Swanzey Planning Board Meeting August 27th, 2026

Speakers are labeled SPEAKER_N. This transcript is machine-generated.

Recording

You are watching a Fact TV presentation
of the town of Swansea.
>> [music]
>> Heat. Heat.
Heat. Heat. N.
[music]
Heat.
Heat. Heat.
>> Heat. Hey. Hey. Hey.
Heat. Hey, Heat.
>> Heat.
>> Heat. Heat. N.
Hey. Hey. Hey.
Hey.
Hey. Hey.
6:00.
Hello. Is that on?
Okay.
Being 6:00, I'm going to call to order
the meeting, the August 27th meeting of
the Swansea Planning Board. Begin by
taking attendance. I'm Victoria Rec as
I'm here.
>> Scott Self
>> here.
>> Mark Scera
>> Richard Lane
>> Brandon Self
>> Michael York
>> Selectman Alan Gross
>> Alternative Stacy alternates Stacy Goodo
>> Charlie Harbeck
>> And Jane Johnson
>> No need to seat.
[laughter]
>> No need to seat any alternates tonight.
Um the meeting the the agenda is as
follows. We have no public hearings. We
will begin with a discussion of uh an
excavation report related to 56 Cory
Pond Road. We have a new tenant
application PL composits located at one
Railroad Street which is map 110 lot
105. And then an a discussion of our
zoning audit.
So, first up is the um Oh, right. I'm
jumping ahead. Um let's consider the
minutes of August 13.
And my question is, are there any
corrections, additions, and deletions
the planning board has?
>> I'll make a motion to approve the
minutes as presented.
>> Second.
>> Motion and second. Any further
discussion?
All in favor?
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries. Our
regional impact statement. Is there
anything on the agenda that qualifies as
the development of regional impact
requiring notification of neighboring
municipalities?
>> I'll make a motion. There is not.
>> Motion by Mark.
>> Second by Richard. Any further
All in favor? I.
>> Any opposed?
Motion carries.
Okay. Um the next item is the excavation
report for 56 Cory Pond Road. Um would
anybody Well, let's just I don't Why
don't you come forward in case we have
questions?
And um we are in receipt of the report
which
uh was the outcome of a June 25th, 2026
motion
that was uh made by Scott to give Mike
Johnson the benefit of the doubt and
require that he file an excavation
report within a year and to further
allow him the ability to request a
one-time 12-month extension. The motion
was seconded and all were in favor and
the motion passed. Um
so we received the report and the report
um we
does contain the four elements that are
required by RSA 155-e
2D
and that same law does not specify what
the required planning board action is
upon receipt of the report.
So um my my recommendation to the board
is that uh given that we're not required
to uh I mean we can we can consider
whether the four elements are present
um but I think that's about the the
degree to which we can critique it and
I'd like other opinions on that on the
board
>> and then we can just accept it the board
or not.
pretty much
>> and I think a motion would have to be to
that effect that it contains the four
required elements and we accept it as
complete.
>> I'll make that motion because it does it
contains a location and date. uh
excavation first began. We asked for
that and we asked for a description of
the limits of the permissible uh
excavation that or expansion and
estimate of the uh let's see which has
been exposed
which has been yeah except at the time
of the report. Yeah, the area which has
been excavated by the time of the
report. We got that and an estimate of
the amount of commercially viable earth
materials still available. We got that
and that was pretty much all of the 155
required.
So my motion would be to accept the uh
excavation report
>> seconded by Mark. Further discussion
I know we've discussed this topic at
some to some at some length. So,
uh, if there is no further discussion,
um, all in favor?
>> I I
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
>> Thank you very much for all that hard
work.
>> Yeah, it was a good effort.
>> I bet. [laughter]
>> Thank you guys.
>> Thank you.
Thanks for coming. Appreciate it.
>> That's after.
>> All right. Next is a new tenant
application from PLP Composits.
>> And on this application, I'm in a
butter, so I'm stepping down from the
board.
>> And you can replace me whoever you want.
>> Let's see. Last we had Charlie was last
seated. Jane, would you like to be an
alternate for this? All right, we're
seating Jane.
Okay. Um,
we have two question. Hello.
>> How are you?
>> Would you like to introduce yourselves?
>> Sure. Uh, my name is Dan Sheer. Uh, I am
the owner of PLP Composits, uh, based in
Fitz William. Uh the company has been in
business for roughly 60 years. I
purchased it in 2018
and we're growing and we need space. One
has presented itself here that we'd be
very interested in moving forward.
>> Great.
>> I'm Tara Kesler. I'm a commander
parallegal at BCM Environmental Law and
we're representing.
>> Great. Great. So the task in front of
the planning board is um first to
determine that what is proposed as a new
tenant is uh the a same type of
permitted use in order for us to not
require a formal site plan review.
So, um to that end,
um
what has previously been in in that
location,
um is um and continues to be at this
point, right,
>> is um a a we're in the business district
and it's a company that manufactures
wooden shutters, blinds, doors, and
specialty mill work. And what's proposed
is
a company that manufactures composite
poles. And I thought that sounded really
interesting. So I Googled it.
>> Um, so what you're making lightweight,
high strength structural poles made from
reinforced fibers.
>> We are very well done. Yes.
>> That is so we started as a flag pole
manufacturer. The company PL is plastic
laminated products. joking. Um, and we
were the first to to produce a
fiberglass uh um flag pole.
>> Um, about 30 years ago, we got into the
uh light pole business. Um, and we
produced both decorative, which is sort
of the fancy fluted with shrouds, etc.
Uh, and then just standard sort of
parking lot type uh light poles as well.
[clears throat]
>> So, these are not the big utility poles.
That's where my head went.
>> No, our our Our longest, tallest poles
are about 40 ft. 35 to 40 ft.
>> That's pretty big.
>> And all of the manufacturing takes place
inside of the building. Is that right?
>> Correct.
>> Yeah.
>> Just like portal lights today.
>> Okay.
>> And the proposed um hours of operation
are very similar to Portalite. So it's
Monday through Friday 8:30 to 3:30.
>> 4:30.
>> Portalite today is 7:30 to 3:30 Monday
through Friday. Currently, there's about
seven employees on site per portalite.
Initially with this building, there'll
be a similar amount of employees between
6 to eight full-time employees during
that shift of Monday through Friday from
8:30 to 4:30. Um, truck deliveries is
about the same. So, right now, Cordelite
has about six truck deliveries on
average each week. It'll be about 3 to 4
each week per perp initially. and
there's no changes proposed to the
exterior of the site, at least at this
point in time. So, we're here to
understand what approvals would be
needed um prior to closing on the on the
property.
>> Mhm. Um and the uh the kinds of trucks
would be similar to what's going in and
out of Portalite,
>> I believe. So, we have uh occasional
um uh box trucks. I you know the longest
obviously 53 ft box truck but that's
very rare. We have shorter box trucks
that are occasional and we have our own
pickup trucks that we'll do uh and a
trailer. We have a trailer that we move
things around with.
>> And there are no um customers that come
and go on a regular basis.
So, um, the only other quirk, Adam, to
this site that that I stumbled on is is
that, um, manufacturing in the business
district currently requires a special
exception.
Does that
>> is that relevant?
>> We discussed this
past.
>> Um, and because there is an existing
manufactur
unless
>> So, if there's any expansion of that on
you special
>> And we are um we believe that the
current owner has record of a former
special in exception. We haven't got it
yet, but we can send it to you once we
>> Yes. There's a bit of a hiccup with the
files at town hall. Um the files in
their property folder um are for
>> uh they used to be merged and they were
uh separated they were subdivided
>> just needs a bit more digging and I
haven't had time to explain yet but just
the short story is that existing use if
that use becomes expanded
unless they
also um understand we saw a town There's
a 2003 site plan for the current portal
use that shows the expansion of the
building. So there there is an approved
site plan on file
>> that shows the expansion that was
constructed.
>> Yes. So that's done. Um and and what I
understood in your uh got a written
state a narrative that says that
initially after purchasing the property
for a limited time, the applicant
intends to lease a portion of the
existing building back to Portalite. And
that sounds like it would be double
everything for some period of time,
right? in terms of use, double the
employees, double the um
>> uh don't about doubling our our initial
um employee base that we would see, you
know, at a starting point would be
probably four to five.
Um
you know, it's we
are 49
on the site. So, um, if it were to
double, I think most could pay like
under 20 employees, but between 16 and
20 employees,
not knowing an exact number at this
time,
>> um, but it wouldn't be anywhere near, at
least initially, the 40 shine.
>> And we understand from um from Adam that
the mixture of uses is permitted to have
the two
>> two well, it's two manufacturing uses,
but two businesses in the building.
>> Doesn't seem to need any other
approvals.
questions from the board.
>> Um, let's let's just start with the the
first idea. Does the board agree that
the proposed use is the same type as the
existing permitted use?
>> It's the same type. It's manufacturing.
It's just a different product than
manufacturing. So, it's the same thing.
>> Okay. So then we can go forward and
review the um the new tenant application
which we have done mostly already.
you know it's a composite pole
manufacturer. The applicant will use the
existing building driveway and parking
on site. The hours will be essentially
the same. There are no walk-in
customers.
There are ample parking spaces. number
of full-time employees will not increase
over what's existing there. Uh no
part-time employees
pickups and deliveries it sounded like
actually uh would be would be comparable
truck van and personal vehicle
um delivery
vehicles outside site lighting will
continue as exists. It might be improved
in the future.
>> Yes, we [laughter]
we do know some connections to some
lighting companies, picture companies.
>> And if that were to happen, we'll check
with the town.
>> Yeah. Our hope is always to have lights
that that
>> shine down. Yes. Yes.
>> Um,
are there any questions about the
application itself?
>> I think it's pretty straightforward. Are
there any questions about the
application from the public?
>> Any concerns? Okay.
Set.
>> I do have one one question and I don't
know if it's involved with this or a
little bit further in our discussion,
>> but you're you're making a composite
product, correct?
>> Which entails glues, solvents, etc. Uh
solvents are very minor portion of it.
Um it's it's a it's a combination of of
the fiberglass woven roving. It's a
cloth uh that we use in conjunction with
some resins with a resin. So it's we
have some barrels of of resin that that
are the primary.
>> So biohazard
>> I don't believe so. I there are two
other people here behind me. one is the
current owner and Jay Robinson is our
CEO who does all of our technical work.
So if there's a question that is
>> it's primarily fiber glass with a
polyurethane resin. It goes on top.
We're not using any heavy caves or
solvents or anything like that
>> and and all that work is taking place
inside presumably on a concrete floor
where anything would be encapsulated.
>> Yep.
So the building inspector would be
concerned with ventilation etc.
>> When you're utilizing the residence etc.
There is quite a cost decoder about
those or there used to be anyways. I'm
just concerned make sure that we have uh
ventilation proper ventilation in the
building.
>> Yeah there's there's current ventilation
and if there's anything that would
require additional um we would do that
as well. So, just to be clear, there's
no biohazard involved with this.
>> No biohazard.
>> Not biohazard. No.
>> Um I'm wondering I I've worked with
polyester with with um fiberglass and
and resins and the smell um
how
are you filtering the air before it's
vented? So everything gets filled as go
through filters out the building.
Anything that we ever have to add, we do
stacks above if we need that.
>> Um, but honestly, it's no, the odor is
very similar and the venting is very
similar to like a body shop that's
painted in there or something like that.
It's not a
>> it's not constant,
>> right?
>> And and it wouldn't be detectable from
the neighbors properties. Uh just for
context, our current location uh is uh
in the depot of Fitz William and it's a
residential neighborhood and we have
>> residential neighbors literally right
across the street um on multiple sides
>> and no complaints
>> and you know I think there was a there
was a day way back when there had been
some then we did add some prior to my
purchase
>> they had done some ventilation and that
took care of
>> of the issues.
>> Okay. and where you're planning to to
be. There aren't really any neighbors
close to you, are there?
>> Much more distant certainly than where
we currently are. Yes.
>> Do we need a to review the site plan
that they say is on file now? Because
[clears throat] I mean,
>> we have this
that he just gave us and it shows our
parking, etc. Mhm.
>> But
well, again, I guess it's not an R
pretty, but the ventilation
and the biohazard
uh precautions
stations, what have you, you know, I
think that could be a condition that the
>> inspector What's that?
cover.
>> Yeah, just add that with regard to the
the collection of the the dust and the
odor and things like that, it's actually
very similar setup to what is used in
woodwork. It's no different than what's
used with stains and varnishes and
finishes that are put on. And it also
requires a bag house for any fiber that
we sand do any manipulation just like
what's currently in the facility. So
everything is captured into a bag house.
It's, you know,
nothing becomes airborne or it's
airborne particles are are captured.
>> If you walked into our shop, you know,
you would see it's not an old boat
manufacturer. They're clean floors. It's
neat and organized and because we use
the proper ventilation, the proper dust
collection to keep all that contained.
Should should it be anything different
than what we currently have? I think
>> other thought Yes. Keto PL partnership
and also the port company. Our existing
dust extraction system um operates at
2250 cubic feet a minute to pull out all
the all our residue of our dust and our
chips and it goes up into a cleansing
bag house. Then the air is introduced
back in the plant clean. So if that
helps your
concerns that's That's horrifying.
>> Any other thoughts? Richard,
>> when was this just looking at this? When
was this site plan modification done? It
>> was 2003 with um expansion to the
building. That's the only site plan when
we visited town hall. That was a site
plan that we could find on file. There
may be it may be possible that there's
newer site plans, but we just needed to
demonstrate that there that the initial
development of the site had been
approved by the planning board that PLP
is not proposing to make any changes to
the site at this time. Um, and so that's
why I think that's included in the
packet to show that that there's there
was an approval on file um for the
current building and parking lot.
Adam, do you have any further comments
that you think you should or alerts for
the planning board we should be thinking
about?
>> No, I I think because this is
simply just an existing use that's being
not really expanded upon the building
where this existing use is taking place
very similar type of use. Um again this
is a pretty pretty straightforward
proposal again when they when they wish
to expand that's what we do on special
exceptions and they do another 10
expansion but they're very
>> and a a small note is is that we're not
looking to move our operation from Fitz
William. This is an expansion of our of
our needs.
>> So we're not just putting the whole
business moving the whole business over
here. It's going to be a slow sort of
transition uh into to this site in
Swansea. And just a small side note,
coincidentally, the building that we're
currently in in Fitz William was also
Peter's building before before
this is our second time doing.
>> So, your business is going well.
>> Yeah. Yes. Yes, it is. It is going very
well. Yeah.
Well, I I I thought the whole Google
thing was pretty interesting. These
poles are 50 to 75% lighter than
traditional wood or metal, so
environmentally kind of nice. And and
they last forever, basically 50 to 70
years.
>> Yeah. There's there's a the
uh recycling of our poles is is done by
reuse. We we actually on our flag poles,
we take them back in. People ship us
their poles that have been out for 30 or
40 years, and we'll refinish them. Uh,
and while we don't take the light poles
back to refinish, those can all be done
on site. So, towns often will refurbish
them on site
>> because nothing they don't rust or
otherwise degrade,
>> environmentally inert,
whether durable.
Anyway, I I think it's it sounds like a
very interesting business. Um, so any
other thoughts, comments, questions?
I would entertain a motion to um ask who
>> one customer down here.
>> Well,
>> see if the public has anything.
>> We we ask the public. Scott, I don't
think because you've recused yourself,
you can say anything, can you?
>> Oh, yeah. I can't.
>> Okay. Okay. Do you have anything to say?
>> I can I do
probably I can see the plant from the
back of my shop.
I just just want to bring up that they
aren't changing anything to the exterior
of the building. So, we're really sight
that really doesn't come into
their family.
>> Thank you,
Adam.
>> That we approve the tenant application.
>> Further comments?
>> I have a question first be prior to you
getting started there. Adam, does the
would the building inspector be involved
before they move in?
>> Internally,
I don't think there needs
>> There's no new no new equipment going
in.
>> Well, equipment.
>> Yeah. No, I'm just saying, you know,
>> we're very light. Uh, our electrical
load is very low. We don't run heavy
equipment. We're hand fabricating for
the most part. We have we run a a a
mandrel which is this, you know, long
long rotating um mandrel shaft on to
which we lay the fiberglass and then by
hand folks are working in the the resin.
So it's it's not a machineoriented
business really. It's a it's a very
>> hands-on
>> hands-on. Yeah. Not low power. What
else?
>> Yeah, manually crafted product. All the
machines we have are pretty much made.
We have motors that turn suspend
all this product. So, it's primarily no
big equipment.
>> We don't even run a forklifts or
anything. We hand load trucks. We
everything is done very manually. And
there are no changes proposed like um
renovations imposed to the interior
which is why a building permit wouldn't
be needed at this time.
>> It's what attracted us to the
facilities. It's exactly what we need
>> because you like following him around.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
>> It's worked before. Yeah.
>> We have a motion on the floor. I'm not
sure at this point. Can we take comments
from the public still?
>> I might jump.
>> We can't. No. deliberate.
So
motion motion's been seconded.
>> Any further further discussion?
Hearing none. All in favor?
>> So I have something you want to say.
Welcome, Miss Swanson. Thank you for
bringing the business here. Thank you.
Well, we do look forward to it. It's
it's um you know the opportunity to to
move to a facility of of this you know
size and and just working we like
working in the small towns and uh it's
close enough that it's it's making us
very happy follow it through.
>> We're glad you're happy.
>> Thank you for your time.
>> Thanks for coming in.
So Scott has returned and I'm unceiving
Jane, but Jane we're discussing now so
don't stop talking. Okay, for the next
section. Okay.
>> Um, our next item is a discussion of the
zoning audit. And Sarah, would you like
to come up?
Now, before we jump into this, I just I
had some thoughts. Um,
and they're they're mostly centered on
time being short. So, we have one
meeting with you tonight. We have a
meeting with you at our next planning
board. And then we're having this joint
meeting. And um the overarching question
that I I hope you can answer before the
end of the night is what can we do as as
the planning board to add the greatest
amount of value to your work before we
have that joint meeting. Okay. And you
don't don't have to answer it on the
spot, but but that's where I think we
should aim for that. So
>> I I could answer that on the spot
because that can give us
>> goals for this evening. Um the first
goal for this evening is just about the
the revised structure that's proposed
and if there are any
big changes that you guys would like to
see or if you really don't like the
structure you know that's
>> when you say structure you mean what do
you mean by that
>> reorganized
>> okay the sequence of elements
>> the sequence and the changed nature of
the sequence you know incorporating the
tables because that was something we had
a lot of discussion about previously and
I want impressions about if if you guys
think that is going to work for you and
you know if not we don't want to present
it to everybody else if we have to go
back to the drawing board on that
obviously. Um the second item that I
don't think we're going to
complete tonight, but we might begin
tonight is going through the list of um
broader revisions that don't deal with
restructuring the ordinance, but
actually deal with the content itself
and bringing it into compliance with
statute and best practices and that sort
of thing. and making sure that
everything on that list um
I don't want to say you guys agree with
so to speak, but again, if it's
something that you would never put
forward as an amendment to your
community and would never consider
putting forward,
>> we probably shouldn't bring it to the
joint meeting.
>> Okay?
>> And if there are any things on that list
that I missed. I know it's a long list,
so I apologize for that, but you guys
covered a lot of ground with what you
guys wanted to see. um at the joint
meeting and in discussions with staff
and then combing through all of your
content making sure that you have an
enforcable ordinance.
Does that answer your question,
Victoria?
>> Yes. Um and
just to pile on that's the section u
it's the deeper in the packet. I hope
everybody has a chance to look at this
packet. Um the content amendments I
thought were really really interesting.
Okay. So um it all came alive for me at
that point. But I wonder if it would
make I guess we need to do an overview
of them but then I hope we sort of focus
in our review on the first uh the first
batch. You know what you're proposing
for year one.
>> Oh well
>> if you think that makes sense. I just
wonder. We don't even have to work on
the timeline that's provided.
>> Um that's just sort of
>> that's something that you guys can
determine independent of my work. I mean
I can give you a justification for why
I've chosen that timeline and maybe that
would be helpful for you guys in a
>> um
>> I can give you the short version. Now
it's looking at things that
>> are the most impactful that are going to
be biggest stumbling stumbling blocks
for you in the coming years. And you
know, so the year one is
cleaning up your terminology throughout
the ordinance. That's like the biggest
thing because before you can reorganize
it, if you look at the use table, you
guys have a lot of uses that maybe the
intent was for them to be the same, but
they're not identical the way that
they're listed out in the ordinance. So,
they cannot be the same unless you guys
bring it before the voters and ask them
or propose to them is, you know, is this
recreational use the same as this
recreational use? And um I don't know
what the original intent was. So
that's like the biggest thing for year
one and then bringing into compliance
with statute that has been updated more
recently such as the child care
multifamily housing and
[cough and clears throat]
off the top of my head what was the
third one I think the flood plane
ordinance was one that I recommended for
the coming year just to be
>> in time with the new firm release which
should be before your 2028 town
So to keep everybody it it will be
easier for you guys to update that later
if you've incorporated the new language
sooner.
Explain that a little bit again. Let's
see. You're we're talking about the
flood plane district. And you're saying
that we should um update it first prior
to the new uh regulations coming out.
That's what um DEA or DEA, OPD, whatever
letters we want to throw out um planning
and development office flood plane
administer is recommending because right
now even though the the ordinance says
as amended in it, that no longer will
cover you once the firm panels are
updated. So that means that as soon as
the new firms are out,
FEMA could potentially deny all of the
flood coverage that you have in your
community. And that would also include
um if people are buying a property in
the flood plane, they wouldn't be able
to get a mortgage because they wouldn't
be able to be insured.
I don't know how that works with the
private insurance because I know New
Hampshire also offers private flood
insurance outside of federal flood
insurance, but this is the directive
that we've gotten from OPD on this. And
so they would rather see just updating
the dates once the new panels are
released, but in update all of the
language to their current models or
>> and the language that you provided to
us, is that their suggestion? The flood
plan language, that's their suggestion
to go with.
>> It comes from them.
I think I sent that to you guys as an
attachment.
>> Yeah, I have it. Y
>> I didn't print that out, so I can't
remember all the
>> One of the advantages to the things that
you you've recommended for 2026 is that
a lot of them are I think will be
politically really really easy to I I
don't think that voters will be
dissatisfied with these things since
they're required by law. So it it may
seem like a list of what seven items,
but
>> they're not controversial.
>> They're not controversial. So um with
the exception of the uh consolidating
and defining similar uses the table I
and again I don't think we're going to
find that controversial but but it is
work that as a board we really have to
do.
>> Yeah I think that will be the heaviest
lift.
>> Yeah
>> probably of the entire project is
consolidating your uses and determining
what they actually mean, what's intended
and making sure that the community is
behind those definitions and
descriptions.
I'm sorry. Sorry. When is it that we're
supposed to get the new um boundaries
for the flood planes within this within
the uh
>> pending?
>> Understand? Pending. Okay. So,
how when we word this or how however you
word this, you're saying currently
as amended does not cover us.
Therefore, do we say subject to
future FE FEMA directives?
How do you how do you get around that?
>> You would incorporate the the new model
language and you would use the dates of
the current adopted uh firm panels.
But then what they're requesting other
communities to do that haven't adopted
the new language even with their
existing dates, they're requesting that
they hold a special town meeting to
adopt the new flood ordinance. And it
looks like there's wiggle room if you
have the new language with the existing
date to not have to hold a special
meeting, a special town meeting to adopt
the new ordinance. There's another way
that the select board can insert the new
date that is less of a rigor role. And
it's it's a little confusing to me. So I
apologize. I can't give you the full
answer.
>> Confusing to you.
>> What was that?
>> I see. It's a little confusing to you.
Who's who specialize in this? It's a fog
to most of us.
>> Yes. [laughter]
>> So how do we how do we how do we go
about this? I mean, I I hear what you're
saying, but I'm reading some of this
stuff and
I should have a law dictionary sitting
beside me for a lot of it. It's it's
just it's not at a level that's going to
be easily understood by the general
public. I will get a full description of
the process for you and I'll I'll share
it with Adam so he can distribute it to
you guys so that you can understand
better and I will also understand better
because it will be fresh in my mind.
So just one comment um you know as far
as the organization you know that's
pretty easy for me to follow within the
the changes to best practices and
whatever. There's no way of me being
able to identify where they are in in
this printed document. I'm wondering if
there was some way of color coding those
things um you know that we're concerned
that it might actually change the
original intention you know of what we
had and I don't know if you have that or
>> I'm not fully following what you're
requesting.
>> She's not changing any of the language.
The language is exactly the same just
reorganizing it. So the intent will
still be there.
>> And that's if that's the case then
that's
>> yeah that is the case in this part of
it. this big thick part. That is the
case.
>> Which big thick one are you referring
to?
>> The
two,
right?
>> Oh, okay. So, yes. So, in that it's
probably not clear at all. There are
tiny teeny tiny changes like statutory
reference that were added. Some new
headings were added. There's um a new
opening. I believe the the shortest
bit of paper that was presented to you
for this evening, the four-pager
um titled zoning audit reorganization
recommendations. There is a list on page
three or beginning the bottom of page
two that outlines everywhere new
language was added and what its purpose
was. And in the digital copy, you can
see it because I made anything that's
new in red text.
>> Okay? so that it stands out very clear,
but obviously on a printed black and
white copy, it might look slightly
lighter, but it's not it's not distinct.
>> Well, I think if that was at least sent
to us, that that would be helpful.
>> It was
I didn't notice that.
>> There was a lot of documents there.
>> And and there was actually two copies of
the reorganized ordinance, one with
comments, one without comments. I turned
the one without comments because it's a
lot easier to make your own notes. Um,
if you want to see the one with comments
that are basically just showing you
where things have been from. Um, much
easier view on a laptop.
>> So, I made a mistake diligently picking
up the packet.
>> No, a great way to work it is to have
the the the online version up while
you're reading,
>> Because then you can see the color and
it really pops. I think it was a great
presentation.
>> I think that's helpful. So we'll go back
and make sure
>> and and to once this is
once this has come to fruition and we
are ready to print new documents those
documents will be in color but I I
figured we're not going to color this
meeting unfortunately.
Well, in the end result
of if you decide to move this forward
ultimately, it will be um it will be
presented in such a way that it black
and white printing is the way we go. I
mean, the only Victoria sent me some
comments and one of her comments had to
do with colored ink in the printing. And
the only reason colors are used in any
of this that you guys have received is
just to help your navigation through
this process. And digital versions will
always have in document hyperlinks as
blue and underlined. We actually can't
change that, but they are underlined, so
they're distinct. However, if you're
using a printed version, it's not going
to matter to you that there's hyperlink
there. So
>> won't work. Yeah.
>> My comment was in my dreams we'd be able
to use color, but I know we're too cheap
to do it, so it ain't going to happen,
So how would you like to begin?
so
I guess
we could begin. I kind of want to begin
with Scott because I'm dying to know
what Scott thinks of this, but I don't
want to jump the gun at the table. Like,
did anybody have something? Did anybody
would Was there a knee-jerk reaction of
I can't use this?
>> Not from me. If you want to hear from
me, not from me. No, I found it quite
easy to use. I just have a few comments
on organizing things on there, and
that's all I looked it for was
organizing. I checked some things in
there to make sure you didn't change a
few things, but you didn't. But, uh,
just the organizational part of it
there, just a few suggestions, and I
don't even know if they should be there,
but it is, you know, there are plenty of
categories to choose from to make it
easy for anyone, us, and anyone else
looking through it to find what they
want. But just uh clarifying a few
things and moving a few things around.
um like we've got section two and at the
bottom of it it says district boundaries
and it sounds like you know they're the
district boundaries. You're going to
find all the boundaries in there but
it's it's not. It's it's the rules
regarding the district boundaries. So
I'm wondering if we could move that
right underneath 21 the zoning district
and zoning maps. It talks about the maps
in the district and then if we had a
category that said rules regarding
district boundaries and that says how
the boundaries are interpreted if there
if it runs into one lot or another lot
or residential business and that type of
thing. If we could just move it under 21
and again these are just suggestions. I
don't know if the rest of the board
thinks about it
>> that parallels what I thought too.
>> Yeah, some of the things might be what
what Victoria thought too. And like on
section three
um I have here section three I was
suggesting to move the rear lots
category and the non-conforming lot
category to just underneath the table
because the table gives all the
dimensions of those and then the rear
lot talks about rear lots and how you
can have those as well and that to me it
makes more sense to be right by the
table and then you expand into the rest
of the stuff underneath that. you know,
you've got the uh height regulations uh
those table of dimensional standards.
Um also a suggestion on that, you know,
the table of dimensional standards is
fine, but if I'm just, you know, guy
picks it up off the street wondering
what the setbacks and stuff are, I'm
looking for setbacks in there. So maybe
if that category was section three was
listed district dimensional and lot
standards. Maybe if we had it uh just
frontage setbacks and minimum lot size
on section three and then you have your
table of dimensional standards. Then you
you if you're looking for lot size
looking for the setbacks frontage and
that you know that you found it right
there and you just turn to it.
>> So that would be actually a replacement
of the section three description there.
She just want to open up and look at
exactly what you're talking about.
>> Oh, okay.
>> Cuz I don't have the printed copy of
that.
>> Oh, yeah.
>> Because like you guys in our office, we
trapped print. We couldn't get away with
it.
Okay. Section three.
>> And I'm just running on your your front
cover here. I'm not even into the whole
thing. Just using your front cover and
just using those categories because
that's pretty much how I looked at it
with your categories to navigate it. And
that was a thing for the insert under
2.1 for rules regarding district
boundaries. And that would be right
underneath that uh table. I believe it
was was it? No, the section Yeah, zoning
district and zoning maps. So, now we're
on section three, and I'm just
suggesting changing district dimensional
and lot standards to something that just
says frontage, setbacks, and minimum lot
size. Something that says those things
so you can navigate right to those
because those are probably a lot of the
things that people are looking for in
there. They're looking in our zoning.
And I also suggested moving Yeah. the
rear lots and non-conforming lot
underneath right underneath the table of
dimensional standards right underneath
that because it pertains to that and I'm
also suggesting that we separate
non-conforming lots and structures to
two different ones non-conforming lots
and then one that says non-conforming
structures
>> and that's something that you deal with
it later right in one of your u
suggested change um it's a content
change. I think I think that was a big
one. Update the
and so I wondered about making changes
like that. So I guess we would
reorganize and then revise a couple
years from now is the thought.
>> Yeah. And that would be the sort of
thing that you could prioritize to
coincide with the reorganizing year.
>> Or sooner if it's causing problems right
now, you know, because that's the other
thing to keep in mind is what is causing
problems for you guys right now.
definitely prioritize
those items. Um,
>> nothing really comes to mind on that
part of it. Uh, just navigating it is
what you're, you know, the improvements
that you're making or have made right
now. Navigating the whole thing, which
makes a lot of sense. The tables work
real well, I think. You know, I like the
tables in there. They're fast and they
you can tell right off the bat. And just
those small suggestions I had there,
that's about it. Anything else?
>> Victoria, you had some suggestions that
were of a similar nature of the order of
things. Do you want to share those?
>> Uh, there are quite a few.
>> Or I mean, should we pause and discuss
Scott's suggestions? Does anybody
>> Yeah. See if anybody agrees, disagrees
with with what we're doing there or I'm
suggesting. Anyway,
>> I'm in agreement. It's one vote.
No,
>> maybe.
>> I'm just seeing everything as an
improvement and just learn to use it.
I'm sure.
>> Yeah. It'll be easier to navigate and
and you know, the fact that the contents
have a lot of categories in it because
that that makes a big difference
>> looking through it, trying to find what
you want. Looking all through all these
categories, say, "Oh, yeah, that's what
I'm looking for." Go right to it.
>> Yeah. I I like this content, the uh
indexing tool because we f did the same
thing with our CNPC budget
>> where we never had a uh this type of
thing and so you're forever trying to
flip through to find out what the guy's
talking about. So we have a page in the
front that's content page. So this makes
it easier for somebody to look something
up.
>> Yeah. Yeah. And this also um
I realized Victoria had some comments
about the general formatting like
indentation and that sort of thing which
is something that you guys can figure
out in your next phase. The the big
thing that I did here was apply headings
to everything. So anytime something in
this changes it will be very easy to
update the table of contents to be
accurate and it will not require staff
to individually go through and renumber
each page. And it also makes it easier
um once whatever end style results you
guys would like apply to this document
to be consistent throughout the document
um through any future iterations as well
as once you present it to the community
>> using features of word.
>> Y
>> using features of word Microsoft Word.
There you go.
I would
>> at least for now until word changes a
lot.
>> They would have been done any other way
in all honesty.
>> I wouldn't have thought it would be done
any other way in all honesty.
>> Well, a lot of these documents were
originally drafted on typewriters
>> and so it's playing catch-up
>> with technology as they change.
>> It was like an old building too, you
know. It just kept on getting added to
and added to and added to. That's how
the whole thing got as it is in here.
>> Exactly. But yeah, to reorganize it and
get it like it is now
>> improvement. When I was reading through
it, I could actually, I'm sure you could
too, I could hear different voices, you
know, there were so different sections
were written in different styles.
>> You know, I don't know who the voice
was, but but there were areas that were
distinctly different from other
>> voices for that.
>> Scott's out for the record.
>> Okay. So, nobody's opposed with Scott's
recommendations that I'm hearing.
>> Want me to leave the room and see?
>> Did you have others, Scott?
>> I No, I didn't. No, those were just a
few little suggestions. I read the whole
thing over, ran through it, and several
times looked it over, thought about it,
looked it over, and those are the small
uh small little changes there was all I
came up with. But
>> do you I made a million of them. Do you
want me? Do you have a record of them?
Um, but I guess we need to know whether
the board agrees with
>> Yes, I do. I have everything that you
emailed and I didn't print up um
>> all of the specifics. I just printed up
the
>> narratives that went
>> along. Um,
I guess what I need to do is is
I I sort of felt like what I was doing
was,
[sighs and gasps] you know, putting in
periods and commas and sort of, you
know, fussy picky stuff that we don't
really need to talk about, but
>> well, and those things are tricky.
They're not really part of the work that
I was doing, but you've got to be very
careful when you replace punctuation in
a zoning ordinance to make sure that it
doesn't accidentally change the
intention of the ordinance,
>> which is which is why I I mean,
grammatically, I know what I was doing
was correct, but but I would like to I
wonder if a subset of the board might
want to just go through the punctuation
stuff because I don't want to do it as a
board. It would be that's probably a
good idea.
>> Okay. But that can be a later thing.
>> And it might also be a a later thing
that follows some of the more sweeping
recommendations.
>> Um because some of those things might
just kind of get caught in the net of
>> other changes.
>> Net maybe. Okay. Yeah, I think that was
the hope when we start making broader
changes, a lot of those punctuation and
grammatical errors just kind of be fixed
along with that as a as a result.
>> Do we have anything else? Well, Victoria
had a couple of things on ordering.
>> I did. I can't remember.
Um, in the first section, I know there
was something and I think it might have
been the same thing Scott said. Let's
see.
Section one. In the first section, I
believe it was um adding a new
subsection under section one for
administration
and that would combine validity,
amendment, and effective date as a
further level down
um in the hierarchy. Yes. So I was begin
with purpose then do applic I was trying
it just seemed logical to go from
purpose to applicability to
administration which would have
effective date the amendment and
validity then go to enforcement and then
after enforcement comes penalties
because
just seemed logical
>> that did all make I I reviewed all your
comments there. You sent them out in
email and yeah that did make sense to to
organize it like that to me too. and and
that means in the title to put all of
those elements in the title so that when
you scan the title you can see what's
going to be underneath.
So that one was pretty straightforward.
Section two [clears throat]
um oh that was moving the zoning
boundaries up underneath the maps.
I thought that made sense. and then
going into district purpose, intent and
location. Going through the different
districts
and then underneath that having the
overlay districts purpose and intent in
the different um districts listed, but I
thought that the title of section two
ought to be zoning map, zoning
districts, and overlay districts. Is
that basically what you said? It is. Uh,
no. I didn't touch on the overlay
districts on in that part of it because
Yeah, I think that you added the actual
overlay districts underneath that cuz
they're further on in here. The overlay
districts are under section six.
>> Did you move those up or you didn't?
>> No, I thought they were No, they're in
section two.
>> The descriptions of the overlays are
section 2.3 and then the meat of the
overlays is in section two.
>> But that's not what you meant.
>> I didn't do that. I didn't move the
overlay districts themselves. They just
the descriptions just as the business
district has a description. The overlay
district has a description.
>> I thought you had met the other. Okay.
>> Yeah. I know
>> that would be too heavy.
>> So maybe part of what you're proposing
for section two, Victoria.
>> Part of it obviously is reorganizing it
so that it flows the way the title of
the section flows. Yes. So if we say
zoning district descriptions first, that
should come first in line. But you're
not proposing that the descriptions come
first. You're proposing
>> I'm I'm proposing a different title,
>> different title
>> for section two
>> that includes overlay.
>> Yes. So it would start out with zoning
map because the first part of this the
first uh number one and number two talks
about the zoning map itself. It talks
about the map itself and then the
district boundaries.
So that's all map stuff and then comma
after zoning map comma zoning districts
and that's where we talk about the
zoning districts purposed intent and
location and then we list all the
specific districts
and then the third part of the title is
overlay districts and that's where we
have a description of the I think
there's three
uh there's shoreland flood plane
wetlands airport district and adult
entertainment district
um and Then the last paragraph of the
the last paragraph,
this used to be
Oh. Oh, that's just a small thing. Um,
under adult entertainment business
district, it was a huge block of text
and I was just recommending that that
get broken up into two paragraphs
because the first part describes what it
is and the second part uh talks about
what it's not.
Um, did you want district boundaries in
the title for section two? Um
I I didn't it could be um it could be
there but I thought that related closely
enough to zone the zoning map because
the map describes the you know the map
is the boundaries
>> the
>> and the district boundaries you mean is
the talking about if it if it comes into
a residential zone or so on that but I
think it should be rules regarding those
boundaries because that district boundit
they're kind of it's kind of misleading
So wherever it is, it should should say
what they are.
>> It's kind of like performance standards
for district boundaries. It's reg it's
how the how the boundaries are figured
out.
>> Which would you prefer, rules or
performance standards?
>> I like rules. I think rules regarding
district boundaries, you know, just
because they are the rules that you're
using, you know, 20 or 50 ft in,
whatever the heck it is, you know,
please
Okay. Anything else in section two?
>> Nope. Okay.
>> Um, and I do want to apologize for how
we have section three and then a big
blank page. And I will let you know
there's a few different things. Um,
thing one,
we do recommend that each section begin
on a new page, but because this is a
draft, and in the interest of not having
it go on forever, considering we're
printing these up, um, I didn't do that.
The other thing is some of the tables
are spaced in kind of a funny way on the
pages to accommodate the notes
>> because the notes had to be formatted
using um
references. Mhm.
>> So there the formatting got a little bit
tricky and there's a possibility we can
work around that but I'd prefer not to
so that it can all stay automatic for
future updates and when things change so
that any future staff that interacts
with the document or current staff that
interacts with the document doesn't have
a nightmare trying to add new provisions
as as your ordinance grows.
Um, okay. Victoria, what did you have
for section three?
>> Um, section three, let me just
>> or should we say is anybody do you guys
want to just speak up if you're opposed
to additional changes that are cuz I'm
going to assume since nobody's saying
anything that you guys are okay with it
and I'm just going to incorporate the
changes that are recommended tonight.
>> But I don't mean
>> Okay. Um my one of my first thoughts was
about the table. Um in this table you
used upper and lowerase and I found that
much easier to read than all caps in the
>> performance. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Um
>> what part was that in
>> this was that I mean was that on the
actual table itself?
>> This t I like the upper and lower case
use in this table. Yeah. But further on
when we get into the uses, uh, it's all
caps and it's just a little bit harder
to read. Yeah.
>> If you have old eyes.
>> Um, okay.
And I'm going to skip through the notes.
>> Mhm.
>> Um, here.
Uh, under this is commercial industrial.
It seemed like
I I I added a word in the title. It's
commercial industrial district and I
said additional dimension requirements
because there in in addition to the kind
of the the standards that apply
um it and I can't remember exactly why
that seemed very logical, but it did. So
maybe you could just consider adding
that word. Is it more
>> currently I have the title for the
additional standard additional
commercial industrial
>> that's why that's why
>> um you're proposing moving the
additional further into the title so
commercial and industrial
>> is the first thing you see
>> grab you and the same was true for
>> do we have
>> industrial park district additional
dimensional requirements just sequencing
>> 31 and 312 does anybody
>> have any preference
>> the idea was just so that you could scan
down and the first thing that would hit
you would be the name of the district
rather than the word additional
>> and while we're on three we had 3114
which is abuing residential
>> and I was considering changing that to
residential screening because that's
what it talks about and that is
something that I think someone might be
looking up you know do we have to screen
this res I don't know what anybody else
thinks about that
>> I agreed but I I also put the word
dwelling in there so it reads abuing
residential dwelling screening.
>> Okay. Yeah, that sounds good. Yeah.
>> Um in in But in 311 and 3112,
um the title of each of those sections
is one is access from route 10 and the
other is access from a feeder road. I it
seemed more logical to say lots using
access from route 10 and then lots using
access from the feed.
>> It does. Yeah, I remember that one in
there. Right.
And that's all I have in that section.
Um, oh, down at 34 where it talks about
non-conforming lots and structures.
uh to in to uh make the title 341 more
informative by saying development of a
non-conforming lot because the the text
talks about how you may develop a
non-conforming lot.
>> Was that development? You had
development first development or
development.
>> It's under 3.4. It says non-conforming
lots and structures.
>> 3.4.1.
The the current title is non-conforming
lot. And and and it seems to me like
since the body of text has to do with
how you develop a non-conforming lot
that you would you could put the word
development of a non-conforming lot
development of non-conforming lot in the
title of that section.
Right. Right.
>> But but that seems like a not a
substantive change that I mean it's most
it's just clarifying. So it didn't seem
like a um
like something that needed voter
approval to increase that.
>> Yeah. Everything needs voter approval.
It's just how we describe the changes.
>> Is different.
>> It does. Maybe I should say it doesn't
need it could go under a blanket
explanation that words were added for
clarification, right? Not a line by
line.
>> on a non-conforming lot
if something is removed, does it not
have to be in the same footprint or is
that
only if it's destroyed?
>> Well, that's something that we actually
point out as an inconsistency that's in
the packet. I think that's what Victoria
was talking about. There was something
that deals with that in here. Um, and
it's inconsistent because in the one
case, if it's destroyed or torn down, it
has to be rebuilt in the same footprint.
However, you can also expand it if it
doesn't increase the nonconformity. So,
which is it? It's both right now. But
>> that would be expanding up I think is
why that was in there
>> because you wouldn't be non-conforming
or it wouldn't be increasing
nonconformity if you did not expand the
external dimensions for setback but
expanding up you'd be more in the
building. I think that's what that's
talking about.
>> It might be. I think it's also talking
about if say you have a side porch that
butts out this far and then you want
your living room to also go out that far
but you don't go out further than the
side porch or you know I'm not
remembering correctly perfectly cuz I
feel like there's also a half distance
included in there for expansion of a
nonconformity.
>> That's right. There is something that
was added in there. Yeah,
[clears throat] something we'll have to
go over I'm sure. And to your point,
when we lived in North Swansea, we
converted or expanded into an existing
front porch to increase living area. And
you know, there's a confusion there. As
long as we're not getting closer to the
boundary or excuse me, not expanding the
boundary of of the footprint.
>> Yeah. The setback's the same is what
you're saying,
>> right? And I think we had something
similar to that about a year ago up uh
on a picture point
where somebody was uh wanted to uh
change their building or go vertical or
something of that nature. But anyway,
there we go. Maybe
>> yeah, that is something that's
identified to to talk about a bit more
deeply later. So maybe if you want to
put an ear mark in it yourself and you
know
kind of determine which ways you think
it's not working to [laughter] bring it
to the discussion
>> because there's a few different ways
that it doesn't really work and I am
certain I have not identified all of
them.
>> Well the it's going to be tough to
research back to what the what the
original intent was when that was done
but but
having I think that the intent was not
to get any closer to the to the pond or
to the any waters edge.
>> Yeah. Not to increase the nonconformity
>> structure.
>> Did you have anything else for section
3, Victoria?
>> Um under three 3.4
um item 3411.
I was recommending that that get a title
and the title would simply be shorelands
protection overlay district
non-conforming lot so that when you got
to that section your eye would know what
you were about to read about and that's
kind of consistent with the way you've
titled other sections.
>> Yeah, cuz we never find it otherwise,
>> No.
>> Anything else for free?
>> Not anymore. Um, [snorts] just Oh, there
there's
a a typo that really bothers me. 3 421.
It's a the wrong verb. Instead of are,
it should be is. Um, restoration, all
those things. Um, is allowed, not are
allowed.
That's all I got.
ready for four.
>> So, I know you had a lot of comments on
the order that these are presented in in
the notes that you sent me
>> and I sort of followed two strategies
when I did this. one was following the
existing order of section three because
it felt in some ways fairly logical. You
can have one family dwelling for a lot
which actually doesn't always make sense
anymore because it's not always
permitted.
Um just putting that out there or is it
do you guys permit single family
residential in every zoning district
right now by right? No,
>> not by right. No.
>> Okay. Um
so first like following the statement of
general performance standards we are
listing some and so maybe those should
be a lower hierarchy you know like the
sewage disposal and sanitary sanitary
facilities maybe that should be 421.
Um,
but generally I laid these out following
more performance type standards and then
moved into accessory uses and tried to
bundle all of the accessory uses
together.
>> Yeah. Which I loved. I thought that was
really nice.
>> But obviously it's all open for
discussion. So
>> yeah, what I what I
>> what seemed logical to me on that
particular day in that hour of that day
was to start with general performance
standards and then do non-conforming use
uh to sort of rule out all any of the
things you you know that fit under that
and then go into accessory uses
and uh customary accessory uses.
prohibited outdoor storage as an
accessory use, small resident storage
sheds, then the whole thing on home
occupations,
and the whole thing on homebased
businesses, which I know is going to
change.
And then go down to things that had to
do with housing, which is the number of
one family dwellings per lot,
manufactured housing, and temporary
dwellings,
and then end up with sewage disposal
because that seemed kind of like it
didn't really flow from anything.
>> [cough]
>> from housing.
But I'm not, you know, that just seemed
like the logic that hit me up that day.
>> Okay. So, should we discuss, ignore,
revise?
>> To me, it could go either way, you know,
just either way. I don't know. Anybody
else think?
>> Yeah, it's I think it's probably just a
matter of taste really. So, I'm not
married to any of it.
Did you have anything else for section
4?
>> yeah.
>> Tables, the categories.
>> Like residential, agricultural. I'm
wondering if it confused me if you get
those confused with the zones.
>> Ah, that's a good point.
Did anybody else find maybe should it
say like residential uses?
>> Yeah. Like so like Yeah. in like
industrial agricultural like is that the
zone or is that the use and then I
realized okay that's a category
>> of uses
>> yeah we can definitely do that
>> yeah I I had the same thought when I was
reading it through the first time yeah I
agree with
>> I figured it out but I figure confuse
other people too
>> um in in 435
uh there was a sequencing thing that
that didn't seem important and that's um
43
um under I know we're going to change
all this ultimately but temporarily I
think we should begin homebased
businesses with the section that says
the following uses may qualify as
homebased businesses because that's
effectively a definition of what a
homebased business is and then continue
to say homebased businesses may be
allowed in all districts provided that
the following criteria are met and just
list all the following criteria
and there's there's I think there's a
logical sequence to that too. I mean I
just don't know how much energy we
should put into this homebased business
section because I think we we do need to
address it as a as an amendment.
Um the the logic that I thought made a
lot of sense was that um no homebased
business to start with no homebased
business shall be conducted at any
dwelling unless it's undergone site plan
review and then there's no more than
three people would be the next one. Um
homebased businesses may incur within
the dwelling unit.
Uh the use does not result in the
alteration of the residence.
it's not identified by any external on
premise
um advertising
and then talk about um it doesn't result
in the production of any offensive
noise, vibration, light so forth
and then talk about um vehicle trips
and it u for the last item the maximum
number of vehicles permitted
that used to be connected in a very
large block of tech or is currently
connected in a large block of text where
it talks about the number of vehicles
and then it continues any applicant uh
shall clearly and fully state the type
and amount of equipment. Those seem like
two very separate items, separate
thoughts and I thought those ought to be
separated.
um one dealing with
um how many vehicles can be outside and
the other that you have to clearly state
what you're going to have in the way of
machines and vehicles.
>> So you reorganized that
>> I did. So uh again run down and what
would be first because we're on 475,
>> Yeah. Um,
except that I gave my own numbers or I
really messed this up.
>> Oh, never. It It really doesn't matter
because as long as all the information
is in there.
>> I'm not partial as to what first.
>> Is all of that in the notes.
>> It's It's in the the hard copy that I
>> because I sort of had to visualize what
how it would flow.
Uh, and that's all I wait. No, I think I
had an addend up to that.
64.
One more set
table of uses. I was asking for large
and small caps on that.
>> Um I like the way you blocked the uses
into different types.
oh, this is the the con. Uh, it's
the rest is just grammar and
capitalization.
>> Don't don't use a hyphen. Do use a
hyphen. Capitalize word. Don't
capitalize certain words. That kind of
thing. It's not meaningful
to the content.
>> Anything for section five or six? I
wonder um I don't have anything for
those myself, but should we spend time
on the table while we're at the table?
Do you think?
>> Okay. Just getting back onto section
four in the contents. Should we have
something that pertains that says
homebased business, home occupation?
Because that's another one that people
look up look for and they they'd want to
be able to find the homebased business
or home occupation just written in
there. whether it's a, you know, we've
got 47 4.7 accessory uses and it falls
under that category, but if we could
have something listed in there that says
homebased home occupation/homebased
business, I don't know, something like
that to refer to it so we can find it.
>> Yeah, I think that would be really
smart.
>> So that for accessory,
it falls under accessory uses.
>> We could leave it up to Sarah to figure
out what it's in. Just as long as it's
in there and it and it goes to a page
number.
>> Just wondering if there are any other
things that fall into. There aren't that
>> we want to
just single out those
4.8.
>> Oh, you'd be at 4.7 then you you'd
single it out. The home base home
occupation
>> if you want it on the table. I mean it
makes
>> I think that makes sense.
>> Yeah. So yeah, if it was 4.8 eight and
then you know 4.9 tables. carry.
>> Um, yeah, I I agree because the only
other solution is allowing the second
lower hierarchy into the table of
contents and not all of those. I mean,
it would be nuts,
>> harder, harder to do, right? So, like
Adam said, another just another
>> Yeah, I mean, I'll see if there's a
workound. I don't think there is but
>> how's it
>> we can look into it and otherwise we'll
just make it another we'll make that um
>> homebased business and home occupations
will be 4.8 and table of uses will get
looked down.
>> Sounds fine.
>> There's there's actually one other
element under accessory uses that might
be worthy of that people might want to
look up and that's small residential
storage sheds.
I don't know if you think people would
be looking
>> No, that comes up. that comes up and
I've had a I've got a notation on my
zoning that you know our current zoning
for that because yeah that has come up.
People have asked me about that and they
look through it and instead of spend an
hour trying to find it in there I go to
my little notes. So yeah um what storage
sheds or something like that that people
equate to just so you could find that.
>> So it's currently a subcategory of
accessory uses
>> just as home occupations and homebased
businesses are.
I think I struggle with that because
it's such a small
>> I know it is. But but if you're digging,
you know, if you if you if that's all
you want to do, you want to find the
place where it is.
>> You do. And and that's a popular thing.
People do want to know about that. The
storage sets, how close can I put it
here or what, you know, what about can I
>> And that does bring up another question,
and this is going to be different for
everybody who uses the ordinance. Um but
it is the first note underneath the
table of dimensional standards directing
you
>> to the ordinance with the hopes that
somebody would start by looking at what
are my setbacks
>> but they probably aren't they're
probably going to look in here for
storage sheds you know like Victoria
suggesting
>> and then I think we have in our use
table of course it's buried it's pretty
far down the list. Um, it is
highlighted. It looks distinct because
it doesn't have any columnation in its
row. It's item number 70 right now. But
hopefully once the uses are consolidated
a bit, it won't be number 70 because you
won't still have 73 distinct uses in
your table. Maybe you will. I don't
know. No judgment. No judgment at all.
Um [laughter]
um but we can also put that like at the
beginning
of the the accessory uses in the use
table so that it stands out much more
distinctly.
>> That's a great way to treat it. Yeah.
Put it at Yeah. Make it pop it up.
And if I can figure out a way to include
a handful of the next lower hierarchy in
the table of contents, I'll also put it
there. But since it is so small, well,
it's really up to you. I mean, if you
guys want it graduated to the top level,
we can do that. There's not any harm in
doing that. But we'll see if we can
incorporate
>> if it's otherwise. Yeah, fits in in
another spot cuz yeah, having it more to
the top of the list on here would be
fine, but the person has to figure out
to go to the table of uses before they,
you know, figure out, oh, it's a storage
shed. You know, that's what I'm looking
for. Of course, that's what Adam's for.
They're supposed to call him up and he's
supposed to go to that table.
>> Well, no, actually these days they don't
call us. They just plop the shed.
>> Yeah, that's forgiveness.
Is there any thought about uh having
these listed alphabetically within the
the category?
>> There is potential thought, but until
you guys determine what your terms are,
there's no point in doing it.
>> I didn't have the energy for it. I do
apologize.
>> That's okay. No, just from a
readability, I think that would probably
make it easier. At least my thought.
But one thing that I would say sort of
anti-alphabetical
organization is if you do um maintain a
numbered list in the use table to make
it easier when somebody's requesting
relief from something um
or when they're pointing out, oh, I can
do this because of this number. If it's
alphabetical, anytime you incorporate a
new use, the whole table will be messed
up. So, if it's already a mess,
>> you can't tell if you messed it up,
>> You [laughter] can't tell.
>> But, you know, when I look at
residential, I mean, that order seems to
make more sense. And when I get to
commercial and I start seeing just more
of a hodgepodge,
>> yeah. Yeah. Residential is very
straightforward. Um,
agricultural
really will have some pretty significant
consolidating just to bring you guys
into compliance. But the commercial and
professional uses and
also the industrial uses, that's where
it really we get a lot of similar
language that's competing.
So, it should be easy to to tidy this
>> All right, let's clean this list up.
So just just to draw your attention to
um the recommendations
section that Sarah's prepared for us.
She has clean she's given us the way to
do it.
>> Um so maybe a way to do it uh but backed
by statute and backed by proflanners
dictionary definitions. So, um,
>> so we could probably get through that
pretty quickly, I bet. Hopefully.
>> Hopefully that will not be painful.
>> Um, okay. Are we Do we have anything
else for the document that we're working
on right now?
Well, if you think of anything, send it
to Adam and you know
>> your your table on 48
>> on the general farming, it's only got it
permitted in a rural agricultural.
>> Yes.
>> And under the RSA's
uh growing of plants and soil tilting is
allowed in all.
>> Yes. So
>> only the animals can be zoned in certain
ones.
So the I think it's probably the first
thing after consolidating your similar
uses
is cleaning up the agricultural uses and
how they're handled because the way it's
currently handled you can't do it in
most of your town which is not
enforceable because the state law says
that you can. So,
>> yeah, I know 67432.
>> Um, but I believe,
>> oh my gosh, I didn't number these pages.
No, I did. Okay. on page seven, at the
bottom of page seven of the handout
that's 25 pages that
>> gives some recommendations for how to
update your agricultural zoning and
bring it into compliance, be more
friendly to agriculture in your town
that celebrates rural character and
agriculture as identifying features.
Okay. So, moving on from this document,
if we're ready to I think we are, but
did I kind of address what you were
>> Okay. Um before we go into
the broader recommendations, I actually
would like to have a brief discussion on
how you guys want to handle the
amendments language because that did
feature heavily at the last joint
meeting and I'd like to have a strategy
that you guys um like to be what is
presented to the larger group and only
present them with one strategy that
works for you guys.
Um, so what I am recommending is that
all of the amendment language
with very distinct exception for
amendments that coincide with um an
ordinance that is specific to the date
where it was adopted. You know, you have
a handful of those. Like for instance,
when you update the ADU ordinance, there
will be a provision in there that allows
an existing nonconforming structure to
be converted to an accessory dwelling
unit, provided that it was built by
sometime in 2025. I think March 2nd,
2025 or
it's something like that. So there there
are a few instances in your ordinance
where that type of information will be
retained, but we're recommending that
all the rest of those are pulled out in
an annex that will be available on the
website or printed up at town hall
because it's Did I share that with them?
I can't remember.
>> It was to
that was the one we talked about. Um not
right now.
>> It's I put everything into a table and
it shows the full amendment history on
every section of the ordinance that says
amended in this time, changed in this
way with the date. It includes all of
that. It includes the current location
of the ordinance within the broader
ordinance as well as the migrated
location of the ordinance. So I mean
it's
>> to the new one. You mean migrating to
the new one you're talking about? Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, right now, of course, it's not
finalized because we're still
reorganizing the structure of it, but
there's a draft of that in place, and
it's it's a pretty lengthy table. It's
maybe 600 rows long because you guys
have um you've got a lot of content. Not
everything has an amendment, but that
would be a way to get it out of the text
and tidy up the ordinance a bit. Um
Victoria has suggested if it remains in
the ordinance just um pulling it out of
the language as you know the next line
so to speak.
>> Well I know my feeling was I I was I was
remembering that we hadn't resolved this
topic but if if we did decide to keep it
in the text then it should be in that
low in a in a position where it's not
kind of gmed into the rest of the text
but I don't know what the word annex
means. Can you explain that in greater
detail?
>> It's an appendix that's a separate
document. So when you print up the
zoning ordinance, it wouldn't have a
500page
appendix, okay,
>> dealing with the zoning amendment,
>> but it would still be referenced by the
zoning ordinance and be incorporated in
the zoning ordinance by reference.
>> Okay. So
the history of the zoning
which would be available if anybody
needed to research the evolution of that
>> and it could very easily be side by side
on the website if you guys okay wanted
it to be there.
>> and then for the map history, I don't
believe that should go in the table. I
believe the map history makes more sense
as an actual appendix to your ordinance
because that's something that you might
need to have at your fingertips a little
bit more easily because
>> your districts have changed over time
and I think it's helpful to understand
those changes as you know you discuss
the uses of land in your community.
>> Yeah, that comes in handy sometimes that
one and putting it in the back is fine.
Good. It used to be what in the front I
think it's in the only
>> Yeah. That's in section two right now.
>> That does come in handy sometimes.
But you're talking about referencing
every single change in its own document
and just leaving it right out of our
zoning completely.
>> I think it makes that cleaner for the
average person looking at it.
>> I don't think the average person cares
if they see amended and such and such.
They say, "Where do I care?"
>> And and we don't care all that often,
but when we care, we really do care. But
if it's if it's all in one place, if we
want to research it, that's the way to
research it there. Yeah.
>> If it's organized the same way, you
know, which it would be
>> it's easy to correlate.
>> Do you want to share that with them
before the next planning board meeting
so they can see?
>> If you still think it's easy once you
see it.
I I am very much in line that this
should be in a separate document but
displayed next to the ordinance on
website use. Um I will be sharing that
Excel spreadsheet with you all. Um it
really cleans up
>> But the sections the the sections would
be labeled the same as they are in the
audience themselves.
>> It would be both. So it would be
>> so it would show would be a complete
document with the ordinance and that's
>> yes. So it's
>> it should describe the table. So one
sheet of the spreadsheet shows the new
location of everything if you guys adopt
the new structure that I've proposed.
And so the first column is the new loc
the new location. The second column is
the location you have right now. And
then the third column is the amendment
history. And then the second sheet shows
it sort of in reverse order showing the
existing location, the new location, and
the amendment history. So that
however people are comfortable
interacting with it, it's easy hopefully
to find.
I'll send you guys the spreadsheet um
after the meeting. Um the reason it
wasn't sent to you before this meeting
already overwhelmed with all the
information that
>> it's a lot. I do apologize.
>> And this would this would have really
fried. So um I'll send this to you after
the meeting tonight and if anybody has
any questions before the next meeting
just shoot my way.
>> Yeah. And it's something just to look at
to see how
>> comes together. Nothing to review.
>> Yeah. It's pretty clear section new
section on the left section on the
right. So you can cross reference really
easily. Kind of like how um we changed
over tax maps. We have a document in
town hall to show what the new tax is
the same idea.
>> So yeah, we'll be using it as an index
with both zoning until we get one
approved or approved by the voters.
>> Okay. So generally you guys think you're
probably in support of that is what we
bring to the joint meeting. Recognizing
you haven't seen it yet,
>> but you mean just a spreadsheet what
we're talking about or you or are you
separating out when the uh amendments
were changed or both? We're talking
about a spreadsheet that that like an
index tells you cross reference as to
all in that spreadsheet.
>> So it's your cross it's the zoning
crosswalk as well as the amendment
history all in the same sheet.
>> But that's a strategy you're talking
about or that's different. That's a
strategy you're talking about right
there. That's a strategy I'm talking
about to pull all of the amendment
history language out of your existing
ordinance and also make it easy to find
where everything moved.
>> So,
>> oh yeah, right.
>> You know, it will help people know that
nothing was lost
>> in the the restructuring and
>> yeah,
>> you know, we don't want anybody to think
that something got
>> omitted accidentally,
>> right? And you know, it's easy to, you
know, looking through. I I was checking
myself back there. So, I don't know if
is that really in there or wasn't that
in there? And I'm checking back in there
and did all right.
>> Didn't find any. Okay.
>> No, I didn't find any. [laughter]
>> Okay. Now, recognizing
the hour and all of that, I don't know
how long I can keep you guys tonight.
You guys got till 9:00. [clears throat]
Just kidding. Just kidding. Um,
do you want to start addressing any of
these issues or are you guys feeling
done with me?
these issues being
>> these are the the separate ones I
>> Oh, the recommendations. Yeah.
>> So, I haven't reviewed them all. I just
stayed on this one here. Yep.
>> But I'm fine looking over if you if the
rest of the
>> If you guys haven't really reviewed
these yet, then we don't need to start
discussing them. But if am I coming to
your next meeting?
Um, I think what I'm going to do is have
Adam kind of feel the next meeting.
>> And just kind of gather your general
thoughts because what I'm going to want
to know is most importantly, did I miss
anything? Because if I missed anything,
I want to add it to the list before it
goes before everybody for the joint
meeting. And um secondly, is there
anything on this that you don't see any
point in moving forward in any way? And
then third,
what are your questions so that I can be
as prepared as possible to deal with the
firing squad on the 17th?
>> I I don't think you're going to have a
fire. This is such a well organized
document that I really think it's
>> you never know. I just like to be
prepared, that's all.
>> But I I'm happy if you have questions um
if you want to meet before the next
meeting just to go over it in more
detail. Maybe I ask you questions that I
can filter out.
>> Are you hoping um for a planning board
decision on each of these 11 items
before the meeting or do you want to
address these things in the joint
meeting?
>> Well, I want to make sure
we have everything that we need to
address,
>> okay,
>> at the joint meeting.
>> Okay,
>> because I'm not sure precisely how far
we're going to get into the meat of
these at the joint meeting. I don't
think we're going to get very far. I
think it's going to be very high level
like, okay, we're talking about this is
how we could address shoreland. This is
how we could address agriculture. We
recognize we need to deal with the
airport zoning. Um, that sort of thing.
So, I want to make sure that nothing was
left out from our previous discussions.
Um, and to make sure that the way that
I'm proposing to deal with these
generally seems reasonable because I
don't want to promote things beyond this
group that this group
doesn't understand, couldn't get behind
and that sort of thing. um because this
is all very draft material and and ideas
to move forward because this also
doesn't contain for the most part it
doesn't contain proposed new language.
It it contains proposed strategies and
so then your timeline is outlining how
you guys would deal with this over the
next 5 years.
>> We're still talking about the 11 items
that are in that memo, right?
>> I think so. Are there 11? Yeah,
>> I should have numbered them so that
helpful.
>> Oh, no. You're talking about the big
>> the content changes. Oh, okay. Okay. I
But
>> do you My question was uh the minor
content specific recommendations. I
thought you were wondering whether we
should address that tonight.
>> Um we can I thought we sort of
>> if you feel like we have
>> broadly, but we didn't specifically. So,
were there any minor content specific
recommendations that were proposed that
anybody feels
shouldn't be there? I know we added a
handful of additional ones through the
course of discussion tonight.
Okay. I just I I just want to make sure
we didn't leave things undone that you
would hope to accomplish.
So, at the big meeting, you hope to
address
to have all of us address the elements
in your um content amendments.
>> Okay. That'll be fun.
>> I'm hoping we can present a unified
front on the new structure.
>> And maybe not have a lot of discussion
with the other boards and just say this
is what the planning board is
recommending. But I don't should I Do
you guys need to vote that you're
recommending this generally? I don't
want to speak.
>> This is consensus
>> for you.
>> I don't I don't see that we need to vote
on it yet. We're still looking over.
>> and then we can go at a high level.
These are all of the areas that are
recommended for amendment over the next
5 years.
and we will ask the broader group also
did we miss anything?
>> Yeah. I think that's really important
because a lot of those boards set up at
that point
in creating that language. I like how we
work directly with the conservation
commission.
>> On the new um
water,
>> So I I think a lot of those boards will
have I think they'll have more to say
about that,
but they're going to have a lot to say
about this.
So, um
I might well I will amend this slightly
based on our discussion tonight to
actually add numbers to each thing so
it's easier for us to have discussion um
in a few weeks and then I'll incorporate
any additional revisions that Adam
captures from you guys at your next
meeting.
>> Would you like us to uh work through the
uh the definitions?
>> Sure. um ahead of that meeting so that
there's planning board because we can do
that as if you'd like
>> lower level
>> because that is something that's
recommended for year one. So
>> that is something that if you want to
move forward with consolidating um your
definitions, you'd need to get cracking
on that if you were going to bring it to
fruition in 2027.
Super Sarah, the airport zoning,
we really can't do anything really
because it's within the boundary is
keen.
So,
>> is it considered?
>> It's considered. Yeah, we we've been
faced with this already with the solar
array going in. We don't have
>> Oh, they're claiming government use of
land.
>> Pardon me.
>> Are they claiming government use of
land?
>> Yes. Yes, that's the problem. for for
taxes but in terms of zone that is still
controlled by swansy because it is still
>> but we can't control the height of any
building or what's going to go into
>> within that
>> so
>> complex
>> there was model language that was
drafted specifically for Dylan Hopkins
airport by DOT and
>> I shared that with Adam for you guys and
the only thing that you guys really have
any purview over is um a local
permitting process and right now you
have that assigned to the board of
selectmen and
I don't know if anybody has ever even
applied for that permit or how that
process is working but it's up to you
guys as the planning board to determine
who that permitting body should be and
then put it to the voters to see if they
agree.
Um, but you're right, there's not a lot
that you can do on the airport, but
right now your airport zoning isn't
enforceable anyway.
>> Yeah, I think the recommended language
was a lot more.
>> Does that kind of answer your question?
Yeah. So, it's basically it's whatever
the uh FAA dictates to us
>> sort of. I mean, it's a little bit more
nuanced than that. I mean, there are
>> there are some things that you guys can
determine and discuss. Like, of course,
height is going to be determined, but
different uses on the airport property
still go through site plan review, do
they not? If a new hanger goes up,
>> they do. They do. It's also important
for for weather considerations, any
environmental concerns that will be seen
by the conservation commission,
potential conditional use permit. Um,
and they they are still going they right
now they're working through the building
permit process. They're paying the
normal fees. So
further discussion.
>> Okay. Okay, so everybody knows their
homework.
>> Sounds like our homework is to review
your recommendations for [clears throat]
the uh consolidation and definition of
similar terms
and I don't think that's going to be
hard and I don't think it's going to
take long and the board just did this a
couple years ago when
species
>> so be the same kind of practice
similar what's the same purpose. Yep.
>> And check through the um the content
amendments to make sure that nothing is
missing that should be there.
>> And is there anything that like airport
zoning that's not worth dealing with?
Not meaning that airport zoning is worth
dealing with, but sometimes it seems
>> Yeah, we'll review the the flood plane
proposed flood plane ordinance.
>> Yes, and I have made a note to try to
get that in plain English um about
adopting it before the new panels are
adopted.
Yeah, it it's confusing to me and I
don't understand it very well, but I do
know that I don't want people to lose
their coverage while we wait for town
meetings to happen again, especially
because Swanson's had some pretty
devastating damage from flooding.
Great.
>> Okay. Do you guys Anything else for me
tonight?
>> Gratitude.
>> Yeah, you've done it.
>> Thank you so much. Oh my goodness. Well,
if you think of anything in the
meantime,
Adam's your guy.
>> He'll collect all of the inquiries.
>> Yeah. Well, um
before
>> um yeah, it might need to be a little
before the 10th, but yeah,
>> yeah, I'll I'll send you an email.
Actually, I will be in Swansea on the
tent for hazard mitigation planning. So,
we could potentially
>> Well, I would.
>> All right. Thank you everybody. I know
this is kind of tedious. I really
appreciate [clears throat]
you walking through this process because
>> appreciate.
>> Yeah. More tedious for you than us. I
>> It's what I do, so I kind of enjoy it.
So, it's not that tedious for me. So,
I'm that type of
>> I don't know what's that say about you,
Sarah. You enjoy it.
>> That's why she just paid the big bucks.
>> We appreciate it.
>> You know, you definitely
>> Oh, yes. Yes. I'll definitely joint
meeting. So, I will see you folks on the
17th. Thank you.
>> So, do we have a meeting before the
17th? Do we meet on the 10th?
Is there any other business to come
before us tonight?
>> Other qu one question in reference to
our Zoom, you know, online. Is it
possible for someone that may be
watching to raise a question?
>> Not currently. Yeah,
>> it's it's only live on basically
>> because I know when we were in CO you
were able to uh ask raise your hand if
you will according to the screen and ask
questions but if we're if we're looking
for people and they're they're want
they're watching it they have a question
to locked out.
>> True. But, you know, they can still come
to the meetings. They aren't locked out
actually of the process. I see what
you're saying there about getting more
people involved.
>> I don't know.
>> I mean, they can look at the agenda
ahead of time and if it's something
that's of interest to them.
>> Oh, it's just a question. Yeah. I know,
as I say, I know when we were through
CO, we had that ability or the
individual had that ability.
a little different there, but yeah, they
had the ability with the Zoom, right?
Zoom.
>> We attended those meetings that way,
>> but it was difficult. You don't know
really who it is, you know, whether
they're in a butter or not. Say you're
having a public hearing, you really
don't know if the person asking a
question is in a butter
who can ask questions in public hearings
and can say things or not. It's best to
have them in person in my opinion.
I like motion we adjourn.