All towns · portsmouth

Live Broadcast

Video

Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Good evening and welcome to the September 9th meeting of the Portsmouth Historic District
Commission.
We have a very small agenda and a very small group of commissioners here, but we do have
a quorum.
So it looks like our alternate, Susan Strauss, will be a little bit late.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We have Larry Booz, who is our first alternate.
We have Larry Booz, who is our alternate, first alternate.
Good evening.
Good evening.
Martin Ryan.
Good evening.
We have Vice Chair, Margaret Doering.
Hello.
We have Reagan Rudig, the Chair.
We have Isaac Gilbo from the Planning Department.
Good evening.
And our city council rep, Kate Cook.
Good evening.
Hopefully, Joy Kurth will be on her way to join us at some point soon.
The Board's action in these matters has been deemed to be quasi-judicial in nature.
If any person believes any member of the board has a conflict of interest, that issue should
be raised at this point or it will be deemed waived.
So for our agenda, we have a work session to discuss the master plan with the consultant
Util.
Zoe is here for that.
But I'm hoping that I can flip the agenda a little bit and just get through our administrative
approvals first so that we can not keep anybody waiting too long with our work session.
So can I get a motion to move the administrative approvals to the top of the agenda, please?
So moved.
So moved.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
Chair votes aye.
Okay.
Thank you.
So our admin approvals last week were very long, and I'll let Isaac update us.
We have a few that have requested to postpone, 78 Street, 34 Highland Street, and 244 Newcastle
Avenue.
However, Highland Street maybe we can do some sort of vote on, but that would be up to our
vice chair since I'm recusing myself from that one anyway.
Ah.
Okay.
So why don't we take a vote to approve the other two postponements and then we can go
through the admin approvals and deal with Highland Street last?
Sure.
Okay.
Okay.
So can I get a motion to postpone number 3, 78 Fleet Street and number 6, 244 Newcastle Avenue?
So moved.
And seconded.
All right.
All in favor?
Aye.
All right.
Chair votes aye.
Okay.
Okay.
Isaac, let us know if you've gotten anything.
Yes.
So that would be sort of my next update.
So after reaching out to folks, unfortunately with a very tight turnaround because of the holiday
weekend, I was not able to receive any updated or any new information for items number 1, 31
Market Street.
Item number 2, 6 Dearborn Street.
We asked for either an electronic spec or a physical spec.
I have not heard from the applicant either way.
And then additionally, item number 7, 394 Pleasant Street.
Those sort of 3 I had not received more information on.
Items number 5, 25 Cabot Street, and then item number 8, 175 Fleet Street.
We did receive some updated information for those too.
Okay.
So I'm not sure if the commission would just like to postpone item number 1, 3, and 7 to
the October meetings pending the additional information that we had requested from last week.
1, 2, and 7.
Sorry.
Excuse me.
1, 2, and 7.
Yes.
Second.
On item number 1, 31 Market Street, the applicant was already in process before they came to
the board.
Can we make sure that our compliance officer doubles checks that there's no movement forward?
Absolutely.
Thanks.
All right.
All in favor.
Aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Chair Brett's aye.
All right.
Well, Isaac, take it away for Cabot Street.
So that will bring us -- so we'll do 25 Cabot Street, 175 Fleet Street, and then we can
talk about 34 Highland last.
Let me just share my screen one very quick second.
So the applicant at 25 Cabot Street is seeking approval.
My bookmarks are not coming up.
Excuse me.
I'll just run through this quickly.
They are seeking approval to replace the front stairs, deck boards, and the railing system
on their house, keeping the railings as is.
They are replacing the decking boards and the stairs in kind with wood.
They are asking to do a Trex railing system.
The Trex railing system that they have proposed is going to match the existing wood profile of
the front porch now.
And they were able to tell us sort of today that they are going to use the Trex transcend.
There were five different options in the overall packet, and that is the style that they are going with.
The commission can look at that.
I've highlighted the various transcend components.
They are going with the square bollard just to match what's there now.
There was a couple of options, so I just wanted to clarify that.
Okay.
The square ballister.
Yeah.
Okay.
I can pass this around in case anybody wants to see this, but I will just point out that this is a property that if we move forward with our middle street boundary line adjustment, this property will no longer be in the historic district.
And I would just like to say that they are not changing the dimensions of the railing system or of the stairs that will all be replaced dimensionally in kind as well.
Just wanted to clarify again.
All right.
So if there are no questions, I will just move on.
Oh, sorry.
I just have one quick question.
Generally, since this is one of the properties that would be removed, I don't have a problem with this, but I just for clarification purposes, are they removing the scrolling at the top of the porch?
They are not.
That was my first question.
That will remain intact.
It won't even be removed.
And then the other question is, the wrap around the back, they listed as lattice, but this is not a lattice treatment, and I just wanted to know if they were going to be doing the same treatment.
Yes, sorry.
So, yes, it did indicate the lattice on the bottom.
So, sorry, that would be a change to the vertical slot that's there now.
Okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
I'm sure if the commission wanted to stipulate to keep the vertical, I'm sure that that could remain if someone is more one way or the other.
Just highlight for the owners that that's more traditional, the slat rather than the lattice.
I think I have this period, but it is not a make or break item.
I can certainly relay that to them.
And if everybody is okay with either or, if they go for the more traditional option, then maybe that would be a win.
All right.
So we will go down to item number eight, which is 175 Fleet Street.
Of course, we just saw this last week, and we asked the applicant to come back with a sort of revised roof, hood detail for the...
Sorry, one second.
My PDF is not cooperating at the moment.
Let me try to re-share my screen.
I don't know that we have any new...
Is there anything new from last week?
Yes.
So sorry.
Sorry about that technical glitch there.
My apologies.
We don't have that on the board.
So the applicant did come back with a sort of different bottom cylindrical option for those roof hoods.
So there's sort of the existing on the original ghillies, just to kind of show the context of what they would typically look like.
There's the rear elevation.
And it kind of shows a better example of that.
And of course, we have the sort of new proposed exhaust fans here.
And there's a standing seam metal sort of...
Oh, sorry.
The roofing.
So...
Tracy, is that just a metal surround on the bottom of those as well?
Yes.
Good evening.
Tracy Kozak, Archive Architects.
Yes.
So we made two changes to the exhaust fans.
Change one is they're three inches shorter.
That's as low as we could go with that style and still meet code.
And the other change is the base.
It used to be a box.
Now it is a cone.
It is made out of steel, custom fabricated and it is painted with the same high heat paint as the fan.
Looks better.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Could we zoom in?
Yep.
Was.
I'm having a tough time seeing it.
Let me get a little closer.
Can you zoom in on your PDF?
I think that helps.
I'm sorry?
I'm just making sure you're able to zoom in on your PDF too.
Did we get an updated one?
I didn't see it.
This was in the original.
Okay.
Yeah.
I didn't see it.
I didn't grab it.
But that helps.
Okay.
Great.
All right.
So.
Thank you, Tracy.
Any other questions on that one?
Are you painting the existing gillies building to match?
Is that what I'm seeing here?
We've shown it both ways.
We could if we're not proposing to.
But if that's a stipulation we can certainly do that.
We did look at options to lower it even more.
And you'll see on the existing building there's two kinds of fans.
The one on the left is square with like a bird's beak going off to the side.
And the one on the right is similar to the round fan but with a boxed base.
If we went with the square beak style we could go 10 inches lower but we think it's not attractive.
And it would really not fit.
So we stayed with the round fan style.
We were able to lower it at three inches and put the cone, the custom cone base.
It comes in two parts.
The fan part and then the box part.
So it's just the bottom part that is customized.
Yes.
I may be the only one that I prefer the other design but I'm fine with it either way so.
Thank you.
Anybody else?
Larry.
Larry.
So I just want to repeat what I think I heard Tracy say.
So the two existing fans which are inconsistent with the new proposal, you can make the two existing
fans match the cone base and then the new design or not?
No, we would not change the base.
We could just apply some paint.
It's already installed.
On the existing building, we're not proposing to remove or uninstall or refabricate it.
The existing one was previously approved by HDC.
Okay.
We really weren't calling out on here that we're painting it.
But in the renderings which follow, in this diagram we show it gray as it is in real life.
In the renderings that follow, it is shown painted to match.
Either way, but we would not remove it and refabricate it.
It's just paint.
Okay.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I think that little bit of extra attention to detail does do the trick.
Three inches is three inches.
I'm sorry?
Three inches lower is three inches lower, which is good.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
So just to kind of quickly recap, we went through item number 5, 25 Cabot Street.
No stipulations.
I will just relate to the applicant that they could go with either the vertical slot that's
there or a lattice and just let them know which one's more historically appropriate.
And then item number 8, 175 Fleet Street.
It sounded like there were no stipulations there.
We'll make a motion to approve those administrative approvals.
Okay.
Second.
All right.
Great.
All in favor?
Aye.
Any opposed?
All right.
Chair votes aye.
Thank you, Tracy.
And then if we are going to discuss 34 Highland Street, I will recuse myself.
Okay.
I'll let the chair take over.
Thank you.
Okay.
Isaac, if you'd run through.
Yeah.
So before Highland Street was before us last week, they are proposing to install four condensers.
They are on the rear of the building.
And as the chair mentioned last week, the actual condensers would be sort of hidden from the public view.
However, we are unclear whether or not they will need to run vertical line sets externally up to the second floor.
At the time, that was not included in the application.
So the idea was that we could, while we're waiting on that information, we could at least approve the four condensers, as is if they were running all conduit lines internally from the base of the condenser.
If they need to run vertical conduit lines, they can come back to us next month for approval on the location of those.
What's the advantage of approving it or just waiting?
If they already have the condensers, and they're going straight in, they could start construction and installation today.
I understand that.
If they have to, if they are not running any line sets, but we don't give them the approval now, they have to wait a month.
The installation of these units, there are a lot of people installing these and sometimes it's hard to get on their calendar.
So there is a, if you would pull up the location map, Isaac.
Okay.
So there's the map with the location of the four units at the back of the house.
And also within sort of those little alcove areas as well.
Two there and then two at the rear.
If we're not comfortable, if we want more information, that's fine.
We can go with the postponement.
Yep.
It was just an idea to...
I would be comfortable with the location of the condensers and stipulating that the line sets need to come back to us if they appear on the exterior.
Okay.
Question, Larry?
My only comment would be, once the condensers are set, you've kind of predetermined where the line sets have to go vertically.
The next photograph, I don't know where it is, is one that has like a little red thing down at the bottom.
It looks like, is that a condenser there?
No, I think that's just the place marker from wherever it is.
From FGO.
Oh, okay.
Yeah.
That just shows up any time you do a screenshot of an FGO property.
Yeah.
Sorry about that.
It was a little misleading.
That is not a proposed or an existing condenser.
I guess my question is, if they do need to maybe preemptively keep them from having to come back, would it be beneficial to say, okay, if you need to go to the second floor, because the condensers are already on the back of the house, would it make sense to say, if you need to go to the second floor, just go straight up?
Yeah.
If you have to zigzag, then come back to HTC.
What about screens too?
But is it on the back of the building from what I'm seeing?
It is.
Yes.
Yep.
Just a thought.
Yep.
They would not necessarily be visible from the public view unless you were sort of, you know, really in someone's driveway at that point, which wouldn't be considered a public view.
If not enough people are comfortable, we'll just postpone this.
I just think we've had issues with linesets running up buildings and not coming back.
So that's my concern.
Okay.
Then I'll accept a motion to postpone unless, Kate, you had something?
I actually, I think that it's important that we allow this homeowner to move forward with installation.
And I say this with the perspective that I lived without a furnace for two months because I was waiting for an HDC administrative approval in January and February one year.
And so I can understand the homeowner's potential concern around, you know, holding out on a contractor because when you do that, then you might not get them to come back for months on end.
And so, and then you might miss the window for installation this fall.
I mean, it's kind of a tight turnaround.
We're in September.
So I think if, as long as we have them report back, we make it a stipulation that they report back with images of them installed and let us know if, you know, they need any, if they're planning to install linesets, there will be an inspection.
So it's not like there won't be an inspection.
Okay.
I am waiting for a motion.
So whoever wants to make it and whatever you want to make it as.
I'll make the motion that we allow the applicant to install the condensers as noted in their site plan.
And with the stipulation that the line sets come to us for approval at a later date.
If they go up to second floor.
Line sets at all.
I, sure.
I mean, I think it would be easier if we just leave it at that and not, not muddy the waters with whether they go to the second floor attic or whatever.
Just the line sets come before us at a later date.
Okay.
Second.
All in favor?
Aye.
Aye.
Any opposed?
Aye.
Joy.
Chair, vote aye.
Okay.
Thank you.
All right.
We're done with admin approvals for now.
That's it for the admin.
So.
All right.
So on to our work session with the master plan.
We'll have our consultant come up.
I'm sorry.
I was assuming because it's a work session we would all get to sit around the table and have a more casual conversation.
But we'll let you take it away.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
We'll have our consultant come up. I'm sorry. I was assuming because it's a work session, we would all get to sit around the table and have a more casual conversation. But we'll let you take it away.
Hello there, everyone. Nice to see you. I'm Zoe Mueller. I've been serving as the project manager for the consultant team supporting the city on the master planning update that we're doing right now. And so I'm here today to share with you kind of where we are, answer any questions you have, and mostly to hear your ideas as we're kind of working towards the final plan document and all of the recommendations that will be embedded in it.
So I'll be presenting for a little bit, but mostly we want to just have a discussion with you and hear what your thoughts are.
If you want to promote me to panelists, I can share my screen, I think.
Bear with me for just a moment here, getting that teed up.
All right.
Everyone seeing that okay?
Yes.
All right.
Yeah.
So my thought is that I will do about 15 minutes of just running through kind of where we are and the key recommendations and then kind of hand it over to you to discuss.
Please interrupt me as I'm going if you have any questions.
And I'm going to kind of flip through at the beginning some of our general background slides.
I'm not going to actually present them formally to you, but we can go back to them at any time just as a reference because some of the plans, recommendations will kind of tie in with some of that core content.
So just to kind of make clear, kind of a master plan is a lot of things for a lot of people.
It covers a lot of different topics, but really its role is to fill gaps, make connections and create a strong spatial framework for the ties land use policy and regulations to capital investments in a way that's coherent and that people understand and can use to make decisions.
We have a lot of focus on development patterns in urban form in this, which is obviously pertinent to your work as a as a committee.
And so we'll sort of spend a little bit more time on that together today in terms of where we are in the process.
We're at the conclusion of the more intensive engagement work and analysis work, and we're really shifting to documentation of the plan.
So that's kind of where we're at, we're drafting, we're reviewing, etc.
And we expect that to continue as long as necessary, but we're aiming to kind of bring it to the public in the near term over the course of the next couple months.
So this is where I'm going to sort of flip through pretty quickly.
I'm going to give you a snapshot of the vision, the values, the goals.
This is all posted online.
You're welcome to review in more detail and let us know if there's sort of additional feedback you have.
And I'll give you a sense of the spatial development framework.
And then we'll kind of dive into the pieces that are more directly relevant to your work.
So I think I just want to highlight in the vision statement that there's a couple places where historic character kind of comes forward in the first sentence.
And so there's something that we've, you know, heard from the beginning of our engagement process, that the historic character of Portsmouth is really essential to what makes Portsmouth special.
And so we want to make sure that the master plan is sort of holding that together and sort of carrying it forward along with all of these other competing priorities.
You'll also notice here that among the different core values that kind of extend from that vision statement, authenticity is the one that sort of explicitly names historic character as sort of one of those aspects that we're carrying forward.
It shows up in a lot of different aspects here.
So it's not sort of bound exclusively to authenticity.
It also shows up in vibrancy, inclusivity, connectivity.
There's all sorts of ways in which it kind of connects with these other ideas.
And then in the draft goals, I would say it shows up most explicitly in the final one that's listed here.
These aren't a prioritized ranking.
These are just to kind of present them thematically.
Protect core identity is about not just historic, but also cultural and environmental assets and really making sure that the protection and sort of stewardship of those is sort of central to the work that the city is doing as we're again balancing all these different priorities.
It also shows up as we'll get into a little bit in some of the supporting strategies around the housing needs that Portsmouth has right now, which obviously intersects in meaningful ways with the built environment that we have today, the housing we have today and the buildings that carry that sort of historic character that Portsmouth is known for.
I want to pivot to the spatial framework a bit.
Most importantly, I want to highlight the degree of change, which is a way of representing across the whole city over the next decade or so.
You know, what is what can we expect to really be a focus area for changes, adaptation and where are we looking to preserve or do more targeted enhancements?
So what you'll see here just to kind of guide you through the visual what you're seeing in red highlighted here is the historic district.
What you're seeing in varying shades of green and blue are ecological assets, environmental assets and places that either have a regulatory protection for that reason or are preserved open space or otherwise protected.
And you're also seeing some aspirational qualities of, you know, important ecological connections that are not yet protected.
So anything that you're seeing in a shade of green or blue or red is something that is explicitly called out in the plan as an area that is a preserve area.
That is the focus of the kinds of interventions that are happening there should be about encouraging adaptive reuse restoration and conservation.
And so that means in terms of what sort of defines it today, there's either some sort of significant collective ecological or historical value to personal identity, quality of life, sustainability and resilience.
And then when we're looking at kind of what we're doing in those areas in terms of investment, focusing on functional and experiential improvements in those places that are within the constraints that those places have in terms of the environmental constraints, but also cultural resource constraints.
And then again, regulations kind of calibrating, you know, making things possible, but recognizing the constraints that are critical to making those places work going forward.
So allowing future development that this sort of is aligned to that those constraints.
I also want to spend a little bit of time together talking about the enhanced areas, which are areas where there's a lot of existing historic, you know, development patterns, but are not explicitly under the jurisdiction of.
The sort of the historic designation.
And so that's an area where a lot of those are in the enhanced category in this framework where that's more targeted improvements, focusing on flexibility and quality of life.
So that's something we can kind of return to a bit more.
But I think this is one of the things that's been the subject of conversation in Portsmouth recently in between the planning board and the HDC just kind of understanding how do we how do we steward those neighborhoods that are not fully sort of under jurisdiction, but that are very much, you know, a resource to the city and to the community in terms of what they offer now.
So I won't belabor that point too much.
We can come back to that at any point.
This is just to sort of add a little bit of color and sort of understanding of some of the things that we're looking to work through and those enhance areas.
The there are a lot of single family zoning districts that right now already have small single family homes that are tightly spaced.
That's very much a part of Portsmouth's historic development pattern and also have in some cases small multifamily buildings that are mixed in and sort of at the same scale as the single family homes.
And so looking at, you know, what's built today and what the zoning districts allow.
That's one of the sort of calibrations that we think the master plan can help tee up that is compatible with and sort of should be coordinated with thoughts about how to preserve the historic patterns that are in those places and kind of align the zoning to those places.
And this is just an example you're seeing on the left a more recent development, but what I want to focus with you all on is on the right.
You're seeing a more traditional older home is on a small lot and is also a very small home.
That is something that would not be allowed under the current zoning in the single residence B district.
So this is an example of the kind of thing that we want to make sure that our zoning is allowing, you know, those those existing built patterns
and also making it possible for people to kind of make reasonable modifications within that framework that might make it more flexible and supportive of kind of the full range of housing needs that we heard throughout this process.
And that brings me to what I didn't spend a whole lot of time on and on the degree of change map, but one of the key sort of focal areas of this plan is highlighting the need for neighborhood centers outside of the downtown core.
And these are largely in areas that are have a more suburban character now that have predominantly commercial uses at their center more like strip mall sort of pattern and looking at how do we kind of create real neighborhood centers in those places that leverage the businesses that are already there and the homes that are already around it and really kind of create a place that people can gather in and find the amenities and kind of quality of life supports that they need.
Um, so that's kind of the bigger kind of adaptation vision.
It doesn't intersect a ton with our historic preservation questions, but it certainly does in the West End and at the fringes of all of these there are, you know, there's a lot of post-war building stock in these areas.
So as sort of the definition of historic moves as our 50 year mark moves, um, there's important questions there as well.
Um, so I don't want to kind of gloss over that.
Um, this just gives a sense of what we're talking about when we say neighborhood centers.
We're talking about, um, sort of not just the regulations, but also the, the infrastructure investments and sort of the, um, gathering places, the amenities that are clustered in those, um, locations.
And so trying to really set, um, the framework so that Portsmouth can continue to kind of cultivate that change in, in those areas and help to sort of establish a pattern that, um, that sort of emulate some of the desirable characteristics that people find downtown, but that are lacking in some of the neighborhoods, um, in terms of those, those sort of clustered amenities and quality of life supports.
Um, so with that, um, I'm going to pivot to some of our written recommendations.
These are, you can think of these as kind of strategies that are supporting those goals, those bigger goals, values, vision, um, and sort of, uh, complimentary to the spatial framework.
Um, and these are often, um, implemented by certain program, sorry, by certain departments, um, or sort of, you know, partner entities, um, uh, out in, um, the, the larger network of businesses and, um, nonprofits.
Um, and so we wanted to highlight for you these three objectives, um, um, that are nested within, um, the protect core identity goal, um, as well as the housing focused goal.
Um, and so I'm just kind of going to run through these quickly, um, to give you a sense of what they are.
These are all posted, um, in the document that was shared as part of the April 22nd open house that we held.
Um, so all of the details of this is available to you for kind of further, um, calling through.
I won't read through all of this, but it's here so that if we dig into the details, we have it at our fingertips.
Um, for the protect core identity goal, um, again, that's safeguarding the cultural, historic and environmental assets that make our city unique and beautiful.
Um, and, and ensure that future development contributes to Portsmouth's character.
So under that, that goal, there are two different objectives we wanted to highlight.
The first is safeguarding and stewarding Portsmouth's historic places.
Um, some of which is very literally safeguarding it in the sense of protecting from flooding.
We know that the flooding poses a serious risk for a lot of the historic areas that are within, um, you know, today's flood plan, but also as the floodplain changes, as climate change, um, sort of impacts the level of flood risk we're facing, um, getting ahead of that.
Um, so looking at significant historic sites and cultural resources that are already protected, continuing to carry forward that work.
So we really wanted to make sure that we named that as sort of, um, critical to Portsmouth's, um, identity and kind of what is already happening in the, in the city.
And so we wanted to carry that forward.
Um, and then also kind of compliment that with, um, some of the stories that aren't told as often in the existing preservation, um, work and sort of, uh, weave those in and sort of continue to kind of, um, enrich the sort of the full range of what the stories people find here and, and sort of bring more people into that, um, that work.
So this is kind of the most directly focused on, um, sort of what's conventionally thought of when people are thinking of historic resources, historic protections.
Um, the next is about how new development interacts with that existing, you know, those historic resources, um, and those historic patterns as well.
There are many places where there's a pattern that's valuable to people that's familiar, this historic, but maybe isn't explicitly protected or sort of, um,
have a specific building that is iconic, um, for that, um, that pattern.
And so this is about, um, promoting context sense of development that, that compliments and sort of works with those historic patterns.
Um, so this is more in the regulation space, um, looking at, um, your existing character based regulations, um, that are the sort of the historic, the character districts that are part of your downtown zoning structure.
Um, and, you know, really kind of weaving that in with your work and kind of thinking about how can we kind of streamline this and really get to the same result, but do so in a way that is, um, very clear to people, um, and easy to navigate.
Um, that's one of the sort of pieces of feedback that we got that the, um, the characters districts are complicated, um, and hard to work with, um, even though their goal is very, you know, noble and important.
So we want to kind of highlight that as an area for improvement, but not an area to kind of step back.
It's more like honing it.
Um, and then the next three that you're seeing here are kind of areas that right now are not well developed, but as we, as we heard sort of things that people were talking with us about, um, and some of the, um, shifting, you know, again, as, as buildings and sort of patterns that we think of as more recent also become historic in their own right.
Um, looking at the different residential neighborhood patterns, um, outside of your, your character districts and your historic, um, district commissions, um, kind of, uh, jurisdiction.
And then, um, looking at also kind of industrial areas, maritime and manufacturing, there's kind of, you know, the West End is an example of kind of, um, has more of a crossover into some of that industrial heritage of, um, the city.
And so, um, being thoughtful about, you know, are there other sites that are significant, um, or sort of patterns that are significant that maybe aren't, um, aren't being fully recognized or, or protected in the current form.
Um, and then lastly, um.
Can I just ask a question and then all that?
Yeah.
What other areas are, are you identifying as maritime that aren't already in the district?
I'm trying to think of any other.
Yeah.
So I think it's, there's kind of a, um, along the, the waterfront, a lot of the area is like already in the character districts.
Right.
And then there's also areas that are active industrial use, right.
Still are port industrial use.
Um, there are some cases where, um, uh, so there's kind of a quick, a crossover here.
There's like the form of it, like the storytelling about it.
Um, and then there's also the actual uses.
And so there's some places like, um, we did a lot of work in, uh, Gloucester, Massachusetts, where there's a lot of active industrial, um, work there.
It's a lot of, it's a, you know, historic fishing village.
There's a lot of patterns that are, um, sort of common there, but there's also the ability to continue using it in that way.
Um, is at risk because of the pressure that other development is sort of coming right around it.
And so some of it is sort of propping up those, those rights to kind of operate as a, as an industrial business in a legacy area.
And the other part is kind of some of that like visual storytelling history.
So you already have some nice, um, like storytelling around, um, Prescott Park and kind of the, the history of that site.
So it might be kind of more targeted, like marginal places.
I don't think there's like a huge area that you have kind of, it's, it's mostly lifting up that.
So for example, the view sheds and the shores along the North Mill Pond, which is kind of a forgotten maritime area because it's, you know, it's not maritime as in you take a tugboat up.
Right, right.
Yes.
Yeah.
That's a good example.
And I, it might also be something that we work with you all to kind of say like, are there a couple of places that we want to highlight that would be, you know, worth naming explicitly to make that a little bit more robust and kind of like enforceable, right?
It's mostly a, um, as we talked with folks about what were some of the valued aspects of Portsmouth history and kind of the way people were telling the story that maritime history is significant and continues to be part of, you know, Portsmouth today.
And so just thinking about what, you know, for those industrial uses, it's often kind of, uh, the second, um, layer down from when people are focused on more residential and sort of downtown commercial.
And so just wanting to give that some, um, it's due sort of, uh, within Portsmouth's larger story.
Okay.
Um, so it might be, you know, identifying a couple of those places that, that makes sense to call out.
Yeah.
If you, uh, to expand upon what Margaret said about the North Mill Pond, uh, the development that's going on right there, it kind of ignores the fact that the North Mill Pond was one of the five major shipbuilding areas in Portsmouth.
They literally built clipper ships there and there's different maps of Portsmouth that you can show where the ships are actually painted into those pilings and being serviced and constructed and worked on.
Um, perhaps some consideration should be given to preserving that area a little bit instead of just, okay, now it's one big parking lot because we're building another 150 condos.
Um, but I, I would just throw that out because there's a lot of maritime history there and you can even go to the strawberry bank and find, uh, you know, historic maps where they painted this and it's there.
Yeah.
I think that's a great example.
And I think it's, it's sort of, it doesn't necessarily need to exclude new development, right?
It can be woven in with new development, but I think if the, at the moment of that development occurring, if it isn't thought of, that's kind of a, it's a missed opportunity.
And given how central it is to Portsmouth today and Portsmouth in the past, you know, just wanting to make sure that that's, there's a, uh, a way to have that conversation in a productive setting.
I appreciate what you're saying.
If you go back, I don't know, 10, 15 years, uh, the opportunity was missed, but we had, uh, you know, a standing railroad steam engine roundhouse and turntable.
That's all gone.
Mm-hmm.
So, uh, all of that is part of our history, but thank you very much for what you said.
Absolutely.
Um, and then the last one that's sort of in this vein is thinking about those kind of wartime and post-war neighborhoods.
You know, that is, again, a big part of Portsmouth's history.
It's maybe not the thing that we focus on most, but it's a big part of what's made Portsmouth successful, what's drawn people to the region.
Um, and so thinking about, um, you know, what within those neighborhoods are things that merit sort of some attention from a historic sort of preservation standpoint or just from a kind of regulation pattern production.
So some of this crosses over just into zoning.
You know, it doesn't necessarily need to be a historic preservation, but zoning can be sensitive to these patterns in ways that carry forward this idea.
Um, so the last one that I'm going to highlight is crossing over into the housing category.
Um, and this is in particular because of that, um, the sort of analysis that I showed you previously that's about, um, non-conforming lots, um, in your existing.
In particular, we looked at your single family homes, but I suspect it is also true for a majority of your, um, your older parts of the city that had zoning ascribed to them after they were already built.
Um, so for housing, one of the things that we thought was important to bring to you all, um, is in those enhanced areas, as we think about how to create more flexibility in the housing stock.
So more different unit types and sizes, um, in some cases, in a lot of cases, um, smaller household sizes and smaller units are a gap for cities like Portsmouth that have a lot of, um, older family housing stock and, and workforce housing stock that sort of, um, built around larger households.
Um, and so wanting to think thought, you know, think critically about how can zoning facilitate that and do that, you know, encourage and allow that adaptation of existing buildings, um, to support more smaller households in cases where that's what people want to see in those, um, buildings while still, you know, holding on to the, the public value of those buildings as part of a larger pattern or a larger context.
Um, and so these are just kind of some discrete ideas about how to better support the maintenance and adaptation of the existing housing stock that you have, um, to really, to meet those needs in, in ways that, um, are going to work for people and, and help people maintain those houses over time.
Um, so these are kind of some steps and that we thought would be valuable in doing that based on sort of other communities that are dealing with similar issues.
Um, and so sort of starting with some of that, um, just assessing the, the sort of the needs, some of the common issues that are arising, um, looking at, um, sort of developing a more coherent program around that that could support people with some resources and understanding the basics of historic preservation as they're considering additions and changes.
Um, this is true for homeowners as well as small landlords.
It's, you know, it's a, it's kind of a different stepping into a different realm of expertise.
Um, and then one of the areas that is often particularly, um, uh, neglected is this sort of small multifamily rental, which a lot of historic buildings are this, um, or have been converted to this.
Um, and so wanting to, um, you know, think about how can we deliberately protect that, um, that housing stock in ways that is meaningful.
Um, and, and then the last piece is sort of acknowledging that, um, again, like many communities, you have some oversized housing stock for the household types that you have today.
Um, a lot of two person households.
Um, and so looking at, are there incentives that could be paired with historic preservation resources, you know, financial packages or whatever it is that could incentivize the conversion of that housing stock in areas that, um, where it's would be valuable and sort of aligned with the kind of housing needs that the city has.
Um, so this is, you know, the, a little bit more, um, I don't wanna say controversial, but it's more in the mix of like the, the debate that everybody's having right now, but how do we balance these things?
Um, so this is kind of our suggested way of framing that.
Um, but across all three of the sort of word heavy slides that I just, um, flashed up here, um, would welcome your feedback on that.
And we're gonna be honing the, the sort of the message on these and making them as specific and enforceable as we can, um, over the course of the next couple months as we kind of bring this to a conclusion.
Um, so all I have for you now is just kind of discussion questions.
This is just a starting point for the discussion.
We can talk about anything that you want to bring to us, um, at this point in the plan.
But some of the things that we thought might be worth touching on are new construction in the historic district, um, supporting private homeowners.
Um, with historic properties that are outside the historic district.
So sort of akin to what I was just talking about.
Maybe there are other ideas or things that you've seen that have worked well that we could lift up and include, um, managing the risk of demolition.
Um, you know, thinking about what, what are the best tools to do that?
Um, we know there's been some discussion about establishing a heritage commission as a potential kind of way to work on some of these different, um, uh, components.
Um, that's something that we're open to, but happy to kind of lift up and, um, include in a way that was helpful in the plan.
Um, looking at, uh, coastal resilience incentives for historic restoration work.
That's something that we've seen and, um, be effective in a lot of places where they're, um, trying to encourage adaptation while, um, preserving historic properties.
Um, Newport, Rhode Island is an example of a community that has a really robust program around that.
Um, and then lastly, thinking about, um, what would make, what make, what might make sense?
Um, and would you support some kind of additional review or protection of historic buildings and sites outside of the historic district, recognizing that you all have a significant workload?
Um, and so, um, we think there's a way to do that without adding to your workload, um, in a way that's unsustainable.
But we wanted to kind of have that conversation with you all and just kind of see, um, what sort of things we can, you know, bake into this plan that will help to create a, a productive, like balanced environment where you're, these important issues aren't being thrown to the wayside, but we also are sort of being thoughtful about how to weave them in with some of these other needs that we've been hearing, um, from the city.
So, I will stop talking there and the floor is yours.
Thank you.
Um, yeah, anybody would like, want to start, um, discussion, ask a question?
I think Kate wants to start.
Kate, yes, please.
Happy to start.
Um, thank you so much for this overview.
Um, so many of the things that you've mentioned are things that I've been working on for the last five years.
Great.
Um, and I haven't had a lot of progress.
So, um, I really appreciate the fact that you have highlighted, um, many of these issues, um, like, uh, changing zoning to allow for conversions, but at the same time trying to balance that preservation within a neighborhood.
Um, because we do have a lot of housing stock that doesn't suit our, our current, um, population, but at the same time, um, you want tasteful conversion so that it is, it fits within the neighborhood like you would see in the historic South End where you have multiple homes that have been converted into, um, condos or rental housing, but people think it's all single family homes.
So, there are ways to do that, um, and thinking about, um, form-based zoning potentially in areas that are not in the historic district to consider ways to, to provide that preservation element.
And then you can allow for conversion because I think there's danger there, as you say, this tension between changing the zoning from single family to allowing, uh, duplexes or multifamily without having those protections in place leads to, um, teardowns and loss of naturally occurring affordable housing.
So, I think it's, um, all these things have to work together.
I think the critical piece is these recommendations are fantastic, um, but, uh, the city will really need assistance in moving from these recommendations into the zoning code.
Um, that's, I think, where we struggle the most is transitioning ideas into code so that we can actually enact policies that work for us as a city.
Um, I'm particularly interested in the, um, housing, uh, preservation grant program.
That's something that I asked for several years ago, um, to establish a housing preservation trust program for homeowners that wanted to stay in their homes but couldn't make improvements, um, because of the cost at this stage of their lives or for whatever reason, um, that would allow them to make historically accurate improvements to their home, um, homes and therefore stay in their homes.
So I'd love to hear a little bit more about programs that work that way, um, and, uh, your recommendations on preservation of naturally occurring affordable housing that maintains existing stock, um, uh, and how, how a heritage commission can also help with that.
Because that was one of my requests was to look at a heritage commission.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So I think the, to start with sort of the, just to touch on the zoning relationship, one of the things that a master plan like this is really good at and designed to do is to give you a platform for that, those zoning updates.
That's not to, um, um, diminish the challenge of actually doing them, but this is the guidebook essentially to justify those zoning, zoning changes to make them, um, something that can be funded and pursued.
Um, and so I think making sure that if there are like zoning ideas that have come through in your work that we can embed in here and sort of, you know, documents that it's available as the city is embarking on kind of the next step of this, which would be looking at, among other things, looking at zoning changes that would make sense to implement.
Um, that's definitely something that we want to do.
So we've have, there's some things that we'll be including just based on, um, some of our observed, um, or analysis and sort of observations around common nonconformity.
So lot size is a huge one.
Um, setbacks is often another big one.
Um, so there's some like very, um, specific areas to zoom in on, but there are also more subtle questions of like roofline proportion.
You know, there's a lot of other factors that form-based code can be really effective at managing those.
And it also can get too complicated and become too cumbersome and not actually be like, it ends up being a deterrent.
So I think that's the kind of the, the, the balance here is kind of figure out like, what can we, what are the most important protections to establish that pattern?
Um, and how can we communicate that clearly for people so that they can pursue it and actually be successful?
Yeah.
I think along those lines for the form-based zoning, we have, and we've talked about this a lot, but we have several neighborhoods that are, you know, low hanging fruit that you could easily, um, establish some of this sort of character-based form-based zoning for like Atlantic Heights, like Owen Park, like, um, what is it?
What is it?
Sure.
Rable Haven.
Sure.
Rable Haven.
Thank you.
Um, and, and, and Pan Away.
Um, you know, all of these areas that historically were, I mean, were historic developments, and I say historic even though they're 20th century, they are now historic, um, would be very easy to implement those things to help, not necessarily preserve in a historic district way, but to prevent.
Tare downs and then, you know, some very, um, inappropriate infill that goes up that would then diminish everybody else's property values because you've got this giant thing that may be allowed by code, um, or zoning, but is not, um, going to contribute to the neighborhood at all.
So I would think that those areas would be something that you could easily, you know, get to first.
Yeah.
And it's also something to your, to go back to your point, Kate, about the sort of preservation, like programs that are, that also are compatible with or kind of help to preserve naturally occurring affordable housing.
Oftentimes, um, you can embed in the zoning certain incentives that, um, so this is something we've, we've done, um, in, uh, Newton, Massachusetts, where they had a lot of concern about tear downs based on how overheated the, um, real estate market was, um, and the new allowance of multifamily housing in areas that previously didn't allow it.
Um, and so there's a, the zoning code that we worked on with them essentially allowed you to build more units if you preserved the building that was there already.
Um, and there's, you know, lots of important details to that, but I won't sort of belabor the point.
But I think it's, zoning can be a really powerful tool to kind of set the pattern in a way that's mutually beneficial and doesn't necessarily restrict the number of units or the number of people that can be there,
but it changes the way that people are building.
And so I think that's, that's sort of where I think Portsmouth zoning can really help with, with this work.
And right now it's more like, it's kind of a dual system and, and Rick is here and he knows the zoning code probably a lot more, um, you know, at a finer grain of detail intimately than I, I do.
But it's, I know that you have kind of two, there's, it's the tale of two worlds.
There's kind of the character districts, right, which is like all the way, every detail.
And then there's your other zoning districts, which are much more permissive and, and lack some of the specificity that would help you with that pattern.
So I think it's, you, you maybe want to be somewhere in between.
Um, I don't know if you want to, I put you on the spot, but I don't know if you want to add to that at all.
You're good.
Yes, Larry, go ahead.
Yeah.
If you could go back to that slide where you had the points like one through five.
Um, I'd just like to comment on some of that.
This one?
Uh, no, no, no.
Are you talking about the recommendations?
Yeah, the recommendations, not that one.
The very end.
Not the draft goals.
Uh, I think it was back one.
No, key recommendations or something.
Yeah, that's fine.
Yeah, that's not the, not the same slide, but anyway, I can comment anyway.
Um, in, in terms of historic preservation and, uh, homes and stuff, if you look at what's
going on in the North End right now, you look at the North End historically and it was street
after street, house after house of single family homes or maybe extended family homes.
And what we're replacing it with is condoized boxes.
Uh, the one that is going up right now beside the Sheraton, I believe the units range from 890,000 to just over 3 million.
That ain't family friendly.
And, um, I think, and this is probably more appropriate for planning slash council, but if you look at allowing units to be built in these price ranges,
you're effectively saying, okay, we're building stuff that families can't afford.
So if you've got 2.3 children, sorry, you gotta be out there on the outskirts.
That's not fair.
If you back up 10 years, you could sit in the square and have a cup of coffee and see businessmen and women going to work with their backpacks or whatever.
You could see children going to school.
You don't see that now because families can't afford it.
So perhaps one of the things I would throw out since you're looking at master plans and recommendations,
perhaps consider a moratorium on these two, three million dollar condos.
We have one right now in the markets.
Five million, eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars.
That's not going to be a family with small children.
So perhaps consider a moratorium on some of this stuff.
You know, the other thing you said about trying to keep families within their historic homes and keep the historic homes together.
Well, that comes right back to town council budgets, which is the budgets keep spiraling.
The taxes go up.
So perhaps a recommendation would be look at leveling the budget, a budget freeze.
Perhaps people who are in historic homes, you know, maybe some kind of a rebate for a historic property or rebate for restoring a historic property.
This really hits home.
And without sounding a little too self-serving, if I go back about 12 years, our taxes were 14,400 a year.
Right now they're 23,800.
Now, by the grace of God, I can afford that.
But a family, again, with 2.3 children, they can't afford it.
And they're pushed out of the city.
Yeah.
So some of these things might be recommendations you might consider.
And it's stuff directly, you know, to council in terms of what are we going to allow developers to build.
So do you have more pointed ideas and comments about historic resources rather than affordability?
Well, I do in terms of historic resources because I think if you look at Miller Avenue, Richards Avenue, there's still families living there.
If the upward pressure on prices keeps going, I would go so far as to say you'd probably 10 years from now see less families live there.
So your point of how to keep families in historical homes is a good one, and I think that's something that needs to be researched.
And it's, you know, it's no secret that portsmouths becoming less and less affordable.
So the more you keep it affordable, the more you attract the demographic of which you're talking about.
And the things that you say about ecosystems and historical things like we talked about the North Mill Pond, that certainly attracts people to come here.
Yeah, so I think to your fiscal point, there is actually a lot of work.
I didn't highlight it for our presentation with you, but there's a lot of recommendations in the plan that are very much about fiscal health and sort of the approach to fiscal health.
Because we know, especially for moderate income homeowners, that's a huge driver of people's, you know, concerns about displacement or kind of ultimately having to move elsewhere.
And so this isn't, you know, we don't we don't talk about freezing the budget because it's not really something that this plan can do.
But what we do talk about is the development patterns that contribute to fiscal health.
And there's having more dense mixed use districts and particularly allowing more dense multifamily housing.
Those are the places right now that are contributing a lot of revenue to the city's resources.
And so this is one of the ways to kind of enable diverse housing while creating a fiscal stability around the patterns by which we're doing that.
So if we do all single family homes, that's going to keep happening, that kind of trend, it's just going to keep climbing.
And so we want to make sure that we have a mix that the city's zoning is allowing for that mix.
And so the neighborhood centers are kind of an idea about to your point.
There are places in the city that are performing well that have historic homes, whether it's, you know, mid century historic homes or kind of turn of the century historic homes that have that are still performing for families.
But if there isn't enough flexibility for those to become smaller units or add a, you know, a flat for an aging grandparent, add a small over the, you know, garage unit for a young adult who can't yet afford their own place.
Those are those that kind of flexibility can make a big difference in how long the current housing stock can perform for families can't undo what has happened already, but can help keep those options open for people.
I'll throw out one more thing.
And I've had more than one realtor tell me this.
A lot of the high end condos, the two, three, four million dollar units, they go not to somebody coming here and moving to Portsmouth.
A lot of them go to an out of state investor from New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, looking for a tax free address.
And nobody's looking over their shoulder to say, oh, you're not in New Hampshire 186 days a year.
So it goes back to what I think we allow to be built on what we say.
Perhaps no, too.
There are -- I hear you.
This is something we heard from a lot of people over the course of this process.
I'll add to that is that there's a limit to what you can do with regulations.
And some of the things that -- which absolutely are concerns that are impacting lots of people -- are tricky to regulate.
And some of them you can regulate elsewhere, but you can't regulate in New Hampshire in that way.
And so there's -- this is part of a broader conversation that I think this -- this master plan can present some of the reasons why those conversations are worth having and why it's worth advocating for those policy tools to give you more control over your development.
But there is a limit to what the current tools can control.
Understood.
Understood.
Thank you.
I have a question.
Joy?
I'm curious.
You commented on flooding and historic properties.
I personally live on a street that is flooding regularly.
Yeah.
And it's a historic -- in the historic district on Sears Street.
I know they're doing work in November with the pipes.
And I'm just curious if you could elaborate because that is -- I mean, several times the warehouse has had seawater in it.
Yeah.
And it's just barely missed my property.
And even like down in the south end near Geno's and all that, that's been -- I think it came up last week.
Yeah.
So I'm curious what the master plan would do to address that or support property owners on that.
Yeah.
So there's two ways that it's showing up now.
One is around zoning.
So there are regulations that can -- and you already have regulations that dictate what you can and cannot do in a floodplain in order to both protect you and protect property loss and collective impact of having a lot of people lose property or have negative impacts from flooding.
So that's already in place, but it isn't capturing the full range of risk that is likely to be presented to all the people in those areas over the course of the next couple decades as sort of climate change worsens as we experience more flooding at higher levels, more frequency.
A lot of the homes that are in waterfront areas were built with an expectation that certain parts of those houses would flood occasionally, but not at this frequency.
And many of those spaces have since been converted into living spaces.
So it's not a clean issue.
But what can be effective is combining regulations that kind of set a collective understanding of the risk that you're facing and what's required to be protected from it.
And then like incentive programs that can help people to meet that standard.
So typically zoning doesn't kick in until you've made enough of an investment that you're subject to the new regulations.
So a minor kind of improvement inside of your house might not trigger compliance with the current zoning.
But if you're making a substantial investment, it will.
And so that's something that a lot of properties will never make that leap because of the costs associated with upgrading the whole house to be resilient.
And so especially when you're talking about a historic property where you know that the cost of restoration work and alterations is already higher.
It's the chances of somebody not pursuing that changes is higher.
I think that we've had one property in the historic district that has had to do that and that's it.
Yeah. So I think being sort of the first piece is setting the rule like you need to figure out like what is the standard that we're holding people to that we think is the right standard is safe is accurately representing our best understanding of the flood risk that we're facing.
And then the second part is how do we make it possible for people to meet that standard.
And that is like getting creative with funding sources and also like technical assistance programs often are really effective where you're basically getting people in the door saying, hey, I'm in the floodplain.
I'd like to, you know, meet the standard.
I don't have the resources. Can you help me get started?
And saying, yes, these are your you know, given where you are, what your property type is, these are the funding opportunities that you have that you might be able to take advantage of.
And these are like a couple people who are, you know, pre-qualified contractors that have gone through some kind of certification process that know what they're doing.
So that's the kind of thing that I think has been effective.
And then there's also like for historic properties that are like, you know, landmarked or have a steward that's like a private organization, not an individual.
Those might have a mission based fundraising effort around that preservation work.
And that's something that in Newport, Rhode Island, there's a lot of work that's been driven by that.
But they're also, I think, trying to bridge into how do we help private property owners that are just, you know,
normal homeowners in a home that is not ready for the floods to to meet that that standard.
So is there anything, though, on the master plan for the city to do things along the waterfront to I mean, they're like I said,
they're going to be making some repairs to the pipes.
I see what you mean. Yeah. So for in for the infrastructure that the city has, so roads, you know, sewer utilities, all of that stuff.
Yes. The plan does name, you know, that there are certain areas that are need to be monitored to make those investments preemptively to protect the city and from.
But it's not we don't have a recommendation. There's like build a seawall that would prevent flooding in the in the districts, given how given the relationship that Portsmouth has with its waterfront.
There's a lot that you would lose by doing that and there's no guarantee that it would do what you need it to do.
So I think it's there's may still be infrastructure investments down the line that are aimed at reducing the risk that people face.
But there isn't like a hole in one infrastructure solution that will protect people from the flood risk.
One question a little bit unrelated might be I'm not sure if it's an easy question or not.
Just curious if like the zoning in the business district is being looked at at all.
Like I know there's several businesses and that are zone business in the main downtown that have been empty for years.
Like is there anything about that being looked at there is some in our recommendations.
One of the there's kind of recommendations that are focused on newer development.
So how do we what do we think about or how do we regulate ground floor retail and commercial spaces as part of new development.
But there's also like a lot of your existing districts have a requirement for active frontage.
But don't that the zoning only goes so far as you need to build the space not that you need to have a you can't require somebody to have a tenant in it.
And so as the price of those spaces is going up and the relative benefit to the property owners of pursuing and securing and working with a tenant is not that they're getting enough cash flow from their upper
stories they might just choose to leave it vacant.
And that's a numbers decision and a skills decision.
So in most cases like incentives are going to be more effective at getting those spaces filled.
But it's a frustrating problem to have because you have a beautiful downtown that an endless number of businesses would want to be in.
So there is no shortage of people who want to be in those spaces, but there may be financial issues with the back end that's resulting in those spaces remaining empty.
And conversion costs too on these historic.
Yes.
So it's like I have a historic space.
Mm hmm.
And it cost me five times.
Yes.
The fit out cost is often really so that that's.
Economical.
Yes.
Bankrupts.
Yes.
Understood.
Yeah.
So that's when you signed up for it.
We had no idea.
And because you can't get an estimate ahead of time.
Right.
Yep.
That's a great point.
And so that's where when you kind of similar to the, you know, flooding based restoration sort of work or the, you know, conversions to support greater housing diversity.
When there's these kind of intersections of like there's a larger goal that the master plan is clearly upholding, which is we want a vibrant business community that is inclusive, that has lots of opportunities and spaces for people.
And we know this is a barrier to achieving that.
And it's not just historic preservation.
It's also this thing.
That's where I think there's a lot of opportunities for getting creative about there.
There are different pots of money that are assigned for one or the other.
But when you know that you're when the and when the master plan is making clear, you know, this is really connected.
It is legitimate to pull resources from this bucket and put it into this thing that we would conventionally think of as being a historic preservation project.
But it's actually an economic development project that has a historic preservation component.
So there are, for instance, we work with the 195 district in Providence, they have a different context, they have new construction, but they have a loan program to mitigate the costs of the initial investment in the space to get it to like a warm white shell, as they describe it, that is more ready for a business to come in.
So sort of to defray some of that initial investment to just get it to the point where it's actually a tenantable space.
Like I'm thinking of the dolphin striker.
I don't know what's going on there, but it's been empty for like at least four years.
And anyone, you know, was there.
Yeah, I'm sure there's a particular backstory for each one of these.
But yeah, I think it's it's an example.
Yeah, no, I think it's it's a good thing to raise, especially it's often a sign of a lot of intersecting issues coming to the fore. Right.
There's there's got to be a reason why somebody would leave a storefront like that vacant.
Well, I know that the cost to bring it up to code is it.
Right.
Yeah.
Because it wasn't touched for 40 or 50 years.
Right.
And that's I think.
Yeah.
So any business that's been there for 40 or 50 years, not to mention the potential fire hazard.
I think about that because I'm next to the or house and, you know, they haven't been they've been in business for 45 years.
So I just want to make sure that you I'm sure you have seen and reference the I think it was a 2019 study that we did.
It was a joint project with the committee, some of us from the HCC and some from the Conservation Commission looking at the flooding it to historic properties.
OK.
Yeah.
So that is let me toggle to it quickly.
So I think it's so in this I know the text is very small for you to see from where you are.
So I'm sorry.
But the first bullet point want the point one.
Yeah.
So that's we've called that out as basically like implementing the recommendations from that is what we suggest doing in addition to this other kind of, you know, resilience zoning piece, which is more kind of widespread.
It's not just for historic properties, but that's absolutely in there because it definitely stood out as a, you know, very well structured and clear recommendations that can be moved on.
Yeah.
I'm sorry.
I'm going to let Martin have a turn.
Heritage districts.
What can you tell me about those?
Where are we looking at in terms of Portsmouth?
Are we, is that some.
Heritage Commission?
Yes.
Okay.
Did I say district?
Yeah.
Heritage Commission.
Yeah.
Tell me about it.
Yeah.
So I'm, I have worked with them in some other communities.
I'm not yet familiar with the inner workings of what they open up, like what opportunities they open up for you.
But I think the big picture is that it gives you a broader, a tool to have that broader sort of set of resources and oversight that isn't limited just to your historic districts,
but is, is sort of more holistic and looking at the city as a whole.
And I imagine that Reagan, you may know more about this than I do.
So others feel free to speak to it on my behalf.
But I think the idea is that the plan could lift that up as a tool to facilitate these ideas to help with, you know, balancing this, you know, how do we protect historic resources and carry forward our historic patterns without adding too much burdensome regulation to people, but sort of strike that balance between the two.
Is it a, is it a federal designation or is it?
No, it's, I mean, I'm sure Kate's done a bunch of research and she can call this through, but it is a, your city can set up whatever parameters you want for your heritage commission.
But it can take on the extra work that we don't have time to do, like any advocacy, education, you know, offering sort of resources, feedback to homeowners, property owners that are outside of the district.
I mean, really our focus is so specific and a heritage commission looks at and can get grants and have work done, surveys and stuff, but it's for the whole city rather than just what they're established.
But it's not a regulatory body.
No.
No, no.
Okay.
I don't know if you want to add me.
I think that's, that's the key to a heritage commission.
It provides that over overarching support around education on the importance of, of preservation and heritage and can also help identify resources that we have in the city that maybe we're not protecting and help provide support to either the owners or to neighborhoods to talk about, you know, how do we in the long term preserve areas that maybe aren't being preserved?
Um, how do we provide those protections outside of the historic district?
And so, um, having that conversation I think is really critical and this board does not have the time.
This board really is truly a regulatory board.
So that just serves more of that educational function.
Yeah.
I think that also kind of a lot of the ideas that we've, you know, uh, enumerated in these recommendations, like would be more coherent and connected if they were nested under,
and sort of overseen by, um, a heritage commission that was thinking about the, this set of programs holistically in relationship to the work that you do.
Um, so I think that's, that's kind of, it's, it's both the literal sort of capacity and also the conceptual framework to like make it cleaner that like not all historic questions come to you.
You have a specific charge.
You're doing it.
It's very labor intensive.
It's important.
And there are lots of other questions and like resources out there that can help with the bigger picture.
Um, and this might be a way to like organize that work, um, and support that work and then to your point go after, um, like centralized funding opportunities that are related to it.
And, and just one more question.
Is, is there ever a point in time where you consider the zoning and the master planning for a community becoming overgrown to where it's congested where traffic no longer functions as it should?
I mean, I'm not saying we're necessarily there as a community, but I do have my concerns.
Yeah.
So, I mean, I think most communities that are experiencing a lot of investment and growth, like what you've been experiencing, have this question.
Um, and sometimes I think it, it feels, it's a lot of pressure and change.
And I think most people who are living here are feeling that shift, right?
Is it, there's more people traveling around.
There's, um, it's, it may be harder to get places.
Um, a lot of that is not as absolute as it may seem.
It's not necessarily about the number of people, but how people are getting around and what opportunity, like how things are relate to one another.
And so one of the things that has come out in this planning process is just the duality of Portsmouth's downtown versus the kind of relative lack of amenities and resources.
That are like, you know, clustered and sort of support that the same kind of like lifestyle that you can get downtown.
It's just, there's no other alternative.
And so if you think about the whole region, relying on that one spot, it's not just Portsmouth.
It's, it's all of the communities around you, right?
That's creating the pressure.
Um, and so the plan doesn't, you know, draw a line in the sand, but one of the ways that it's being framed in the plan is like, as we're doing.
Um, and so I think it's like, as we're experiencing this growth and change, we need to think of our neighborhoods as places that can serve people's needs within the neighborhood better so that those neighborhoods can support this change in a way that's going to be, you know, going to work with what people love about Portsmouth.
And a lot of people who are living all over the region talk about how walkable and vibrant and exciting and fun the downtown is, um, and are frustrated at not being able to access it as easily because of what you're describing, right?
The number of people that are trying to access it.
Um, and some of that is, yes, just the number of people, but a lot of it is how people are getting downtown and the lack of options for people outside of downtown.
Um, so that's kind of the, that's where this plan is sort of leading.
Um, but that will always be a question, right?
As, uh, is it too much?
Um, but it's, I would venture to say that's a good problem because it means you have something that you all love and gets people excited.
Um, and it's a, it's a hard problem, but it's, um, yeah.
Yes, Larry.
Divert Amtrak from Dover to Portsmouth.
Okay.
That's just a, that's just a light jazz.
I mean, that's part of the thinking, right?
It's like all of the, the transportation network matters.
I mean, I'm not going to say like.
Yeah, no, that was just for common relief.
But it's, it's, it's good to think about.
I think it's, it's, you know, balancing, you know, what kind of infrastructure can support the way that we want to grow.
Right.
I want to, uh, throughout the little while ago, you were talking about attracting businesses to downtown Portsmouth.
And if we just look at downtown Portsmouth right now, uh, the health of the retail business, uh, Joy has a vibrant retail trade.
My wife has a vibrant retail trade, but right now there's at least five, I think possibly six vacant storefronts in downtown Portsmouth.
Why?
Because the rents are sky high.
Yeah.
Newburyport.
There's one.
We're fat-paced, one out of business.
That, I think, tells a story.
And what I was talking about earlier, like affordability for families, I think directly translates to affordability for businesses.
And they go hand in hand.
You know, if you have, uh, a town that has a vibrant downtown with, that can support, you know, single families, you know, you, chances are you probably have a fairly healthy retail establishment trade too.
So while a couple of my fellow councilors here were talking, I did a little quick chat GPT comparison.
We all know the Back Bay in Boston is insanely expensive.
So I said chat GPT, average cost of housing in the Back Bay compared to the historic core of Portsmouth.
Back Bay, I'm reading right from it, 1.4 million to 1.8 million.
Monthly rents, 3,300 to 3,500.
Portsmouth, the historic core, 900 to 1.7, pops out the same.
Monthly rent, 3,000.
So we are at the point where we're as expensive for all practical purposes as the Back Bay of Boston, Newberry Street.
You know, and that was the real world example of what I was speaking of earlier.
But, uh, I think somewhere in the master plan there has to be a way to somehow address this.
I don't have the solution.
I threw out some ideas.
Um, yeah, I think that the, so there's a, there's similar to the fiscal piece.
There's a section that is really focused on, um, the economy and within that on businesses.
Um, not to sound like a broken record, but the neighborhood center idea is part of our suggested approach to that is that's kind of can be like a, um, a place that has a lower barrier and barrier to entry where people, where businesses can get a start and build up to the, the sort of premium of being downtown.
Um, but also there are other, you know, there are programs out there that can help to, you know, reduce, um, the, uh, the cost of, um, commercial spaces for particular, like local businesses, et cetera.
Um, and also there are regulations that can limit, um, the presence of large chain stores, which I would say Newberry street is a flagship store location for large chains.
There are very few local businesses there.
Um, I grew up in the Boston area and, uh, it's, it's dramatic, but it does, they can afford that premium.
And so I think we don't have to recognize that in Portsmouth that is happening.
Right.
And so we can't fully prevent it because you can't regulate income of, you know, that's not a thing.
Um, but we can create incentives and create programs to support people and we can create alternatives that can help people build up to it.
So that's kind of the, the way the, the plan is positioning that.
Exactly.
And I think two great examples within the U S, uh, Charleston, South Carolina, the historic core, but then right across the bridge, you got Mount Pleasant, which has its own, you know, shopping, uh, you know, professional places, uh, and its own retail center.
People in Mount Pleasant doesn't necessarily have to go into downtown Charleston.
Uh, same thing with different areas in Franklin, Tennessee.
Yeah.
So I think there's, I think that's absolutely part and parcel and I think it's, it's pertinent to our discussion tonight because it intersects so much with your historic built fabric.
Like this issue, like the housing issue, um, of like, how do we create diverse housing for Portsmouth?
That's going to work while preserving the homes and the buildings that we love that are part of the pattern of Portsmouth that people come here for and stay here for.
Um, and similarly for the business community, like downtown Portsmouth is, is your historic core and it's frustrating and sad to see a lot of businesses struggling to get a foothold there.
Um, and so we can figure out ways to kind of make sure that the historic aspects aren't a barrier to that.
And also that there are other supports in place that can keep the uses inside of the buildings that make together are good.
Yeah.
Exactly.
Okay, Kate.
Um, so I really appreciate, uh, Regan highlighting some of the neighborhoods that, um, are relatively intact.
They're post-war neighborhoods.
Um, I think the highest risk neighborhoods that we should be thinking about are Little Harbor neighborhood.
Um, the middle, middle street to, um, Islington, Islington, uh, Creek neighborhood as well.
Mm-hmm.
That basically is middle street to North Mill Pond, um, areas that are adjacent to the downtown core.
Yeah.
Those are the areas that we're seeing the greatest loss of, um, historic buildings.
Yeah.
Um, and, uh, we don't have any means of protecting them beyond Islington and Middle.
Right, right.
Um.
That's a bright line.
And yeah, you have limited tools.
Mm-hmm.
Well, maybe no tools to work with outside of.
Exactly.
And I don't think it's, I don't think it's key that there's a preservation review in the way
that the Historic District Commission does review these properties.
I think the concern is more the changing nature of the neighborhoods, um, because of teardowns
and rebuilding of, of housing stock that is, that doesn't match the existing housing.
Yeah.
So, I think that that's a really critical piece to think about.
And I've, I've watched these neighborhoods shift.
Um, uh, I think that people in Portsmouth aren't aware of just how bad it can be.
Um, my uncle lived in Park, on Park Lane in Dallas, which is near the downtown core.
Mm-hmm.
Which was all bungalows and, uh, 1930s and '40s, uh, Georgian revivals.
And it is now all three and four story homes that are built lot line to lot line.
Yep.
Um, they were all torn down.
Yeah.
And I think that's the, the sort of, the, the dual, um, tools there are really, there's
like the, managing the demolition, right?
There's the, that's like a, a, you know, a moment in time, there's a big risk.
There's a lot of decisions made and having some tools to manage that.
And then the other is, if there's a demolition, what can you build back?
Um, and is, is the zoning actually equipped to deliver something that matches or has some
relationship to you?
And in many cases it's not, which is related to this, the analysis that we had done of nonconformities,
which is basically just to kind of anywhere you're seeing like a more of a red or an orange hue.
That's something that does not fit what your zoning allows.
Um, that is smaller or, you know, has another kind of constraint.
Um, and so if that's the pattern, which often these are smaller, more modest homes on smaller
lots, when those are demolished, what's built back as something larger.
Um, and especially if, if multifamily is not allowed, it will be a larger, more luxury single
family home.
And so I think that there's, there's a lot of tension and debate about, you know, historic
preservation and, you know, housing being at odds.
Um, there are certainly cases where that's true, but in many it's a much more complicated
interweaving of the two.
And so I think this is the neighborhoods that you've described that are right at the edge.
They're, they're historic neighbors.
They have small lots, small homes that are close together.
Um, making it possible for people to build that again.
Um, and also to modify those reasonably cause they all are out of conformance now.
So they, they aren't allowed to add anything.
So if you live in one of those homes and you want to, let's say like add a ground floor bedroom,
because you need one to be able to stay in your home, you might just not be able to period.
Um, so that's something that we want to kind of create a little bit of room there to, of, to help deter the tear.
There will still be teardowns, um, that are built back with, you know, luxury single family homes, but, um, making it so there are other options and other.
We can manage that a little bit, um, better.
I would love to see recommendations like that.
Um, because it, it allows for preservation while expanding housing options in these neighborhoods.
It's very critical.
Um, and also I want to make sure that I highlight the issue of flooding.
Um, when you make recommendations to the city on historic preservation and, and flooding risk,
um, I would love to see a recommendation that makes it clear that it's not just the homeowner's responsibility
or the business owner's responsibility to deal with, uh, flooding and flooding adaptation,
that the city has a responsibility because of the value of these districts, um, to the long-term economics of the community.
Um, I would love to see a recommendation on a historic property flooding adaptation program.
Um, for the city, which, um, to this point, the city understands that, you know, well, we have zoning that says you can't build back.
But if that's the extent of what the city of Portsmouth does to support, um, people that are in this situation,
ultimately we will lose, um, some very valuable, um, properties that are not just valuable to the homeowners,
but are valuable to the, the culture of the city.
Yeah.
I think that's a great point.
I think that all across the U.S. right now it's a tricky one because there's very limited resources at the federal level and the state level to support that kind of work,
which means that it is, um, landing on municipal budgets to bankroll that work,
which is not to say that that shouldn't be part of what happens, but it is competing against a lot of other demands.
And as, um, uh, Larry had mentioned earlier, right?
As people are experiencing the tax increases that that relationship is hard to manage.
And so I think one of the things that this plan can do is, is give you a platform to pursue the kind of, there is still grant money out.
There is still philanthropic money out there.
Um, and it's a little tricky to get that into private hands.
Um, but there are ways to kind of look at our, is there kind of like a district scale intervention that can be funded through a, you know, a targeted grant that is pursued.
I think that's an area where, um, you know, the city staff is not here, so I'm not going to commit them to something in their absence.
But I think that's the kind of thing that the master plan can do for this kind of issue is give you a stronger platform to pursue funding.
Um, and, uh, I also hope that at some point there is also public sector funding available to support this at a higher level, but that's not our current reality.
I would hope so.
I'm looking at programs that are more around the city providing technical assistance for homeowners.
So you can at least to some degree, cut your own personal costs in making these adaptations because the city has already thought about, developed a guide, um, for homeowners and business owners that are in these areas.
And, and has recommendations for places where you pursue assistance.
Mm-hmm.
Um, so it's more of a tech, a technical function now.
Yeah.
And, and then you can start thinking about a trust program.
Yeah.
That would help fund that.
Yeah.
Absolutely.
Thanks.
Margo?
Yeah.
Um, so I have a lot of different, different notes here.
Um, thinking about non-conforming neighborhoods, uh, to my view, rather than trying to force, I'm going to use the word modern loosely, um, zoning expectations onto these older neighborhoods, we should conform to them.
Mm-hmm.
Mm-hmm.
And I think you were getting to that point with, you know, trying to protect non-conforming buildings.
Yeah.
And so on.
Um, so absolutely for that, because I feel that, um, those areas are probably where you're going to find your opportunities for the variety of housing stock that you need to support a variety of different, uh, family needs, income levels, and so on.
Um, but it's also going to save some of the districts that are in the most jeopardy.
Um, I'm thinking specifically of the one area of Portsmouth that allows for non-owner-occupied rental.
Um, I can't tell you, even 20 years ago when I arrived here, the number of people when I said I lived on Union Street was like, "Oh yeah, my first apartment was on Union Street."
Mm-hmm.
It was like the, um, the birthplace of, of residents who, people who moved to Portsmouth from all over.
All over the region will cite that, yeah.
You know, they were, they were the students who graduated from the ONH who wanted to stay nearby.
It was the people who were starting out with their very first job.
They had an apartment somewhere in a building in the Union Cabot area.
Yeah.
And that stock has disappeared or shrunk significantly with the advent of the Airbnb.
Yeah.
Those apartments that used to have a couple of, you know, students in their early 20s in them now are renting just in the summertime and empty in the weekend, in the wintertime because it's more economical.
Um, and we have not addressed Airbnb, you know, do we, do we regulate it or do we not, has, in my view, not been well handled.
That it should, the Airbnb should be allowed when there is somebody living in the building, um, so that they can properly police and make sure that the neighborhood is not harmed by the presence of these people who are coming and going.
Um, but also, you know, leads to having some of that apartment stock staying as opposed to, to being converted to the low use Airbnb situation.
Um, I think also parking requirements, public transportation, ride share, all of these things also play into how dense you, your neighborhood can be.
And if density leads to more affordability and yet you have parking requirements that don't support the density or you don't have a public transit infrastructure or ride share programs, it, you're not going to be able to achieve what you want in those neighborhoods.
Even in the historic district where, um, it's not affordable housing, those houses are not inexpensive.
It's difficult for people to live there because of the parking requirements and the fact that, you know, they want to have two cars or they need to have access to two modes of transportation.
Um, but we don't have a ride share plan that allows somebody to have one car permanently that they can put somewhere on the street and then a ride share that will deal with, you know, that time when you need two cars.
Um, so having some sort of plan around, um, around that is also going to help with people staying in their homes and affordability and different housing stocks, um, being available.
Um, stewarding other neighborhoods, I think, I think that's been discussed, uh, so I'm not going to go through that here.
You talked about neighborhood centers and I talked with somebody when you made your presentation several months ago about just exactly how that's going to work.
Yeah.
I think that when I moved here, the west end of Portsmouth, meaning from basically, uh, Maplewood West was considered sort of a section of the city.
And yet when I bought out there, a lot of savvy people said, yeah, that's where the next downtown is.
And to a certain extent we've been able to achieve that because the Plaza 800, the Islington street area all contains buildings that are smaller in scale.
Yeah.
Gallagher place, uh, the, the commercial area along Islington street, the buildings, the mill building, the brewery buildings that have been converted have all been done mostly on a smaller scale, except for the grocery store.
Yep.
The new building, the new apartment building on brewery lane, that thing rented out in, in no time at all because it was located in an area that was a neighborhood center.
But when you try to replicate that somewhere out on Lafayette, where the historic buildings that are there now are not those smaller.
Yeah, no, you're, you're not starting with that strong foundation.
And I'm not sure where else in the city other than the West End.
It's the only thing.
And I would even say that, I mean, I think the West End is the closest thing you have to a functioning neighborhood center.
And it still is lacking some of the things that a full, a complete neighborhood center would have.
There's not much open space.
Um, there's a really strained connection through Bartlett, you know, between the housing density, new housing density and the existing commercial assets.
Um, the street kind of opens up, uh, to, you know, the sort of larger industrial buildings.
And so I think there's still work to be done there, but it, it shows an indication of what's possible.
Um, and it's already getting a lot of what you're describing.
Like, you know, there's a clear demand and interest in it.
It's offering something that, um, is different from what is available elsewhere in Portsmouth.
In the places that don't have that historic built fabric from the turn of the century or, you know, the mill buildings and, um, sort of the factory buildings.
Um, it's, there's less to work with, but there's also a lot of room for creative site planning that includes open space amenities and really thoughtful parking solutions that are hard to achieve in the West End because of the street network and the pattern that you have there now.
So it's, it's hard to do well, but it has, there are lots of places that design neighborhood centers from, you know, the ground up and do a really good job at sort of pairing all those things together.
Um, the challenge in Portsmouth is those places are not under single ownership.
They're not going to be developed by a single person.
And so that's why we've highlighted them in the master plan is because for them to kind of mature in that way, there's going to need to be a strong hand from the municipal, um, sort of team guiding that.
Um, because it has to, the, uh, the capital investments and decisions about like community amenities, open spaces, et cetera, have to be really thoughtful and connected to like the larger transportation network.
To your point, like it should be a place where you can service it by a bus that like could actually carry more than three people.
Um, you know, so I think there's some of that bigger picture planning and design work that needs to be done to set those places up for success because there's so little there now to queue off of.
That's like a pattern that is indicating how to have a neighborhood center there.
There's, it's basically a lot of strip mall patterns.
And so that's gives you a lot of land to work with as you think about how to reinvent it.
But you have to really imagine a different future.
And that requires a bit more guidance from the city than development in a typical, an area that already has a very strong pattern.
Um, so that's kind of the, the reason it's highlighted is exactly why you're saying it's like,
it's not obvious how to make that happen, but I think that's what Portsmouth needs.
You need, you need that more than one place.
That zoning needs to happen as quickly as possible because the longer it waits, the harder, the more it's just going to be the way it is.
And, and just get worse and worse and worse and then it's harder to, to pull that back.
A couple of things regarding the question of affordability and, and downtown.
So many years ago there was a CDBG grant program available that allowed people who had been in their homes a very long time,
but met certain income thresholds that the, the city or the grant would, um, fix their home.
And when the home sold, because these were usually people who were.
Yeah.
I'm familiar with this.
House rich, but, but cash poor.
Um, when it sold, they, the city got paid off or the grant got paid off.
And I think that that kind of program would be ideal for lots of different areas of the city,
where we have people who are at risk of losing their homes and not being able to stay in their homes.
And it's just because they can't fix them up either because they're in a historic district and it costs more to fix them up,
or they're just somewhere where they've just been there forever and the house is, is falling apart.
And with regard to businesses downtown and this question of fitting up, um, I, and I don't know if this is possible,
but it never, it never made sense to me that the requirements for life safety and other technical zoning allows a property to fall behind and fall behind and fall behind and fall behind.
So that when something finally happens, either it burns down or something bad happens, or it finally sells, the cost to refit and get it up is so incredibly difficult
that it causes a problem with trying to sell it and trying to fit it up for the next, the next tenant.
If there's a way to change that and somehow that has people have to bring things up to speed in a periodic way so that you don't have that barrier.
I don't even know if that's possible, but I'm throwing, I'm throwing that out.
And I'll point out that I think, um, Newbury port, Newbury street and downtown Portsmouth were very successful
and having small independent businesses for a long time because the footprint of the building itself wouldn't support the big, huge flagship stores.
And now that we're having modern buildings in the North End, those flagship stores are going to be able to go there,
which means that the smaller mom and pop things can, can stay in downtown.
But I think it's important that we keep those buildings small if we can so that they're less expensive to outfit.
They support a variety of retail opportunities.
Um, and, and I'm not sure how that happens, but I think that we're lucky that we have those small footprints,
even though it does cause, um, some stress on the people who are trying to run those businesses.
Um, I think, yeah, I think that, I think that did it.
I'm just gonna quickly touch on the, um, if it's okay, the code reform that there is kind of a,
this code is set at the state level.
Um, so the rules around that, there's a limited control here, but I think the, the ways, and again, it's, it kind of comes down to money,
but one of the ways to do that is to incentivize compliance, like early, you know, encourage people to incrementally invest in that way.
Um, and also at like, you know, speak up about those as barriers, because I think a lot of times when we pursue at the state level,
when we pursue life safety code changes, it's not, um, the people setting those rules don't engage with the financial trade-offs that they're setting in motion.
Um, and if they're not hearing about it, they don't know about it.
Um, and so that's, it's, there's not a, it's not an easy choice, right?
Um, but if the result is places not investing and falling behind and becoming more unsafe, that's not achieving the life safety regulations goals.
So this is an active conversation all over the country right now.
Um, it's going to be really slow moving, but, um, I think it's worth a conversation that's worth having and the specific stories you're raising should have some relevance to that conversation.
Um, but we can at a minimum sort of flag this, this, this lag of the, the code compliance lag is, is creating an investment barrier.
Um, and that having tools to address that would help.
I think it's more acute the older your buildings are.
Yes, absolutely.
Which certainly Portsmouth has a lot of older buildings.
All right, Larry.
I was going to, uh, add a comment here in support of what Margaret said about the West End.
I think one of the reasons also the West End works is developer Chinberg said, we're not going to have two and $3 million condos.
I know I keep throwing out that number, but rather he has affordable rental units.
So that attracts people.
Um, you know, they can come in there and rent where maybe they can't purchase or rent in the core of downtown.
So that has helped I think make the West End affordable and vibrant.
Uh, this comes back to a planning function.
But, uh, we're allowing one developer, uh, in downtown to do co-living.
Now, if you're a young urban professional, you just graduated, you got your four year degree.
Uh, maybe you got your masters or if you're a master electrician or a master plumber because you're making darn good money too.
Or if you're a family with one or two children, you're not going to want to share a kitchen or whatever with somebody else.
The co-living arrangement that we've allowed, I think actually we're wasting what could be valuable, vibrant rental space in downtown Portsmouth by this co-living pie in the sky notion.
Uh, I don't see it playing out in the long term.
You're not going to get the kind of people coming into downtown to rent to restore your downtown vibrancy.
The very things that you talked about, I don't think co-living is conducive to that.
That's all I have to say.
Yeah, that's the, that's at the risk of the building owner, developer.
So we'll see.
No, I knew that, but it has to be approved by planning.
I think, sorry, I won't comment at length on this because I think it's, it's sort of a, I'm sure there's active conversations about it in the community.
But, um, I think what, uh, what the plan can do is encourage and allow more, or it can, it can set in motion changes to regulations that will encourage and allow more diverse housing.
What you're getting right now is a byproduct of what's allowed and what's profitable.
And part of the part that you, you can't control what's profitable necessarily.
You can contribute money to change the equation, but you can control what's possible.
And when there are more things that are possible, there are more alternatives that could cash flow and that a developer might choose or that a private, you know, a property owner might choose to invest in their property differently because they have different motivations.
Um, but I think it's, unfortunately, there isn't a way to control that, you know, the price point, the specific product that they're proposing, but it's, it's that diversity of trying different things and seeing what works that helps us figure out what housing solutions we need today.
To your point, the, you know, the rental housing that used to perform that sort of entry level function for people doesn't exist in a lot of places.
Um, and people my age are willing to try a lot of different things to be able to live in a place that's exciting to them and that gives them opportunities.
So I don't know where we'll land, but we can make it more flexible than it is now.
I just have one last question.
And this is, I realized from this conversation, I don't know the answer to this.
I feel a sentiment or I hear that there's some city councilors that don't like the historic district or we think they think we're over-regulated or we go out of our lane or something.
And, but yet here, it's very clearly a key part of the master plan.
I guess I'm just curious what the legal protect or protection for lack of word, like, is it one vote, like one city council vote away to not have a historic district or is it like deep embedded in our ordinances to have a historic district is what I'm just curious about.
Um, that I don't actually know.
Okay.
But somebody else in the room might.
Okay.
Yeah.
That's a, Kate, I don't know if you want to hear it.
My opening, I can't aware.
It's complicated.
It's an ordinance change.
I mean, it's, but it's, that's three votes and a notice and hearings, public hearings.
And it would be significant zoning code change.
Yeah.
So it would, it would take a while.
It would be a big deal.
And it has to go, it has to be a request to the planning board because the planning board has to initiate changes to the zoning court.
So that the council can ask the planning board to work on it.
And then the planning board has to come back with a recommendation to the council where the council can take action.
So it's kind of a process.
Sure.
I understand.
But, but then it's three votes at the council.
Or three.
The master plan also.
It's such a big part of this.
Yeah.
I mean, I think the, the, the overarching tone of this document is about balance.
Yeah.
Like Portsmouth is not here today as a wonderful community because you've chosen to do one thing and one thing only.
Mm-hmm.
It's the mix of everything that's here that's making this place special.
And so that, that we're trying to carry that forward.
Say like, what is, how do we balance all these things?
And it's hard and it's not like a, a, you know, if it was easy, it would have been done already.
But I think the, the linkage here, and this might be something that's worth you elaborating on Rick, if I don't quite nail it, but the master plan is a tool to justify and sort of support zoning changes.
It's generally frowned upon to pursue a zoning change that is in conflict with a master plan.
So this is not, it cannot like prevent you from facing that risk, but this is saying historic preservation has a role to play.
There is a clear relationship between this and the goals that we've heard from people in Portsmouth.
There may be some wrinkles to work out.
There may be some challenges that you're dealing with, but that doesn't mean that the whole thing isn't a worthy pursuit.
Mm-hmm.
If there's, if I overstepped there.
Okay.
I have a couple of things I want to, a couple of points I want to make.
I just want to make sure if Susan has any comments or questions, I'll give you a chance.
At every point where I thought I might have something to say, somebody else brought it up, so I'm at this point absorbing everything.
Yeah, okay.
Thank you.
Good.
I think to follow up on what you were just saying, Zoe, you know, you're, there's so much in here and in this language that is, you know, the authenticity and our, you know, historic characters important.
And I think that really what we can say here and show here that the Portsmouth, Portsmouth's character is historic.
It's not that the, you know, it, that's the basis of its character.
It's not, this is such an old city that, you know, you can't ignore it.
You can't say, you know, this, that it has been built up and it has, you know, its character is that it is, you know, it has really colorful buildings or has lots of bridges.
You know, I don't know, it, this is the, the, the history of Portsmouth is what has created its character.
And those for a lot of different reasons.
One of the main reasons is that Portsmouth was poor and did not have a lot of resources for a very long time.
And that actually prevented a lot of new development over time.
And so this is why we have, we still have our historic buildings, because nobody had the money to replace them.
And so I, you know, all of these neighborhood districts that we're working, that we're looking at and working towards because that's what people, you know,
and all these flash votes and stuff have said that they wanted is just a reflection of a traditionally historic development of a neighborhood.
And so I think that that is really the core of this, and that's why I really wanted to talk to you and make sure that we got this conversation about the master plan.
Because despite, you know, many people in the community who are against regulating and against the historic district, you can't.
I mean, that's who we are is.
I think most people, even those that are critical, would be hard pressed to claim that Portsmouth would be just as special if you didn't have the mix of historic buildings and the walkable sort of downtown and the neighborhoods that surround it.
I think the challenge is figuring out how to hold on to that, the things that people love about it, while allowing enough change that it doesn't become a museum.
Right.
And I think that's the, you know, I think some of the questions raised about the uses inside the building, all of the people who are inside the building, if no one can live here that works here, it's not the same community anymore.
And so I think that's what the mastermind is trying to say, like, we can do both things.
It won't be perfect, but like, we don't need to say it's one or the other.
And in fact, we're like doing ourselves a disservice if we do, because even the people who are, you know, clamoring for affordable housing options, they're also a lot of them want to be here in part because of the experience that this place offers.
And so this is not a easy issue to solve.
And it's not going to be solved.
It's going to be like a forever constant work in progress effort.
And so I think this is just trying to open up the sort of neighborhood center idea is trying to open up a way to pursue what people love about Portsmouth's downtown already in a way that is less restrictive and completely in conflict with some of the constraints that your downtown has, because it's not the only land in Portsmouth.
And Portsmouth made this pattern.
You can make a pattern that's exciting and good for people in these other places.
It's just a lot of these places were developed kind of in a rush in the post-war era when Portsmouth was growing a lot.
And there was an urgent need and there were new technologies to meet that need and a new scale to build at.
And so I think it's there's a blend that can take some of the pressure off of your really treasured sort of historic patterns,
give a little bit more flexibility for those patterns to do what they need to do today and make room for for the needs that can't be met inside of those buildings or in those places.
And to that point too, one of the things that we've talked about for a couple years now just on the commission is looking at our boundaries and whether or not is it time, you know,
these boundaries for our regulatory district were set up at several along the way.
It was it started in the downtown South End area in 1978, I believe.
And then there were, you know, Middle Street was added in a terrible way.
And we're trying to correct that.
And then Islington Street was added in a few different places were added here and there over time.
All of our regulations have a similar history everywhere.
And so, you know, is it time now to go back and kind of revisit what we have with our current boundaries for the district
and say, are we, you know, are there areas that are at risk that are very, you know, nearby our current boundaries?
And then are there areas that really don't need to be in the district, you know, don't need our regulation and oversight anymore like the North End,
which was put in the district so that there would be some sort of regulatory architectural, you know, design.
It's a recognition of the absence of any other tool that really gives you the control you need to create those patterns.
But now that that's pretty much developed, there's not really much empty land to build on anymore.
You know, why, why does the historic district commission need to regulate new construction, you know, in a whole neighborhood?
So, you know, so that's one of the things I want to make sure is discussed in here because that's another holistic thing that we can keep talking about.
But we need better support and momentum.
Yeah, I think that one of the this is there's other places in the plan that address sort of design guidelines more generally.
This is just highlighting the like specific intersection with historic.
But I think that's that's an I think the absence of other tools that are about pattern and design and experience of space and neighborhoods is putting more on your plate.
That is not actually about historic preservation.
It is about creating desirable neighborhood patterns that work well for people that like to walk and live in close proximity to the things that they like doing.
So I think there is that's been mushed together and they're not actually the same thing.
So I think this can that's it's going to be hard to figure out the right balance because right now you have like a lot of regulation like enough that people are being feeling like it's a deterrent.
Then you have like no design based regulation.
So that's it's going to take a while to find a middle ground, but I think that it will release some of the tension around the issue to have something that's a lighter touch, but effective.
There's a thing that we have in New Hampshire that is called a neighborhood heritage district.
It only exists currently in Stratum.
Okay.
So, but it is the structure legally and from sort of the state zoning regulatory structure is there.
Mm-hmm.
So it's something that again, maybe a heritage district could have that conversation and you know, just something like that.
But it's something that maybe you should look at and just throw in there.
Yeah.
And maybe it's something we can hone as part of.
So this map here, this is about future place types, but a lot of it is the sort of boundaries that you're seeing between the different shades of yellow, for instance, or it reads as kind of orange yellow on this.
Um, a lot of that we developed based on the period of time in which those neighborhoods were established because they had very clear, um, you know, design characteristics that were indicative of that era's norms.
Um, and so you basically see the, the downtown neighborhoods, which are the more kind of early colonial neighborhoods.
You see this, that's sort of like the darkest orange yellow.
The next shade of yellow is the traditional neighborhoods that were more like streetcar era, a little bit further out, a little bit more green space.
Um, and then the more post-war neighborhoods.
And so I think that the, the basis for these place types is intertwined with like the history of those places.
Um, and so that might provide a starting point or a framework for that conversation, um, going forward.
Okay. Great.
Um, that was sort of all on my list, I think.
Um, anything else?
Any other last minute questions, ideas, thoughts?
Rick, do you have any comments?
Okay.
Is there any, I see one other member of the public who could, if you have anything.
Sure.
Come on up to the podium.
No, we need you at the microphone.
Yeah.
I'm Susteri.
I live on Bright Street in Portsmouth.
And I think a lot of you know that I can talk to a lot of people.
I can talk to a lot of people.
Yeah.
I'm Susteri.
I live on Bright Street in Portsmouth.
And I think a lot of you know that I can talk to a lot of people.
I know that I go way back here, or my family.
So, who, um, who gets to decide if we have a heritage commission?
Who starts that process?
Um, the council already voted to ask the planning board to examine it and to make a recommendation
back to the council.
So, it would come under the planning board?
Yes.
The planning board, I think, has already had a meeting to discuss it.
Yeah.
And would, and Rick would be the expert on this, not me.
And then ultimately we would expect any kind of recommendation to come back to the council,
and the council would have to vote on that.
And then there would be the opportunity for public input and...
Right.
So, but it would fall under...
Is that where this commission falls under planning, or just the city council?
No.
It's just that when there's a request, requested change that involves any kind of land use, we
always ask the planning board for the planning board's review of that.
And I was on, years ago when I lived in Elliott, I was on the master plan committee over there.
And I'm just wondering if it still holds...
A master plan is designed with everybody's input and what the city should follow along with, but it's not mandated, right?
And who would overlook it to make sure that we're including what all this information is?
I know this is just the historic, but overall, I mean...
Is it the planning department?
Is it the...
It's basically the city staff, along with the council, making any changes or the next steps
and moving towards any, in any direction, you know, it's...
Right.
It's up to them to make sure.
Are supposed to use this as a guideline.
Yeah.
Right.
That's what I thought.
I think it also gives the public an opportunity.
When you see something that is contrary or supportive of the master plan and you come to express your opinion,
it's very useful to reference back and say, look, we...
This is what the city...
This is what the residents said in the master plan and this thing that's being proposed.
It supports it or is in violation.
And I think that's a strong tool that an individual can use if you see a problem with a project
and you see that it's contrary to what has been laid out in the master plan.
To come in and say, well, I just don't like it, isn't as effective as saying, you know what?
The city decided that this is where our values were.
This is what we thought was important.
This is what we wanted to achieve.
And this project or this, you know, fill in the blank, doesn't do that.
So I think the public can use it as a tool to constantly reinforce with the city, this is what we said we wanted.
Oh, I agree with you 100%.
But, you know, I've not seen a lot of people follow it.
I mean, not many people.
I'm not...the state requires you to do this.
I understand that.
You know, I live here and everything.
Sue?
I was just curious if we actually, what our former master plan was and if we sort of follow that at this point in time.
Sue, we have a very, very well-developed former master plan.
Right.
So a master plan is only as good as people that use it.
The plan, you know, is only as good as those who use it and whether or not you adapt it makes a big difference into your zoning code.
Right.
And so this plan is a guideline so that we develop new maps of our expectations around zoning and zoning changes.
The last master plan process, that was done and it was done very effectively.
And the reason I say it's effective whether or not you agree with what was done.
Right.
Is that the development we've seen in the city was all guided by those zoning changes that happened as a result of the last master plan process.
And that's what I was looking for to find out.
Because I agree it's a good guideline, but nobody really tries to enforce it.
And my last question is who gets to change the boundaries for what the historic district is?
Because my understanding was the first time it came around, it was decided at that point and when the committee started.
But the second one was when the bridge was redone and everything which expanded it because of the federal funds.
So those are two different things actually, even though they are both historic districts.
One is our local regulated district by us.
Right.
The second one that was created through the funds through the bridge project is our national register historic district.
And that has no regulations.
So that is a new district boundary and everything that the consultants at that time created.
And they have a methodology for it and everything.
And it's a wonderful document with all of this information.
But there's no regulation for those boundaries.
It's just sort of a nominational thing.
It's got -- it opens opportunities for some grants and things like that, but otherwise it's not --
It's just a thing that you could put on a grant saying we're already part of this district and what have you.
Right, right.
It's a federal district.
This is just -- this is a local district.
And so these boundaries that you're talking about, would they -- was this going on before the master plan?
And so that some of the areas that she was talking about would be included or -- it hasn't gone that far.
We haven't even -- no, we haven't really gone that far just of -- except a discussion, a very informal discussion with the planning board.
It would come from discussions between the HDC and the planning board.
And we would work with them to try and figure out what makes sense, you know, what recommendations we would have.
And then the planning board would formalize those, bring them to the city council to say we recommend that these boundaries change.
And then that would set off that whole process that Kate just told you about.
So it's on discussion now to include more areas?
I'm just curious.
It was --
Yeah, I mean, it's --
Or delete some or --
It's something that we've discussed.
We have not had the bandwidth to really get into it yet, but I think it's been something that we would like to potentially pursue at some point in the future.
So having backing from the master plan to say, you know, maybe it's time to do this would help kind of initiate.
Right.
No, I think a master plan is a great tool as long as it's used.
And I'm not saying it hasn't.
I'm just -- from my experiences and stuff, I've been on other committees over in Elliott at the time before we moved back.
So comparing the two, it's only as good -- any of this is only as good as the people that are following through with any of it.
Right.
So just curious.
Thank you very much.
Thank you.
All right.
Well, Zoe, any other questions for us or anything?
I guess I would just encourage you all if there's from -- I know I flashed up the written recommendations, but it's far away from you and small text.
If there are any more kind of, you know, phrasing that you already have in your mind, specific districts.
There was a bunch of -- I didn't catch all of them, but the specific districts that you mentioned that were, like, you know, post-war, defined post-war neighborhoods that, like, you know, should be considered.
That stuff is stuff that can be included in the master plan.
But if you kind of just feed that to me, we'll embed it.
And if it's already specific in your mind, get it to me in that specific form and we'll incorporate it for the draft that goes out for public comment.
Great.
Well, we'll get -- Isaac, we'll get that link to make sure that everybody can get to that document and spread that around.
And so any comments can be funneled back to Zoe for that.
Okay.
Thank you so much for your time.
Yeah.
Likewise.
This is a really helpful discussion and appreciate your time and the care that you're putting into it.
Yeah.
This is good.
It's great for all of us.
So good luck with finishing it all up.
Okay.
All right.
Wonderful.
Is there any other business we have?
Any other things that anyone would like to bring up?
Yes.
Okay.
So, Isaac, if you could pull up.
So, there was a bit of discussion last week on screening methods.
We talked about vegetation and we talked about physical built screening.
And there was a question about what ability we had to enforce when the trees died or the shrubs died or when a screening method failed.
And it seemed a little unclear as to what we could or couldn't do.
So, I asked Isaac to pull up.
So, this is a picture taken from the Piscataqua Bank parking lot.
This is the back side of where I believe now the State Street Saloon exists, where you see the gray screening.
And then to the left and a little higher up, that's the back of where the rusty hammer is located.
That screening, unfortunately, was approved by the Historic District Commission.
But the tarping, this fabric, is in poor repair and…
Shown as being nice and…
Yeah, straight.
…straight.
…straight to the form, so…
So, the picture that was shown in the approval and what it looks like today is different.
And I think, recently, it looks even worse than it looks in this particular picture.
So, the question I'm raising is, are we, the royal we as in the city, I think, able to go back and say,
you know, this is what you showed us and this is, you know, what you said you were going to do
and this is what we're looking at.
So, I'm just raising this as an example of a difference between what was approved and what we're sort of seeing.
And then the rusty hammer, which is the next one, the approval was, there was a follow-up that said,
if the city required fencing for safety purposes, that we, they would come back to us and we would approve what it looked like.
And they have put up two cones, which you kind of indicates that up there, they're up there for safety reasons.
But yet, the cones were not something that we approved, but yet is it a barrier, is it a screening, is it not a screening?
Are those cones up there because someone forgot to take them down?
Or are they up there for safety reasons, in which case, is that actually safe?
So, this is just an example, they happen to be sitting right next to each other, so I took pictures of both.
Those, that, those rooftops, as you can see, are very, very low, so it's not like that equipment is sitting up where you can't see it from the street.
You're, you know, I'm just standing in the parking lot that's, that's right there. So.
I mean, I think enforcement is a, is still a question, and.
I think on the first example, I think we might have a little bit more leeway just because we did approve what looked and appeared to be a very straight and clean-lined fencing system.
So I think there's something to that that did show us, you know, sort of a speck of what that would look like.
It obviously did not indicate that it would be falling down.
I would question if that's even potentially part of a safety hazard even, um, with all of the mechanical equipment there.
So I think, um, and I'm happy to look into that and see what we can do.
I am a little more unclear on the other side with the stipulation being that if it's an, if it's needed by code, I'm not sure.
Again, I will find out about the cones.
It could be that those were left up there by accident by the installers as just, hey, don't go past this point.
There's a drop off.
Um, but again, to Margo's point, if they're required to be there for some sort of a safety hazard, then I do think we may have some recourse, um, to maybe say that, you know, that was stipulated that you come back for some type of a, you know, safety screening.
Well, our, our next meeting of all of us will be our train, our camp training session where I think enforcement was one of the, and certainly legal issues were one of the, is one of the topics.
So I think that's a question that we can definitely bring up and see how other places handle that, what, you know, what is, um, reasonable for, you know, us to be able to ask to change and what we can't.
Just because it's already existing.
Um, I, I do think that it's, you know, in most cases where it's a, a maintenance issue where we kind of saw that last week with talking about vegetative screening versus like an actual like wood screening or another type of material screening is that, you know, like with windows, we often stipulate, you know, half screens only if you're going to use them.
Um, I think moving forward, we can exercise stipulations of maintaining the screening that is approved, even if that's with a wood lattice or vegetation or, you know, this type of metal with a mesh fabric.
Um, I, I do think that we can stipulate some sort of an upkeep and maintenance and appearance of the screening option that we approve because it is required.
Um, so I do think that we can move forward with stipulating that if folks are comfortable, just like, again, it's just like kind of like with the windows, it's like, you know, we kind of say it to everybody and so.
So, well, on the topic of last week.
Sorry.
Um, so I'm all for holding people accountable.
I was a principal of a high school for 22 years.
But I'm struggling with the notion of all the different things that get approved here and where, who's the HDC police that are running around and seeing if somebody's keeping up their property?
Yeah.
How, how is it that different?
Right.
So, yeah.
And Susan, I think that's a, another good point is, you know, if you have a maintenance stipulation on every single thing that we approve, there's not enough people to go around to even look at those things yearly to, to see.
So I, I understand that point.
Yeah.
Yeah.
That would be a good job for a principal.
Thank you.
Thank you.
But on the other hand, I feel like there's two instances from last week.
One, the one with the screen.
First of all, we didn't even have the information that he had and he was standing there saying, well, this is what this says.
That's all somebody needed to say.
And we aren't fact checking that even.
And we didn't even have that piece of paper to review it ahead of time or even during the meeting.
So he was just saying, this is what it is.
And we're going, I don't think that's a good path forward moving ahead.
Like that means to be fact checked.
Like just because you stand there and say that doesn't mean it's factual.
Um, there's lots of misinformation having worked with HVAC vendors myself.
Um, and then secondly, on the topic of enforcement, I'm really looking forward to that conversation
because I, we could use the Pleasant Street property of multiple people here saying, well, this got built, but we didn't permit it.
Like what I am at the risk of saying this now, or I, it's concerning to me to say like what I'm observing is if you just go do it,
that we're actually not being fair across the city.
Number two, it's in my opinion, it's a culture for lack of a better word of just go do it and hope you don't get caught.
And then there was no enforcement and that, that actually is not the behavior that should, we shouldn't even be here if that's permissible.
Right.
So I do think it needs to, I look forward to the conversation one second because we need, just saying, well, we don't have the staff also isn't an excuse to permit that.
So that needs to be solved for. And I think we need to be clear and consistent because otherwise we're rewarding people for not following the process.
And the people that are here trying to go about it in the right way, it's not, it's just not a fair thing.
And I'm not saying there's not other things to address, but it needs to be fair across the board and held accountable.
Excellent.
I think the difference with the screening in particular, I mean, people, people can redo their porch beautifully.
And 30 years later, it's falling apart and no one from the HCC is going to come in and say, okay, you need to maintain that.
But when it's screening, you're doing that to prevent the public from having to take a look at something.
And I think that that's a little bit different than, you know, where that, where that fails and now people have to look at that and you put it up there for that particular reason to screen.
So I think that's sort of the difference between, you know, what do we enforce and what do we not enforce.
More of a point of condition versus something just aging naturally.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Because we wouldn't have approved that had, had you not maintained whatever vegetate or sorry, whatever screening was approved.
Or the lines, the HVAC lines on Martin Hill.
Yeah.
It was another huge one from the same owner in a short period of time.
So.
And that's the, the issue of enforcement and approval after the fact and so on.
A lot of it comes down to this economics of, well, you know, the poor person has just input, you know, put all this money into.
Particularly when it's supposedly the developer, the contractor's fault.
Well, they bought the wrong windows or they input the wrong things.
And now we're sitting here faced with, do we, do we put that poor homeowner through $30,000 additional expense because we have to hold the line?
Or don't we?
And that's a really, really tough thing.
And maybe we can get some guidance or some.
Well, I mean, look at Pleasant Street though.
I don't think economics is a concern for that project.
Yeah.
You're right.
That's right.
I heard an astronomical number wasn't invested in that.
So like, you know, anyhow in hindsight or even, but on that note, this last question is, is October what the materials?
Because I think even the example with like the landscaping on that and what's on plans and what action, not just like, oh, well that was just there, but we're not actually doing it.
Yeah.
Will be addressed by the materials.
So it's going to be listed out.
Like it's not just there for fluff.
Yeah.
So is that actually next month it's implemented?
It is.
Yep.
Excellent.
Thank you.
We, I think there is internally going to be also a broader discussion of vegetation in general.
When it, sorry, when it does not come to a condition of approval like an HVAC screening.
Okay.
So when it comes to like the, the exact issue is the 179 Pleasant Street where they originally showed that whole row of trees and then there's some missing now, whether or not that constitutes our purview or not when it is shown versus not shown.
Um, and then the idea is, you know, do we want folks to just show us a site plan that only has a building on it, you know, and no vegetation.
Yeah.
Um, so.
And this came up when we looked at a bunch of the buildings in the north end because often people were showing it with this tree in front, you know, to kind of soften what it looks like.
Right.
And they were, it's not to say that they, that was the reason that they were doing it, but that is what it did.
And the fact is that it's only a twig when it first goes in and it doesn't cover the building and it doesn't do what it was portrayed for another 20 or some odd years.
And so often we would ask them, okay, you know, just show us the building without, without those trees.
And once they do that, so which, so what are we approving with the trees, without the trees, with the mature trees, with the twigs, you know?
Yeah.
So I, I think it, it's a good discussion to have.
Yeah.
Glad, glad that that's going to be a good.
It triggered more of a conversation, so.
Yeah.
Because it does say landscaping, but there's very minimum, it doesn't say what within the section 9 point whatever it was for something.
Yeah.
Okay.
Anything else?
I wonder one more.
What is the update on Middle Street?
I'm still, I thought we were saying it would come for, go back to city council for August, but September, did that happen?
I believe it's a September 14th meeting.
Oh.
It's going for, back to council.
That's Monday.
On Monday?
Okay.
Yeah.
I haven't seen the agenda yet, so.
Got it.
Okay.
So I was looking at you to confirm because I haven't also seen the exact agenda, but.
I don't get to see it until tomorrow or.
I believe I was told that it, from Peter Stiff, that it would be going for at least first
reading to the council for September.
Okay.
So that sort of is, that's the next catalyst point.
Yeah.
And once it gets to council, then it's sort of added.
And then after that, it'll be notified to all the property owners and everything, so they'll get notice for that.
And that'll be public.
Yes.
And that's any property line that's, or any property parcel that's having a shift in it.
Yeah.
So whether that's you coming more in or out or.
Sure.
So it'll be every single.
What about if butters?
Well, they would get notified, right?
Yeah.
Okay.
And that means it probably won't make second reading until this first meeting in October because
of notification requirements, the two-week notification requirement.
Sure.
Probably.
Yeah.
Somewhere around there.
Yeah.
But it's being presented as we saw it last.
Okay.
That's correct.
Okay.
from when we saw it last.
Okay.
That got presented to planning board that then got re-presented to the city council.
Yep.
Thanks for the opportunity.
Yeah.
Of course.
All right, then.
Can I have a motion to adjourn?
Oh, yep.
Motion to adjourn.
Thank you.
Patriots.
There you go.
That might be on the camera.
There you go.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.