Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the November 20th,  2025 meeting of the Force of Planning Board to   call the meeting to order. And I only have one  item on the agenda before I'd like to take an   item out of order. But can I have approval of  the minutes for the October 16th and November   20 10th meeting? Second. Sorry. Any discussion  on those minutes? All those in favor? I I Any   opposed? I'd like to take item 6A for the CIP  out of order because we have the department   heads hovering in the back of the room. Um  see if we can get to their issue earlier in   the evening rather than later. A motion.  Yes. Motion to take item 6A out of order.   Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? I  I Any opposed? And Mr. Perry. Uh, the manager   is going to be late. Would you sit for her until  she arrives? It should be in about a half an hour. This is not a public hearing on the CIP, but u I  had one thing I wanted to talk about and I think   Mr. Bowen might have had something he wanted to  bring up. I have some questions. There are some   things. So, who wants to go first? Doesn't  matter to me. I'm sorry. Sure. I saved some   questions for Monday because I didn't want  us to be here too much later on Monday night.   Um I will start out with uh oh this is public  works uh the city hall renovations. There's a   line item on CI page CIP page 110 1111 uh for city  hall reservations re renovations and I'm curious   as to whether or not these are are in line or are  they separate from what the building committee is   currently looking at as a you know I'm making  sure that they're sort of planned into what   they're planning long term. So is that the is that  the citywide facilities number? Yeah, facilities  

capital improvements. So that covers all the  buildings uh for the uh the general government   side of things. So it is it is in addition to city  hall. Mhm. Um, so it it is, you know, not part of,   uh, if if I understood your question, uh,  whether it was tied to Well, I just want to   make sure whatever plans we have of of doing any  capital improvements that they're in line with   the long-term plans of possibly relooking at this  as the campus for, you know, the renovated police   space and the whole building as a whole. That's  all. So the we're still at the initial stages   of the uh the whole facilities review in terms of  municipal complex improvements and the monies that   are shown there are really things that are baked  into existing needs. Okay. So anything that comes   out of that evaluation uh would we we anticipate  it to be part of the 38 million that's shown in   um the police the municipal complex portion.  Um, you know, we need to look at that and and   if there's opportunity to to take some of the  monies that we had thought uh to do renovations   here from elsewhere and incorporate that into  there so that we can leverage the funds, uh,   we will do that. But we aren't at that point yet.  Okay. Um, more for you. Don't you go running away.   Um, under the parking lot paving, it reminded me  I know that the garage is now done and because the   lad lot was listed as one of the many lots that we  maintain. I was curious if that's being returned   to availability for parking or if it's not if  it's staying for storage or whatnot. I'm sorry,   which lot? The lad lot. It's the little space  outside the garage that's been closed for a while   now because it being Oh, the highay. Yes. The high  bay portion of the handover garage. Yeah. Uh that   will be back into parking inventory once all the  uh the dumpsters and things are gone. Okay. So,   it's in in process of that. It should be any day.  Okay. Okay, let me see on my other page if I have  

more questions for you before you run away. Oh,  yes. Uh, we had actually a request from one of the   residents on Madison Street if there was a way  to move up. They say the sidewalks desperately   need to be redone and that it's somewhat dangerous  right now. And I did notice that we actually have   Madison Street in an outy year. I think it was uh  fiscal year 29 to do the road and do everything.   Is there a way of moving that up? Because I'm  assuming you won't do the sidewalks until the   whole road's done. So um in a combined project  at the end is this the Austin Street area that   includes Madison and so the utility work needs  to be done prior to the road work. We're looking   we're exploring whether we can pull that forward  a year to match up with the utility work and maybe   bid it all as one project. Uh but that that's two  years out uh at a minimum and that 29 is what was   last year. Um, so we haven't moved that back  since. Um, it's the same as it was last year,   but we're looking at opportunities to maybe  combine the utility work uh with that road work   and and that could possibly uh pull it forward  a little bit. So, next year we'd come back to   you and be and then ask for it to be in 28 if that  was the case. And then maybe we could get the side   works done. Yep. Okay. Wonderful. And um mechanic  pump station. I I thought it was very brave to put   all of the money for federal and state for that.  Is there really an opportunity for federal or   state funds to help us with that project? Uh, it's  it's state and federal funds. The state portion is   what we're really talking about. We're not talking  about federal monies. Okay. Um, so there is SRF   monies that have been identified, state revolving  fund monies that comes out of the Department of   Environmental Services here in New Hampshire. And  you know, we are under the impression or based on   discussions with them that those monies are are  good. Eric can nod his head or Yes, that is that   is correct. Okay. I just because I get nervous.  We all know that we are very cognizant of funding  

challenges. Um my last one for you is really  more of uh to have a conversation. So at the   rocking and planning commission, which is why  I missed our work session, um we were talking   about all the things that's been taken out of the  10-year plan, which one of which is the study on   the Portsouth traffic circle. And so I threw out  there, do you think the state would be willing, if   the if Portsmith was willing to put in some money,  would they be willing to put in some money to try   to actually get it done versus trying to wait for  them to find a way to get it done 10 years down   the road to at least study it and try to figure  it out. So I just it's a request that maybe,   you know, reach out. I I think we could sell it  on our end. There's such a safety problem there   that maybe we could find some money to go towards  it and if we could maybe have a conversation to   see if that's even a possibility with the um state  side of things. I I obviously um the city council   can decide how to allocate funds. I would not  recommend at this point um participating in in the   state highways. Um they would love for us to be um  taking on a share of that that cost. At this point   I would not recommend starting down that road, no  pun intended. Um so I I understand the request.   Um, I would hope that we could convince the state  to make sure that is not pulled off the tenure.   It's already Yeah, it's most likely going to get  pulled off if they put anything back on. What I'm   hearing is definitely nothing here. So, we're  I don't think it's going to happen. So, we're   going to have a problem. All right. Well, would,  you know, we'd be happy to have a conversation   further about that. All right. Thank you. I just  have one more and it's really for him or for you,   your department. Um, it's about the Sec Coast  Greenway. Oh, I went to the wrong page. Hang   on. Electronic good. Right. So, along North  Mill Pond, the extension to downtown. Um,   what did we is is the contractors that are  building there right now, are they going to  

be paying for any portion of of that greenway or  we building it all ourselves? I guess is what I   was trying to figure out because I know that I got  the section right in front of the development was   part of the development. I can't remember while  Peter's coming up. So there one range will be   the project at one range will be building their  portion but Peter can speak. Yeah, we've that   that has been a a challenging project. We spent  a lot of time doing some sampling. We did get a   a grant an arm fund grant. So we have quite a bit  of money to do a living shoreline. Okay. Okay,   we have budgeted money to do the park, but we look  like we're a little bit short on that. And we're   looking at creative ways to combine that project  with the project next door to see if we can get   some savings to make both projects work together  as one, but we don't have an answer yet. So,   I put it in here um to get the park funded. Um we  may at the last minute be able to pull that, but   um we're still at the at the stage of trying to  figure out where all that money is going to come   from to get that work done. Okay. Thank you. I'm  done. Bill. So this would be for Peter as well.   So the micro which Peter uh yeah exactly there's  multiple Peters. Peter Brits. Um so this is about   the microtransit uh question. Uh but there was  quite a bit of concern about uh availability the   real availability of federal state money for  that. Uh the question the the basic question   is whether we have the transportation expertise in  house uh to work with Rad Nichols from Coast uh to   figure out how we can improve and and deliver the  services that we think are needed. Uh he they do   uh both the uh fixed route and the demand response  stuff and they've been with us for decades and uh   we make up about 10% of their budget uh and they  can if need be have access to computer modeling  

uh software and they you know they they're good  at this. So question is it if we don't have an   outside consultant paid federal state uh is it  possible to do it inhouse with cooperation with   coast? Um well it's interesting that you raise  that right now because as we as we're here the   sustainability committee is discussing that very  issue um in conference room A and I was there for   the beginning of the discussion and um it turns  out there is actually some state money we can   apply for but it's not guaranteed. That's an 8020  split. So the state would pay 80%, the city would   pay 20%. Um which um could look at that. The  the initial point of the discussion was though   instead of microtransit looking at transportation  more more globally as a term. How do we improve   transportation public transportation in the city?  Um and I think they're going to be coming back to   the council with a recommendation. So, in terms  of whether we could do it in-house, I don't think   we'd have fully the expertise because we'd want to  bring in people that do the the microtransit type   of transportation, the ride share um and coast  as well and then a lot of discussion about local   businesses participating. So, I think that sort  of work group would be the initial part of it.   Um they may decide and I think they want to put  money aside to do this is to put money aside to do   a study. Um but it may be that they would enough  there'd be enough information out of that working   group to go forward with some sort of proposal for  actual transportation instead of a study. Be good   to have an integrated system uh with with Coast as  the base of it as they currently are. Yeah. Yeah.   And Rad Nichols may be here later to talk, but I  think he's going to miss his turn. You're good.   Peter Rice, where did he go? Did he hide? There  he is. Sorry. While you're walking, Peter,  

um I wanted to reference the BI26 PW54 um  the new parking garage section of the capital   improvement plan. Um right now we have identified  $150,000 um in revenues. Um and that is for um I'm assuming is part of the study site selection  site selection selection you know you were on   the committee that I was on over a year ago  the parking needs assessment I can't remember   the the the long name that was there and the  consultants were at that time were saying 650   spaces were going to be needed I think in  five years if not sooner we're now a year   past that point I'd like to I feel like there's  a sense of urgency we've seen a lot of projects   come through here and we're using parking as a  utility in the downtown and so I know roughly   the the pre-esign and all of that can can for a  parking garage is roughly around 10% of the design   fee and looking at 32 and million for for a total  construction cost probably in today's dollars   um and trying to keep under the 10% um cap of  the budget for CIP. I'm I'm wondering if it's   um if it's smart to suggest putting an additional  $3 million to get this going um in the plan. And   I want you to your thoughts on that. I you know  it's you know we we went through the the study   the study did show that there was a need and  I I think the the reason we didn't put a the   number in there at this point is we didn't have  a site so we wanted to get the a site nailed down   and once we get the site we would start having  a larger conversation about it. I think it'd   be perfectly appropriate to uh put an identifier  number in there of $3 million. That's about what I   would have if we were thinking about starting the  design effort be you know 10% roughly. Um so I I I   would be uh in support of that. Um if that was the  decision of the uh of the committee the planning  

board. All right. And I I don't know um Rick um  if that requires a motion or it will. Okay. We'll   wait till the end of the If you want to make the  motion, we can. I would like to discuss it. Well,   sure. Do you want to make a motion to add three  million to that? Yeah, it'd be an additional three   million and um I would need your recommendation  here um Peter on um the funding mechanism um bond.   It' be bonding. Bonding. Okay. So, we would add  three million to the bond. So, in total, the the   subtotal at the bottom would be 3.15 million. If  if I may, I I would recommend putting it into 28.   Um the the site selection process u would entail  some basic enabling uh work such as geotech um and   that would you know we would need to have um  build consensus u within the city um so ident um put it into 28 versus putting it right into  into this year. I just want to send a message   of urgency to get this going because it's going  to be a couple years before, you know, we we at   least two years from now until there's any dirt  moved and and it's probably going to be a two-year   construction period and so I just don't want this  to be like next year's problem. Sure. I mean,   it if if the board decides to push it in there,  I would not um be opposed to it. I think there's   two issues here from my perspective. There's the  planning issue, which is what we're here for,   and then there's the actual budgetary issue,  which the council will be dealing with. Um,   from a planning perspective, I'm looking at 30  roughly $30 million garage that we need soon.   And our capital improvements plan is a five  to sevenyear planning tool. So, if we were  

to divide that out and other things aside, if I  could put five or six million as a line item to   start this year, I'd recommend that. That would  put us well over the 10% figure. By the way,   the number that the vice chair mentioned does  keep us under the 10%. Okay? Not by a lot, but   it it's there. So, I think it's important to plug  it in and to plug it in soon. If it's not used,   if it's not budgeted, it's not budgeted. But  I think the message, as the vice chair said,   it's important to send that message to the public  and the council that this is something we need to   start planning for. And if we don't assign some  number this year, it's going to be a bigger number   next year and a bigger number the following years.  So I I appreciate your your perspective and it's   completely logical, but I I'd lobby for putting  it sooner. Sure. And and by having it sooner,   it allows us to really start focusing on the pro  for the garage itself and then, you know, how the   rate structure uh would then play out in order  to support that. As you know, um taxes are not   used to support these facilities, right? It's all  revenue based. Um so this would not be something   that the taxpayers would be paying for. So I mean  I think it it gives us a tool uh to to really   start playing out what the proform would look like  uh and help um look at the rate structure. So it's   it's perfectly appropriate to start uh putting  money towards this. So, to reiterate my motion,   I'd like to add 3 million to the bond lease line  item under FY27. And um and before I get a second,   I just want to point out we're not yet  specifically talking about a location. I   know that's probably going to be the next public  question people have is where is this going to   go? That's that's going to have a whole process  into itself. So, this is just about um having   the appropriate money in place so we can get that  process started. Second. Thank you. Discussion.

No discussion. Beth, yes, I feel I should  weigh in. Um, I guess I go back and forth   as to whether or not fiscal year 27 or 28 is  the better year to put it in. And I understand   where you're coming from. It's just like, will  we actually be far enough down the road that   that much money makes sense? I guess maybe it's a  smaller portion this year and then another portion   the following year and breaking it up a little  bit might make a little bit more sense based   off of what actually will happen. Well, in my  mind it's already a smaller number. As I said,   I'd rather see five or six, but staying under  the 10% which I think is do two in each year 27   28 and 29. It helps you in out years though and  that if we can the more we can plug in under 27   then it you know you're going to have other  funding problems in 20 you know that are not   identified in in 28 that if if if more of that  10% is going towards the garage in 28 then you   you've handcuffed yourself a little bit. Maybe  two this year and three million next year. Let   me make both of you happy. I think it's going  to be more than three million next year is my   point. Yeah. I'm doing a little negotiation here.  No one's No one's working with me, though. Well,   our number isn't hard, as you know. It's a  recommendation. It's a recommendation item. You done? I'm done. Paul, did you No, I'm  good. Any other comment? I guess. Yes, I would   generally um not side but favor Tony's opinion  because there's so much development in the down   downtown corridor where with all of the  infrastructure and street shape changes,   if we have the ability to plan that sooner rather  than later, then it may be best to try to line it  

up and have it in concert with some of those  other developments so that if we're looking at   parking and we're looking at these things and we  have at least a general idea that we are in fact   moving forward with one, um, we can take that into  consideration with some of these developments. Any other discussion? Thank you, Peter. All those in  favor? I. Any opposed? So, we'll make that change   of the recommendation. Any other comments on the  CIP? Any other questions of the staff? Yes. Paul,   thank you, Mr. Chairman, and and thank  you to staff for all the work they put   in on this on this plan. Um, I was pleased to  see that there's a small ask in the plan for   uh an artist live work studio space  study that it's not all, you know,   sewers and sidewalks in the plan. And um  I I would I would hope to see that that I   know there was some talk about maybe finding some  alternative ways to to fund that or to study it,   but I think that's an important um uh part  of the of the plan that was presented to us.   I also wanted to ask some uh a question of uh  perhaps the fire chief regarding uh Marine One. Good evening, Bill McQuillin, Fire Chief. Hi,  Chief. Thank you. Um, Marine One. This is a   uh Marine rescue vessel. And it looks like the  price, well, the cost of this this vessel from   the last CIP to this one changed quite a bit.  And u it doesn't seem to me to be an unreasonable   number for a marine rescue vessel, but if you  could perhaps tell us just a little bit about  

that vessel and the kind of the scope of the need  for it. Like we know that there are some folks in   mental health crisis entering the water, but  perhaps there's other reasons why people are   being rescued from the water, recreational or  commercial activity. Sure. Uh thank you for the   question. So uh to to to give the planning board  sort of a perspective here um the uh the the city   has owned a fireboat uh since the uh the early  90s. Um back originally the uh the vessel was a   uh recreational vehicle that was then converted  into into our use with an outboard uh pump that   we were able to uh uh flow water off of and then  be able to to pick people up. Uh subsequent to   that we obtained a vessel through some federal  grant program and that boat was uh significantly   larger and enclosed. It also had a uh a dedicated  motor uh and engine for that pump. Um maintenance   became an issue with that vehicle and uh as did  uh uh training to to operate the vehicle and the   decision policy decision was made to dispose of  that boat before it became more expensive and   to uh revisit the uh the issue. Uh in 2017 the uh  the city bought a uh a rigid hole inflatable that   uh is has a a slight biminy top on it. So it's  open to the elements and that that vessel also   has a um a small pump outboard pump and and the  ability to flow water on it as the previous ones   did. Uh however um the the reality is is while  we are responsible for fire protection in the uh   in the river and in the har uh harbor itself uh we  we rarely use the uh the pump for that uh purpose.   Um so the real use of that vehicle has been um  for uh for rescue uh purposes either uh subjects  

in the water reported to be in the water boating  accidents uh boats uh uh drift or in distress and   the the challenge that we have on the on the river  is um is twofold. Uh one um the fact that the the   river is as swift as it is and secondly right  the uh the the uh the weather conditions. So,   after reviewing what the boat has historically  and actually been used for uh more and more, it's   apparent that it's more of a uh water ambulance  essentially. And so what we were looking to do   is to upgrade the capability of the of the city's  fireboat. Um, and to have uh a protected uh space   to be able to treat people after we retrieve them  from the water or get them off of a a damaged or   uh disabled vessel and get them out of the  elements and also to keep our crews, the men   and women that are on this boat from being exposed  to the uh to the winter elements. So, you know, uh   on a night like tonight, right, they're out there  on an open hold boat, and that's what we're trying   to avoid. So, last year we uh we changed the  amount that was budgeted uh in the capital program   um to to show what the cost of a uh a boat that  would be enclosed for uh for the cabin for the   crew and for the subjects being rescued. And uh we  made that switch last year. Um and then we brought   it forward again this year. But I'm happy to take  any more questions you may have on it. Hopefully   uh I know you asked me what time it was and I  told you how to build a watch. I apologize. No,   thank you, Chief. Looks like some folks might have  some questions for you on this. Um do we have any   working contracts with other cities that are right  on the water where they have a boat or they use   our boat? Um, I know like Rye Ry I believe is also  responsible for the aisles of Schaw. Obviously,  

we're right across from the shipyard. So, are  there any um deals or contracts or ways that you   work with other fire departments or are we solely  uh the only boat? Uh, thank you for the question.   Uh no, we don't have a uh an agreement in place  with any of the other municipalities or with   uh any other agency with respect to to our our  waterfront capability or for for them to come   to us either. We don't have mutual aid. We do  have mutual aid, but we don't have we don't   have a specific agreement with respect to boats.  Right. Yeah. If I may. Okay. Andrew had his hand   up. Go ahead. So, a boat's on fire in the river  what happens uh will respond. The the challenge   is there aren't there aren't that many other boats  out there that are capable of putting water onto a   burning boat. So, the shipyard won't respond. I'm  just cur I'm assuming the shipyard must have fire.   They they they do, but their their primary mission  is to protect the the naval assets over there. So,   we don't have an agreement in place. Okay. Wow.  That was uh largely going to be my question as   well is sort of the obligation or um jurisdiction  if you will of the waterways and where Coast Guard   starts and we start and stop as well as the  shipyard or beyond the river. Obviously our   purview is visually right in the Biscatar River  but beyond that if it does encompass anything   you know uh towards Great Bay or the ocean. So  again, um our our responsibility is here in in   the city. If we're called to go somewhere else, we  will. Um but this is also a a case of capability.   Um we there have been instances where we've been  requested to go uh out of the mouth of the river  

where perhaps um it was beyond the scope and  capability of our boat to be able to handle it   uh you know with uh weather conditions. So, we,  you know, would, uh, would, you know, refuse the   mission, so to speak. Um, the Coast Guard has has  their mission and they're certainly the primary,   um, you know, search and rescue agency in the  area, but, uh, like, uh, like everyone and   everybody else, they're being asked to do more and  more with less, right? And, uh, their, uh, their   staffing at their station, uh, has been reduced  in the time that I've been here in my career. So, just to finish the point off, most likely if  a if a vessel was on fire in the in the river,   you're you're the Portsmith Fire Department would  make sure to rescue people out of the water,   make sure the boat doesn't run into some  other object, but you're not putting it   out. Unlikely. It It's It's unlikely. My folks are  are trained. We send our folks down to the port of   uh Virginia everywhere uh excuse me, every year to  uh to to be certified to fight fires on ships. Uh   it's certainly a whole lot different um fighting  a fire two or three holds below deck than it is   in a in a residential or commercial building. So  we we do have the capability and that knowledge,   but uh once you get into some of the the larger  vessels, uh firefighting um takes it's a lot   more complex and the the issues become a whole lot  different with respect to navigation of the port,   who's in charge. Right. Again, the captain of  the port and the Coast Guard's got a lot more   to say as does the ship owner than I do as fire  chief. I I hope you find my questions they're not   critical. I'm not at all. I'm trying to be inform  as informative as I can. Thank you. Did you? No,   I I appreciate the dialogue and the questions from  the the board on this matter. I I think this is an   important consideration for the city and um I I I  the final question I have for you, Chief, is what  

what is the life expectancy of this vessel? Uh I  would imagine it's at least 10 years or so. Um the   challenge is going to be for us is uh uh what what  manufacturer we're going to be able to to to go   with here and what's going to be available. Okay.  Thank you, Chief. I have a question based on what   you said. Um if the city of Portsmouth gets this  capability to respond that other communities don't   have, it seems like there may be you may be called  on more than obviously than you are now because   you have more capability. Is there a reason  that the city should talk to some of the other   communities and some of the other agencies to  see if there's a way to share some of this going   forward in the future? Uh, excellent question, Mr.  Chairman, and thank you for it. I'm I'm happy to   entertain any discussion with uh any neighboring  municipality with respect to shared resources and   how we can uh tackle some of these challenges.  Is somebody charged if let's say you have to go   into Maine to do something? Is there a charge for  that? Uh, no. Thank you. Thank you. That's a good   question you asked there, Mr. Chairman, because I  I I believe that the state fishing game, uh, when   they rescue a hiker or an offhighway recreational  vehicle user, um, that person can be charged   and often is charged for those the use of those  resources. um unless you have a boat registration   or an offhighway vehicle registration. And I  believe now you can also register yourself as a   hiker. I don't know if you register your shoes or  what it is, but you if you have that registration,   you're not charged, but uh the state fishing game  is is recovering costs of of rescue. So something   I don't know how he would monetize that or bigger  discussion that the chief said he's willing to  

participate in. Thank you very much chief. Thank  you. Any other questions for Yes. I'd just like to   repeat the observation. It would have been helpful  to me in this exercise to uh given the growth of   the city about 10% projects in the pipeline and  many more to come. Uh to know where the choke   points were in the infrastructure of the city  uh sewer, water, schools, uh, and other UTIL is   gathering that information as a part of the master  plan process. So that that is actually happening   as we speak. If I might add to that, we've been  given periodic updates to the council with regard   to sewer and water capacity and we are well within  um, our limits and we can share that information   with the planning board if you like. Any other  questions of staff on the CIP? Excellent. I think we need a vote to  recommend the CIP as amended. Um,   does the board wish to take public comment? Any objections to public comment? No. Name  and address at the podium, please. I'm going   to time it. Three minutes. Thank you. My name  is Jeffrey Cooper. I live at 227 Park Street   and I'm here representing the Arts and Cultural  Commission which which submitted the request for   the feasibility study for artists who live work  space. I wish to thank you Mr. Garland for your   nod in in support of that and we're hoping that  you will have a unanimous vote to include that in   your final recommendation. I'd like to emphasize  for your consideration that this is something   that was brought up in the 2002 cultural  plan as well as the 2023 cultural plan. So,  

it's been on the table for well over 20 years.  And we acknowledge that the artist community has   been a major contributor not only to the  cultural of Portsouth but to the economic   well-being of the city as well. It's one of  the significant drivers of the local economy.   So, you know, the feasibility study would be  a significant it's like a way to start off   the process of looking for places where we can  support our artist community in this particular   way. We have a quote, the number $65,000 is not  a number pulled out of the air. It's actually a   quote that we have from a corporation called a  nonprofit called Artspace which has significant   um experience in doing this kind of a project  all over the country. The question has come   up as to whether the city staff could handle  this kind of a thing and it's the view of the   arts and cultural commission that a company with  real expertise in this particular area is really   needed. They have experience with business models  for such projects and finding locations. They have   experience with getting public input and finding  financing and le and leadership support for these   types of projects. So, you know, we're urging  that this be funded as a um separate request   rather than put off to the city staff where  it could easily become a back burner issue. So, um, I guess that's pretty much  it. So, we're looking for your your   unanimous support to include this in  your final recommendation. We think   that it' be very significant when the city  council finally votes on it that you know,  

your support really is consequential. Thank  you for your attention. Thank you, Jeff. Any other public comment? Would you care to vote on this? I think I would  abstain. Okay. Joe might want to abain,   too, but I don't want to speak for Joe. I need a motion and a vote. Closing  to public. Public comment is closed.   It wasn't a It wasn't a hearing. Okay.  Don't have to formally. Now it's closed. A motion to vote to recommend adoption of the  capital improvement plan to city council as   adopted as amended. Second. Discussion. All  those in favor? I I. Any opposed? Extension. Okay. We need determination of completeness. Uh  subdivision review from Martin Hustlage is   owner for property at 4850 Langden Street.  Requesting preliminary final subdivision   review approval for subdivision of one  lot into two lots with a single family   dwelling and accessory dwelling proposed on  each lot with associated site improvements.   This properties on assessors map 138 lot 47 and  lies in the general residence C or GRC district. Motion to determine that item A is  complete according to the subdivision   review regulations. Is that a second?  Second. Any discussion? All those in   favor? Any opposed? Also request the same  property, same description for site plan   review completeness. Mr. Sure. Do we  need one of our alternates to sit for?

Um I didn't see her leave. Yes. Um so since  I asked you to sit for the manager, Frank,   would you continue now for counselor? Yeah.  And you are fully seated and present and we're   precisely on time. I was very impressed by  that. Site plan review acceptance. Uh vote to   determine that item A is complete according  to the site plan review regulations. Second   discussion. All those in favor? I. Any opposed?  Going to start the public hearings. The procedure   for public hearings as folks may know everybody  who's been here before. We have presentation by   the proponent. Questions by the planning board  members. Public comment limited to comments to   for or against the application. Give your name  and address. If you wish to speak, you have to   speak. There's up to three rounds of speaking. If  you wish to speak in the second or third rounds,   you must speak in the preceding rounds. First  round is three minutes oral comment only. Second   is five minutes maximum. You can include a  presentation. And the third round is up to   five minutes oral comment only. And then the  hearing is closed and the board deliberates.   First item is again the request of Martin Hustlage  as owner for property at 4850 Langden Street for   preliminary and final subdivision and site plan  approval for the subdivision one lot into two   lots with single family dwelling and accessory  dwelling proposed on each lot with associated site   improvements. Again, this property is assessed  map 138 lot 47 is in the GRC district. Who is   here to present this application? Good evening  everyone. My name is Jason Cook with TF Maran   here on behalf of the owner Martin Hustlage.  Uh we're here before you as mentioned seeking   subdivision and site plan review and approval  for the proposed project located at 48 and 50  

Len Street. Project site shown as map 138, lot  47 is 9,927 square ft located within the general   residenc zoning district and is located at the  corner of Langden Street and Mcdana Street. Lot   currently contains a multif family dwelling. There  are two curb cuts along Lynon Street uh as well   as a garage and a deck to the rear of the site.  The site is currently served by municipal water   and sewer as well as gas and overhead electric.  Project proposes the subdivision of the existing   lot into two new lots to be defined as lot 47-0  and 47-1 as referenced by the city assessor.   Lot 47-0 will be 5,664 square feet located on  the southern end of the lot and lot 47-1 will   be 4,264 square ft located on the northern end  of the lot adjacent to that intersection. Both   lots meet zoning requirements for the general  residency district with each lot being larger   than the required 3,500 square feet and each  lot having greater than 70 ft of frontage and   50 feet of depth. Each new lot is proposed to  contain a three-story single family dwelling,   each with an attached ADU. Each proposed dwelling  meets required yard dimensions and structure   limitations, and open space requirement is met  with over 50% on each new lot. Each site will   have access off of Langden Street uh via 24t wide  driveway, and each site will have a two-car garage   and parking space for uh the attached ADU.  Lot 47-1's driveway, which is the closest to   uh the Mcdana and Langington intersection, will  be 30 feet away from that intersection, more than   twice as far as the existing uh closest driveway  is. This will result in much safer conditions for   traffic entering and exiting the site, as well  as going through that mentioned intersection.   There is an existing sidewalk in front of the site  along Langden Street. As part of the improvements,  

that sidewalk will be widened to 5 and a half  feet uh to meet Portsmith City standards. There   are also drainage improvements included as part of  the project today. The site kind of drains towards   Langden Street uh from the back. The proposed  improvements and site grading will retain that   same uh storm water characteristics. There are  three yard drains proposed along the Langden   Street side of the of each site which will collect  the runoff and route it to the municipal drainage   system uh and catch basin in Langden Street. This  will allow the site water runoff to reach that   same point while eliminating any runoff that would  as today sheet across the sidewalk causing some   um worse conditions uh in you know winter weather.  Uh the new improvements will limit that kind   of ice formation. The proposed improvements will  result in equal rates of runoff uh in the existing   and proposed conditions. Site will be served  by utility connections similar to what exists   today. We've coordinated the water and sewer  service with DPW and we'll continue to work   with them throughout the construction process.  Electrical service which today comes from overhead   uh electric service from poles at either corner of  the site will be converted to underground service   uh from those same utility poles. no gas service  proposed for the new dwellings. As noted in   comments provided by the TAC, uh there will be  disturbance within Langden Street for utility   work. Uh applicant has agreed to mill and pave  the roadway curb to curb um at any point where   it was disturbed. We are proposing four trees  on site. Uh these will be kindred spirit red   oaks who reach a height of 20 to 30 feet but only  spread about 6 to 8 feet wide, much narrower than   your traditional uh oak tree. These trees have  been selected for urban growing conditions and   will complement the existing tree canopy on site.  Project has undergone review by the Portsmith te   technical advisory commission and the parking and  traffic safety committee. We've addressed concerns  

raised by each group uh and have made them in  the the packet that was submitted to the city   about a month ago. The applicant has reviewed the  conditions of approval laid out in the staff memo   for tonight's meeting and has no objections to  what was uh listed. Um, thank you for your time.   Happy to answer any questions that you guys  have. Thank you. Questions of the applicant? No questions. I think um, how many street parking  spaces I mean it's not it's not painted now. Do   you expect to lose? Uh, we expect I think you  can fit four cars out front now. It'll be two   cars after the driver loss of two. Thank  you. Any other questions of the applicant? Thank you. Thank you. Anybody here  on Zoom? I'm going to open public   hearing. Anybody here on Zoom wish to  speak to four against this application? There's no one on Zoom. Last  call. Anybody here or on Zoom   wishes to speak to four against this  application? Close the public hearing. Chairman, I move we vote to find the subdivision  application meets the requirements set forth in   subdivision regulations and adopt the  findings of fact as presented. Second.   Any discussion on the findings? All those  in favor? I. Any opposed? I move we vote to   grant the preliminary and final subdivision  approval with the following stipulations  

2.1 2.2 2.3. Second. Any discussion? I um  given this neighborhood has had a historic   uh battle with parking and it's parking at the  end of the day. Um are we able to um mandate   that an owner does not prevent or prohibit a  tenant from parking in the driveway with an ADU. You want to prohibit prohibit it or no that they  cannot prohibit. Meaning if the ADU is rented, the   owner, the primary owner of the house can't say to  the tenant, you can't park in the driveway. Well,   they have by ordinance, they have to provide a  space for ADU. I know that they have to provide   it, but in a lease agreement or arrangement, is  it something that we would have purview over?   It's so hard. Have they Yeah. Make it  a condition and it's merely a question,   not trying to bog down this specific approval,  but with more and more ADUs becoming prevalent,   it is definitely a consideration. So, just  trying to iron out how that would go. It's   a good question. Do you want to do anything with  it or just talk? Not in this specific application.   Any other discussion? Motion on the subdivision.  Yes. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Going   Paul. Uh site plan. Uh vote to find that the  site plan application meets the requirements   set forth in the site plan regulation section 2.9  evaluation criteria and adopt the findings and  

facts as presented. Second. Discussion on the  findings. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Vote to grant site plan approval  with the following conditions as   outlined in the staff member. 2.1  through 2.6. Second. Thank you.   Discussion. All those in favor? I. Any  opposed? You're approved. Thank you. Next item is request of Perkins Quaka joint  realy. Revoke joint revocable trust, excuse me,   is honor for property located at 224 Broad Street.  Unit three, requesting a wetlands conditional use   permit from section 10101750 for replacement  and expansion of an existing 192 foot sun room   and the demolition of a 286qt rear deck with new  construction for 384t addition to the existing sun   room and a new 367 1/2qt rear deck and regrading  of a portion of the site including retaining wall   stone drip edge and under drain for storm water  control, replacement of the existing lawn with a   micro clover seed mix and a planting plan. This  property is located on assessor's map 131, lot   133 and lies in the general residents GR district.  Is there anyone here to present this application? This has been approved once before just a  year ago, right? It expired August. August. Would you like to Peter? No. I would recommend you  postpone. Yeah, postpone it to December. Motion to   postpone this application to December. Second.  Any discussion? All those in favor? I I I'm   assuming. Any opposed? It's continued to December.  Go ahead. Assuming the applicant will be notified.  

We will have to let them know here. We have a  request of uh 0 to 120 Wild Wild Rose Lane LLC   owner for property at 60 Pleasant Point Drive  requesting a wetland condition use lease permit   from section 10101750 for an after the-act permit  the installation of rip wrap shoreline and a title   wetland and vegetated wetland buffer of a title  wetland. This application comes after previously   approved vegetated shoreline was not installed  and the current armoring approach was used and   resulted in approximately 1,588 square feet of  disturbance for regrading the slope installation   of boulders and new plantings. This property  is on assessment map 207 lot 13 and lies in the   single residence or SRB district. Who is here to  present this application? Thank you Mr. Chairman,   members of the board. My name is Tim Phoenix.  I'm an attorney at hopeful Phoenix Bormley and   Roberts here in Portsouth. I'm here um on behalf  of the applicant 12 Zero Wild Rose Lane LLC. And   with me are the principles uh and effective owners  of the property, John and Michelle Morris, who are   in the second row, first couple of seats. Uh I've  got a the rest of our team is here. Um you know,   some of them. Eric Weiner from Altus Engineering  is here and he's done the technical work on this   site from the start. Um J Obi from TF Moran um is  the uh designer of the plans that are before you   and that were um submitted to and approved by dees  uh which will be slightly amended. Um we also have   uh Tom Ballister um who's an engineer  and professor and well-known expert on   shoreline issues from uh he's works at UNH and  I believe he's worked often with the city as   have others. Um Ben O and Drew Wilson from OJ  Building Company are here also in the second   row next to the Morrises. Um they are in charge  of the actual overall construction on the site um   which is 60 Pleasant Point Drive. Um the overall  um design intention for that site is to remove the  

um substandard uh old home out there. uh do site  work including uh removal of invasive species   um and of course this shoreline stabilization  that we are here uh discuss. And finally also   with me is Kirsten Forom from Riverside Pickering.  Um they are well known in the area and have worked   um all of these people really have worked with  the city uh before the city and with the city   on numerous projects. uh Riverside Pickering does  a lot of the construction of uh reetments um and   sea sea seashore stabilization um all over uh  the sea coast of New Hampshire um the lakes of   New Hampshire and the sea coast of Maine. So the  overall proposal that's before you um is for you   to approve via an amended conditional use permit  a hybrid living shoreline uh which is basically   hard armor. uh at the bottom. You'll see it on the  plans. Um and the purpose um it was built was to   uh remedy this problem that you see before you in  these photographs. There's a number of them. Um   the shoreline was essentially unstable uh at the  time that Morrises bought the property. Uh but   then there was severe storms a couple of years  ago that basically uh wiped out a good portion   of um the uh shore. And you can see the where  the where it goes up to the grass level, it's   been cupped out as a result of the storms. And so  that uh was the problem um that was sought to be   um uh remedied. Um originally after the after  the Morrises purchased the property, um Altus   Engineering was hired as the technical expert. Um  they worked with um a landscape architect Matthew   Cunningham and came before this board in late um  23 with a a conditional use permit application   that was uh what I would call an entire living  shoreline. In other words, no hard armor that  

was approved by this board at the time. I would  also mention that the hybrid living shoreline,   the hard armored living shoreline that we're here  to talk about and ask for your approval for is a   little bit less than 50% of the entire shoreline  of the Morris property. Um the other approximately   49% 51% was originally approved and is remaining  um as a total living uh shoreline. Um so after the   um CUP was granted in late 23 122723 um the um  applicants had to go to dees to get approval.   Uh when they did that um they hired TF Moran and  particular JBI um because um the dees requires an   engineer stamp. The architects um did not have an  engineer stamp on their approved plans via this   uh cup. So, um, J O was hired and TF Morano was  hired um to get the dees application filed and   approved. Um, in doing so, he's obligated um by  his job, his degree, and his license to do an   analysis of what is needed to pro provide proper  shoreline protection for the shoreline that he's   working on. Uh and when he did that he concluded  that um the living shore total living shoreline   on approximately 50% of the shoreline because  of this problem right here um was not uh was   not sufficient. Uh he therefore designed um a  living shoreline which was a combination of the   hard armor at the bottom, significant plantings  above that on the slope and then more plantings. I   think there's over a thousand plants um at the top  of the u rise uh there as it approached the the   uh uh um the lawn. Um in January of 2024, we  all know there were um significant uh two two   significant storms. Um that's what this photograph  and there are others um are intended to uh show  

you. Um so that is the starting point. Um we all  you you can also see those photos in the report   of Tom Ballister uh which is part of the package  that's been submitted to you. I'll get back to   that a little bit um uh more. So, as I said, TF  Moran designed what it believed um in opines is   a reasonable and feasible shoreline protection.  um provided the engineer stamp. Um did a thorough   and complete analysis and um their report is  submitted with the October 23rd, 2025 submission   um to the board by Altus Engineering um which  also includes a memo from myself um and uh Jay   of TF Moran going through and and explaining um  how we meet the requirements for the issuance of   a of a CUP. the TF Moran um an analysis after  submitting to dees um uh required them to   respond to two requests for more uh information  RFMIS uh through the summer of uh 2024. Um and   um on the um a after that was done, dees issued  um its permit for this hybrid livid shoreline.   Um that again was not the approved cup by this  board in late 2023. Um through that process,   the um state, the dees finally issued a permit  approving that on November 4th, 2024. Uh it should   be also in your packet. You've we also submitted  earlier in the summer including a submission by me   and Eric for the initial um cup application. This  um October 23rd submission um updated that um uh   with the information that was obtained uh from the  time of the initial um submission which includes  

the Ballister report and an expert um peerreview  engineer firm. actually two of them that were   hired by the city staff uh to analyze this  submission by TF Moran and and the dees approval.   Um so um you may be asking yourselves, so what  happened between the time that this was originally   approved as as a as a living shoreline and the  time it was built? and why weren't this group   back before the planning board for an amendment  before it was built? Um, this is my understanding.   One of the issues is that the dees when it sent  the permit um for the hybrid living shoreline,   it it sent it to the clerk and to the conservation  commission, it did not include the plan. And I'm   I'm kind of surmising something, but you know, it  was received. It was filed in the minds of many.   Uh, I believe it was believed to be an approval  for what had already been approved by you folks as   the as the living shoreline. I haven't been told  that, but that's sort of how I'm uh envisioning   things. Um, what I want you to hold on to is that  the people who were dealing with us on the ground   after that permit uh after the original permit and  then the amended dees approval with the hybrid are   essentially the construction people. So, they  got the plans and did what they normally do,   which is figure out the plans. They go to the  building inspection department and says, "Here,   here's what we're going to do. Um, are we good?"  Well, um, they submitted the plans and in January   of 2023, there's emails between city staff um, and  specifically Kristen Forom um, of uh, Riverside   Pickering and Drew Wilson from U OJ Building  Company. basically um um to the prim primarily   to the building inspection department. But here's  what we're doing. Is that are we good? Tim,  

just real quickly, I just I'm trying to follow  this. You just said January 23. You mean January   24? I meant January 25. Okay. Sorry. Um thank  you for clarifying that. Um and do it again if   if I get off track. Um, so all everything that's  before you today has happened really in in 2025   since the late 24 issuance of the dees permit.  So, um, and I'm not justifying anything that was   done. I'm not I'm not here to blame anyone or  find that the city's responsible or anything.   It was essentially an oversight. The building  people wanted to build this shoreline protection.   They went to the planning department. Planning  department said looked it over and said, "Yeah,   you don't need a building permit. Go ahead." That  wasn't accurate. that it should have come back   here before any of that happened, but it didn't.  So, the builders um at Riverside Pickering and   OJ Building thought they were okay and built it.  It took about three months to build it from, you   know, middle of the winter um was done in March  or April. Um uh and they thought everything was   fine. Well, lo and behold, it wasn't because after  it was built, um the staff um Kate May came out   and took a look at it and said, "Wait a second.  you guys didn't build what we approved. You you   needed to come back for a cup. Um that was the big  uh oh um which leads us here today. So the city   um issued a cease and desist and said you've built  something that wasn't permitted with an amendment.   So you you got to go get another cu you got to get  an amended cup for the at least for the portion of   this that is not what we approved as the living um  shoreland uh and is now a hard armored shoreland.   Um the staff was concerned um and rightly so about  that happening without coming back before you and   also it was the approval that TF Moran designed  and dees approved was that reasonable under the  

circumstances. So the city um hired um a company  um um D. Rosa Engineering, which in turn hired a   company called Summit Engineering uh to analyze  um the the submissions um and render an opinion   on behalf of the city basically in a standard  peerreview to determine whether or not the design   by TF Moran and approved by dees was reasonable  and feasible and bottom line met the requirements   for the issuance of a conditional use permit  under the city of Portsmith's uh ordinances.   Um and that is what happened. So on um uh let's  see the the emails and I have them here if you   want them. They were also included in my letter  um to this board back in I think August. Move on. My initial letter with submissions which  included the ballast steroid workforce was   submitted on July 30th, 2025 and included those  emails. And again, I'm not trying to put words   in anyone's mouth. I'm just telling you how it  was interpreted. I'll give them to you again.   Uh you can read them yourself, but I'm explaining  how our folks interpreted uh that email exchange.   Those were on January 8th through January 13th  of 2025. after which um uh it was built. Um so   uh it was built um the um we agree as I said that  um it should have been back here for a cup. Um the   delay between the finding in or about May or June  by the city staff that it didn't have the right   a complete cup is what's been delayed and we've  been dealing with the experts with uh we had some   meetings with the staff. Um there was a sitewalk.  We've had to go to the conservation commission.  

We've been there a couple of times. Um they did a  sitewalk. Um then the experts were hired D. Rosa   um and summit and they did a sitewalk  and then started their uh review. Um so we um because we had hired TF Moran who had  designed it just to feel safer about it. Uh   we contacted and hired Tom Ballister who is  here as I've said um who uh performed his own   uh independent investigation and review of all of  the materials to determine whether he thought and   as I said he's a well-known um expert on shoreline  issues. Um and um he issued a report that is part   of your packet. I think I submitted it back  in late July and it's also included in uh the   packet um that Eric at Altus submitted on October  23rd. um you have it. I presume you've read it.   Um I can cite certain uh uh uh portions of it um  which I won't unless you want me to. But basically   he analyzed the slope um and the factors such as  that causing that um and his conclusion was that   the hybrid living in the hard armor was necessary  and reasonable and therefore feasible um under   the circumstances. Um so we went forward with with  that information um then through the uh review by   um D. Rosa. I will also mention that um at the end  of all this all and I think it's the last document   in um Altus Engineering's October 33 23rd 2025  submission is the asbuilt and when the asbuilt   was done by easterly survey um there were a couple  of things uh noted a a a portion of uh the hard   armor um is slightly very slightly water side of  the highest observable tide line or the hot line.  

The also the length of the hard armored uh and and  hybrid living shoreline was somewhat longer than   the original approval by dees. Uh we know about  that. Um we have we are have submitted alternate   plans uh to dees. Um we have followed up them  as recent with them as recently through Eric as   today and they say they have it. They're working  on it. We're expecting their response soon. We   don't expect any problems with that. The reason  I bring it up is because the um the staff report,   you know, correctly states that there's there's  there's what they call fill in the wetland and   um also um in the in the buffer. Um the total  amount of stone that's over the hotline is 39   square feet of this whole revetment. It's very  very small. Um we considered whether to go in   and you know cut the stones back or move them.  Um, we believe and I believe it's contained in   the experts report that that would be more  harmful than leaving them where they are.   We don't think the stone is in the wetland. Um,  we think the stone is over the hotline, but in   an area before it would normally meet the water.  The water comes up that far when you have storms,   but not normally. Um, and it definitely is longer.  So, you know, I just wanted you to be aware that   we're not um not only would did we not proceed,  you know, if you will, as scoff laws compared to   the original CUP granted. Um the uh other issues  we are dealing with with dees. We have analyzed   that. We think that the the decision is going to  be leave it the way it is. And the reason that   happened is because when you're taking stones that  are size of a desk or a small car and putting them   on a slope and m it's not entirely precise. One of  the efforts that that we were trying to u uh meet  

is that at the top of this slope in certain areas  there were mature trees and so the effort was to   place the stones without taking you know taking  out more land which would risk those trees and   when all that happened a couple of them are very  slightly over um that hotline as I mentioned. So,   um, turning to, uh, what happened next, we went to  the we went to the, um, conservation commission a   couple times. As I said, the experts um, uh, from  D. Rosa and, um, summit um, were hired. They, um,   issued their their report. I want to say  September, I think it was September 26th,   uh, they issued their report. Um, I'll give you  some excerpts, but I interpret that report, which   you should have, and hopefully you've read, um, is  fully in support of the design and installation,   um, the design by TF Moran and the installation  by Pickering, um, as approved by uh, DEES.   Um the as a result of that uh when we last went  to the conservation commission um that issue and   that factor was discussed and the conservation  commission unanimously uh voted to recommend   approval to this board. I want to take a moment  because I I think um this is you know one of the   factors that I hope makes it easy for you folks to  to make this uh judgment is the hard armor partial   hard armor the hybrid living shoreline um is what  should have been done and approved in the first   place. Um uh it is it is clear from the experts  all of the experts um that um the soft shoreline   along this area was not going to be sufficient  to protect this um this land. So a couple of   um quotes that I think are important from the  D. Rosa and summit um reports uh and you can  

read it for yourself, but I'm going to tell you  what it says in the page it's on. There appears   to be no engineering support for the first um  wetland cup, the the soft shoreline so to speak,   designed by Matthew uh Cunningham landscape  design. That's on page four of the DV D.   Rosa report. We find the second WCUP application  contained uh sound engineering design. That's the   one before you today was reviewed by a certified  wetland scientist and a provincial a professional   engineer and was appropriate for the site. Page 10  of that report. It is our position that in areas   with tidal influences and expectations of more  frequent storm surges that the hybrid strategy   for shoreline protection is the most reasonable  and effective approach. Page seven of the DROA   report. The second WCUP application although more  robust in its design and installation is likely   to be more effective in protecting the upgradient  landforms. Also page seven, the land is perfectly   suitable for the construction of the slope  stabilization strategy as designed by TF Moran   and installed. That's the expert hired by the city  to analyze this. That's on page eight of the D.   Rosa report. The wetland functions and values  will likely be enhanced by the activity given   the plantings, the structural niches created  by the dry laid boulders and stones. Also,   PJ Summit Engineering has evaluated the effects  of the construction shoreline stabilization effort   and has determined there would be no adverse  impact to a budding property. In brief, the design   of the slope stabilization strategy by TF Brand is  a sound solution to the destructive undercutting   of the bank. Accordingly, it is our opinion that  the current design is appropriate for the site.   That's on page eight. Just got a couple more. Um,  in our opinion, the second WCUP application was   more rigorously designed and considered both  engineering and environmental constraints of   the site and incorporated appropriate solutions.  Page nine. It is our collective meaning D. Rosa  

and Summit who they brought on board professional  opinion that the current shoreline stabilization   design is appropriately designed and installed. We  do not believe there is a reasonable and feasible   alternative approach to the current design.  And finally, um, and probably most important,   that that they will find that this is in  substantial compliance with Portzmouth zoning   ordinance section 10-7 1017.50, which are the  requirements for the issuance of a of a CUP. So,   um, in in summary, um, what we have is a the  living shoreline was not suitable. The storms   decimated that uh, shoreline. Um TF Moran  designed, investigated and provided a plan.   It was approved by dees. It was approved by our  ex other expert Tom Ballister. It was approved   by D. Rosa Summit. So from my perspective as a  lay person, we have four different if you will   uh experts opining that what's been done out  there was reasonable. Is this coming in the wrong   order? Yes. Uh but the issue is if we had come to  begin with, would you have approved it? We have   TFM approves it. Of course, Dees has approved it.  Mr. Ballister has approved it and D. Rosa Summit   um has has approved it. Um as I said at the outset  earlier on um you have a memo uh from uh TF Moran   and me that goes through the requirements for a  cup. Um I'm happy to go through those one by one.   I don't necessarily think it's necessary. You  have it. I've gone on kind of adnauseium. Now,   you've got all these reports. Um, so if the  chair wants me to go through all of those,   fine. I'm comfortable saying that's it. Um,  we we are all here to answer your questions,   but I personally see this as um  mistakes were made inadvertently. Um,  

but the result was but it should have been and  we're asking for your approval. I don't know if   there's anything that any of my team want to add  now before you start asking questions. Anyone?   I don't know if they think I screwed it up totally  and don't want to be part of it or whether they   think I've covered it. So, they're still sitting  there. So, any questions of the applicant? Sure.   Feel a little bit of like it's officiation through  inundation of material here. Um, so, you know,   forgive me for some of the questions. Um, I'm I'm  I'm I don't I'm not have no interest in turning   it into an investigation of what was done with  when. We just I think the the duty of the board   is to make sure it's what's there is right. Sure.  In my opinion. Um and so but I part of my question   does relate to timing of stuff. I'm confused. You  mentioned 39 square feet of fill. I usually don't   hear fill in terms of square feet. I usually hear  it in terms of volume. Um and but you so the the   the premise was you know this storm happened after  this this approval and now the state and so you   altered it the state permit did the state approved  that fill the was that part of the plan that's a   very good question Mr. Koviello, we don't consider  it fill. The reason I use the term fill is because   the staff report says that we put fill in the  wetland. What we put was the hard armor stone,   you know, against the slope and then smaller  stones up the top like and you all know what   a revetment looks like. Then that the proposal  is that that face will be planted and then above   it is planted. So, no other soil was added to  the site other than the stones as part of the   revetment. I I'm gonna not where this happened.  This is this is the stones slightly over the  

hotline. Um I don't know whether they brought in  any any any soil to do above above the um where   the I mean the stones don't go all the way up to  the top of that um that rise. They go part of the   way up and then then there's plantings and then  there's plantings up on top. That's the Is that   the asbuilt, Peter? Yes, this is the asbuilt. Yes.  So, it's this area right here. And there's also in   the packet somewhere there's a a rendering and it  gives you a pretty good idea of what it looks like   uh upon completion, but I'm going to turn it over  to Jay. He has can can add some context to this. I'll be brief. Um Jay Obi from TFAN.  I'm the lead um environmental scientist,   wetland scientist. Um if we could just  Please return to the slides that were   up a few moments ago. I was waiting for  Tim to say next slide, but he never did. I think I can sprinkle in a a bit more context  here to help to help everybody better understand   how we how we landed where we're at today. um  briefly four or five slides. Obviously, we can   see significant damage that occurred after the  after the storms. We all know that those storms   are very powerful, but January uh 2024 uh next  slide, please. One of the things that we do in   in every shoreline project we work on is to is to  perform what's called a vulnerability assessment.   It's um models and techniques that are prescribed  by the New Hampshire DS Wells Bureau that forces   us to take a hard look at at what um anticipated  sea level rise may look like. That helps us   um in in the design phase of these projects.  Um understanding that um by the year 2050 we're  

projected to have a 1.6 um foot increase in sea  level rise, that is something that we certainly   took into consideration in this design. Next  slide. One of the other pieces I think that   that's that's that's uh immensely critical is  this tool that's available for the public and it   was designed largely even for uh decision makers  like yourself to use municipalities uh is the uh   New Hampshire um living uh living shoreline site  suitability assessment. Um there are a number of   stakeholders across New Hampshire that took a hard  look at um all of New Hampshire's coastline took   in a whole bunch of metrics and determined which  areas of New Hampshire's sea coast are more are   most suitable for an entirely green soft living  shoreline. Next slide. When we look at our when we   look at our site and use that site suitability  index where you see the light color there   uh the lighter means it's it's a it's less likely  to use a completely green uh living shoreline. A   darker blue color five plus means it is it is  uh more suitable. Uh this this site here um is   not entirely suitable for a an entirely green  living shoreline largely because of the slopes   of very very steep steep slopes uh and incredibly  erodable soils as you saw. Essentially there was   a living shoreline there that existed prior to the  storm events. It wasn't able to um to demonstrate   resiliency to that to those storm events. Next  slide. So we landed here um in this three to four   area where it where this model does prescribe  the use of some hard armor. Next slide. I want  

everybody to to recognize too when we visit these  sites we do look to see if there is a possibility   to to regrade them in a way that would allow for  an entirely green living shoreline, you know. And   so this this image here uh shows the the regrading  necessary to achieve a a a 10 to one slope which   significantly impacts the property. It's just not  practicable. And even going to a 5 to1 slope next   slide is certainly also not practable. Poses  large impacts to the property. Next slide.   So, we've designed this to have the the hard armor  um extend up to where the highest astronomical   tide is proposed in the year 2050. We want to  get that hard armor in place. Next slide. Um   this is what the site um well, it's actually  even more vegetated than this. This was taken   uh late summer. Um, and I think it's important for  everybody to recognize also in our uh efforts to   coordinate with the conservation commission  and also working with Dr. Tom Balsterero who   is in attendance this evening. We're going to uh  try to green this up even more by incorporating   something called vegetative rip wrap where within  the uh the interstitial areas uh within the rocks   u we infill with sand and next slide please and  provide additional plantings native plantings.   Uh the hope is that that they will green up with  time. Um, we're also removing some of the rock   material to create 50 planting pockets to put  in 50 additional um, common juniper um, plants.   We intentionally selected that species. As you  can see, the junipers to the left. Um, we didn't   touch that area in the design. It was because it  was largely left intact after that storm event.  

Uh we're involved with a number of projects uh up  and down the coast as far north as Cape Corpus,   Maine. What we see is uh the areas  that had a lot of juniper bushes were   um certainly much more resilient than areas  that uh that had other types of vegetation. Jay,   we're going to use a work works. Jay, right? Yeah.  Can I remind you my question was about Phil? Yeah.   And we're at another I'm getting there. Yeah. I'm  growing irritable. I think the board is growing   irritable. Let's wrap it up, please. I'm sorry for  the the rest of the board, but we've got to get   through this. Understood. Well, that's the last  I think that's the last slide. So, good timing.   Yeah. In terms of fill, there is no fill per se  below um or in wetlands. Technically, the area   below the highest observable tidal line is a is  an intertidal zone or rocky shoreline area. There   are some some of the towes that were installed  during the project uh extend a bit uh waterward   of the of the highest observable tideline 39  square ft rather relatively dimminimous. Um it   would be more impactful to go in uh bring in uh  equipment uh and try to move these things back.   So there was a debate about whether you you your  group's position is that this is not fill this is   armor. There there's rock material hard armor.  Yes. Just slightly over. It wasn't soil. It's   fill. It's rock fill. It's it's over the over the  hoto. It's rock fill. And the staff me says fill   but in parentheses it says boulders. So I think  that's what it's referencing. Okay. My my what   the root of my question is is they have they had  a alternative design come that got approved by  

the state that was different than the conditional  use permit. Did the state approve what was built?   This was did the state plan say yes they can  use this? Not exactly. Not exactly. That was   explained by the attorney. They're looking  for a revised state approval. Okay. We have   since we have since submitted a formal amendment  request to the state of New Hampshire to amend the   permit for the subtle for the slight increase in  lateral expansion. I got the answer now. That was   the answer. There's there's a new application into  the state, right? Um great. That was one question.   Um the bark mulch, is that typical in a living  shoreline? It feels like it's a foreign material   that you would It just seemed very strange to see  bark mulch in the photos that you had. Looks like   straw over grass. Is it Is it not bark mulch? It  It is. There is bulk bark mulch in there and that   is quite typical in these situations. It's a great  um a great tool to prevent uh against erosion um   while the while the vegetation is uh um maturing.  I I'll rely on your expertise there. That just it   was surprising because that's like the first thing  that goes when our gutter gets overflowed is the   bark mulch gets all washed away. Um the size of  the boulders is this photo representative of the   boulders out there. You you describe I think  someone described them the size of deaths or   cars that they're they're uh three to to five foot  diameter boulders in that image. Yes. The base,   right? The the base tow. Yes. Okay. Because  after that, I walked my dog on the beach in   the summertime and and sometimes in the winter  and after the storm, I couldn't believe the size   of the boulders they were bringing into Ry Beach.  I mean, they they were size, you know, those are   truly the size of cars. Um, this is nothing like  that. And I'm assuming there's is an engineering   analysis due to the velocity of the water that the  smaller boulder is going to be fine here. Well, in  

smaller boulders, meaning if our our engineering  team feels that three to 5 foot diameter boulders   in this instance will adequately uh protect this  property well well into the future. It's not wave   action necessarily that that that impacts this  property. when the waters when we had the um the   the flood waters, the rain, the precipitation  coupled with the highest astronomical tide when   the waters receded there was lateral movement  along the shoreline and that's what undercut   the bank and eroded it away. Okay. Uh my last  question is sort of a comment. You don't you're   welcome to respond or not. It's a little odd to  hear a presentation talking about how the original   design was wrong and getting experts saying,  "Oh, that original design was wrong. That was   wrong. Shouldn't have done that." As if it's not  the same applicant that suggested that original   design. And so it's it's now like, well, trust us  now. Our new experts are much better and we're,   you know, it's fine now. And so that's just the  feeling I had from the presentation that there it   was like it was there was some other group that  did the original design and they were wrong all   along whereas this is the same applicant. So just  a comment. Any other questions of the applicant   since Tony jumped right in? Uh not just a question  but a series of comments. um putting all the   procedural um fumbles aside that may or may not  have happened with staff or to me that's less   important than um just recognizing the fact that  we have um we have a very impressive collection of   professionals in the room that are working on the  project. Um I don't believe any that was anything   reckless or irresponsible purposely done and I  put a huge amount of weight on the third party  

um D. executive summary. Um, and the bullet points  in that summary that was referred to um it gives   me a very um real level of comfort that um we  need to leave it as is and the additional um   messing with the shoreline is um is not the right  is not the right answer. Um as a matter of fact,   it's not simply stating that. It's stating  that that it's approp is is appropriate and   correct and good. So I don't in my opinion  I don't need to hear any more beyond that. How long until the state gets back to you guys on  appro a a new approval of this that you guys have   have done? Great question. uh statutoily they have  30 days to respond. We're nearing that 30-day uh   time frame. So, we expect to hear shortly. Okay.  Cuz I almost feel like if we vote and approve this   and then the state says something else, it's  the same mess you guys were just in, right?   Because from what I got from your from the  story was you guys came to the planning board,   got approved, went to the state, got approved for  something else, but didn't come back to us. So why   not wait until the state approves before you ask  us? We've we've had a we've we've had informal uh   discussions with the state already um and feel  confident that we'll have an approval for this   um shortly. And if I it's an excellent question  if I may. Um just embellish that a little bit.  

Um what we expect is that you will grant approval  subject to to dees approval for any changes. and   thinking about in the normal course we come to  you, you approve something, then we go to the   state. Um, this has gotten a little bit mixed up,  but the process we believe should be the same. Um,   and we would like to be able to tell the state  we have your approval because I think that   will help with their analysis. Um, that we are  expecting really within the next week or so. Um,   Eric's right here. Um, but I asked him today  he can embellish. Um, and he spoke with Evan   Lewis at dees today and the 30 days runs out  sometime around the end of this month. So,   we are expecting I don't know there's going to  be approval or our FMIs or what, but as as Jay   just said, preliminary discussions are they don't  see a a problem with this. And the recommendation   um has been um at this level is don't don't change  it. you know, leave things the way they are and   let DS look at it. The board can do whatever  it wants to on that topic. And I I just I just   want I'm not disagreeing with what Joe said,  but I am disappointed that we have some very   high level professionals in the room and you  had a plan that was approved that you didn't   like. You got a different plan approved knowing  that the city needed to revise that approval   and you didn't do it. then you built it not in  accordance with the new plan that you got from   the state. There's been some slip ups here that  don't track with this this group of professionals   that that are here and that's unfortunate. So, I  just want want that clear. It's it's distressing   to see this much expertise and to have these sorts  of mistakes happen. Yes, Paul. Uh Mr. Chairman,  

would the board consider a sitewalk with  concomes? I don't know if we get DESOR's done a sidewalk. They already was pretty recent. Um, yeah, a couple  months ago, I think. I just remember seeing I I attended the sitewalk with  the conservation commission. I'm not, by the way, my comment is a criticism.  It's a very sincere criticism. I'm not suggesting   that I disagree with the result of the study that  the city has commissioned and was uh presented.   But it's very unfortunate that this sort of  thing happened the way it happened. Understood. I don't disagree with you, but I'm pleased to see  that we've actually put it as a condition that all   future communications will be um especially  with dees Hampshire DEES will be part of our   motion that they come back to the planning and  sustainability department. So, we will we will   know any other questions the applicant before  we open the public hearing. Yes, Bill. I I'm   I'm pleased to be educated on the vagaries of  this, but I share the chair's uh concern. We've   got a lot of um properties along water. Uh we've  got sea level rise. Uh we're working on a master   plan that's going to have resiliency as one of its  themes. Uh it's very important that we know and   understand uh what our waterfront needs to be. Uh  we seem to have arrived at about the right place  

here. Albeit it's not what was approved and it's  not what the dees approved. U we're going to need   to have good control of our process. Uh if we're  going to maintain the shoreline, we're going to   have to believe that people will do what they're  authorized to do and they won't do what they're   not authorized to do. Uh so I'm I'm probably at  the negative end of you know the reaction to this. One question I will add. Uh you mentioned you're  going to take out some of the boulders to plant   junipers or some other vegetation. So there's yet  another modification to what was constructed that   you are proposing. Is that correct? Well I  would say boulders. It's um above the toe   stones which we call boulders is rip wrap  smaller. So between the tow stones and the   top of the slope somewhere in there. Yes. Um  where where the where the photo showed where   the photo showed it. Yeah. There's roughly 50  stones this size will be either either moved or   repositioned or or completely removed to create  a planting pocket filled with um uh material and   planted with the with the juniper as well. Were  those planting pockets a part of the review by   D. Rosa and Summit. Do you know? Yes, they were.  Okay. Any other questions of the applicants team? Thank you. I'm going to Mr. Chairman, just  real quick to that last question. I just   want you to know that those stones to be  removed are going to be by hand. They're   just going to be lifted up and carried  out. And also the the that factor in   the plantings was something I as I recall  that the conservation commission wanted to   see that that's why it's there. Okay. Thank  you. I'm going to open the public hearing.   Is there anybody here or on Zoom wishes to  speak to for or against this application?

Anybody last call? Anybody wish to speak  to we have Our readings are plummeting. Are you coming up? He is okay. Can you go up to the microphone? I have to talk  at the microphone. You can hand it and then the planning department. We would  like to express our support for 60   pleasant point drives amended cup.  It would be good to see this project   get started as soon as possible. I think  it means completed as soon as possible. Thank you. Any other comments? Wish folks wish to  speak to four against this application.   And there's nobody else. Last call and  close the public hearing. The boards like to make a motion on the vote find that  the condition use permanent application   meets the requirements set forth in  section 101017.50 of the ordinance   and adopt the findings and facts as  presented. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Any opposed? No. uh vote  to grant the condition use permit with the   following conditions. I'm not going to read  them. 2.1 through 2.6 as in the staff memo.   Second. Any other ones that somebody brought  up? There's a question about a sidewalk,   but um I think that was just a question.  If I may comment on my motion. Do we have   second? Yes. Um I agree with what Joe said. I  think the experts in the room tonight are are  

really what has convinced me this is this will  work. Um but the it's just a a little bit of   erosion of trust um no pun intended there of of  um you know the original design had an engineer   involved as well. So I think it's just it's um  it's disappointing the the process and that's   been that's been said over and over again. I don't  need to read it um again, but um so but I do think   what's finally been what's here is is seems like  the most appropriate thing. Any other discussion?   All those in favor? I. Any opposed? No. Motion  carries. Thank you. Thank you very much. The request of Christina C. Palazoto, revocable  trust as owner and the Coil family revocable trust   as owner and Back 40 Builders LLC is owner  for properties located at 660 Middle Street   in Chevrolet Avenue. Requesting approval of a lot  line revision plan to transfer approximately 6391   ft from lot 191 to lot 19 and 6383 ft from lot  192 to lot 19. These properties on assessors map   147 lots 1919 191 and 192 and lie in the general  resident or GR district. Who's here to present   this application? Good evening to the board.  Uh Mr. Chair, my name is Ryan Fowler with James   Veron Associates. I'm the survey manager here  in Portsouth. Um I'm here tonight representing   um Christina Plesio Revocable Trust, uh the  Coil Family Trust and Back 40 Builders. Uh   we're looking to do a lot line adjustment on three  parcels. Uh basically uh one of the parcels 660   Middle Street tax map 147 lot 19. Uh we'd like to  reduce um the areas to their back lots that front   on Chevrolet a and we'd like to increase the 660  middle lot to the maximum lot size that we can  

while still providing uh the lots on Chevrolet  with uh a decent building envelope. And so our   proposal tonight would be to take the existing  lot 147-19 that's currently 16,552 ft and amend   the lot line to allow uh 29,326 square ft total.  Um we'd be taking about 6,300 square ft out of   uh lot 19-1 and another 6,300 ft out of lot 19-2  uh for this lot line adjustment. uh lot 147-9,   a good portion of it is currently in the HTC. Uh  all the new land that it would be getting would be   outside of the HTC. Um and basically this would  also allow for the extinguishment of the sewer   line easement that is currently uh on lot 19-2  uh for the benefit of lot 19. Other than that,   it's a fairly simple application. Uh we had  a couple waiverss because right now we are   not looking to do much or any development on  the existing uh lots on Chevrolet. Uh and at   that time the applicant would need to to amend  to the uh the city's uh requirements and and for   drainage analysis and driveway permits and sewer  connections and all that. Um questions by the   board. Questions from the of the applicant?  Yes, Joe. Um, I'm not asking this question   because I'm suspicious of of of what you might  be doing with that third lot. This is a genuine   um I'm genuinely curious. Do you have the ability  to um to tie into Friend Street for that lot? Um,   we haven't looked at that. From my understanding,  the uh applicant uh lives in 660 Middle and they   want some privacy. uh the lots behind them came up  for sale and uh they're looking to to you know get  

as much privacy as possible. Yeah. And Portsmith  u that's premium. It just it appears as though   there's an opportunity for what you're doing here  to create yet another lot with Friend Street as   the frontage. That's all. Um but I'm I'm in I'm  in support of it. It's a very straightforward.   It's a it's a huge piece of property and it's  appears to meet all the requirement. Any other   questions of the applicant? Just a clarification.  For some reason in my head I had thought that the   Chevrolet AB um when that was parcled off from  668 middle or 660 middle that there were approvals   attached to that but maybe there was no that's  ne that's just south. Yeah, that's all done.   That's a different project. It's the house next.  No, specifically to these lots because they have   since been cleared and they have. Yeah.  Yeah. There were no approvals. No. Okay. Do you know anything about the clearing on the  those lots? Um I know at some point they you know   those uh lots out back I think they're you know  obviously someone wants to develop at some point.   Um we're trying to do this adjustment before that  and at that time um you know they have to apply   to the planning board or the you know building  department um with the necessary department.   Yep. Yep. Okay. Any other questions? Yes. Tony.  Um Chevrolet A. So is that all on private land?   Um Chevrolet has one of those interesting um  right ofways and uh you know my predecessor   Jim Vera has done a lot of work for the city over  the years on Chevrolet. Um you know that portion   was actually where the former DPW building  used to be. Um and there is private or there   is a public easement across the private right of  you know the ownership fee ownership of the road  

is is privately owned but there is uh a public  right of way across it. So that the city has an   easement for Chevrolet out. Yep. And I think um we  do show on uh sheet three or sheet two, we do have   an easement plan that kind of highlights a little  bit more of the easements clearer um what's out   there. Um because there is a lot of different  easements. Um, there's a rightaway and utility   easement that shows up on a different reference  plan that was existing prior to the subdivision. Okay. Thank you. Any other  questions? Thank you. Thank you,   Mr. Chair. Is anybody here or on Zoom  to speak to against this application? Good evening. Um, my name is Kevin Coyle. Uh I  am the owner of both back 40 builders and half of   uh uh the uh property at 660 Middle Street where  we live. I just wanted to address your question.   We bought these lots to prevent development in  reality. Um you all have seen what has gone on   and what people bring before this board, some of  which I find reprehensible. Um but nonetheless   uh we wanted to prevent uh significant  development to what is an acre of property   uh behind our backyard and so we bought it. We  don't intend to uh do anything with the portion   of the land that we're taking um other than uh  we planted some trees. There's a magnolia tree   that my mother-in-law really likes and wanted  to save and so that was saved. We did clear   uh the trees uh from the front of Chevrolet. We  did that after we had an arborist come and take   a look at them and said they were essentially  junk trees. Um and so we are eventually going  

to market the lots the two lots that are uh  going going to be a little smaller and we are   going to eventually sell them but we want  to provide a good buffer for us. So that's   what we're doing what we're doing. Thanks. Thank  you. Anyone else here on Zoom wishes to speak to   four against this application? No one on Zoom.  Last call. Going to close the public hearing board's pleasure. Vote to We're going to vote  on the waver. Address the waivers. Yeah. Vote   to grant the requested waivers to the subdivision  standards from section 6.5 driveways 7.6 Section   six, drainage improvements. Section 6 7 municipal  water services. Section 6.8 municipal sewer   service. Section 6.9 installation of utilities.  Section 14 I didn't know I was going to keep going   here. Section 6.14 erosion sediment sedimentation  control. Section 8 subdivision review agreement.   And section 9.1 improvements and installation  uh bonds. And section 9.2 to maintenance bonds.   Second because you have to pick I have to  pick a okay strict conformity would pose an   unnecessary hardship to the applicant. The waiver  should not be contrary to the spirit intent of   the regulations. Still second. Still have a  second. Any discussion? All those in favor?   I. Any opposed? Keep going. Sure. Um vote to find  the subdivision um lot line revision application   meets the standards and regulations set forth in  the subdivision rules and regulations to adopt the   findings of fact as presented. Second discussion.  All those in favor? I. Any opposed? Vote to grant   preliminary and final subdivision approval  with the following stipulations 2.4 through  

2.6. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor?  I. Any opposed? Who seconded that? Jim. Yeah,   he was he was secing seconding  everything. Thank you. Thank you. Next item is a request of Carlson Family Trust as  owner for property at 6 Virginia Avenue requesting   a wetland conditioner use permit from section  10101750 for the removal of 1100 square feet of   an ingground pool within the wetland buffer and  associated fill and landscaping. The proposal   includes approximately 15 tons of structural inch  and a half stone to fill in the pool area for   drainage and an additional layer of screen lom on  top. This proper properties on assessor's map 225   lot 26 and it's in the single residence or SRRA  district. Who is here to present this application? Hi, good evening. My name is Josh Carlson. I'm  the owner of Six Regina Road. Um, I'm submitting   a conditional use permit application for the  removal of our inground pool. Uh, this was   uh previously submitted to the uh conservation  commission with a few conditions um that they   would like to see met um first and so one of  those was um installing a silt fence before work   was to begin. Uh that has since been installed  in the lines uh outlined in the picture here.   No fertilizer shall be used uh within the wetland  uh buffer zone uh which we've obviously agreed   to. The other one is to use a buffer friendly  seed mix. Um so we're going to be using the New   England Conservation Wildlife mix uh from the  resource uh that they provided us uh online.   And they also requested that we  install boundary markers every  

25 foot of the vegetation area along the  wetlands uh which we have uh completed. Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Good job. And open up public hearings. Anyone here on Zoom  wishes to speak to against this application? Last call. Going to close the public hearing.  You you you may be seated. Thank you. Thank   you. I have to make a motion. Vote to find that  the commission use permit application meets the   requirements set forth in section 10.1017.50 of  the ordinance and adopt the findings of facts as   presented. Second. Any discussion? All those  in favor? I. Any opposed? Vote to grant the   condition use permit with the following conditions  2.1, 2.2, 2.3, and 2.4 as outlined in the staff   memo. Second. Any discussion? I would just hope  that it seems like there was an opportunity here   or maybe an opportunity in the future to  make this kind of a staff approval thing. We're considering some changes to the section  of the ordinance for that reason in part. You're welcome to participate. Just did. Yep. All those in favor? Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. We have a preliminary conceptual consultation  the request of Iron Horse properties for   property at 105 Bartlett Street requesting  preliminary conceptual consultation. This  

property is on assessor map 164 lot 4-2 and is in  character district 4-L1 or CD4 L1 and the office   research districts. Who is here to present this  application? Good evening. Alex Monister with uh   Iron Horse Properties and Chinberg Builders. We're  here tonight to present preliminary conceptual   plans for your review and consideration.  The package that you're getting right now   are some supplemental plans that hopefully will  help to show the vision for the site uh and the   way that it connects to other sites in the area.  We thought this would be an important part of the   presentation so you can see the big picture here  on the cover sheet that you just received and it's   up here on the board as well. Uh there are several  key elements that I wanted to point out about   the surrounding site. So the proposed development  site is in the middle of you know Bartlett Street,   Islington Street and Maplewood A. It runs along  North Mill Pond and along the railroad tracks.   It's just beyond the multif family project that  is currently under construction. So the trail that   you see outlined in brown is part of the multif  family development that has been approved and   is under construction there. the next portion, the  trail that you see in green, um, and the six units   on this small plan. And if you flip over on the  other side, it's blown up, so you can see those   units larger as well. Um, that's the proposal that  we're here to contemplate with you all tonight. As part of that proposal on the 2.75 acre site,  we're showing the thousand feet linear feet along   North Mill Pond uh extension of the trail there  that would connect to the existing trail that has   been approved and is under development. The Iron  Horse Properties who is the owner of the parcel   also um has the right for an easement that would  connect all the way to Maplewood ABS. So though  

the intent of the uh presentation tonight is to  talk about a potential for a condo development on   the site really it's a much larger picture I think  in our opinion to be able to create connectivity   between Islington Street and Maplewood A for  this trail system. As you go through your   packet you'll see I included a number of um pages  from the North Mil Pond Greenway master plan. So,   this is something that the city's been thinking  about and working on and dreaming about for many,   many years. And so, we're excited about the  opportunity to help make that dream come true   here on the site. Obviously, this involves um  residential development as well, which would help   to fund uh the ability to put this trail in, but I  think it would be an invaluable public resource to   make that connection uh not just for the residents  that would live on this site and the abuing site,   but for the city of Portsouth as a whole. You  can also see in the package uh towards the end   I included some aerial photos and the top corner  of all those photos is the year they were taken.   So you can sort of get a picture of what the  site looks like now and what it has looked like   historically. And the intention of including  those in this package is to show this is sort   of leftover land beyond the railroad tracks in  between North Mill Ponds. Um it has you know   been cleared and been uh you know uh desolate in  in many different times over the last 20 years. Um   there's a lot of work that's been done to the  shoreline of North Mil Pond as well. So when   you go out there now there's a lot of beautiful  living shoreline already and we're excited about   the opportunity to uh enhance that. So along with  the trail that the greenway trail that we would   propose, we also would love to do a landscaped  pocket park. Everything of course at this moment   is very preliminary. Um but what you can see on  the sheet is outlined in green, an area that we've  

identified for a pocket park. Beyond just being a  public resource, we think it could also offer an   educational opportunity for residents who enjoy  that trail system to learn about the, you know,   migratory birds and the natural vegetation uh that  exists on site. We would of course incorporate a   landscape plan and more details like that along  the way as we go further in the development.   I also wanted to just highlight this is in the  CD4 L1 zone which is 3,000 square feet per unit   for the allowable density. This is a 2.75 acre  site. Um so you know I I quickly did the math. It   could support up to 38 units just by the density  calculations. We're here before you was six units.   You probably realized that the first plan that  we submitted to you, which you may have seen, had   eight units, two, three buildings, and a duplex.  We're in front of the conservation commission last   week, and we heard a lot of feedback from them  um about creating more open spaces in between   the buildings. You'll see that um between the  plan that we've presented previously and the   new plan that you have tonight, we've also  expanded the pocket park area to create more   natural space on the site. And we've created the  trail. The trail as it exists today on the site,   which you can see in some of those aerial photos,  um is not exactly 25 ft from North Mil Pond. In   some instances, it's closer. It was important  to the conservation commission that that be   reclaimed and run along the 25T buffer. And so,  we've shown that change as well on the plan. We're really excited about the potential  and the vision here. And so we wanted to   come early in the design phase and get your  feedback and thoughts about this development   so that we can use that information as we move  forward in the full design. I'm happy to answer  

any questions. Thank you for coming in and having  this conversation, questions, discussion, input. Yes, Bill. I'm a little confused. So, uh, your  your intent is to build within the wetlands.   Oh, no. Our intent is to build within  the 100 foot buffer of North Mill Pond,   but there are no wetlands. It's called a wetlands buffer, but it's not on  wetlands. That's correct. Yeah. And the 50 foot   um area is is preserved in this plan. So from 0  to 50, there are no buildings proposed and no uh   roadway infrastructure proposed. Just that trail  uh which is a requirement in the zoning ordinance   in this area that the trail be placed along the  25 foot buffer. So that's where we're showing it   here. That's the dark green line on the you know  you got to flip. Sorry I printed double-sided, but   you flip it over and you see the um large plan.  So that that's the 10-ft um reserved rightway on   the 25 foot line and then the the dark green  shaded area coming off of the water and I can   um I can point to it over here. It'll be a little  easier. All right. Just don't touch the screen. Is that on, Alex? Is that mic on? No. Can you  hear me there? Yeah, if you hold it hold it close   to your mouth. Oh. Um, so this area here is the  50 foot uh buffer from North Mil Pond. This area   here is between 50 and 100 ft uh for the most  part. There are some areas that are outside of   the 100 foot buffer, but primarily these six units  will be between the 50 and the 100 foot buffer. So   they are in the buffer. That's correct. But the  overall big picture here is that having these   six residential units allows for a much larger  public benefit, which is these six units fund  

the ability to create this connection, which  is a benefit, I think, to the city as a whole   and to the recreation and the connectivity and  to the master planning that has gone into this   greenway. And without some type of development  on this site, it's not going to fund itself. Thank you. I was out there on a sitewalk uh  with with Concom and Peter on a drizzly evening,   fading light, low tide. And uh I was really struck  by the contrast between the beauty of North Mil   Pond and the the blight of an abandoned railard.  It's not abandoned, which is not really abandoned,   but it really looks like an abandoned railard.  I mean, it's something, you know, this seems to   be an area of the city where something needs  to happen. And um I like this project because   of what it ables the developer to do to to make  some improvements in that area. And I hope that   uh you have it on your documents as GSM has that  shed or something out there. I hope at some point   it extends closer to Maplewood where do something  with the rest of it. It it really it just it   looks absolutely horrible all of the property  out there against the beauty of the the pond. Yes. Can we talk about the trail for a second?  Um there's a previous approved project to the   page left. Um um I think it's west. Um that  has a trail as part of the approval. Yep.  

It's highlighted right there. The green trail.  I is that if this um is the entire trail part   of is it going to get constructed whether or  not this construction moves forward or is this   a contingency thing that this this site has to be  this trail section is not going to get developed   unless this site is developed. Yeah. So Iron Horse  Properties and Chimberg Builders own this section   of the land. The only way that we can paying for  the construction of the trail on the parcels if   we are able to develop the site and you know  make money building the buildings and selling   the buildings to help fund that improvement. This  is this is not being constructed or contemplated   being constructed by anybody else at this time.  There's no existing easement for that trail. Yes,   Iron Horse Properties also has an easement here  that they secured on their own which makes the   connection to Maplewood. So the only parties  that are benefiting from that easement right   now are Iron Horse properties both here in the  green and here in the red. Thank you. You're   welcome. Andrew, I could be having an off day,  which has happened before. Um, how do we how do   you access this site? Yeah, it comes in from  the cathartic site. That's a great question.   So, when you look at this, which I know on  your page is is probably really hard to see,   but this is Bartlett Street here. This is Reesei.  Um, these are the approved multif family buildings   with you. Yep. And then there's a connecting road.  So, we'll connect from the existing infrastructure   on that multif family site will extend into our  site. And so, that dark black that you see, again,   this is very preliminary. It's just representative  of where we think a road would be would connect  

from this site onto our site. So, and this is a  question again for the city. If there's a 15 foot   minimum railroad setback, does the railroad have  to say yes to that building within that setback?   It's for structures. It's for structures.  So, they can put the road there. Okay. I saw   some moving utility lines. That's what I was  asking. Yes, we are intending to move the um   existing sewer line that is that is shown  in purple on your second page there. Yes, Bill. I'm gonna try again and  I apologize for not being go ahead   an expert on this but I'm reading section 101750 which sets the criteria that must be satisfied for  the granting of a conditional use permit for uses   activities or alterations within a wetland buffer.  and you have to satisfy all of these requirements.   And three is that there's no adverse impact  on the wetland functional values of the site   or surrounding properties if I'm reading the  regulations properly. Right. And and this is   in the wetlands buffer construction, right? Yes.  And this that's that's what we're talking about.   So is the premise that there'll be no adverse uh  impact on the values of the buffer by putting six   housing units there on a road and accompanying  activities six three duplexes. Yeah. So I can   offer two um pieces of information in regards to  that. One is this is very preliminary. Um so we   don't have any real details on that at the at  the moment. There would of course be an impact   between the 50 and the 100 foot buffer. There are  ways to offset and improve those impacts with uh  

landscaping with enhancing with restoring. Um Mr.  Giuliano is the only one who came to the sidewalk   so he got to see. But this is really if you go to  the site and I'd be happy to host another sitewalk   um with the board if they'd like to. If you  come to this site, this is really going to be an   improvement for the state of the land out there.  There's no ecological benefit to what is what is   exists right now. And I think that with some  intention and with some proper planning, um we   could really create an habitat out there that is  much better for North Mil Pond and that supports   the wetlands much better than what exists today.  And that comes with an impact of having houses   because the houses is how we fund those sort of  things and it's how we fund this connection. And I   heard the conservation commission say both on our  sitewalk and in our hearing last week that they're   nervous about protecting North Mil Pond. And in  my opinion, there's no better way to protect it   than to really thoughtfully plan a site out to  allow the public to see the resource that we're   protecting and educate them about that, but also  be really purposeful about the protections that we   offer in the 25 ft buffer there. So, so but your  your premise is there will be no adverse impact on   the wetland functional values of the site. That  will be up to us to prove as we go further. Um,   I think my opinion is that there are ways that  we can supplement that we can make it better   even with putting buildings in the 50 to 100  foot buffer. But that's why we're here for your   feedback tonight. I also feel very strongly that  the public benefit of creating this connecting   trail system and the greenway and the community  park and the educational resources is much more   powerful than the impact in a railroad lot that  has had a lot of impact next to a multif family   site um just having six more units. I think  there is such a large potential benefit here  

uh that is needs to be weighed with the impact of  this is not a discretionary uh it's an absolute   okay that that's that's something I think I hear  I hear what you're saying and we've discussed that   particular criteria before and it ties into what  Tony's question was earlier uh there could be a   change in some of these criteria fairly soon but  related to that you're showing a lot of screen   and I I realize it's, you know, super early. Um,  so correct me if I'm wrong, but you're proposing   to build the trail, but then would you be doing  anything to enhance the area where you just the   latter part of where you just the east part  of the site in the 25 foot buffer between   Northville Pond and the trail between the 50 and  100 between the trail and the railroad. Basically,   you're doing the park. That's a pretty big change.  What else? Yeah. So the the pocket park here,   there will also, you know, we are going we are  intending to move this sewer line. There will be   new driveway here. There will be six new units  as we show proposed, but there will also be a   comprehensive landscaping plan. There will also be  a drainage studies done uh to make sure that we're   we're treating the site. We have to do that where  you're developing it. But what about to the east?   Are you going to continue a vehicle connection to  the east using your easement or anything else? You   mean here? Yes. Um, no, there's no there's no  intention with our development at this point to   have any vehicle access there. The trail could  connect, if you flip back to the first page,   that red dashed line, um, the greenway trail  could connect over that easement. And I have   one other question, then I'll recognize other  folks, but have you done any phase one or phase   two site assessments to of the area? Is it is it  clean, dirty? Do you know? We are in the process   of doing those right now. So it's still to  be determined. If you find contaminants,  

do you propose to do something? Of course. So  that could be potentially an enhancement of   that area as well. Um I think Andrew, maybe I got  it wrong. Andrew and then Joe. Um with respect to   the proposed railway crossings or overpass, have  you had preliminary talks with the railroad about   those? Yes. So we are not proposing in this um  in this site any railroad crossings. What you   see those um if do you mind going to the next  page Peter? These um another green item here.   These are viewments. So that is what crosses the  railroad. I'm on this page. Is that 13? Okay.   Yeah. So that's the city's master plan. So that's  something that the city contemplated at some   point. It's not some, you know, I put those pages  in so you guys could see that even back in 2019,   this whole area was identified as wanting this  exact project. And so that's what we're trying   to deliver. But in terms of the development of  this site, there are no railroad crossings. These   are the view easements. Everything is happening  on this side of the railroad in in our proposal   at this point. Can you label it next time?  Sure. Absolutely. And then just again for   clarity for my sake and probably everyone  else's to overlay where these units are on this type of map. Sure. That  would be incredibly helpful. Okay. Joe, uh just a couple things I I did note right  away. I appreciate the view easements at the ends   of the street. So the buildings are positioned so  that as you're going down the full length of the   streets in the neighborhood, you're still seeing  all the way across the pond. That's important.   Thank you for that. Um and you spoke very clearly  uh to the public benefit to this. When I when I  

look at this page 13 that shows the the Greenway  um um line in it in its completeness, if you will,   for lack of a better term, it's To me, one of the  most exciting things that could happen to the city   and anything that supports this to me is one of  the biggest public benefits that we could have   imagined happening in our city. We we always talk  about products that we always wish that projects   would give a more more real tangible public  benefit but such a large such a large piece of   completing the um this necklace if you will it's  it's public benefit is huge and the educational   benefit is is huge as well. Um, I mean to  overprotect to overprotect this area and not give   people access to to it is it's the wrong direction  in my opinion. I'm I'm excited about seeing this   page 13 which again is the city's, you know,  master plan become reality. Tony, um, a question   then a point to add the the the image that was  up there before that shows the um, the utilities   the there's very thick line work there. Is  that because that's the area that's going to   be impacted for excavation or is that like we're  not really sure where the sewer line is somewhere   in this vicinity? What's the what's the reason  for that that width? Yeah, I I assume that that   is an approximate area that it could be within in  those in those areas. Is that reasonable, Neil? You can see the the utility lines. I mean, they're  hard to see up there. Oh, yes. Underneath. Um,   and so there's a distance on each side. Got it.  They're in the center. All right. Um, and then a  

a point that is is going to come back is that  um, you know, this necklace, this this path,   if it's 99% a path, it's nothing. Yep. Y got to be  complete. It's got to be complete. And so that's,   you know, so I'm not going to see value  in that path until it's complete and and   just as a personal opinion. Yeah. And Iron  Horse did go ahead at, you know, and and   secure that easement to make the connection to  Maplewood, which I I agree is invaluable in,   you know, the the future of the trail being a huge  public benefit. Are you propo are you proposing a   connection using your easement to Maplewood? I  think at this time what we would be proposing   is that we would construct the trail area along  the parcel that we own and we would work with the   city to give them that easement so that they could  uh apply for funds and construct the remainder of   the trail. So it's it's not passable even on foot  right now. Oh, it's completely passable. Yep. And   actually when you if you come for a sitewalk and  um Mr. did you can drive all the way down. Yeah. The board want to do a sitewalk. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.  One more quick question. Yes. Joe. I'm sorry. You   Joe, you got one more quick question to Peter.  Um so the parcels on the right side of Maplewood,   how much of that is already integrated  into the developments under construction?   um as a requirement of the approval. If you  go to that first page, I I put it in brown,   which was a mistake on my part, but if you  it shows the what I did to get this brown   line here is I traced the trail that is being  constructed on that site. Yeah. So that is what  

is already obligated. Nothing beyond that.  I was asking about just in general to the   projects on the on the right side page right. Go  ahead. So So reigns which is all the way up here right there where the cleaners were that that has  a trail and then we have the city park and then   um it connects to 53 green so they'll all have  so we're in the clear we're in the clear down   Maplewood you have to go down Maplewood to get to  that but yes and that connects to Boheno Gateway   Park right and then the other direction connects  to the greenway Right. Pretty impressive. The   question I said I wasn't going to ask anything  because I won't get a vote on this anyways   because I'm going to butter. Um, but I'm curious  the red line where you say you have the easement   beyond the property. It looks like it crosses  the railroad tracks and I don't go down that   end enough. It does. Peter's shaking his head. It  does not. And it is possible. This this is very   preliminary sketch. I just wanted to make sure  like that actually is open because I'm like it's   hard to tell from this plant. That's what confused  me too. Yeah. Like it really looks like it crosses   something. Okay. That's all. Just comes in if the  if the sitewalk doesn't have to occur in January.   Oh, that was better. Our last sitewalk it was very  cold and rainy and dark. So, we'll be better this   time. I think we would wait until it's soon to  be before you. after they go to conservation   commission and TAC I think which might be my  request would be any um we're doing feedback   that we can get is really invaluable to us we had  as I mentioned we had a conservation commission   meeting as you can imagine the 50 to 100 foot area  of the buffer is very important to them they gave  

us some suggestions that we think that we'll be  able to incorporate into this plan but there are   some suggestions that will not be viable here and  so we're absolutely absolutely excited to work   with the conservation commission and incorporate  their feedback. They gave us a lot of great ideas,   but I'm hoping that this board can also give us  some indication of their temperature if we cannot   meet every request of the conservation commission,  which I feel is unlikely because one of them, for   example, was that this be a net zero eco village,  which you know, I just know we cannot meet that.   Um, what is the what is the path forward for us?  Is there a path forward to make this a reality? This is all non-binding, so feel free to  make a comment. Yeah, I was just gonna in   in terms of offering advice, um I think what Bill  mentioned is going to be the crux of everything,   right? And so really demonstrating  the existing conditions and what   we get if nothing's done on this site.  So that's where I would spend a lot of   emphasis. Sure. Um and your and your public  presentations and your information to us. Um, I'll give you a compliment after all these  things. Um, while today it is a storage facility,   you know, obviously in the future it may not  be, but I can appreciate that these buildings   are condensed to only behind the storage building.  So, you are not blocking anybody else's view while   still respecting the view corridors. Um, it would  be a huge priority of mine to see that maintained.   um so that you're not blocking Mcdana Street  residents or um Cat Street residents. Um and   beyond that on these two different plans, you  mentioned that one of them is more recent than   another. There's no hammerhead on one and there is  on the other. What is the design of that roadway  

for TA purposes? Yeah. So on the cover sheet that  you have the page page one of the packet. Yes. It   shows a small hammerhead at the end. It's very  small so it might be hard to see. On the second   page the hammerhead is in between buildings two  and building three. Um and again preliminary but   we we moved to a larger separation between what I  would call the horizontal and the vertical units   here and put a turnaround. And I I do completely  own it. is hard to see because this is just a   sketch and we really just wanted to get some  initial feedback. But this here would be the   turn I touched it again. This here would be the  turnaround rather than having the turnaround at   the end. And the reason that we did that on this  version was to be able to keep expanding this   pocket park this direction. So as much as we can  the development in between these view corridors,   we can keep bringing the pocket park and expanding  the natural vegetated area here which we feel is   very important. At the end of the day, could it  be a turnaround here and or here? Either one is   is a possibility as we get into design. Lastly,  when the Green and O'Neal uh 30 and 50 C Street   development was done, we heard quite a bit of  public feedback regarding the design of having   um 50 some odd boxes planted right on the street.  Sure. Um while you do not face a public streetway   or you know, you're looking water. So it's  almost like a unilateral vision of this. Um   to avoid rectangle boxes is is a huge priority  of mine from a design perspective. We don't have   design review and obviously within the constraints  that you are already working within. It would be   really really appreciated not to have just  rectangular boxes planted here. Understood.   Yep. We are you know considering that as part  of our development of talk to a local architect   and uh so we will be thoughtful in the design  of these homes. Um just one other comment. Um,  

sort of kind of where Andrew was going as well.  Um, there I think it's really going to have to be   a sensitive landscaping and architecture to that  building there because you you possibly creating   points of community conflict where you have people  walking their dogs, walking their bikes all hours   and you have people who probably are going to be  spending a lot of money for what is, you know,   waterfront view or whatnot. It's, you know, this  could be industrial, this could be waterfront. I   don't know what someone's going to view it as  because you have a railroad in your backyard,   but I just think some sensitivity to not creating  having a design that invites conflict between the   public and the homeowners who have some are going  to want some privacy and so that's what I would   be looking for. Thank you. Yeah. I think you'll  see when you go on a sitewalk that between the   rail that's in use, right? What did we talk  about? It's primarily LPG moving along there   and lumber and propane and the actual uh pond like  privacy is probably just not going to be a thing. I can't wait to get you all out there to see it.  It's really exciting. I love it. I look at it from   the other side. I think the the key is going  to be the public part of a private tradeoff.   Yes. And what what you're going to be doing  with in terms of the path is the park going   to be a public park is going to be just for the  residents. Public. Absolutely. Y and what you'll   be doing to enhance the site may possibly clean  it up. I think that it's going to turn on those   issues. I think Okay. Thank you. I appreciate  that. Any other comments for the Yes. I just   want to say that we've to the my best knowledge,  which is many years at this point, we've never   allowed anyone to build in the buffer, brand new,  when it's not already established building. So,  

I just want to point that out because there's  going to be public outcry about this and probably   all my neighbors. So, I'm just putting out there  now that there probably is going to be a lot of   people that have an issue with building in the  100 foot buffer. That's all. Oh. promise. My   last question I guess from a logistical and timing  perspective uh is it 115 Bartlett or the apartment   development is already actively underway to then  complete that and then begin construction on these   town homes while using their driveway. Is that  ironed out somewhere? all of the legal right to   reserve for us to be able to do that and I didn't  clarify this but it is different ownership between   this parcel and the multif family parcel we have  agreements and mutual uh interests between the   two groups but Chimberg is um you know developing  this site separate from that site that has already   been developed but the right has been reserved  for us to bring the utilities over and bring   the road over so I just mean like the actual  trucks and supplies and things of that nature   Yeah. Mhm. That's not an issue. Thank you.  Thank you. Good luck. I think I'll need it. So, we did the CIP historic district boundaries.  We have uh council. We went through these issues   at our workshop. I think they're teed up and ready  to go, but if folks want to discuss them briefly,   we can do that. I would just add that  that lot line revision um for 660 Middle,   that lot is proposed to be included in its  entirety into the HTC into the HCC. So,  

I think we would want to just make sure that  we include the revised lot line in the HDC. We have approved it, but even it's not  finalized and recorded, we can do that.   Unless I'm thinking of the wrong property. I  thought we were removing it from the HDC. No,   some are being removed and some are being in  their entire front. If you front middle street,   you're included all the way. That's the standard.  Talking about the the one Eric's property. No,   no, no. We're not talking about that. talking  about the one that was the one that was just   here the lot line revision we just did the  gentleman who bought it for protection which   I'll bring that's what I Okay just make  a note that that's part of recommending thank you I uh sorry are we go ahead  public comment or discussion um my only   uh partial that I was questioning  the first one at 43 Austin Street. Um, is that just continuity of that boundary? Oh, you're talking about that land that goes  back there? Yeah. That's behind the historic   house. That's all its land. That's all one lot  to the best of my knowledge. I'm aware. So,   what's your question? We're removing that from  the historic district. I don't think so. No,   I think that's the graphic. That's hard to It's  just hard to read the graphic. It's staying the   same. I think it's there and it's staying the  same. The black outline is existing. Peach   is the proposed coin is the whole lot. The  following parcels are proposed to be removed  

from the historic district. include an  entirey. Yeah, he's reading the memo. I think it's it's this one here. The orange.  If you click on it, it shows you which one it   is. It's It's the one after Dr. Beck's house. That  used to be Dr. Beck's house. There's one that goes   I don't think that's the right property. It's that  one. the one that goes up to Austin Street. Yeah,   the one that you're that is selected 43. Yeah. Is  set to be removed. Correct. And I'm just wondering   that is why why that is because currently it  just has a a corner corner corner in the HCC   and so they just and it doesn't FR on middle  so they're they're just that's going to come   out. Yeah. Um with little background of that  it's currently owned by the historical societ   historic houses in the city and and it's like got  actual historical re relevance where they hosted   um treaty talks and balls there and as well as  Dr. Beck's house next door which ironically is   not in the historic district but has since been  preserved from the owner. Um, and the historical   society owns that and the only way that they can  utilize it is by having a museum or by um creating   affordable housing. And I think that they've had  preliminary talks with the city regarding that.   But ultimately, it just it struck me as something  that has pretty overwhelming historical. That's   a great catch. And also, if they are if they are  applying for grants, if it is within the historic   district, that benefits them, doesn't it? like  they like significantly under tax things and I may   be overstepping my authorities here. I have some  information you guys don't. It's extremely deed  

restricted at this point. That's what I'm saying.  Yeah, they they could only do something they can   do very little with it. I can tell you that much.  respect to what Joe just said. A lot of their   future use of that property hinges on receiving  national, statewide, and historic grants,   which would require them to be designated in some  way. They could go for a national designation and   don't still have to be in the HDC. I think we have  a motion about to be made. I make a motion to to   keep this in the HDC and send a letter to the  H the Historic District Commission about this   property that our intent to keep it in. And do  they want to add Dr. Beck's property the the   um to it? Just say, "Hey, ask them to revisit  it one more time before they they come back   with an opinion." And again, the only reason I'm  bringing up is I think it's great. I know that.   Yeah. Send it back to There's a motion to send  it back to HTC. Yeah. The motion is two parts.   One is to keep this property that you highlighted  right now, the the 43 43 Austin 43 Austin in the   HTC in the historic district. I keep saying,  and to ask the historic district commission,   part B is to ask the historic district commission  about these two parcels, the 53, one next to it.   53, right? Because it cuts the house in half,  right? Yep. Yeah, they do share a party law. I don't think is an emergency, a time  emergency. That's why I think we we can   just ask them about that one. Is there  a second? Second. Discussion. All those   in favor? I Any opposed? Housing  committee referrals on Gateway. We agreed toward um correct. What's next? Gateway zoning gateway.  

This these are the map amendments.  So we after the work session we added All right. I think that was meant to be  go to the um Yeah. So the properties we   had I think 10 properties but we added  an additional one for discussion here. from the work session there was debate about that at the work  session. Oh, right. That's thermopure.   Yeah. Yeah. I I disagree, but not not  it's not a battle I want to fight. I'm ready to make a motion if you want.  Discussion. for a motion. Okay. Vote to   recommend the city council schedule first  reading on the proposed map amendment as   presented. Second discussion. All  those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. And then section 10.812 was the  conversion and that was the one that you said to   consider during the master plan. But I think since  this was a referral from council, you want to take   a vote to send that motion back to council.  If you'd like a motion, chair, u shouldn't   the motion be to postpone consideration of that  until we get further into the master plan process? I think we have the reason, right? Right.  The vote was to not consider amending the   ordinance at this time. This matter  should be considered during the master   plan process. It's a recommendation of the  city council. Oh yeah. Yeah. Motion as as  

stated then would work. Yeah. Yeah. I'll make  a motion as stated here to recommend a city   council second. Not consider amending. Second.  Discussion. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Now on to the mechanical units. The chair and I after the work session um  made some revisions and added definitions   for mechanical system and power generator. Um  and then added a section for power generators   to be set back a minimum of 5t from any lot  line. Um and then that mechanical systems are   exempt from building coverage and also  not they're not they're not included   um as structures. So we don't count them as  structures. Um and then we had a definition   for each to further um clarify what they are. And  the five was for the fire department, right? code   required. I believe so. Just to be clear, we're  voting on the red edited text on correct. I have   a I have an I have an objection, but um I I I  know I mentioned it during the the our little   work session and I just I won't be supporting  the motion. I know there hasn't been one made,   but I didn't know where one's going. I make a  motion we vote to recommend to city council hold   first reading on the proposed zoning amendments  as presented. Thank you. Now you can tell us   your your objection. I think this 8 foot fence  thing is it bothers me. I know it's just part   of picking it up, but I'm just it bothers me  and I can't support it. It's already in. Yeah,   that's already in. We're not Well, it's part  of the red text. I thought Oh, it's already  

in. It's um It's already done. So So that was  what was um amended this spring, right? That's   showing you how we changed it already. All right.  I thought this was being and then below it when   when under 10.515.10 yards um there's a paragraph  and then there's additional zoning text and the   red in that text is what's So we're not voting  at all on 10515.13. No no fences are already   done. We're starting with 10514. Yep. Right. and  definitions going to just just before planning   department recommendation just that red text. So  now now you're happy, right? Yeah. I'm excited.   Just trying to tell you you can't do anything  about it. All those in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Solar. So for solar after the work session  we made or made changes to the definition   of of roof mounted solar so that it reads  it's a roof mounted solar energy system is   less than or equal to in area of the  roof in area to the roof area of the   structures on the lot. So that would mean if  you had a garage, you could also put solar on and then there was a mistake right in the  draft we had at the workshop that was a boo.   Yes. So like it's it's corrected now. Right.  Right. That's not even we're not considering   amendments for that section. Okay. So  we're just leaving it as is. Okay. Good   to know. So it should be pretty simple  now. Motion vote to recommend the city  

council hold first reading on the proposed  zoning amend amendments as presented. Second   discussion all those in favor. Any opposed?  This will make councelor Denton happy since   he referred this a while back. Except he  won't be on council when it comes forward. He'll be in the audience. Have to do the parking.  Mr. Sustainability objectives. Really simple one   on parking for ADU. Well, is that it? The parking  is for just general requirements for single family   dwelling. We can't require more than one space.  So um getting late that change to um in our table   we had less than 500 square f feet was a half  a space 500 to 750 is one space and then over   750 is 1.3. We changed the first to 500 square  feet or less. So that a unit that's 500 square   feet would be in one of the categories. And then  that would be half a space. And then more than   500 square f feet would be one space. That's to  be consistent with state the new state law. Good   to follow state law. Vote to recommend the city  council hold first reading of the proposed zoning   amendments as presented. Second. Any discussion?  All those in favor? Any opposed? All right. And   then the ADU section just keeps going. It's mostly  crossed out. It's mostly crossed out. Um, we went   through this with legal and came up with this  draft to be consistent with the new changes. Um,

the only thing I'll state is that in the use  table. Um, we have it permitted in CD4 and CD5   where single families are not permitted, but  there are there are single family residences   that are in those districts. I think I think  if you permit this that those could then have permitted but pre-existing nonforming which  aren't really considered permitted right so what you're saying is everything built after a  certain date in other in other words sorry so if   you want to change that to not permitted we can  make that change. I think we have to consistent so we can change. I get  the point. I get the point. be a change change from CD5 for CD5 and  CD4 from permitted to not permitted for   um and then so this is just leaving it as it can't  be less than 750 but also the maximum size is 750. the state law allows you to municipality  to go above that, but it seems like   um the ADUs that we've had are seven.  You have no problem meeting that 750. A   lot of them are much smaller. It's up to the  board if we talked about that the workshop.   I personally would rather just leave it at  the 750 for now. We'll get push back if we  

try to go up higher. Just leave it. Yeah.  I don't see a reason to increase because   we got push back two years ago when we tried  to make it bigger. Andrew, not too long ago,   my neighbor knocked on my door and uh I don't  know this neighbor, so that was quite alarming. Where was your neighbor? Um it was at about  8:30 in the morning. He said, "Do you sit on the   planning board?" I said, "Yeah." And uh I I know  his home well and uh he has a an existing garage   with an unfinished space above it. That unfinished  space happens to be more than 750 square ft. And   he said, "Why can't I put my ADU above my garage?  It's already existing. It was somewhat built with   that in future mind." And I said, "Well, you  know, that's state law." and he said, "Well,   it is perfectly designed for an ADU, but I have  too many square feet." And I said, "I I don't have   an answer for you." Now, this house is down on  Jones. He has neighbors like outside of 200 feet.   Um, and it just wasn't exciting not to have like  a really practical answer for him. um as somebody   who you know this guy tell him to look at tell  him to look at the definition of gross living area   right I can also tell you that he came and and  came to the planning board and got an approval for   an ADU and they and he was asking for a 900 and  some square foot ADU the planning board granted   it with the condition that he reduce it to 750  square feet yeah and I guess like in practicality   it was much more difficult reduce it down to  750. Uh and and that's where his issue lies.  

And that's his choice. Zoning cannot cover every  condition and that's why we have a CBA. Yeah. So,   you know, I I was like, as unfortunate as it may  be, it was one of those contradictions in my head   where this guy's raising his hand and trying to  create one, but couldn't because he had too much. Do we need a motion? We need a  motion to adopt the rev revision   to the ADU section as amended.  We have to send it first reading.   Second. Any discussion? All those  in favor? We are journ. Thank you.