Planning Board - Regular Meeting

So, the HDC um has made a recommendation.  I spoke with the chair a couple of times   since our last meeting and um seems  pretty straightforward. Their idea,   which is probably apparent if you look through  the um packet of materials, was to try to stop   having it as many split parcels and having as many  parcels where the district just crossed the edge   of a property like a corner and as a result it was  in. So they tried to remove those one parcel um down off of Middle Road Nine Middle Road. I  reviewed that in particular and it appears that   wasn't supposed to have been included. Oh, that's  a mistake. Cuz I was going to complain about that.   You have a letter from the Oh, yeah. I read  it. We have a letter. I've had that letter for   a while. Um, map 152, lot 47. Um, the idea was if  properties fronted Middle Street, Lafayette Road,   they should come in and that one doesn't. I  actually checked not just the GIS. I checked   there's a survey of it. It doesn't abide. So,  and it's on Middle Road, not Middle Street. So,   exactly. It's on Middle Road. Now, that's a  funky intersection as we know and the district,   but I would think now with the newer change  where you have to come all the way out,   now it's really on middle road, right? It's it's  further away. And um the other thing Reagan,   the chair and I spoke about, there are other  changes that might we might want to talk about   as the master plan proceeds and we get some more  input from, you know, the consultants. But this  

was based on the the HDC's experience with having  so many people coming in and like I have to you   have to look at my house even though it's you know  this corner of my property that just touches you   know so they're having issues and variances and  problematic things. So that's the explanation. It   seems pretty straightforward to me other than that  one removal. But so with that there'll be no ads,   no properties or ads in in entirety in it  would just be adjusting either removing it   from or including in its entirety. I think that  was the only ad, wasn't it? That was the only ad   in the district. Yeah. So would it be like no no  additional people affected by the by design or the   There'll be some coming out several who are coming  out. All the orange up here will be removed. Yeah.   Then the yellow are currently in, but they're  just they're they're going to include the whole   lot. There's a long list of people getting taken  out, but no one's going to which when you have a   split lot like that, how would you deal with it  now? Would they if they built on the backside   that's not in the HTC, right? If it I think it  touches the building, we include touches the   building. You have to comply. The whole building  has to Some of those foot parcels are already in   like that one with a sort of pointy end. Yeah.  Yeah, it's already in. Yeah, it's already in.   Mhm. The only other thing I would bring to your  attention is this going down um Newcastle where,   you know, the whole thing was to try to include  the whole property. Um they didn't include the   whole property for this lot. That's purple. They  just kept the line straight. It's still a split   lot. It's still It's still I mean it's half in,  half out. And the house is in the district. Um   but and we have the yellows there which are  an expansion of the district. Yes. The lot  

the base lot is already in the district. So it's  not adding lots to the district. Correct. Well the   first 150 ft of the lot on the frontage are in the  district. There are no lots that now we'll be in   that were not at all in before. Right. Right.  We take the green one. We're taking the green   one out. Right. What's the argument behind this?  I mean, I'm looking at that the big yellow lot   and the kind of be right there like if your house  is not abudding if the house where you where you   place your structure is not abuing any historic  property, what's the impetus besides saying   that's the next conversation that I also had with  Reagan. Um the way to really do this in detail,   especially now that we have street view, you  can sit in a meeting like this and go building   by building really it shouldn't be parcel based  in my opinion. It should be based and when it was   first installed, the only way to do it building  base would be to walk it with a map, which should   be pretty difficult. Thought that was already  done. I thought every every historic property was   identified. They've got I forget all the different  criteria that probably knows it's contributing.   They do a survey. Yeah, I don't know them off  the top of my head. Two different There's two   different surveys that were done. I didn't catch  all of the district. Most of the district has   surveys that were done. Okay. I have a question  about the white lots near all the yellow lots   that are facing the street. So, those are in and  those are Okay. They're just not being affected.   That's why they're not colored. Okay. That's why  I was confused. Traffic is confusing. I was like,   "Wait, why?" When I first looked at the other  one with all the orange, I thought all those   are coming in. No, those are growing out. That  part I got. So, what does it mean when they want   to do a ADU on that lot? They can if they have  a single family home, they can do an ADU, but  

it will have to it'll have toform to Yeah. It has  to go to HCC. HCC and architecturally Yep. conform   to the existing structure. it'll get reviewed  by the HTC and you know they do their thing. So   should be a context of the neighborhood. So can  I just follow up on Tony's question? So Reagan's   answer was that this was to move to full the full  lot as an easier mechanism. Is that basically how   she described there? You guys, she said there  was a lot of debate at THCC about this and some   some members were very vocal about not wanting  anything to come out, but after a lot of debate,   they agreed on that and then they thought it was  important. I'll just say what she said that some   of these parcels that are split that they should  all come in because of the way the lots were   configured. And I asked if they if they went lot  by lot looking at it. She said they did. Yep. So,   question for staff because I can't remember. Has  this already come to first reading or was it just   referred out and then to comes back for first  reading just because there won't be time for   us to take this up until January no matter  what. I think let me see. I can't remember. I don't remember uh referred to referred it  to the planning board for recommendation. So   I don't think Okay. So is not so we won't  pick this up till January no matter what.   I' I've got a question that is kind of a  processed one that Eric's letter uh kind   of kicked it off for me that we've got some we  had somebody that was going to be put in or out   uh and they weren't notified apparently ahead of  time. And so we've got, you know, dozens of pieces  

of dozens of property owners who property of the  the value of their property will go up or down.   uh they may or may not like the restrictions on  what they can and can't do with their property.   Uh when we have a a site plan review, we are  required to notify of others and certainly   anybody affected by it. Uh it seems like this  time in this circumstance we don't do that.   Uh which I'm surprised at. we do at this at the  when the when the zoning is changed. So this is   the preliminary background to get there. This is  the point at which decisions will really be made.   So well not really and actually because of your  email and I I'm sorry to let you know this. Um I   have in February I talked about a possible zoning  amendment process change and that I think would   tie into that. Some communities have a different  process where the planning board process is more   formal. Instead of just going seems like a good  idea, planning board has to go through a checklist   of things like does this conform with the master  plan? Will it affect the budget in any way that   we know of? Is it in conformance with the studies  that Peters had done which are always ongoing and   changing all the time? Uh, and it's a whole  checklist of things. I've got it with me if   we want to look at it. But in communities that do  it that way, the planning board recommendations   which to the council then becomes much more of a  informed document and some communities I think do   is one of them. Um the council then only has one  hearing but the planning board can have a hearing.   Way it is right now our our our meeting is just  like tonight. It's informational discussion and I   don't want to keep people out but where the now if  let's say we make a recommendation on the historic  

district now the council have three readings on  it so you have a hearing here then you have three   public input sessions of council that's a lot of  public input so and the HTC has had their go at   it also already so so the expectation is that the  people who areffected ed by this will be conformed   as if they were invited in our normal process  and they'll have an opportunity to go to the city   council meeting to make their comments. Correct.  Not us here. But if we if we change the process,   we could have a hearing here, maybe have it be a  two hearing process, one hearing on council that   it's it's a charter change. It's a big deal. May  not be a charter change. It's definitely a big   zoning change and I haven't discussed it with all  I've discussed it with um Kate and John at one of   our other meetings and they they like the idea  but I haven't discussed it with Douglas haven't   discussed it with the other counselors. So, it'  be good for the property owners to get there or   in the water before the train uh mixed metaphors  get gets too far down the track because by the   time it comes out of here as a comprehensive  recommendation from us and from the HTC to the   city council, it's they're probably not going  to be picking at one property or another. So,   earlier in the process would be better for the  property owners. It's a point well taken and your   email reminded me of the earlier that I just  haven't brought back and I discussed it with   these guys. It was back in February, believe it  or not. Um, so we can take up that conversation   again if the board would like to. Do we notice at  first reading or second reading? Second reading   is a public hearing, right? So they don't notice  until the actual second reading at city council,   but if they've heard about it, they could come  to the public comment. They can absolutely. But   if there I'm just talking about when did the  individual notices go out to the public and  

and to the true people that this affects. So  we have an applicant that or a property owner   that's a little more dialed in than others  who picked up on hey why you're changing my   property. State law for zoning changes does it  require notification? Depends on the number of   people affected. If it's 100 or fewer, 100  or fewer, you have to notify by certified   mail. The city does it anyway, I think,  for zoning changes. Yeah, we typically do. I think it was missed. Wasn't it missed on  the property out by the church a few years   ago? I don't think it was missed. I think it's  that it was it was noticed, but I don't think   it was noticed. I don't know. How did that one  go? Did we not notice every individual property   owner? Which one? on the the Christ Church. Oh,  no. Chase Street, the G2 reszoning. I think it   was there was a notice gateway. I thought there  was I think if there's over 100, then you know,   you put notice in the paper, but you don't have  to notify individual property owners. If it's   under 100, every individual property owner gets  notice. We definitely not necessarily a butters,   just the actual property owners. And that's what  I think sometimes people don't realize. It's the   property owners who would get the notice, not  the abuters to those properties or tenants. For   tenants, so how's the board or anything here  on I was just going to say how's the board   feel about the HDC recommendation with that one  change? It's fine, Penny. I'm good with it. So,   we make a recommendation to council in that  regard. Do we have to wait till our meeting?   Yep. We don't have to, but we should. Oh, yeah.  This is a meeting. I know I was late. What was   Sorry. What was the one change? That green is  not going to be included. Good. Okay. That was   my only question I was the greenest. I walk by  there almost every day and I I read that guy's  

email and I said I concur with every word of his  email. I don't care that at all. It was It was a   mistake. It was basically a mistake. Just testing  just testing the town. See if it helps. First   thing I discussion of this in the context of the  master plan. Yes. Um the consultants have reached   out. They want to have regular conversations  with me and I know they're having regular   conversations with the gentleman on my both sides  of me. Um that'll help me inform the board more   what's actually taking place for meetings.  But yes and uh HTC is very interested too. whole component of history in this city is a big  issue to me and I think it is for most people. So   I think it's to be addressed and considered  the master plan along with everything else. Um what is this what is the designation of  this historic district based on? So, like   when I helped get a neighborhood on the historic  register, it was based on it was a trolley car   designed neighborhood. So, this historic district  seems like a broad one. What is it in in terms   of They have a designation like a trolley car  neighborhood, but the historic district was it's   it originally was a historic district A and B.  Um, but they've done two different studies of the   entire historic district. So there's listed on the  natural register. Most recently when the bridge   um memorial bridge was redone a new study was  done to look at the historic district area and   the houses in it and they have rating of each  one. I don't know about a specific basis for   the historic because that would obviously street  car make it different on what's a contributing  

and what's a yeah yeah have to get in the nuts  and bolts of the report that I think I think   the list is in the statute that yeah you can when  you can create an HDC all the requirements are in   the statute I'm pretty sure yeah because we have  um properties that are on the register but not   in our HDC correct the historic register  is a totally different animal right now. Yeah. It's it's a it's a historic area,  not necessarily a street car neighborhood   like I've seen those and similar things in  other communities. Yeah. I mean because some   communities will just use like the 50 years  rule and so you know this area of town is   over 50 years. That's California. Yeah. I mean  I was in college in Florida. Florida also kind   of used the 50 years rule because that's all  you know that the part of Florida I was in   that's all they had. Um but I was just wondering  what kind of force it was using. I've heard from   people who were on the HTC back when it was  an A and B and they said it was so much going   on they couldn't keep up with the meetings and  that's why they cut it back. What it's worth. So, the gateway reszoning. Um,  folks had a chance to look at that. Wait, we're not going in order. Oh, I'm  sorry. I parking was next. I went to B   without looking at A. I was like, wait, are we  not going order? Am I going to have to go find   that? Good. Good catch. So, we've talked about  moving parking to site plan before. I think the   board was in favor of doing that and and I've  started working on like and you know importing  

it into the site plan and then how you know but  it's kind of a lot of work so that yeah we have   to do it such that there's not a time period  where there's no parking regulation at all.   So, so that's the general purpose of doing  that is to give us more discretion. It's more   flexible. The planning board can um act like under  subdivision regulations, we can wave things and   modify things very easily with a board vote. Same  thing with site plan. Can't do it with zoning.   Conditional use permits. There's some flexibility,  but not as much. Has to be spelled out specific   criteria and those criteria have to be met.  But in a site plan rig or a subdivision rig,   it can be based on the specifics of an application  that you know, you can't think of everything when   you're writing regulations and something will  may come up and if an applicant has a good   argument for something, it allows the board to  address it. It also allows us to look at things   differently outside of downtown to downtown. So,  it gives us market flexibility based off of a per   project basis and streamlines it because now we're  not having all these conditional use permits or   um variances based off of parking, right? Because  the other thing about a condition use permit if   an applicant doesn't like the result or in a  butter has to go to court whereas with the site   plan variant reg site plan interpretation there's  an argument it can go to ZBA. So it it gives more   flexibility keeps more thing keeps things more  local. So, we've added a couple hundred parking   requirements downtown without adding any physical  structure for parking. Uh, and this will make   it easier for us to exercise judgments to allow  parking. What do you mean we've added a couple?  

Can you clarify that statement? We've added a  couple hundred. Well, the co- livingiving uh has   125 units and Oh, no. That's not 125 units. It's  125 occupants. Occupants. Okay. But you said you   said parking. You said I think you meant units or  people. He said parking and I was 125 units there   plus others in other places. I think there's I  just would like to pause for a second because   I think there's a part we're doing a misjustice  to this board by some by stating some of these   things. There's a parking demand in those projects  right now. There there's not a new parking   Right. Demand is that that building has occupants  and has people using facilities, right? You agree   that building is occupied and has people using  parking, right? And engineering planning science   tells us that residential use is less impactful  than commercial use. So I I just I'm I'm I'm being   nitpicky here because I think this enters the  public realm and people have this conversation.   They said they just, you know, the planning board  just approved this demand and all of a sudden,   you know, what are they doing and I I so I'm just  that's why my I don't mean to No, that that came   up during the review of that one Congress Street  project. I brought that up because it's time of   day use as well. That as well. Yes. So, and the  parking garage has more availability overnight.   I know it wasn't your point. I apologize,  but I just wanted to address this in that   particular project did not ask for or receive  a conditional use for parking. No, we wrote   it into the right. It's not required a certain  certain number of feet of park. Yeah. Yeah. So,   sorry. Go on with your point. But do keep in mind  those offices, a lot of those employees all do   have pass day passes to the parking garage.  So that will really make our parking garage  

more flexible if they're not using all of those  passes anymore and we have other people coming   in. So yeah, I don't want to reitigate it. I'm  sorry, Bill. No, no, that's fine. So much fun. But it is important we don't put  this information out into the public. So anyway, it will allow the planning board to  address things a more flexible manner. You can   literally do things almost on the fly depending  on how the site plan get rewritten. That's what   is being worked on. The some of the stuff from  the land use committee wasn't completely accurate.   It's not going to be the uh panacea be all end  all, but it will make housing committee. You   mean housing committee will make things easier. I  can't keep the committees all straight. I'm sorry. All right. Anything else on that? I've been all  for it for a long time. This comes up at every   meeting anyway and then we have to tell people  in the public we can't actually do anything   about that. So, I feel like it's not well right.  The fact that we require parking places where we   shouldn't and we don't require enough where we  probably should have more and this is going to   give us that flexibility on a per project basis  to decide what parking really. Now they can tell   us like we're going to have this many people.  We predict this is, you know, based off of the   engineering and the science behind it. This is how  many parking spaces we're going to need for this   project. And they can show it and prove that to us  so that we have that information to move forward   with. It works both ways. You can we already  have maximum parking, but that is something to   consider in some locations. Like look at the  Walmart parking lot. It's way overbuilt. Way   too much parking. That's just something they do  resources. Apple does the same thing or something  

there. They need some out parcels or something  of that property on the street. Yeah. It's an RV   park. That's what it's turned into. Yeah. Pave it,  they will come. If you pave it, they will come. So true. So true. I think  now we're on the gateway,   right? Yes. You are in the right order  now. That that confused me the way it was. So this is more deal. Question I had is who who will have authority  over determination of infrastructure complete?   you know, having the satisfactory infrastructure  for the for this project. Well, TAC would be TAC   TAC. They're the ones that review it before  it comes to us, right? So, they'll let us know   whether or not that's their decision right there.  It ends right there. They just they recommend to   us whether or not they have we have the capacity.  But to pick up on your and especially now that   we have Wednesday's meeting also on capital  improvements plan which infrastructure is one   of the issues. Um it's it's not inappropriate  to ask for tax to respond to something like a   resigning request like this and this would put  excess burden on infrastructure. I haven't heard   anything like that but you know yeah I don't know  that we don't have the capacity but I was wonder like like south Lafayette you know border ry the  system's really challenging there challenged there   with um infiltration and so on the sewer side so  any any big development down there would probably  

you're probably going to hear DBW say you know the  development is going to have to do something to   the system. Yeah. Well, the go node also that's  got issues with u yeah the way the piping ran   through the wetlands and all that. It's need  some upgrades out there, right? There's going   to be some major changes to the upgrade to try  to service these areas. But it's a good point.   I mean, it's something that's constantly going on  at PPW to revise their studies, revise their work,   and raise more monies from the developers as they  come in. you know, the 3,400 Lafayette Road and   Friends Nest project at my sewer study to move  to move, you know, to move north like 20 sewer   station down there is pretty pretty overwhelming.  So, they have to build capacity. That's what   we're a lot of that is taking away infiltration of  groundwater, but also building new pipes. That'll   be what happens on it. G9 goon zone. Yeah. Right.  The developer is going to pay or do a lot of that   work. And the right the Christmas tree shop.  They upgraded the water line along Woodbury just   recently for that project. Yeah, it's happening  right now. Does everybody know what infiltration   is? What they mean when they say that? Is that  water getting into the pipes? It's getting water   is getting into the sewer by drainage water.  Basically cleaning ground water. I learned about   it the hard way. I was saying adding to the burden  of the treatment plant. Yeah. Right. You don't   want your sewer treatment plant to be overwhelmed  every time it rains. Plus, if it's bringing in   silt and rocks and all that, it can clog the pipe.  You're going to have to go in and jet the jet the   pipe to clean all that out. Got backups. When you  have the city talking about these sewer separation   projects, that's exactly what they're talking  about is they're coming in and they're taking the   drainage and separating it from the sewer so that  we have separate pipes for each one. Back in the  

day, it was one pipe. Piscata river and we destroy  neighborhoods trying to do this great work. So the question on these going to gateway is that  um it started with the housing committee having   a a longer list and they agreed on a half more  or less and they've gone forward with the half   and now asking for the second half. It actually  started more like 3 to four years ago in land use   committee. I was actually the one who originally  looked at a huge swath of properties and proposed   a large pile of properties and we as a group  went through each and every property and made   a decision which ones we thought would make a  really good move and those are the ones that   have been done. Ones that we thought needed  more conversation are the ones that we're now   approaching. So So they didn't make the first cut.  uh land use actually made the first cut and that   was all done during the land use time frame and  now housing's like okay let's go back to that   and let's take a look at those other properties  especially with some of the changes in the state   law it seems to make a lot of sense that we now  take a look at these additional properties that   they talked about and others if there are some  were there any learnings from having uh approved   a subset of the total that can be that should  guide our thinking about getting to the balance   that that it did generate some projects. Yes.  Did definitely generate some projects. Um and I   know one of the conversations came up at land use  committee three years ago was changing industrial   zone property. And you know, industrial zoning  is more of a historic designation and a lot of  

true original industry like the pike plant  I guess would be the closest thing we have   to real industry in in town. Um there'sn't that  much of that anymore or there used to be. A lot   of what is you know there's a lot of assembly  use that sort of a thing happening in different   communities around potentially I guess because  a lot of it moved to peace and a lot moved to   peace. Yeah. Yeah. And we can't do housing  at peace, but they can do that at peace. So,   I think a lot of it there's been a shift as to  where our industrial true industrial uh folks   are these days. Housing at peace is another  conversation. Totally a separate conversation.   Can we talk about what the different shadings  mean in this? Oh, that's the zoning. Yeah,   I understand. But what you know, we have You're  asking you have the yellow line. Yep. Is that the   district that that is actually the um corridor  from the master plan? So when the the current   master plan had these gateway corridors? Yeah.  So this is just showing that this property is in   that corridor. Um okay. So bottom left from where  you're pointing now, it's outside the yellow line,   but it's shaded yellow. This is uh SRB, single  residence B zoning, which is yellow in all our   zoning. And then this is wetland and wetland  buffer. Correct. And then and like the orange   up above is um so the yellow line yellow, right?  And the yellow line comes from the master. And   so what is in this in this image? What is being  added? This partial that's that's office research. So on the maps the prop partials that are labeled  with their map number, their current zoning. This   is where the hotel is right now. Yes. Okay. And so  that would be office research and that would will   convert that to gateway which give them an ability  to convert to have residential use there. Yes. A  

bit more flexibility but yet it'll still allow the  use that's there. And that's kind of the point of   gateway is to allow more flexibility in the uses.  They don't become non-conforming. Right. Right. So then if we go to the next map, well, it's  the hotel and office buildings, right? It's all   one lot. Yeah. So this is Morona Road. This that  orange is gateway two. And then across the street,   industrial. Um so this is the intersection of  Morona Road and Beverly Hill. Yep. There are three   properties here. Um they're all zoned industrial  and proposal was to just make them gateway 2. So   you said that Portsouth didn't have a lot of  like heavy industry. So we're not looking at   like if we go from industrial to something else,  there's not going to be a lot of like issues with   the land. So like toxins. Yeah. Dirty, anything  like that. you know, you're not looking at there   being a bunch of chemicals that just used to  if there are, they have to deal with it. But   I don't think there have been historic industrial  uses on many of these properties. I I don't know   that that would motivate us either way because  where I take it you're coming from is like,   hey, we don't want housing here because there  might be dangerous soils. But I think the more   appropriate way is if they find there's there's  steps they have to go through to determine if   there's hazardous soils of phase one, phase two.  Um then they clean it us. Yeah. I just want to   make sure that we we would kind of be aware so  they can't come back to us and be like, "Oh,   we're so surprised because when we bought this  parcel, it was designated as this." We didn't   know it was industrial at Yeah. That's sort of  all of Portsouth. No one no one savvied develops   in Portsouth with that with us saying, you know,  oh, this is what the zoning is. There's nothing  

that was ever there. I mean everything it's 400y  old city so it's and not to mention these lots are   right next to a wetland so there's a whole lot  of stuff that would be done there just through   the state let alone the city question more on this  one is being next to Pike Industries I know we've   we've received a lot lot of feedback regarding  that proximity are we opening a can of worms   here we what do we think it is it is down a rather  steep hill there I mean it's cuz I was wondering   myself why not this spot across the road because  it's actually the paint shop and the hot tub thing   that are next to Pike and then there's the road  this big drop off and then those other buildings   I but your buffer you're keeping those two in  or those two properties in rather than so the   only ones would be on the other side of the right  my thing is they've got kind of a triple buffer   there with properties road natural feature seems  yeah I mean normally you want to have the zoning   similar across the street, but this is a  good example not to do that for the for that   reason. So, isn't there a isn't there a daycare  down there somewhere? Actually, there is. So,   you're suggesting it's it's over here. It's  close. So, the yellow is from the master plan,   but we're not talking about changing this red.  It's just the partials that are labeled. Oh,   yeah. Just the parcels that are labeled. The  graphic is about the third time. I'll understand   your color chart for the maps. Yeah. So, it's  basically the parcels that are adjacent to the G2. Um, now this these use I don't you know I  think some of these are auto repair. Yeah,   Benza auto body is in that corner right there.  And then and then there's a plumber I think that   takes up one of the buildings. And  then there's a glass place. Sorry,   I spent a lot of time in the neighborhood. glass  place. Been to the glass place many times. Yeah,  

the rental place is on the That's in the the  rental place is actually already in the G2. Oh,   okay. That's right. Yeah. All right. What's the  first lot of the G2? I think that's where what the   shanty or something is in that strip building and  then the I really do spend a lot of time in this.   I'm sad that it's nice to get stuff forget. Well,  my office is on the other side of the wetland.   The auto repair uses a conditional use permit,  but they would be they'd be grandfathered in   to continue what they're are doing. There's  no there's no pressure on the current uh uses   owners that comes from this. No, no, no. This  comes from a a blue ribbon committee. Yeah. I'm   I'm saying I'm just thinking for the people that  own the property now, if we change their zoning,   it doesn't cause them to have to change  their use their grandfather to do what   they do. Right. Correct. So, not I'm not against  these, but I think it's warrant of discussion.   that's been typically in the city, correct me if  I'm wrong, Peters, um you know, when you have a   site that's fully developed like those paved  right up to the property line buffer, you know,   oftentimes I've seen that a new development comes  in and they're granted an exception to build   within the buffer because they might be improving  a current situation. That's pretty common,   right? It's usually what the the commission or  the planning board ultimately asks for is that   they do some improvement to the buffer. If it's  all pave right up to the edge of the wetland,   then that improvement becomes almost easier in  some ways because it's re removing pavement.   But yeah, they're not asked to start from  scratch like this. This is an untouched site.   the the even though the ordinance says you're  completely in the buffer and we have to count all   that as impact. The the goal is to try to reduce  the impact to make it a workable project but then  

with less impact in the buffer maybe enhance the  buffer at the edge of the wetland more. So that's   typically how it works. Is there any um is there  like a do no harm, do no worse thing? I mean is   it is it they have to improve it or can they just  say hey we're going to keep the same? What you're   getting at is another gonna say Rich gonna jump in  any second. My point being is like say just gonna   draw a line in the sand. Right now they're they're  100 feet past the buffer which is the buffer,   right? Yes. And is is the current use of  restaurant and retail with 100 feet past   the buffer better than fourstory residential 50  feet past the buffer? like how does how does one   I think the use isn't looked at as closely  by the conservation. It's it's really about   the impervious surface impacts and the amount of  open space they're able to keep on the property.   So areas they can take out of pavement, areas  they can plant vegetation, those are much more   important to them than the size of the building or  the use in the building. Okay. But I can see them,   you know, giving pause to industrial use in the  buffer that wasn't there before. But I don't know   that that's in the regulations anywhere unless  there's some sort of transfer of materials that   happens as part of the process. Two things. One  is if it's redeveloped, they've got to go through   the whole process. They're going to improve  their look at their drainage and look at they   probably improving all of that which is probably  ancient and just dumping stuff into the wetlands   and not getting treated at all. Yeah. So that's  going to be an improvement. uh all that's going   to happen. But to Peter's point, what we're doing  in trying to say do no harm, make it better. Our   regulations don't actually say that. That's  something I had at the end of the agenda to   talk about if we have time. I don't I don't know  that it it it is derain to our discussion here,  

but it's interesting from a a developer point of  view, a property like this, there's three values.   There's three potential projects, right? there's  a project that's without that is fully outside the   buffer. That's the that's going to be the value  they're going to try to tell the the current   owner I want to buy it at because I'm going to  be restricted to this. The owner's going to say,   "Hey, look at I've got five acres of land. I'm  paid right up. You can use this entire land." And   there's somewhere in between. And so again, that's  that's just the reality of how this stuff gets   developed. People are going to some developer is  going to look at this product and say, "All right,   how much can I get?" You know, beyond the green  line. If it's green, everybody else agrees it's a   green line. That's shows you the buffer. Yes. So I  think it's important people to I think it's might   um you know it might enter into your realm of  thinking of how you think about this stuff. Now   embedded in this proposed change was changes from  minimal lot area for dwelling unit. I wonder where   those values came from. Did your committee work  come up with those? I mean, what we're supposed to   talk about later was part of this. No, I'm jumping  ahead again. You jump. I'm like I'm not I I can't   remember until I look at it. I think it was a  maps. Yeah, we get through the maps first. But   that those changes will affect these these changes  if because they go together. But they weren't   there. No, those aren't gateway. Okay. Yeah,  they're more about Yeah. general. All right. Yeah,   that's Lafayette and what's that size? Lafayette  and Hoover. And there's currently an eight unit.   So this these lots have been merged. Oh, this is  the old uh vet clinic. Yes, my old vet clinic.   Yep. And there's a 8-unit building going up. Yeah,  it's already been approved and being built. So,   and it's currently zoned MRB. And one of the  discussions at the land use committee even  

way back then was these older zoning districts  that we have like maybe 10 acres in total of MRB   MRO business. Wouldn't our zoning be easier  if we just didn't have any of those? Yeah,   we have that be streamlined in itself. We  shouldn't have office research in my mind   anywhere because it doesn't make any sense in  today's modern complicate our zoning ordinance   anymore than it right. So deleting some of these  would be really handy. That's why I've always   been pushing for us to office office research.  Yes, it's an office research district and we've   gotten rid of a lot of it but not all of it. And  all it allows is basically like medical research   and offices. Sort of like peas. Yeah. Which we  don't need cuz we have peas like but it's what seems very like particular and maybe a  little almost too particular. So real   Massachusetts has made a lot of money with that  in recent years. They become I guess like what   used to happen on Route 2028 around Boston.  They've become an office research center. And   uh because they've sucked it all in, there's  not much of a demand for it. It's not so much   about what's going on in the site, it's what your  butters want to be next to. Yeah. Yeah. It just   seems like a very specific zone that you could  happen driving here. Thank you. Did not buy today. Not to diminish the importance of housing in  any way, but part of what makes the city great   is the ability to have access to these types  of properties to start a business, operate a   business, and as a resident to have access to  a painter, an auto body, a plumbing supply. So,   as we're replacing these with housing, you know,  what what what is what's the long-term vision for  

well those things? Are people now having to cross  the bridge to I mean, I would say they're we're   replacing with a mixeduse district. So, a lot of  those uses are still permitted still permitted,   but now competing with Yeah. But with the value of  the land and I'm just randomly picking numbers at   the, you know, a commercial is $6 a square foot  and residential is $20 a square foot to sell   it. You know, they're going to be relevant.  That's what they're going to do. Um, yeah,   I I I hear I hear what you're saying. You know,  sort of trying to predict the future here. Well,   yeah, predict. I think you just did, you know,  $6 and $20. You know, there's those are those are   random numbers, but but there is a spread. Yeah.  And and zoning aside or permitted uses aside,   you know, residential is going to going to win  the day. That's a good point. And I think we're   seeing with what's happening, it's just a nibble  in the edges of the gnot. There's a huge demand   for housing out there and it's valuable. They're  going to make money with it. And I tried when I   had the sitewalk, I was asking the woman in charge  of things with Kane what what their long-term   plan was. she wouldn't reveal it, but they're  looking at all that existing commercial property,   redeveloping it, and I think it's going to be a  lot of residential. So, that's also something that   could have affected the downtown because in the  current hot residential market, the legislature   was considering something at one point that  would have uh required allowing residential   on the first floor and commercial districts.  They didn't get passed. No, it didn't. that got   struck. Got struck. Okay. And that could be a real  problem in downtown Porsche because you know the   condominium market is very hot or was I assume  it still is. I don't know you you'd know but   um the markets other you know the market goes up  and down but when the residential market's way  

up high if the first floor downtown converted to  residential that would be terrible for downtown   Portsouth. Other downtowns have done that. some  downtowns have done that then you don't have   the walkable enjoyable city we can go down for a  while and then this tangent but you know taking   back what I said a little bit I think there's  there's like an eb and flow and that if there's   a lot of housing gets developed there going  to be a need for your coffee shop for your car   dealership for your auto body shop and so being  a mixed use you know someone would fill that need   I'd also like auto body and residential are you  guys familiar the same are you are you familiar   with the Portsouth Green, which used to be the  Southgate Plaza. That is an ideal example of what   the Gateway was trying to create. Businesses  and residents all living harmoniously on the   same lot. And that's what's going on down there  with their apartment building and now the new   uh condo building. It tends to there's a product  associated with that. Wherever you go, you're   going to see the same businesses. Well, we're  not trying to get rid of the businesses. We're   trying to plumbing supply store next to Sage, you  know, see an opportunity for somebody to go, hey,   I'm going to start a business and operate it on  this property. It's it's controlled by a developer   and it's like we have that particular one, but  it's the idea restaurants and these stores and   these work. The zoning behind it is the same and  it could be adjacent lots. It doesn't have to all   be one lot. The idea is we don't want to get rid  of all the businesses. We want to mix residential   in with the existing businesses. The more mixed  use districts do create more opportunities. It is something to keep an eye out. But  more property tax. What are the property   tax implications of this proposal that we're  looking at if you have more housing in these  

areas? So right now the commercial properties are  uh assessing very low especially office buildings.   what's on the commercial side assessing high value  are apartment buildings. Those are the high value   um better for the tax base. So, if you can  take a strip mall that's probably not very   well taxed and build it up three stories and  put housing above it, you're going to get a   much more robust tax commercial tax into that.  So, it definitely helps the tax base to do this by increasing valuation. Correct. because some  of the valuations, especially for my office is   an office park. I have a 720 foot condo. I pay  $1,000 a year in taxes because of how low the   value is. I think it's valued at like $90,000. So  that's where offices are right now is they're very   low valued, which is one of the reasons why we  all talked about the co-living and the conversion   because that's going to be a much higher valued  commercial use that will help expand the tax base.   which is one of the things the city  desperately needs us to do. And has   that pattern uh apartment buildings being more  valuable held true for a long time? Uh well,   it's the most recent uh assessment that came out  in 2024. That's where I'm getting this information   from because the most recent assessment  just done is that is the highest valued   um commercial projects aside of you like Alonza  Biologics, right? You know, you're you're talking   about a super large business. You can't really  compare that. But when you're comparing, you know,   a strip mall or an office building,  you you really can see the difference. All right, I got off track, but I  think it helps the conversation. Um, so four properties, sorry. One is  off of one is right behind Walmart. Um,  

yep. It's currently zoned industrial.  And then there are three just off   of Lafayette on Heritage Avenue.  The storage units, storage units,   which are not permitted. And then um that  one that one lot behind the uh plazarehouse building 55 Heritage. Is it the one  you go and you buy all those little   cute things? The fasteners. Yeah, that's  what I was thinking. The fastener place.   My husband took me there once. I  was very overwhelmed. The guy that   used to be somewhere else in the city and  moved over there. Shackles. He's great. What's that tree area right behind  the storage buildings? Down. Right.   Right. Right there. Yeah. Johnson's um I think  that's part of the slot. What? Oh, here's buffer. Low hanging fruit. Yeah, I believe that's  where the old Fisher thermopisher. Thank   you. Thermopisher was I was like the something for  sure. It's a pretty one. So did my neighbor. Yeah,   I mean they could use housing there.  Nobody in that factory lives in Portsouth,   right? So if we allowed them, maybe  they'd build a housing building,   right? Nobody. No one I know there open  space, right? It's a a big enough lot.   It might be worth considering adding that  lot to this conversation. So these are the   ones that Yep. But click on the other one we're  talking about. Yeah, this one. Yeah, that one.

Yeah, eight acres, right? But  there is enough room outside   that parking lot that they could  build housing for their workforce if we allowed them to do so. Hanging fruit to me. Add that one to the conversation, Peter. Sure.  Either Peter. So if you took these criteria and   and you went west on heritage, uh would you not  find more properties that would fit this thought   process? What is in front of the um Yeah.  Right. sort of just down heritage behind the   um storage units that these those  that one and the that one those two. You have to go to the  picture for us. See whatever. Oh, FW web. There's your plumbing supplier. This is I think that's offices. I think this. Yeah.  Priia is what thermal fisher they sold their   glass business to and I've heard of is it like  an office building and then like a glass cutting   facility which is and the building to the  northwest of that is key collision up here   the lower one right right that's key the the  one north of it that's that's all thermofisher  

that's yeah extrusion alter alternatives.  Sorry. If other people could use the chargers to answer Bill's question, yes, you could probably  I think I think the language committee was looking   at the next lot in, you know, the adjacent lot in  from the whole theory behind the first cutoff was   we were trying to when we first did gateway,  we did it one lot down the road and so the   swath that we wanted to go one more lot in to  expand it, but we didn't talk about going down   the Cyprus very much, but that can be part of this  conversation. So, there's also a question of what   belongs here and what belongs in the master plan.  Uh, so in in the master plan, can we recommend   that this these criteria be extrapolated out into  further areas in that southwest quadrant? Yeah,   that's something that they're looking at already,  but yeah. master plan won't get as specific as   saying this should be reszoned but is there a  need for industrial expansion of the gateway   should be considered and this would be a good  area to consider it and I think they can consider   whether or not industrial districts are useful or  does some of our gateway districts already include   the uses that are being done and used in the so  I think that can be a question for them to look   at yeah I don't want to see us at this point  jump into those areas that cuz I'd like to,   you know, picture each one of these individual  parcels turning into a apartment complex, which   answers the housing need, but it might not be  community wise the thing we want to build. Like,   so we might want to implement some standards  if this were to open this area up. I guess I'm  

trying to figure out what standards are you  talking about? Like what? Give me an idea.   Well, they're all connected, right? So, like let's  call it like eight parcels that are probably six   acres each. I don't know. I'm just throwing out  what looks, you know, you're talking about going   beyond what we've already proposed. I'm saying  let's not go beyond what's being presented   here because I think there's probably my my gut  instinct without putting a lot of planning thought   into it is that I don't want to see the the green,  you know, plumped over and over and over again.   I feel like we're not building community at that  point. There should be some connectivity for the   thing. So maybe this could have an incentive.  It's like you can do this, but you know,   we want to see the where the where the border of  the properties meet. maybe some community space.   And so just thinking about in planning science  rather than just having being all right, you know,   this this sixacre lot turns into a complex and  sometimes they call it the Texas donut where they   you have a parking garage and you surround it with  a built with a housing. Um, you know, I would just   I wouldn't want to see that six times out here.  It would answer the question of housing, but is   it is it really, you know, building community that  we that I'm assuming the master plan's going to be   picking up. I'm riffing here. I don't know. Then  does more housing answer the question of housing   like just more more? And it does by by numerator  and denominator. Yes. But but what was the corer?   There has to be more of a a vision of what housing  and community looks like in Portsouth than just   more cor should should gateways change itself.  you know the gateway zone which we're talking   about changing the zone into gateway within the  gateway criteria there could be changes there as   well make things more flexible or not as we may  want to push forward I suggested that other one  

just because I see I look at the storage buildings  and I'm thinking that's probably generating a   lot of cash flow and I have a hard time seeing  anything happen there in our lifetime but that   tree area not being used was not wetland Maybe  something could happen there. How long has the   red been a gateway zone? 2017. This was 2017. Has  it? There was a gateway. 2017 was our original   and then 2023 was the expansion. Yeah. So 2017 or  2023, depending on which area you're looking at,   we expanded it. So in this six years later, six or  seven years, it hasn't all turned to housing. that   no other use. There's a lot of owners that could  care less and won't change what's there. Not not   everyone wants to live near the Walmart parking  lot. So, I think some of some of the market will   dictate, you know, whether or not something  actually Yeah. I mean, I know there are some   that are going up like near the Market Basket  that I'm like, they're looking at the Market   Basket parking lot. Like, that's your view. So, I  do know that, you know. Are you talking about over   on Woodbury or Lafayette? Lafayette. Oh, the Five  Guys, the place. Yeah, those are all rentals. So,   so it is happening, but I I don't see them being  able to get like super expensive condos where your   view is the the Walmart parking lot. I will  say I think there is some market that does   help. Use the last three years as as a litmus  test of whether the pressure to develop this   The interest rates have made it very difficult  to develop. Yeah. And so there's lots in this   city that I know people are looking at to develop  and they just can't get the numbers to work. Yeah.   And so the second one of those things changes,  you know, things will go. But they said 2017, so  

I mean I'm I'm thinking of a at this point eight  years of time. There was co in there too. So Well,   yeah. So I guess it's maybe the last even eight  years is a tough and it always takes people a   while when you first create a new zoning like  gateway for people to truly understand it and   want to take advantage. The ports of green was the  first place. In fact the their first building was   done before we changed that to gateway and then  we changed it to gateway and then they built the   second one. So, they were probably one of the  first in that area at least to take advantage   of the gateway zoning if I remember correctly. In  order to be productive tonight, do we want to add   that one more district or do we want to stay where  we're at? Uh, district or plot? District or plot.   Should we add the blue or leave it? Sorry, the  plot. Do we add the blue or leave it the way it   was? I think add the blue because that is the  one lot that actually has room on it and not   add any of the others. Just that one. I'd like to  leave it until the staff had time to look at that   area. My personal thought is it's very flexible.  So I would add it because you're not you're not   forcing anyone to do anything they don't want to  do. So it seems you know no one no one's getting   you know evicted from a predia there by changing  that to gateway. Is this getting decided or we   just put it? No, I'm I'm just saying I'm hearing  enough. Maybe we put it on for a vote when we have   the Yeah, we'll vote it when we have a meeting.  We have the meeting. I'd go for it. Okay. Moving on. Okay, that was it for that. Yep. Now  we can talk about the conversions.

No, I want to talk about something  later. You always do. Just kidding. So, this section of the ordinance would  potentially open up a lot of opportunity for   infill or um use of existing big big buildings,  houses, right? But let's start the conversation   with where we did at the housing committee which  was many many meetings ago and it was around the   fact that we have so many we have like over 60%  nonconforming um based off of lot area. So if we   actually drop these down it's actually going to  make a lot of the zones it's going to make them   way more conforming than they are right now.  And that was where this conversation started   and then it it bloomed into talking about the  conversions as well. But that's I just wanted you   to understand that we we really did think about  it but we actually had lists in front of us and I   don't have them right here in front of me now but  we were looking at 50 to 60% in those districts   don't meet the minimum these changes what did that  how did that change with the like most mostly area   dwelling lot area per dwelling oh no but with the  change how many of those non-conforming become   would become um I didn't look at that um because  this shame on you well I can I can you can bring   that to the meeting when we talk about Yeah.  Yeah. Um this was just if you're going to if   you want to have if you have a big house that has  like six room bedrooms in it and you want to um make it into a multif family then you could  reduce your lot air per dwelling requirement   and that helps with that. Um so it wouldn't be  across the board in the district reducing the   lot area for perwelling requirement. It's just  only if you're going to convert. But right now   it says a pre-1980 structure, right? Um and then  you could you could take a you could reduce the  

water patrolling requirement. Um not for new  construction. Not for new construction. And   you can't you can't increase the footprint. You  can't increase the height. Has to be existing of   the date of the ordinance. You can only and  you have to meet parking. You have to meet   open space and building coverage. And the only  thing you can do is add anything for egress. So   if you had to add a staircase or something that's  required by the building code building department   in SR and SRB as well. Well that so currently  it's allowed in GR GRB GRC it what's in black   and so you found the what's in there now Peter the  text up above it that's the what happens in that   conversion. So currently in those pre-match 1980  buildings you can do it if you comply with those   requirements but it it's very limited in where  you can do that. So this expands that ability six zones we're talking about. So this is like  one of those many ways where we can create more   housing without actually creating more building.  Yeah. I don't live without changing the I don't   live in SR or SRP but I would love that. Where's  J You wouldn't want that to change. Want that to   change in those zones. What's the reason?  You have to have some you have to have some   differentiation in zoning, right? That seems  to make everything kind of the same in the   city. Like you can have a multif family right  next to right in the street with single family,   but it keeps it looking the same. I guess  that's the point of this. It's it's one step   in that direction, but not a full completely  dive in. But that that's fair point. It's a   changes the density in that neighborhood. So,  uh I think you have to maintain some of that.   Um so the neighborhood across the street like  Lincoln Miller, that's all GR and this kind of  

light yellow. Stark yellow is SRB. This is  GRC. Um GRB is over here. And then we have SR is this lighter green, I guess. Is  that It's more of a beige. And then uh Oh,   wait. We call that beige. It doesn't  match theoretical for the south, right? I mean, you could if  you didn't have build if you   didn't meet building coverage or open space. So, this is qualitatively different  than whatever else we've done. The   the um it's a big change. There's a  creative tension in the city between   uh needing housing which everybody agrees  to and retaining the character of the city   which everybody agrees to and and so how  you reconcile those two requires you know   quite a bit of thought and wisdom. and the the  gateway says it's okay to do it, but not where   people live in the average middle class uh uh  Portsouth community. Uh and the we've increased   the population 10% in the short time I've been  on the board for the stuff we've approved. Uh   mostly in tall apartment buildings in places  like the HB uh site. Uh, this says, "No, no,   we're going to go where the people of Portsouth  live and we're going to put in a building next to   you that that was once a single family and you're  now going to have three families there." Uh, won't   change the physical appearance, won't change the  uh the parking because it'll have to be on site,   but but fundamentally changes the character  of the single family housing neighborhoods  

to have what used to be single families now be  multifamilies. I I I don't disagree with that. I   just I think it's a hugely transformational  step that needs to be taken with caution. The three areas, four areas primarily  a lot of land area. You have any idea   how many buildings this might involve? Um well,   first you got to see if they're conforming.  Um and then if they meet, you know,   the dimensional requirements for open space and  building coverage, they can accommodate parking. Well, I do I can provide um that what I  provide to the housing committee about the   district non-conformities and look at how many  buildings are on in each district. That's easy   enough to get. I'm in agreement with Bill. I'm  a little I was thinking of saying, can we make   it a conditional use thing, but man, are we going  to just have inundated with applications? I don't   know. because I'm sure there's houses there's  structures where it's like it wouldn't be a big   impact but there's definitely going to be houses  where there is going to be an impact areas where   people limited parking and but I think what  they're saying is you can't do it if you can't   provide the parking you can't change the footprint  of the building with the exception of like if you   need to add like a fire staircase or something.  So the appearance of the building is remaining the   same, the footprints remaining the same, parking  still needs to be provided. If you have, you know,  

whatever the parking is for three apartments, you  need to make sure you can provide all that. Um,   so I think there are a lot of buildings that  actually couldn't do this because, you know, they   can't do the parking, they need to make too many  changes. So, I I don't think as many people are   gonna do it as we think. Um, and also having grown  up in old houses that were apartments converted   because that's how my mom could afford to live  in a middle class neighborhood to get me into   good schools. I I see the value in this. young  families. Portsouth is losing young families,   young people because we can't afford to live in a  big old house. We can't afford to purchase them.   I mean, I'm sure I think Beth you said they're  over a million dollars at this point. Like the   average housing price median in Portsouth is  between 8 and 900,000 if I remember correctly.   what 25year-old, 26 year old out of college,  your teachers. I mean, I see this as a way to   get some of those people who we keep talking  about us losing primarily young professionals   into neighborhoods where they're going to want to  raise a family, where they're going to want to be   part of the community. I struggle with it because  I I hear your point and and I think I said at the   last meeting, there's no way to solve this housing  problem with a without a little bit of pain. Um   but the scenario that I've seen play out is um in  my neighborhood, you know, somebody three families   living in one house and they're all related and  you know, and then they bring in someone else to,   you know, rent the back. They do an ADU and  there's always been enough space in the parking  

lot for all those three families, but now it's  like now they're strangers and they're like,   "Well, I don't want to be blocked in even though  I have a parking space." And so they start parking   in the street. They park, you know, and so you get  the neighborhood who feels like they own the the   public street spot in front of their house, which  they don't. And and it just changes the dynamic.   And so that's where I think the reality of is that  is that we have to decide where we want the pain.   be okay with with stuff like that happening. Um  I don't have the answer for it. I just know that   and the answer to some of these can be that this  should be a conversation during the master plan   versus moving it forward. Yes. So I like that  that the other thing to think about is it is a   change of character and if you think about like  at the end of Richards Avenue or Ruth Griffin's   property is I'm sure she's passed away. I'm  not sure. I heard there might may be developed,   but you take a property like that with a large  old home with a lot of land around it and if they   wanted to do an inside conversion to multiple  units but conform with parking, which again   remember we're moving that site plan. So that  would be a different conversation for us. But if   we had parking requirements, what's now sort of a  neighborhood open space becomes a parking lot for   those additional units. And on a smaller scale,  not a lot as big as Ruth Griffins, you know, and   I've had this I've had a butters complain about  clients converting things. Even one guy want to   put in a greenhouse in the neighborhood complain  because it was they called it plant factory on on their plant factory. Really? Should have  done. God forbid those plants are stealing all   our oxygen. Yeah, that's classic. Noise. Noise  from the plant factory. Noise from the plant   factory as they grow plants. Is it like the smelly  flower that they're growing? It was the fan on the  

end of the during hot weather, but they don't  make a lot of noise. So, it is I like the idea   of maybe getting a little more study on this one  because I'd like to see it sketched out. You know,   really looking at some which is more than we're  going to get I think. No, this this one, you know,   this is a big this is a big one. And some of  the corridors, but as you get into like the side   streets and so forth, like not not not as much.  And yeah, everything Ryan said is indisputable.   Um, right. But but there has to be there has to  be some preservation of the character of these   neighborhoods and a blanket reszoning to just say  you can now make this into multif family. If if   one goes, the one next door is going to go, the  one next door is going to go, the one across the   street's going to go, and it's just going to start  to change. And before we went down that that path,   I think a lot of discussion and a lot of planning  would have to happen and it would have to be   agreed upon by like everybody the residents of  the city, right? Well, I am curious on on that   front. You know, uh I don't live in any I mean I  live in I think a single residence neighborhood,   but you know, it's not like there are a lot of  vacant houses in Portsouth and people pay good   money for most of those and want to stay. So,  I'm curious. I don't think there's any way to   answer this question, but when you point out  that like one's going to change the next one.   I'm curious how many people are actually  going to want to change their own houses,   I think it would be relatively minimal, but that's  just a guess. The thing I would like to see is the   houses that are unoccupied by a out ofstate owner.  You know, it's the fifth or sixth house that they   have and we have plenty of those all over. They're  not going to convert to multif family. Yeah,   they're not going to convert to multif family.  They're just going to sit empty, right? So,  

any way to address that? This this won't help, but  I would like to see something done somebody living   in these these there are investment firms that own  a lot of housing in the United States. Yes. Just   for income purposes and I could see that just  being an attractive way to make more money. So   we have to keep that in mind. The actual numbers  here are very small though because the opportunity   is small. I would assume those high property  like I think a lot of those companies will go   into places where property values are a little  lower so they can buy up a lot. I would assume   the the high property values might there's that  but it's also opportunity you know there's not a   lot you can do if you look at our existing zoning  there's not a lot you can do but if if and that's   why we need to understand and I'm not saying I'm  against it I just want to understand it better so   there's a to me there's low lowhanging fruit in  this chart and that's the mro 7500 square feet   that just seems so big to me per unit where does  that come from I don't know cuz I if you've ever   know my house I'm in the GRC and we're conforming  at 3500 square f feet and that's a big lot. How   big is your lot? It's conforming to the GRC so  it's approximately 3500 ft. Nice backyard. I have   a giant backyard and a two-car garage. I mean  the mix the mix the MRO the O I get the 7500.   I get that where it comes from, but the  R like really you're you're limiting,   you know, 7,500 square feet. This is  that's a lot of space for a living unit. Anyways, so maybe there's parts of this that make  more sense than others. Maybe we'll move this   one to more more data onto I do have this doesn't  really affect anything but just for clarification   I'm looking at on page 59 of the packet um  it says like what's multif family mean and  

it gives like two definitions um is that relevant  to what we're is that in reference to a different   uh statute or is that in reference to uh  what this would be affecting you say 59 yes   of the overall packet going way ahead.  I stumbled across it. That's the Yeah, no, this is the um state allowing  multif family and commercial zone land,   right? Yeah. So, this would that  be affecting this potential change? I I didn't read into the statutes themselves.  I just saw right there in this specific thing   he's talking about how it's defined differently,  right? Um in in for multif family homes. Yeah.   Versus workforce de so workforce development  housing has its own definition of multif   family is what they're saying. But the RSAs  do define multif family as well and they're   just slightly different. And the point is we as  a city define multif family as three and above.   Okay? Like the statute. Um they're saying if  you're doing multif family, you need five and   above in order to really incorporate. And I  think that's the idea of if you got three,   you can't probably want more than two. That  would be workforce housing. So I think that's   where they're they're getting the numbers and why  the statute's written that way. We don't actually   conform with the statute but the workforce  housing statute multif family for site plan   but we can change that. Yeah, that may be part  of the change we proposed with parking change.

All right. So I think we've talked  about this. So we're good with going   to move it to the master plan. You're  okay. Move it to the master plan. Are we into mechanical mechanical? We don't  want, you know, Rick to get off target. So,   got to tell them what's coming next. Are we  on 3A? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. So,   this was several months past um where we  changed fences to 8 ft and then we deleted   the section on HVAC units um because  we are seeing variance after variance   request. Um and looking in other places in  the ordinance where it was mentioned but not   um you didn't actually delete it. Didn't  delete. So this proposal was to delete the   definition delete that reference in the definition  of building coverage and then in consultation with   the fire department and inspections department  they're fine with you know your HVAC units having   no setback but specifically for power generators  they require a 5ft offset from openings and they   feel that having a 5ft setback from lot lines  would be consistent with their their regulations   for that. And that has to do with the fumes that  come out of them, right? Solar power generators. Those exist. It's a thing. It is a  thing. We skipped the um problem is   that some places define solar panels as  generators because they generate power.   What's the rational behind going from six  foot fences to 8 foot fences? It's already   done. That's already done. I'm not going  to argue it. Please don't make me. That's  

already been It's only inside in rear  yards and it's already been changed. I'm not relitigating it. I've already I'm  not asking you to. I'm asking. So it it 8   feet was adopted, right? It used to  be 8 feet. We reduced it to six. We   went back to eight. That's all I'll  say. It was a It was a big argument. I think it's terrible. 8 feet. It's horrible.  It's on one and I really like eight and I would   like a fence. So, I do appreciate it. It's  the same time we changed and we allow sheds   120 square feet which side of the sun you're  on. If you're on the shade side of the sun,   it sucks. the new neighbor puts up an eight  foot fence and I I I think I'm I think it's   terrible part of the ordinance. But anyways,  most people can't afford 8 feet. Yeah. Well,   that's a problem in this town. A 48 foot fence  in this town for sure. Plenty of foot. I don't   know. It's terrible. 8 foot fence on top of a  twoft wall. So the proposal is just right in   this block to to strike that and then to just  add the other the purpose of the ordinance   mechanical systems are not considered structures  but any power generator must be set back 5T from   any lot line to be consistent with fire code.  So but you have in here HVAC power generator   etc shall not be considered. So you're saying all  of not going to be considered a structure. So,   we don't count it against building coverage, but  it's got to be set back. So, you're considering   all all mechanicals have to have setbacks. So,  just power generators. Then I think this reads  

a little confusing. So, these things shall not be  considered structures, but any power generator. I   think we have to find a way to say it's just way  to do it. The way to do it is to have a definition   of mechanical systems. Yeah. I I just feel like  the way it reads and I get what you're saying,   but the way it reads, it doesn't I don't think  it's clear enough for the average Joe. Power   generator. Do you just mean like generate or like  are we talking about solar panels or like I think   we're talking about gas powered gas powered  gas powered generator generators that you   use when your power goes out. Okay. And they're  really loud and they make a lot of fumes. Yes. Because what if they're portable power generators?  Is that have to meet setbacks? We can wheel it in   and out. I just think we need to think about  how we talk about that a little. Maybe I'll   look talk with fire and inspections, see  if they have a definition. That would be   awesome. Generator and exempted mechanical  systems would just do a definition of that.   So it's you put etc in an ordinance  that's kind of like a lawyer's full   employment I think. What else could I fit  into that? What else is etc. etc. etc. Not hard. Then we get to talk about solar again. We didn't have to talk about solar until Logan  got on here. I thought we were done with that   and then we got very busy and here we are. It's  because we've been holding it all back waiting   for your arrival. I did mark up some comments on  this. I don't know if anyone got a chance to look  

at those. Just uh as a note and I would say my  overall opinion is that generally these are all   very good as written. Um just there's a few things  that in my experience uh I've seen a lot of zoning   in a lot of different towns across the country and  sometimes I can see what they're trying to do and   they've written in a way that just makes it very  confusing. So most of these are are quite good.   Uh my comments mostly revolved around like where  where we came up with some of the percentages or   sizes which in some cases end up in my opinion  kind of like accidentally punishing you for having   like a small house rather than a large house. Uh  which applies mostly to the roof mounted thing   really. Um like the if it has to be mounted  on a roof, the definition being less than or   equal to 100% of the roof is kind of redundant  because you can't be bigger than the roof by   electrical code and fire code and a variety  of other things. Not that we can't say that,   it's just unnecessary and then you have to put a  lot more stuff in your plan. So you can't put a   solar panel that overhangs a roof. Not per No. uh  there's there's required setbacks for firefighting   uh in the electrical code and the fire code both  at the at roof peaks at roof edges depends if it's   a flat roof or a pitched roof but in all cases  there are setbacks but I thought that the reason   that we put the 100% in wasn't to so much limit  it to the edge of the roof was to distinguish   between a roof mounted system and a standalone  um when you're getting into providing solar power   beyond just the capacity for the property. I think  that maybe was what it was about possibly. I mean,   the only thing I see here really is that we're  saying that it has to be equal than equal or less,   sorry, less than equal to 100% of the roof over  the principal structure. My concern being, for  

example, if I had an attached garage and wanted,  you know, so that principal structure is smaller,   I'm limited. And if I had an attached garage,  I would be able to put more solar just by way   of having a breezeway. It's sort of weird and  unnecessary to limit it that way. The roof, the   available roof structure is already going to limit  the size. So, you shouldn't say principal. Yeah,   we could just say existing roof area or something  like that. Area of the structure of the structures   on the lot. Yeah, these all assume that modern  solar panels. What about like the Tesla panel   like the thin film like roof building integrated?  Yeah. So that that sorry I should probably not   use terms but building integrated generally  refers to like shingles that are part of the   structure. Um I honestly they're very uncommon  because they're expensive and hard to use but   um again I wouldn't want to limit that. And if we  just said has to fit the structure and it doesn't   really How many roofs are covered even close to  100%. I mean for res if it doesn't face south   it's you're not going to put panels on it, right?  Uh, you could, it depends on what you want to do,   but you have a you could have a a monoss  slope roof. It's really more Yeah. So,   you're thinking pitched roof specifically,  but if you have like a flat roof building,   you could p it any direction. It's really more  down to how much energy is being consumed by the   building. So, for roof mounted, you really wanted  to say equal to or less than the roof less than   the roof area of the structure on the lot or the  structure. Yes. Yeah, that would be very simple. accidentally limit someone with a small house.  Yeah, that makes sense, right? I don't necessarily   And for G, I just wasn't sure why we limited  to a 25% specifically uh when we're looking at  

the institutional residence or care uses. I've  actually done quite a few solar installations   for nursing homes, things like that, transitional  care. So, for residential, this is not a problem.   They're never going to be that big. doesn't make  sense. But for something like a nursing home,   uh, for example, um, there's a few in town  I can think of where they could probably,   if I had to guess, cover their entire  parking lot with solar panels and still   not be making enough power for the building.  And but because there's no other definition,   they'd be limited 25% of the footprint even if  they're going over already paved areas. So you're   talking like panels that go over parking. Is that  what you're saying? But that's would be the same   treated the same way under this under this it  would. So So there should be a difference between   commercial and residential or is it the is it more  of an accessory structure that needs a conditional   use permit? I thought that's what generally  it would but we've gotten into this thing here   because this applies to both residential and  institutional residents or care uses which you   know I understand why they're in the same these  are accessory uses to residential uses right so   for like a single family home this isn't doesn't  really apply it doesn't crash it's never going to   but um yeah the kind the 25% I assume we chose  was just to be somewhat to be accessory. Yeah,   to be accessory incidental and not but again I  just from a personal perspective I'd like to see   that driven by the electrical usage of the site.  So if they use a lot more power for providing   for their residents or whatever institutional  need they have. I don't say we'd want to limit   them. So should we do a different definition  if it's ground mounted in a residential city  

setting versus a commercial setting? Well, if you  look at the tables, if you get onto the table, um I think this is what it was getting at is this  ground mounted solar, it's got a conditional   use permit. So, insulations that exceed the  footprint area of the principal structure on   a lot or those installed as a principal use is I  think why they limited that. Oh, so if you were   over if you're over the footprint area, you need  a conditional use permit in those zones or you're   not allowed in other zones, but but there's  no like there's nothing in residential. Well,   you have it in S SR and SRB Sural. So, it does  what we're talking about. It limits it residential   and allows it permit outside. Yeah. I guess  this for the earlier bit was really more about   why we've limited that to 25% of the footprint of  this structure. Again, if it if that's necessary   to be an accessory, it's probably not a huge  deal. If we're talking like single family,   it's not a magic number, but it was meant to  be accessory supposed to be incidental and   not transformative. So, that was that's where  it came from. That probably makes sense then. So, for your nursing home, get a conditional  use permit and you can make it bigger.   But in residential, you're limited to 25%. Off  the building, you know, New York. Yeah. And then   my only thought on the table was just there  were a few there's a lot of zones obviously,   but there were a few where uh no questions on the  residential areas, but um some of the character   districts or other areas. Again, this isn't going  to apply to most of these places. It's not going   to make financial or logical sense, but again to  do ground mounted specifically the the carport   thing which on a personal level and I think in  terms of land use, putting solar over existing  

paved areas seems like a really great use of  space where you provide a benefit to the residents   through shade, blocking water, blocking snow,  generating power, and just an area that's already,   you know, you're not changing any of the runoff,  any of that sort of stuff. But uh because we want   to we want to prohibit someone from getting rid  of useful buildings and putting up a solar field   in the middle of town. That makes sense. But  we've accidentally prohibited the carport which   currently falls into ground mount because there's  no other definition of it. Um which to me I would   just say, you know, putting something over an  existing paved existing or planned paved area that   does not prevent parking. Something like that,  you know, design up to structural engineers. And   you know, some of these look really fancy, some of  them are pretty basic, but accessory to existing   parking use, basically is what you're talking  about. Yes, exactly. Um, you know, for example,   uh I can just think a lot of the residential  stuff that we've looked at recently, it's in   some of these areas could easily utilize one of  these with no negative impact to sight lines,   building appearance, anything like that.  and you all of a sudden gain a, you know,   clean power aspect to benefit a community or  customers or whatever. Do we have examples of   people doing that? Building carports  just to support solar. Yeah. I mean,   it's large part of what I do for my job actually.  Um, I'm working on two hospitals down in New   Jersey. I'm going to be there on Friday probably.  Um, all over Phoenix. Yeah. Yeah. And obviously   there's quite a bit of it. All over Phoenix. in  the Is that kind of what they're I mean all the   parking lots in Phoenix have like Well, I'm  talking about residential like just Yeah. Um but in Portsouth is that going to be a thing?  It's not it's not going to be common. So, because   the land's very valuable, but again, if you're  building um the Portsouth Green, for example,   there's a big parking lot right in the middle  right there, right? um and be relatively simple  

to so for example there's nothing stopping me from  building a carport there right now with no solar   on it I think more residential though I mean would  residential and like a single family home a single   family home no solar use that would be a really  stupid money move I would never recommend someone   do that the Commerce Way development's going to  have hundreds of parking spaces uh that could all   be undercover with solar panels I mean I'd have to  look at the building what people wanted to do. But   you that would be a prime example of somewhere  where you could um there's a I've just got a   zoning permit in Bedford actually for existing  carports for it's on Iron Horse Drive uh apartment   building all of their common spaces, right? They  have a pool, they have power for all of that. So,   we're putting solar panels on existing carports  actually, which is a little weird, but um because   there's parking, it's covered. It might as well  do something while it's just sitting there. Um,   which is why in some of these places like  some of the character districts and whatnot,   it would obviously have to meet all the existing  requirements of those districts. But if we say   no ground mount, you accidentally prevent  this thing that to me is one of the best.   Could Walmart have a bunch? But that's not it.  I have a question. So, but if we're downtown and   someone builds parking garage, would we prevent  them from doing ground mount on the top of a   building? I don't think it would be ground  mount. I think it'll be Oh, I think it'll be   roof mounted because it's roof mounted at that  point. Mounted to the roof. You define it that   way. The the new NEC is clarifying that because  that's actually a big point of contention. Um,   I brought it up now. It's parking on the upper,  right? It is, but could it be covered parking with   solar panels? You would consider that generally  roof mount? Yes. I'm like, is it a roof or is   it ground mount? That's why I'm asking. Not on the  ground. Is it on a roof? Yes. If there is no roof,   yes, if there is no roof, it creates the  roof, right? I think the question here is  

because generally if 95% of the time anecdotally  or whatever, uh there's not an existing carport   on which to mount the panels. You're building a  carport upon which the panels are mounted or they   are the roof in this situation. And so from a Oh,  you're saying be the roof and not it wouldn't be   mounted. There's not stuff under it and then you  put the panels on. So that becomes by definition   a groundmounted system which may be prohibited  I think somewhat accidentally in some of these   mixed use or character district areas where I'm  not saying you know we should exempt it from the   character district requirements but you can make  these as nice looking as you want. You can make   one out of rod iron if you wanted. I don't know.  But um just limiting them altogether, saying no   altogether seems just kind of unnecessary because  we're trying to do one thing, which is stop   massive solar fields from being developed, which  doesn't make any financial sense in Portsouth. But   um the land's far too valuable for that and  doesn't provide anything. But do do you see that?   I mean, a lot of these structures are just the  panels. Yes. Yeah. And not they're not on top of   Yeah. I mean, for the most part, that's it's a lot  of what I've been developing recently in at work,   I guess. But I mean, it's what the city's  looking at on the Jones um F property, right,   is to do something that sits on the ground. Yeah,  that's all panels, ground. Can I ask a question   about the language around outside the HCC, inside  the HCC, because I find this very confusing,   the way we're saying it's outside seems to  actually read the same as inside. And am I   missing something? I read it like three times,  but I swear it says exactly the same thing. I think I had input in that, but I don't remember.  shall not be subject to the 33% limitation. Shall  

not be subject to the 33% I think we've made  them say the same thing right by striking that   bit about right that now when I read them I just  read the same thing over and over it does clarify   I think an important point that people have asked  about the HTC and solar so I just think we could   do one line that says inside or outside this sort  of my point valuable. I do agree. We could turn   this into one line versus two. I have a kind of  a bigger picture question about the mechanics of   our zoning language. If you we started talking  about the F and G items, what tells the reader   it says here you can't do it. But then you go  to a chart and it's a conditional use permit. That's a good point. Sometimes we put by conditional use permit, but in certain zones you'd have to say I've noticed since in other areas of the code, the  ordinance and I just always bothered me. I'm like,   boy, you kind of have to know the trick of this  ordinance. Someone's got to tell you like, yeah,   oh, just go to this part because this it takes  takes away this part. I'm like, well, All right.   That's our job security. That's why I go ask  Peter. This is why we keep asking for simplified   and they won't give it. It's job security. Oh,  that's a good point. The the other section I   that tripped me up was the um number of units in  a just for your reference, the number of units in   a building because we were arguing like the the  zoning ordinance says like 24 units or something  

like that is the maximum in a building and that's  just the way it reads and everybody was all   arguing like they're building all these buildings  with more than 24 units. How are they doing it?   They're like, "Oh, if you go to this section as a  conditional use, go make it bigger the gateway."   Yeah. But but if you read the language, it just  says that's the maximum. And so I don't know. It   doesn't seem to be triggering like language the  incentives. Yeah. And I know the um we've had   people come before us that got that wrong. They've  done stuff um because they they assumed like, "Oh,   it says the max 24." Yeah. Like keep reading. read  all seven 8,000 pages, whatever it is. I don't   know if you need to add something or if you want  to keep the same format because maybe if you add   it here that it's not otherwise it creates more  confusion, but I find it confusing in general. I'm trying to listen and research at the  same time. How's that? It's confusing. Yeah, I just think that both A and B can  be combined into one because it does say   the exact same thing. Just needs to say inside  and outside the HDC. I assumed it was opening   up for future edits. I think it's because of what  the original edit was and and now it can just be   simplified into one in my mind. And I think you  can almost do the same thing up above with ABC   D. I believe that also could then be put into  just minus one right there. Yeah, because with   the changes that you've made to the changes,  they're now just saying the exact same thing.

Logan, um, it probably is not a huge deal, but do  you ever see people play games with projection,   projected area versus sloped area in terms of  the square footage of the panel versus the actual   footprint? Um, I've tried it. Uh, so no, I mean,  it does it's never going to matter that much. So,   because of the all the setback requirements.  Yeah. And and generally um if you're mounting   something on an existing slope roof, it's almost  always flush and there's about a quarter inch   gap between the panels, but they're flush, so  there's no difference in the slope there. You   can pitch up sometimes. So on a north roof, I've  done it where it's a relatively small slope and   you pitch up from that north roof to get it facing  south. Um but when you're looking at a flat roof,   that can be a big difference. The thing is  there's all sorts of like there's racking   that holds it down. So there is stuff in between  those those gaps. So, in terms of coverage area,   it's a lot simpler for me to just say I have  4,000 panels times x square feet and here's your   calculation board. There you go. If you're having  to split hairs by saying, well, it's at 5 degrees,   so technically I've I've never seen it  come down to that sort of thing. And again,   just so I'm clear, like if you had a flat route  and you took like a six foot panel real steep,   it's just you're going to have to put them so far  apart that it's not you're not going to get that   mathematical or whether you want it or not. I  don't know. Usually generally they're mounted   either at five or 10 degree tilt, so not very  high. I have seen I read an article about like   above the Arctic Circle people doing stuff almost  vertical because of the weird sun angles that I   don't see changing in Portsmith. So if something  goes terribly wrong, I don't think our general   azimuth is going to change that much. Uh but  generally they're they're flatish. They're usually   not pitched up terribly high. So you kind of draw  a box around everything and that's 10 degrees.   Really? Yeah. Um wind up becomes a huge problem  the more you pitch them up. And so you either have  

to physically attach stuff to the building which  is more cost or put a lot of weight on it. Because   there's a there's a solar field in um exit or  like off of exit 10 or nine, one of those. I feel   like that's steeper. So a field. Yes. A field.  Yes. You're generally ideally you want to be   at whatever the as the sun is. So in the at this  latitude um what are we at like 38 or something?   That would be the ideal pitch. That's what I  was going to say. But that's already I don't   know. Uh I was going to say 40. probably would  have been a little it's in the 35 to 40 range,   right? In northern Maine, it would be higher.  Um, plus that sheds snow better, but again,   that's already physically attached to the ground.  It's not flying away. But if if that's on a roof,   it is going to pick up and fly off the roof unless  of some of the wind gust we've had lately. Yeah.   Unless the roof significantly held down. So on a  roof, you really can't go very high. Um, they have   to be almost flat to the roof. And it depends  on the parapet height and a lot of roof stuff.   But yes, generally on a roof they're pretty flat  because otherwise they have to be way too heavy. So yeah, the angle's not ideal,  but that's that's what you get. I think we found we're getting to where the to why   ours just says the same thing over  and over. Why it's the same? Yeah. I mean, is it supposed to be the same?  No. Because right now they are, right? So,   if they're supposed to be different, I think  we need to change the wording. I feel like I   should get a professional development  hour for my knowledge I just learned   about. Yeah. If that's the case, I'd be rich  if I could claim for all the hours I get for

32 degrees. Was it 38? Yeah, we'll fix it. I  think he's just taking what you said. There's   supposed to be a difference. We'll find it and  fix it. Bring it to the meeting. Okay. Cuz if not,   you should just combine them. It'll get wiped out.  But there was supposed to be a difference. So,   yeah. No, they read I've read them like six  times. They read identically the same. I   just did the same thing and I agree with you.  Not what it's supposed to I thought it was if   a house is within the historic district  and they're trying to get solar panels,   wouldn't they have to go before the historic  commission? That changed recently, too. That kind of sort of. Yeah. Kind of sort of. Yeah.  Good thought. You think I'm bitter about the   six foot 8 foot fence. You didn't see about that  one. Uhhuh. for the record. I'm with you guys.   Some of this if it's listed as So if it's not a  contributing building, does it have to? So it's   like one of the minim minimally visible. Is that  what the word is? Minimally from the street. From   the street. Minimally visible from the street. I  believe that's the criteria they use. Part of the   criteria. Y'all don't want to know how many hours  we talked about that one. Is there a definition   everywhere minimally visible or is it just Yeah.  Okay. So, we going on to accessory dwelling units   because I almost cried when I read this only  because all that work we did got wiped out. Well,   I thought we have parking first. Oh, no. Parking  we already did. The other parking all the design   all the design stuff that I spent design manual  talking about has all just been wiped out. by the   state of the state. Oh, as much as you know how  it could come. He did something. So, you know,  

so we shouldn't size limitation. If if conforming  with that, it could be larger than 950 ft. Think about it. I just wanted to say I shed  a little tear for all the work that went into   creating the current ADU. Took so long. It  took me a year plus. Yeah. Right before adus,   there is this one change to parking that Oh,  because of the state change. The state change.   Yeah. The draft language is to just delete the the  over 750 and then make over 500 require one space   and then leave less than 500 as half a space.  Okay. Why not? And is that allowed under the state   stat the state law? You're exactly 500. What if  you're 500? What if you're exactly 500? Don't we   always round up? No, I'm just kidding. Why don't  we just make it one space for Okay. Over 501. It should be 500 or less. Yeah, 500 or  less. We'll change that. Not less than   500 or less. Why just make it one?  Why don't just make it one space for   regardless of square foot. I think if we can  divide by zero because we were trying when   we originally did that to make micro units  not require so much parking micro unit. So   if you have under 500 square foot units you  only need one parking space for every two   units under 500 ft. That was the point of why  that was originally done. And we're allowed   to require less just not more. So 1.3 is what  we have to get rid of under the new state law. Correct. All

right. Now, it is committee talk about uh  committee talk about this at all. Beth,   please take a lot of changes. Housing committee.  Yeah. Not really. I don't think we have. One of   the things, and I'm not advocating this,  I just want the board to be aware of this,   but right now we require the owner to be a  resident, the to have an ADU. That is an option.   I think they need to be one. I said I was just  going to say what the option is. I was going to   ask I don't think it should be that to the ADU  or the principal, but that's that's a municipal   option. The city could say you don't have to. Oh,  but I don't want to do that personally because   having one of those be resident occupied is what  allows this to not get out of control, especially   for investors and in single family neighborhoods.  I agree. I just wanted to be aware it's an option.   It's one of the things that's made me comfortable  with ads. Yeah. While it's an option, stick with   it. While it's still an option, don't change it.  Yes. They could have they could have just said you   have like everything else. They'll probably change  it at some point, but they haven't yet. So, yeah. So we reviewed this with legal and  that's came up with this draft. One of the big things is the size. Um it can't  be less than 750, right? So our 600 square foot   units had to go away. That attached. Yeah.  um you had detached ones and then you can   this the municipality can make it up to 950 or  even greater than that if they want but right  

now our our cap is 750 and that's what we've  been telling people and that's what they've   been doing and that's what they've been  doing. We talked about it when we changed   this the first time to make it bigger and we  got a lot of push back on larger because it   was like having two single family homes side  by side and 750 square feet is a pretty big   twobedroom unit for most people. So that's the  reason just giving the rest of the group the   reason why we did not opt to go bigger because  we could have gone bigger the last time too. So that's what legal is presented. Our options  are size and ownership. Ownership can have a say   on how it looks. So we don't have to we can't keep  them actually looking like a So part of our reason   for putting in all that was to make them looks  either subservient to the principal residence   or at least make it look like it's just still  one house. And we can't do any of that anymore.   And basically the the change in the law is  you have to treat this you can't have any more   restrictions on the ADU than you would a single  family home. You got to so it's it's basically   um you're still allowed to bring it  before the HTC right in the HC. It's   got to because a single family  home would go architecturally it   doesn't have to conform to the master house  anymore. Correct. Right. Or at this point,   step back a little. And there's no way now we can  have an ADU inside the HTC where the house is not the house is not what? There's no way now because  of the changes we talked about earlier. You can't   have an ADU inside the historic district with the  principal not in the historic district. I s Yeah,   I think you're right. But the new changes that  won't happen because any lots that are divided   are going to be full lots. So yeah. Yeah. the ADU  would be in the HTC or not. Actually very helpful  

then. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That does actually make  this very helpful. That would give the historic   district uh the historic commission power to say  like that ADU doesn't look right. Essentially if   it's still have some say over the architecture of  the ADUs for the lots for the lots inside the HCC.   Yes. Just to complete that thought. So suddenly  all ports must become the historic district. If   if we didn't change things and the ADU was but the  the principal house wasn't the state law would say   you can't have any more restriction from the  principal house. Right. Right. So could we   then? Yeah. I I think it's best we make these HTC  changes. Yeah. Sooner rather than later. Anyways,   that's where my head went. I don't know how it's  worded. If it's worded that the HT you can have   your own controls but or if it's the principal  house. Tony just gave a lawyer a really good way   around the I want a PDH. So let's change that HTC.  Do we know how many of these we have adus? Yes.   Uh there's a spreadsheet of them. I know that. I  know. I have a spreadsheet and I don't know the   number. It's on the website. I remember looking at  somewhere. It's around 20. I can tell you after um   I can tell you that we were only getting like one,  two, and three in the first few years this was   enacted and when we changed it that bumped up by a  lot. We were actually getting a lot more requests.   So that's the good news is the first changes g  get a lot more of them in. But maybe this will   get even more. I think we have seen a little  bit of a pickup for sure since the conditional   use permit went away. Y except now we don't see it  as a planning board. We're not going to see these and anyone we've said no to now  gets to do whatever they want

unless they're within the historic district.  So all enforcement would become the historic   district. The historic district is so tight on  land anyways that it's going to be really hard for   anyone to like do a new attached anything. They  wouldn't necessarily have to go before the HTC   if they put it into into an accessory dwelling or  into the main structure. It's only if they build   something new, right? Because of the existing  structure, if you're not changing anything on the   outside, you can do it on the inside. So, there's  no it's only exterior changes. Is there anything   in in our regulations that impede doing more that  inhibit doing more? This seems like a bigger idea   than it is happening. More of what? More ADUs. 20  seems like a very small cost. Anything else that   we could do to encourage it? Is that the other  side of that question in the regulations? Yes. No,   because what impedes it is cost is what I've  talked about. I think we have 34 ADUs since   2015. I think maybe the size you can go to. They  say they they suggest 750 to 950. You could bump   the 750 up to a higher number as a max if you  wanted to. That may, but I don't think it's   that enticing. But we it wouldn't be that we  could do a conditional use permit if they're   going to get bigger. So we'd be allowing people do  almost 1,000 square feet by Right. Yeah. I think a   bigger question is how many people want to do this  but can't and why would they I tell you the people   I've talked to has been it's mostly been cost.  It's expensive. It's expensive. I mean we all have   different you know groups we people I don't know  any of my friend group that have even cons like   saying hey I'm going to build an ADU or I wish  I could. I literally don't know anybody. I know   a lot of people who wish there were more young  young people could, you know, then move into a   garage apartment or something like that. Anthony,  I've looked into it myself actually because I have   a paved parking spot. I have a driveway in this  weird paved thing. So, I was like, "This could   work." And it's just the cost. I mean, I don't  have It's having the extra cash to actually build.  

You don't exist. You got to be on the plan board a  couple years and then you'll have Yeah. I'm saying   we don't know the number of people like yourself  who who have run into some impediment. And so 30   if it was 40 people that have wanted it, only 30  something did it, I think we're doing pretty well.   But if it's like 500 people that wanted it, we  only did 30, that's not doing well. I just don't   see much in here that would have ever bothered  someone looking to that much. We had an applicant   that wanted to also have like a work from home  space, didn't we? We fixed that. We because you   can do you're talking about the one that wanted to  teach the arts. Well, right. If you're going to do   construction, right? Okay. I can build 750 square  feet, but if I could do not only an ADU, but have   something I can work out of during the day, you  know, now it's like maybe it starts to make more   sense. I think you're talking about the one we  turned down on um Lafayette because they had   a twocar garage they were building and they were  building an office on the back side of the garage   and then an ADU over it. I know the garage has  been built, but I don't know if they ever we asked   them to come back with changes and they never did.  They withdrew their application, but I drive by it   every day. This is the only reason why I watched  it. I drive by it every day. I'm like, "Oh, no.   The garage has been built and I can tell you it  looks just like the plans." So financing problem,   Beth, there is sometimes financing problems  because that's technically ends up being a   construction loan which are not easy for everyone  to get through. Um so yes, there's been we talk to   banks about doing maybe special financing  or helocks to try to build these. I mean,   it's just it's complex and when you're talking  about, you know, the equity, the financing piece,   and people every personal decision, you know,  unless you've got the cash lying around, it's   it can be hard to to create these, right? That's  it's what it boils down to. And construction is  

still not cheap. Not to mention the fact is if  you're going to have to do any construction,   finding anyone to do it is also been a problem.  So, I think that there's more complications than   just our zoning. Yeah. I was going to say is maybe  this part of the master plan is like Do residents   feel like we're doing enough to promote it or, you  know, are they where are they finding roadblocks? Nope. I just I just I see that number and it  doesn't mean anything to me. I don't know if   it I I can tell you that that's I think  that's great because in the first three   years we probably had less than five, right? We  had 11 so far and 25. We had 18 and 24 which is   right after we passed the changes. Is this  approved or built? That is a really Yeah,   it's probably just approved. 4 and 23. Yep. The  numbers go way. 7 and 22, 5 and 21, two and 20, nine and 19. I think that was right after  it first happened. We had quite a few at the   influx but then it tapered way down and a lot so  we actually had these focus groups where we talked   to architects engineers about the ADU specifically  and honestly I was a little shocked when they came   back and they're looking at me they're like no you  have the best law than anyone around here you've   like done the best and I'm like but ours isn't  good we're trying to make it better and you're   not helping me but not telling me anyone else does  it better so we did spend a lot of time changing   it now most of it's wiped Okay, just fine. And  we don't have administrative approval anymore.   We don't have notices anymore. People can just do  them as long as they fit the statute, right? And   you guys get to review that part, right? Yeah.  They need a building permit, right? Okay. So,   that's how you do it is through the building  permit. They need an affidavit that that testifies  

that they will owner owner occupants and they have  to renew that as a certificate of use every year.   And the idea behind that is to keep investors  from buying them up and renting them all out,   especially as a you know, Airbnbs, which  is what we were trying to prevent. Well,   there's not an adequate ROI with  free land, which is surprising. Well, the return on your investment if you own a  piece of land and you can put a little building   on, rent it, uh, building itself just pricey. It's  really It's the building itself to build it. The   cost of building it is the problem. This is maybe  a dumb question, but I was just thinking again   about the whole owner occupancy thing. I know  a lot of homes are technically owned by trusts,   not actually trusts are passroughs. We put  trust and LLC's into the ordinance at one   point and then someone who's part of that has  to live. So a trustee member of the trust more   than 50% owner of the LLC has to live. Yeah,  that makes sense. We actually had that problem   come up and we had to fix that on the fly. I  hadn't realized until somewhat recently how   many homes are that way and I was like, it's to  avoid probate. Yes, it's a very important step,   avoiding probate. I tell everyone to do it. Tony,  this might I mean we have in our tracking we have,   you know, when people come in, we have a we have a  ADU potential file folder and then if they move to   like applying and getting approved, we move them  out of that and we only have nine in that folder.   the potential ADUs, people that have like come  in and asked about it haven't applied. Um, well,   this is House Bill 577, right? So, maybe  the state legislature needs to do more if   they're well-intentioned and wanting to, but  I think that's what these changes were to do.  

Municipalities have I think we have to see if  these changes do make that change. Good point.   I think the legislator would stay out of zoning,  but Well, state of zoning, but we talked about   the financing, right? The challenges there. Um,  you know, these are probably subordinate loans   to the trust me, there's no money out there  on a state or federal level that's going to   help people right now for the use. There just  isn't well intentioned. So, given that I mean,   if somebody But let's talk about outside the box.  If somebody wanted to uh actually rent a unit,   build it and rent it for a period of time,  maybe under 79E, that could be then a request   to a housing trust that we happen to have for  a small amount of money that they then in turn   get that money, but they rent it out at, you know,  true HUD levels for a period of time. So we could   look at a twist on ads that way. Just throwing  out an out of the box ID. Do we use 790? No,   but we we're that's one of the many things that  we're exploring right now. Can imagine a single   property owner handling all the paperwork.  One unit. Couldn't imagine them doing that. I don't think they'd have to. could be  like so any owner right now that has units,   they're usually managed through an outside firm.  So those could be managed by a third party. We   have to go through the um one more item, right?  No, that was the end, isn't it? Um is that the   family and commercial district? So that that goes  into effect in July. We have some time with that,   but um we started reviewing this with legal and it  was kind of more nuanced than it's not complicated   to to trying to bring something forward. So, um  we'll continue to work on that. Yeah, because  

this one doesn't go in effect until sometime  next year, right? July 2026. So, right. So,   we have three quarters of a year almost. Take  that long. It'll be here tomorrow. Right. So, we talked about some of the other  things I was going to talk about. Uh,   the one that keeps coming up every single meeting  is our wetlands conditional use permit. Um,   and back to the conversation we had  at the beginning, the way we're doing   it is the way I think we should be doing  it where if people are improving things,   they should get a permit. But that's not what  our says. Back to Tony, back to Tony's point,   if you're buying property and say,  "Well, you can't do anything in the   under foot buffer. you're going to have to  restore it and you know that's not working. But I don't want to propose that know better. I  don't want to propose that another conversation   with the conservation commission. They and they  talking about it too every every you know chance   we got we've been talking to the chair about that.  They're interested if if there's appetite with   the board. I think we should our zoning ordinance  should actually be based off of what our practice   has been. Yes, it should. Do you foresee any  zoning that would not inside the buffer that would   not require going to the conservation commission?  Could we write something? Do you foresee something   like that? Like an administrative permit deal  or just have it come through the planning board? That's possible. I hadn't thought about that,  but that's possible. And what I guess I need a   situation like in what situ say the example we  showed on the screen earlier like hey if you   if you take 50 ft off you you're built 100  feet into the buffer if you do 50 feet off  

um and restore that land you don't have to go  to the construction the details of restoring   that land. I was going to say I as a planning  board member I want the conservation commission   to tell me what would be the appropriate maybe  they could write something though that doesn't   that says that I don't know I'm not a I'm not a  I was thinking more so for instance when somebody   is looking for feedback about how to maintain an  existing buffer that's built into partially they   could just go to the conservation commission and  get their feedback about how to do that without   having to come to us if they don't you the  administrative permit question which is a good   conversation with the conservation commission.  So sure if Peter and I because he always the   conservation commission to have that conversation  with the commissioners see how they feel about do   you see a way for administrative permit that might  involve just the commission or just the planning   board and you do two things when you do that. One  is you shorten the permitting process. You save   costs but you reduce housing prices. The second  is, especially on the affordable housing piece,   they have deadlines to apply for affordable  housing funds, the the 9% and the 4%. And so,   the way it always works is the design team's in a  rush trying to get through. And so, they have to   map out every single meeting and how are we going  to get to this date? And it's a challenge. And so,   the the the the easier we can make that without  giving up, you know, environmental concerns,   we've improved the process. We've theoretically  reduced the cost of housing without without   a lesser product. So that's where my mic  is. Not going to ask you how you know that support that as long as it it it also further  protects the wetlands. Like we can get we can  

get through a process more efficiently without  without diminishing impact impact. The intent   of the existing wetlands or is spot on. It's  perfect. It's really that's the intent is great   and I think I agree. We need to make sure that  we're protecting the environment and enhancing   it where we can. That's what we need to be doing.  Just making sure the right the ordinance says the   same thing. Looked at a piece of property for  that project that needs some improving along the   wetland. The last thing I had and then I'm just  I'm going to close the meeting was uh building   footprint. What happened with that at council?  I heard it got shot down. Was that too big a I   don't I do remember got shot down but I don't  remember why. Sorry. I think I mentioned the   M word McIntyre for for the building footprint  for the for the Yes. Now it's all coming back.   That was just because language. Well, but then I  think that the council was questioning about the   10,000 square ft. Um, right there. They had more  questions than we had answers for and I think it   should be something to be sent to the to be talked  about during the master call. I think that would   be the best way to get it forward. Should there be  a more of a discussion with council, do you think? How long ago was that meeting? I need to rewatch  that whole section. I've been through so much   since then. I can't remember. September. Believe  it or not, I've been through a lot since then. Oh,   wait. That was the one I lost my voice and  I couldn't talk. That was September 24th.   I remember that. Go watch that meeting. I can't  talk. You can laugh at me like every all my fellow   counselors did all night. Okay. It's not raining.  You know, I think I think they were open to   uh they're wrestling with if they denied it,  we'll send it back. Um I think they were opening  

to going the planning board working on it further  and maybe coming back. So I think we need to go   back and and remember their concerns and then try  to address them. Fair enough. Sorry that was that   was that long walk ago. There's been a whole  election since then. I'm been a lot going on will not be here Wednesday.