Jumping at the bed too.

The crowd is here.

Yeah.

Bobsy's kept themselves together.

Waiting in anticipation.

Scott, do you mind doing a roll call?

Sure, please.

Um Mayor Donches.

Bob Ball.

Adam Barley.

Here.

Maggie Harper.

Scott McLair.

Dan Hudson.

Here.

Larry Hirsch.

Here.

Cameron Green.

Here.

And Alderman Patricia Lee.

Here.

We needed put here.

All right.

And we have a quorum.

Um first order of business is approval of the minutes from the October 16th, 2025 meeting, which were in the packet.

Uh is anyone willing to make a motion to approve those minutes, or are there any comments?

Alderman Clee?

I'll make the motion to approve those.

Uh motion Bell and McClee to approve the minutes.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Green.

Any further discussion?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Abstentions?

Absolutely.

One abstention from Mr.

Hirsch.

And those minutes are approved.

Uh communications.

Connor Scott, anything to none.

Nothing has changed.

Perfect.

Uh report of committee and liaison.

I don't you know uh Maggie's obviously not here tonight, so uh I don't know if there's any anyone else has anything to report.

No.

All right.

Um given that we don't have any regular cases and we have no one in the audience or I assume online, I'm gonna dispense with the reading of the procedure.

Um I will note for the record that new business conditional special use permit A twenty-five zero one six four and new business site plans eight twenty-five zero one six five and eight twenty-five zero one six two have all been postponed to the December fourth, twenty twenty-five meeting by applicant request.

Which means we're gonna move right on to the other business agenda.

And first up there we have uh review of the tentative agenda to determine whether there are any proposals of regional impact.

Has any member of the board had an opportunity to review that agenda and would they be interested in making a motion?

Um I'll make a motion to um that there are no I know I'm gonna get this wrong here.

Um that there are no issues and the I apologize.

My brain has a no proposals of regional no proposals of regional um impact.

Thank you.

Um that motion by Alderman Clee, uh that there are no proposals of regional impact.

Is there a second?

Weekly seconds.

Any further discussion on that?

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

I'm abstaining.

Okay.

Because there's uh some DPW items on there.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Hudson abstains, and that motion passes.

Okay, so um items two through six are all various referrals, uh legislative referrals from the the Board of Alderman.

Umor, did you want to just provide a before we take them individually, just provide a brief introduction?

I think that may be helpful context as we consider each of these.

Absolutely.

Uh these are before you due to some bills that were passed in the last latest legislative session at the State House.

Uh there were numerous bills passed, and these are just some of these that uh affect our land use code directly.

And so these are non-discretionary amendments to the zoning before you simply to have our code in line with the new state laws that have been passed.

I'm happy to answer any specific questions on specific bills as they relate to changes in our code.

Um if you guys have any issues with that.

But yes.

Thank you.

Just in general, I think on all of them, and and I think I heard you say that none of these are um beyond what the state is requiring.

It's just to get our code up to their code because they were um, as you put it, non-discretionary, uh, meaning we have no choice.

They're the they're the shells versus then the maze.

That is correct.

So um so all of these changes are basically mandated.

Uh so there's very little that we can do to change them.

It's just kind of an information type of thing for acceptance and so on.

Is that yeah, since the bills were passed, we've we've uh internally uh you know uh acted as if these were changed already.

We just you know didn't go by our land use code because they were in effect, you know.

It just brings us up to par.

Yeah, okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, and the the chair and I went out to a conference with the legal council a couple weeks ago, and they're consistent with what they were talking about at that conference.

So just uh that's what I thought when I read what the state did.

So yeah, thank you.

Yeah, and so just I mean it's it so it's a little bit different than the circumstance we're usually in, where these are the you know, these proposals from the the board of all are coming to us, and you know, our duty is to to make a recommendation, you know, whether we want to whether we suggest favorable or unfavorable action on the on the proposed legislation.

Now, I guess that's technically still the the functions board serving, but we don't it doesn't really matter whether we whether we think it should be acted favorably bought or not, um, because it's a state mandate.

So we would be in violation of this the state statute if we if we chose not to pass these.

And in truth, I don't think the board of aldermen would let that happen.

Right, yeah, exactly.

So with with that introduction in mind, we will nonetheless um you know take each of these in turn as as we're you know as we're duty bound to do.

So um I will start with item number two, which is Board of Alderman Referral O-25-073, amending the land use code regarding approved subdivision exemptions.

And so subject to any questions any board members have about the specific proposal.

The again the action would be you know technically to to make a favorable or unfavorable recommendation on this proposed legislation.

I just have one other question.

If if I read this correctly, um they kind of backdated this to July of 2023.

Is that correct?

That's right.

So that would mean that if we have something that's about to expire um based on our original um, which I think was four years and and the three years rather than uh twelve years, twelve months.

I'm sorry, like that.

So we would just have to naturally extend that.

Is that correct?

So it this yes, it encapsulates all uh projects that were approved uh after on or after July 1st of 2023, and so they're basically kind of grandfathered into this uh statute.

To the to the new exit, yes, okay.

Okay, thank you.

So there's something that had an extension that we've done twice already.

We'll just have to do one more time and then that approval would then carry forwards with three years or otherwise.

Uh so that is actually a different extension in our land use code.

So uh this speaks to an extension of I believe 12 months to three years now for an individual to reach substantial and uh an active development on a project, and then four to seven years on them being exempt from any changes in our land use code.

The extensions we usually give out for one year are for applicants to uh basically apply for a building permit.

So that's a different one.

So we will still be seeing those for now.

During the conference, so I just want the clarification.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Again, if I may.

So looking at that the first portion of it, when it changed it from the four years to the seven years, it's talking about the the health standards and so on.

So did I understand you correctly that if anything changes to those laws, they would be exempt from if we upgraded anything to do with the or the state upgraded anything to do with um sewage treatments requirements and so on, they would be exempt from any updated regulations to that?

Um for these seven years now versus the four years.

Sure.

So for the subdivision regulations, uh specifically, you know, anything outlined in our land use code, if that was to be changed, the project can still go forward as the plant as the code was enacted at the time of approval.

So they have that seven year period.

Um okay, thank you.

I get that.

Well, I mean, the way I read it, it's specifically it says there's exempt from uh subdivision regulation changes except for oh except for did I miss that?

Stand, yeah.

Oh, I did except the regular.

I think they would be those still will be applied if there's any changes.

Okay, okay.

Yeah, and that's not there's no change to that from the language here uh current ordinance.

They just changed it from four years to seven years.

Yeah, okay.

I I missed the exact, I'm sorry, thank you.

I have no more questions.

Okay.

Um anyone may Mr.

Green?

I would like to make a motion to give a favorable favorable recommendation for the board of alderman referral O 25073.

Thank you.

So that motion by Mr.

Green is to make a favorable recommendation.

Is there a second?

Seconded by Mr.

Hirsch.

Is there any further discussion?

All those in favor?

I posed that motion passes.

Okay, we next have Board of Aldman referral on O 25-074 amending the land use code regarding family daycare facilities.

Any questions, comments on this item?

Um again, we're just following the updated of the state legislation, correct?

So there's nothing really um that we can do.

So they're they're putting in some uh by right kind of information into this, correct?

Okay.

And may I just in the in the past if someone wanted to put a daycare into their home of some sort, um the it would go to zoning and um neighbors and so on would be able to speak with this being by right?

Does that remove that requirement?

That's correct, it did go to zoning board previously.

Right, it did go to zoning board and there was a chance for public hearing now that's permitted by right, they can go straight to just the administrative applications of the city as well as anything they have to do with the state health department.

Okay, so you would have needed a variance or special exception or something before I believe it's a special exemption.

The the I know there's nothing we can do about it, but I I remember when I heard about this, my concern was people dropping children off and picking them up in the traffic, but the neighbors are not gonna or will no longer have a voice in that.

I think there was a provision in there.

Is there I I didn't think I saw that probably some because once they do the by right, it's usually tends to be we're striking uh this language that was basically city written, uh, and we're just strictly going with you know what's allowed by the state and specifically the health and human services department.

Um speaks to traffic they I I do in our ordinance um we don't allow it um to take a home and turn it into a daycare center.

That is but if you use it as an auxiliary use of your home, you can do it, which is means you're living there and you open your home up to a daycare center, you just can't turn your entire home into a daycare center.

That's correct within a residential neighborhood, but um I think that's the only variance that still exists.

I think they they killed everything else, Mr.

Can you uh can you describe or explain why there was modifications to sign requirements of those new edits and is that as a result of the revised legislation?

Oh I hadn't seen that one.

Previously it said only the owner's name and address and street address.

Section C three.

Yeah, uh B eight and C three and C three, yeah.

Again, yeah, that that would uh was language that was passed uh in the state bill, and so this is just you know aligning it with it was passed.

Yeah, I know they they get rid of the the parking requirement and everything.

Not to make it look standouts and the ordinance change, they just opted it.

They can now put a sign out on their lawn that they have this daycare, correct?

Uh they can have a sign indicating it is a daycare, yes.

And there's no longer a requirement that they have to have a parking area for drop-off and pickup.

So that was struck too, I believe.

Trying to see where that was.

I mean, it's still the requirements is where the facilities located in a separate building, more than 500 feet from the building which the principal non-residencial use is located parking, shall be provided in just a parking cry for the principal non-residence use, but that's that's retained there might be, but maybe there was additional parking requirement.

Let's see.

Yeah, on-site parking is been struck for the principal residential use is is struck, yeah.

Okay, Mr.

Green?

I'd like to make a motion to get a favorable recommendation regarding the family daycare facilities.

Uh board of all demand referral o 25074.

Thank you.

Motion by Mr.

Green to make a favorable recommendation.

Is there a second to that motion?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch.

Is there any further discussion?

All is in favor?

Aye.

Opposed?

That motion passes.

Next up we have board volume referral 025-075, then you need the land use code regarding on-site parking requirements for residential uses.

Um this is one planning board probably will run into with Yeah, this one's the one that kills me.

Yeah.

This is the one that's gonna hurt real really big time when you've got you can have a multiple multi-family home of less than three, and there's only one parking space requirement.

Yeah.

No room for casting.

Along sorry, along the same lines, we have our downtown areas with no parking is required.

Is that now modify that it will be required to be one space for each dwelling unit?

Uh minimum.

Uh good question, but I believe it's just changing that the um maximum minimum requirement is one.

Yeah, so I'm wondering if we're allowed to have a minimum of zero, I guess, is my question.

We are.

Yeah, we are.

Yeah, because of the the high density area they allowed it.

That's more okay.

Yeah, more than more what they're looking for.

Zero versus one.

Yeah, they really wanted to get rid of all parking requirements.

And they really wanted to have no maximums.

Well, under seven it says uh it has a two as a maximum per unit.

Yeah, that's my question.

Is that is that accurate?

I mean in the in the memo reference, it said maximum SB twel uh 284.

Under A it says residential uses are restricted to a maximum, comma, minimum of one, so I got confused.

I don't know if it's I don't know if there's supposed to be a maximum of two and a minimum of one.

But that's that's appears how it's been marked up.

So I I see in the memo.

I think it was just uh with trying to articulate what was happening.

We might have the communication might have been messed up.

But the the the highest uh a city can highest minimum minimum parking requirement a city can uh enforce is one space per unit for these that have been listed.

Yeah, so the next column is the maximum.

So they didn't touch you know how much a city can um allow for maximum parking, it's just for the minimums.

So they go from twenty-two to two.

Yeah, where it's marked uh from one for twenty-two to two, is that correct?

Or is that a it's on number seven.

Uh yeah.

Uh yes, that that would have uh come from the state as saying that for manufactured homes the maximum parking spaces would be two per unit.

Uh we didn't specify, I guess.

Yeah, I mean the I'm I'm just looking at SP two eighty four.

I mean it it's limited, it all it says is the local legislative body may regulate accessory parking for vehicles, but shall not require more than one residential space parking space per unit.

That's it.

So we're still above two would not be permitted.

That's still under construction.

Well, are we still allowed to express a maximum then?

Yeah, that's what I mean.

It doesn't it doesn't say anything about it only to Connor's point, it only s talks about the minimum, doesn't say anything about a maximum.

Then why did we change it from 22 to 2?

Yeah, and I to be it I I am unsure about that.

Um I can probably go back and check to see w why that was correct.

I I I don't distrust legal.

They're the ones that put this together, so yeah.

I don't I mean if there's if we're changing things, does it make sense?

I don't I don't object to that.

I just we should be clear that these aren't all legislative required changes, you know, if that's true.

Um that'd be my only comment.

What may I ask for the definition of what you're doing?

It's a 22.

I mean that seems like a huge number.

Yeah, it does.

Maybe that was a type of maybe that was a typo, yeah.

Yeah, maybe it was just a technical correction, yeah.

Um what what exactly is maximum parking spaces?

Is that mean we can't require more than that?

Because right now we can't require more than it means they can't.

They're not they can't entitled to have more than that.

They're not more than a large single family home with three parking spaces.

You can't do that, is that correct?

No, you you can.

That would fall under number 15, which is 1.9 per unit.

So this would be for single family, multi-family with a single family spaces.

Yeah.

That that would be yeah, we wouldn't be able to do that.

So you wouldn't be able to prove a site plan.

Is that accurate with three spaces?

No, I mean single family detached dwellings, there's there is no maximum.

So yeah, that was house reading, okay.

Yeah, this manufactured home.

Sorry, like mobile homes and so on, right?

Yeah.

So I guess the the most often we come across is for multi-family buildings, and so now the uh minimum parking we can require for each unit is one per unit, but the maximum that we have of 1.9 still stays in effect.

Yeah, we've always had a minimum maximum, and you'd have to get a waiver even if you had too much parking.

So that's just kind of how it's been voted.

They would still get the waiver if they wanted more than the 1.9 per?

It would be up to the planning board's discretion.

Okay.

But they would need they would be required to request a waiver.

That is correct.

I don't believe they're gonna they're trying to get away from parking spaces.

In this table is is the accessory dwellings is the same thing as an ADU or is that something different?

Is that an AU?

I mean, I Dan, I agree with you.

I think it seems like that changing from 22 to 2.

It seems to make logical sense, but yeah, maybe just in terms of the explanation.

I'm not sure if it if it came from the state bill or was it technical correction?

So maybe they're just our you know, including the recommendation um that we think it would be helpful to to clarify that point.

Yeah, we're gonna look at the e-code here, see what we have.

Anyone um interested in willing to make recommendation in that lines or otherwise.

Um I'll make a recommendation of approval passage, whatever.

Favorable recommendation.

Favorable recommendation, thank you so much.

Did you want to include that request?

Yes, I I was just going to I was looking it up through e code to see if if it it was different than what this was saying.

Yes, I would I would like to um also offer up that we um get further information on the maximum parking spaces for item number seven in the table one nine eight-one parking matrix dwelling manufactured home on an individual owned lot if um the elimination of the 22 to the two per unit was just um a housekeeping measure or yes I can absolutely opt in ameno yes thank you so um that motion by all of them please to make a favorable recommendation with the the requested clarification is there a second to that motion second minister Hudson any further discussion all is in favor aye all right motion passes next is board of all and referral o 25 076 amending land use code by amending the accessory dwelling unit ordinance and definition of dwelling unit I know I hate this one sorry um yeah and again just this is I feel like all my nights can true state piece of state legislation HB 577 driving these changes um I I can speak to uh actually a section here that for the uh right here the B1 under 190-32 the accessory dwelling unit shall be clearly incidental to support an extent and the purpose of the prime structure does not exceed 980 square feet uh there was some I guess flexibility granted in the state bill that basically allowed um the cities to select what would be that uh maximum square feet and it was determined by staff that a 980 square feet would be suffice given that a lot of the extent dwelling units that we see are you know at their highest 950 and so giving that extra wiggle room of 980 we thought was appropriate I believe Carter Fog did some research the past 20 30 years or so to kind of get a rough number that would be fair is this so the bill is isn't it at 750 to 950 or somewhere and that so we're expanding that range to the nine 980 yes by the 30 square feet yes based on what they see all the time on a regular basis yeah and that small difference yeah but but the addition is that they can go up to 1200 um they can go up to the 1200 square feet if it's within the current footprint of uh so may I give an example um my next door neighbor took his garage turned it into an ADU but expanded the garage beyond to what was a porch at what time it kind of went beyond that um would that have been able to be allowed to go 1200 square feet because with the porch and everything and the garage it's within the but it's not within the residential area of it so it's my understanding that any expansion to a principal structure to incorporate a attached accessory dwelling unit would fall under the 980 square feet.

Okay if there is uh you know 1200 square feet of a basement in a existing principal structure that just already enveloped in there there would not be uh there'd be a separate I guess standard which is that 1200 feet and that would be that B1A is what that would be correct yes I'm not sure just with that porch example would that be included in the square footage of the the unit so again any if there's any expansion um as a result of putting in ADU they would have to follow the night the 980 square feet um so I have a question about number six is kind of a chicken egg problem but they're required to record a covenant at the Hillsbury County Registry of Deeds that the property contains an ADU used to be prior to occupancy now it's prior to building permit so how do you how do you certify with Hillsbury County registered deeds that you have one when you don't have one because you haven't built it yet I think there's a I I don't know if it was required to change it from certificate opportunity building permit but I mean maybe it maybe we need a draft covenant or or maybe the intent is that the city has that and it can go record it at a later date

So how do you how do you certify with Hillsbury County registered deeds that you have one when you don't have one because you haven't built it yet?

I think there's a I don't know if it was required to change it from certificate opportunity building permit, but I mean maybe maybe we need a draft covenant or maybe the intent is that the city has that and it can go record it at a later date.

I don't know what the intent is there, but just seems that that order of operations doesn't work.

Yeah, I mean it's it it does it arguably, I guess five because it says the owner of the property shall provide the city with a covenant for filing.

For filing, so I mean it hasn't been filed.

Yeah.

Okay.

And it says contingent upon receipt of the covenant.

So I think it's it doesn't look like it actually says it has to be filed.

Okay, so maybe the maybe the city would file that then once it was constructed or something.

Okay.

And they're they require to have an uh an off street parking space.

Just one.

Just one.

I think there was something about access in here too.

I just could curious how this is gonna affect our driveway regulation.

That's above that's above the area where it talks about no curb cut and um we they got rid of that our requirement of that.

Where is that where's that side?

That's up at three um B, three BA, I guess it says there's no entrance or exit to an accessory deal.

They they struck that unit shall be constructed on the front or frontage of the single family dwelling.

So they struck the no new curb cut.

And they struck the no new curb.

That means they can do another.

And I believe our driveway regulation still apply, you get 24 feet of driveway width, whether it'd be one driveway, two driveways.

Okay without uh variance, so that's just something they will have to pay attention to, I guess.

Okay.

Um the uh the um B3C, the exterior design of the accessory dwelling unit shall be compatible with the single that's what we used to have.

Um now they don't have to, it doesn't have to blend in as as the house, it can be almost look like it was a separate unit.

Is that what that means?

When we get rid of that, under three, it says uh three characters.

Yeah.

A new cover.

Uh yeah, so yeah, again, I think three does cover that.

Um so three C was just redundant?

Potentially.

Um so that'll be dealt with in the at time of building permit review?

That's correct.

And any uh uh review of curb cuts would be at the building per view as well.

Did they I thought I'd heard that they got rid of the requirement of having to have the property owner living in one of the units.

Is that the that is that is still the case?

That is still the case, okay.

Good.

Yeah.

It didn't matter whether they were in the ADU or the primary, but they had to be there.

And and they have to remain there through the entire yes.

Just as a side note, my issue with ADUs is that when they get sold too often the real estate agent sells them as a two units, and I've had people in Ward 3 that have both been renters, and we the way we found out was there wasn't adequate parking and they got tickets, and one happened during COVID and they had to leave.

Um because the owner did not um live there.

The owner did not realize it when they bought it.

No one really looks at the there's a covenant there, but no one ever looks at it.

That's the problem that I have with ADUs.

But they are by right, so we have no.

We just have to hope neighbors squeal.

Because we don't go back and look at them.

There's no requirement after sale.

Yeah, and just from a public works perspective, I know we've kind of had an ongoing discussion.

I don't know whether we've resolved it about connection to the sewer system.

Are these units individual units?

You know, uh do they do they require a connection charge to our system even if there's no additional pipe?

Yeah, um, that sort of thing.

Um I know I believe we they were working to modify the building permit to have an ADU uh checkbox so the property contains the ADU or doesn't because all the properties where these are being added currently have a sewer permit, but that needs to be amended, would be my position unless RSA 45A38 speaks differently, but that's all we'll need to look into.

That's the only time that in this here that I see that they reference it.

Is that number four?

The applicant shall make provisions for adequate water supply and sewage disposal for the ADU in accordance with RSA 485838.

Yeah, it's I'd say if it's if it's contained within the uh existing house, maybe those don't warrant a separate uh connection charge, but if it's a separate unit, uh you know, separate out building, so to speak.

Uh maybe it does, so I don't know.

That's something we'll have to look into more how this impacts our other regulations.

Also, like driveway back to driveway permitting.

I believe that would be the jurisdiction DPW to issue the driveway permit.

Uh street opening, yep.

Yep, that's correct.

Uh so we would we need to coordinate with the building department on that aspect.

I misspoke it.

I just meant to say it was uh administrative uh process.

Yeah, no, that's fine.

I just I say it's fine, I understand it too.

Position where someone would like to make a motion.

I can't do this one.

I would like to make a motion for board of alderman referral uh zero-25-076, amending the land use code by amending the accessory dwelling unit ordinance and definition of a dwelling unit accessory.

Motion by Mr.

Green to make a favorable recommendation.

Is there a second to that?

Mr.

Hirsch.

Any further discussion?

All in favor?

I suppose motion passes.

All right, last one up.

Uh board volume referral O-25-07.

Amending the land use code regarding unrelated households.

This too was part of the the state changes.

Killing us.

Yeah, so this was actually an ordinance revision that came to us last year that we had some some comments on in terms of the some of the changes that were being proposed, or we should we had yeah, some comments back to the board.

Um and now the state legislation that's being incorporated here just eliminates the occupancy restrictions altogether.

So there they have an unlimited number of people that can live within a in a home.

It's it now just goes to fire code, building code.

There's there's no uh number that there's no familiar exactly.

Yeah, the the familiar relationship status uh from a planning perspective can't be considered uh for you know new applications.

Right.

This is the because the way this table read it was specifically maximum number of occupants in unrelated households, right?

So they could have a frat house open up in the middle of it.

As long as it meets fire.

Other other elements of the code, but don't move too close to a school conquered streets in trouble.

Yeah, yeah.

This one's a hard one too.

Mr.

Green?

I'd like to make a favorable recommendation to a motion to make a favorable recognition.

Um board of all the for all O-25-077 regarding unrelated households.

Thanks, Mr.

Motion by Mr.

Green to make a favorable recommendation.

Is there a second?

Second by Mr.

Hirsch, any further discussion?

All is in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

That motion passes.

All right.

Discussion items.

Connor Scott, you you had a quick note here about clustering zoning.

Yes.

I wanted to inform the board that uh with the adoption of our home ownership standards for inclusionary zoning.

We are now permitting and issuing a certificate of occupancy for affordable housing units for sale.

This is within the DuSet landing, and now at least one is being listed and marketed for folks who meet the income limits to apply.

And in that process of bringing that house online for sale, staff kind of had to use these standards and make it work in our workflow.

And so just in the spirit of transparency, we've we've kind of done some tweaks to our process that follows the intent and spirit of the regulations but is more adaptable to current staff workflows and just working with developers and sellers.

So we are considering changes just to make sure that's more in line.

So it's our first affordable unit at Du SET.

Just coming through.

Okay.

Yeah, please share within your network.

Yep.

Thank you.

Any other discussion items?

No.

Before we depart, I will uh just like to also say that there is a groundbreaking for Mohawk Tannery.

The 19th next week.

Oh, is it the 19th or 21st?

I heard it was the 21st.

Is it the 21st?

I know I'm not gonna today's the 21st, yeah.

Because I'm not gonna be able to do that.

I come home that day.

I have my firm's annual meeting that day, so and there's uh the developer tour with uh economic development and community development happening on the next Wednesday if folks wanted to participate at belief you can still RSVP and then the next planning board has been canceled, right?

Right, that's correct.

So our next meeting.

The December 4th is the next meeting.

Okay.

All right.

I will uh take a motion to adjourn that.

I'll do that.

Motion to adjourn, all and clear.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right, motion passes, and we are adjourned at 807.

Back downstairs.