Uh good evening.

I would like to call the May 12th, 2026 meeting of the Planning Board to order.

Please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic, which is one nation under God.

Indivisible Liberty and Justice for Raw.

My name is Joe Fioli serving as chairman tonight.

Members sitting on the planning board tonight.

Uh to my right, uh, Jeremy Gilbo.

Hello.

Jim Harvey.

Good evening, Salem.

Bianca Carlson.

Good evening, Salem.

And to my left town council rep Paul Pelletier.

Chuck Sabah.

Hello.

And Damon Norcross.

Good evening.

And from the planning department, we have Jacob Lafontaine as Planning Director.

The agenda for tonight is as follows.

We have two items of old business.

First is the Willows Park site plan.

That's a public hearing for an additional single-family rental dwelling at 9 Hampshire Street.

And the second item the PR Sports Hooksit LLC site plan.

It's a public hearing for 25,100 square foot pickleball facility with six indoor courts, six outdoor courts, and ancillary juice bar and training area.

The conditional use permit for reduced parking at 179 Main Street.

Five items in new business tonight with the Clark Subdivision Plan.

It's a preliminary hearing for two lot subdivision and eight Atkinson Road.

Second item is a Tuscan Village Block 1300 Whole Foods Site Plan.

It's a public hearing for uh conditional use permit for temporary signage uh exceeding the permitted size and quantity, and a third item Main Street 401 LC site plan, public hearing for change of use to convert office units to four residential apartments of 401 Main Street.

Fourth item of new business is the quick stop properties LLC site plan.

It's a public hearing for a change of use for 2645 square foot retail use and cigar shop, car rental agency, two service bays, 1,000 square foot retail service space at 282 North Broadway, and the last item of new business is the Salemi site plan.

That's a public hearing for 22 townhouse style residential units and four buildings at 177 Main Street.

Uh any withdrawals tonight?

Uh Mr.

Chair PR Sports hooks it.

Uh your second item of old business has requested continuance.

They've withdrawn from the agenda.

You recall they're subject to uh uh variance for their outdoor courts.

The earliest that application would be heard uh by this board would be June 9th, but the butters would be re-notified because they'll surpass their four uh four meetings.

Um but so just so the public is aware that wouldn't be heard.

Uh ZBA likely would act on it June 2nd.

What is just real quick, just for people that are listening, uh what is the variance pending?

Uh the variance is was continued by the ZBA earlier this month.

They wanted more information on the sound.

Uh we consulted with a sound uh engineer, I guess, to review uh the proposal, and then the ZBA uh potentially would uh review the results June 2nd.

Okay, if not in June, it would potentially be July, but um you know, so the public's aware it wouldn't be on your next meeting.

Thank you.

Uh and then Clark Subdivision.

Uh that's your first item of new business for 8 Atkinson Road.

That was a subdivision plan.

They've also requested continuance.

Um there you have some review.

It used to be a a um a landfill and we're pending review and comments from New Hampshire DES Solid Waste Bureau.

Uh and then the fourth item of new business, quick stop.

No, sorry, not quick stop, uh third item of new business, Main Street 401 has requested continuance and they'd like to be continued to the June 23rd, 2026 planet board meeting.

Okay.

Well, what was the reason for that continuance?

Uh they had some items they wanted to address with their engineer uh on their plan.

Okay, thank you.

Uh two items of minutes.

We have April 14th minutes and April 28th minutes.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the minutes of the April 14th planning board meeting as written.

Second.

Motion and second to accept the April 14th, 2026 meeting minutes and discussion.

All in favor.

It's uh 61, 601.

Ms.

Chair, I move to accept the minutes of the April 28th, 2026 planning board meeting as written.

Second.

Motion and second to accept the April 28th meeting minutes and discussion on those.

Um all those in favor.

Uh abstaining.

That's uh 601 on that one too.

Great.

Let's go to uh the first item of old business, the Willows Park site plan.

That's the uh public hearing for additional single family rental dwelling at 9 Hampshire Street.

Um butters, please.

Yeah, butters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so.

They are North Associates LLC, Eulows Park Inc.

Kaufman and Untied Jeroo, Dan's, Sarno and Morass, Foss, Foss is present, Goule, is present, uh Stum, linear retail Salem number one, uh Nolan, Patel, and another Patel.

I believe Nolan is also present.

Great.

Thanks.

You want to bring us up to speed on uh the changes since the last time we heard the plan?

Yeah, uh Mr.

Chairson, since you last heard this presentation, a lot of the comments in the continuance uh was relative to an area that was shown on the uh prior approval as to be removed.

So you approved a um you approved a uh plan for five single family rental units to the rear of the site uh in 2023, I believe.

Uh and at the time there was an encroachment identified, that's shown here.

So you can see the uh condition in 2005.

You can see again in 2008 where uh there was a substantial encroachment into the wetland and onto the abutters part uh parcel.

And you can see it uh throughout the years.

This is 2025, so essentially as it currently exists now.

Uh and then here again, I think this is even slightly more recent, but it shows uh the tax map, and then it also so the the red line here would be the approximate area of the abutters property, and then this would be the property of uh of uh Mr.

Nolan, and it shows the encroachment onto the land.

And the prior approval had stated that the encroachment shall be removed.

Uh the applicant has since consulted with a wetland scientist, and they now have a note on the plan.

So you can see in this area here, it's again uh listed as to be removed, but the note also states that the pre-existent paved encroachment will be removed.

The wetland buffer area shall be restored with blowbush, blueberry, sweet fern, in which hazel plantins area to be covered with clean topsoil and seeded with a conservation seed mix.

So they did that in consultation with wetland scientist Lou Curley, and they submitted this letter as well for Mr.

Hurley that states that he visited the property, and essentially this is the recommendation that he has to uh mitigate and to restore the encroachment that is uh existing on the subject lot here.

Um so that's the the big movement that's happened since that last meet meeting.

Uh they made other um modifications.

You know, we talked about the vegetation, they've shown that as to be uh to be uh or shall remain to remain the existing street trees, and then they're gonna supplement it with some azalea shrubs.

But again, the big glyft was the uh mitigation and the discussion with the uh wetland scientist.

I guess one thing the board will want to discuss is sequencing.

You've talked about it now a handful of times.

Uh the applicant has uh approval, previous approval for five units.

Right now they have occupancy for three, uh, and uh they're looking to occupy uh the final two, at least one of the final two, and I guess the discussion would be the timing of this.

Uh and I think they've indicated that they're working to mobilize that now, but I'm sure the applicant can speak more to that.

Okay, thank you.

Uh does the applicant have anything to add?

I do.

Um Ian Ainsley, engineer from Isa Brampton.

So not only do we have a note on the plan about the encroachment, um, some other things that have gone on as the two property owners have met, kind of come up with an agreement of what's gonna happen, and the contractor has been hired as well, all three of which are here tonight.

Um my understanding is they're slated to do this work sometime within the next week or two, so it's it's imminent.

Um and Jacob summarized it pretty well, so that's all I have to add.

Great, thanks.

Um open up to public comment.

Anybody like to speak on the plan?

I name an address for the record, please.

Um so I just I don't know, I'm trying to get clarification.

I guess there's a runoff right there on that property that uh hasn't been well maintained.

Sounds like the engineers are coming in, so I was hoping we could get some updates on it because this has been a problem going on, I guess, since 2008.

Uh my neighbor has provided me with a bunch of photos here of uh the state of the condition of this runoff.

Oh, those are the ones we already saw last meeting.

Yeah, probably some extra ones too.

Okay.

So we we I'm definitely concerned about uh not having proper drainage back there on that between those two properties.

So I uh do you I know the engineer addressed the drainage last time they were here.

Do you have a a specific question on uh on the drainage?

We can't.

No, um so what are they gonna be working on it next week?

You guys are gonna be pulling it all out.

We can have the you can address the board with questions and then we can have the uh the applicant come back up.

Yeah, all right.

Uh yeah, so now I guess we're just looking for the timeline and know exactly what the work's gonna be, so you know, we make sure it's gonna be efficient.

Okay.

We have all the draining.

Oh, that's it.

That's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anybody else like to speak on the plan?

Steve Light 12 Pond Street.

Uh concerned uh there was a hole there, then in 2007 it was filled in where all the water went.

Then the state got involved and a lot of it was taken back out, but now it's full again.

Oh sand and I don't know what else is under.

We have some pictures of tyres that have been there, some metal.

So the hole was there was a hole there for years.

We had no problem.

In 2007, they started dumping.

And we went and talked to Mr.

Nolan.

He said he was gonna take care of everything.

He didn't have trees came down and everything.

In 2009, I believe the state got involved in it, and it had to be dug out, but now it's filled in again.

So where's the water still gonna go?

It's still gonna come up on our lands.

Is this the is this this fill you're talking about on the property in question?

Yes, and I asked him last week why they don't take them out and put a fence.

He he uh still a chance of son says he's afraid people are going to slip in the winter where it's a car lock there now.

So he doesn't want to hold.

So I said, Well, put a fence around it like they did them at the one at the House Superet.

And that took care of any flooding over there.

And he said they didn't want to.

But I don't want to keep losing my land being flooded.

And now we have a lot more overgrowth to try to hide because we lost all our privacy when everything came down.

Okay, we can have the applicant address that uh sorry.

I said we can have the applicant address your uh your concerns.

Thank you.

You welcome it.

I believe what we're trying to do will resolve the issue that the abutters are talking about.

We're gonna be removing that fill that was placed back there, the asphalt and that stuff, and then we're gonna restore it as much as possible to what was there previously.

So my hope is that by doing this work, uh, we're gonna resolve the issue that they're having.

Where where's 14 pond, Jacob?

I believe he's on the opposite side.

Uh I can pull up the tax map.

I believe for this is 12 14's over here.

Okay.

Uh if you can see that, but I can pull up map geo.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Thanks.

Okay.

Um to the uh board comments.

Anything?

Uh Mr.

Sava.

Uh yes.

Um could you read the letter from uh Lou Curley again and explain it to me.

Sure.

As far as and show it on the plan where it's gone.

Because I was up there today, and I'm I have a bunch of concerns.

Sure.

So what we're talking about, Jacob, if you can kind of circle it on the map.

It's in the back of the five Hampshire Street in the front right there.

It's pavement that was put over the property line and into the wetland buffer 20 or so years ago.

We're going to take the pavement, the gravel, you know, the base of that out, dig it out, which is gonna lower obviously the kind of finished grade on the ground, because all that's gonna be removed.

And then we're going to essentially renaturalize that area, turn it back into wetland buffer, plants, you know, seed mix, grass, that kind of stuff.

And then it's just gonna stay unmaintained, you know, in in perpetuity.

Okay.

So the the the two houses that have been built at the end.

Okay, first of all, when you go in up morning morning uh side.

Morning succored.

Yeah.

Okay.

There's no real turnaround except for that little it looks so much bigger on the plan than it actually is for a car.

I don't think it's that long to go up there and then what is the intent for them to then back out onto the street and then come back up and turn around.

So you're talking at the back of this property where those two units are being built.

The encroachment that we're talking about, Jacob, if you can kind of circle it is over to the west.

Oh, I totally understand that.

Yeah.

And that's not my concern.

I'm concerned with some other pieces to this.

Mrs.

Saber, and the plan is just for this one additional unit here.

At the end.

Just for this one in the front here.

So this previous plan was already approved.

So point to it?

Here, if you can see that to the plan.

Over there to the south of the parcel.

But your question about the turnaround was reviewed by fire and um, you know, the fire department to determine it was sufficient to even have to get a conditional use permit because it was within the wetland uh buffer.

Right.

Anything further?

Nope, not supposed to thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

My my big concern is even though once that area that pavement is pulled out of there, and a big hole is dug.

How fast is the how fast does the water leave this area?

Because the fact if that if that water is coming in faster, isn't it just gonna fill that area up and spread and keep on going?

It's a pretty wide area.

You could see the wetland there is probably 40 or 50 feet wide.

It's a pretty wide amount of room for the runoff to go through there.

I wouldn't expect that it's going to dramatically increase the runoff leaving the site.

Or the rate of the runoff.

Well, it is it is an improvement.

I have to admit there isn't a problem.

I'm just worried about it.

If if there is an outlet to this wetland, I know it's coming from the north.

Water's coming from the north.

It's gonna be leaving down at the south end somewhere, unless it just pools there and just it's still I think it's somewhat flat.

Um I don't know where it goes downstream from there.

Is there a pipe?

Yeah.

Okay, so it sounds like there's a culvert that goes under the road as an outlet.

I think your um the other engineer uh spoke to us in here presenting.

And the other thing I'll say is that's how it was 20 years ago before the encroachment was done.

And it it sounds like at least these neighbors were not having um drainage issues back when it was like that.

So we're trying to restore it to that point.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

Ms.

Carlson?

Um thank you.

Um so where Jacob, where does it show, or Ms.

Ansley?

Where does it show on the plan about that condition from 2023?

It wasn't did we see that that was that was put back onto the plan?

Yes, it's shown in red.

Uh it might not, it should be on the plan that's in your packet.

Uh so if you look at the encroachment, it's to the south of the encroachment, the plan left.

And uh it has the language that reflects the comments from the wetland scientist.

Okay.

Um, so I guess that makes sense, but I know that part of part of the discussion, and I don't I don't know how we should weave this into the larger discussion, but we were talking about do you want to just keep the discussion right now about this additional unit or about the whole occupancy issue?

I know they kind of tie together.

Yeah, it was a both it was it was for both.

Okay.

So then I guess in general, I I still would not be comfortable with releasing the certificate of occupancy until the work is actually completed.

Um I don't know if if the hope was to get the board's sign off ahead of the work actually being completed.

I guess my question would be which certificate would you be withholding?

Would you be withholding I think there's two units that are built that are ready to go?

How do you go about it?

Suppose the two that are that are you're trying to get COs on right now.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I don't see our chance in Nine Hampshire Street.

I don't understand how you can hold back both CEOs.

Well, it's a condition of the approval for units four and five.

Can you just hold one back?

I in my mind, and I'm just speaking for myself here, that's the condition of approval.

It's uh I don't know if it's a condition, it was a representation of a site plan.

There is a note on the plan.

So you we have that catch-all as all representations made by applicant agents on notes on the plan.

So um I would say it's it's not unusual, I guess, for us to do phased occupancy so that um you know that the applicant could have the opportunity to address it prior to final.

Um I very well may have signed off on it as your agent if I didn't if this wasn't before you and then held them to that fifth unit.

Um that's often the way we handle things.

I mean, I do think that they've demonstrated um you know, some you know, they have demonstrated commitment.

I've met with them now twice.

I've met with Mr.

Nolan separately, Mr.

Lachance separately.

Um, my sense is that it would potentially be reasonable maybe to grant the fourth uh CEO, but then hold that fifth one, because obviously that's a that's a pretty significant leverage for Mr.

Lachance.

I assume not going to walk away from uh the house that's been built.

Um but really have to be.

I'm fine with that, yeah.

Yeah.

That makes sense to me.

I would say too, I mean, I see often that uh temporary COs are sometimes granted, so you could give a temporary for let's say 30 days.

Yeah, we don't know you don't do temp COs in Salem.

I know I know it's a thing.

I've done them many times in the past.

I don't know if Salem does it, but we're seems as though um okay.

So then the other question I have is did we actually establish some sort of like post construct post-construction monitoring for the wetlands?

Do we ever actually implement that?

Uh we we did for um wetland impact.

So if somebody were to come in and have to uh you know they were gonna disturb wetland and then replicate wetland, that has to be monitored for a period of three years, I think.

I can check on that.

But you well, you're suggesting that we would we would uh monitor this wetland uh for a period that's consistent with our ordinance for replication.

Yeah.

Yep.

I think it's three years, but I could check.

Yeah.

I would just want to make sure that obviously it the wetland has been disturbed for so long, but I just want to make sure that anything that's that's planted there and put back into place is actually taking um over the next few years, the next few seasons as it kind of gets established.

Um I would definitely like to see that, but um I'm unfortunately firm on the holding four and five, but I'm just one person on the board.

So that's all I have.

Yeah, uh I'm of like mind with uh Ms.

Carlson.

Uh the uh the development has been phased.

The uh the developer has built and received COs on three units.

Um and he had uh almost three years to address this issue and up until a month ago, there's none of the information that was provided here as far as remediation restoration and and an agreement with the uh butter who violated this was done.

At least nothing's been provided to the board that any of that was done until a month ago when we put the brakes on it.

So I don't think that the uh uh uh occupant is earned those COs, and once the work is done, if it's two weeks out, then he's only two weeks away from getting it.

I agree.

Mr.

Lafontaine, is there any um do we have any record of the state being out here and doing work in this area?

Um doing work, I I don't recall, but I do know they were involved, I think, early on in the process when the encroachment was done.

I think I don't have that file down here with me, but that was my recollection and looking through the file.

It's a relatively large file.

Okay.

Um would it be appropriate, you know, would we be able to condition to the information in the uh in the letter outlined by um Mr.

Hurley?

Um is pretty vague in terms of what is going to be done.

Um, just in terms of protecting the abutters to bring it as close to possible to pre-existing, uh particularly when the state was involved.

I feel like that would help alleviate some of their concerns and probably appro appropriate in this case to have the state as a uh party uh to the review, is that what you're suggesting?

I mean I guess I guess maybe one thing you I think you're maybe going to is having some kind of third party review and uh is that what you're suggesting?

I don't know what you say anything that was.

Yeah, so if the state has already done if they did work in 2009 that helped remediate the issues that they are having, you know, are we taking you know is Mr.

Hurley taking those into consideration?

It you know, that work that was actually completed.

I don't I don't know.

I mean, I guess I don't recall to to what extent the state was involved, if it was more so that they helped us with enforcement, but obviously the the encroachment was never fully uh addressed.

Um, you know, and I'll this many years later it still exists.

I mean, I guess one thing you're you maybe you could do is you could you could we could consult with RCCD just uh you know make sure that's just a wetland mitigation.

I don't think we need to do that.

Okay, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Uh and then the only thing I'd like to do if uh you know Mr.

Nolan, you uh were at the uh last meeting, and unfortunately we didn't give you an opportunity to speak.

If I I did want to just give you the opportunity if you did have something you'd like to say to please please uh please does Mr.

Ambassador.

I don't know if you remember first of all, I'm Bill Nolan.

I've been there 40 years, and back in 96 we had a hundred-year storm, and my cellar had four feet of water in it.

Six inches of water was coming off of Mr.

Lachance's property straight across instead of draining properly.

There was a drain there, but it was all clogged up and messed up, and I spent 11,000 redoing that drain, and through the years we've pretty much kept the vegetation out of the drain, it needs another cleaning.

So without the drain properly there, and elevation is a major factor.

All right, it's only like a foot droppage from uh chances property to my drain.

And we try and keep that drain clean, and you can look at it presently.

All right, we've taken all the vegetation out of it because it clogs the drain and trash.

All right, and without the drain, it's not gonna work.

And we did not fill that land.

The only thing I did to that land was put hot top on it.

And at the time, I actually thought I had a 15-foot buffer zone for my hottop.

It turns out the hot top was uh not in the right place.

All right, and I had a five feet uh buffer zone instead of a fifteen.

But all I did was the elevation stayed the same.

It had to for the water to drain, and that drain was there.

And I don't want another hundred year storm.

And Lowe's parking lot put hundreds of pipes underneath it and redid the drain across the street.

But that water drains around my property, through my property and across the street.

Do you remember when 28 used to flood?

It no longer floods.

That's all I have to say.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Nolan.

Thanks, Mr.

Norcross.

So please what I'm asking for tonight is just one of the last two COs.

I mean, the state or the town knew about this in 2010, and then it gets put on my lap because someone encroached on our land in 2023.

The town had plenty of chances to do something for this.

They didn't.

They sent them a letter in the fall saying he could be fined up to 500 a day.

Then they sent another one four months later and saying he could be fined, but they don't.

And then I'm told as the abutter, I'm the one who has to pay to get it fixed.

I apply for the COs, I fill out all those applications, I give the town fifteen thousand dollars per house that you guys are holding.

Won't give me my money back, because by the time I'll get it back, I was told it's gonna be due anyway.

Just ask them for one CO out of the five.

Or out of the last two.

We'll take a vote and uh I mean yeah, 30,000 dollars.

Yeah, we'll take a vote on the COs.

It sounds like uh some members of the board are okay with um with uh the planning um planning department's uh recommendation here, but uh some members want to want to hold it until the um the uh uh representation that was made on the plan from three years ago is uh adhered to and uh completed.

What about the the 13 years that the town knew about it and didn't do anything about it?

Um further from the board here Mr.

Politiya?

Thank you, Mr.

Chiman.

After reviewing everything, um you know I'm not uh I'm not saying that Mrs.

Cowson was in the uh I mean I is raw wrong.

Exactly, right?

With the with with the uh with the uh RSA's the way the way it's the way it's uh formed.

I mean the they were they did have to do mitigation before they get the uh COs on all five of these.

But due to the fact of the hot ship that it created, uh basically basically the hardship that came from the applicant.

I'm not saying high ship from anybody else, came from the applicant.

As our last meeting, we told them they we wanted a mitigation plan in order to get another in order to get a CO.

And they did that.

They have this plan.

I wish they had fulfilled this plan before coming here, but they it's we're still they have a plan.

So in my my own one my opinion, I'm willing to vote to go halfway with this, me halfway with them.

Give them one CO for the one, and when that this mitigation is done, when this work is done, automatically give them the CO for the fifth fifth unit.

Uh, because it takes money.

If anybody's a contractor, they know it it it it takes money.

That unit must be rented out sold in order to have enough capital to kick to to go on.

And without that, that's that's another hardship that that gets created.

Uh so that's my opinion on it.

I I'm willing to go halfway with the given the one CO tonight and uh make sure that gets done.

Thank you right away.

Thank you for that, Mr.

Pelletier.

They have made a lot of headway meeting with the uh planning department and um they said the they re represented you here tonight that um it'll be done for a couple weeks, so um they have a contract here, they both wanted to see, so I agree with you, Mr.

Pelletia.

I am something just for you.

Oh, okay.

Do you want to please come to the podium and uh and uh some others too if you need them?

Okay, thanks.

Um anything further from the board on this one.

Um I guess uh vote on uh uh releasing the uh um certificate of occupancies first.

I don't know if I'm gonna take a vote on that.

Anybody want to make a motion to do that?

Do we need a motion on that?

Or yeah, if half the board wants to want to do it, we need to vote on it.

Should we do the motion?

Um we don't know Jeremy's feelings here.

I agree with Mr.

Pellateer quite a bit.

Oh, okay.

We definitely take a note on that.

Um I will make a grant of one of those uh conditional uh certificate of occupancy from the previous plan since you know uh Mr.

Chair, I make a motion to grant one certificate of occupancy for one of the two remaining buildings on the site plan at the applicant's choosing um prior to the remediation of the wetland work being completed on the wetland.

Second your motion is second to uh grant one of those conditions certificate occupancies and then hold one um um from the previous plan to uh till the uh wetland mitigation is completed.

Uh we had discussion on that motion.

Um yes.

I would I will just say that um now that we've made the motion uh I I am in favor of this.

Uh but I I do want to set the record straight here that the i it is odd that we had three years to do this, and I think one of the biggest issues we had when the first time we heard this uh plan was that the abutter wouldn't respond and the abutter wouldn't engage with you in order for you to do the work.

In fact, I think the representation was that they wouldn't allow you on the property to do the work.

So I don't know, you know, now you'll uh the the abutter is here, um and I think it really does.

I I understand the concern about the town being able to do the work.

Um but this is somebody that would had an approval.

Uh they had plenty of time to fix it, they chose not to fix it, and that's why we're here, in my opinion.

But I've been consistent on this.

I'd actually give you both CEOs.

But I uh okay, motion any anything further on that.

Oh, yes, sorry, really good.

I I think it just it sets a precedent of asking for forgiveness rather than permission, and that is why I'm opposed to it.

Um I would I just would rather have seen that the wetland work be done um prior to occupy um still they've made that's all good faith and an edway on that.

Um still made that's all good faith and and headway on that.

So after three years, but yeah.

Yes, three years.

Um all those in favor of uh granting one conditional uh one certificate occupancy and then uh holding one back until the work's completed.

All those in favor of that um opposed four three, get your uh one CO, and then uh do we act on that plan?

You want to give us a conditions, Jacob on this uh on the um single unit here for nine uh nine inch retreat.

Yeah, uh recommended conditions of approved the uh one prior to build and permit submit staff approvals.

Uh this is maybe not necessary.

Well, we'll we'll carry it over, but uh two pre-existent paved encroachments shall be removed in wetland buffer area shall be restored and marked with placards.

So that would just ensure the sequencing occurs.

Uh prior to occupancy three pay impact fee of 9,281 dollars per unit.

Four record deed restriction, dwelling to remain rental unit after legal review to be paid by applicant, and that's consistent with the prior approval.

Um five applicant shall submit performance guarantee to monitor wetland restoration through three growing seasons, monitoring reports from a qualified wetland scientist shall be submitted to town staff in accordance with 49706 J.

That's the wetland uh ordinance, and then six provide certified as built site plan.

Seven, construct all site improvements in accordance with approved plan, and then all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

That was eight conditions.

That's correct.

Okay.

This miscall.

Um the only commission that I would suggest adding would be at the post-construction wetland monitoring.

Yeah, that's three is was that on there?

Yeah, number five.

So we've missed it.

My apologies.

I may not have yeah, it's three growing seasons as on there, and I'd refer to 49706, okay.

J, which has more nuance in terms of you know what they have to do and monitor.

Okay, thank you.

Mr.

Chair, I move to conditional grant approval of the site plan with the eight conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Very good.

Got a motion a second to uh accept the Willows Park site plan for the uh single unit at 9 Hampshire Street uh with eight conditions noted for um uh conditional approval.

Um any discussion on that?

Yes, Ms.

I would just share with the board that I'm opposed to moving forward with this until the other situations rectify.

I think that we can wait a couple of weeks.

Okay, that's all it's gonna take.

So anything further?

All right, all those in favor opposed and a six-two all set.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh next item of on the agenda tonight is uh well first item a new business, second item on the agenda is the uh Tuscan Village Block 1300 whole from site plan public hearing for conditional use permit for temporary signage exceeding the permitted size and quantity at 22 and 24R via Toscata.

Is the plan complete?

Yes, so plan's complete.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the plan is complete.

Second, um all those in favor to accept the plan.

Uh unanimous um butters, please.

The butters are as follows Tuscan Village Master Development, Tuscan Village Block 1200, Tuskid's South Village, Tuscan Village Jewel Buildings, Tuscan Village Master Development, and that is all great.

Thank you.

Um that uh go to the applicant to present the plan.

Thank you.

Thank you all for seeing that thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Present the plan.

All right, thank you so much.

Summarize it if you want.

Mr.

Chairman, thank you.

Uh Planning Board members, thank you for your time this evening.

So Amelia here is a representative of Whole Foods, and we've worked together the last several months to create this plan and hopefully.

Do you want to just state your name for the Brian Smith, Tuscan Village?

Right.

2220R via Tuscana.

Uh Amelia is the Whole Foods.

Um it's a Boston address, not sure.

That's okay.

That's all right.

You just name and company's fine.

Okay, yeah, and they love that Cole Fleets Market Amazon.

Thanks.

All right.

But we're looking for an approval on a couple three banners to be exact.

One coming soon to generate more interest to the Whole Foods opening at some point this summer.

It's looking like mid-July, hopefully.

Then we would like to ask for permission to have a banner for opening date and then a banner for um I'm sorry, announcing the opening date, and then a now open banner.

Ideally we're looking to place these as you can see, the east elevation of the Toscana at the high roof, so up high.

And then at the um basically the main entrance of the parking lot that was just finished.

Um facing south.

So when you pull into the new parking lot at 16R via Toscana 22 and 24 are via Tiscana right at that main entrance.

So customers that are parking in the new parking lot see that this is the location for the main entrance.

And ideally we're there for 90 total days, so 30 days per banner, which would I believe fit the ordinance of the town.

And the flags that are proposed on the site plan are to be installed for the I believe it's 14 days per flag.

I'm sorry, for the flags within the property lines.

So Amelia and I have been working on that to ensure that if this approved, we will be able to place these within the shown areas.

This could be subject to change, but anything within the property line, nothing will go outside of the actual property line itself.

That being said, um the temporary flags, I believe there was an example shared on the last page.

The last page.

Oh, very left one.

Yeah, shown here on the bottom left corner.

Yep, there you go.

Now we'll put one.

So these are the examples of what Whole Foods has done at other locations that we are looking to duplicate at the Tuscan Village site.

Anything I'm missing on this?

I think you yeah, it's agree.

I mean, really, it's it's awareness for the people of Salem and customers.

Once the marquee sign goes up, which it actually went up one of them today, people start coming and trying to shop the store.

So we do this to kind of give them a heads up, not only at the opening date, but that we're not open just yet, so there isn't any customer dissatisfaction coming up to the store in this.

Okay.

Anything further?

No, that's pretty much it.

Great.

Awesome, thank you.

Um, please.

I didn't have uh too much to add.

Uh Mr.

Smith had a good job summarizing the request.

I think we uh the planning department would be more concerned if they were permanent signage, they're temporary, they'll be there cumulatively 90 days.

We would ask that that that be reinforced through a condition of approval.

Uh because we've done it in the past, I gave you the sign ratio, which was calculated at 0.83 square feet, which is consistent with what they requested for Epicurean.

Uh so uh seems to be a reasonable request for the scope and uh temporary nature of conditions if and when you would like them.

Please uh recommended conditions would be one note conditional use permit on plan, two each banner sign shall be displayed no greater than 30 days in flag signs shall be removed after 56 six days.

Both of that, both of those are in accordance accordance with our regulations, your regulations.

Um and I also noted that the CUP is for one-time use slash opening and cannot be exercised in future annually.

Um three, any modification to signs require review and approval from planning board and four all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Thanks.

Uh any members of the public like to speak on this?

For the board.

Does anybody have any comments?

Sky?

I was just gonna say that uh I appreciate Tuscan uh coming for approval before putting the banners up because we had a little issue with the last time.

So uh I I hope I'm not gonna see pictures of the banners already on the building.

If they are not a good one.

No, I'd ignore it.

Nothing's getting um the only question I have is is the epicurean signs are they still up or are they down?

I haven't noticed when I've driven by.

They're still up.

And so I imagine that those are in a different location than where the whole food signs are gonna be.

Yep.

Will there be a period of time where they're overlapping on the building?

I imagine so.

That's a good question.

Um so we as a landlord don't even know the actual installation of the signs yet because we're not they're not going to go into fabrication and unless approved.

Yeah.

I can clarify that for you once we have a little bit more clarification from the tenant.

I'm eager to know the actual opening dates and dates these banners could go up.

Yeah.

Um just to generate interest and help coordinate with the folks on site.

Sure.

Um there sh would be some overlap, I think.

I just don't know how long the epicurean sign's been up.

I focus on retail and office.

I haven't really focused on the apartments.

It's been up for a bit.

I don't know how long, but I think the epicurean can be up for one year or uh at final occup or full occupancy, which I don't think you probably will have in July.

No.

Phase five is still going through the C of O process right now for the apartments, and I know that that has been ongoing this week with the building department.

So there's probably some overlap.

Okay.

I think Whole Food signs will most likely be gone before Epicurean.

I yeah, I I imagine so.

I was just trying to envision the difference the signs on the building in different spots, or if it if one was replacing the other at least temporally.

Um that's all.

Okay.

Sorry for I'm not sure you need signs.

This is so anticipated in town.

Um I just wanted to take a minute and thank the uh planning department for providing the sign ratio as uh they know how important that is to me.

You read those at night, right?

Yes.

Um so thank you very much.

Yes, of course.

I appreciate that you appreciate it.

So I I just want to make sure I have it correct.

It's we're approving conditional use for one sign and three flags where one is allowed, one temporary where it's allowed.

Yeah, they would yes, that's correct.

Yeah, okay.

Good.

When is Whole Foods opening?

Cannot confirm yet.

Oh, okay.

In the near future.

In the near future.

Not soon enough.

Yeah.

Weeks, months.

I was like, I mean, I can't speak, but on the construction side representing the the landlord.

It's very far along.

I think it's gonna come down to changes that are out of Amelia's uh purview that tend to happen when the store comes to life.

It's it's very far along right now, and I think there's been some operational changes that they've made, which just adds a few days or weeks, I should say, to the project.

So I'm anticipating sometime in mid-July.

I can't confirm that.

She's not gonna tell me.

I've tried.

Um but that's why this is important for us.

Yeah, we just we don't want to commit.

We're still pretty you know, decently far out, so we don't we've had times in the past we've committed to a date to the public.

And then, of course, as you all know, something can happen.

Understood construction-wise, so with a new belt, we just want to be really cautious and make sure we're only announcing that date when we can fully be confident our doors will open on that day.

Okay.

Well, we'll take uh sometime in mid-July that you cannot confirm as satisfactory.

Um board on this one?

No, no, okay.

No stay in a motion.

All right.

Uh I will just note that Mr.

Gross is excited to see you tap dance, Mr.

Smith while he's a pair.

Uh Ms.

Chair, I moved to granted conditional use permit under Section 490-702 D11D of Tuscan Design Standards to allow 175 square foot sign where 50 temporary sign where 50 square feet is allowed with reference to oops, and to allow three temporary flags where one is allowed with reference to the letter from the applicant dated April 20th, 2026, and subject to the four conditions uh noted by Mr.

Lafontaine.

Second.

Got a motion a second to accept the um uh Whole Foods uh temporary sign or uh conditional use permit and uh site plan with the four conditions um any discussion on the one all is a favor.

That's unanimous.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thanks guys.

Next item uh on the agenda tonight uh would be item four new business, which is uh quick stop properties LLC site plan.

That's a public hearing for a change of use for 2645 square foot retail use cigar shop, car rental agency with two service pays with thousand square foot retail slash service base and continue use of an auto-detailing business at 282 North Broadway.

Is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan's complete.

Mr.

Chair, I move to accept the complaint is complete.

Second all the favor to accept the plan.

That's unanimous about us, please.

Yeah, butters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so they're CMAB associates, Walmart Real Estate Business Trust, State of New Hampshire DOT, and that is all.

Okay, I think over to the applicant to present the plan.

All right, good evening.

Um my name is Sarah Shachtman.

And I'm here tonight with the applicants.

And we're here, as you mentioned, for the change of use at 282 North Broadway.

The rest of the building has been vacant for some time.

So the applicant is hoping to get two new tenants into this building.

Spruce up the area a little bit.

And as mentioned on the it's probably probably a little bit too small to see, but on the left hand side of the first level will be retail cigar sales.

I just want to make it clear that it's just cigar sales.

There's no lounge portion associated with that.

And on the right hand side will be a car rental agency who will also occupy two of the garage bays on the lower side.

Um so they can do some maintenance on their vehicles.

I do want to note that it's not expected that they'll have any more than 10 cars on the property at a time, and hopefully there's really not many cars because they're doing well.

Um we have shown bringing the parking into compliance with new striping.

The site was previously laid out for car sales at a much more compact size.

Um so we have showed some new striping there.

And that's pretty much it.

The applicant is looking forward to you know, sprucing up the site, some landscaping, new striping, and getting some new tenants in there and doing business in Salem.

So with that, I'll open it up to any questions.

Okay, thanks.

We'll take uh comments from the planning department, and then we'll get back to um comments from the board public.

So sorry, Mr.

Chair, I grabbed the wrong review form.

So if you could bear with me for a second.

Um so the applicant is proposing to convert the historic use for the um 282 Main Street to a uh uh cigar uh retail outlet, not a cigar lounge.

So we discussed that.

Uh one of the items that we did talk about was the landscape, and the plan was approved in uh 2005, and since that time uh some of the vegetation has been removed, so we would ask the applicant to restore the vegetation in accordance with the approved plan.

Uh the other item that has come up is that um the park is uh has been added over time, so they did have some angled spaces in the front, and then they also added these spaces uh to the to the south, and not the current application, a previous property owner, from what I understand, and the applicant to their credit is correct in uh that nonconformity because it pinches the travel aisle so that it's no longer conform.

And um aside from that, if you should wait one second, I'm just gonna pull up my review form.

Um there were obviously comments about the prior approvals was approved in 2005, and there's some wetland impacts, but they're not changing anything uh in regard to the wetland uh impacts that's shown in the rear of the site, and they've got previous approvals for that, and this whole area here is held in conservation.

Um item that I did discuss with the applicant, and I guess we'd like to discuss uh the board's uh uh position on it.

Uh there is a requirement in our ordinance that requires a 25-foot pavement setback for your your parking.

And the 2005 plan, I think I have it here, was approved with a 25-foot landscape setback.

Uh, but the applicant has gone out and done a site survey and determined that it was actually constructed at less than 25 feet.

So it's uh unfortunately not something in your site plan regulations that you could waive.

It's a it's a requirement in the ordinance that would require a variance.

In talking with the applicant, the only uh other alternative I could imagine would be the fact that in 2005 um the prior use did not have a 25-foot setback.

The applicant at the time in 2005 was uh taken a you know, it might have been maybe 10 feet at its narrowest, and they were taking that and making it conform or proposing to make it conforming, but that didn't happen, and and now there's a 23.6 uh foot setback.

So, you know, a strict interpretation would be that they either have to correct the setback or seek a variance.

Uh an alternative interpretation may be despite that it was approved as a conformance setback, uh, would be to view the fact that the prior approval uh was proposing it to be conforming even though they didn't have they had a pre-existing condition that was less conforming.

So wait a minute, you gotta explain that second part again.

So if I had I have the plan here and I probably should have taken an image of it, but I don't I didn't uh but if I were to scale it, uh I think it was what that was it a diner previously, or um yeah, it was the diner before it was redeveloped for this site, and they probably had a setback that was you know, if I were without without a scale with me, maybe it was seven feet, and uh you know, what could have been even less than that?

So the diner use did not need the 25-foot setback.

The diner predated the requirement in our ordinance.

Okay, when they came in for this proposal, they did two things.

They cut off the southerly curb cut, which we appreciate, and then they also stated that they were gonna make a conforming landscape setback of 25 feet as required by the ordinance.

The plan was approved with a 25-foot setback, but we've now identified just recently that it's 23.6.

So again, a strict interpretation would just say, well, your plan in 2005 said that you were gonna have a 25-foot setback, and you did not rely on your non-conformant status, therefore you need to re-establish a 25 feet or seek a variance or equivalent waiver to have less than 25 feet.

So you're suggesting use the diner as a grant grandfathering in.

I think it's a prior.

I'd like to I'd like to figure out a way where you can rationalize it.

Yes, but the red tape please.

I think that might be a way to say that well, you had in 2005, you had a pre-kins it pre-existing condition.

Um, you proposed to put it at 25 when you they really didn't have to at the time, right?

They could have said we've got 10 feet, we're gonna keep it at 10 feet, which sometimes applicants say, and then uh, but in this instance they said they were gonna make it 25.

They didn't get quite there.

So if the board would make that can't you just word it to say uh continuance of a non-conforming use.

I mean, that's I I guess that's what you're making a determination on whether or not you feel like if you do that because non-confirmation pre existing non-conform.

Despite the fact, I mean, I guess one maybe it's I don't know, maybe you could make a determination that it's pre-existent non-conforming, and then maybe the applicant would agree that at any point when they redo the parking lot that they'll you know revise it to a conform and setback.

But I'm sure we would the tricky part is if they didn't have any curbing, you know, if it was just uh paved or if they had even bituminous, it probably wouldn't be that big of a deal, but they do have sloped granite curb, so they'd have to you know cut the pavement, reset the curb.

Umstood.

Okay.

Well, let's make that work then.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um there are impact fees, they're relatively well, uh, I shouldn't say that, but there are impact fees of $63.

What I did for public safety, what I did was I credited them an office rate and I applied a retail rate, so uh that's what the net difference would be.

The traffic impact fee is a little bit easier because we actually have an automobile sale category.

Uh and when you credit the automobile sales category and then account for the conversion to a small retail, it's uh five thousand one hundred and fifty dollars and eighty cents.

That would have to be approved prior to uh uh have to be submitted prior to occupancy.

The other item of what was the public safety impact fee?

5150.

Okay.

And then what was a road impact fee?

Sorry, that was the road and public safety was sixty-three dollars and twenty cents.

Oh, okay.

If you were to apply, I looked at the floor plan from 2005, and it's primarily offices on that floor that they're converting.

There was a showroom too, so I mean, you know, I think we probably would have we didn't apply an impact fee at that time, but the RSA still allows them a credit for their prior use.

Okay.

So I seemed reasonable to call the whole thing office, even though I guess you could maybe split hairs about the showroom.

Um then the other thing I just wanted to note is that in looking doing the research on the where we get to the 23 and a half foot setback, is there's a variety of notes on the plan that I think we should just uh ensure that are carried over.

Um, you know, main site lighting shall be extinguished one how half hour after closing time.

There are residential abutters on old Rock and Ham Road.

Well, they're not technically abutters because the rail trail runs the corridor, so they're not direct abutters, but certainly they are having passed been entrusted parties.

And um, so for purposes of notification, they're not, but I think we'd want to carry over that same note out of uh uh consideration of the residential abutters on old Rockenham Road.

There was also discussion, this was a review by uh Steve Pernau, our traffic consultant, and there was also discussion on the size of the vehicle, so that no semi semi-trucks, no tractor trailers uh would be uh on site, and I imagine that's because the site, you know, they they submitted a truck turn plan that showed it uh could not accommodate a tractor trailer, so we'd want to carry that same note over.

Uh and those are probably the uh important ones.

There was other uh comments about the parking of display vehicles in any location other than the those shown on the plan is not allowed.

Uh I did talk to the applicant earlier and I said, could you please identify an area on the plan where you are gonna store your and this is what they had to do previously, where you're gonna store your uh rental vehicles.

So the applicant has agreed to add that to the plan as well.

Um they're okay in terms of the parking, they're gonna provide the sufficient parking that's needed.

They're gonna eliminate those parking spaces in the front because as display spaces, they could be non-conforming, but now they have to be conforming because they're gonna be for customers.

Um we talked about the pavement setback.

Uh we talked about the landscape, and we would just uh acknowledge that that should be planted in accordance with the approved plan.

Um so that really summarizes the the staff comments, mostly just to uh ensure that some of the notes from 2005 are carried over, that the landscaping is addressed, and that um you know we maybe would add one.

It sounds like the board's comfortable with uh allowing the 23.6 foot uh setback to remain, and then when they redo the parking lot, they can add the foot and a half.

Sure.

That is a note to the site plan.

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, yes, I'm all set.

I'm sorry.

Okay, thanks.

Um anyone from the public like to speak on the plan have any comments?

Yeah, go ahead, please.

Continue.

No, your first.

Um Mr.

Lafontaine, is it typical that uh uh people are allowed to use that strip as snow storage?

I'm just curious.

Um seems odd, but yeah, I guess you'd probably well that there'll be a tree back there, so they want to be careful, but we probably would want it further removed from the wetland.

So even though from an aesthetic standpoint, it's probably not great to have a huge mound in front of the store, it's probably better than pushing it into the wet.

And um they anything north of old Rock and Ham Road does have a pretty generous setback of 25 feet.

So they do have uh, and this doesn't even account for the fact that there's probably another 25 feet on the other side of their lot line to the pavement.

Um so I think it's it's not ideal, but it's probably reasonable.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Kevin.

First of all, um I wish the restaurant was the diner was still there.

That's the best breakfast in town.

Uh but I although I know this building very well, I've been through this building many many times.

Uh it is adequate for what the applicant wants it to do.

Um the downstairs bays are uh have some beautiful lifts down there.

I wish I had that in my garage.

Um I do want to make sure that the applicant, if you're going to be servicing your rental cars back there to that that your oil transmission fluid uh are uh uh away from the never hits that wetland back there that they're trapped in barrels and recycled.

Uh I'm sure that's gonna be taken care of.

Uh and uh one other thing when you talk when the applicant talked about uh updoing the landscaping, that is an excellent idea because it's it's right at the curve of the curve of the road, curvature of the road, and it would look really nice if there was some nice landscaping around that corner.

Secondly, on the left side of that drive, that drive that entrance, there is a marker out there is a historical landmarker over there, which indicates the old cow bridge.

That's where the entrance of the uh that's where the entrance was the old cow bridge a little there.

And if the applicant is up, is uh would be nice enough to uh make sure that's nice and clear is nice and clean and decorated and preserved so that the public can review it.

No problem.

No problem.

Okay, great.

I'm well set, Mr.

One South.

Ms.

Carlson.

Thank you.

Um now I'm forgetting.

I'm forgetting what I was gonna say.

I know that's the algorithm.

So I know the cowbridge just pulled it.

I got a little excited about the cows.

Um the hours of operation, it doesn't look like they're noted on the plan.

Um if we could if you made mention of that, I apologize.

I didn't, but I did receive the hours of operation from the applicant, so we we know those and we can add them to the plan.

And what are the what are the hours?

The cigar shop is Monday through Saturday, eight to seven.

The car rental is Monday through Saturday, nine to five, and the car detailing is Monday through Saturday, ten to six.

Okay.

Um then the existing there is existing signage on site, and you're just changing what it says.

But the sign itself is not really like the sign structure itself is not being changed, just the logos within the sign, I imagine.

If you want to speak, just come up to the podium.

If you want to talk, please just name name for the record, please.

Here's the honour to eighty-two and all the Broadway.

Uh the sign we're gonna get it approved by the town of Salem.

We're gonna divide it by three, same measurement.

Each tenant will get his own name, logo, and stuff.

And whatever the town required something on the side of the building, the two front tenant, if you guys will allow us.

We'll put the same measurement.

Same thing.

If we need a banner or a flag, we have to ask.

They're gonna come in for another sign for a sign permit, Jacob.

I believe so.

Depends on uh we haven't discussed that, but if it's conforming, then they wouldn't have to.

It's something that we can administratively approve.

Um they haven't shown any signs on the plan, so I guess we assume that it would be uh replacing kind.

Okay.

Okay.

Um and then I remember what what the other comment was.

Um Jacob, the the previous use in in the history and whatnot.

Um I was trying to follow, but as you as you can imagine, it was a a little bit hard to follow.

Um so it was previously a diner that was that was non-conforming as far as that setback goes.

It was non-conforming when the diner was there.

That's correct.

Yeah, it had two curb cuts and it had uh uh setback certainly less than twenty-five feet.

And that was when it was like you are guessing about seven ish feet somewhere.

Yeah, just eyeballing it.

I mean it I was saying it could even be less than that, but I think seven, I feel pretty confident of saying that it's at least seven feet.

Okay.

So then it so it went from now what's considered non-conforming.

It was intended to become conforming, but wasn't actually made conforming.

So I certainly don't want to make them go through any red tape, but my concern is just I I don't want I don't want us to flip-flop on if we're relying on the non-conformity or the conformity of the plan.

So if if we're saying that we're relying on it being non-conforming in the past when it was seven-ish feet, give or take, that I I think we could have relied on that if the intention wasn't to make it the 25 feet.

Does that make sense what I'm saying?

Yeah, it does.

I mean I I get what you're it is clunky.

I mean I just I hate for them to go through too much trouble for a foot in the house, but it's not a good idea.

I also don't want them to.

But I just I I don't want to I don't want to set a bad precedent or um I'd like I would rather it just stay kind of as as clean as we can as clunky as it is.

Yeah.

Yeah, the other thing, I mean the app the other hope well, not hope, but I mean to in order for them to avoid it, they did submit an as built, so I I discussed um that with the applicant and they said they didn't identify, you know, if they identified the setback on the current applicant submitted the as bill.

Uh no, the as but that was submitted uh in 2005.

So I thought can you correct me if I'm wrong?

I mean there were it was shown on the as bill, it just wasn't dimensioned.

Correct.

So it's this base plan is prepared by um MHF design, which GPI has absorbed.

Okay.

Um but that was back in 2006.

So the existing edge of pavement is taken directly from that 2006 as bill and has not changed.

So the town accepted the asvelts and the non-conforming uh yeah, we received as belts.

I don't think it's dimensioned it, but I guess you you know argument could be made that we could have measured a little bit more.

Okay.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I'm I'm fine with I'm fine with that because the fact that we had that we had accepted it at the time, but I guess I just don't want us to rely on the diners going from the diner to whatever the next use was for it increasing to the what was supposed to be 25 feet and not being the 25 feet for us relying on that for the nonconformity.

Um I'd rather rely on it in the sense of it being because of the as built.

Okay.

That was accepted.

That makes sense.

Anything further from the board on this one?

No.

Okay.

Submit staff approvals.

I would just acknowledge that that should include some of the comments that uh the planning department raised in terms of notes on the plan.

And I would also acknowledge that some of those notes are actually already on the plan.

So that was my mistake for calling those out when they were already done.

Um and then uh two prior to occupancy pay road impact fee of five thousand one hundred and fifty dollars and eighty cents and public safety impact fee of certain sixty-three dollars and twenty cents.

Uh two, I had uh reinstall landscaping and I had the setback, but I think we've addressed that.

I think what the recommendation would be, and I think the applicant has agreed to it is that at you know, time of uh reconstruction of parking lot that they will uh you know correct it to a 25-foot setback.

Um provide certified as built site plan that would primarily be for the stripe and um in the landscape and then five construct all site improvements in accordance with the approved plan.

Six approval for is for retail cigar sales and not a cigar bar slash lounge, which the applicant has indicated.

Uh seven, applicant must operate business so that parking lot capacity is not exceeded, and eight, all representations made by applicant or agents and all notes on the plan are incorporated as part of the approval.

Thank you.

No fellows from the board will entertain a motion.

Mr.

Chair, I move to grant conditional approval for a change of use subject to the eight conditions noted by Mr.

Lafontein.

Second.

Uh site plan at 282 North Broadway with the conditions.

Any uh discussion?

All is in favor unanimous, thank you.

Thank you all for your time.

All right.

And um the last item of new business, fifth item on the agenda for new business is uh a Selemi site plan that's a public hearing for 22 townhouse style residential units and four buildings at 177 Main Street.

Is the plan complete?

Yes, the plan is complete.

Mr.

Chair move to accept that you the plan is complete.

Second.

Motion is second to accept the plans complete.

All in favor.

The butters are as follows.

If you're here, please indicate by saying so.

They are Hanson Family Revocable Trust.

Hansen is present, GUDEC, Anse Holden LLC, Valhooli trustee, uh Appelstein.

Appelstein is here, Goslin and Dunn.

Gaussen and Dunn are here.

Uh 179 Main Street LLC.

179 Main Street is here, and East Winfield Realty LLC, and that is all great.

Thanks.

Hello again.

Uh Ian Ainsley, engineer from Isa Brand.

So what we're discussing here tonight is a 22-unit townhouse project that is being proposed on this property.

Um the board may remember that this came before you as a subdivision.

Um so we subdivided the pre-existing 175 Main Street into two.

One of the lots is still 175 Main Street.

That's the existing two-family house.

And then the new lot that was created, which is the subject lot that we're talking about tonight, is 177.

Uh the property as it is now, it's almost entirely wooded.

There's two wetlands to the east.

Those are both below half an acre, so they don't have the setbacks according to the definition in the bylaw.

Um we received a use variance from the zoning board to allow for the 22 townhouse units in this zone.

I should mention that the front of the property is in the business office zone, and then the rear of the property where the units are going to be is the residential zone.

We're gonna have just kind of talking about the design a little bit.

We're gonna have sort of a boulevard type entrance where you have one lane coming in, sort of a landscaped nice looking median in the middle, and then a um lane coming out on the left.

So that'll take you in for Main Street, and then you have the 22 units in the rear of the property once it kind of opens up.

The units are in blocks, so there's four buildings.

Um, five units, one of the buildings is six units type thing.

Um the property, the 175 Main Street, the driveway right now connects directly to Main Street through where we're going to be putting the entrance for the townhouse project.

So the other thing that we're doing is we're going to provide a driveway from the townhouse project when that gets built to access 175 Main Street.

Um we're gonna have a grassed sort of recreation area in the front.

Jacob, if you can kind of circle that a little bit.

There's just gonna be an outdoor, you know, play area for kids, and you know, if you throw a football, soccer ball, you know, kick things around, that kind of thing.

Um that's on the east side, that's gonna connect to the sidewalk on Main Street, and then bring you toward the back where the units are.

Um as far as the units themselves, um they're three-bedroom townhouse type units.

Um we've designed them to be two and a half stories, which is the requirement in that zone, and we've done that by kind of averaging the grade so it's taller in the front, kind of where the pavement is, and then it shrinks in the back down to two stories in the back, and then when you take the average, you get to two and a half in the building code.

So they're two and a half.

Um see.

So we're gonna have them served by municipal sewer in municipal water.

Um we do need a state sewer connection permit in order to do that.

The property is gonna drain.

Um there's a proposed bioretention area in the back that's been um, I believe, reviewed and approved by Rockingham County at this point.

That bioretention area is going to take the runoff from the buildings and the pavement.

Uh, there's catch basins that are in the pavement, and then there's um storm water kind of underground plastic chambers in the back of the units.

That's gonna take the buildings, and then it'll all wind up going into that bioretention facility.

Right now, most of the property drains toward the west toward Martin Ave.

We're actually going to take most of that runoff and redirect it to the east because there's kind of a large offsite wetland area over there, and it's just a better place to discharge uh concentrated runoff.

Um as far as parking goes, we have one parking space outside of each unit, and then one parking space via a garage in each unit.

So each unit gets two spaces, one inside, one outside.

Um we are meeting the zoning setbacks.

Um I think there's a 15-foot side setback required.

We're providing 30, so trying to keep it away from the side property lines, and we're meeting the lot coverage and the building coverage as well, and that's all tabulated on the plan.

We do have a landscaping plan as well.

Uh Jacob, if you could just pull that up if you have it.

Um that's been done to screen the closest to butters on Martin Ave, so you can see a pretty good amount of landscape at the top of the plan, and then some kind of ornamental landscaping in the front, you know, to kind of make it look nice.

Uh, there is gonna be existing trees that remain between the street and that um recreation area there, so that's gonna be kind of buffered from the street.

I think that's just about everything I had as far as a summary, and happy to answer your questions.

Okay, thanks.

To the uh planning department for staff governments, please.

Um, as Mr.

Ainsley noted, it's uh proposal for 22 townhouses.

They have been before you a couple of times now for the subdivision and then a lot line adjustment both in 2025.

Uh there are wetlands on the site, but neither of the wetlands identified are jurisdictional, they're both less than half an acre in size.

So you can see that doesn't show up as well on this sheet because that's the landscape plan.

You can see it on the site plan.

Um it is there are two.

There's one location here, and there's also a location here.

Uh I think they've got a dimension, but we uh they have a call out, but we just asked them to add the dimension there.

Um again, they're not jurisdictional, but a lot of you know, still we might want uh we want the setback provided, and uh you could look at that for plantins, but it's not under the subject of the wetlands ordinance because they're less than half an acre.

Um other than that, uh we are still pending our third-party engineering review.

We just received our second uh uh review today, but that's not been finalized yet.

They're on town water, town sewer.

They do have the elevations provided, and I can pull those up now.

We haven't shown those yet, but uh this is for the uh what was that the six unit building, I think.

So uh and they both look substantially uh the same.

They're uh you know uh uh contemporary townhomes with pitch roofs and dormers.

Uh as Mr.

Ainsley noted, they are uh they did apply for a variance for uh height, uh, and that was denied by the ZBA.

So they are going to accomplish or they're proposing to accomplish the two and a half stories uh with the grade change.

So they are still the garage under this would be uh facing uh to the uh what directionally that's east, and then um and then also there'd be another on the on the other side near the car barn that would face west with the garage under, and then the grade would go up in the back so that it would be uh two stories on the back, and you can see that here, and then you can see that also here.

Um might be the case we've done that in other instances where we've required a height survey just to ensure because uh to be honest to calculate height seems like it's more complicated than uh I wish it were, but uh you know, we have in the past hired somebody to submit a height survey to ensure that uh you know our height 35 feet two and a half stories met.

So that was the six story or six unit rather, and then the uh five unit is also very similar as shown here.

Uh same thing, garage under slopes up to the back with a deck behind uh behind it, and they'll have uh you know uh smaller windows to the rear.

You can also see that in the rendering.

They submitted uh other renderings too, which I can pull up, but I don't think they made it onto the website yet just because of their size, but I do have them on a USB.

Um I would comment is that we do need materials and colors, those aren't at those haven't been provided.

And another thing I would uh you can tell it's pretty large because it's still loading.

Um but one thing I would acknowledge that we didn't do at 29 Main Street, which is kind of a similar development, is that there wasn't a lot of attention, I don't think paid to the side, which is really the uh prominent feature of those buildings because when you're on Main Street, you mostly just see the side, and uh I think there's maybe like a window or two.

So I do appreciate the applicant uh acknowledging that in this instance, and they do have transparency so that the portions of the building that are gonna be most visible from Main Street uh will have some visual interest rather than just be kind of a large blank wall.

And here's the rendering it took a bit to load, but uh and there's others as well, but this will give you some perspective of what it would look like in the interior of the development.

In terms of traffic, uh, we did uh Mr.

Ainsley did talk about this.

They are uh relying on the existing curb cut uh and widening it.

So the existing duplex drive is in this area, it's a little hard to show, but the underlay is there, and what they would do is be print uh primarily relying on that location, widening it with a boulevard entrance, which we also appreciate and complies well with our design guidelines.

Uh they would need an easement uh prior to uh prior to or prior to occupancy or building permit, so that the uh duplex has rights to occupy or access the duplex through this uh easement.

Uh and aside from that, one thing that we noted on our review form, this hasn't been reviewed by our third-party traffic consultant yet.

It's been sent out an estimate has been submitted, uh, but the review has not begun yet.

We would need to deposit to authorize that.

But one thing I'm sure Mr.

Purnow will discuss and highlight is the fact that right now it's a dead-end driveway with uh a turnarounds not provided.

So, you know, obviously you're gonna have uh deliveries there, you're gonna have uh, you know, hopefully not, but you know, if emergency services or fire needs to service the property, generally they're looking for a turnaround.

The other thing I noted is that the parking, they have three visitor parking spaces provided, and uh this is this one here.

This first one is certainly a little awkward.

Um, you know, it's uh they're trying to I think maximize the parking.

Uh they have well more parking than what they would need to.

Uh and I guess I would just note that that's a as you know, the state required uh municipalities to require one space per unit, and they've got um 48 spaces where 22 are required.

The other thing I would note is that they haven't counted these spaces to the uh outside of the garages as parking spaces, and in our experience, people are probably utilize that, so we'll probably you know want to consider uh you know how that would work.

29 Main Street again being a precedent uh uh application, they've got some separation between the two units.

If I pulled that up, you'd see a kind of a small median between the two, just so that it doesn't become kind of a free-for-all in this area.

But again, Mr.

Purnell, I'm sure we'll look at that closer.

Um there will be impact fees that are gonna be uh due.

That's $1,588 per unit for our current schedule.

The applicant has submitted a trip generation memo.

I've got 129 weekday trips, but I don't know if that I might that might be a typo.

But um, they have submitted a trip generation memo, and that will be reviewed by uh Mr.

Pur now.

In terms of zoning, the part parcel is split zoned with the front portion being business office, the rear portion being residential.

Uh we talked about the height and the fact that a height survey may be needed.

We talked about uh we haven't talked about it, but lot coverage and building coverage is okay.

The ZBA again granted a variance back in 2024 to permit this development, 22 townhouses uh where it's a non-permitted use.

They are subject to affordable uh housing requirement.

10% of these units will have to be affordable per our ordinance.

Um, and the applicant has acknowledged that at the ZBA level.

Um again, I just note that the board could consider whether 48 spaces are needed, likely that another vehicle will park in front of the garage, and uh that would potentially accommodate 70 vehicles if you had people park in front of the garage spaces, um, which is well beyond the 22 that the state uh uh requires the municipality have in terms of landscaping, the quantity noted uh when I reviewed the landscape plan, it doesn't seem to be consistent with in terms of the call-outs.

We would just ask the applicant to look a little bit closer at that because the call-outs look like they're a lesser uh quantity.

Um the other thing I would uh I would discuss would be the fact that uh you know I think it'd be uh reasonable to uh ask for a uh length of fence, particularly along the Martin Ava butters.

Uh our site plan or your site plan regulations require that uh the residential abutters be screened from uh from commercial uses, and this instance is a commercial use because it's a multifamily, and uh the abutters have submitted comments which have been provided to you that also asked for that.

Uh they were concerned, I think also about cut-throughs.

Um we talked about the quantity not being provided.

Uh they do have an uh evergreen buffer, but we asked that that be supplemented with the solid vinyl or stockade fence.

Uh in terms of lighting, uh, they have provided a plan that shows four or 17-foot-tall decorative lights.

Um they've got a proposed monument sign shown at the front of the site.

We would just ask that they add the setback so we can view it for conformance, and then also that they provide a detail so that we can also review that for conformance.

I believe they said it was gonna be a monument sign.

There are public safety impact fees that would be due prior to occupancy.

Uh, they'll have outside inspections and as built site plans.

Uh, one thing we'd asked the board to discuss is the programming of the recreation area.

Mr.

Ainsley, I think, noted it would be kind of a grassed flex space, but we'd want to discuss that.

And uh the abutters have been pretty uh involved in this process.

We've had public hearings at the ZBA, I don't know, two at least twice to the planning board at least twice for the subdivisions and now uh for the uh actual site plan itself.

So um, you know, I'm sure they'll have a lot to say and we'll just acknowledge that the board, which I'm sure you will be, will be cognizant of those concerns.

Recommendation tonight is continuance.

Thanks.

Any members of the public like to speak on the plan?

Please name and name and address for the record.

My name is uh Charlie Applestein.

I live at 12 Martin Ave.

And uh, you know, I have to tell you we started today's meeting with a Pledge of Allegiance, which ends which ends in Justice for All.

I'm gonna tell all of you, all you esteemed members, there was no justice in this process for the abutters, many of them I have friends who are here today, and I'll explain that in my letter.

Dear members of the planning board, I am a direct abutter to the proposed 22 unit housing development at 177 Main Street.

Well, I will speak tonight about several specific concerns regarding the project itself.

I first feel compelled to address the circumstances surrounding the original zoning approval process, because I believe that history should weigh heavily on the decisions you make tonight.

As was recently reported in the Lawrence Eagle Tribune, and I spoke for 45 minutes with that reporter today, and I think she'll be writing an expose about what you're going to hear about.

My family and four other direct abutters were never notified about the initial zoning meeting during which the project was approved.

Didn't hear a thing until it was approved.

According to planning director Jacob Lafontaine, who's been great with us, notification letters were mailed to all abutters but were returned due to no access to delivery location.

Take a second and think about that.

The letters to us never got to us, and the explanation was no access to delivery location.

How absurd is that?

I continue to find this explanation impossible to reconcile with reality.

No one has ever disagreed with that.

On September 24th and September 26th, the day before and after this letter was supposedly sent to us, mail was delivered to our homes without issue.

Yet somehow, on September 25th, every one of our mailboxes became inaccessible at the exact same time.

How deplorable is that.

I believe.

Can't prove it.

I don't think those letters were ever given to the postal carriers.

Because if you're a postal carrier and you couldn't approach a mailbox at your approach every day, that would be like pretty significant.

My postal carrier, no one can remember that.

The only plausible explanation for this is that those letters were sent to the post office, and I and I interviewed Jacob, and he said that it's really clear when the letters will be sent after the decision is made.

They sat in someone's desk at the post office until the zoning board approved the thing and then sent it back.

And the big mistake that I think was made, and I can't prove any of this.

The big mistake was made when they wrote um letters were couldn't be delivered because no access to delivery location.

What they should have written was uh the letters were misplaced.

Then we couldn't have questioned that.

But because they wrote no access to delivery location, it exposed the craziness of this, that that could never have happened.

Uh seven months later, no one from the postal service or town government has provided a credible explanation for why these notices never reached our homes.

I cannot prove wrongdoing, and I want to be careful with my words, but the circumstances understandably many of us questioning why something deeply improper occurred.

In other words, Malfeisence.

At the very least, the public's trust in this process has been badly shaken.

At the zoning board meeting, board member Daniel Gild at the recent one.

I couldn't attend, I trained people to work with troubled kids.

I was doing a training in Maryland.

I wrote a similar letter at the last zoning meeting that was read aloud.

At the last zoning board meeting, board member Daniel Gild, who I believe is a lawyer, stated, I am really concerned about this.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I believe the town should conduct a formal investigation of what happened.

He's a great guy, La Fontaine.

And if you read the article in the Tribune, the first one, I hope there's a second one coming out.

It said he's going to address this from now on by sending two letters or something.

But where's the investigation into why these letters never got to us?

The thing was approved without any of us hearing.

And what's quite interesting about this, because I've spent hours investigating this.

There are, as you probably know, there are certain criteria that have to be agreed upon to let something like this go through.

There is really a lot of doubt.

There was concern that this would even be approved, which speaks to more why this may have happened.

After learning that we, and this is important here, after learning that we had not been notified, the abutters requested a meeting with town manager Joseph Devine.

He listened respectfully and acknowledged our concerns.

He explained in substance that the town faced two choices.

This was remarkable.

Restart the process and risk legal action from the developer, mean hold the meeting again since we should have a right to be there and voice our opinions.

We asked him to hold the meeting again.

And he said, okay, uh so basically restart the process, hold the meeting again, and risk legal action from the developer or move forward with the project.

Mr.

Applesteen, I I I don't want to cut you off, but we've given you five minutes.

You have specific questions.

Okay, yeah, I'll get to it now.

But can I just finish that point and then I'll get right to my point about the planning stuff.

Okay.

Um he decided he had to decide whether to hold the meeting again, because we never heard about it, which would have been the ethical right decision when there's something so grievous occurred, or let it move forward and have us sue them.

See, one or the other was going to sue.

And so what did he decide?

He decided let it move forward and risk us suing.

The little guy got screwed.

Okay.

We now about the today.

I just wanted to hear the background.

Please adjust.

The concern brings us to tonight's gender.

We strongly urge the planning board to reduce the number of units proposed at 177 Main Street.

If you have the authority to do so.

In our view, the scale of this development is simply too large for the property in the surrounding neighborhood.

Um I met with Mr.

Lafontaine, and the very first time we met with him, he actually said, we all remembered it, that when he first saw the plans, he thought that was a lot of units going into that relatively small parcel of land, which was really interesting to us.

Uh the town may commission, okay.

My father the town may commission traffic studies and professional analysis, but residents already know what daily so this is about the traffic now.

We're talking about this as a traffic study.

The town may commission traffic studies and professional analysis, but residents already know what daily traffic look like on Main Street.

Congestion between the car barn area and Route 28 is already severed during morning and evening rush hours.

It's difficult to imagine how adding 22 three-bedroom townhomes would not significantly worse than an already strange situation.

In addition, pickleball courts are being added at the car barn, which will bring even more vehicles into the area on each day.

Residents of Granite Street, many with young children are understandably worried about increased cut-through traffic and speeding vehicles on their neighborhood roads.

New stop signs alone will not solve this problem.

Again, I respectfully add the board to reduce the number of units that are going in there.

There is also a deeply personal aspect to this development that cannot be ignored.

For more than 30 years, my wife and I have looked out at the tall, beautiful trees behind our house.

We understand that these trees will be removed to make way for the construction.

That is heartbreaking to us.

We appreciate that replacement evergreen plantings have been proposed along the property line, but we asked that this requirement be made explicit and binding in writing.

We also request that a solid fence, Jacob just mentioned this, at least five feet high and without access points be installed along the entire shared boundary.

If that fence isn't there, what are people going to do who live there?

They're not going to want to walk all the way to the to Main Street and then come down.

They're going to want to cut through our property.

And that's a safety issue, and it'll be a big annoyance.

There should absolutely be mandatory that there's a five-foot fence along that whole border.

Residents of development will naturally walk towards the depot without a proper barrier.

Our backyards could easily become a shortcut pathway.

He talked about planting and stuff.

They should make sure they have some big trees that are separating our properties.

Also, with respect to the tree, okay, I think with respect to the trees, I'm really worried that some of the trees that kind of border the property could be cut without my knowledge.

You know, I woke up one day and all of a sudden there's a new development in my backyard that I had no say of.

I don't want to drive home one day and see this beautiful tree I've been looking at for 39 years cut down.

Where's my recourse?

You can't put it back up.

I would like at the very least that if they're going to cut trees down right near the border or on the border, that I be notified beforehand.

That seems so reasonable.

And if I have a question about whether there is some legality regarding is it on my land or their land, we can then get the proper recourse.

But under no circumstances, I think should they be allowed to cut all these beautiful trees in my backyard that are near the border without at least me knowing that it's going down and I could do something about it.

What could I do if I drive home one day and the beautiful trees I've been looking at for 39 years are cut down, and maybe they were on my property, so I would respectfully ask that you do something about that.

Um also we also uh strongly want you to put some parameters around that recreation area.

As the gentleman said before, it's gonna be grassy area.

It should be in writing, mandatory that it's a grassy area with no pickleball courts or basketball court.

You people know how loud pickleball is, how loud a basketball bouncing on a hardtop is.

How are we gonna live our lives in peace if there's a recreation area right across from us where they're playing a basketball or pickleball?

That that recreation area should be just as the gentleman said, all grass at all times with no basketball or pickable, no loud sports.

How would you like to wake up one day and have a recreation area right in your backyard and they're playing basketball?

You couldn't even sleep at night, and maybe lights should not be facing us.

Um I think that might be about it.

I know you gave me a lot of time.

Thank you.

Yes, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Yep.

Thank you.

Please name an address for the record, please.

So Kenton Stephanie Hanson, 20 Martin Avenue.

So we echo Mr.

Applesteen's comments as well.

Um we've had the conversations with the zoning board.

But I'm more concerned with the landscaping, the fencing that borders the property, because we're directly behind the property.

So based on lot lines, that's going to come right at the edge of my property.

So I want to know how I know we talked a little bit about landscaping, but I'm more curious to know what all of that is that borders my property, right where Jacob's at.

Um how that's going to be addressed, how the privacy is going to be maintained, as well as, you know, uh Charlie was talking about as far as the trees, um, the wooded area.

I know a lot of it's going to go away, but I that's what I'm more interested in is learning more about that.

As well as fencing, what else?

The lighting is an issue as well.

Um, because basically these townhomes are going to be right in my backyard.

So they're going to be able to take jump from their second floor window directly into my pool.

So that's sort of concerning.

But anything else you want to add?

We can have the that's what I'd like to do.

We can have the applicant address the um setback and the fence and and um landscaping.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Um, anybody else like to speak on the plan?

Please name an address for the record.

Peter Mullen for Park Av.

Um, I just want to say I think this size lot is just too small for 22 units, as someone spoke earlier, the granite um Av, Park Av had recently been complaining about being a cut through and all the traffic going through.

They threw up 10 stop signs in a very small neighborhood, and that's kind of just a suggestion.

Every car coming out of that area is gonna be looking to come down our streets.

So we're trying to fix a problem with placing multiple stop signs all over the place, and then we're approving 22 units that are just gonna constantly every single day feed it, going out in the morning, coming back at night.

They're all gonna be coming down through our neighborhood.

And I'm just wondering what can we do for quality of life, what's you know, the board's role in approving or not approving, or saying this is just too condensed, too many apartments, 22 units, say 44, 50 cars every day, and like Charlie said, we do have traffic that's backed up past our streets at certain times of day, pretty much from three o'clock to six o'clock, and um then the opposite town, excuse me, uh by the library, it's backed up and it comes up all the way there.

This isn't gonna help that situation at all.

It's actually gonna hurt it.

And I just like to see the board kind of use power to say this is too much.

Um that's pretty much it.

I think it's just too much.

And as far as the traffic studies, they should concentrate on the granite uh uh parkav area to see what in fact that's gonna do, what these all these cars are gonna do for our neighborhood that's already has an issue with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um any any please podium, please?

Uh name name and address for the record.

Uh Corey Garabium for 179 Main Street LLC.

Um the only reason why I'm here tonight is um I just wanted to ask the board to uh think about we just want to protect our commercial grandfather use that we've had there.

We've been uh there since um I want to say 1960s.

Uh my grandfather bought the property at 179 Main Street.

Mr.

Gary Beethane, you're talking about 179 or you're talking about 177 Main Street.

Uh the brick building, the one seven.

Okay, yeah.

Uh this application for 177 Main Street, the 179 Main Street was continued um in discussion with uh the Du Bay group.

They stated that they would continue until the ZBA acted on the plan.

Yeah, I'm here as an abutter.

Oh, okay.

I just wanted to make sure.

Yeah.

Okay.

I was confused because you started talking about you had protecting your uh commercial.

Well, I'm talking well, we okay.

Yeah, it's my apologies.

It's been a commercial use building since yeah, construction use buildings.

All those years um it was never residential or anything like that.

Um so we've been going through the process with the ZBA and um and they're talking about you know the abutters and you know, possible issues with you know, people coming out on their balcony and seeing or hearing something on our property, but we've also been there since you know uh for a while, so we want to just protect our interest, and they're discussing about us putting up fences and uh creating all these barriers.

Um and like I say, we've had construction equipment there, it's been retail, it's been zoned to budget things, and uh no matter what the use is, whether it's gonna be the pickleball or something that else in that line that's been used in the past, I feel as though that the burden should not just be on us to for us to um you know be protecting just their interest and not our not in our interest to just totally uh you know thrown to the side.

So that's the only reason why I'm here tonight, and I think the burden should be um you know that this is a new thing coming into town um and you know uh housing is needed, and uh I I recognize that, but um from the feedback I'm getting from the town the ZBA um I know we came to the board once, but we're getting feedback of how are we gonna protect people that aren't even here to uh to uh that aren't here to you know uh go against the project.

So once these things are filled up, I don't even know what I'll be dealing with then.

So um that's that's my uh that's my concern.

And um yeah, so I'm asking that they there's a that there's a serious, but I mean they they we have all these studies being done um they're requiring, and I think there should be a serious fence, a serious buffer that they should be putting in and not it shouldn't be a burden on us for you know we've been there and um you know I think it's I don't think it's fair just to put it all on us to butt buffer that uh because again it is a commercial use and it's been that way forever.

So that's all I have.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concerns.

Um further um any other members like to speak on the plan.

Mr.

Chair, uh could I just because it was discussed, it's been discussed at length.

I just wanted to uh acknowledge that you know, in terms of the town, we we didn't notify the application as required.

I think there's been some discussion uh at the public that the application was improperly noticed.

And this is the track in history.

This is a a zoning board.

Right.

Yeah.

This is a planning board meeting, right?

Correct, yeah.

But I just I just wanted to uh acknowledge that we sent it, and anybody who would want to could come into town hall, review the barcode, the track and history, and this is what they would find.

So it shows that the notice was uh uh completed by the town, it was sent uh in accordance with the RSA on September 24th.

Uh USPS attempted delivery on September 25th, they know no access to delivery location.

So once it leaves town hall and the onus is really on USPS and ultimately it's held at the USPS facility for a period of time, and then ultimately it's returned back to the to the town.

That's not unusual.

I mean, uh there are instances where we have many, many abutters, and when we receive those notices, you know, we would wouldn't go back out and re-notify what we have done uh as Mr.

Applesteen noted is for all land use boards, both this board and the zoning board, is we send mail now certified as required by the RSA, but we also send it standard, and um that seems to have been effective.

But I just wanted to make sure that uh, you know, you know, there was a lot of discussion about it not being properly noticed.

The town did conform with the RSA.

Obviously, we want all abutters to be informed.

We regret that you know it didn't make it uh USPS did not deliver it because uh per their report it was inaccessible.

Um and then I would just uh also acknowledge because Mr.

Devine, our town manager was also discussed, and we didn't meet, and it wasn't a decision that was made lightly or in a vacuum.

We looked at the facts and made a determination that what is required for the state legislation was done.

So I won't spend any more time on it, but I just wanted to kind of clear uh some of that up.

Thank you.

Um before we go to the board, can we hear from the applicant?

Can you address some of the um about his concerns on uh um I guess uh landscaping, fencing, lighting, um traffic.

Um I don't know if you can put a no-cut buffer in or um just uh talk about some of the uh landscaping on the border and whatnot.

Sure.

Um so we are willing to do, I think much of what they're asking for.

Uh we're willing to put in a fence on the Martin Ave side to talk about that fence.

Yes, height size type.

I would say a six foot high fence is typical.

Be happy to do that.

Um landscaping plan, because I think there was a question of what exactly are we putting there.

Um just gonna pull that out so I can see what it is.

So our landscaping plan right now shows a pretty good amount of trees back there.

Um white spruce trees, uh, eastern red cedars, white fir, as well as um October Glory, red maple.

So we've got a variety of pretty good sized trees that we're putting in that corner to screen as much as possible, and then I think combined with the fence, I think the screening will be you know, hopefully pretty good.

Um as far as the recreation area, um, we're not intending any kind of hard surface pickleball, basketball.

Uh, we're happy to keep that grass and commit to that, but that will be you know, grassed area, not converted into hardscape or anything like that.

Um we would be fine too uh before construction starts or any kind of tree clearing.

We would be fine.

We we surveyed this property as part of this process.

We would be fine going out there, marking the property line, marking where the limit of the tree clearing is going to be, and notifying the neighbors before that happens.

We would be fine, you know, doing all that before the the tree clearing happens.

Um as far as the uh traffic goes, we did do a trip generation memo.

Um and I know that your traffic engineer will look at this.

Um we came up with this is all based on um the institute of traffic engineers ITE, which is kind of an industry standard.

Uh we came up with an average peak hour, so that means you know, when you're peak time on an evening on the weekday, uh, that we would be generating 12 vehicle trips over the course of an hour, and that's the peak.

So you're talking about one additional car every five minutes.

So I I there is a traffic increase.

I don't think it's going to be to the magnitude that you're going to significantly worsen what's on Main Street.

Um and then the last thing I'll address the unit count.

Um we went to zoning board, we got a variance for the use.

Um we're complying with the setbacks, and in many cases, we're providing more of a setback than than the minimum that's required.

I think we're 25 to 30 feet in some cases where 15 is required.

And um we're meeting the building coverage and the lot coverage, which is in zoning.

Um, so to me, I think we're complying with the underlying regulations, and we're complying with the variants that we received.

Um that's all I really have to add.

I'm happy to answer questions if you have them.

Okay, thanks.

We'll um open it up to the board.

Mr.

Um Cross.

Thank you.

Um I I just want to start by you know, thanking the abutters uh for coming.

Um I'm I will speak for myself.

I'm often surprised how few times we actually have abutters come before us.

Um Mr.

Applesteen, your uh passion uh shows through quite clear, and we appreciate you sharing that with us.

Um I just in terms of my own thinking about it, I just want to be very clear that the uh while uh the notification issue uh it was problematic.

Uh, you know, that is a zoning board that really is not the purview of this board.

Um so you know, for the benefit of everyone, that's not something for us to address.

Um the wood, you know, clearing of private property in the woods.

Um it's difficult to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their property, uh, particularly in that area, I get said when any trees are removed, but the truth is uh we live in the live free or die state and we have a lot of rights over our own property and what we decide to do with that property.

Um but I do want to know that I I you you've brought up some concerns in the other abutters that brought up concerns with regards to uh the use of the recreation area, which does fall within uh our purview, uh traffic uh and uh you know the fencing concerns and the or uh concerns around cut throughs um and concerns on whether or not this is a you know uh appropriate for this area, that those things are within our our realm.

And I would just say that uh I think the planning department has identified those uh items.

Um I I think those are additionally for me uh areas that should be noted uh that I'll personally be looking into.

Warren, I think uh you know, I think one of the things uh Mr.

Lafontaine that you brought up is just you know, I the the turnaround uh you know turnarounds.

I mean we we are gonna have it is unique that this is such a dead-end location.

Um I just asked the applicant what thoughts have been given to that.

You know, the UPS truck comes in there, the FedEx driver, the Amazon truck comes down that aisle.

What's a reasonable way for them to turn around in this development?

So I'm gonna say that part of what we've tried to do in order to get these buildings away from the neighbors is kind of bring them in and narrow the development.

And unfortunately, you know, as you do that, the maneuvering space in the middle gets smaller.

Um so that's something I would say we've sacrificed a little bit to get these buildings away from the property lines.

Um right now, my thought would be that they would pull in um there's generally space between each one of those parking spaces.

You know, I think you could kind of do a I'm gonna call it a four or five-point turn back there and kind of you know work your way back and forth.

Um we can look at probably enhancing the turnaround back there to make it a little bit better, especially for the fire department.

Um and then additionally, the um so traffic will you know the traffic results of the traffic study will be important.

I just question on the ITE study that you did.

Is that based on 48 cars or 70 cars?

It's based on the use.

Okay.

Um so ITE manual is basically broken up by use.

Um and so it'll say for you know, one townhouse, this is the expected trips over the course of a day, this is the expected trips and the peak hour.

And so if you have 22 townhouses, you would take that number and multiply it by 22.

So that's how we came up with those numbers.

Okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh any thing else from the board?

Ms.

Kelsen.

Oh no.

Um I I have some questions that are specific um to the design of the plan and them in the layout here.

Um so in regards to the trash, I understand that there's a note on the plan about individual trash service.

Um I imagine that being it sort of difficult in practice to be able to do, just with the with the lack of you know, space to be able to turn around in there, coupled with the lack of area for the individual barrels to go when it's time to put, you know, I understand that the barrels will be kept in the garages likely.

Yeah, um until traffic during the week until trash day, but then on trash day, where are they going?

And they're probably going right out in the driveways.

Right in front of the units, most likely.

Yeah, yeah.

It it just may be a little bit difficult, and especially with relying on the individual trash pickup, you have pickup on different days, you have barrels that are kind of scattered all throughout the week, unless there's some sort of requirement to be able to um have the you know the the development use the same carrier, which I don't believe that we're able to condition or anything of that nature.

All that said, long-winded way of saying, I think there probably should be a central dumpster location um within the development rather than the individual um trash service.

We can look at that again, kind of re-evaluate.

Yeah, and um just because I I think with with this site it's a it's a bit too tight to be able to rely on um the individual barrels.

I know the development across from what is it, the um the funeral home on over by St.

Joe's.

It's 29 Main Street, the other thing.

Is that what it is?

Yeah, that they have a quite a bit more um maneuverable area on the site, so it it works there, um, but on this side I don't think that it it may work as well in practice.

Um so something to consider.

Sure.

Then as far as the mature trees that are currently exist, um one of my notes during um your presentation was to request if the property line be flagged on the site prior to the no clearing and notifications to the abutters.

So I appreciate that um that you're amenable to that.

Um I agree with Mr.

Fioli about potentially putting in some sort of a no-cut buffer, and I believe I had requested that in the past.

Um I forget exactly where that had landed because it was so long ago.

Well, I'm gonna mention um we did go to the zoning board previously for a height variance because typically when you think townhome, you think kind of vertically, you know, integrated thing.

And when we were doing that, um, you know, it was pretty easy to keep the grade, you know, pretty level across the building.

When they said no to the three units, we kind of ran into a scenario where three stories to the three stories, yes.

Uh we ran into a scenario where we needed to turn that into two and a half, and the way that we've done that is by raising the grade in the back of the buildings.

And so what's difficult about that is in order to do that fill and then come back down to the existing grade, we need the space back there to do that.

And so we actually wind up cutting more trees.

Meaning by going that route.

The grade is is higher or lower on Martin Street.

Sorry or the pro the property line.

Martin Street grade is lower than where we're going to be than our site is.

Okay, so you have to build the site.

We have to build the site up in order to make it appear as two stories in the back to the Martinav.

Gotcha.

So with that, you you wouldn't be able you would likely be harming the trees, I imagine, if you were to fill in around them.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

You can't fill up like two or three feet and save the trees.

It's just not just not practical.

Right.

I understand.

Um I don't I I wouldn't want to put any sort of like a retaining wall.

Well, that's the other option is put a wall back there, and you know, sometimes it's even more obtrusive, you know.

So I don't know if the retaining wall wouldn't necessarily be uh obtrusive.

Um I think it it is seemingly more important to be able to keep the mature trees um in place as much as possible and perhaps exploring the root of a retaining wall um you know with some some low bushes and low vegetation along that wall, maybe uh a good happy medium there um to be able to buffer that and I'm obviously cognizant of the fact that you have to be able to build up uh the grade there to make the heights work, yeah.

Um so if you could explore that for the next meeting, that'd be much appreciated.

Um and then a central mail area um sort of I think a central mail area would be great.

We do actually have that.

You do.

I didn't talk about it, but as you come in on the right, kind of where the sidewalk is, um there's sort of a pull out spot right there.

Where it's this white painted line.

Yep.

Okay and then that kind of square box right there that's gonna be a community cluster.

Mailbox.

Yep.

Okay.

And so that'll just be uh just the cluster mailboxes, USPS mailboxes, not like Amazon hub or anything like that.

I it's I assume that the individual boxes will probably be dropped to the door fronts.

I assume so.

Aaron, is that true?

Okay, yeah.

Yeah.

Yes.

Okay.

Um and then any sort of signage for the development.

I know I don't believe that any sign is proposed here.

Um, but if there is any sort of signage to potentially note on the plan where a monument sign may be, even if it means coming back for it later.

Sure.

We we do show a monument sign in the front.

I'm gonna say we're not a hundred percent sure that we're going to have one, but I thought it would be better to show it than you know, not show it and decide later that we want one.

So yeah, um it doesn't look like it's super clearly called out that it's a monument sign if you could um perhaps make that a little bit clear, even if it's you know, to be to be determined at a later date or you know, whatever verbiage you choose.

Okay.

Um I think that would be a good thing to know in the plan.

Um I have some other thoughts, but I need some time to think about them.

So come back to me.

Anything else on the board?

No, Mr.

Pelletia?

Thank you, Mr.

Clear.

Now I know looking at this plan, I know that the applicants trying to get the most out of their property.

But I personally, I personally feel 22 units is too much for this for this amount of this amount of space.

Uh and I see that I'm getting the feeling that the grass recreation area, you're trying to build up the percentage of green space because it definitely lacks the green space in the rest of the rest of this partial.

I see.

And um being 22 units uh in here, uh the runoff on the roof, the runoff from the pavement.

Uh I'm very skeptical that that retains retention pond is gonna be adequate enough.

It doesn't look big enough to me, but I'm not a designer, so I can't really pinpoint that.

Uh so those are some of the concerns I have there.

Uh as of the cutting of big large trees in the back, well, it's we can't stop a uh uh a landowner from cutting trees on their property.

Uh I feel I very feel bad about all the abutters on Martinav.

I mean the but keep in mind that the beautiful trees that you've been looking at for 39, 40 years is somebody else's property.

And sooner or later something's gonna be built back there.

Now I understand all that.

Uh I do say 22 units, and my feeling is too many.

Um they you do uh mitigate your traffic.

Uh a long time ago we specified all partials of uh any development to keep traffic on your property.

Uh therefore if there's a dozen cars leaving this property at a at one given time, there's only one at a time leaving and getting on the road, which has to stop and wait for the traffic to go by.

Uh so I believe you did that.

Um as to additional traffic uh down uh park Ave and Granite Ave, uh I am a granite Ave president.

And the stop signs were initiated by me.

They initiated to not only to divert traffic due to the comp due to the beautiful job that we've done on this on the depot.

Trying to divert traffic from from being a cut-through street for mo for the most part.

Uh given the education that people motors would say, well, it's just as easy to go down to the depot and taking a right up a depot twenty-eight, rather than dealing with the stop signs that somebody put on the on the road.

And and that's why we did it on both roads, because of the fact that we started off on Granite Avenue to put the signs there, but we fear that people are gonna just divert from Granite Avenue and go down Park Avenue.

So we had to do both roads.

And but we can't stop people from driving on a road.

It's a public road.

But what we can do is slow the traffic down, and that's what the stop signs are doing.

I've I've seen it, I've I've studied it all the time.

I I lived on the four I live on the four corner with the four-stop signs.

I live right there.

And I see tail lights, brake lights all night long for the corner of my eye.

And so for the most part it they are working.

Uh but we can't stop a majority of traffic.

It's a public road and it's there for everybody to use.

What we can do is what we did do.

Let's try to try to mitigate it, try to make it a little safer for people.

Uh there are very young children on those to the roads, and I very, very touches me very much on that area.

Um the fences, I believe I'm I don't want to repeat myself again.

Everybody agrees, I bet on this on the board agrees on the fences.

I do think you should put a fence on the south side of that partial as well.

Uh just to protect the abutter on the south side as well.

Uh I mean the east side, not the south, the the east sides, the east side of the project.

Uh that only protects the next door, the abutter next door, but gives a uh boundary for the units uh that are being uh rented out here or sold that that's as far as they can go.

They can't go any further.

I've seen other partials where there are any fences, and where are the barbecue grills?

They're over in the woods.

And that's something we don't want to see on this in this uh project either.

Uh so far, I may have other questions later on, but I'm also okay.

Great.

Thanks all said.

Um I just respond to one thing as far as the drainage goes, just very specifically.

Um so that bioretention thing in the back, that's the main sort of drainage feature.

We do also have uh two pretty good size uh stormwater chamber systems too.

They're underground, they're behind both rows of units.

Um, you know, those are I think 36 chambers each, the ten foot long, foot and a half high each, so that's a pretty good amount of storage in there too.

So that's a pretty good amount of storage in there too.

Um that's all infiltrating the chambers, the bioretention area, that's all it's not just holding it, it's infiltrating it into the ground.

Um so there might be a little bit more drainage there than you might have thought.

Right.

What is your warranty that if it doesn't work?

Uh my warranty is that we have done soil testing out there to verify um what the soils are like, and we designed based off of that.

We designed based off of um federal and state and town guidelines, you know what I mean, to meet that, and that was peer-reviewed by your um Rockingham County uh drainage reviewer.

So you've had two engineers looked at it and signed off on it.

So I'm gonna have to take their work for it.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Anything further from the board.

Uh Ms.

Carlson.

I know Jacob was glancing over.

I didn't know what to do.

Well, I was asking the board.

I don't know the point of the department.

He was glancing, so I figured that I would mention it.

Um so I figured out what it I remembered what I was going to say.

Um so this development is within the area that we had, or just it may be either within or just outside of the area that we had discussed during the master plan process.

Um off the top of my head, I I can't recall exactly where that line is, but it's right in that vicinity there.

Um and I know that that area we had talked about it having sort of missing middle housing, and that being the ideal area for that.

And a reminder that the whole master plan update process was based off of feedback from the community.

So I I have no idea if people directly within this area had contributed to that public feedback, um, but that process was done, and based on that feedback, we had updated our master plan and determined that missing middle housing was likely desired in that area.

Um so I think this doesn't align very well with the goals of the master plan that was adopted about a year ago now.

Um and I know that we are uh I I'm ambitiously looking for master for a zoning update, which I know will be uh you know starting in the near future.

Um in that effort, we'll be able to have the master plan in the zoning align, because as of right now, they don't.

They don't really speak to each other very well.

Um, but the goals within the master plan is to be able to allow more missing middle housing, um, which is exactly this use type.

Um then as far as the the traffic goes, can you talk uh uh briefly again about the the trips that was mentioned in the memo?

Refresh a memory on that if you could.

Um so it's the Institute of Traffic Engineers, it's sort of the gold standard for the industry.

Um it's they've studied all over the country, they've come up with statistics, you know, data of what different types of properties generate.

So they'll say, okay, this is what a single family house generates on average.

Yep, you know, or commercial or this or that.

So then they publish uh the data, and so you can get an estimation by going in there and taking the use type that you have.

So for this property, it would be a townhouse, and they'll say, you know, for a townhouse, um trying to see here.

I think it's 0.54 is the number that they came up with, the amount of trips per unit per hour.

Sure.

So then you take that, you multiply it by 22 for 22 units, and that's how you come up with uh 12 trips during the peak hour.

Sure.

And so uh I'm not asking asking this to you necessarily, but uh one thing to be mindful of is that we it it is unrealistic for us to expect or require a property owner to do nothing with their land.

They're able to develop it as they wish as long as it's in line with the zoning.

So no matter what happens with the property, it it could be anything.

There's going to be an increase in trip gener the in trip generation.

Um so yeah, I like I do think it is a it is a tight site with 22 units, but uh I don't know if the traffic would be any better with a commercial use if it were to end up here.

Um it's really not it it wouldn't be very usable to make them keep commercial in just the commercial zone and then residential on the back of it.

It's a very complicated site to be able to make that happen.

Um so I I'm personally not concerned about the traffic.

Um then as it relates to Mr.

Applessine's um letter and comments, one of the concerns that you had brought up was about um specifically about the fence and asking that a requirement be made explicit and binding in writing.

Um I I don't expect you to to be aware, but one of the baseline conditions of any plan that comes before the planning board is um is that all representations made are considered a part of the approval.

So if the applicant makes a a representation throughout the course of a presentation, and that's at planning and at zoning, that that is binding.

That is the agreement.

So there wouldn't be some sort of separate um agreement in in writing that's legally binding.

That the meeting is is that.

Um I will say too, it'll be reflected on the plan which is referenced in the decision.

Yeah.

So I I I hope that part of it at least eases your concerns um in some capacity.

Um, I know that you have a number of concerns about the development and it you know, I I completely understand why.

But as far as the representations that are made, if there's any concerns about a a bait and switch or anything i in that in that vein, um this meeting would be considered a part of the record.

So I get one more turn up there.

Please come back.

I appreciate what you all had to say, especially the gentleman in the far right.

I really think there are too many units going in there.

And as I said when we met with Jacob the first time, it was his opinion too, that it was a lot of units going into a very s relatively small space.

So I I think you really should reduce the amount.

Now I appreciate what you had to say that I think if I heard you right, everything the gentleman, I appreciate what you had to say wherever he went.

Um everything he committed to do, you're basically saying that has to be done then, right?

Because he did just to go in just to make clear, he did say he'll put a six foot fence up along the whole way.

Now it would be in the request was made to be included on the setup on the great because we we that's the whole line of Martin Ave and you know in the flag in the flagging of the site prior to the to the tree cutting, that was also represented.

And he said he would notify us before any trees.

Now I I totally understand what the other gentleman said that you're right.

I looked at all these trees.

I know I didn't own them.

My real concern, as I mentioned before, is that there could be a few trees that are really close to the border.

And you know, there's a little bit of dispute exactly where the line is.

And so if there's a couple of trees right on the near the line, I'd like to really see what they're gonna cut and if there's any issue with the with the uh surveying or whatever, let's address that before they actually cut the tree down.

Understood.

So it sounds like he's saying that they won't cut any tr they'll notify us before they cut any trees.

Correct.

It seems as though that would give me recourse to dispute, right?

The r the representation that was made, my understanding and interpretation is that they would be flagging the property lines prior to the cutting, notifying the abutters that the that the cutting is going to happen, and you would then be able to look at at the flagging to determine if you know what what trees are coming down or not coming down, and you would have the ability to be home that day.

Okay.

So that's that's really clear.

That's my biggest concern.

I understand that they're on their property, they can cut them down, but there are some trees really close to the property or that could even be on both properties, and I I don't even know what happens there if they're like right on the line.

And then I had also discussed um with the applicant about the potential of a no-cut buffer and the exploration of a retaining wall, and you know, it that commitment has not been the exploration of it will m will at least happen and we can have discussion about it after he has time to review the plan at the next slide.

You know, if I understood you correctly, if putting up a retaining wall would keep some of the trees that right now might be cut, please do that.

That would be the because again, I understand that this is a planning meeting, not a zoning, but we didn't have a voice at the zoning.

And my feeling is you wouldn't even be here today discussing exactly what you if we had been at that zoning meeting.

So I just want to make that clear.

This was the only place I could voice.

So because I have this feeling that this might not even happen this meeting if we had been at that original zoning meeting.

Um if there's anything you can do based on that to build a retaining wall that would retain a couple of the trees, please do that.

Please vote for that.

You know, we we've been kind of aggrieved here and we're just asking for some semblance.

Thank you.

You know.

So uh but I appreciate what you all had to say, so I'm really happy that what the gentleman said will all be like oh and in the playground.

It's really clear, it's all grass, there'll be no basketball, no hardtop ever.

That was a representation that was made.

Yeah, and also with that playground, we want to make sure if there's lighting with the playground that it's not facing Martin Ave.

At least last thing, you know, that's an evening playground, and all of a sudden we can't get to sleep because there's lighting.

Yep, understood.

So if we could put that in there somehow, because I don't know if he addressed that.

Uh we could have them address the lighting, yeah.

Yeah, that no outside lights are facing us.

Okay, no.

And I love the retaining wall thing.

Please thank you very much.

Please come name once again, please.

Uh Peter Mullin for Podcav.

Just one quick question, maybe JP can answer it.

How do we have a development without a turnaround?

How do because when I watch you guys on my computer or at home or something, everything is always drilled about do the fire department have enough area to turn around?

Now we have a neighborhood that goes down, and the only way to get back out is to back up.

Trash trucks, how do they get down?

You have little kids running around, they're gonna have to back up straight.

I just don't I thought they're supposed to have something for the fire department to be able to at least turn around and with it 22.

If they took off like four of those units, they could have a little cul-de-sac at the end, but maybe somebody could explain how they can do it without the fire department's still got to review the plan set.

Right.

And we we we do ask the applicant for these type of developments and applications to come in for a conceptual hearing.

Uh I don't know what happened there, but um uh it's just it went right to a public hearing.

Um so the fire department still got to review the plan, so there could there could be changes of conditions based on their review.

Um just I just wanted clarity from uh Ms.

Carlson.

Were you saying this fits into the master plan or it doesn't?

I thought I was following you.

Does it does?

Yes.

It's in line with the master plan as well as the other.

And I would I would agree with that.

Yeah.

Okay.

And I know that uh Jacob had started pulling up where that where that delineation may have been.

And I know that it it was m more conceptual uh with the master plan than anything, but I know that if I recall that it's in that general vicinity.

Yeah, it looks like and and we talked about that when you teal our master plan consultant drafted it, is that they didn't want to necessarily draw distinct boundaries, they kind of wanted to give a rough idea.

So I I would say that the missing middle uh probably is right along uh Millville, it ends kind of at the wetland to the rear of Millville, but that's not necessarily to say that that was fully flushed out that they wouldn't have this.

Our uh land use recommendation for Main Street is to allow medium density residential development office service businesses.

So I mean I guess you know you're in terms of what medium uh density residential uh development is that might be subjective, but you know, one might argue that this complies with that.

Okay.

Anything further from the board on this one?

Um, please is there any plan for the uh the side that we're on or that they have opposed as far as going to the is there any do they have any plans for the our buttons?

I know they plan on putting a fence up for that the other side of possibly a retaining wall, but uh is there anything that they're proposing on our side for that?

Um I would imagine they they'll they're gonna put a plant uh fence around the whole site.

Um that's yeah, it's all he said the uh I think outside that side the question.

Do we have the um uh do we have the architectural design consultant look at these?

Uh we didn't send this out to third party design review.

We haven't always done that with townhouses, but um I didn't really make a recommendation one way or the other.

Do they um uh just what do they comment on uh the landscaping and uh buffer fence type and fence height and stuff like that?

Can they can they make recommendations on that?

What's typical for or they have in the past.

Um you know, we've had uh res multifamily residential development that the uh consultant has reviewed, and generally their comments are relative to uh architectural elevations but also the landscape.

Uh can can we have can we have them look at the uh the landscaping it is your purview, so if the board wants that we can do that.

I don't know all the bower fields.

I think it would just help I think it would help for the for the abutters uh to have more oversight on that or more uh recommendation from an expert on the fence height and that um okay.

Yeah, we could send that to a third party and uh they provide an estimate.

Okay.

And then um what does Rockingham County usually do for a drainage review?

Who looks at that?

Uh his name's Jerry Lang, he's an engineer, and from what I understand, according to Jim Brown, he's you know, a real expert in terms of uh drainage review.

Yeah.

Um so we send almost all commercial development in this instance, the multifamilies of commercial development.

We send that uh to Jerry.

Jerry reviews it as well as our in-house engineer, uh, senior engineer Jim Brown.

He reviews it as well.

Um do we ever have third party engineer and a third-party engineer, to a town consultant engineer?

Well, RCCD would be that third-party drainage consultant.

RCCD also provides does the applicant pay them to reveal it?

They do, yes.

The applicant pays for uh design, drainage, traffic.

We've also had third party wetland uh consultants.

That's typically through RCCD, but in this instance we haven't uh done that.

Okay.

Um I'd like to see uh uh a detailed impact study here from the applicant, um, a detailed impact study with uh a scope approved by the planning board.

Um it it uh entailing uh public safety impact, roads, traffic, schools, sewage, water, uh detailed um uh impact study.

Um by not by the engineer presenting the um uh plan.

So we can fiscal impact analysis.

An impact study, yeah, not just not just fiscal, not environmental, a full impact study here.

Okay.

Um and I I I think we should have that.

I think we should have an impact study like this for um any kind of um uh uh um uh multifamily residential like this type of development.

Um I I'd like to see that scope approved by the planning board.

Um I I'd like to see that full impact study up before I uh before I'm comfortable voting on this um uh plan.

Um I think that's uh I think that's all I had.

Um anything else from the board.

Uh just along the lines uh Mr.

Chair, you'd mentioned about uh fencing or or barriers, I think in uh reference to Mr.

Garibedian's comment earlier that the the applicant here should uh make sure that they're doing something significant between that and the commercial abutter because it's gonna impact the quality of life of all the people that live in this development should it be produced.

So it it may need to be more significant than what it's going against residential to residential when they're going up against a commercial abutter who has his right to operate and it'll be more impactful on the residents than resident to resident would be.

So I I think that should be part of that analysis.

Okay.

I I just want to throw out that um we we often don't see this taking place, but um you know it seems to me as though some of these things can be worked outside between uh the applicant and the abutters.

Um and I don't think we have much uh history of uh there being good conversations or round table discussions with abutters, but I'd encourage the applicant at this point to speak on that have you say yes?

Okay, and with Aaron Orso uh G HP Homes.

Um my plan was, and I was gonna come up here a little while ago, but my plan was is what I was gonna have is uh Ian and Meisner Bram stake out the entire Martin Av side of the road so that it's crystal clear when not that line, and then I was gonna give everybody my phone number after we finished up here today, so that we can have an in-person meeting out there, and I'll show them where the building, the backs of the buildings are, where we need to put drainage and just kind of show them on the some areas that I can't do anything about, but in any area that we can save something, we're all about trying to keep the vegetation and the buffering as much as possible.

The simple fact is is we want our privacy for our future tenants or future uh homeowners uh in this case.

Um so yeah, 100% I have no issues, and I'll schedule something that way there's a 100% a guarantee that you guys are all to make it there, be there on time or whatever time we schedule for, and we'll go, we'll walk the whole entire property to try to do what we can to mitigate the damages.

So, yes, work uh applicant working with the abutters.

I completely understand that this is a you know an encumbrance into their property or whether it feels like that.

So let's try to mitigate that as much as possible.

And I think it can be a win-win on both sides.

Great.

Thank you.

So great.

Yes, Mr.

Post.

And thank you for that, uh, Mr.

Orso, and that's consistent with what I know your other developments to be um very thoughtful in design and taking others into consideration.

Um I would just encourage you to include uh Mr.

Garbedian uh in that process.

Um, I think we've spent a lot of time talking about Martin Av, but uh the very historic uh location uh on the other side uh that that should be considered.

Um the last thing I just want to say is I I do think this does fit into the master plan, and you know, you have a bunch of things working here in up and down this corridor, which is you know, access to public water, public sewage, you are right on uh you have you know public sidewalks, you're you know, people that live on Martin Ave know how great it is that you can hop on a bike and be right in Tuscan and uh or you know, be into the uh government complex and in no time and the parks and uh field of drains.

So I I I anticipate us to see more of these things uh coming our way um in the future, and you know, if we could use this as a model of um working together on this and not fighting about it and at least having the conversation to begin with, I think the better off we'll be.

So uh that's my um thank you for that.

Anything further from the board?

One very brief, I promise very brief.

Um with the rendering that's pulled up currently, um it it may be a helpful visual for uh the public as well as the abutters if it included um the surrounding properties.

I know you can very easily drop it onto a um a Google Earth image.

It may be helpful for them to be able to see their properties there rather than uh forests.

So that's all.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just wanted to ask Jacob uh these red races are you just showed.

I've never seen these before.

Yeah, they weren't posted uh I had difficulty just because of the size of them, but we will get them posted on the website.

I guess if the board wanted, I could give the applicant is I'm sure spent a lot of money on them to produce them.

Uh so I could run through them real quick if Brendan wants to.

This is the rear of the townhouses here.

Uh each one of them again will have that the grade goes up uh to the rear, and they'll have the deck to the rear.

So this was essentially what the Martinav residents would be viewing.

Uh, I will note that it will be at a higher elevation.

I think the there's probably about eight feet between the uh Martin Av property and then the uh finished grade, uh the final grade here.

Um in the front, this is I think we already saw this one, but this is the front rendering.

And this is this would be facing to the interior of the site.

Uh this is a aerial uh looking what's that probably northwest uh northeast.

Um so again, Martin Ave would be uh here, uh the residential abutters on Martin Ave and then Mr.

Garibedian's properties in this approximate area here.

And then again another uh rendering uh looking southeast.

Uh nope, sorry, northwest.

So Martin Ave is back here because I think this is the entrance here.

Um so the Martin Ave abutters again would be to this side.

And then this is that elevation that we had shown before from Main Street.

So Martin Ave abutters and Mr.

Garibedian's property.

Okay, thank you.

Uh we don't often do it, uh and I'm not necessarily suggesting that we do, but I just would acknowledge that you do have the ability to conduct a site visit too if you wanted to, you know, if any of the board members felt that uh, you know, in addition to the applicant reaching out to the abutters if the board members are also interested in walking the site, that is something that we could coordinate.

But again, we don't often do it, but I would offer that.

Um and then the on the other thing I think I would acknowledge is in terms of tree removal, uh, you're all absolutely correct that uh property owner can remove, you know, as long as there's not jurisdictional wetland and there's not buffers and conservation land.

Uh aside from that, you could remove every tree on your lot.

Uh we would just uh caution and advise that once an application is uh submitted to the planning board, you know, we would advise not to do that until uh the planning board is act on it because you might have some comments on uh on the site and they when it shouldn't conduct site work.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

But aside from that, I think I get uh the feedback the board has provided.

Thank you for that okay.

Uh oh, please come come back.

Could you pick the photo that you just added the drawing up here?

Oh, I just started closing them.

Um yes.

Name one more track.

It was a beautiful picture of the other.

Yeah, there's a couple of them here.

So you're looking at for the one that was uh that had the the that had the uh whole property with the trees behind it, the buffers.

Yep, that's the one I think I've closed.

So might just take one second.

By the way, with the traffic, you know, with all due respect, you know, I appreciate everything you had to say.

I think we can work together.

But it was kind of like they said the 12 unit or 22 units, one car per unit going out every five minutes.

First of all, there are three bedrooms in each unit.

There could be two or three cars for every unit.

Plus there's the pickleball courts going in.

So there's a lot of traffic, and I don't get this thing where one car goes out every five minutes.

Who what world do you live in where if you have fifty or sixty or seventy cars coming back at rush hour or going to the pickleball, it's not going to be added tremendous strain to the already traffic that we all know exists from the car barn to twenty-eight.

So with all due respect, I think the traffic issue is uh you know, as we're saying, is a little more serious than you're talking about.

Now, Jacob said there's a third party analysis of the traffic.

So certainly you shouldn't make any decisions to a third party, a respected third party says, look, don't worry about it, okay.

I'll buy it.

But common sense dictates you got three house three bedrooms, and you got twenty-two units.

That's a lot more than one car per unit every five minutes.

And you know, there's so I agree with the gentleman on the right, you're really and the the the turning around, as Peter was talking about, that's an issue.

If you had 14 units, which you can do I hear, you'd have more space to turn around, you wouldn't have less traffic.

There's a whole lot of reasons that would support 14 units versus the 22.

And also, did you find you find the picture?

Uh yes, it just needs to be shared.

Oh, yeah.

So if you look at the if you look at the photo, uh I guess Martin Ave is on the right.

On the left correct?

It'd be on the left.

Right?

On the left.

On the left.

So look how big those trees are.

Look how robust they are in the back.

That's why I had asked for him to plug in the aerial.

But uh, do them, but they will not be the scale on the site is to scale with the landscaping that was on the landscape plan and the exact plans that we have.

I obviously flop that one in there, but like they have each one of their homes on there in an in an in an area that's the same.

No, no, so so you you basically come up to the podium if you're gonna speak, yeah.

You take the theory.

But what I'm saying is if you look at the background, they're big giant Arbor Vita trees that if we could get an assurance that what I'm seeing in that photo will be similar, relatively similar to what's gonna be there as opposed to these smaller trees or something.

That if my backyard if that's their backyard, I'd be a lot happier than I am now because I'm I'm worried that we'll see into this place.

They'll be looking into my they're gonna have their decks are literally gonna be facing my house.

You know, so that would make me feel a lot better.

That's exactly what was going for, very similar.

So clarify it so renderings are not construction documents.

So I'm renderings are not construction documents.

Okay.

So I'm not anticipating that a rendering is going to look 100% accurate to what it will look like in real life.

With that being said, the comment about showing the neighborhood, not asking you to render all the surrounding houses.

Take the Google Earth image as the baseline, plop that on there.

That's all.

No problem.

The other thing I wanted to let the board know is I discussed this with Ian, and we have to take a look at it from a drainage perspective, but I've done with other types of properties, like we'll build like a berm of call it like four feet, five feet tall along that stretch.

I can't do it in the whole area because we have specific drainage, but that could also enhance because then if you put a fence on top of that and then some plantings behind it to kind of like offset, we could do things like that to kind of try to lessen the burden.

It's definitely some of the things.

And then it gives you almost 10 feet of coverage from our back decks looking towards them, but I can't that's I have to work with Ian on that to make sure that we can do that.

But that's something that we are trying to at least take a look at.

Understand.

Uh yeah.

Okay.

Thank you.

Sure.

Uh Kendrick Dunt and Martin F.

So they're talking about raising it up eight feet now on the backs.

Are they moving the buildings further in?

Or is it still 15 feet off my property line?

Um uh can you just have just because I mean you said what, eight feet?

Because it's all flat now.

So the buildings as we've shown them, I'm gonna say that those are in the same space in the same location as they were when we went to the zoning board and we're talking about the three stories versus two and a half stories.

It's fifteen-foot minimum setback required in the zoning.

The actual dimension, like the physical distance that we've provided, I believe, is thirty.

So the back of the building is going to be thirty feet from the property line at the closest point.

And it actually gets larger as you go toward the front of the property.

And there'll be decks that are slightly uh further closer to the city.

Decks will be a little bit closer to the case.

That address your question?

So the building I'm asking is gonna come come to the sorry.

The house will be physically 30 feet from my house or my property line, but they're gonna raise it an additional eight feet, the like the land itself.

Now where's like it's gonna be like legit drainage or might be flooding out because now my yard continually goes flat just like everybody else's to his property?

Yeah, he uh the uh I he wanted to touch on the drainage again, but they the the applicant uh designed the drainage, you know.

He talked about how he designed the drainage.

Yeah, they would third party engineer look at the drainage, and then uh our town engineer will review the drainage as well.

This is the first time I've heard about raising the actual grade eight feet from where it is now.

Yep, understood.

I could speak to that a little bit.

Um right now, if you were to look at this property, almost all of the flow on the property runs from west to east toward Martin Ave.

So kind of the a large portion of the property is going that way.

So, yes, while we are filling in the back of those units, that's gonna be a much smaller area that's gonna be flowing that way, and all the rest of the drainage is going to be pushed the opposite way to the east.

Okay.

Uh can I ask you one question?

What is that impact study that you were talking about and how is it typically done?

And is that something that the applicant would typically pay for?

Yeah.

Okay.

Jacob, do you have a uh a scope?

Can you put together a scope?

Yeah, we could work on it.

We have done fiscal impact analysis, and and generally those would capture uh public safety, schools, yeah, uh water, essentially what you're saying.

That has been done for other is that a third-party consultant that does that?

Yes, yeah.

Um in the past we worked with RKG, there's other consultants, the Fougier Plan and Associates, a couple that perform impact analysis.

Impact analysis.

Thanks.

Anything else from the board?

Okay.

Uh any further discussion.

We'll kind of have a second to continue any further discussion.

Do you have all the feedback you need for all the feedback you need to do?

Yeah, I think so.

Okay.

Um favor to continue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

What else?

Uh I think Mr.

Flores is uh weighted this entire time, so I'll I'll go through his uh request first.

Included in your packet was a request for site plan exemption for one northeastern drive.

Uh they've provided you a project narrative that highlights the changes they'd like to make.

They'd like to move the patio uh and also make the patio a reduced size.

Can you guys can you guys take that conversation out in the hallway?

Please can be yeah, uh so they want to move the patio.

This is at one northeastern boulevard, so this is the plan, but I guess I'll highlight uh the letter as well.

So just to orient you.

Um let's see.

So they want to uh uh remove easier to read this way for me, sorry.

Um they want to make a variety of site improvements.

They ultimately result in less than 500 square feet of impact, but it would be smaller patio but relocated, remove the concrete sidewalk along the west side of the building, move the current ADA spaces, um, and fill the mulch beds in front of the building, remove unnecessary sidewalk tip downs.

Uh I guess like maybe I'd want Mr.

Flores to note where the unnecessary sidewalk tip downs are, and then remove raised islands at property entrance.

That was a comment that I I kind of had a concern about to some degree.

Generally, you're looking to protect the spaces as they come in, they want to add striping.

But I think I think most of what they're trying to accomplish in summary is snow removal.

Um right now they've got uh you know things that are obstructions which are good from a uh uh traffic safety standpoint, but are not good from the point of a snow removal.

So right now they have uh protected spaces here and here, uh, which honestly from a planning perspective is is a good thing to have.

Uh they have also got an end cap to their island here.

That one uh maybe could be striped, but they also want to stripe this one over here, and I would say maybe that I'd think is maybe less advisable just because you have uh parking spaces that uh you know face those other ones unless the board feels it's okay.

One thing I've asked uh Mr.

Flores not to do that was proposed until we get feedback from municipal services and town council is right now they're proposing to remove some of the sidewalk in the right of way, and uh I don't think we would want to uh we I don't think we'd have you would want to approve that without uh consultation from municipal services um and uh and also maybe the town manager's office.

Um but aside from that there are ADA spaces here, they they aren't in the most advisable space because I think the entrance is here and you know they'd have to come around this sidewalk.

So their proposal is to remove these ADA spaces, remove the sidewalk, relocate the ADA spaces from here.

So they are proposing a number of things.

Uh ultimately the they're reducing impervious, and that's I guess what the justification for not coming in for site plan approval would be.

I mean I'm okay with it.

Yeah, the the changes lungs there, memorialized like here, but the as built plan.

I think Mr.

Flores did a good job highlighting the changes.

You're right, they are a lot of changes and initially you know weren't sure if it would be something that would be exempt, but they've they've already you know the applicant has argued that uh it meets your uh criteria and this is the rationale for it.

It says the modifications result in 1,304 square feet of impervious area created.

So they're so even though that they're eliminating plant and uh uh medians and these other items, they're gonna add uh impervious area by removing the internal sidewalk along the building in a couple other areas.

Um, so they're not gonna build an addition.

Um, you know, there are no changes to the signage.

Uh the landscape and improvement will landscape and improvements will increase overall landscaped area on the property.

So again, you you are right, it is a lot of work.

Uh they've rationalized that it meets the criteria, so you know the board can make the determination, or you could ask them to come in for uh a formal approval if you feel like the criteria is not met.

Okay, if that would have feels like that.

Is it yeah?

Is this like is this at all related or entirely unrelated to nine northeastern?

Uh entirely unrelated.

So I think a lot of the background is that uh uh uh Mr.

Brooks Brooks property properties owned uh I think they still own one and four, and I think they also own maybe that's three to the uh west.

And when they came in for approvals, they had added a lot of internal pedestrian connections, which is generally good planning.

But I guess uh since then they've sold off one of the parcels and there's no longer the synergy between the uh building across the street.

So that's why they're proposing to kind of eliminate this internal connection.

Again, I'd advise to hold on the right of way because you know it's public right of way, and we want input from uh town manager's office and um uh municipal services.

But aside from that, everything else is on site.

This is the patio that they're gonna remove.

They're gonna replace it with a slightly smaller patio.

We'll need an as built for it because it's gonna be close to the wetland setback, but uh as long as they don't encroach on the 40 feet, then they're okay.

Um ADA spaces removed, uh internal sidewalk removed.

Um, you know, I guess I would defer to the board, but you know, that right now they've got these areas here that are uh I don't know if they're planted.

It might just be concrete uh uh that protects those spaces.

Uh at the entrance.

Those are raised concrete right now.

Raised concrete, Mr.

Flores stated.

And then these are planted medians.

So again, this one maybe not as consequential.

I think it is good plan and it probably complies well with your site plan regulations because you want typically uh your parking broken up with uh vegetated medions and uh so they do a good job meeting that, but this one may be more so for protection.

Maybe Mr.

Flores would make a case that uh you know it's not needed, but I'm just thinking that um, you know, maybe advisable to keep it there for separation.

Oh yes, sorry, yeah.

Yeah.

Yep.

Um thank you, Mr.

Flores.

So Mr.

Flores now acknowledge that there's photos, so this shows the uh proposed patio location.

Again, it is close to the wetland, but not uh in the wetland.

There's also this sidewalk to the rear.

They'll keep entrance, uh they'll keep uh sidewalk at the entrance, I believe, to access these doors, but they said that there's not really a reason to circumnavigate the building.

Uh here they want to mulch these areas under the building uh overhang to be in fill.

Well, those are to be infilled with concrete.

Um relocate the ADA spaces.

Uh I don't know about uh removing the tip down.

I mean, that would probably not be advisable.

Generally, we'd want a tip down there.

I don't know.

Yeah.

On uh entrance to the building.

No, um Dan, do you mind grabbing the mic if you or do you want me to just hide too late for a mic?

That tip down serves no purpose.

There's no there's no reason for it.

You are tip down with the building to be access to the building.

So this would be mulched area.

You just make it a line landscaped area.

We're gonna keep that as a sidewalk with a room for an approved step off the you have your ADAX.

That might not too late for that mic.

Um so you'd retain the tip down here, and then this would be a step down.

Yes.

Yep.

And then the sidewalk on the right gets removed with uh landscaping as well.

Right to the right to the right, yep, right up there.

Right up on top.

All landscaping and hardscaping changes.

For the most part, yeah.

And then some to be okay with that.

I don't know for the field.

Sound good.

Just keep it up to go.

Yeah, not a not a fan of the removal of the sidewalk.

Definitely don't want that, but aside from that, looks good.

Smoking areas getting smaller.

Okay.

So and you you guys are uh you're comfortable with everything as proposed, then okay.

Thank you, Mr.

Floyd.

Yes, yes, sidewalks, obviously.

Yeah, the sidewalk on the right of it.

Yeah, yeah.

You're okay with the sidewalk, the internal connection.

Yeah, you know, okay.

Okay.

Thanks, Mr.

Flores.

Thanks for waiting uh through the whole meeting.

Apologies for hanging out till 10.

So uh we'll keep the sidewalk right away to go while there's also everything else was approved.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh I'll try to be quick on the other thing, uh, other items because I know it's late.

Uh 357 South Broadway.

This is uh Jocelyn's former location.

Now uh Sevmar.

Um, I think but uh they you approved the plan for a food truck.

Uh they'd now like to make it a little bit more formal.

This looks like it needs a site plan.

Yeah.

Okay, this is what they submitted.

So they should they showed the food truck located here and then tables.

They have one.

Uh, this is only during construction.

Correct.

So you you approved uh food truck on site during active construction because they are gonna occupy this.

I said Sevmar, but it's uh identity is the name of it.

It's gonna be an event center.

So uh right now it's under construction.

You said that it would be okay for them to have a food truck until uh time of occupancy.

And uh they said, well, could we have tables and could we do something like this?

So um this is what they've submitted a mark, it's a marked up plan of the plan that you've approved that shows it here with four picnic tables, and then this is a probably an AI generated uh image.

Where's the construction happening?

Uh the construction's happening in this portion of the building.

So it used to be Puff Lounge, they've acquired it and it's gonna be an event space and actually a maybe a restaurant.

Is that what the approval was?

It was restaurant during certain hours and then event space at other hours.

So it would only be until they uh uh get CO.

And then what after that when they uh when they're done with the construction and they're they're in the building, get a certificate of occupant occupancy, all that has to go away.

That's correct, because they are subject to conditional use permit and um and they don't have the parking.

And they don't have a parking, yeah.

They actually I think had to submit an off-site parking agreement uh per year approval.

Okay.

So it would only it'd be a temporary basis until CO is issued.

And what we already approved the food truck, yeah.

You told them it was okay to have a food truck.

Uh and I think they might have showed it in a slightly different location.

This is uh bit more uh extensive, but it's some essentially the same idea.

Okay.

All right, so I'll let them know that one is okay.

This is another food truck.

I don't think we need to talk about it too much because you've already approved a food truck in this location in years past, but it's gonna be coffee and Biscotti.

The hours are a little different because uh they'll be open from 6 30 to 12 p.m.

Thursday, Wednesday and Thursday mornings, but I assume it's it's very similar to the Italian food truck that you uh pro approved previously.

Sounds excellent.

Um 15 trolley lane.

I went out.

This is the approved plan.

I went out there to do a site inspection, and there are some discrepancies.

So this is the as built.

Um less uh major than the others.

I think they opened the throat here and added a parking space, so you can see that it was supposed to be a little bit more formalized here.

Um is this the one where they also added the signage that we didn't approve?

Correct, yeah, which I don't think has been removed yet, but we did inform them that the signage wasn't approved.

One thing that they did that I think is probably a benefit is they did add uh an additional uh area for an additional dumpster, which is probably a good idea.

Um they expanded this pavement though as well.

Uh so we are looking for a lot coverage calculation.

They got a temporary sign on the back of that dumpster.

They do.

It wasn't permitted, it's too large uh per year sign uh regulations.

And I did notice it's shown here.

Um but we could address that with the applicant, uh certainly.

Uh probably maybe one of the more consequential things is is when when you approve this plan, they showed this as the proposed tree line, so you can kind of see that here in this area here.

And um they've obviously since opened the the site up.

So this is what they're proposing for vegetation.

There's not a whole lot of room, but they've got um some evergreens here, there's a spillway here, so there's a gap.

So they've got five uh evergreens.

Um this is the view uh where the you know the proposed tree line was supposed to be here and they've stated that they don't have the ability to plant uh this area because of the uh this is their septic uh their field leech field and then the slope down here.

Uh although when I look at the as built, it looks like maybe there's a little bit more room, it's hard to tell.

But anyway, I just wanted to bring it to you because um this is what exists, and the other uh applicants on Trolley Lane had retained the vegetation along that area, and I think we would have probably given it a little more.

I know we would have given it more.

Just so the board knows this is the same applicant that put the building inside the prime wetland buffer on uh 38 cheeses.

Uh so one question that I have so are we saying that there was a tree line that was there that got cut down?

Yeah, and I mean I guess in terms of the quality of the tree line, it didn't they write no cut buffer on the uh trees not to be removed on the plants?

It says proposed tree line.

So I think you know that we didn't really give much attention to the rear of the site because I think we were anticipating similar to 21 and 25, I think.

Yeah, you know, where they retained some strip.

Uh I think we were kind of anticipating that would be the case and that we wouldn't have to, you know, pay much uh uh attention to it along 93, but obviously the site had been cleared.

And uh so when we when we noticed that the site had been cleared, I had a conversation with the applicant uh a while ago about how we could remediate um or how we could you know supplement what's there.

So this is kind of what it is.

It's it's tough when the mature vegetation is eliminated because obviously the church vegetation would have been larger and and maybe you know denser.

Um so this is kind of what it exists as right now.

I did ask them to plant an additional deciduous tree, so instead of two here, they have added a third here, and their concern was uh the leech field here.

Yeah, I think I found the trees in the picture.

Um but it if we can find out if they had completed and submitted the um intent to cut um report with the state, which is what typically has to be done when you're doing a full clear cutting.

Um I would like to know if they had done that.

And if they did, I assume that town council had signed off on it.

Um if that is the case, then perhaps we put some sort of uh a process in place where it it makes its way to planning before it goes to town council for signature, because I don't expect every town council member to review every plant of ours and know what trees we've agreed to cut or in not, but um there should be that um collaboration there to prevent this from happening, much like it did on the little road.

They also have to come from how many board feed they're cutting too.

I believe that's part of that application.

Yeah, the assessment department generally reviews it for that purpose, but your plan historically has not reviewed intent to cut.

Uh so it very well could have been uh uh issued by the town, um, which I understand, I guess from the applicant's perspective why that would uh but at the same time they do have this site plan that showed proposed tree line and that proposed tree line no longer exists.

So that was that's what they're proposing.

I mean they they've alleged that they cannot plant uh at the you know in this area here because of the leech field.

Um where's the leech field on the as building?

Yeah, where is it?

In this in the in the same approximate location, so it's here, so it there is a slope.

So leech field or or uh drainage.

Uh that would be the uh yeah, leech field, because I think this is a septic tank here.

Oh, yeah.

And then so it looks like they have plenty of room to plant.

We could discuss that with the applicant if that's the board's uh desire.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

I mean, I think they could put at least put a new tree line in.

Yeah, where it says proposed tree line, they could put a new tree.

Okay.

I will uh communicate with the mature trees.

Yeah.

Okay, I'll communicate with the uh with the property owners.

Fair enough.

Um the other thing I was gonna ask, and I don't well, maybe the chair and I uh they they haven't striped the site, and I think they already know the answer, but I mean you have the ability to accept a bond letter of credit for completion of items, which do not materially impair activity.

I guess my concern would be that to stripe not stripe the activity, not stripe the site could materially uh affect the activity, and I imagine that would be the board's uh consideration or are you okay with the strike the site yet?

They haven't striped it, but they're looking for CO of a portion of the uh units.

Of course he is stripe the site.

That's okay.

You know, I just out of uh deference, I guess, to the applicant.

I'm happy to bring these to you, but I've uh kind of told them that you've been pretty clear on other ideas.

So now before you're final he needs to get the clarification's the fact that he needs to do final code of pavement, right?

So he's saying, well, if uh I'm gonna do final code of pavement two weeks from now, I don't want to stripe it and then have to stripe it again.

But I guess if you're looking for CO and the board has the ability to issue uh to uh accept a bond for things that don't materially impair the activity, it I think it'd be hard to argue that you know the strike the site not being striped would uh not impair the activity on site.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um well I appreciate you guys.

I know I brought this to you a couple of times, so I appreciate your feedback.

Sorry, just to just to back up and and be clear.

So are are we saying that we're okay with issuing him CO before he stripes?

No, no.

Okay.

I just want to make sure that's it.

Yeah, maybe I could discuss with the chair, I guess the uh landscape and and uh the other aspects if the board's okay with that.

I mean he does have he has building permits for three units.

He hasn't submitted anything for the other two units.

Um but he's you know he's got tenants who I think would like to get COs, but you know, um if worst case scenario, I guess they would have to wait till you're gonna be able to do that.

I'm sure he does.

There's also a planning board that would like to see the plan adhered to.

Understood, yeah.

So similar themes we've been hearing through the city.

Wow, it's really just craziness.

Yeah, yeah.

Well, I appreciate it.

Uh the last thing, uh, and I'll maybe be quick here, but I just wanted to acknowledge all your hard work.

Uh on last Thursday, we were awarded uh plan of the year by New Hampshire Planner Association.

And uh look at you guys.

Yeah, yeah.

Um is there a special note for signage restrictions and Mr.

Northern Archives and the master plan and the town wide master plan.

And a lot of it had to do with uh, you know, there was a variety of provisions that needed to be met for it to be awarded, and you know, one was public participation.

We specifically highlighted the amount of per public participation and the commitment that the steering committee had to ensure the public was part of it, and also implementation.

Uh and we've seen that now with the open space master plan, the depot village master plan, the rec advisory master plan, and then the uh you know pending uh zone and comprehensive zoning update, which will really be kind of the uh you know how you're supposed to implement the master plan.

So um uh, you know, with the staff accepted it, but it really it felt like stolen dollar because it's it's really your award in the steering committee in the town council for supporting a purpose.

Uh charter commission member who uh ensured that it was put into the charter so that we can no longer neglect our but um anyway, I just wanted to thank you and acknowledge your efforts and uh everybody's doing great work.

Congrats.

Oh, and uh Mr.

Brubaker wasn't here.

Last thing, yeah, ADU seminar.

I think it's May 27th, I think, uh here in this meeting.

So if anybody's interested in the process of permitting an ADU, we're also gonna have um Merrimack Valley Savings Bank who helps with the finance and and we'll be able to speak to that.

So um I think it's May 27th at 5 p.m.

in this room.

I might be around that.

Thank you.

That's it.

Okay.

Motion to adjourn, Mr.

Chair.

Second.

All in favor of adjourney.

Closed.