Planning Board Meeting - 8/19/26

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

Recording

to order. Um,
look over your shoulder.
>> Sorry.
>> All right. Uh, let's call the meeting to
order. Uh, could we call the role?
>> Chair Woodin
>> here.
>> Mr. Hicks,
>> I'm here.
>> Mr. Fox
>> Miss Wilbur
>> Mr. Tarba
>> Miss Savage
>> Miss Rosenberger
>> here. Council Todd
>> Uh Mr. Alfren
>> Uh Miss Condo Deatraki not here yet. We
do have a
>> great for the meeting. Uh first item on
the agenda is the approval of the July
minutes. Would someone like to make a
motion to approve the July 15th and the
July 22nd meeting minutes as written?
>> It should be the 21st. Type all
>> 21st. Okay. So 20
>> motion with the correction
>> with the correction on the 21st. Uh we
have a second. technically
>> uh any discussion
and if you weren't there for the 21st uh
we can do it. Yep. Still vote. Uh all
those in favor
>> I
>> opposed. That motion carries. So we will
uh move on to an agenda overview
recognizing Dena Condo Deatraki in as a
member uh for the first item here. Uh on
our agenda, excuse me, agenda overview
for items uh item 8A, uh Palm Street
Minor Subdivision, uh has at the request
of the applicant been moved to the
September 16th meeting. So, if you're
here about item 8A, uh that item will
not be heard tonight. Uh could we get a
motion and a second to move continue
>> continue
>> to the 16th of September? We've got a
motion in a second. All those in favor?
>> Opposed? That [clears throat] motion
carries. Uh item 8B,
excuse me, 8B, uh 110 Manchester Street
is a major site plan, uh has been at the
request of the applicant move to the
September 16th meeting. Could we get a
motion in a second on that?
>> Second.
>> Motion's been made and seconded. All
those in favor?
>> Opposed? That motion carries. And uh
item 8 C, South Street Major
Subdivision, uh at the request of the
applicant has been moved to the
September 16th uh planning board
meeting. Would someone like to make a
motion to move that meeting uh continue?
No. Uh continue that meeting to the 16th
of September.
>> Motion has been made and second. All
>> Opposed? That motion carries. So just
again for the record, if you're here for
the uh South End development project, it
will not be heard tonight. You'll be
heard on the 16th of September. Moves us
right on to design review applications
by consent. Could we read uh actually
just 5A 5A through D? Anything been
pulled out? 5B?
>> I item 5E has been pulled at the request
of the applicant. [clears throat]
>> Okay. So 5 A through D
>> 5D. Uh so anybody in the audience has
any questions, concerns about the
applications 5 A, 5 B, 5 C, and 5D? If
you could make yourself known. If not,
any member of the board want to pull any
of those from the consent agenda?
If not, we'll take a motion to approve
those uh those items 5A through 5D with
architectural design view comments.
>> So move second.
>> Motion's made in second. Any discussion?
All those in favor?
>> Opposed? That motion carries. Item 5E.
Let's read that into the record.
>> Uh we actually will do item six. We're
still in consent that we'll do.
>> Perfect. Okay, so item six, extension
request by consent. Uh we've got an
extension request uh for
item 6A for one year to expire on July
17th, 2027. Would someone like to make a
motion to approve an extension request
>> of the conditional approval for
>> this is for the demolition for most of
Steeplegate Mall. This is their second
request and final for extension.
>> Okay. So, we got a motion and a second.
Any discussion? All those in favor?
>> Opposed? That motion carries. We'll move
back to 5e.
>> So 5e is Sinaurama of conquered on
behalf of Uncle Charlie's Eery and TDL
Investments LLC. Request architectural
design review approval for a new 8.28
[clears throat]
foot internally illuminated freestanding
tenant panel sign to replace an existing
tenant panel and a new 33 foot
internally illuminated building wall
sign to replace an existing wall sign at
376 Louden Road in the Gateway
Performance District. and I will defer
to Alec for a staff update.
>> All right.
>> Sure. Uh, this sign application went to
architectural design review. They
recommended approval as submitted. The
applicant since reached out and they
have a
minor revision to make to the sign. So,
we requested or we worked with them to
come before you as a public hearing to
show that revision and potentially grant
architectural design review at this
board meeting instead of them having to
come back through the process. Okay, if
you want to click start on without your
data,
>> you got it. Thank you.
>> And you can remove the extension.
>> Perfect.
>> Holy smokes. There we go. All right. Uh
Kendra from Sorama Conquered. Um this
customer had reached out to me on Monday
to see if we could add the drive-thru
portion to the pylon. Um
still stays within the guidelines. Just
looking for add-on untext.
So ultimately the difference here is the
drive-thru portion of the sign was not
reviewed by ADR. Um because of that we
pulled this from consent so that the
planning board can consider whether or
not the addition of the drive-through
signage is okay for the
>> Okay. Thoughts from the board,
concerns, questions?
Um
thoughts on this? Is is not having the
red bar just having drive-thru with the
arrow without the red? Um is that I
don't know if anyone I'm just it's just
up for discussion. Yeah. Just kind of
>> find the red distracting
>> a little bit. It does it when we saw it
at ADR very clean. I get it. Um why they
would want to identify that they do have
a drive-thru. Um just thought I'd bring
the discussion to the table that
>> Yeah, absolutely.
>> Not
>> okay. Uh and reasoning on the any any
thoughts as far as the design itself
goes?
>> Yes, of course. The um existing one for
Mountain um Morning Duke Coffee also had
a similar bar drive-thru and an arrow
portion. Actually, those are three
separate um pieces as well. So, this one
will be one cohesive piece. um wanted to
incorporate the red and the leaf in it
as well.
>> So the sign just looking at the
application. So the sign itself is going
to be a little bit smaller. The the sign
before took up obviously a a fairly good
portion of the available space. So that
tightens up with the uh with the red
banner that goes across the bottom. I I
I the red's the same as the leaf as far
as color. Um I'm just wondering Again, I
if we put it in white, it's too if we
don't have any color around it, it's a
little too under the ery piece. Then it
just drives right into the drive-thru
underneath it. So, it has to
differentiate a little bit. Um would be
my thought.
>> I don't mind it. And when I look at that
sign, it's the only drive-thru. So, it
seems to me it's okay to be in red with
the yellow because at least it it says
>> I'm the, you know, I'm the only one here
>> because otherwise I, you know, I think
the white would just kind of I'd have to
read the whole thing and for we older
people reading the whole thing, it's
difficult. So [clears throat]
[laughter]
>> when I
>> So I mean to me it jumps at me which
says, "Oh, there's I can go drive
through. Like when I um was first going
through all the revisions for this, I
initially did just the drive-thru and
the arrow and the white with no banner
and it kind of blended in with the logo
a little bit too.
>> It looks like to me it would.
>> How about white text? Would that work
instead of drive-through yellow? White
text on the drive-thru.
>> It would work, right?
>> It would work.
>> I just The yellow adds another another
color to it. I don't know if it takes
away from it or not, but uh any other
thoughts from the board? Eaton. I'm
familiar with this building and I go
there. Super cuts.
>> Super cuts. There you go.
>> Shout out Super Cut.
>> The drive-thru doesn't jump out at you
even when you're not on campus. Um, so I
think it's probably well advised to make
it pop on the sign so it gets utilized.
I'm without opinion as to what color the
text is. The sign's very busy as it is,
but that drive-thru doesn't jump out at
you as something that you would know to
do like you would at many. We may stop
in because it's got a drive-through.
>> No. So, I I think it's probably a value
ad.
>> Okay. All right. Any other thoughts?
Member of the audience have any
questions or concerns about this
application?
>> No. Okay. We'll close the public
hearing. Thank you very much. Um, so I'm
inclined to approve it with the red
banner down below. I again I I don't I'm
indifferent on yellow or white, so I I
don't know. I I I think the yellow adds
a little bit of a distraction to it, but
Amanda,
>> I'd be okay if it I'd be more willing to
say go ahead as submitted, but change
the color of the drive-thru to white to
match the Charlie Uncle Charlie's ery so
it just looks a little bit more
cohesive.
>> Y,
>> that's my suggestion.
>> Okay. Is that a motion? Yeah,
>> I'd make that motion.
>> I had Dena's hand, too. Did you have a
question, Dena?
Um, I was going to say that I don't have
a problem with the yellow or the red,
but
>> Okay, no problem.
>> I think we got a motion from Amanda.
>> As a point of order, is your motion to
>> prove it as white
>> suggest white or make the change from
yellow to white as a condition of
approval?
>> Condition.
>> Okay, I was going to Did that change the
second?
>> No. Okay, motion and a second. All those
in favor?
>> I opposed. That motion carries. You're
all set. Thank you very much.
>> Okay, [clears throat]
moves us on to
>> 7A.
>> This is Yamas Greek Eery on behalf of
Street Eyer and the Draft LLC requesting
architectural design review approvals
for a 16 ft externally illuminated
existing non-permitted building wall
sign and a new 1.77 foot non-illuminated
projecting sign at 25 South Main Street
in the Central Business Performance
District. And again I will defer to Alec
as he was at the ADR meeting.
>> Okay. Sure. Um on your you have the ADR
recommendations. There was quite a bit
of comment and recommended conditions on
the sign as it was proposed to
architectural design review. uh coinc
coinciding
with zoning and they were going they
were to appear before the zoning board
of adjustment the night after they went
to ADR and they did not re they were
continued at that zoning board of
adjustment meeting. So staff would
recommend consistent with the plane
board is that we don't approve things
that are known to be non-conforming with
our zoning and would recommend that you
continue the application. We have
contacted the owner of this property.
Um, I think that they're on on board
with these things or aware. Um, and I
think they may have some design changes
that we're trying to get in the queue.
But for this point where it's
non-conforming with zoning, we would
recommend you continue it to September
and hopefully they they attend the
September zoning board and then are back
before us for our September meeting.
>> Okay. So, we do have a public hearing
piece of it, open public hearing. So,
open public hearing. Is the applicant
here?
>> No. Any questions from the board? Any
member of the audience have any
>> Not. We'll close the public hearing.
Make a motion.
>> Make a motion to continue it. Uh
September 16th.
>> September 16th. We got a motion and a
second. All those in favor?
>> Opposed. That motion carries and moves
us on. What is next?
>> 7B. This is Nyopco signs on behalf of
Capital Vision Center and Red Eagle
Management LLC requests architectural
design review approvals for a new 36qt
internally illuminated freestanding sign
panel to replace an existing
freestanding sign panel and two new
signs of 74.75 ft and 49.78 ft at 92
South Street in the neighborhood
commercial district. This is the former
right aid space that is proposed to be
the new vision center and again Alec was
at ADR. So
>> all right Alec hit us.
>> Sure. Uh a as you um can see in your rec
your record of recommendation, applicant
came before ADR, ADR recommended uh
condition uh approval as submitted with
the condition that the pylon tenant
panel sign have an opaque background be
applied to the white um consistent with
the design review guidelines and where
especially whereas this property absuts
a residential district boundary at that
architectural design review. the
applicant had requested proactively to
be removed from consent and appear
before you directly.
>> Good evening.
>> Welcome back to the table signs.
>> Uh Alec, we have Ron
picture up here for
>> Well, we can get around that.
>> Okay,
>> Alex can fix any can fix anything.
That's not quite true, but we're going
to pull up the architectural design
review.
>> I clicked on it for my agenda. I got the
right one.
>> Yes, same.
>> It's this one, right?
>> Scroll down. It should be seven. Yep.
>> Applications 22670. Yeah.
It's the correct one.
>> There we go.
>> Good evening. Thank you for allowing me
to speak in regards to this application.
I would like to address uh one specific
issue that's come up during the design
review process. That issue is their
recommendation that the sign face be
changed from translucent to opaque. My
understanding is that an opaque sign
face is expressly permitted in this
zoning district. The application is
submitted comp complies with the the
zoning requirements regarding the sign
face. I certainly respect the
architectural design review and its role
in reviewing the appearance and designs
of projects. I also understand that the
board may have a preference for a
particular aesthetic. However, I believe
there is an important distinction
between a design preference and a
requirement contained in the zoning
ordinance. In this particular zone,
opaque backgrounds are not mentioned or
required. The design guidelines from
1991 used by the ADR section 54C state
that when considering internally
illuminated sign faces, it reads, I
quote, internally lit signs should
provide an opaque background with
translucent letters. It specifically
uses the word should be opaque, not the
word shall be opaque. In legal drafting
and interpretation, shall imposes a
strict mandatory legal obligation
equivalent to must. Whereas should
conveys a conveys a nonbinding
recommendation, advice or personal
design [clears throat] preference.
During the ADR meeting, I expressed that
this particular business has an
established logo used at all locations,
all of which use a white background.
Member Thorp suggested that this
business change the background color and
their logo to a gray color to satisfy
the board's preference. I do not feel
the board has the authority to require
business to alter an established logo or
branding or require the business to use
an opaque background according to the
zone that this business resides in. It's
my understanding this ordinance allows a
translucent white background. At this
location in question, I'd like to
mention that there is also an important
issue of consistency with all the signs
in this immediate area. Within one block
of this location, there are 12
internally illuminated nonopaque
backgrounds that border a residential
area. These signs include Tucker's
Restaurant, Mani Restaurant, Conquered
Family Acupuncture, Milano Pizza, The
Beverage Market, Milano Plaza, Santander
Bank, and Citizens Bank. 10 of these
signs specifically have a translucent
white background. All of these signs
contribute to the existing pattern of
the internally illuminated nonopaque
signage in this area. I mentioned these
existing signs not to suggest that
another prop property should determine
the standards for this application, but
because they demonstrate that internally
illuminated signs with nonopaque
backgrounds are already an established
part of this visual character of this
immediate area. I recently had a
conversation with the city code
department. I asked if they had received
any complaints about any internally
illuminated signs in this one block
area. I was told there have been zero
complaints or calls regarding any signs
in this area nor any calls from
neighbors regarding the sign permit
application. Given all this context, I
respectfully ask the planning board to
consider whether requiring
[clears throat] opaque face on this
particular sign would be consistent with
the treatment of similar signs in
businesses in the surrounding area as
well as the legal stance of requiring an
opaque background. Again, my
understanding that the phase proposed in
my application is legally permitted
under the applicable zoning provisions.
If there is a specific ordinance
provision or design standard that
requires an opaque face in this
particular situation, I would appreciate
having that provision identified. If on
the other hand, an opaque face is simply
a design preference, I respectfully ask
that the application be evalued based on
the actual requirements of the ordinance
and the established character of the
surrounding area. My goal is not to
disregard the design review process. I
am not asking the planning board to
disregard ADR, but rather to distinguish
between a recommendation and a mandatory
standard. My goal is to simply have the
application evaluated fairly
consistently with standards that govern
it. These reasons I ask for your
approval as proposed.
>> Okay. Thank you very much for that
thorough [laughter] explanation.
>> I had so much in my head that I had to
write it down because I didn't want to
be here. Just for the record and anybody
looking in the millions watching on TV,
the application that you've presented
here, picture number C or picture letter
C um for the top part of this panel is
what you want it to look like. Correct.
Um is there's no my understanding is
there's no other application or there's
no other uh tenant on the other spot
underneath it. Could we dull that panel
down below it uh in the interim so it's
not just a a stark white
>> bright bright light?
>> That certainly could be done. Um the
intent is to have two or three tenants
at
>> and [clears throat] then whoever comes
back may have a fully black background
with white you know letters. So um and
it is I mean it's it I drive by it every
day. I live right in the area so I I see
the sign and have seen it for years. Uh
no bigger than the right aid sign that's
there now. It's the same same exact size
using the same frame.
>> Okay. Uh questions, concerns about this
application from the board. Uh and
again, I am sensitive to changing logos
and and and recognizing the fact that
it's a beautiful logo and and it looks
nice in the building. Um I think it the
sign that you've done on the building
itself is beautiful. Um I'm going to
say, well, we got a public hearing, so I
will ask if there's anybody in the
audience has any questions or concerns
about this.
>> No. She answered all of their questions.
>> Not in the audience, but we do have
another comment from Alec.
>> Oh, yes, Alec.
>> No, I just wanted to follow up on some
of the things that Glenn had stated. U
you know, so section 2896
C of the zoning ordinance is the
architectural design reviews standards
for their recommendation. When they
develop their recommendations, they
shall utilize the criteria set forth in
the design review guidelines. And you
know, I agree that you know, the as
Glenn stated, it it clearly states
>> should have white backgrounds and I
think that's important. It doesn't mean
that that is not enforceable. Um, as I
advise architectural design review, it
is entirely within their purview to make
a recommendation to apply opaque
backgrounds per the design review
guidelines. They don't have to. There
are some situations where it may not be
applicable but it is with I think it's
important as my interpretation that is
within their right it is not it is
procedurally sound
>> uh for you as the planning board you
have when it comes to your approval and
your standards for review you have seven
criteria u one of which is the
architectural design review
recommendation one of which is the
design review guidelines and then it's
public testimony you and other factors
but I just wanted to make that clear
that the statement that the where it
should be applied is an option. It's not
something you can enforce. I just wanted
to make it clear that that is not
>> my interpretation.
>> It's a discretionary decision of the
planning board based on those guidelines
and recommendations from ADR which have
been consistently over several years
that when you have a white background
that it's an opaque background as the
recommendation for white pollution
purposes. Y
>> I think for if I may, there's those of
us that have been on the planning board
that have requested and made a condition
as new signs come up in areas where they
were not originally opaque, we've
requested for them to be opaque going
forward, such as on Lowden Road, we had
the CVS who recently changed their sign.
We went back and forth and I just think
we should be consistent on if we're
going to make as a new tenant comes in,
new signs are coming before us, we we
move forward consistently with opaque
backgrounds and not give one yes and one
no and as we go forward.
>> Okay.
Okay. Any others?
>> Yep, I did.
>> I'd like to be respond to Sure. Good.
Um, first of all, we always try my
business and I always try to do the
right thing and I also understand what
the design review board looks for and I
coach my my uh my people that I do
business for in a manner that uh would
be acceptable to the designer review
board. Um, one thing that kind of irks
me is, uh, across the street at the
Capitol Farms, uh, company came in,
another sign company replaced all the
sign faces in there. Three or four
months later, code caught up with it.
And, um, all they had to do was come in
and go before the plane board and they
get it approved. So, me being doing the
right thing, um, I don't feel it's it's
right that, you know, I I could have
done the same thing. I could have just
put this up and I could have came in and
backed it, but um you know, I'm I'm
trying to do the right thing by uh
following the board. Um and I also would
mention that I believe the architectural
design review board had a meeting with a
city solicitor in which they were told
that they could not limit content and
colors um by asking the the client to
change their color in this particular
instance um would be uh wrong. And uh
part of that uh explanation that the
solicitor told the designer review board
that you uh cannot cannot you know limit
the content and color.
All right. Any other questions for Mr.
Shadlick? Okay. We'll close the public
hearing. Thank you very much for your
testimony. Um do we have any thoughts on
which way we want to go? I I like the
sign as it is, but I understand the I
understand the the desire to uh to
inform and to and to put it into to u
you know to a consistent message that we
give ADR. Uh we turn that message around
and then do it one off here and one off
there. It's not the right message and I
get that. Uh but by the same token, I
want some artistic ability for people to
be able to display the sign as they want
to display it. um provided it falls in
the right guidelines on our side. So if
I'm making myself clear on that, but
yes, Matt,
>> I would just say, you know, until the
regulations are changed, um it's really
at the good will of the applicant if
they abide by our recommendation to have
an opaque background. Otherwise, I don't
we can't really force him to do it.
>> You absolutely can.
>> You absolutely can do that. Yes. It's it
with our design review guidelines
specifically say internally illuminated
signs should have an opaque background
and how it's been relatively
consistently applied is if you have a
dark background with a lighter copy you
know we you know is that usually goes
through and it's been fairly consistent
where when you have a white background
with the dark copy in front that that
you know we have this conversation and
you would be absolutely one of your
criteria is applying
the design guidelines and ADR
recommendations.
>> Okay. Thank you, [clears throat]
>> Dina.
>> Thank you. I was wondering if I guess
this would be a question for the
applicant if there I heard that there is
a [clears throat]
a principal reason why they don't want
to make the change, but is there a
hardship that would be a reason?
>> Okay, we can ask that question
>> want to do that.
>> Okay. Did I see David? Did I see
somebody else's hand?
>> Yeah. Um, I I guess I think that we need
to or I need to think about the intent
of the language that you you you are
referencing, Alex, especially you that
um are we ultimately going to follow a
path that they will be at some point
after all we change are all these signs
of everything's going to be opaque
>> at some point. So we really have to
leave it to the applicant to be somewhat
sensitive to what our intentions are not
today but down the road as a as as a
community. Uh I agree I agree with you
also that that uh the law permits this
and we can't we can't stand in the way.
I think
>> to give you I I I don't think we're not
asking for any color changes or logo
changes here. What
>> and I the example I can think of with a
white background sign that is very
different at night time is the Duncan
sign on Fischerville Road.
>> Yes.
>> If you look at that, it's a white
background, but it's opaque except for
right around the letters Duncan at
night. So, it doesn't project that
bright light to the travel way and to
the to the public.
I just want clarification.
>> So the design review guidelines say
should.
>> So my question is if we want that to be
always the case, why haven't we changed
the guidelines? I mean it shall.
>> I mean that that to me I mean if I'm an
applicant and it says should
>> and it says should but not shall. To me
there's a major change a major
difference between should and shall. I
will put myself into Steve Heninger's
shoes when he wrote this back in the 90s
that there he wanted to be able to give
the architectural design review
committee the flexibility to apply it on
a case-byase basis and those
recommendations then get brought forth
to the planning board for your ultimate
decision. So you want it, Steve wanted
it on case by case, but as I'm hearing
it now, the city is saying we want it
always to be okay or so the guideline is
should which is what the architectural
design review committee considers when
they look at every application speaking
as a former ADR member and I I think
Amanda can also as the planning board's
rep that's kind of then the process is
that you look at the sign if it makes
sense for an opaque or a darker
background that recommendation gets made
to the planning board. If it doesn't,
then it doesn't.
>> So, the ADR still has the flexibility to
to
>> You don't need it. Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, so Okay. All right. Thank you.
>> But again, it's a very
>> it's a decision that
>> it's discretionary.
>> Yeah. It's a discretionary decision. And
again, look at, you know, this one, you
know, is is is light and it doesn't have
a lot of color to the logo itself or a
lot of density to the logo, but you've
got others that are that are square
logos that would take up the majority of
that panel. And it doesn't really make
sense to have an opaque background
around that as So, we want the
flexibility to be able to say yay or
nay. Um, we don't I don't think we want
to give that up, but I'm not 100% sure.
So, we'll open the public hearing back
up to recognize uh Glenn in just a
second. Did you have a question?
>> I just I think you heard the question
about hardship and I just want to get
your feedback on that.
>> Thank you. That was very good question.
The hardship here is when you have a
white background with black letters, you
cannot light black letters because the
light will not pass through um the the
lettering. So basically the sign will be
all opaque. So um and also part of their
hardship is the fact that they have
other locations. All the other locations
have a white background that is
illuminated, but that doesn't really
figure into this, but it's a white
background with their blue and black
lettering. So, they want to keep it
consistent because it's very important
for branding to be all consistent. Um,
when I asked the uh design review board
to explain to me or give me a a way that
I could illuminate uh black lettering,
uh I was told by Miss Savage uh that I'm
the sign guy. Figure it out.
So, I have figured it out. It's
impossible unless you want to spend and
and have the customer expend more money
to put a put a film on the back of the
sign, have a perforated vinyl on the
front of the sign, uh, which adds
tremendous cost, and it's still not
going to light up. It's going to be
fuzzy. It's going to be worse than it is
if it has a a lit background. And one
other thing to add is um, not concerning
the hardship, but um, we can also dim
down the lighting. signs now because
they have switches on all the LED. So, I
generally always do that. I I I tone it
down, especially when it's a full white
background. Okay. All right. Thank you
again. Uh any further questions for Mr.
Shadler? Okay. We'll close the public
hearing again. Yes.
>> Sorry. Yeah. No, I was just going to I
was just saying that uh uh I just want
to say I appreciated the comments about
toning it down as we heard already that
that is one of the concerns is that the
brightness would distract our drivers or
affect their visibility while they're
traveling the roadway. So, um I think
that's an important consideration and
then also, you know, we don't really
want to be in the business of changing
someone's logo.
>> Absolutely not.
>> That's that's the only other
consideration I threw out there as we're
making our decision. Thank you.
>> Absolutely.
So again, part of the part of the logo
is the text and in this case, it's not
the address and something like that.
It's part of their logo and and that is
is a material step in this. So it's not
that it's it's the uh it's an address or
a phone number or something like that.
It's actually the the business logo is
is the piece. Um any other thoughts or
questions before we let Mr. Shadick go
again? No. Okay, we'll close the public
hearing. Thank you very much. All right.
Um, Amanda, you had thoughts on on
approval or denial? Um, I'm willing to
look at both sides of it. We can motion
it up and down on on one way or the
other.
>> A can if I'm wrong, but the the only
issue that ADR had was the freestanding
background. Other other than that, they
were okay with everything.
>> Yep. Great.
>> Um, the arch I'll just read it.
Architectural Design Review's
recommendation was that you approve the
application as submitted with the
condition that an opaque background be
provided behind the white of the pylon
panel sign pursuant to section 5.4C of
the design review guidelines especially
whereas this property absuts a
residential district. That was the
recommendation made by the architectural
design review committee to you.
Any thoughts on a
>> connection? Just a brief comment. You
know, Mr. Shadlook is the the messenger,
right? The business. So, he's in a
difficult position. It's just
disappointing that a business moving
into, you know, a property budding a
residential neighborhood wouldn't try to
do something different. But, we can't
control that. I lived in that
neighborhood for eight years. And the
signs are bright. If you look out the if
you look out your bedroom window, they
shine right in.
>> Um I mean, we lived with it. We
adjusted, but it it's just not as
pleasant as it could be. So, it's too
bad.
making that motion all bundled together
like that I think is
not what I think is appropriate because
we have a threshold issue of whether or
not we're going to have an opaque sign
background or not.
>> It sounds to me like and I don't want to
put words in anyone's mouth but the
application should get approved in one
way or another. It's just a question
whether or not we have an opaque sign or
not. So does it make sense to bifrocate
that motion and break it down to the
first issue then move on the overall
>> I would say if you wanted to separate
out the issue of the elimination on sign
C that you move the approval as
presented for signs A and B per the
application that was presented per
design review recommendations from ADR
for those two signs
>> but that just still bundles it all
together on that same issue. Does it
make sense? then it would be a separate
discussion and a separate motion
necessary for the elimination on the on
the freestanding sign.
>> I have a question. You mentioned earlier
about as the sign is vacant underneath
for the one or two tenants to not have
that illuminated during the time in
which it is vacant. Let's just say
vacant.
>> So that that it brings the light down.
But also as um he's noted that you can
also dim the
um elimination
>> down. So I think that it would give
shine less and if there is I don't know
how to
>> that's how to make a measurable
forceable.
>> Yes. Exactly. Because we've talked about
illumination before at ADR and at
planning board before. How do we make
those determinations of what's
acceptable? because we've had other
applicants come in front of us before um
naming Delta Dental and and talking
about how do we police monitor andor
enforce you know illumination on science
because there's been a discussion about
it before. So how do you put that into
if we're trying to find a path that
works for everybody? How do you find how
do you put that into a motion? Yeah.
>> Um
>> and enforce it
>> and enforce it. So um I think there's
trying to be flexible on this as we're
at a impass without it holding up too
much more of the meeting itself. Um,
I could I would make a recommendation to
not illuminate the bottom of the sign
and to somehow come to an agreement that
it's dimming the upper sign, the one
that does the Capitol Vision Center to
not be at full illumination. I don't
know how to say that. So
>> we just did.
>> So I mean is there is there a way to say
that if we could bring the applicant
back up to to identify the illumination
that that is in technical terms and not
just my layman's terms?
>> Can I ask a question?
>> Yeah, I was I had a suggestion.
>> So if there's a the problem is if the
bottom part of it is opaque and there's
another tenant that has black letters,
then the same issue is going to apply,
>> right?
>> Yeah. Unless unless you put in the
condition about the illumination and
that's why I wanted to ask how do you
identify the illumination to not be 100%
or full force. So
>> So we'll open the public hearing again.
Welcome back
>> Mr. Shik.
>> Um the lamps in this particular sign go
vertically. Um, so the only way to make
the bottom section u not be bright would
be to um as you suggested rich to uh
cover it with an opaque background. Uh I
did mention to the design review board
that I was going to try and recommend
that anybody that comes in so that we
can differentiate the tenants in there
to to put a dark background on there. Um
as far as the top sign is concerned, uh
LED lamps now have three switches built
into them. at least the ones that I use.
Um the higher one and then the lower
one. In in lumens terms, um
unfortunately there's no real way that
you can measure the lumens that are
coming out of the sign, but just
guessing in my experience from what I've
seen, it's about a 40% drop in
brightness
>> from high to low or from high to medium.
>> From high to low. Okay.
>> So you you're only getting getting 40%
out of the 100% of the lamps.
>> And those are driven in the sign itself.
It's not like the applicant can turn
them on and off.
>> Correct. Correct. No, they're they're
switches right [clears throat] right in
there. And the other thing that can be
done too is what we used to do with
fluorescent lamps if they were too
bright is we would actually put black
vinyl in some sections of the
[clears throat] tube. So only a partial
uh portion of that light would light up.
>> Okay, that answers the question on that,
I think. Right. All right. We'll let you
go one more time. I promise we're not
going to do it again. So we'll close the
public hearing. Uh, Amanda, did I hear a
motion in there to approve it with the
condition that the bottom panel be made
opaque and the light be dimmed down as
much as possible?
>> Yes, for sign C.
>> For sign C.
>> Correct. [clears throat]
>> And it's worth noting that the the signs
on the building do have a gray
background. Um probably a little late to
the game to mention that, but it it does
have a a soly gray background on the uh
>> I don't think the intent was ever to
change the color of the background on
the um street sign out of sign C. It was
just to
>> um it was just
>> dim the um elimination. [clears throat]
>> Okay. So, we got a motion. I'll second
that motion. Uh any further discussion
regarding that?
consider just um I want to make sure I
captured your motion and then
potentially an amendment if you would
accept it as um that you approve the
condition that the upper section of the
pylon sign sign C be dimmed and that an
opaque background be provided on the
lower sign until such time that future
tenant panel signs are provided [cough]
will either [clears throat] have a dark
background with light lighter copy an
opaque background be provided or they
too shall also also be dimmed.
>> Right. Well, just for the record, it's
he he mentioned the applicant mentioned
that they can dim the entire sign but
can't separate the top to the bottom.
So, the entire sign will be dimmed with
the opaque background and then when the
applicant when the when the second sign
gets put in hopefully next month uh or
soon after then that will also be dimmed
at the same level
>> potentially. Um, right. My the intent of
the potential amendment was just to
provide
>> the three different installation options
where they may or may not be subject to
architectural design review.
>> Um, and I didn't want any hang-ups.
Okay. Um, for any, you know, where the
bottom panel now needs to have an opaque
background and that was going to be that
would be an issue.
>> Um, that was the intent. Maybe I didn't
hit it.
>> Okay. I don't doesn't change the motion
from my perspective.
>> Um, one question.
>> Do we Is there Uh do we think it would
be helpful to um you know it was
discussed that there are three settings
so high, medium, low. Do we want to
specify to the lowest possible setting?
I don't know that we do.
>> Okay. I I think we want to we want to
give the applicant the ability to say
dim it as much as you can and still do
your job and still have the the
applicant the true the customer be happy
with the solution that he presents to
him as opposed to a dull sign. So I'd
rather leave [clears throat] the motion
as we said it which was dim the dim the
uh the sign as much as possible.
>> Okay. Yeah.
>> Any other discussion?
>> All those in favor?
>> Opposed? That motion carries.
>> Are we going with Amanda's motion or the
amend
>> amended motion?
>> Amended motion.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. Shadick, for your
testimony and
>> diligence. We're going to have you come
back for
every one of them.
>> Okay. Let's move on. Again, I I just for
the record, we've seen a [snorts] couple
people pop in the meeting here um after
we started and made a couple of
announcements. If you're here for 8A,
which is uh which is next up on the
agenda, uh the Palm Street subdivision
has been moved at the application at the
applicant's request to the September
16th meeting. The item 8B, which is 110
Manchester Street, has been moved to the
16th of September as well at the
applicant's request. And the South End
development item 8C has also been moved
to the September meeting. So, if you're
here for any of those, those will not be
heard tonight and but you're welcome to
stay and listen to the riveting meeting
as we move forward. So, let's read item
8B into the record if we could.
>> 8 D is Kimell Jenkins Incorporated and
request conditional use permit approval
pursuant to section 28-6-9B2
and section 2867I of the zoning
ordinance to allow for building wall
sign to be located between rows of
windows in a building that is more than
three stories in above the sills of the
first level of windows above the first
story or placed more than 25 ft above
grade at tax map 641Z. Lot 19 addresses
264 North Main Street in the
neighborhood residential district.
And I'll roll into my staff update. This
application is for a conditional use
permit for the proposed Kimble Jenkins
signage on the south wall of the yellow
building closest to I93 uh 393, excuse
me. Uh due to the grades in the area,
Kimble Jenkins is requesting the sign be
placed at a height above the sills of
the first floor windows. Uh the heritage
commission has already granted a
certificate of approval for this signage
as it is located within the city's
historic district. Uh city staff
recommends acceptance of the application
as complete and then following the
public hearing. Uh we recommend
conditional approval of the cup per the
recommendation [snorts] staff memo.
>> Okay. So staff has determined the
application complete and audit
development of regional impact. Would
someone like to make a motion to find
the application complete and open public
hearing?
>> Motion's been made roundly seconded. All
>> Opposed? That motion carries. We'll open
the public hearing. Do we need a staff
update on this or
>> I just gave it something.
>> You just gave it. So, we're good with
that. Welcome to the table. If you could
state your name for the record.
>> Good evening, Chris Neto from Novas
Group.
>> You're becoming a regular, Mr. Neto. How
are you?
>> I'm great. Thank you.
>> Yeah. All right. This isn't an opaque
background sign, is it?
>> This is not illuminated.
>> Just wanted to let you just wanted to
set the record straight here to get us
off on the right foot. All right.
[clears throat] Tell us a little bit
>> Yeah. So, so basically the the idea with
a sign is that you really can't see what
uh the estate and the art school from
when you're approaching from uh from the
south uh and along 393. So, this is
really just sort of a for people to be
able to see the where the the campus is
and and so they can make their decision
at that very busy intersection to come
down the right driveway to get to the
estate. Um a sign on the front of the
building would not be useful for that
case. So that's why um that's why it's
mostly about visibility.
>> So uh for the record, is it is it set at
the level of the lentils on the second
floor? I'm just trying to
>> No, I'm sorry. That been updated to Hold
on a second. I pulled up the wrong plan.
Oops.
>> Go back. You should be back at the
agenda.
One more page
supplemental.
No,
>> there no updated
>> Yeah. know the plan set that I've got
shows it on shows it the second right at
the top of the windows on the second
floor.
>> Yeah, I have I have an updated
>> picture here of it being lowered as as
recommended by the heritage.
>> Can we just shoot that around the table?
>> I have it. I'll go. plug in.
>> It looks narrower, too.
>> We'll get the paper copy.
>> Is it still 3.1
ft by 11.8?
>> Still the same size.
>> The the only thing the board really
needs to concern themselves with with
this conditional use permit is the fact
that it's above the sills in the first
floor. That's the only piece that
requires planning board approval.
Otherwise, this is otherwise compliant.
>> All right, let's just
>> Okay, let the picture get around here
and we'll be good to go.
>> Anything else on it, Mr.
>> Nothing further?
just have a quick uh while we're
waiting.
>> Thank you. Um I think I'm I'm I'm
actually fine with either placement, the
original or the second one, frankly. Um
because I think either one of those
would allow Kimble Jenkins to also at
certain for certain events and other
things use part of that building to put
up a temporary banner or something else.
I mean I I I'd want to make sure that it
wouldn't be like right in the middle and
you wouldn't be able to utilize the rest
of the space on the building for those
kinds of needs. So but it seems to me
like either one of these would be fine.
>> Is there any thoughts on centering it on
the window height? Just out of
curiosity. It looks a little odd. It's
down below the
>> I think the recommendation was
>> that was the Heritage Commission.
>> Heritage Commission's recommendation.
>> Well, let's leave it as it sits then.
Any other questions, comments, concerns?
Any member of the audience have any
questions or regard this application?
>> No. Staff, anything?
>> Okay. Uh if not, I'll make a
recommendation to approve it as
submitted with the res the revised image
that we're looking at here as far as
placement. That's item 9.2 with
conditions 92A12
and 92B.
>> I'm sorry. So just what indeed again I
stepping out of my comfort zone there on
that. Sorry for that. Okay. So as Tim
mentioned and again using as our
findings of fact we'll use the
information that we've got in our
packets as well as the image that we got
here. So in your packet we've got uh
a conditional use permit six. Are we
six? This whole thing is just a
conditional use permit.
>> Conditional use permit. Someone like to
make a motion to approve that
conditional use permit as submitted.
>> So move again with new image
>> subject to the conditions
>> conditions as outlined.
>> Subject to conditions as outlined.
Right. So we got a motion and a second.
Any further discussion? All those in
favor?
>> I opposed.
>> That motion carries. You are all set
with that one. Thank you. I put that in
the record. I don't know.
Okay. What's next?
>> Item 8E is Nobus Group on behalf of the
Society for Protection of New Hampshire
Forest request approval for an amendment
to a previously approved 1999
large-scale development plan for the
installation of a 102 kilowatt ground
mounted solar photovoltaic array as an
accessory used to the existing
conservation center and associated site
improvements at tax map 482Z lot 14
addressed 52 to 54 Portsmith Street in
the open space residential district.
This uh application would amend the
board's 1999 approval for the Society of
Protection New Hampshire Forest site,
which would allow for the installation
of this ground mounted solar and a minor
relocation of some of the required
parking, uh, which results in a very
small increase in the amount of
impervious surface of the site. Uh, city
staff is recommending conditional
approval of the amended site plan per
the recommendations of the staff memo.
>> Okay, welcome to the table. If you could
>> Thank you. Hi everyone. I'm Morgan Dunen
with Novvice Group.
>> So, let's see. I'll do a um a little
overview of this site for us. See?
So, here's the existing site. Um it's
kind of hard to tell, but the the entry
comes off the paved drive from uh
Portsmouth Street.
Um oh well first of all this is um the
Society of Protection New Hampshire
Forest um conservation center located at
54 Portsmith Street. Um and
we are proposing to install um solar
panel arrays for the HVAC system
upgrades to the existing buildings um to
provide renewable energy on site.
So, I'll go back to the existing site
plan. [snorts] Um, so there is um an the
existing conservation building is down
to the south right here and the existing
parking lot area which is our project
area is located right in this location.
um which consists of an existing gravel
uh parking lot um some timber curbing
um and just vegetation.
And we're proposing to install uh the
solar arrays in the northern portion of
the parking lot area. And in doing so,
we will need to reconfigure the parking
lot areas.
When um refiguring the parking lot, we
are going to um have them be up to
today's standard. So, the new parking um
drive aisles will be 24 feet wide and
parking spaces
also.
So, there's six relocating. There's four
here, I think. And we're squaring off
this little area right in this section.
Um, the impervious increase from this
project is uh 295 square ft. Uh, that
does not include the solar panels
themselves. Those are considered um
pvious as uh they don't cover the
ground.
Um so water will just trickle down and
sheet flow off as it does naturally.
there is a limit of tree clearing on the
site. Um over on the eastern portion we
have a tree clearing which will just be
um green on trees to the stumps and um
no earthwork is proposed on this side.
The only earth work will be within the
panels themselves.
um to install the foundations for the
arrays themselves.
There is some utilities within the
footprint of the arrays. So there is um
an existing water line that crosses
right here and then an existing drain
line that crosses on this corner. Within
those two areas, we're proposing to do a
geob ballast um foundations. Um those
you normally see on landfills typically.
Um so they are on the surface um in the
little baskets with um rocks. Um all
other uh foundations will just be the
normal um pier foundation.
and the new electric line will be from
the existing uh building up to the site.
Uh we are also requesting a waiver from
uh site plan rags to allow the
continuation of timber curbs within the
parking lot.
>> That's it.
>> Okay. Is this going to net meter
anything out into the grid or is it all
going to be used internally?
>> All internally. So, the line that's
coming down through that goes down
through the center is new. Um, so you're
going to be digging up the existing.
That's gravel, right? Yes.
>> Parking gravel.
>> Yep. Gravel.
>> Question board.
>> Dina, you got to be happy. [laughter]
Dina is our solar.
>> Oh,
>> she she every single time anybody
[laughter] comes in. So, she's she's
she's loving this plan all together. And
it's nice that it's not taking down a
lot of trees from the looks of it as
well.
Uh questions from the board.
>> I was kind of curious um just following
your question. So you're saying the line
would be underground. It's not going to
be above.
>> Yes, correct.
>> And then um sorry, second part.
>> Um you said tree cutting. I'm looking at
the the image in the supplemental number
13 of 13 and it just doesn't look like
as much space there. And I'm wondering
if there would be more tree cutting to
the northern
on there. It seems like there's more
space than I'm seeing here. So,
>> the tree clearing will be within this uh
internal landscape area. Let's see if
the existing go.
>> This might show it better on the demo
plan.
>> So, they won't
>> Yeah, they'll cut those trees.
>> Yeah, they'll cut those trees right
there.
>> The Society of Protection of New
Hampshire Forest cutting down trees.
Huh?
>> They want to cut down trees. [laughter]
I know it's a little ironic, but
>> for renewable energy
>> to gain the solar solar
>> uh and the panels be pointing towards
the building as we're looking at the
panels be pointed correct
>> towards us. Can't see Portsouth Street.
>> No, we are very far from Portsmouth
Street. It's off the page. Um there's a
long a long drive.
>> No, I'm just asking for the record.
>> Yep. [laughter]
>> Okay. Um other questions from the board?
>> Any member of the audience have any
Seeing none, we'll close the public
testimony.
>> Um, so in our staff uh report here, we
have got 9.2
9.1 again using uh the findings of fact
uh
that we have heard the information that
we've heard here tonight, the
information that's in your packet and
the submission materials that the
applicant provided. We'll use those as
our findings of fact to make the
decisions. And uh first up on decision
is 9.2. two to grant the waiver request
below for the listed sections of the
site plan regulations based on evidence
provided showing that criteria 674 RSA
6744
3E and section 368 of the site plan
regulations are met and that is outlined
in section 18.1 for curbing and
guardrails. Would someone like to make a
motion to grant the waiver request as
outlined?
>> Motion's been made and second. Any
discussion? All those in favor? opposed.
That motion carries. 9.3 is to grant the
amendment to the approved plan for the
proposed groundmounted solar
photovoltaic array relocated parking and
associated site improvements at t tax
map 482Z
lot 14 addressed as 54 52 to 54
Portsmith Street subject to the
following precedent and subsequent
conditions and those are outlined
>> 93A1 through3 and then 93B 1 through3.
>> All right. Would someone like to make a
motion to grant the amendment as as
>> Motion's been made and seconded. Any
discussion?
>> Opposed? That motion carries. Thank you
very much. You're all set.
>> That's it for Novous Group tonight.
Right. Oh no. Okay. [snorts]
Move on to item 8F on the agenda if we
can. Senob's group on behalf of
Dartmouth Hitchcock Clinic requests
approval for a major site plan
application for a 40,50 square foot
addition to the existing Dartmouth
Hitchcock Medical Center, including
expansion of the parking lot and
upgrades to utilities and drainage
infrastructure and other site
improvements at tax map 734Z lot 22
addresses 251 Pleasant Street in the
institutional district. As part of the
major site plan, the applicant also
requests conditional use permit approval
to uh pursuant to section 2841F3 of the
zoning ordinance to allow pertinent
structures or structures not intended
for human occupancy to exceed the
maximum height restrictions of section
2841H of the dimensional regulations of
the zoning ordinance.
Uh quick update. Uh as was brought
before you last month, uh this is a
proposal to uh construct an
approximately 41 square,000 square foot
Hitchcock Center at 251 to 253 Pleasant
Street, including the expanded parking
lot utility and drainage upgrades,
associated site improvements, but no
change to the existing medical use. The
act previously obtained multiple ZBA
variances to address the existing
parking landscaping nonconformities.
They've also submitted the accompanying
conditional use permit application to
accompany the major site plan for the
mechanical equipment and associated
screening on the top of the building and
exceedence of the height restrictions.
Uh the project is now also proposed to
be phased to allow for the temporary
relocation of the portable MRI unit to
be utilized while the full building
expansion is being constructed. Uh the
staff report is recommending continuence
of the application to September
primarily to address traffic study
concerns raved by staff and a peerreview
consultant. Uh there was a meeting that
took place on the 18th yesterday between
the applicants team and the city staff.
Based on that discussions, it appears
there may be a way to resolve these
issues postcond conditional approval. Uh
when we get into the public hearing,
I'll ask Alec and u other staff to uh
discuss how that has gone and taken
place. If the board is comfortable with
the outstanding traffic study items
being addressed as present conditions of
approval, then we'd recommend
conditional approval of the ADR CUP and
site plan per the uh recommended items
in the staff memo with any modifications
deemed necessary as we discussed through
the public hearing process tonight.
>> Great. So staff uh so we have determined
the application complete and open
hearing on July 15th. We do have a
determined the cup complete not a
development of regional impact to do
that tonight. Yes. So we will staff has
found the the uh the cup complete not a
someone like to make a motion to
>> find that complete?
>> Find it complete.
>> So move second has been made and
seconded. All those in favor
>> opposed that motion carries. So we will
reopen the public hearing. We'll welcome
back to the table if you could state
your names for the record.
>> Thank you. Chris Meadow with Novous
Group
>> and I'm John Adams with Department.
So, um, three updates from we're we're
here in July and, uh, three things that
I just, we just wanted to update you on
tonight. First is we submitted
[clears throat] a phasing plan to be as
part of the the, uh, approval, site plan
approval. Um, yellow yellow here is what
will be constructed during phase one.
That includes the parking lot up in the
triangles piece up here and relocation
of the mobile imaging unit from what's
currently uh within the new building
footprint. We need to get that out of
the way so they can get ready to build
the new addition. So that's this area
over here. That's just a temporary setup
for the the mobile unit. Uh and then an
area down here to construct the storm
water uh that's necessary for the
parking lot. Uh so that's the phasing
plan. Second update is with regard to
the conditional use permit and that is
what the architectural elevations that's
basically to um to allow the screening
height to be higher than the 45 foot
maximum height of the building. So
that's allowed under a conditional use
permit. So, um, you can see here the
screening that will be on top of the
building to screen the mechanical
equipment. This gives a little bit
better view. You can't really see it
from Langley Parkway because it's up
quite high. You can just barely see the
top of it here. Um, this the sort of
southeast elevation. Can't really see
it.
And here's kind of further away coming
up Langley Parkway as you're along down
lower. Uh you can just see it up here.
And then can't see anything for Pleasant
Street because it's lower than the
existing building.
And then third change um uh Tim
mentioned was the the traffic study. We
submitted that on July 15th. Um the
city's peerreview engineer provided
comments last Friday which we met with
staff on Tuesday to discuss and um I'll
let John talk briefly about um the
results of that meeting on Tuesday.
>> Sure. Thanks. Um I'll I'll be brief but
I'll certainly can get into more detail
on anything you'd like. So there were
nine comments that the peer review and
the city had. We had a real positive
meeting I thought yesterday. Um I think
seven about seven of those comments were
pretty straightforward. There was um one
or two that we had some discussions on
but I think based on how the meeting
went, how the discussions went um I
think we've got some direction on those
um that's going to be confirmed as we
are working on our written responses
that will be submitted on Friday and
then that will you know that'll give
staff and the peer reviewers um an
opportunity to confirm I think what we
talked about at the meeting. So, we're
not anticipating
um that in the end the project will
require any significant off-site
improvements. So, that's where we are at
this point.
>> So, as we as we did last as we asked
last meeting, we're we asked the board
to consider a conditional approval
tonight so that we can uh keep on our
schedule of trying to get this phase one
uh parking lot and the mobile imaging
unit moved this fall so we start
construction. Uh, and we don't have to
wait until spring to to start
construction.
Questions, comments, concerns. Council.
>> Uh, yeah. Thank you. I just wanted to
ask M if you had an opportunity. We did
get some public testimony on this. Uh,
it was specifically regarding lighting.
Uh, an email that was received I think
on July 27th. Did you have an
opportunity to read that email?
>> I have not seen that. No.
>> Well, there's asked several questions.
So, I was wondering if you if it would
be all right if I could
>> please do put them in the
>> questions that were asked and then maybe
you could speak to these concerns and
there may be more members of the public
out there that have these same kinds of
questions. So uh one of the questions
was what is the purpose of the exterior
lighting and how much light or lumens
are required to achieve that end and
then sort of what guidelines are you
utilizing to um yeah if you go to the
rear end public comment the last item on
there that's it and then you could
that's right now scroll down a little
bit and there you are those are all the
questions so actually I don't have to
really read them but you can read them
yourself there the one I just read were
the first two Sure.
>> Thanks.
>> Yes. So, um, exteriors lighting is
obviously to, uh, to allow, uh, the
patrons and staff to safely enter and
exit the building, uh, during evening
hours and early morning hours,
particularly during the winter and and,
uh, daylight savings time. Um
the lighting is actually pretty specific
in the zoning ordinance that
[clears throat] we're required to
provide cut off fixtures and we're not
allowed to uh to spill light over the
property line more than a certain
amount. So we've complied with that.
So is the city's guidelines that we're
following. Um not sure I can answer the
question about warm color temperature
light sources. These are standard LED
light fixtures that we use all over the
city. So, they're pretty pretty common.
Uh unintended places the light will end
up. Again, we're we're required under
the zoning ordinance not to to spill
light over the property line a certain
amount. So, we've provided a phototric
plan to the city that complies with that
requirement.
Um,
can the plan be modified so that zero
direct light extends beyond the Langley
Parkway sidewalk?
Again, I I believe that uh the phototric
plan shows that that that's in
compliance with that requirement.
And can the lights be dimmed or turned
off outside of business hours? I'd have
to ask that question.
>> Yes, they can. Yeah, we we we do that at
a number of ours.
>> Uh and then can the exterior lights be
motion activated?
>> I do you have that at other facilities
or usually the motion activated is that
they'll they'll kick up a notch and
they'll go brighter when they're motion
activated, but there's a certain low
level that that is required for safety
and public safety. Um, you don't want
people that aren't supposed to be there
in the parking lot at night. So, the the
police want to be able to see
>> security issue as well as an
elimination.
>> Yeah.
>> Security more than anything, I think,
and and public safety for people just
walking through.
>> Uh, yeah. Thank you. So, that that's
good. I I appreciate you covering all
those. I think there was one that uh can
you commit to using fixtures placed low
to the ground with shrouds to light
escaping? But I think that that again
you spoke to that that that's there's a
requirement that you're following that
uh covers that, right?
>> Yep. Under the zoning ordinance. Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. Again, I think just for
the record, the full cut off lighting
and and the spillage over into uh
budding areas and and have a hard cut
off at at a certain point is not in your
purview. If you're putting those in at a
certain point, uh and they're the right,
you know, they're they're faced in the
right direction and and they're full cut
off lights, there's going to be some
spillage. It's just a matter of what the
percentage is.
>> That's right. You're not going to have
anything that's no light's going to fall
over this this magical guideline. So,
>> right, you are allowed. You are allowed
>> candles open. Yeah,
>> there you go.
>> Yeah,
>> Alec did have a comment.
>> Yes, Alex just and as I interpret the
public comment, I think some of the
comments may be directed to the site as
a whole and whereas the illumination
plan and a lot of the the work is within
the scope of this project, which doesn't
have a lot to do with the existing
parking lot on the Langley Parkway side.
Um and so like everything you know
everything proposed is you know we've
deter e either it's conforming or we
have a condition to make it conforming
for within the scope of this project. I
have not conducted an analysis and it
doesn't appear as the applicant has on
any of the
>> existing
>> existing outside of the scope of work
which may be the source of some of these
comments.
>> Okay, other questions from the board
page.
>> I might be missing it but I'm not seeing
the lighting plan anywhere in the
package.
on the civil plan set. It's PDF 33 of
35.
>> It's coming up a little slow here, but
here's uh here's a phototric plan and
that's the area.
>> See 31 to 35. I don't see 34 or 30.
>> Next page up
way.
>> One more. There you go.
>> Right there.
>> That just shows where the light fixtures
are. And then this is the this is the
phototric plan that shows the intensity
of the light from the new lights that
are
>> new proposed lighting.
>> Oh, so there's no lighting on the
>> on the Langley Parkway.
>> There's none. I know, right? Yeah.
>> Yeah. Yep.
>> And even up on the Pleasant Street side.
It's in the It's in the islands, right?
>> That's right. There there are a couple
lights on the north side.
>> So that's on Pleasant Street.
>> Okay. Other questions, comments?
Um, so obviously the the staff's
recommendation, we usually follow
staff's recommendation and right and
want to recognize that, you know, if
they're recommending a continuence and
saying they're not comfortable with it.
I want to get some feedback from you on
the traffic. Not comfortable, but that's
the wrong word, but they're recommending
continuence.
>> The staff member was prepared prior to
prior to the meeting. So I I'll defer to
Alec because he wasn't attending. and so
was Pete,
>> right? One of the one of the uh
so we had a third party peer review do
the analysis
and it only came in a few days ago.
Granted, there were a number of issues
brought up. Primarily, it had to do with
missing information or information that
was um done a little bit different than
traditionally done.
that we had a meeting yesterday. I
thought it was productive. I think you
guys have some work to do. Uh I know you
plan on resubmitting to uh Friday.
>> Friday. Yes.
>> That's an aggressive schedule, but maybe
you can do it.
essentially the what we were trying to
do was
not push ahead without knowing that
there might be some kind of a
additional traffic work that might be
warranted, extra turning lane or
adjustments to the traffic light.
So we before the meeting yesterday and
even now we're not sure if we have the
information to to make that
determination. So that's why
we were looking to slow things down a
little bit. I know you guys have very
aggressive schedule, but we also have to
protect the city's interest as well.
It's difficult as staff to make a
recommendation for a conditional
approval without knowing particularly
what potential off-site improvements may
be required. uh and that's ultimately
the bottom line reason for the
continuence recommendation the staff has
made to you
>> and that was that was the initial based
on a [clears throat] conversation I
think we a little bit better level of
comfort that if you know that if any
off-site improvements are necessary they
may be minor and then we also are one of
our recommended conditions of approval
is that if you move forward with a
conditional approval we'd recommend that
they satisfy all of the third party peer
review comments and If any off-site
improvements are required that would be
considered as a major change, they will
be required to come back before the
board. Um, and you know, we're a little
bit more comfortable after our meeting
that that with [clears throat] that n
that navigating that way and we're not
anticipating that it will be necessary,
but we have that clause, you know, just
in case
>> once we resolve everything. So there's a
there's a comfort level if if we do
approve it um and and give
>> there's anything significant that comes
back it's going to have to come back
>> they come back
>> and it's not even them saying yes we
agree to come back it's us saying it
will come back
>> it will come back if there's a
significant change
>> okay we com we we
>> understanding that yes Amanda
>> um is the applicant comfortable with
those conditions um
if if if granted
>> yeah absolutely we're we're very
comfortable We've we've done the
analysis. We're comfortable. We
understand what if if any off-site um
improvements would be need to be done,
and we're confident we can work through
that with staff.
>> You're going to build it either way,
right?
>> Absolutely. I mean, Dartmouth has been
here for a long time. They're they're
they're uh you know, a well- reggarded
um property owner in the city, provide a
great service to the city. So, they're
not they're not going anywhere.
>> And you really want to have foundation
in for the for this year. Uh, we want to
have the parking moved and the MRI moved
so that they can start the foundations.
>> We're trying to split the needle here
because it's it's, you know, it it's not
something we would typically want to do,
but we're trying to find a way to
>> I agree.
>> To find a reasonable compromise approach
to this.
>> I don't want to be in a hold up here. I,
you know, it's a it's a it's a an
important piece of the puzzle here and
we understand that, but we want to make
sure we're doing it right as well.
>> Understood. [clears throat]
>> Other questions from the board?
No. Yeah.
>> I just want to understand the concern.
Is the concern that with this additional
parking, it's going to overwhelm the
turning areas or maybe require a
two-lane or some sort of change.
>> It's some offsite and group, not
internally to the lot, but what's going
to happen out on Langley or the Pleasant
>> be based on the additional parking put
in the triangular area
>> to the additional square footage and the
additional use that increase traffic
generation that results from the larger
building.
>> So, get a public safety piece of this as
well. Well, you got ambulance traffic
that's coming up Langley Parkway, you
know, a certain amount of of of high
tension traffic that's coming through
that space. So, if the city is being
specific in its in its in its outlook
and saying we want to make sure this is
perfect, you know, we want to make sure
we don't put too much traffic coming out
of out of Langley out of out of this
property to hang up. particularly when
you look at the physical constraints of
Langley Parkway with the grading at the
intersection with Pleasant Street.
There's a large retaining wall there. Uh
there's not a lot of opportunities to
properly design an intersection given
the grading that's out there today. So,
we want to make sure that whatever
results of the traffic study are that we
have the appropriate off-site
improvements uh to take care of those.
And again, I think the, you know,
staff's identified it, looked at it,
slowed things down. Uh, but again, if if
the applicant's looking at it and saying
we want, we'll work with you to figure
out the end result. I don't know, you
know, that we want to slow it down to
too much.
>> To what end my own personal observations
relevant to that concern
>> 100%. You feel free to voice.
>> I live a couple miles from there and use
both roads that they've identified
multiple times every day.
>> I've never seen any backup in traffic
there. flows very easily in and out of
>> 100% I agree with you.
>> So I can't I'd be very surprised if that
additional parking had impact 500 new
cars coming in there and overwhelming a
lot
>> for 500 that'd be a different
>> but yeah I know but say you're not going
to see that but again
>> we think that
the traffic study bears that out and the
peer review looks at it and says this is
what it is and the and the applicant
provides the information.
>> Traffic study objectifies my subjective
observations. Okay.
>> Yep.
Okay.
>> Questions?
>> Any other comments? No.
>> Uh, any members of the audience have any
>> Oh, hang on just a sec. We'll have you
come on up and get in front. Oh, yeah.
Sorry. We got to do it. We got to do it.
We got to do it the right way. I
apologize,
>> but you're just talking to us. We turned
the TV off so nobody can see you. Sign
in. You got to have you sign in too
after you after you speak.
>> I did put my name.
>> Oh, you did already. Good. Thank you.
Um, so I
>> if you could just state your name for
the record.
>> This is Cynthia Trombley. Okay.
>> And I'm here to represent Pleasant View
Retirement and Pleasant View Center.
>> And they're wondering how that will
affect the whole the whole um building
or whatever it is would affect them.
>> They were given,
>> you know, um, notice on this.
>> Sure. As in a butter.
>> So affect them in the sense of loud
noise in the middle of the night, extra
light, uh, whatever that type of thing.
And we'll ask the applicant, but that's
what you're they're concerned about,
you're concerned about. Correct.
>> Okay, we'll ask that question. Thank
you.
>> Thank you.
>> Any member of the any other audience
member have any questions or concerns? I
don't think there probably is, but we'll
ask. Nope. Come on back up, guys. So,
again, in in these types of scenarios,
you know, anything like this, uh, you
know, if it's a 7-Eleven, it's what time
you going to be loading? What time you
going to be picking up dump? What time
are you going to be plowing the lots?
Um, applicant or the the the woman asked
the question regarding, you heard her,
regarding impact to the neighbors. I
don't know that there will be any, but
I'll let you.
>> Right.
>> Yeah. So, uh, Pleasant View's off to the
right to the east. It's actually
separated by a property that's, uh, I
think it's an apartment building. So,
it's it's two properties over.
>> Y
>> um, so from uh from perspective of the
addition itself, we talked about
lighting. There shouldn't be any impact
on lighting.
>> Yeah. Um traffic that's dealt with with
the traffic study that there certainly
will be an increase in traffic, but uh
the traffic study will show that uh if
there are any impacts, we're going to
deal with those with off off-site
improvements if necessary.
Um storm water wouldn't be an issue.
everything flows to the south
and um I'll ask Tim if he could speak to
deliveries and um plowing and that sort
of thing and maybe hours of operation.
>> Uh Tim Bishop, Dartmouth Hitchcock
Clinics, director of engineering. Um
for
after hours there really um isn't really
much going on. Uh we switch out our MRI
trailers um after hours. Um but it's not
loud or disruptive or anything like
that. Um and then we have cleaners in
there at night.
>> Okay. So you're not open after hours. No
helipad on the roof like Okay.
>> If I if I read this correctly, the most
the work being done closest to the to
the uh person who's concerned would be
the addition of the parking lot and the
expans parking lot.
>> Yes. Yes.
>> My question is after the construction,
after this work is done,
>> no change in conditions like operations.
>> No.
>> The only thing I could think of would
maybe um snow removal operations.
>> Okay. So, what you hear now and what you
see now is pretty much what you're going
to get.
>> Okay. Good.
>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh
other questions from the board?
>> No. Okay. Thank you guys for your
testimony. Um, looking at the staff
report again. Let me get to where I need
to be here
and oops,
>> do we have the consensus from the board
to move forward or continue? That was my
>> That's going to be my question as well.
Okay, so you heard the applicant uh
information the kind of the consensus on
do we do we um do we push it off? Do we
uh hear it tonight? I'm going to say I'm
gonna I'm comfortable pushing it or I'm
comfortable approving it with the
understanding that staff and the
applicant can work together on any of
the outstanding traffic issues that need
to be made
>> and anything significant would be
required to come back to the board.
>> Anything significant would need to come
back to the board.
>> I'm comfortable with that. Again, a
little bit outside the norm. Um, and we
try to be as consistent across
applications as we can, but in this
case, I think it's it's warranted and
and I'm comfortable making that making
that motion that uh or not even a
motion, just making the recommendation
that we allow this to move forward with
that uh with that understanding.
>> We good?
>> All right. So, that would move us to the
if the board disagrees
>> part of my part if the [laughter] board
disagrees. So again, using as our
findings of fact the information that we
heard here tonight, the applicant's
testimony, uh the materials that you see
in your uh in your packet, as well as
the public testimony that we heard. So
we'll move to uh if the board disagrees.
So uh we've got waiverss uh items 93 and
94, right? So
>> 93 A through J, staff is supportive. And
then for 94A, we recommend denial. And
that's the traffic study stuff that's
being worked on. So giving it to me
again. 9A
>> 9 A 9.3 A through J.
>> A through J. We'll recre. Would someone
like to make a motion to uh approve
those waiverss as outlined?
>> Is that correct?
>> Support those. Yes. So approve those
waivers and then again that's A through
J on 9.3. Would someone like to make
that motion?
>> I'll make that motion.
>> The second. Any further discussion? All
those in favor? I opposed. That motion
carries and I'll make a motion to deny
item 9.4 the traffic study. Uh staff
supports the denial of the waiver based
on again on criteria did not meet the
statuto
regul regulator regulatory. Uh so I'll
make that 9.4 is denied.
>> Second
>> just ask a question just for
clarification.
>> So they submitted a traffic study but
you think it's not sufficient? No, they
asked for a reduced traffic study
through this waiver. We are getting the
information we need through the process
that we have right now. So, the denial
of this waiver will require them to
continue working with us through the
addressing the state comments,
>> but it doesn't slow him down.
>> No, thank you.
>> No, it won't slow him down. So, we have
a motion and a second. Any discussion?
>> Opposed? That motion carries. That
brings us up to 95, right? for the
conditional use permit for the building
for the screening of the rooftop
mechanical.
>> So again, maximum height of the building
for structures of the zoning ordinance
to allow for the uh current structures
or structures not intended for human
occupancy to exceed the maximum height
uh section 2841H.
Would someone like to make a motion to
>> Oops. Sorry. Yes. [clears throat]
>> Um just so that you know the this
application had has gone to the
architectural design review committee
twice. Um the first time they had
comments, the applicant res
in a subsequent resubmission addressed
those comments in my interpretation.
>> Um however, when they came back through
as part of the CUP and they are recom
they would recommend that as a condition
of the CUP that additional screening
will be required if it is determined
that the mechanical rooftop equipment
can be seen from Pleasant Street
anywhere between Langley Parkway and
East Size Drive intersections. They just
had concerns that just in case that that
screening is visible from the public
right away, they wanted that to that
clause in there to require additional
screening is was a recommended
condition.
>> And just to be clear, there's only three
sides of this screening because the
front is at a lower elevation to the to
the actual to Pleasant Street. So they
didn't feel that it was necessary to do
four sides which I totally agree it as
we saw the elevations should that be
should there be any mechanical change
that would increase the height of their
mechanical equipment we have the option
to or the city has the option to say you
made a change your equipment is a lot
taller than and now it is visible so we
would require you to do screening that
is the only scenario in which I can see
that that would happen um so that's just
to to get ahead of it, should there be a
change in height of mechanical equipment
and then you could see it that they
would need to put the fourth wall of
screening.
>> If if if there's a if there's a material
change in it, then it's then it's
enforceable. I mean, I don't want to put
something in that says if you can see it
and somebody says, "Well, I'm standing
on a bike on top of a truck that's
driving by and I can see it." I want to
be again, you know, I'd rather just say
it that way and say if there's if
there's material changes to the height
and it's unlikely at this stage in the
game for that to happen. It's just in
this scenario something does happen and
they all of a sudden have to source
their mechanical equipment from
somewhere else and it is for whatever
reason a lot taller than what they
originally expect. Um I just wanted
that's why I was trying to make a little
bit more clarification as to why it was
mentioned.
>> Yeah, I think some of the concern the
existing building is intended to screen
that side. I think there was some
concern that as you start to head
towards East Drive or whatever the it
starts to head up. So there was some
concern that you know the provided
elevations and renderings may not have
fully depicted it. So they were just a
little they wanted that caveat in there.
It is entirely the board's discretion
whether you want to condition that
approval or not.
>> What's that?
>> Dina,
>> with the screening proposed, the height
of it is is there um close to the limit
of how high they can go. Is there room
to add more height if they find the
>> um
>> this conditional use permit would allow
them to go above the maximum 45 ft from
grade as long as those things above 45
ft are not intended for human occupancy.
So it could go higher under this
conditional use permit but it it cannot
be used for human occupancy.
>> And the concern is the existing building
is higher than where the mechanical and
so they think the existing building is
acting as that screen. So they're only
constructing three sides of screening
and ADR just had a concern that what if
that doesn't quite land the way that the
instance
>> it's a very narrow possibility based
[clears throat] on the design that we've
seen
>> that and just lead time in ordering them
equip equipment itself would totally I
just think that'd be highly unlikely
>> extreme okay
the applicant happy with that
>> Any other questions, comments?
>> That would be
>> just that was a head nod just by for the
record. [laughter] Not that
>> so it would be moving approval for the
CUP per with the recommended condition
as recommended by ADR.
>> Right. Yeah. So that is a 9.5 to grant
conditional use permit. Uh so I'll make
that motion that we grant conditional
use permit as outlined with that
additional condition.
>> Motion's made and seconded. Any further
discussion? All those in favor? I
>> opposed. That motion carries. 9.6 is to
grant architectural design review
approval of the approximately 41,000
square foot addition to the existing
Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center at
251 to 253 Pleasant Street as submitted.
Someone like to make a motion to grant
architecture
>> condition 96A.
>> 96A
is
>> that's the condition.
>> Is there a 968? No. No, there is not a
96A. Then ignore my note there.
What do you think of that? I didn't read
it wrong this time. You didn't. 9.6.
Uh, would someone like to make a motion
to grant architectural design review? We
got a motion. I'll second that. Any
further discussion? All those in favor?
>> Opposed? That motion carries. 9.7 is to
grant major site plan approval for the
construction of approximately 41,000
Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center,
including expanding the parking lot,
infrastructure and other associated site
improvements at tax map 74 34Z lot 22
addressed as 251 to 253 Pleasant Street
in the institutional district as
submitted and subject to the following
precedent and subsequent conditions
>> 9.7 A1A through U 9.7 A2 through9 and
then subsequent conditions 9.7B 1
through3.
>> Any other additions or subtractions to
those? I like it when you do that, Tim.
That works great for me. So train Kelly
and have to do the same thing. So would
someone like to make a motion to grant
major site plan approval as outlined? So
move
>> second.
>> Motion has been made and seconded. Any
>> I opposed. That motion carries. You are
good to go. Go dig some ground up and
get it going.
>> Not quite yet.
>> Not quite yet, but close. [laughter]
>> Close enough. Yeah, get that traffic.
>> Get that traffic study rolling.
>> All right. Thank you very much. And
let's move on uh to 9A in our agenda.
>> 9A. This is Galahan, Callahan, Gantrell,
PC, Jones, and Beach Engineering, Inc.
and Onyx Partners Limited. on behalf of
Onyx Steeplegate Conquered LLC, Onyx
Regal Conquered LLC, Oner Onyx TD
Conquered LLC, requesting comprehensive
development plan approval for
consolidation of a condominium, Rita
subdivision and separate lots and
ownership, and proposed mixeduse
redevelopment to include certain on and
off-site improvements, fueling station,
approximately 600 residential
apartments, approximately 329,200
feet of commercial retail, approximately
5,40 ft of restaurant use at Act Maps
611Z, lot 40 address, addresses 27
Wilden Road, 611Z, Lot 39 addresses 282
Lden Road, 61Z
Lot 9 addresses 277 Sheep Davis Road,
and 611Z Lot 41 addresses 260 Len Road,
all within the Gateway Performance
District. Uh, as we've mentioned at
previous meetings, uh, the CDP
application is the first step in the
multi-step process to facilitate the
redevelopment of the former Steepagate
Mall and Regal Cinema Sites. Uh again,
because this property is in the Gateway
Performance District, the CDP is
required by zoning prior to the
submission of any subdivision
applications. Uh at this time, only some
minor changes have been provided to the
city since we last discussed the
project. Uh and additional items remain
to be resolved and addressed prior to
the approval of the C CDP. Uh we again
are recommending the board continue the
CDP to October 21st in order for the
applicant to address the concerns raised
in the staff review and provide the
appropriate response to the peer review
of the updated traffic analysis.
>> All right, welcome back to the table. If
you could state your names for the
record.
>> Thank you. Uh my name is Ari Pollock.
I'm with the law firm of Gallagher
Callahan and Gartell here in conquered.
I'm here tonight for Onyx Steeplegate
and Onyx Regal. They, as you know, are
the owners and redevelopers of the
former uh soon to be former mall and the
quite former cinema property up on the
Heights. And uh to my right is Doug
Richardson from Onyx and to my rear is
Joe Ford also of Onyx. For the record, I
invited Joe to come sit with us and he
said no. [laughter]
>> For the record, see, we thought
everybody that was here before was all
here for you guys, but
>> they all left to popular than you think.
as soon as you saw you coming.
[laughter] Well, welcome welcome back to
the table. This is just for the record,
this is a uh this is a reopening of the
public hearing. Uh we found the
application complete in the May meeting.
Uh and we'll welcome you back to the
table.
>> Thank you. Um I did hear Tim's comments
at the beginning. Uh I agree completely
that we are uh still in the making
progress stage. We have made progress.
We're making progress. We're not there
yet. Um you've heard me say it before.
Uh big projects have big to-do lists.
This is a big one. And so the list of
things to coordinate is considerable. Uh
we did want to provide an update
tonight. Uh tell you what, uh is to come
and then request as the applicant for
the CDP that we be continued to a date
certain which uh is in the staff memo of
October 21st, 2026. Uh and that is
intentional because it will give us
until the September deadline which I
think is September 16th
>> um to make uh responsive submissions to
what's in the staff report uh this month
and what has held over from last month
>> and it's your it's your request so that
we're not under the clock here.
>> That is correct. It's the applicant's
request that we be continued to that
date certain.
>> Um so here's the quick summary. Um,
following the last meeting in July, we
received traffic peerreview comments
from VHB. Our consultant VAI, that's a
lot of initials, is preparing a reply to
those comments and we've asked that they
have those ready in time for that
September submission deadline. Uh at the
same time we have supplied our
supplemental traffic materials to DOT
and as recently as today we asked for
city's staff's assistance uh getting
their attention so that these reviews
can go on in tandem. Um the there's
always a chicken and egg issue with DOT
and uh city traffic engineering uh
review and we want to minimize that to
the greatest extent that we can. Um,
there also are items relating to traffic
in the city's engineering report which
also will require a response from BAI
and that is part of their uh to-do list.
Additionally, the planning report,
excuse [clears throat] me, for tonight's
meeting also listed a series of items
needing attention. Again, some big, some
small. Jones Beach, the civil
engineering group for the project is
preparing a reply to those items.
They're working on the same submission
deadline. Uh those items, just for your
reference, include uh testing, truck
turning throughout the site, uh hydrant
placements, um items of sewer phasing as
a result of the municipal project to uh
considerably expand sewer resources in
East Conquer. Um and utility labeling
connections and pathways and so forth.
Um meanwhile, earlier today, here's the
part you probably don't know. Uh,
[snorts] Onyx filed a major site plan
application for its first component of
this master plan. Um, the master plan,
as you know, is not finished or approved
because we're still here tonight talking
about it. But, nonetheless, we have uh
put forward building R3, which had I
been paying attention, I would have
already had on the screen for you.
>> Pack it is or it's new.
>> It's in the civil.
So, uh,
>> it's the 110 unit building.
>> Right. Let me see if I can get there
without Here we go. Oh, whoops.
Too much mousing. Um, this guy here is
building R3.
Um, it's a good one to start with for a
number of reasons. Uh, number one, it's
in a bit of a self-contained portion of
the site that does not require that
another structure be demolished in order
to construct. Uh number two, it brings
forward housing which is not only
important to anchor the project but also
is important to the financial
projections and performance of the
project. Uh again a topic of recent
conversation. Um
and it's residential construction simply
takes longer uh than commercial or
retail construction. Uh and the idea
here would be that even though this may
come forward first um it may be paired
with other pieces of the development
that could open uh together. Um, I've
been careful to try and not use the word
phase or phasing because it's not so
much a sequential timeline we're talking
about as it is picking parts of the
master plan out and moving those forward
for more detailed and sightspecific
study which of course is the purpose of
the CDP plan to have those various
pieces uh relate to one another in an
organized way. Um, so, uh, just again,
it's it's not the topic of the CDP
necessarily, but it is something we
filed today. And since you all want to
know, it's, uh, a fourstory apartment
building with 110 units of housing, uh,
including common areas, amenities for
residents, service, parking, and
landscaping, and we did file building
elevations as well. And I would show
those to you, but staff would say that
they haven't even looked at it because
it just came in today. So, I won't do
that and get scolded in front of
everybody. I don't that wouldn't be very
nice. Um, we uh anticipate that that uh
R3 building application might be
considered in parallel with the
completion of the CDP. What do I mean by
that? What I mean is at the same time as
we're going to be submitting our
response to traffic comments and
addressing other items in the planning
and engineering report uh that was
published for tonight's meeting. We are
also anticipating staff's review of what
we've submitted for that building. And
if the stars align and big projects, big
lists, but if the stars align, we could
have uh a completeness review of that
application at the September meeting. Uh
lining up for a a real uh nice uh public
hearing on uh all the above in October.
So that's that's the goal.
>> Amen. Um just [clears throat] a few
other notes. uh zoning relief supporting
both the master plan and this sight
specific plan have already been has
already been received from the ZBA. Um
and in fact we extended those approvals
recently so that we would not run out of
runway before those applications uh were
filed here and considered here. Um
tonight's uh submission will need uh not
only that traffic peerreview report um
but also building R3 will need uh an
analysis of traffic as it relates to
that building and that corner of the
project. And so right now what you've
got from us is a traffic report that
considers the entirety of the
comprehensive development plan. We're
going to break that down to that
specific site. It'll be a report within
a report, if you will, just so everyone
can understand how that building gets
supported, either in conjunction with
what comes next, if that's the way the
timeline works out, or on its own if
it's first to go.
so back to the uh CDP master plan on the
table tonight. Uh, there's moving parts,
there's work to do. Um we even uh had a
meeting earlier today um that helped us
answer a number of these sort of
sequencing questions and working uh with
senior staff on things like private part
public part private public partnerships
the three Ps. Um there are a lot of eyes
on this project. That's why we're here
to provide this update versus just ask
for a deferral and send in a letter. Um,
we're not able to accomplish a whole lot
tonight, but we did want to be available
to provide the update in person, receive
any comments. There also is a design
review submission behind this. Um, any
comments now or then could all be
collected up and made part of that
September uh submission. So, you know,
with that, happy to take feedback,
questions, thoughts, preferences. Um,
and then as was mentioned, we are asking
as the applicant to be continued until
October 21.
>> Have you thought about opaque signs yet?
I just want to put that on your put that
on your plate so you can start adding
that to the list.
>> Opaque signs, uh, solar panels and
activation of the pond next to the
building. They're all on the list, Mr.
Chairman.
>> And a subdivision.
>> And a subdivision. I'm happy to hear
that uh that residential uh residential
is high on the list to get that started.
That's that's great.
>> it's a much needed. So,
>> for sure.
>> Amanda,
>> I know um question your notation in
electric charging vehicles. I I would
assume that even in as we move forward
uh with a lot more electrical vehicles,
do you guys uh anticipate mapping out
maybe potentially more electric
charging? Because when you've got as
many uh units in each complex from 300
units to 170 to 120 in the other
>> about 600 total,
>> Yes, the answer is yes. It is part of
our consideration and it will be part of
the site planning. Um I believe it is
part of what went in today. Uh, and um,
just I guess I should have clarified the
the CDP plan that you've got I think
talks about 120 units in that building.
It's actually coming forward as 110, but
the project as a whole is still plus or
minus 600. Um, where those 10 pop up in
the other buildings is to be determined,
but that's still the project goal
overall.
Just an interesting side note on that. I
had dinner up at the Vita restaurant and
exit 17, the new Italian restaurant up
at exit 17. It was busy Friday night
packed. I sat next to a couple at the
bar, my wife and I, and of course I
chatted up and started talking because
that's what I do. And he was a electron
electric vehicle driver. Found the the
the the map that said they were there.
popped in to do the the charging, was in
to have a quick appetizer and a drink
and was chatting with him. The bartender
heard me talking and said, "I can't tell
you how many people come in
>> and frequent my and frequent the
facility because of that." And and I
never thought about it, but you know, if
you if you build it, they will come type
of thing where you know, some of your
retail partners are going to benefit by
having electric charging stations that
you know, people will be able to drop in
and and then walk through the the
facility and and take advantage of it.
It was it was an interesting little eye
openening for me on the on the why
people do it and how long it takes. I
was more interested in how long it took,
how much it cost and and and you know
what the what the what the piece was.
But it was it was a good little good
little exercise. We are programming
charging at the uh residential but in
addition our uh retail tenants the two
anchors are uh programming charging
stations and you know gets into a little
bit of uh control of the area. So we
have to watch radiuses and
true
>> but we are working on it
>> and obviously infrastructure and
building in everything to get you
started is an important piece of it.
Absolutely.
>> Good question, Council Todd.
>> Thank you. I just would follow up on
that that uh the public testimony we
received from Mr. Santa Cruz, who
actually
>> really repeating the testimony he gave
in person, I believe. But I think that's
item five on his list. So, I'm assuming
that those are all items you're going to
take into consideration as you move
forward with the plans as well.
>> Yeah. And just for the record, I asked
him to submit that just because it was a
lot and he did go through and cover a
lot of topics that he had public
testimony on. So, I asked him to to
summarize them, submit them as public
testimony so they became part of the
record so you guys could see them. And
uh I think it's valuable and I'm sure
he'll come back to the meeting when
we're talking truck radiuses and turning
radiuses because that's his jam. But
it's it's definitely want to be on the
>> We we we do have his comments. Thank
>> Good.
>> Okay. Other questions, comments,
concerns? Council Todd, just quickly,
um, what would you propose or what do
you think might be the timeline for
completion of just this one component
that you're planning to start on? Now,
>> the construction timeline is
approximately 18 months, about a year
and a half. Um, all that goes well here.
Um, if we could get a foundation in
before winter, it is a woodframe
structure that gets panalyzed so it
could be assembled in January, February,
and then really commence construction in
the spring. And that coincides with some
discussions today we had with staff uh,
regarding completion of the pump
station.
>> That's one of the things we're trying to
line up with is to have
Rather than have all sorts of
contingencies about what we're going to
do with wastewater prior to that station
opening,
we're trying to see if it lines up so
that we're at we're ready at the time
that it's ready and we did get reports
from uh well with Mike. But engineering
uh that uh that project is moving
forward nicely. Okay.
>> Any other questions?
>> Mr. Schiff.
>> I want to see if the applicant would
care to address
Some of the traffic issues. A lot of the
attachments have to do with traffic.
There's 177 page traffic impact study,
eight pages of comments from VHV. It's
something that should be considered
pretty seriously. I don't know if you
guys would care to address any of that
tonight.
>> Yeah, I I I don't know that we're able
to get into the details and I know that
Jeff Durk at VAI would wonder why Doug
and I are talking about the things we
hired him to do. Um, but I guess what I
could say for now is that we did see the
engineering comments relating to traffic
and do have the VHB comment letter and
our traffic group does have it as well.
Um, I specifically saw uh references to
some of the existing roads around the
site and whether or not there's
mitigation needed there. I mean, we've
we have come forward with a mitigation
package. Um we're talking not only to to
you at the city about it but to the
state as well as some of those are state
roads.
>> We've also in the meet meeting earlier
with city staff we've committed to have
a meeting between uh VI people and city
staff prior to the issuance of their
response.
>> We asked for that.
>> Thank you. So when you come back it'll
be
>> more fully baked and
>> we're gonna we're going to have a
submission on th to respond to those
comments from
>> before the next meeting.
>> So we're going to get it
if it goes to plan.
>> We're going to get [clears throat] it in
by that September deadline so that it's
right for conversation at the October
meeting.
>> Okay, good.
>> Other comments, questions?
need a motion to continue to October
>> 21
>> again. Yeah. Staff recommends the
applicant uh request the the continuence
which they have done. Uh so we need a
motion to continue the application to
the date certain of October 21st. Uh
would someone like to make that motion?
I'll make that motion.
discussion? All those in favor?
>> I opposed. That motion carries. So we
will see you in October.
>> We will see you right now actually.
>> Yeah. Yeah. I was [laughter] going to
say item 10 interview. Welcome back to
the table.
>> 10 10 A is Gallagher Callahan Gautrell
PC Jones and Beach Engineering Onyx
Partners LTD on behalf of Onyx
Steeplegate Conquered Onyx Regal
Conquered and Onyx TD Conquered uh
requesting non-binding design review
consultation as part of the design
development review application for the
consolidation condominium resubdion and
proposed mixeduse redevelopment uh as
described uh at the tax maps and
addresses we previously described all
within the gateway performance district.
Uh at this point, staff uh would state
that there there really has been no new
information regarding the design review
submission at this point. Uh we
recommend that the board determine that
the design review phase of the
application process is complete at the
end of this meeting tonight.
>> we agree.
>> We agree. No [snorts] further comment
needed.
>> No. Anything else?
>> You do not you do not need a public
hearing on this either.
>> You don't need anything. Recommendation
staff recommends that the planning uh
the planning board proceed as follows.
to discuss the proposed project. State
that the design review phase shall be
completed at the end of the public
meeting. There's no motion or actions
needed for the design review phase. So,
that piece is done. We'll check that off
the list.
>> Nicely done.
>> All right. Don't forget about those
opaque signs.
>> Hold you [snorts] to it.
>> Made a note on the back of the page.
>> All right, guys. Thank you. We'll see
you again.
>> All right. That's the fun part.
>> That's the end of the meeting, right?
>> Oh. [laughter]
All right, regulatory amendments. Hit us
with
>> I am going to
>> make this
>> combine 11 A and 11B into one
presentation. It's the same report
associated with both. Uh just to give
you a quick 10,000 foot overview of
this. Uh the intent of these regulation
amendments both to the zoning ordinance
and to the site plan regulations are
associated with parking, loading, and
driveway access. uh the shift of the
majority of the design standards to the
site plan regulations allows the use of
waivers instead of variances from the
zoning board of adjustment. Uh and a
secondary uh way of doing this for
projects that are not subject to site
plan review would be to it create new
conditional use permit processes within
the zoning ordinance. Again, uh the
majority of projects are going to come
through site plan review. It's our hope
that the majority of these requirements
that people regularly ask for relief
from would no longer require a trip to
the zoning board. They would all be able
to be handled by the planning board
through your review process. Uh because
we believe that that's a more efficient,
better use of both the applicants and
the staff's time. And I think the board
here is better equipped to handle some
of these types of questions and
determinations of relief uh than the
zoning board does in a vacuum and the
statutory constraints that you have
under variance law. Uh so what these
amendments do essentially is create
relief valves. We're not making any
substantive changes to the requirements
of the ordinance uh with the exception
of codifying the one parking space per
unit for residential uses as the
legislature has dictated to us over the
last couple of sessions. Uh so that's
the only change we're making to parking
requirements.
>> You're welcome.
[snorts and laughter]
>> No comment. Um,
also by making these changes, we're
hoping to align better where we've had
conflicts between what the site plan
regulations require and what the zoning
ordinance requires so that there is a
single consistent requirement for all
parking requirements. There is no
difference between the two regulatory
bodies and frameworks. I'm happy to go
through a bulleted list of all the
different changes that uh we've made
through this very collaborative process
that's taken a long time uh and some
resets in terms of refocusing our
attention from a more comprehensive look
at the overall ordinance to where we are
today. Understanding that the master
plan process now kicked off and has
started. We're really looking this as an
interim change to provide that relief
valve and focus on that relief valve
rather than making substantive changes
which I think are more policy oriented
that would make more sense to take place
after the master plan is complete. So
I'm glad to go into further detail if
anybody wants to, but I'll stop there
and answer questions if anybody has. I
did have a question that when I was
reading through it, I did notice in the
staff report for this this first item
that's on here. Uh there's an item in
here that said if adopted, the attached
zoning uh ordinance amendments will and
specifically caught my eye was item
four,
>> which is remove requirements for
stacking spaces, curbing and guardrails,
which we've had extensive conversations
about curbing, uh illumination of
parking areas, most parking area
landscape standards, design standards
for loading and we would be doing is
removing those from zoning but keeping
them in sight for the regulations. That
was my question.
>> So that's when you get to the when you
get to the the subdivision of
regulations as a reciprocal thing that
says with the regalation of all the
requirements for zoning, they're now in
the site plan regulations.
>> So I read that as we're going to see
more curbing discussions, talk more
about curbing, [laughter]
>> But again, it puts it shall in there.
Okay. I mean,
>> right. [laughter]
It puts it into our purview which again
I think from the development side the
development development committee is
going to love it.
>> That's the other piece. It's it's not
just for the development committee. It's
for administration of this ordinance and
regulations as well.
>> Yeah. Makes it much more efficient.
>> It's it's overdue.
>> Yeah. Much more efficient. Okay. So that
was my question on that. So uh questions
for Tim on this. Um maybe point maybe a
question somewhere in between.
I've heard about this before with other
municipalities, other towns in the state
of New Hampshire and I understand that
most of them already have parking before
the planning board. So we're more or
less coming to lines with other towns
throughout the state. Is that
>> correct? Because of the way our
regulatory system works, there are
certain parking lots that are not
required to go through site plan review.
So, if we just shifted everything to the
site plan regulations, we'd have a gap
where there's a certain small percentage
of smaller parking lots that would have
no regulatory requirements whatsoever.
So we opted to keep a lot of things
still in zoning but change the relief
mechanism from variances to conditional
use permits and then waiver process with
the planning board through the
regulations
for those small number of projects that
aren't going to have to come in front of
you as a board for a site plan. Uh we
want to make sure that there are still
some basic safety standards, dimensional
requirements uh that doesn't let you
know we don't we won't have feral
parking lots popping up where no
regulations are required.
>> Feral park
>> I I like to come [laughter] up with
weird terms.
>> That's a term I haven't heard before.
>> So I'm assuming because we don't see
Kelly here tonight, she has other things
to do. Uh
>> Kelly is [clears throat] prohibited at
the moment by medical advice to come to
night meetings and her maternity leave
starts next week. So
>> I'm just that's for her. Um has she had
a chance to Okay.
>> Kelly has been in integral involved with
the review of these changes. I kind of
took the the lead on these uh after
Kelly started uh with my newfound time
uh to uh try to get this to the front
because it's it's a priority of both
from the city council, from the economic
development advisory committee,
[clears throat] the planning board, uh
staff. Uh it's it's it's time to get
these done.
>> Great. Thanks.
>> Okay, other questions. So, we got a
recommendation. What I have question,
what I need from you here today is on
the zoning side of things, I need a
recommendation to pass these along to
the city council for their own public
hearing and adoption. And then for the
site plan regulatory changes, those are
planning board regulations. I'd ask that
you set a public hearing for those
amendments with the planning board on
September 16th. And at the time when we
do the site plan regs in September, I
will um ask that you condition and um
make the effective date of the site plan
regulations upon the concurrent adoption
of the zoning requirements by the
council which will take place in October
if all goes well.
>> Okay, Mr. Chair.
>> Quick question. Tim,
>> um I I think I understand
your approach here, but can you touch on
the handicap parking ratios and the
removal
>> from that?
>> Essentially, the rather than have our
own, which may or may not be concurrent
with federal law, we defer with ADA
federal requirements.
trying to eliminate any chances for
inconsistencies by referencing other
>> Good question.
>> Okay, other questions. Those are the two
motions we need.
>> Just a quick question
>> on uh this specifically addresses the
curbing by transferring that
>> u curbing issue stuff from zoning to us.
Is it now the burden is on us to take
the gray? Because in my mind, every time
we talk curbing, we're in gray areas.
>> I think it I I will caution you, the
majority of the conversation that the
board has had about curbing has been on
roadways. It's been for subdivisions and
for private drives that are associated
with residential development. I don't
think, and correct me if I'm wrong,
Alec, Matt, Pete, we've had a ton of
require other than tonight, which of
course happens. We had the waiver
tonight to the curbing requirement for
the Society Protection New Hampshire
Forest to allow them to use timber
instead of
>> the logs.
>> Correct. So this is in turn of this is
in in terms of basically our site plans
for non-residential for apartment
buildings. It's not for roadways. That's
subdivision regulations which is another
um set of regulations altogether.
>> So we'll get a piece of it.
>> Okay. There'll be future amendments
again once we through the once we get
through the master plan process. I
anticipate we're going to have a laundry
list of regulatory changes that we'll be
making over the coming years.
>> Welcome.
>> Okay. So, there's two pieces to this is
recommendation
>> to city council for the zoning piece.
>> The zoning amendments to city council.
You want us to handle them as two
>> two separate motions please.
>> Quot questions. If we could I'll make
that motion that uh we re any discussion
on recommending it. I should ask. I
think I'm I'm comfortable making that
recommendation. I'll make the uh motion
that we recommend the adoption of the
zoning amendments to city council for
their consideration in either the
September or October meeting.
>> So moved.
>> That's a second.
>> Yep. Any discussion? All those in favor?
>> I opposed. That motion carries and uh
second item on it is to set the planning
board hearing for consideration of
adoption of site plan regulation
amendments for the September 16th
meeting. Uh, I'll make that motion if
someone would like to second that.
>> Motion's been made and seconded. Uh, any
>> I opposed. That motion carries brings us
to 11 C.
>> 11C. Um,
>> non-conforming structures.
>> Non-conforming structures. So, the
intent of these amendments is to provide
increased flexibility for residential
conversions of non-conforming structures
uh in the RD and UT districts, which
currently requires a special exception
from the zoning board. Uh this would
change that again to a conditional use
permit process with the planning board.
Uh perhaps more importantly the the real
nexus for this change is and Matt can
attest to this. Uh when we have a a home
sitting on a large lot that's been there
since the 1800s and you want to
subdivide a parcel that has nothing to
do with that particular building, but
because you've modified the lot, that
structure now loses its non-conforming
structure. And right now you'd have to
go to the zoning board to get a variance
for that. These regulatory amendments
would eliminate the need to go to the
zoning board. It would state that as
long as the non-conformity is not
exacerbated in any way or made more
non-conforming, you are not required to
go to the zoning board. You are simply
allowed to subdivide the property
without going anywhere. Um the other
piece to that is there would be some
certain dimensional nonconformities that
would be eligible for conditional use
permit process um as determined by uh
the the basically the zoning
determinations made by the department
>> and this just covers structures.
>> This is just structures correct. So, if
nothing is being done to the structure,
meaning the family is still living in
the home and they just want to have
their kid now build the house next to
them that they
>> they're not going to have they're not
going to have to go get a variance in
order to subdivide a piece of property
that has nothing to do with where the
house is.
>> But should they choose to change the
structure, then that kicks off. If they
were to make it any non more
non-conforming, then yes, you'd be in a
variant situation. Yes,
>> I'm agree with that.
>> Y that's a good change, I think. Uh Any
discussion on that? If not, I'll make a
recommendation that uh we recommend to
city council the consideration of this
zoning amendment.
>> Second that.
>> How's that? Is that works?
>> All right. Uh we got a motion and a
second. Any discussion?
>> I opposed. That motion carries. 11d.
>> Two more. Uh this one is appendix B and
C. Uh these appendices which list the
arterial and connector roadways within
the zoning ordinance um haven't been
changed in years. Uh and we've obviously
had changing traffic and land use
patterns that have taken place since
they were last adopted. Again, the
primary function of an arterial is to
move traffic. Uh the collector roads al
essentially collect traffic from other
streets and then bring them to those
arterials. Um, these classifications and
definitions are based on the traffic
volumes they carry. In order to more
accurately reflect the nature of the
city's roadway network, we're proposing
the attached amendments to uh revise
those lists. I did also get some
additional feedback from the engineering
division today. Uh, just clarifying the
state uh route nomenclature, which I
will make uh to those amendments before
I post them for the city council's
consideration. But again, I'm looking
for a recommendation by the board to
recommend the council adopt these. So
just for the record on the the
strikeouts and the changes, it looks to
me like we have less arterial major
arteries
just I'm looking at it. Manchester
Street, Water Street, South Main Street,
those are not listed in the blue for
major arteries. Is that correct? Well,
South Main from Clinton to Pleasant.
>> It's because because Route 3 goes from
the Pemrook border all the way to the
Boswin border.
>> Oh, okay. previously.
>> So you encompass all that
>> basically from Pepper
>> was listed as
>> 106. [snorts]
>> Yeah. So it's
>> so it's not specific Manchester Street,
Water Street, South Main, Frank to this
>> and there'll be some additional things
added New Hampshire route or state route
or US route.
>> Certain things like for example New
Hampshire route 3. It's actually US
route 3. So
>> there are minor modifications that uh
>> I need to make. Okay. Tim, just out of
curiosity, where it says major arterials
from Ho Road from I93 exit 17 to
Canterbury Town line that's heading
west.
Where does it start at I93?
Which side of the bridge?
>> Oh, it's a good question. Does it start
on 393 or does it start on
>> It starts at 90 quite starts at 93 just
to the east of the roundabout, I
believe.
>> The east of the roundabout.
So like by the northbound on-ramp
>> that area.
>> So for the arterial portion would be
from that 93 exit 17 at the bridge
>> at the bridge
>> to the east side of the bridge today.
>> But is it just as art on East Side Drive
and all the way to 393
>> all the way to the Boston Town line
which is almost to the roundabout in
Boswin.
>> Right. But just recall that that
conquered border in that location
doesn't touch
>> Boswin. touches canary and there's a
weird slice that comes through there.
>> Kind of goes through Boyce Road and
Shoing Roads industrial areas
>> knows very very well. So yeah, it's a
little it's just a
>> it's a little wonky up there uh
border-wise. Yeah,
>> funky up there,
>> but the volume but the volumes
[laughter] the volumes justify its
classification.
>> Oh yeah, now it does. So, in a minor
arterial on that same on that same
subject is East Side Drive to Lowden
Road. That little teeny space that
covers uh the the state access to to
there
>> all the way from Lowden to the
intersection the exit ramp and the
bridge.
>> Wow. But not past that down
>> from that point. It's not a minor then
it becomes a major collector.
>> Interesting stuff.
>> That is interesting.
>> Also,
it is it road also becomes a collector
as well. The one that
>> Mountain Road's a major collector from
Sham at the Shaker.
>> Yeah, it's broken up a little bit.
>> Auburn Street is a major collector.
Interesting. Okay. Um questions or
comments?
>> That's only on Halloween.
>> That's right. [laughter]
>> It's an arterial one. Get more plowing.
>> They plow those more often. Right.
[snorts] Okay. So, this
>> motion to recommend to council.
>> So, this is 11D. Uh, I'll make a motion
to recommend adoption for city council
consideration for the September October
>> So second
>> motion's been made and seconded. Any
>> I posted that motion carries.
>> And the last one that I threw together
at the last second. Uh, again
reassuring.
>> This [laughter]
a close look, please.
>> This this was in order to only have to
go to you and the council once. Uh the
National Flood Insurance Program has
updated the flood insurance study in the
firm maps yet again. Uh we just recently
adopted these changes late last year
that became effective in January. There
is a new study that becomes effective in
November of this year and the new maps
become effective both in January and
November. So this is again updating the
language to make sure that we're still
in good standing with the flood
insurance.
>> So just the date. So, I'll make I'll
make a motion that we recommend adoption
to city council for their consideration
in the September October meeting.
>> Opposed?
>> And I will note that city planner Kelly
Karen, who is a certified plane manager,
made sure that was correct.
>> She she was okay with that, huh? All
right. That brings us to our last item
on the agenda tonight. Item 12.
>> May I say one thing?
>> Thank you for doing this. It sounds to
me like you're streamlining things,
making it easier for people, having more
clarity. So, um, thank you.
Transparency, everything. Yeah, it works
great. Thank you.
>> Uh, for master plan, I will defer to the
deputy city manager.
>> So, I'll start by commending Tim and
Kelly as you was a collaborative effort
with them and others uh and myself on
all those amendments. They're overdue
and it feels good to get them done and
it's going to make life a lot easier for
everybody. So, uh, but well done, Tim,
because Tim was the, uh, carried the
majority of the water on those. Um, so
from for a master plan update, uh, just
quickly, so thank the board for its time
back on July 21st when you met with UTL,
you got an update. So hopefully that
was, um, um, informative for all of you.
Um, we're continuing to work with UTIL
and their team as well as New Hampshire
listens on the project. um data
transfers and uh research and and
tracking down other data is underway. Uh
we're actively working on preparing
community profile and some of the base
mapping um that's going to be required
here in the next uh month or so. Um I'm
pleased to announce that the website
went live on the 18th.
>> Um it is conquered.govmaster
planupdate, one word.
>> Um you can go there um and it's u we're
you know we'll flush it out over time.
There's things that we should be adding
here uh shortly, but it's a really good
start. Um folks can go and learn about
the process. What is a master plan? What
is our process? What is our schedule?
There's a nice graphic that explains the
schedule. Um there are uh salient past
master plans that are on that website um
which are important which will be
helpful as we go forward with this
update uh to have that connective
tissue. Um, there's also a way that the
public can sign up to be notified about
master plan, uh, all things master plan,
whatever news might be coming out, press
releases, um, events that we'll be
having coming up. So, so that is live.
Um, and we thank Stephanie Breton, uh,
for her work, uh, because she did most
of the lifting on that piece of it for
us. Um, in accordance with the
discussions we had on July 21st and this
is in the memo that you got in your
packet, um, the community visioning
session has been scheduled for September
19th, which is Saturday morning. Um,
it's at the governor's hall at the
Capitol Center for the Arts. Uh, we
picked that location because it's large.
It's centrally located. Um, there's
parking nearby in the Store Street
parking garage, which is free on
Saturday mornings. Uh the capital center
has uh the audiovisisual things that
we're going to need to make the event
successful. Um they have uh staff that
can help us set up and break down which
is important. So all of those things um
the format that uh util staff and New
Hampshire listens are are recommending
we go forward with is kind of a science
fair openhouse type of approach. Um we
would start off in the morning and we
want to talk to the board about what
time you want to start. So, I'll get
back to that a second, but essentially
there would be a welcome greeting u by
uh a member of the planning board uh
whoever you want that to be uh the chair
or others. Um there'd be a brief
presentation about the master plan
process and with some data points and a
discussion of significant highlights in
certain topical areas or accomplishments
that have occurred over the last um call
it since the last master plan in 2008.
And that would be topical based on
things like housing, historic resources,
open space, natural resources, economic
development, transportation,
um, parks and wreck, energy and
sustainability, things like that. So,
trying to give some folks some basic
information because we're we're trying
to educate those who come, but we also
want those who come to educate us. Um
following that process, we're going to
um essentially have those present
circulate around the room for an hour to
maybe 80 minutes to v to visit various
engagement stations. There will be
approximately a dozen of them so they
can engage more. If they're interested
in housing, go to the housing table. If
you want to talk about transportation,
talk go to the transportation engagement
station. If you want to talk about open
space and natural resources, go to that
table. Um and there will be a few others
along that line. Um, I would note that
New Hampshire Listens working with us is
facilitating this. They're going to have
a table that's going to be set up for
youth. So, um, if you happen to join
your parents that morning and want to go
talk about the future of the city, you
can go talk to those folks about what
you think, um, you want Conquer to be in
the future, the parts that you want to
preserve, the parts you want to change.
Um, so hopefully uh, folks stay here or
come back um, um, when they're young
adults. Um and then after that process
is done, whoever is left present at the
event, we'll bring them back together.
Each table will report out briefly. Um
one minute session, two minutes at the
most. Hey, here are the major themes
that we heard. Uh and then we would go
on from there. Uh we'll have light
refreshments that will be provided. Um
so hopefully folks will come out. Uh we
double check schedules. There are no
major events that day. Um um which is
hard to find in this town because it's a
very busy community. Um, and you know,
basically we're we're asking for the
board's guidance about what time you
want to start. If you want to do it at 9
or 9:30 and it would be approximately a
two-hour event. So, um, you can you can
talk about that now or you can talk
about it after. Yeah. Get the easy one.
[laughter] Let's get the easy one out of
the way.
>> Let's say 9:30 only because farmers
market starts at 8:30 and then gives me
at least an hour.
>> I say nine because [laughter] I have to
go to the meeting across the state at at
1. So, let's do nine.
>> Farmers market. Anyone? Anyone else?
Yeah, but farmers market can run after,
too. You can pop over after.
>> Oh, you are not kidding. You don't get
lettuce if you go after 8:30. [laughter]
>> Mexico.
>> So, I think I heard Matt say 9:00 work
for him. Uh, we got uh [laughter]
the only one.
>> I'm I'm inclined to get it over early.
>> Go at 8:15.
>> You can get there. You get all your
lettuce before 9. Come right in at 9:00.
Be ready to go.
>> That's That's a lot of vendors to cover
in 30 minutes.
>> We good with nine o'clock, everybody?
Anyone
else go to farmers market? Am I the only
one?
>> Do I hear 9:15?
>> I'm going to make a motion that we do
9:00. Second.
>> All right. Motion's been made and
second. Any further discussion? Amanda,
>> you can vote. No.
>> I will.
>> All those. [laughter]
>> opposed.
>> I [laughter]
>> motion carries. We start at 9:00. Sorry,
Amanda. Um,
>> so let's discuss. You want to hop right
into account Matt? Oh, go ahead, Matt.
>> So, and then yeah, so just moving on the
report. So, the last bit is um advisory
subcommittee and the board, you know, uh
you got some information from staff back
on the 17th and um um July 21st um about
uh an advisory subcommittee. So, the
board started having that conversation
on the July 21st meeting. Um,
essentially it would be helpful if the
board could uh this evening um decide
confirm whether or not you want an
advisory subcommittee to be involved in
the process and if you do what is the
final size and composition of that
subcommittee um total members uh boards
and commissions or other constituencies
they may represent etc. And then um if
you are going to go through a process of
appointing them depending who's on it uh
just tell us what that process will look
like or or what you want it to look like
um if there's going to be whatever the
application selection appointment
process might be.
>> Important that we get this tonight
because further delays are really going
to start impacting this timeline on the
project.
>> More importantly, I've been doing this a
long time. I don't I can't count on less
than one hand how many times I've been
cold when I've been sitting here and
tonight is one of them. It is cold in
here. And and just for the record just
just for the record, a new a new thing
that everybody's going to see on this
side of the table is we've got lights
shining in our eyes now from the parking
garage as as [laughter] cars come out of
the parking garage. I'm sitting here and
I can see halos of Ari's head over here
[laughter] as the lights are shining on
the back of on the back of him. So,
>> what does this have to do? I'm just
telling you that's number that we're
voting.
>> That's a nine o'clock. A 9:00 start. I'm
on a roll. So,
>> are you [laughter] But you're awake,
>> I am awake. Yes, I am. So, blankets.
>> Yeah, that's right. But it is cold.
>> I'm not cold.
>> I'm appreciate everybody's time that we
did on the July meeting. We had a good
conversations. We got some good feedback
from uh the from the public. Uh I'm
inclined to say that we do want to do a
subcommittee and we need to do it
formally and recogni recognize that we
want to appoint a subcommittee. It's our
responsibility. So it's not city staff's
not doing it. We're doing it. So um we
want to go forward. I want to go forward
with a subcommittee. I'm just looking
for feedback if we are in an agreement
and can kind of move that forward. Do we
want to go through with a subcommittee?
Yay or nay? Are we all good with that?
>> any opposition to that? Yes, Commander.
Um, we'll have a separate vote on how
many.
>> Yes, we're going to talk about that. Uh,
and again, as we've talked about in the
past, this is advisory to us. This is
not anything that's going to bear weight
on on exactly what's happening. We need
someone that can can drive that piece of
the puzzle. Um, come back to us and say,
"Here's what I heard. Here's the
information. Here's here's a summary of
everything." And then we make the
decisions. The expectation is that this
subcommittee will have four spaced out
meetings throughout the process.
>> No more, no less.
>> And and those dates can somewhat be um
targeted so that those that are being
asked know what their responsibility and
when they're
going to be showing up. And so
>> because I I look at, you know, our list
and I I I want to identify those that
know that they're out of town January
through March, you know, or whatever.
It's why it's important for us to get
decision made tonight so we can start
getting those states put together.
>> So again, first and foremost, I think we
do want to do a subcommittee. Is that
correct? So second secondarily to that
is the number of people that are on
there. I think at a bare minimum it's
12. I think I'm comfortable with 141 15
um if we get to that point. I would like
to have a couple of of people that are
just public figures. I think the youth
aspect of it is is a really important
one. um we could probably have one or
two people in that in that scenario. So
again, I'm not I'm not worried about 14
being an odd an even or odd number
because it's again it's all coming back
to us. So, if we're comfortable with
that, I think we we look at this the
list that's in here in your packet on on
where the, you know, the the boards are
coming from and the numbers that staff
put together uh with planning board,
five or six members of the planning
board, uh conservation commission,
economic development advisory, energy
and improvement, uh energy and uh
environment, heritage commission, uh
recreation parks advisory,
transportation policy, uh gives us 12 if
we add two more for public uh gives us
14 and what
>> housing
>> and housing for 15.
>> I would like to make two suggestions. 15
I think is great.
>> Um I would like to have one public
member possibly be youth. I think it
would be important to have one public
member that's a senior member of the
senior community. Y
>> and housing I totally agree with. The
other comment I'd like to make is I
don't think we should designate
necessarily the years of these committ
and I think we need to look at people.
We we need to be thoughtful
>> and I think I said that in the meeting
is I'm not interested in someone that's
got an agenda or someone that's got you
know you know is is is working on this.
I do want to look at it and say if the
chair is the right person
>> then it's great. But I don't want to
just automatically say, "Okay, the chair
of TAC, the chair of economic
development, the chair of conservation
commission." I want to look at it and
say conservation commission, boy, we've
got two or three really good
opportunities to bring people forward to
that.
So, as you know, [clears throat] Rich, I
spent quite a bit of time going through
all these committees and I I made a
spreadsheet of all of the members and I
started looking how to diversify this um
with younger um with younger people that
maybe families in the community with
people who provide more um
ethnic and racial diversity which will
help u maybe from the immigrant
population. Um and some and I agree
people who are not necessarily always
called on
>> so to rep because this is advisory we
don't need to have the conservation
experts necessarily.
>> So Matt I got a question for you on that
topic. Um we're very conscious of
transparency and uh not speaking amongst
ourselves in any scenario where there's
anything that comes before the board or
anything that comes before us. Nobody
sends emails out to say, "Hey, we got a
plan that's coming up tonight." In this
scenario, we're talking about people
that we know. I know somebody that's
this or I know somebody that's that. I
wouldn't feel comfortable unless we ran
it by you or or or the city solicitor to
say, can we as a group communicate um
since we're going to be recommending
people with Leon and with the
alternative the alternates as well, can
we communicate amongst ourselves
regarding, hey, I've got a really good
candidate for this position. Anybody
know them? Do you do you have any
feedback? I just it's not a public
piece, I guess, and I don't know if
we're good to do that or not. just
speculating and Matt can correct me with
his impressions if he wants, but because
you're not in a decision-making capacity
for a land use regulatory process, I
believe you can deliberate those types
of things as long as the final decision
is made at a public meeting, but I
defer.
>> Yeah. I mean, if there if you're you've
got candidates that you think you want
to reach out to um or
>> and I don't want to do it in a public
forum,
>> right? Yeah,
>> want to do that outreach prior to making
a decision.
>> But if if you're I guess I guess my
question would be
>> um you're going to set the slate here.
It looks like we're at 15
>> uh with the the ones that are
recommended in the report or
representatives from those those
committees in the report plus
>> plus one
>> one youth, one senior and one housing
person. Is that what it is?
>> well two two public and one housing.
Yeah. So
>> two public and one housing I heard one
youth and one could target We'll target
We'll target them, but again, I don't
want it just we got to have a senior, we
got to have a youth. I mean, if we can
get the right person
>> Well, if we get the right person
>> Well, no, no, but I think you do because
I really do, as I said last time, I
really do think those constituencies
need to have a voice. Okay. And
particularly, uh, as I said before on
the senior side, you've got multiple
multiple sides of that equation as in
youth.
>> So, we'll find the right we'll find the
right person that you don't have that
under any of these others. I I'll just
reiterate that in terms of how this
advisory committee is functioning,
that's not the input group, that's the
evaluating what we're hearing group. So,
it's more important for the youth and
the elderly and the senior population to
be participating in the public outreach
parts.
>> So, I also contacted the a civics
teacher at Conquered High to see if we
could get something at Conquered High. I
have volunteers to go talk to the kids
to get their input so they can do a
similar workshop up there in Marramac
Valley also if I find the right person
there just to get that youth input right
because I think it's really important
that people
know that we are concerned that
everybody has input right and that we
are as transparent as and inclusive as
possible so if we can get some we
somebody from conquered high or march
valley to come report to us
>> so we'll we'll focus on a housing
a senior not an elderly will we'll
strike that from the record
>> he said elderly
>> I qualify I qualify for elderly
[laughter] housing in two years okay
>> and uh housing uh young and and a and a
senior would be the focus Dina
>> one how young is young and
>> and two
>> how old is old
>> for the for those two pop
members could be how do you people how
do you feel about maybe not having it be
a permanent person like maybe a student
might not be available for all four
meetings so maybe
>> so we have we may have yeah it's a good
good thought you know again it's four
meetings maybe they can't commit to that
or do we want them to
>> well that's why I was saying if we had
those dates or at least a date range
that when you're presenting to the
representative
>> whether they're on these committees or
they're the three that are of public um
choosing then then at least they know
what they're they're asking them can you
show up for these four meetings are you
available can you commit to
>> this
>> and I I think for consistency we need to
assign someone to that role but maybe
put two people in where you got to you
know this is regular and
>> this is the regular and this is the
alternate and they can and they can if
there's a problem we could do it that
way but you know you want to have a a
person that's named as this person is
going to be the the go-to person for
this and and and work that piece of it.
>> And I'll just for the people who are
being appointed for boards and
committees, also remember that there's
two meetings for each board and
committee with the consultant team
throughout the process as well. So
again, this advisory subcommittee is not
it's really that sounding board to make
sure that we're staying on track. It's
not the place to provide the input. It's
to provide the feedback on what's being
heard. So that is a I received a few
phone calls about this subcommittee and
that was the question like
>> what's going to be
>> why are we not in the list and I said
well you are associated with this group
that is on the list and so you can talk
and then you can provide your input to
that group and then they can bring it
forward. So
>> right. So again just as noted in in the
report here the the uh if appointed the
advisory subcommittee four times during
the process to and it's outlined in here
advise on key issues and priorities for
the plan should address uh assist with
coordinating and aligning the plan with
ongoing future initiatives. to review
and provide constructive feedback on the
proposed process plan materials while
they're in development including initial
findings in terms deliverables and
recommendations and amplify the outreach
awareness. We want to
>> assign people to these roles that are
capable that are capable of doing that.
So it's not just a person that is going
to take direction from us. It's a person
that's going to turn around and say,
"Okay, I'm responsible for this piece of
it. How do I how do I how do I get to
the constituents that I'm talking to and
and work my piece? And again, if they're
the youth development person and the
senior development person, it's not as
tactical as it would be if they the
economic development person that's going
to be responsible for outreach in
certain areas that the the the youth
piece of it is more of a feedback loop
to be able to get that feedback on how
they envision the city in 30 years and
and senior living as well, seniors as as
well. So those two roles, I'm not
worried about finding the right person
to be a cheerleader because it's a
fairly easy lift. It's the other ones
that are going to be
a lift for us to find the right people
to do that.
>> So
>> So do we
what what action do we need to take
tonight?
>> I think we we took the action of we've
got the yes and the how many setting the
setting the notes. So
>> now it's the how
>> moving a sign. Amanda, thank you. I
appreciate that.
>> How are we appointing these? How are we
selecting?
>> So your point earlier about us meeting
to talk about this not in a public
setting because we might say I might say
I want this person and councelor Todd
says like no absolutely not. Right.
>> But he would should I mean are people
comfortable if we pick the planning
board members and then that group of six
then does the work to identify the
others? Would people be comfortable with
that and then bring that back?
>> Yeah. Yeah. Or do you want to do it all
together because just more meetings?
>> I'd say you pick the planning board
members now because that gives you the
beginning of the structure.
>> What I'm asking is if those if they then
would do the work identify the others.
>> Well, well, we can all help. We can all
give.
>> Yeah. I'd like to I'd like to open up
all of them. Every every every member,
every alternate uh here's the people
that that have come forward and are
interested. H how what's the
recommendation Matt on uh on us maybe
using the website as a tool to be able
to promote this? Um you know I don't
want to get a lot of people I mean it's
our purview to say okay we got a bunch
of applications and you know for these
particular areas but there might be
people out there that will be a great
fit that that we aren't going to think
of that I want to at least get it out
there some capacity. So we we can do
that. Um if you want people to send some
set of particularly interest letter of
interest um we can do that and advertise
that um
>> and collect those for you and give them
to the committee. Yeah.
>> Um um if if you are going to appoint the
six members tonight, you know, those six
members could also um work within, you
know, who they know in the committee
that they might think would be good fits
or or take a look at the list that that
Matt's put together of those commissions
and boards of commissions who they think
might be a good fit. Y
>> um that that group could get together at
some point in the not too distant future
and compare notes um and then make final
decisions about um um who's on and who's
not. Um if you have concerns about
deliberating uh we can talk to the legal
department about about that. There
>> 91A issues.
>> There's some 91A issues about um you
know affecting people's reputations and
things of that nature. Um we can get
some feedback for you on that if you
want
>> public session or something. I mean I
just sensitive to the fact that if we're
talking about people I don't want it in
the public record.
>> Yeah, I I understand that. Um um but I I
think you know at the end when they are
appointed that's a that's a process I
agree with that.
>> Um but if there's a an application and
deliberative process that you're going
to go through um I think we could talk
to the legal department about that.
A good start would be whoever your your
your six are going to be with the
planning board and then um we can work
on advertising for the public members
and uh um
>> setting a time for the six members to
get together initially.
>> Exactly. All of that and yeah get it
going.
>> Okay, council.
>> Yeah, thanks. It's great. You
>> I'll go next.
>> Okay. Um well I just had an alternate uh
idea about the non-planning board
members on the committees which is um we
could simply say to the committees you
have until X time to uh meet amongst
yourselves and decide who would be the
best representative. Yeah,
>> because the committee members are going
to know who is
>> and and then they'll just get to vote on
whoever they think is the best repres
that would at least take that off the
plate of the
>> the six
>> the six from the planning board. Right.
I think it's going to be bit hard enough
just to find the right other three
people.
>> that's going to be enough work. I think
>> I I would concur with that. I think for
expediting the process and who who knows
the committees better than the
committees themselves. Yeah, that's what
I was thinking. I I really wouldn't feel
comfortable, you know, picking someone
from, I don't know, conservation. I
mean, I sat on that commission, but
still, I don't know what they're doing
now. I don't know who the most
appropriate person is, but they would
know.
>> My question is though, do you have to
have somebody that's actually on the
commission now, or could you pick
somebody that's up and coming that's
really engaged in the community in that
field? They haven't they're not on the
city committee.
>> Yeah. I mean, that's
>> I mean, to me, that's what we want.
>> You want to hear from people that aren't
embedded, but
>> Yeah. But I think I think for
>> you could certainly get recommendations
from the Conservation Commission or the
Heritage Commission, but I think you
ought to look at a bigger a bigger a
wider
>> Can I respond to that? I was just going
to uh I say that um ultimately what we
want I think what what maybe you're
driving at is we want to make sure we
have participation in the process from
people in the community for for this for
this committee. I think that that that's
a minimal portion of the of the process
actually I think the bigger portion
would be if you get someone who's really
eager out there seniors youth whoever it
is we can convince them to come to as
many of the meetings as possible and
participate that's really where we're
going to get the most benefit I think.
So this is just this is more of a kind
of just like a checks kind of system to
have this committee in place. I think
correct me if I'm wrong, but
>> I concur. I I think that if you're
talking about the people who are going
to be on the advisory subcommittee, they
should be members of the boards that are
in the list, not I think we want those
that aren't members of those to be
involved in the public participation
process.
>> That's an opportunity. And we want
people to have enough information too,
right? to if we're talking about if
they're evaluating sort of conservation
issues, make recommendations, they need
to know something about that. So,
>> so there's nothing that there's nothing
that would I was I was really going to
oppose that until I just thought of
something. I was because I want people
that are the right fit whether they're
sitting on the conservation commission
or not. And not that it's conservation
commission. I'm just using that as an
example. But if we found the right
person that was the conservation
mouthpiece that we really thought was
going to be a cheerleader, was going to
do this, was going to do this, was going
to do this, and we looked at the the
person that might have come forward from
the conservation commission and didn't
really do that piece of it. I think if
we could look at it and say we want to
appoint a uh you know a a not a chair
but you know the leader of that
particular piece and two or three other
people in the organization that are
going to be uh recognized as a leader of
that particular piece. You know maybe we
get a you know two or three person
opportunity just like somebody said
before about you know not having
everybody there for every single
meeting. If you identify two or three
people in that particular focus, you've
got a again, you're broadcasting the
message and you're pushing it out. And I
know that it's still going to be 12 to
15. It's still going to be our 15 member
piece. And that figure head may be the
person from the conservation commission,
but their right-hand person is going to
be the person that has got the ability
to get out there and start recognizing
people and and bringing people to the
>> Yeah, I think that's good. I think also
it might, as you're talking about this,
I'm thinking it probably might be a good
idea to have each of these committees
elect the a member and an alternate.
>> So that you're always going to have
presence from each representative body
at these meetings to the extent that you
can do that. It'll increase the chances
anyway
>> because you never know what life
situation occurs when you get to
January, February, March or whenever the
the next one is and then the next one
and then
>> and then you're on vacation and and you
know
>> Exactly. I think it's Yeah, we're doing
something. Yeah,
>> it's definitely smart. I don't if I may
in insert about the application process
for the additional public three um if
we've already potentially identified I
think that the application process could
hope could delay the process if it's
done through the website. So, I would
vote against that. Um that's just my you
position.
>> But again if we if we look at it and say
you know 45 days we're going to make the
decision or whatever the number is
whatever the date time piece of it is
I'd want to cast as big a net as I
could. I'd want to throw it out so on
social media. I'd want to have people uh
that are interested that aren't willing
to serve on committees and commit to to
the time and again maybe under the radar
to put a letter of interest together and
send it. So, I I would disagree with you
on that and think that there's a there's
more benefit to casting a wide net to
see what's out there.
>> Keep the dead. Let's keep it short.
>> But have it short. Yeah. Have it not
have it. It's not going to delay
anything. It's not whatever the deadline
is that we come up with. You're going to
have to have information together so we
can review it, the six can review it,
and then bring it back to the board for
approval and and submission. Again, we
may have three people that conservation
commission. We're gonna recognize this
person's going to be the leader of this
particular group for and then two other
alternates that work with it or however
we do it.
>> I'm totally confused.
>> No, you speak then maybe I won't be
confused.
>> Okay. I don't know if you might still be
confused after I speak, but um looking
at these feeder groups here, there's a
group that is blaringly not represented
here. um which would be the DEI, you
know, new Concordian group.
>> So, are we did I pick earlier? Did you
say that you're kind of thinking that
these groups that exist somebody in
those groups would represent that? Is
that what you said?
>> I actually have the DIJB committee here
and I sort of cross reference or the
other committees to find people who
would represent both. So there are
people say I'm not going to say names
>> uh so somebody in recreation and parks
um a couple people also are in the JB.
>> So that would that
>> we could accomplish that right? Two
birds one stone
>> scientific terms like this
>> you know
>> I think the committees are also going to
need guidelines when they're selecting
right
>> 100%. Yeah, 100%.
>> And again, you know, we've got people
that serve in different capacities and I
know council Todd is on the TAC. We
could look at things and and fill two
roles um for one shot, you know, and be
able and then be able to expand it in
another area. So, we get a city council
or we get a a planning board member and
a CPAC member that gives us an
opportunity to have some you whatever
however we want to shake it around. If
it doesn't particularly conform to the
the the list, we can we can shake it
around to make sure it it stays with our
15. I don't want to go any higher than
15. So, we need to we need to figure out
15 people and and kind of line it into
>> Leon,
>> um recognizing that with a full board, I
don't have a vote, but I'm going to plug
in my thoughts on this. Anyway, I really
um support Councelor Todd's
approach to having the selection of the
V from the various um
sports and commissions
>> sports and commissions that that have
been identified uh versus having the
planning board make that selection. If
you take a look at what the role of this
committee is and I think that's
important as a subcommittee is it's
in many ways it's a um their focus is
going to be on process more than trying
to bring in new ideas and new
initiatives and that's going to come
from those um those other meetings that
Tim has uh spoken to. I mean um that
in addition in addition to that I guess
is what um when talks talk about uh
you know assist with coordinating and
aligning the plan with ongoing and
future initiatives. you know, who's
going to be
um focused and up to speed on that
beyond somebody who's already embedded
in in the community in these various
boards and commissions. I I really think
that we're you're
it would be nice to um be able to have a
um
a plethora of candidates from across the
community that we could make selection
and have veto power on and if we did,
you know, but [snorts] re realistically
from a from a um administration
standpoint, it's not terribly workable.
And I think that leaving that
those selections
um a primary and an alternate to the
various boards and commissions that are
identified I think is the way to go.
That's just my personal opinion. Now
obviously the other three candidates if
we have u that have been identified
tonight that that would be different but
>> okay thank you Teresa you still confused
>> totally
>> so if you're going to ask people to
express interest and you're going to do
that on the website is that only for the
three public spaces
>> okay and so you're you're doing it so
the the advisory committee the only
people really qualified or allowed on
the advisory committee from those other
things like conservation commission,
heritage commission, etc. are members of
those commissions?
>> Well, I in in theory, no, I don't think
that's right. I think what we want is if
we get a letter of intent from somebody
that's a perfect fit for the energy and
environment scenario,
>> we see Tim saying no. So, that's no
saying,
>> a second a second person. So again, yes,
the per the person that's going to lead
the group, whatever they're the primary
person, [clears throat] but if we get a
good application, we can we can appoint
that person as the alternate um for each
of those for any of those any of those
functions as well. So if we did do
council Todds, which I think is is what
people are gravitating towards is is a
member of the conservation commission is
the conservation commission primary. If
we get somebody's interest letter of
intent or letter of interest and they're
a great fit for that, we could appoint
them as the
>> alter fit for the advisory board or fit
for the working group that's working in
conservation.
>> Fit for the advisory board as an
alternate as these four.
>> It's getting too heavy. Crazy. Yeah.
>> It gets too heavy. So then it's just
advisory. I mean if
>> if we put some recommendations or some
guidelines like you know for EDC you
know send all of these committees here
this is what the planning board is
looking for this is the charge
>> the roles for us
>> and we want you with eyes to people that
maybe
my opinion people who are really good on
these committees but but not necessarily
the chairs maybe the chairs but not
necessarily to give them an opportunity
to get involved
>> appointing
And then we would that's the
>> you be you'd be basically we
>> you'd be certifying
>> I'm the chair I might appoint myself.
Well, can you give they could give us
guidelines give us your top three
>> three names,
>> right? Give us your top two, right? Or
top three and then we
>> Why wouldn't let the commission do that?
Why wouldn't we let the the boards and
commissions do that?
>> Yeah. So we
>> they're the people that have the
>> the expertise.
>> Well, they are
>> expertise and also the um incentive
toward
>> find somebody who's going to be best
positioned to bring forward um those
that information that they want they
want front and center and make the
commitment to the time that's required.
I think that I don't think the board the
planning board needs to make the
decision in the case of the boards and
commissions. I think send that out to
them and say this is what we need. We
need somebody who's willing to commit to
satisfying that role.
>> Yeah. Good.
>> I I think I think one we we could
certainly and and we'll I think you're
saying we we'll make the rules like
we'll do the guidelines, right? And one
of the guidelines can be we would like
you to uh you know conservation
commission we would like you to to
present to us your candidate for the
>> primary
>> primary and then you could have first
and second alternate. I I think that in
addition to finding the you know
quoteunquote right people the other
important element to my mind is having
full attendance at these meetings as
much as possible and and as was pointed
out you know people will have things
that going on in their lives and they
may be out or vacationer
>> and we might need to actually call on
that second alternate so I think having
like the they'll basically they're going
to be deciding who are their top three
people that they would think would best
represent the interests of that
particular group and they'll give us
those names
>> and do do they need to be on that
committee? Could they be you?
>> I would think that would be best because
those are the people who have got the
vested interest in the
>> I think it's critical because if you if
you
>> appoint somebody if even if you feel
that somebody outside of the committee
better suits their role and you're
bypassing the committee and not getting
the the committee representented on
there through their selected candidate.
No, I'm saying the committee I'm saying
if the committee says, you know, me as
chair, I'm the best person and my
alternate is this other person that sits
on the committee, but we've got this
other person that we want to we want to
put forward as well.
>> My only concern um to respond to Leon is
if you look at something like Ed, you
have the former mayor, you have a major
developer who appears before, you have
an attorney who was here tonight, right?
you have a city counselor like you've
got people that are already so involved
in the city that doesn't provide a
different voice. So if they select you
know if they select the
>> but the different voice isn't what we're
looking for in this committee. I agree
with your what you're saying, but but
the role of this committee isn't
necessarily to bring that alternative
voice to it, but it's it's a process
committee to and so we need people that
are familiar with the process and need
people that are um
>> knowledgeable about what's what's going
on currently, what's gone in the past,
and how we might go forward. I'm not
necessarily talking about an alternative
voice either because they're going to
represent,
you know, EDAC, right? That's what
they're going to represent. So hopefully
that's not an alternative voice to EDAC
or conservation. Um,
I guess I was hearing that we would
u have a process in place where we
choose we could choose somebody who
wasn't on the committee or that they
could choose.
>> That's what Rich wants, but nobody else
agrees with it.
>> No, I've given up that. I've given up
that. [laughter]
Yeah, I agree with but I I I'm not so
sure I agree on the alternate. It's just
the question is is as the committee what
I'm hearing everybody say is you want
somebody who's on the committee and
who's inside the ball game and you don't
want anybody from outside. And so what
you're saying is if there's somebody
really good who's out there that just
hasn't been picked to be on one of these
committees
>> that you'd like them to have the
opportunity. What I'm hearing everybody
else say is no. get them to the
visioning sessions in sessions.
>> Exactly that. I agree with what Tim's
saying because I want if
>> we want this committee to be able to
tell us
>> Leon is correct in my mind in that the
person that comes from these committees
inside the committees have have know
what's been happening in the past know
what they're currently working on and
know the vision of that committee and
then you know so that's why I think it's
absolutely correct that someone comes
from there and and as Tim said if
there's someone outside of there then
get them to Republican put stuff.
>> My concern with this, and I'm going to
vote no
>> because my concern as a member of this
community for 30ome years, I don't think
this is representative of listening to
the anybody new in the community unless
they show up at the meeting. And when we
saw that meeting whatever a month ago,
how many people came forward? And so all
of a sudden it's this group again making
all the decisions, deciding where the
the the city's going.
>> When in fact, you've got a lot of young
people out there. You've got a lot of
diverse people. You've got a whole
different population. When I sit in
Halloween, you guys give a street a hard
time. But I do Halloween ice cream. And
when I started doing ice cream and
Halloween, it was all what was right
here. And now it is such [snorts] a
diverse community that comes to my house
and some people who English is not the
first language and they extraordinarily
polite and nice and appreciative of what
we do. That to me I've seen it just in
the people coming Halloween that's the
bigger community and all it sounds to me
like the only way we can get them to get
have their voice if they show up at you
know the the the the capital center or
whatever. You are right in so far as the
>> the success or failure of the process,
the success or failure of the adoption
of a new master plan has got to um reach
out and get those people to but that's
what the but that's what
>> that's the public input.
>> That's what the public input is designed
to do. I agree.
>> Yeah, I understand that. But I
understand there was public input when
we were doing designing this in July and
four people came. I don't know why that
is. And with so the question is we're
counting on people saying oh I'm going
to go do that but we're not
intentionally saying that members of
this community who aren't don't even
know how to get on a committee
>> that they're not going to be included.
>> However, there are people on these
committees that you're talking about.
>> I hope so. Right. That's why I spent
time going through and looking at
LinkedIn.
>> I think some of those committees like
EDAC, that's the old boys except for
two. It
>> sure is. For two people.
>> The difference with this process is that
there will be marketing dollars spent to
bring attention and awareness and it's
not just going to be on our planning
board. Go to our government website to
see when the meeting is announced to be.
there will be outreach to communities
and we and as we discussed before there
will be um more than one language being
able to translate. So
>> I do know that but I think that
>> are we going to them? So are we going to
go to these communities and are we going
to go
>> So so yeah. So there there is just just
to reiterate what the strategy is. There
is the public visioning session on
September 19th which is a month away. Uh
which is a big lift for us to do but I
think I feel good about it. We we'll do
>> Yeah. We'll conf
>> um you're going to have six neighborhood
visioning sessions after that that are
going to be after the holidays um next
winter uh probably into the spring.
There are focus groups um that we're
going to be pulling together. So there's
one for economic development, there's
one for housing, there's one for uh for
for new Americans or immigrants that are
come conquered. Um and and you still
have one contractually that UTIL uh has
in the contract that they owe us, which
>> we're kind of saving for later as the
board might say, you know, there's a
constituency that we really need to talk
to and let's let's organize a focus
group. Um there will be a survey. Uh the
survey is going to be after the
community visioning session. it will be
translated into multiple languages um
three of them which we've uh we're
narrowing down right now. So there are
ways to to engage with folks. Um
um I I everything that Leon said about
about why you you know the boards and
commissions makes sense councelor Todd's
approach um having boards and
commissions make nominations um in the
and make suggestions. I mean the
committee's g planning board is going to
have to appoint them. So, you're gonna
have to you're gonna have to accept
those those those nominations. But
>> I think
>> Go ahead.
>> I think there's a difference though
between to echo what Teresa is saying. I
think there's a difference between
having a community and a focused sort of
listening session and finding some
people on these committees and saying to
them, we would like you to take a
leadership role because even if it's
about the process, it's about
representation and it's about saying to
this the greater conqueror community, we
want different faces because we could
fill these 15 seats with people who look
just like me,
>> right? And I don't want that. right?
Because I don't represent I don't
represent the new conquered like I used
to. I guess like when Tim and I were
running around conquered high, it was a
very different city. Um and I think
asking these people to step up and will
you take a leadership role sends a very
different message to the 2026 conquer
community. Right? That's just my
opinion.
>> I just hope that we're not making this
advisory subcommittee more than what it
is and what it's supposed to do. I I
agree. However, this is what the city
will see that we picked, right? And so
even if it doesn't have a lot, it's not
going to write the plan, right? All of
these things it's not going to do, it is
going to be public facing as
representing the planning board and
helping the planning board in the
>> Do you get that do you get that same
piece if it's an alternate spot? So if
you had the the chairs come from the
committees and then an alternate was
again signed.
>> I can look at the chairs right now and I
can
>> council.
>> Yeah, thank you. Uh yeah, my I guess my
uh take on this is that um uh you know
creating this new master plan is going
to be a complicated process just in
terms of a technical standpoint. There's
going to be a lot of
technical use the word again information
included in there. I'm not necessarily
the expert on that and I would want to
defer to someone again I'll pick
conservation commission on conservation
commission who already has a large uh
knowledge base about generally not only
what goes on in the commission the kind
of work they do but just about that
field in general. So I'm I'm viewing
that that that was probably the reason
that we wanted to have representatives
from each of these entities in the first
place,
>> Was to make sure that those interests
could be represented. Now, you know,
those um those committees could uh
themselves, I suppose, have uh I mean,
they're going to they're going to have
uh two two meetings each, right?
Correct. So, but they so they could uh
they could do outreach on their own. So,
in other words, they could hold it
during their meeting, regular meetings
or special meetings they could hold just
to review uh planning board items and
those could be invited to members of the
public. So, if there's members of the
public out there that are really
interested, I don't care about the
master plan, but I really care about
conservation. I really care about, you
know, making sure that our lands are
preserved in the right way, they could
go to that maybe that special meeting if
the conservation commission were to do
that. They'll have the ability to do
that anyway. So, I just kind of view
this as we're just kind of fine-tuning
the information piece that we're going
to get from the people that have the
most knowledge. That's basically what it
is.
>> I don't I don't think it should be lost
that the um the suggested
um subcommittees and commissions that
have been identified. The reason that
they're there is because they are
components of the master plan, right?
They are each
>> representing a section. So if we want
to, you know, it goes back to the what
is the role of this this group, you
know, this group isn't necessarily the
group that's going to be out there
soliciting
the public opinion. Uh that's going to
be the visioning sessions. That's going
to be the meeting with the various
interest groups. Um so but these areas
need to be
by definition of the master plan by the
statutory requirements of the master
plan need to be represented.
>> Eden we haven't heard from you on this.
>> What decisions do we need to make
this how do we move this board members
forward?
>> Okay. So, if we have six planning board
members, uh, who's interested
>> down.
I'm interested.
Paige,
David, Amanda, Matt, I see your hand.
Okay, that gets us pretty close. Council
Todd. Okay,
>> if you want me to be in that role and
>> Okay, so again, page,
>> you're on four of these committees, I
think, right?
>> Yeah, I'm on I'm on transportation
policy. That's the only one.
>> I know. I have here. [laughter]
Don't try to get on any other
committees.
>> This is not my job. It's an error.
>> Okay. So, we got plenty of input
interest on the planning board side of
it. Um to be able to step in instead of
him.
>> Do you have every ward representative? I
think that's why the two of us let
Amanda do it. You got three W five here.
>> Yeah. And are you W 10, Paige?
>> Well, according to what I look
>> street. Yes, you're sorry.
>> So, you're W 10.
>> I'm W seven.
I couldn't figure out what you were. Did
I get it right?
>> You're you're in Well, you're one
>> 10.
Five.
>> Oh, you're five, too. We have five. Four
five.
>> Five.
>> Are you five?
>> So, we have four or five.
>> The three I've got right now are Paige,
Rich, and
>> we [laughter] already two. Matt Hicks,
>> Amanda.
>> Well, so you've got you've got four of
us on W five.
>> Yeah, we need to be careful there.
>> That's fine. being the representative of
if you want me to be.
>> Quick question. When does this start?
>> September 19th.
>> Well, the there are no committee
meetings scheduled.
>> Yeah. Nothing formal yet.
>> This the advisory subcommittee needs to
be established. We need to know who the
15 are and then we'll but we're going to
start once we now once we get through
tonight we'll be able to start working
with you in terms of finding a schedule
and getting deadlines for submissions
for the public members and whatnot.
>> Six.
>> I have I have I have five on my list.
>> What are your what are your five?
>> I had I had Paige, Rich, Dena, Matt, and
Amanda.
>> And Leon.
>> And Leon. Okay.
has six. Okay,
>> we got two from W one.
>> No, wow.
>> Two from 10.
>> Tina has w one. She's gone.
>> we got two from 10. That's the only one
we doubled up.
>> Okay, so that gets us that that moves
the What's the six again? Just so we
>> Paige, Rich, Dena, Matt Hicks, Amanda,
Leon,
>> Amanda. Thank you.
>> How'd you use my last name and nobody
else?
>> Matt Hicks. because I have a Matt Walsh
sitting over there.
>> He's not going to be on it.
>> Who is not a member of the plan?
>> No. [laughter]
>> Okay. And then so with that said,
uh are you are you looking for staff to
send a letter to the boards and
commissions that are listed in the memo
>> to say, "Hey, uh here's what the mission
is of this particular committee. This is
what this committee will do. It will not
do. uh please submit um the name of a
primary member and name of an alternate
member. Uh please uh for these four
meetings that will happen, please
provide this by date X and um and then
the planning board can
>> confirm them.
>> Can confirm them at their future
>> I think I'd like to send that.
>> Yeah, it should be it should be under it
should be under under your signature and
I can help you write the letter if you
want me to do that. um
>> because it gives it gives them the
outlines of the dates in which they
would be required to show up,
>> Well, it give you a general idea.
>> it's going to be four meetings. Not
they're not going to have
>> some of them don't really know that it's
coming kind of thing. So, laying out the
the the time requirement
>> explain the lift.
>> explain the two alternate list.
I [laughter] think
>> Yeah, I think one alternate is enough.
And if there's a question where the
committee knows that somebody's not
going to be there as a committee, they
can assign somebody to fill
>> dates. Okay.
>> What those four meeting dates do we have
them?
>> They have not been
there's only one that's
>> the only one at 9:00.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
>> I'll be there at 9:30.
>> Come with lettuce, please. [laughter]
>> I'll bring this out.
>> And not from Fox Farms.
>> Not from Fox. And then
>> and we need a time frame on the
>> and what would you like to do for um it
sounds like three members of the public
um it sounds like was what we were
talking about one for uh
>> one with a housing focus
>> when the housing maybe a housing
preference a senior and youth if that's
what I understood to be
>> what is youth and what is senior that
was a great question somebody asked
somebody asked that
>> we'll we'll see who we get for
submissions and determine what that is
that
>> yeah how we going to how we going to
position that on the site That's a good
>> I I think it's a it's a reasonable goal.
I don't know that we need to make that a
specific
>> there's effort to do it. There's effort
to not [laughter]
there's effort to notify it. There's
effort to collect it. There's effort to
create it on the website. It is not
without effort andor time spent by
somebody andor money spent by somebody
as well. So I just wanted to
>> lay that out there because that is an an
a consideration.
But do we do we call out specifically
we're looking for somebody in the senior
Jesus
senior? It must be 10 o'clock. There
goes the AC went off at 10:00.
[laughter] Um
>> do we specifically call out were you
looking for a younger member? We're
looking for an older member. We're
looking for someone in the housing space
or we put it out as a general
feeler. I don't know. I don't know the
>> you could put it put it out just as a
general feeler.
weave in um the
>> seniors youth encouraged to apply.
>> Exactly. And then and then when you get
to your list of applicants you select
from that.
>> Perfect. I like that idea better than
>> young people call you know respond or
old people respond elderly. [laughter]
Can can I make a suggestion on the third
which was what we're hoping for housing
and and identifying that that person
could potentially be
>> um the executive director of conquered
housing and redevelopment authority and
that person is also um a conquered
resident. So before we go ahead and and
advertise that third one, just ask that
person directly, would they be
interested in that
opportunity?
>> Yeah. Do they have to be Congs?
>> No, but it just happens to be that they
are.
>> They should be, I think, and it's it's
it's lucky enough that that executive
director is both. So,
>> okay. if if that person is interested.
>> But again, on the committees, I don't
know who the you know, we have someone
that's in Hopington or I mean, I
>> I can only think of one board that has a
nonresident.
>> Uh I would suggest that um somebody
reach out to the chamber and ask whoever
currently runs the castle program that
if there's some youth who've gone
through that conquered student
leadership program that um And they
particularly look for 11th and 12th
graders because they will gone through
the leadership program. they'll be more
familiar
>> with kind of what goes on in conquer and
see if there are any suggestions for
>> and that I think includes Marc Valley.
It does.
>> Mclly Brady conquered Central
>> Emily might.
>> What else?
>> Is that it?
>> Do we have a deadline as to when we want
that?
>> That's all we need. I think that's all
we need.
>> I think that's it, right?
>> I I think so. Just to to Tim's point, uh
I guess you know we can put something
together on a website. We We we'll
update the website, tell people how to
advertise,
>> social media outreach.
>> We we'll give an email that people can
send things to, which would I think
we're only looking for basically are you
looking for a letter of interest and if
they have a resume, a resume or just a
letter of interest? Explain where they
are and their background.
>> Just a letter of interest.
>> Okay, we can do that. Um,
>> do we tie it to the September 18th, 19th
meeting and say, I mean, do we have to
have those people?
>> No, you don't need them appointed by the
19th. Uh, the 19th set, it's it's
happening and the advisory committee
doesn't need to be. So, I'm just
thinking if there's an opportunity where
if we [snorts] said, you know, Ian and
available by then, we could even meet
with them at the at the meeting if they
wanted to come to the meeting and see
what's available or
>> we could do that. I think it would be
helpful to have a deadline that's before
the planning board's regular September
meeting
>> 16th, which is the 16th.
>> Um to for solicitations, unless you want
to do it after the 19th. I was thinking
perhaps we put the deadline as the 16th
and then we make a decision by the board
at the
>> October do that too. Um so but just to
you know good with that
>> have some time to consider and also you
know it's an opportunity for you to
>> um in your own your own respective
worlds and networks encourage people to
show some interest
>> to raise their hand and throw their
their hat in the ring.
>> Um yeah I think
>> we all good with that.
>> Oh it'll be like 80% work.
Okay. So, I'll I'll work with Rich on
the letter. Um I'll work with you on the
verbiage that we're going to put on the
website and uh and we'll go forward that
way. Good.
>> All right. We appreciate your hard work.
I know it's a it's a tricky conversation
to have. So,
>> good. I'm glad that I'm glad that
everybody's showing. I mean, it's not
just okay. Yeah. Just do what do
everybody's got opinions and everybody's
put a lot of e effort into it already.
>> Make a motion to
>> one thing real quick. If we have so many
war five, if maybe we come down from six
and maybe do five so that we can give an
extra public person a spot.
>> There's only one person.
>> We got a whole bunch that didn't
>> four of us down here,
>> but only one is in the six.
>> only one.
>> I thought we had too many of one ward
going into the advisory.
>> No, only one.
>> We have selflessly stepped aside to
allow for diversity on the committee.
>> All right. Thank you to
>> So you can have we can have coffee.
>> Staff's good for adjournment. Listen,
>> if we have anything else, we appreciate
coffee here and there.
>> All right. So I will take a motion to
adjurnn. So move.
>> We got a motion to adjurnn by uh
somebody else other than
stolen.
>> All those in favor? Opposed? That motion
carries. We are adjourned. Thank you.