person you ordered 67 sandwiches   with special sauce, you know, they're paying with  pennies. Well, okay. You tell them to go to the   front door when you do that. But so can we jump  back to the other issue that I was talking about   earlier? Yes. Because I think there's some there's  some history here that's important because as as   the applicant mentioned, they originally came  to us with two buildings. The the two building   concept would meet our zoning ordinance from what  I understand, not requiring them to do affordable   Right. Right. Right. Right. And um but it has  a bigger impact into the the wetland. It it it   encroached it more in the wetland. No, I think  they just had it it was just separated and they   just had two 24 unit buildings. Yeah, the original  version did show a small portion of the building   along Kley. Oh, to be partially within, you know,  8 to 10 feet into the wetland buffer. I think this   was a good faith effort saying, hey, this this  if we do one building, we're outside the buffer,   we get the same number of units, right? But  it kicks in it kicks in the the incentive   requirement because you're they can only have  24 units per building maximum. I think this   is a flaw in our zoning rights. Well, it's it's a  way to get workforce housing. I mean, that's Yeah,   but then they're just going to go back to the  two buildings and then encroach on the wetland. Yeah. Even so, it's an area that's  already been altered. I mean anything   landward of the wetland line you know was  worked within the past you know 15 years and we are pulling back uh that green area  you see uh that's new pvious area that we're   planning. So we're taking out a couple of the  spaces and providing an opportunity for landscape  

uh as well as pulling back part  of the driveway that's existing. So the area closest to the wetland is going  to be less impervious. A completely separate   subject. So if someone wanted to talk more. Okay.  Uh one thing I noticed on this with the existing   dealership remaining. Um of note to me would be  lighting on the site. Uh obviously I would assume   there'd be a lighting plan eventually coming, but  uh car dealerships are like the sun generally. So,   uh, I'm curious how much of the  existing lighting is going to remain,   how much of it has to remain now that you've  got, you know, many more people on site. Uh,   how that's going to look for for residents  and and everyone else in that area if you've   got the normal parking lot lighting  that's in a in a car dealership. So,   um, yeah, I'd be interested to see how you can  make that a more residential area rather than a   and it's mixed use obviously, but right, make  it friendly for everyone being there. Well,   understood. Yeah, at this excuse me at this  level you know we are considering lighting   but we don't have a final drawing yet and  when we do it will meet all the requirements. Yes, Bill. So I do do I understand the traffic  flow properly that three years, five years from   now the uh traffic light at Cottage and Klay is  going to be gone. And so the exit if you want to   come out of here going north. Uh you'll have to go  right on Klay. We're going to we've authorized a   cut through uh by the hotel there onto Borthwick.  So then you turn left on Borthwick uh back to the   bypass and turn left at the light on the bypass  and and the people that are going to stop for   a cup of coffee are going to do that. Well, I  can't control what the state is doing with the  

intersection, but if that does come to pass, then  that would be the route. Yes. Or they get back on   the by. But they could get back. Yes, they could  do right turn in and right turn out on the bypass. So that's not going to change. Yep. You go  south on the bypass. If you want to take   the cenic route and go through KI and  have a couple of If you're going north,   you have to, right? No, you could. Well,  you just get on bypass south and find a   business to turn into and turn around. Oh,  okay. You're already going south. You turn   right to go in. You get your coffee.  You turn right to go out. I think   he's referencing how to get back going north.  Yes. Y people going north going to come here. they have the issue regardless. So, yeah,  I mean, as will anybody coming from that   neighborhood. Yes. that um I just would  like to uh suggest that you make yourself   very familiar with the plans that are  going on because the city is um in the   process of not only doing that cut over road,  but they're replacing the culvert right there,   which is actually going to effectively cut  off this property for a period of time from   the rest of that neighborhood until they get  that fixed. And then, you know, the whole   ultimate plan is once that bridge is fixed and  the bridge on the other side is fixed, that's when   the light would be gone. But we're talking like  2029, 2030. Yes, we are aware. Yes. Thank you. Anything else? Thank you. I'm sorry.  I thought there would be more. Um,   still plans for the community path. Yes, that's a requirement. Well, is it there? So,  I went to the the uh sitewalk here um with the   Hong Kong and we talked about public benefit and  what the definition of a park is. It seems like  

again this site has all these little weird things  that are causing I think what are unintentional   consequences. I don't know that the neighborhood  wants the feedback limited feedback we got from   the neighborhood. I don't I don't think they're  excited about a walk behind their property here.   It's very wetland. It's um there is there is  some uplands where they're proposing it but   it's surrounded by wetlands and I mean I look at  it obje like just observer I'm like this is the   higher quality thing here is just to leave  it alone and it's it's almost a punishment   of having a giant lot that is mostly wetlands  wetland buffer that all of a sudden you're the   acreage requirement for the park is encompassing  the the entire lot not the buildable portion of   lot. So you could have a 100 acre lot that's 99  acres of wetland and you got to build a park that   based on the proportion of the 100 acres, not  the one acre of buildable. So um they could if   they you know if they have to do the workforce  housing if you get incentives you can modify   sections of the ordinance and they could ask for  modification to not have community space that that   triggers that ability to get modification from  the gateway section. If you do an incentive, how many units would it have to  be affordable? Um, well, it's 20%,   but projects in the past have negotiated with the  planning board. Um, that's the standard is 20%. Good for now. I'm good. I'm just pointing out the  observations. I believe the the issue we run into   is it's roughly an 18 acre parcel. And so using  10% community space here, it's roughly 1.8 acres   that we need to use for community space. A large  majority of that is wetlands. So we've had to go  

through and identify specific upland areas that  would allow for this community space to function   and work properly. And by doing so, one of the  ways that the only way functionally we could do   it is it does run back to those neighborhoods in  Kley and and sort of through their backyards. And   so if there was a way that we could avoid doing  that, both because we want to be good neighbors,   um not that we're unwilling to do community  space, we're certainly more than willing,   but we want to be good stewards of the property  for for those and and you know, frankly, most of   this community space would be in the wetland  buffer. Um which is somewhat counterintuitive   because we don't want to impact the buffer and so  our hands are somewhat tied as to what we can do. We hear you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. We have a request of PNF Trust of 2013 and  282 Middle Street LLC as owners for property   at 84 Pleasant Street and 266 278 State Street.  Requesting preliminary conceptual consultation.   This property is on assessors map 107 lot  7780 and lies within the character district 4   downtown overlay and historic districts. Thank  you Mr. Chairman and thank you for members of   the board staying up this late for us tonight.  Um this proposal is to merge four parcels into   one development lot. It was the site of a fire in  2017. So far, the applicant has moved forward and   obtained approval from the board of adjustment  for variations to building coverage, open space,   shopfront facade glazing, uh, a percentage of  ground floor residential use, and they have  

obtained a certificate of approval from the HTC.  The project is going to do some additional site   demolition. As you may be aware, the so-called  Times building was taken down. Part of 84 Pleasant   is coming out. Uh the facade though on Pleasant  will remain. The uh building development includes   though a corner anchor building uh in the location  of where the Times building was and it's basically   a replacement structure with similar features.  The use is non-residential commercial first floor   and then 17 dwelling units above and um just  going through the plans if we could Peter. Uh   this license plan is here because there will be a  section of cornice. uh the building is at property   line but part of the HCC approval uh based on  historical um accuracy and prior building uses   is to project a cornis up at the top floor level  that would be in the city airspace. So we need a   license. Next plan is an orthopoto view of the  site for your um uh for uh observations. Next   plan, existing conditions. Next plan, demolition.  Next plan. So this is the site plan. The building   occupies uh pretty much the entire site. Although  at the ground or first floor level, the corner of   State Street and Pleasant Street, there is open um  open knockout, sort of like the corner of Congress   and Fleet with the 55 Congress building. You'll  notice um off of Court Street, I mean Church  

Street, I'm sorry. Uh there's an entrance to this  parking level. So there are 17 units and there are   17 parking spaces and that is accomplished by one  lower level parking space here and then two bays   that contain eight parking spaces each. And I  guess I would like to point to the section of   the submitt that shows this automation uh parking  system. It's sort of a stacking system where cars   are shuffled around. So the car would come in,  they're assigned a specific spot based on their   unit, and then uh if you keep going, Peter, to the  sheets, keep going. that shows you the That's the   best one there. It shows you the the um sort  of tic-tac-toe shuffling system where there's   always a a spot open that would allow the cars to  be moved around. So, you come out of your slot,   then when you come back, it moves so that you  can go back to your slot. So that would cover   the parking requirements for the project uh based  on the number of units and um the uh fact that   it's in downtown overlay. If you want to go back  to the plans, um the board, you can look at the   architecture. Michael Keane, project architect  is here. Amos Blanchard, the uh who will be the   construction supervisor to uh maybe Michael can  walk you through that if the board is interested. Good evening. For the record, my name is Michael  Keane. I'm the architect for the project. Um, as  

John mentioned, we've been through, we've gotten  our HDC um, certificates. This is essentially the   same project that we presented um, I guess  four years ago. Uh, the um, those approvals   obviously expired. So, we we started down the  the path again. And then when the approval   for the times building um demolition came through  that sort of reset things for us a little bit. So   um this building is a little bit taller than what  we had uh approved previously and the reason for   that is that we wanted to build back the times  building in the same mass that it was originally   and we wanted to be able to carry the floor lines  over. So because the floor lines in the times   building were um unusually high uh in order to tie  things back together we we um raised the building   slightly to be to accomplish that. So we did  get variances for those heights um and basically   we've ended up back where we are now. So the block  building here behind what was the Louis restaurant   that will come down and be reconstructed into uh  new brick facade construction. the front facade   uh will remain. The storefront's going to get um  replaced. So, that midcentury modern storefront   will be replaced with something that was more  in keeping with what was originally built. And   you'll see that further down into the project  there. So, we've essentially tried to break the   building masses up um as they were originally  so that there were um smaller buildings in zero   lot line around the block. So we tried to carry  some of that feeling through uh particularly the   Times building the as you get down Church Street  obviously the building on the corner here which  

was two separate structures at the time um will be  more one one mass. the building uh addition on uh   Church Street does have a setback floor. So, we  we're um kind of take out some of the height of   the building as you go down Church Street,  which is a much narrower street obviously. Uh the lower image there sort of  shows the replacement storefront   uh in in the Louise building again taking out  that mid-century modern modern look there. The Times building as we represented  would be a reasonable fax simile   um to what was there originally except that  we did again find historic photos of the   uh the original street frontage there and we're  taking out the mid-century modern storefront   that was there and going back to something  that was closer to what was originally built. and happy to answer any direct  questions if you have any uh what is the total height of  the automated parking system? I guess the really the question is what how  much height do you have for it in two levels   to stack? We're going to go down one level.  You you'll drive in at the street level.   We'll go down one level which is about  six or seven feet and then we need   13 feet from the street level up above  that. So, and we do have that 20 feet. Bottom to top. Y uh I have a question as it  pertains to the entrance and exiting of that   car elevator. I do not know how wide Church Street  is. I do know that it's fairly narrow. Will people  

still be able to circulate through Church Street  from State Street? Uh even if people are queuing, um there's a couple of parking spaces out there  right now, assuming those parking spaces are   still there that you would not be a queuing line  would would block Church Street. We think you're   going to be able to queue inside the building  though because we got a 24 foot aisle there. So,   I'm talking about people entering the building.  Yeah. Yeah. So, so you'd enter the building,   you'd be able to queue up um inside the  building while somebody else's car is   moving. You got a 24 foot aisle there.  So, it's like any other parking lot. We are um we did go to TAC uh a week or so ago  and they did ask us to show turning movements. So,   we'll be doing a training movement study on  that to make sure that we can get in and out   properly and that we can maneuver around the  uh the queuing aisle within the building. Also,   the uh because there's only about two movements  that the maximum that need to be made here. Um the   retrieval time on your car is less than a minute  and you're able to do that remotely. So, the car   can be essentially be waiting um at the level  to be able to drive it out when you get there.   And how just curiously, how would people get  to their car? Would an elevator bring them down   to that level? No. The car would come up to the  drive to the street level. Yeah. Yeah. And then   and then and then you step into the system, get  into your car, and drive it out. How would I get   from my condo to my car? Oh, there's an elevator  or stairs. Okay. Yeah. Bill had his hand up. And   then one of the comments we had from the public  was about a location of I think a generator in   your building. Are you familiar with that issue  that they asked that it be located a different   place than you're apparently putting it because  it would have a impact on their business? We're  

aware of an issue with the transformer, not the  generator. The generator is in the building. Yeah.   Uh in the lower level, the transformer right  now is located um right where that cursor is. right here. Um that's really the only place it can  go. We can't that the request by the abuter was to   shift it down to this end of the building. Yes.  And that um impacts both the parking and access   to and from the building through the parking.  We don't think this is going to be a big issue   with with uh sound. This is enclosed on three  sides. There's a 15-inch masonary wall here. that should buffer any sound and it's it's  basically it's a transformer it's not a   generator. So um fairly low level noise that comes  from that. Is there any quantification of that?   We can get it a dB level from the transformer.  Yeah. Yeah. We can ask the utility for it. Those   are more like a clicking, aren't they? Like a  buzzing. There's a slight hum to it. Yeah. Karen,   perhaps you've answered my question. I'm wondering  if the power were to go out, how do you get the   cars out? Are they stuck? And the answer is Do you  have an on-site generator? We have a generator. We   have a generator planned in the basement. Thank  you, Andrew. Um the Court Street elevation image   shown here uh it shows the existing building with  the solar panels at the forefront and looking back   uh prior to demolition or what have you. I see  that there's an existing white wall there here.   Yeah. So, what is the delta from the top of the  solar panel to the top of your building? What  

is the height of that area? I couldn't tell you  off the top of my head. I guess this wall is up   for discussion. Part of our um certificate of uh  compliance with the HDC was that we we're going to   um take a look at this wall and try to break up  that mass. So, that's where exactly where I was   going with that. So we are so we are kind of we've  looked at options for it. Um we do need to go back   to the HDC with with options for that mass, but  what we'd really like to do is get input from all   the stakeholders so that we're not addressing  this issue and not taking care of that one. So   once we get comments from all the stakeholders,  we'll go back and take a look at that issue and   and come up with um with our proposal. Whether  it satisfies everybody or not, I'm not sure,   but we'll do our best. Yeah. Cool. I mean, it's  just Court Street is very beautiful. It's very   historic and sure it's a pretty underutilized or  underrecognized rather is probably the right word   uh corner of that building, but it is a large  space, large amount of square footage. So,   whatever it may be, I appreciate that  you're reaching out to those people. One   of the things we have done is we've eliminated  some of that brick. Uh from the HDC comments,   there's a there's a railing here. So, the easy  low hanging fruit was just to extend that railing   down and eliminate 3 feet of brick, but we're  looking at other options to be able to do more   there. Cool. And this this wall is um the letter  that referenced the transformer. Um the butter   also has some concerns with how that wall gets  built. So, we will um we'll be looking at all   those and addressing those as we look at those  other options for the uh breaking up the mass. Yes, Bill. At a late hour, a comment that  halfway between here and the last project we saw,   there's a uh there are three houses. One  of them Daniel Webster lived in in 1803  

or some such time. Please keep that in  mind as you make your marginal decisions. Anything else? Thank you. Well, I'm  sorry. Sorry. raising my hand again. Um trying to find the elevation where you're  budding the um the former hair hairdresser   outfit. Um y where where is that one ender  just were talking about right the court street   elevation. Uh I think he's talking about the  front in the rendering. What's your question? Um,   in the rendering, it's this wall right  here. There is a flat elevation of it in   the sec. All right. So, there's no there's no  windows in that wall. Not at this point. No,   it's a zero lot line. Yeah. Yeah. Making sure that  there was Yeah. Okay. Thanks. You good now? No,   I'm good. Okay. All right. Just checking. Thank  you very much. 11:30. Uh I would very gratefully   entertain a motion to continue discussion  of the zoning amendments. Yes. Move. Second.   Any discussion? All those in favor? I meeting is  adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you. Nice.