City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Land Use Committee, 5 Aug 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 8.5.2022 Land Use Committee

Description

8.5.2022 Land Use Committee

A

Good morning, everyone welcome to the august 5th 2022 land use committee meeting where.

A

We have um redline drafts of some changes to the adu laws based off of.

A

The input that we've gotten discussed at our last meeting and our agenda.

A

Do you want, I think, we're gonna have beverly go over an overall.

A

um Do it together, but yeah yeah, and for those of you who don't know rick tayner.

A

Our consultant who's been helping us with the red lines is also here this morning. So.

A

They're going to tag team a little overview of these before we discuss.

B

So good good morning, ladies committee, um you have before you the draft red lines and also.

B

A memo where I've really tried to do a matrix that identifies what we heard from the community.

B

um From the butter surveys and the focus groups recognizing that we still have some.

B

Public input that's coming, but certainly this reflects what we presented in the report.

B

To the land use committee, the planning board and also the city council, I've organized the.

B

uh The changes by essentially the themes that emerge from the public input summary.

B

um I did not talk about essentially creating a process handbook. I think that would be a separate.

B

Action that's separate from the regulatory changes and then, of course, the other theme about that. The.

B

Butters were generally positive about adus. That I think is, uh is also not reflected in the themes.

B

In the matrix, so this is just a guide for the public to see how we were um uh listening and.

B

How we essentially have translated some of those comments into uh regulations in the spirit of.

B

The goals that were set out for this project was, which was to remove barriers and.

B

With some with consideration to um what we received from uh public input, so I'd like to.

B

Just kind of jump right in if there's no questions, but I do want to alert you to four uh questions.

B

That we've queued up that we will require some additional guidance for. um Are we ready to propose.

B

Allowing and it's at the very end of your um your memo and additional guidance needed, are we ready.

B

To propose allowing detached adus administratively if they can meet certain size and performance.

B

Standards- this is how it is organized now, but I really would like to talk to you about that.

B

Do we want to administratively prove all attached, adus, even the ones that result in an expansion.

B

This is the attached adus if they can meet all the performance standards. That's a question.

B

These have a lower impact. They impact the primary uh the owner of the primary structure to a.

B

Greater degree than they do to the neighboring properties, because they're essentially right.

B

uh They're attached so just to talk about how much we would like to open the gate on that one. I think.

B

We've we've done some opening in the document, for you does the elimination of bedroom maximum.

B

Present a problem if we hold a line on size and we have held a line on size very specifically,.

B

Where it wasn't held before- and that is true for each of the categories of adus- we've really.

B

Been very specific about what the size caps are and do we need to define subordination.

B

For all, do we need to define subordination for all accessory structures and by that there has.

B

Been questions raised, and there was at least one case where a accessory structure really did um was.

B

Significantly large, while the dad the adu did meet standards of the 750 square feet, the uh structure.

B

That housed, it was very large. The issue, I think, is that that accessory structure was really.

B

Not subordinate, and there it's a it's a question that is somewhat separate, but it has been brought.

B

Together, at least in one case, and certainly is outside the purview of this, because we'd be.

B

Talking about accessory structure subordination not accessory dwelling units coordination, but.

B

It's just a question we will throw out to the group and I will let rick just jump right into.

B

The table, because these are where a lot of the more significant changes are occurring.

A

Rick, you can just make sure you speak into a microphone for everyone else. Okay, sorry about.

A

That just for clarification, these are proposed for discussion right. This is these these and I.

C

Mean the way you presented the way you just said it, I'm just thinking of the public um these these.

C

Have not yet been adopted as specific proposals. These are proposed for discussion this morning.

B

Absolutely yeah this has been and the guidance is we're looking for more refinement. This is.

B

Really the beginning of the refinement process that we will be working with delays committee.

B

uh City council, at the planning board, so yes, thanks, nothing's been adopted.

D

So, um thank you again. Rick tainter.

D

The the first page of the table relating to the attached accessory dwelling units.

D

Is probably the more complex part, because we've presented two options and the options.

D

Are pretty much identical, except that one is based solely on the size of the unit.

D

And the other combines the size of the unit with whether or not.

D

It involves any expansion to our addition to an existing single family dwelling. So in each case.

D

The the more the larger type of unit, the one that is more than 750 square feet or.

D

More than 750 square feet, or, in addition to is a single family dwelling. Those proposed.

D

Standards regulations are the same as the existing, in other words, where.

D

A an attached dwelling unit attached accessory dwelling unit requires a conditional use permit.

D

Now it would require a conditional use permit under 1.212 in either case.

D

The difference is that, if something is up to 750 square feet, which is the.

D

uh Break point that is required by state law, where the state law requires the community to allow.

D

Accessory dwelling units, those smaller units, whether it's just up to 750 square feet or up.

D

To 750 square feet and entirely within a dwelling, those with those conditional use permits would be.

D

Changed I mean those those become permitted rather than conditional use. So again, there's no change in.

D

Whether something is prohibited in any of the zoning districts.

D

The only question is whether you want to have something be a permitted use.

D

For a smaller attached accessory dwelling unit is that is that clear, any questions about that.

D

Okay, move on okay, so then the second piece we get down to um 1.22, which is the detached.

D

Accessory dwelling unit- and this is where there are some particular changes.

D

So again we have the same type of break point: a smaller, a smaller detached accessory dwelling unit.

D

And a larger one and in this case we're making the distinction not just between the size but also.

D

Whether the unit and the lot are non-conforming or whether they're conforming, so if the way we've.

D

Broken it out is the lower one is if a detached accessory dwelling unit is up to 750 square.

D

Feet and complies with all the lot and building dimensional standards for the zoning district.

D

In that case, what is being suggested here is changing c? U to p.

D

Conditional use permit to permitted for the zoning residential zoning districts with the larger.

D

Minimum lot area requirements so rural sra and srb and then in addition,.

D

Allowing by conditional use permit an attached accessory dwelling unit in the grc district, which.

D

Which is our smallest minimum wage or densest residential district and then, in addition, adding.

D

Allowing by conditional use permit the detached accessory dwelling unit up to 750 square feet.

D

And complying with all all dimensional standards uh in the mro, cd4, l1 and mrb, because those are.

D

Are comparable to some of the residential districts in size in in lot area requirements.

D

And then, in addition, allowing a detached accessory dwelling unit in the uh gateway, 1 and gateway 2.

D

Where currently is not allowed, so that's kind of the more complex part of this of this change.

B

Can you talk for just a second about, so we are proposing some new districts and we did get some.

B

Comment this morning about that, and can you talk in the logic of expanding it to new districts? What.

B

You know, because I know you're very familiar with the code just to summarize why it makes sense.

B

For expansion of these districts, the development pattern that we see in those districts- okay, well.

D

um I guess the the the easiest one to talk about is the mro mrb, because those are, um I believe,.

D

Comparable to the gra grb type of of dimensional standards, they're, not exactly sure which district.

D

They are comparable to but they're they're, the ones that are are not the densest areas.

D

They're, the ones where we allow these are called mixed, residential, mixed residential.

D

Office residential business and so if you're, mixing, residential and non-residential uses.

D

And you have a single family home. This would give you the option of doing mixing two residential.

D

Uses, rather than mixing one residential use and one non-residential use, I guess that's what I'm.

D

What I'm thinking there, the um the g1 and g2 I'm going to leave the toughest one for last.

D

The g1 and g2 gateway, one gateway. Two. We had a lot of discussion over. This is really.

D

These are areas when we look back at the top of the use table residential.

D

Use of single family dwelling: these are areas where a single family, residential dwelling is.

D

A single family dwelling is allowed as of right, so it seemed given that I mean if we were, if we.

D

Were to we're going to restrict single-family residences in those districts, it makes sense.

D

Not to allow detached accessory dwelling unit for them, but if, if we're promoting uh single.

D

Residents single residences in those districts, then it seemed to make sense to because they.

D

Are more intense districts in some senses than a pure residential district? It seemed to make sense.

D

To allow um smaller, detached accessory dwelling units by right and note that we're not proposing.

D

Any larger accessory dwelling units in these in these uh districts only the smaller ones.

D

So I guess the tougher one would be the um the grc district, so so the.

D

The the grc district- um currently we do not permit um a a detached accessory dwelling of any size and.

D

It seemed that you know we talked about all the different types of.

D

Of conditions or situations that a particular lot in the grc district.

D

Might might entail- and in this case, if a lot complied with all lot and dimensional standards.

D

And the detached dwelling unit were less than um uh 750 square feet up to up to 750 square feet. It.

D

Seemed to make sense to allow that to fit in there, particularly when we already allow the.

D

Garden cottage in those districts, so we allow a garden cottage by conditional use. Permit.

D

Where the detached dwelling unit does not comply with the requirements for a in terms of setbacks,.

D

And so forth, so which is a smaller one. We allow it up to 600 feet, so it seemed to make sense. It.

D

Was a small change and you know this is something that is is clearly a judgment call, but it seemed.

D

To make sense to if we allow, if we allow a 600 square foot garden cottage that violates.

D

Setbacks in essence, by conditional use permit, uh it would seem to make sense to allow a 750.

D

Square foot attached dwelling unit that that respects setbacks. um It's uh you know it's a.

D

It's it's an issue of density and and neighborhood character and all those all those types of things.

D

And it certainly could go either way, but this was just our proposal in that regard. How's that.

D

Covered okay, great yeah um and then going to the the larger one. So this is this. I understand.

D

Is is an area that has been problematic in some sense where, where variance has been granted and.

D

So forth, and so um the suggestion is to uh and to keep track of my things here to allow.

D

To keep basically to keep the same standards for the larger detached.

D

Accessory dwelling units in the residential districts um and actually being the the ones.

D

That are cu now would continue to be cu, the ones that are there in now, which continue to be in.

D

And across the board, so the only change it would be. No changes made to the larger ones.

D

Or the ones that require any type of uh variance or or non-conforming in any way.

D

I hope that is, I think, that's good. I think we kind of understand just based on what we've heard and.

B

What you know the types of comments that have or the problems that we've seen over a period.

B

Of time that it really is the detached adus that tend to venture into areas that are more impactful.

B

To surrounding property owners, and so keeping that with a especially the larger units that.

B

Keeping that really tied to uh the conditional use permit seems to be the right thing to do.

B

So we we did open it up for the smaller units that are less than 750 that meet the.

B

Performance standards um but we and and that's a question but that for you to think about as.

B

We work through all the and we'll get to that at the end, but just.

B

But we've kept it the same for the uh detached units that are more than 750 square feet. We.

B

You'll see later that we actually have a total cap on how big they can be, and we have uh have.

B

Made that not subject to modification we've been very clear: it's been an area of confusion about.

B

What can be modified and what can't be modified? We've clarified that uh in this uh this proposal.

C

Well, I have a question. I think it might tie into the four questions you have at the end.

C

Going you have basically, we've got three options: we've got not permitted permitted and conditional.

C

Use permit under the permitted would you view that, as being an administrative approval by staff.

B

So we right now it's queued up and we have clarification that the planning director and.

B

Usually it would be something that we would, I probably would refer to different staff members.

B

Who, uh but uh we there's this other thought and we'd like to talk to legal about it? That's how.

B

It is right now that the planet subjects planning board approval and it wouldn't be. I think online.

B

Planning director approval sorry, um but there is this idea too, that if it is allowed by right, it go.

B

You know all the building permits go through the planning department through our development.

B

Compliance coordinator through vincent hayes, they all go through vincent and when questions.

B

Arise that he has to check for verification on certain things that, because there is criteria.

B

He would typically refer to nick or sometimes to me, depending on what the question is.

B

So, to a certain degree, it would never go straight to building permit without someone looking at.

B

These performance standards, but we're just trying to make sure that we have a good flag in there for.

B

That so that's how that we've we've captured it by saying that administrative approval will be.

B

By the planning director, but you know, we want to talk to legal about the best mechanism to make.

B

Sure that when it comes in for a building permit that there is still some review that they've met.

B

The performance standards, because we do have some subordination standards that I think are.

B

Pretty clear now and some architectural standards that may still need some refinement, but I think.

B

Someone needs to put a set of eyes on those and I'm not saying the building department can't do it.

B

But it's really not the area that they typically work in okay and when I use the term performance.

C

Standards, I usually mean more than dimensional requirements, but you're using them to mean.

C

Specifically dimensional requirements here: no I'm also using it to mean the subordination and also.

B

The architectural standards and we're going to talk about architectural standards later, okay,.

C

Just quickly- and I don't take too much time- you were jumping on the detached from not.

C

Permitted to permitted, as opposed to jumping to conditional use, permit for up to 750 square feet.

C

I'm just wondering because an attached unit, those changes, make sense to me, but I'm wondering if.

C

Instead of going from not permitted to permitted, there should be a conditional use permit perhaps in the gateway districts, but it's just I'm just.

C

Talking here not not specifically making a proposal, but it seems like a bigger leap than.

C

We might want to make especially what you just said, where the detached ones are more problematic.

C

So we want to go all the way to permitted or do we want to have yeah it's a question for.

B

This committee, so I definitely would like to hear your feedback on that.

B

I think it's it's a question. We're raising as well.

A

I think it's one of the things that once we're done looking at everything we put it forward as a.

A

Question then I I agree: we go back and forth. Those are some of the things that I think this committee.

A

Really needs to sort of iron out, and I believe we had them as not permitted before, because.

A

When those districts came in, no one really, I think, realized that they had single family allowable and.

A

I think that's why it originally wasn't in there as a conditional use permit so and and no one.

A

You know no one just caught it, we were thinking. Oh, these are gateway. Districts.

A

Really you allow single family, I'm like well yeah. We allow single family, so it was one of the.

A

Things I had brought up early on so whether it's permitted or conditionally used. I, I think, yeah.

A

I think we have to have a discussion about that and then make a decision what we send forward for.

A

Further review and related to that, the conditional the conditions for the conditions permits can vary.

C

They could be much simpler in the gateway district, for example, than in some of the.

C

Other residential districts, they don't have to be the same standards, so just food for thought.

A

We could change that yeah and actually one of the things that I brought up in our meetings was.

D

Shouldn't we change the the p to an n for for single family uses and it's way outside the.

D

Scope of what we're talking here, but you know that was one of the questions is, is the is the.

D

um Are is having single family dwellings allowed as a right in the g1 district as appropriate.

D

As it should be- and I guess the question came up about whether he wanted to have puds there.

D

For example, so it's I think it's a bigger question and I mean some of this does have crossover as.

B

You know the subordination of accessory structures, I mean definitely there's a cross over there. If.

B

You happen to have an adu in that structure, so there's a few things that have crossed over there.

B

Just kind of on the periphery of the scope, so we'll look for guidance from you about that.

B

But I don't think we want to tackle that particular one, but definitely should we.

D

Be looking at defining what an accessory structure is in terms of its subordination of the principle.

D

We do say in the code that adu's uh accessory drawing are not accessory structures in the.

B

Sen in the occur in our definition, but I think we that there's been. Obviously they get conflated in.

B

Certain circumstances so all right, okay moving on so uh the third category is garden cottage and.

D

If you recall, this was something that we established uh as as a way to kind of reflect.

D

More unique circumstances in portsmouth than could be covered by the the state's uh regulations.

D

Regarding attached and detached accessory dwelling units, so these are garden. Cottages are essentially.

D

Conversion of an existing accessory building and the accessory building could be well within the.

D

The side yard setbacks, for example, of a for that, would pertain to the principal use.

D

And so in this case uh we made a distinction, um the the originally- uh and this is kind of a.

D

Question of interpretation, uh because uh I think the question is what how much expansion of an ex.

D

Of an existing accessory building would be permitted uh and still to be a garden cottage and.

D

So here we're making the distinction between an accessory building. That is where there is.

D

No outward expansion at all, so you've got a garage. You create your. um You, create your uh your garden.

D

Cottage entirely within your dwelling it entirely within that garage and so that.

D

We're proposing to change the cu to a permitted use. The different case is, if you've got a.

D

Shed and you want to add on to it and turn it into a dwelling unit, so you obviously have to.

D

Expand it so that would require a conditional use permit as it currently does, but not more than 600.

D

Square feet so there's this the ordinance. There are several places in these proposed changes where.

D

The distinction is made saying that if it's over 600 square feet for whatever reason.

D

It is no longer a garden cottage, it is a detached accessory dwelling unit, and that is a big change.

B

So we had a lot. We've had a lot of garden cottages because I think every time it had an existing.

B

Structure, they would just request modification of the size, and I am on a record saying you know it's.

B

Still within the 600 feet contemplated, even though the regulations say it can only be for the entry.

B

Or for the deck I've said: well, it's still within 600 feet. So it's we're thinking it's you know.

B

Generally can be considered, we actually put an end to that conversation in the ordinance and we say.

B

It can go to 600 square feet, it cannot get any bigger than that or it's going to be kicked.

B

Into a detached adu, so that is a big change and it's been a subject of a little confusion, but.

B

It does start to make a distinction about those bigger units, so so so really there. There are two.

D

Substantive changes that are under the garden cottage thing one is that 600 square foot cap.

D

And the other is that, if nothing happens to the to the um volume of the building uh that it would.

D

Become permitted so if you have a second floor of a garage for example and you're, just sticking.

D

A dwelling unit in it and there's no change to the to there's no outward expansion at all.

D

Then that is a kind of de minimis um change to the to the structure and we're proposing.

D

That that be by as a permitted use again with administrative approval from the planning director.

D

And and down at the bottom of the table, you see those two references.

D

I don't have in the table here the final column of the use regulations, but.

D

That's where we have cross references to the different sections of the ordinance, and so these.

D

Are essentially footnotes to the table saying directing you to that to that part of the table.

C

So an existing accessory building of 800 square feet could be converted as a matter of right.

D

800 square feet: no, it doesn't say that here, but exactly your threshold. The threshold is still.

C

600. yeah: that's when the audience says: if it's more than 600 it's a dadu, not a garden garbage.

D

Okay and so, therefore, if your accessory building of 800 square feet were within the setbacks, that.

D

Are required by zoning um then it's you know, then it required would require variance essentially.

D

Yeah that would be triggered on two levels, because it's more than 750 square feet and since yeah yeah.

A

Corey, did you have a question uh that was pretty much kind of it, just making sure that and just.

E

Just just for a little clarification, um what are the benefits of having it be a garden cottage.

E

Versus just having everything as a detached adu, the benefit that we saw when we created that that.

D

Special category was that we thought about many places in portsmouth, where there are garages that.

D

Might be converted convertible to a dwelling unit and we didn't we didn't want to so so. The.

D

The accessory we're trying to make the distinction between in terms of the impact on the abutting.

D

Neighbor, basically so a uh we wanted to be able to allow a very small creation of a very small.

D

Unit in an existing structure that wasn't expanded, which may be in the setbacks, could be the setback.

E

Yes, as opposed to a detached state, so so the city does not have to allow detached accessory.

D

Dwellings, the only thing the city has to do by state law is to allow attached accessory dwelling.

D

Units, and so we were trying to figure out how we could attach allow detached that would be of.

D

Minimal impact to the surrounding neighbors, and so one thing is to say: okay, you could have detached.

D

As long as they need all the requirements for single family dwelling, and you can have garden.

D

Cottages as long as they're, very small, and don't involve any change to the structure, yeah, okay,.

B

All right, I think that that is the table. There's still some questions hanging out.

B

There did you have anything else to add: no, um take it away: okay, I'll jump into the standards.

B

And try and go through those uh kind of quickly so that we can get to the discussion. um The.

B

Again, the- and maybe I should organize this by section rather than by theme and put the.

B

Theme on the side- I thought about that because then you can follow along this table, but.

B

I'll try and um get through these quickly and you can look also into the table and see the sort of.

B

uh Summary and purpose for the change: okay, just interrupt for a second: there are several pages in.

D

Here that we included that involve no change at all, but they're really just important for.

D

Cross references so we've got the references, the dimensional intensity standards and the section.

D

Introducing accessory buildings there's nothing there, that's changing it's just that! You want to.

D

Look back and and see uh see what this, how this relates to the changes we're proposing. Thank you.

B

um Jumping into section 10.814 accessory dwelling units, the first standard that we.

B

See some changes 10.814.21. One of the directions we had from this group you may recall, is that we.

B

Tackle non-conforming issues, so this um I'm sorry, that's the next section. um This section actually.

B

Is um uh essentially offering some clarification about uh the minimum lot size, so it's we require.

B

That both the principal dwelling unit and the accessory drilling unit meet the minimum lot size.

B

Of the zoning district, this actually says that that, notwithstanding the above reference.

B

The combination of the two uh does not need to comply with the minimal area per dwelling unit.

B

Of the zoning district but must comply with the minimum lot area for the district.

B

Essentially, we're trying to offer clarification that these two units are treated as a single.

B

Dwelling unit, rather than two, we know that that has come up as problematic, requiring a double.

B

Sized lot for to add well to add a um accessory dwelling unit, so this actually says they're going.

B

To be treated as a you still have to mind all the dimensional requirements for the district.

B

As relates to setbacks and minimum yards and open space and parking uh building coverage, but.

B

The lot area we're gonna we're gonna, look at these two as the um as a single unit, and I hope that the.

B

Clarification went through a few iterations because, depending on which staff member was.

B

Looking at it they're like wait, I don't interp, I don't understand it seems to seem that you're.

B

Throwing out all the lot standards- and I said so- we tried to offer clarification still needs to.

B

Meet the minimum law area for a dwelling unit, but we're not going to make you do it for two dwelling.

B

Units and just again to be clear about this, the original language is copied from state law, so the.

D

The any municipal regulation applicable to single family dwelling should also apply the combination.

D

And I think many places don't have our particular regulation of a minimum lot area per dwelling unit.

D

And so that was why we, it really didn't, seem to meet the intent of the state law, even though it.

D

uh It seemed to go beyond what we needed to do by state law, so it seemed to be important to.

D

As you said, to clarify and to and to adjust that, and also, if you think about it uh in.

D

In say, the grb gra grb grc districts they already allow two-family uses by with double the lot area.

D

So there'd be no incentive to do an accessory dwelling unit instead of a full-sized dwelling.

D

Unit, so I think that this really addresses those that are that are not large enough to be.

D

Two full-size units, but they would allow an accessory dwelling unit on those lots. Thank you.

E

So, based on the way, I read the next paragraph, if you have, if your entire adu is within your.

E

Principal structure, you don't have to meet the minimum law area for the district. Is that correct.

E

Or, in other words, if you're not expanding paragraph 22 yeah, if you're not expanding the.

E

Footprint or anything conforming correct, yeah, okay, so you do at that point, you still don't you don't.

E

Have to meet the minimum lot area requirement right: okay, if it's completely contained within.

B

The if it's attached, yeah, okay yeah, because I mean I know before we discuss you- know just.

E

Minimum law areas in general in districts, you know basically there's a lot of lots that don't.

E

Conform as they currently are, but I just want to okay. We also offered some clarification about.

B

About what can be expanded on this, so this is a important. uh I think a distinction is that we.

B

Are allowing that that to be expanded as long as the non-conformity is not expanded? So if you're in.

B

The setback you cannot go further into the setback doesn't mean you can't expand the footprint ever.

B

You cannot expand the non-conformity um when you cannot create a new non-conformity. Obviously you.

B

Can never create a new non-conformity without a variance so, but we thought it to clarify that so.

B

It's important it's an important one, we're saying: if it's a non-conforming structure, you can expand.

B

It you just can't expand the non-conforming component of it, but does that then kick it into.

E

Kind of the at that point, do you have to meet the minimum law area for the district.

D

If you're not again, this only applies to an existing non-conforming situation, yeah so right so.

D

So correct, if you, if you, if you have an existing single family home on a non-conforming lot right.

D

And you have say that you're not you're, probably violating the front setback too. You could probably.

D

Put an addition on the back of it and and do that, but that's the only and that doesn't prohibit you.

D

From from doing that, expansion, you just can't um create a new. You can't move into a side yard where.

D

You haven't moved into before correct, but you can go. You can like use that you can go backwards and.

E

um Even though you're you're it's a non-conforming lot because of the law, you're, not changing the.

D

Non-Conformity that is a that is a yeah. It's a good point that you bring up. That's a good.

B

Distinction, I think that's a lot is that you are violating the lot size and you are expanding and.

B

That and it's you're you're making that somehow you're exacerbating that non-conforming to a.

B

Certain degree, I understand what you're saying I don't know that we interpreted that. Well, I think.

D

I think compared to a single family home, so with a single family home. You could do that very thing.

D

Correct you could you could um as long you can do as a you could add a porch in your home as long.

D

On a non-conforming lot as long as you're, not um creating a new non-conformity right right, I just.

E

Want to make sure that you know they're, not being you know not being dinged for having a small lot.

E

To begin with, and as long as they're not going into the setback, correct, okay, correct.

C

I think it would be, I think, what I'm hearing, what corey's saying the idea is that lot size shouldn't.

C

Be a punishment against accessory dwelling units on any lot provided you're, not creating a new.

C

Violation of zoning ordinance in terms of dimensional requirements, and I think, if.

C

That's sort of the overriding strategic thought I think, there's a simpler way to combine those.

C

Two paragraphs, but I don't want to get into wordsmithing today, that's a little bit nutty.

C

But I'd be happy to send some suggestions. Well, you know. I think that I I understand.

B

The question you raised because there is, I think, it's important distinction to make that.

B

You know minimum lot, size is a dimensional standard and when you are you're sort of.

B

Exacerbating it when you are essentially expanding the structure, I think that we can probably offer.

B

Some clarification on this. The only reason I bring it up is because there's so many laws, yes, and we.

B

Have non-performing- and I think to your point if the intent is to not penalize them for that we can.

B

Take a look at how we can get that he leaned up a little bit. Well, if this group can agree, that's the.

C

Goal is that I think, and maybe that's just that that's the year so we'll see if we can.

B

We can add some nuance there that really clarifies that, because I think that is a little bit. I.

B

Think we were thinking, we were thinking, we're thinking about setback violations and things.

F

Yeah yeah, we were all right moving along. I think the next change is 10.81.

B

Here we we see two things: we've eliminated the bedroom.

B

And this is one of the questions we've asked. You we've said shall not have more than two bedrooms.

B

But we have provided a hard cap and no case shell and a an attached adub more than a.

B

Thousand square feet gross floor area, um so this is something that sometimes has been subject to.

B

Modification I mean could be a modification request and we're really putting a very hard.

B

Limit on what an adu is going to be for the city of portsmouth at capping at a thousand.

B

Square feet um and then eliminating the bedroom count, and we talked about this and I think we.

B

Asked each other are we losing anything by um and by eliminating that bedroom count. I think the.

B

Response was you know, it's really the size that we're really kind of concerned about if they can.

B

Make that work then let them make that work, but it has to basically meet the size requirements and.

B

Meet the standard for a dwelling unit which still includes you know, obviously, bedrooms bathrooms and.

B

All the other standardized things that have to be part of that keeping in mind if they're on septic.

A

Systems, that's going to limit their bedroom count as well, because that's what triggers that will.

A

Trigger them to have to meet the septic has to meet that size too. So to build a new septic system.

C

Right, so bedrooms are going to be limited in other ways, especially if they're not on water.

A

And sewer or if they're not in sewer, then they will be limited that way. So we're, like you, know.

A

If you can fit it in the whole size, it's still smaller and you want two tiny bedrooms. Then why.

A

Should we not allow them to have an extra bedroom yeah, I like the cab. Where did the thousand come.

C

From and it's a nice round number, but it did it, I think I don't know, I think we just we just right.

B

The next item is 10.814.43.

B

If there are two or more doors in the front of the principal dwelling unit, one door shall be designed.

B

As the principal entrance, the other door, shelby designs appear to be secondary. We felt like this.

B

Standard kind of hit at what we're uh trying to- and this is really the beginning of what we have.

B

Really consolidated into what we termed as our subordination section, we've really brought all.

B

The standards that really touch on what makes it subordinate and really kept the ones that we fully.

B

Understand that that we could sit down as maybe a brand new first year, planner and say I understand.

B

What that means you know, and so I was supposed to bring some pictures for that. I actually have.

B

A bunch in my neighborhood that, actually I don't know if they already used, but they actually have.

B

A second door that is very much subordinate and I will try and get those pictures for.

B

For future discussion, but essentially this is just a standard that we thought was very clear and easy.

B

To understand, and instead of saying, maintain the appearance of single family start to get.

B

Into real things that help us to distinguish what that subordination actually means, and that's the.

B

True for the next uh standard, a couple standards as well, we just offered some clarification.

B

um And uh 10.814.432 it applies that 40 rule and we clarify where that 40 percent rule.

B

um That, essentially, that uh an exterior wall of an attached adu that faces the street.

B

um Comprise no more than 40 percent, so it clearly has to be subordinate and we define what. uh What.

B

Facade means in this so that we can be very clear about which, where this applies, if you, for example,.

B

Have a corner lot: we don't want that attached adu to dominate that building. uh 10.814.43.

B

In addition to to or an expansion existing building for the purpose of creating an.

B

uh Attached accessory building, it shall be recessed at least 18 inches from the front wall.

B

When addition includes the of the principal dwelling unit, where the addition includes.

B

Construction of attached garage it shall be set back, 10 feet from the front wall of the.

B

Principal dwelling unit, it's to create that clear articulation and subordination.

B

Of that accessory now, this would be for a new new or an expansion. This would be for that um and.

B

uh Yes, on the 40 on the facade, do you mean the area of the facade, or do you mean the.

C

The width of the on the street say I'm just trying to think of how to interpret this for.

C

Vincent, it would be the width what's the intention, because there are height yep.

E

And just real quick on the next next paragraph, um so was it justin our architectural.

E

Kind of review for the 10 feet versus 18 inches, just because it's such a big difference.

G

Yeah the idea with the 18 inches is there isn't a there, isn't a garage underneath the adu right? If.

G

There's a garage you're gonna intend to me would be the minimum you would want to set the structure.

G

Back because the cars are typically parked in front of the garage doors, they'd be in front of.

G

The house right, ideally, it's 18 feet back, but it gets difficult when the house is only 26 feet deep.

G

To connect them yeah, that's obviously the minimum to okay. Please not have the cars be dominant when.

G

You go buy the structure with this new garage. The 18 inches is again a subtle subordination of the.

G

Addition to the house to create a break in the facade, there's typically a 32 to 38 foot beside.

G

But when you're, when you're, building a single family, um dwelling and you're building a garage.

E

You have to set that back currently, if, if it's attached, no no yeah there's a lot of things. You.

G

Don't need to do right, that's what I figured so that's why I was just curious on that, but.

E

You should exactly right: we got two hands on the wheel here. That's why we're doing it.

B

Right yeah: do you think we had one coming? We've had two come in recently, you can put the garage.

G

In front of the house, I do think, and I wish that I had the two images before me- we did have two.

B

New construction attached adus that have come in recently, and I think I think I don't know that.

B

Either one of them was quite that far back. I know that they probably met the 18. You know, but I don't.

B

I think they at least one of them had a garage, but I'd have to check. So this might be something.

B

For further discussion, we've had a couple: no we're seeing some new ones. It's something that.

B

I've seen too, since I've been here all right. I guess my only my only thought being you know.

E

By doing that, you're you're running you know jogging you're jogging and so the building.

E

Footprint is going to look larger in the end, but it'll look smaller because it's not a continuous.

G

Plane, if you don't have that step back, I'm just thinking from the butters on the sides.

E

That's all because, maybe if you're right beside the building yeah, I actually live in a house.

A

It's just like this. The garage does step back that far and the 10 feet then allows you on that.

A

Partial wall to actually have a window because we do have a small window there yeah, so it allows.

A

The light into the house so yeah, but in the back it jogs back too right. So there's a jog on both.

A

Sides, but it does make it look a little bit, I think smaller. I think it's also important to.

G

Recognize people with single family homes that do attach garages don't often put rooms above them.

G

So there is a subordination factor, even if they decide to hold the plane because they're as of.

G

Right they're not doing an adu, they don't often make something the same size as their house.

G

Stuck to the side of their house, which in adu starts to to move in that direction, but this.

E

Once again, probably only apply in new construction, so yeah, for instance, what? If someone builds a new.

E

House doesn't finish the upstairs of the garage yeah three years later. They decide they want to.

E

Finish it off at that point in time. This wouldn't imply that no, it wouldn't apply to that, but that's.

G

Unusual we do, we we've got at least three or four cases in the last five years of people, adding.

G

A two level garage adu next to a single story, ranch, which is this whole subordination issue,.

C

There's a reason to set those back, I was kidding, but I wasn't kidding about having the garage set.

C

Back a little bit because you really want the streetscape to be more pedestrian friendly and.

C

Bicycle friendly and if it's fronted by garage doors and cars parked right in front of those.

C

Garages, it feels like a place where the cars live and not where the people live. So that's that's the.

G

Idea, reasonable, no good questions, it's a good! It's a really! It's a big point. It's a big point. Okay,.

B

Okay, uh 10.814434, I think it's just a uh clarification. I think there there are many.

B

Places throughout here where we've tried to to use consistent language so where we said.

D

Principal building changed the principle dwelling unit where he said: dwelling change the principle dwelling yet, but just just try to use the same language throughout. So there's.

D

No suggestion that we mean something different when we use a different word right. I'm sorry.

C

And this will tie into the new definition of building height, assuming we get that.

B

And this actually, this is just another. um You know another existing support. 10.81434 is just another.

B

Additional item for that defined subordination before we move into the next section, which is.

B

Really addresses architectural consistency, and this is the another performance standard we've.

B

Tried to add some nuance here uh use of same or some, so this is when we, when we are defining.

B

That they must be architecturally consistent. They were saying that must happen through use of same.

B

Or similar materials, including siding type, siding color, mason reconstruction material use the same.

B

Or similar window openings and styling recessed windows or multiple panes that are present on.

B

The primary structure should be utilized on the aadu, with the same or similar spacing.

B

Use of similar door openings and door types similarly, proportion.

B

And use of similar architectural fields to include shape and pitch of roof eaves and trim details so.

B

This is how we've sort of I think that even a uh you know a you know, new planner could look.

B

At that and say I understand what that means, and I I and it would help. I think it would.

B

Help me too, when I was looking at the um we've. Had a couple: we've had one recently where the.

B

Those young pioneer remember where the primary building is now becoming the dadu and the new.

B

Principal building trying to figure out what things are important for those to look the same.

B

As they and maybe the changes that have to occur, uh this would have been really helpful to me.

B

I would have looked for those things and said: okay, it's got to do these things, so this is where we are, and we can certainly open that up a little bit more if we'd like to.

B

Moving along along to detached accessory dwelling units.

B

B

The dadu shall not be larger than 700 gross floor area, except as permitted through a cup.

B

So tying back to the um original table um in no case shall be larger than a thousand square feet.

B

Rose floor area so then again we have capped what we will allow consider a adu.

D

Ten point go ahead: that first one that first paragraph that we're crossing out entirely. Oh.

D

I'm sorry goes back to that change in minimum area pre-dwelling units. Thank you. It's just.

D

No longer necessary that actually is a really important one. I'm sorry. I skipped over that that.

B

Deletion is really pretty significant because it really is reinforcing that double lot requirement.

B

Within the gre district, so uh 10.814.52 um the edu shall be subordinate. So here we are again working.

B

Moving into subordination standards for uh detached adus, uh providing some.

B

Clarification there putting all the standards in one section, creating some parallel construction.

B

In the regulatory language, by having that same section reflected in the dadu section, um the wall.

B

Of ddu shall be set back at least 10 feet further from the front line than the existing uh front.

B

Wall of the single family dwelling that actually, I believe, is just a move, standard, relocated standard.

B

That was it somewhere else, but now is clearly on the next page. You can see it crossed out on the.

D

Next page, so it's we've kept that standard um uh and then again uh the forty percent rule.

B

uh And then redefining the facade uh noted your comment about with uh rick on that.

B

10.814.523, building height footprint and volume of the adu shall be no greater than.

B

75 percent of the building height footprint and volume of the principal dwelling in so here we.

B

Here we do get into a little bit more of scaling and proportionality to make sure that we don't end.

B

Up with a freestanding adu that is essentially eclipses the principal structure, it is a new.

B

Standard it does that 75. I don't know if we got that exactly right, but it certainly.

B

If you have a smaller dwelling unit or if you have a very large unit, you could see how uh this.

B

Proportionality works in concert with the cap to create a proportioned proportionally sized unit.

B

To the site to the principal unit, so I think it also gets at the idea that you could potentially.

B

Do you know something that uh could be like a duplex of some kind, having two units that are.

B

The same size, if they're both a thousand square feet, uh then they could create a different kind of.

B

Development pattern that I'm not sure we're trying to open up with this release regulations. So what.

E

About like building height footprint and volume, so I guess my question on the building height no.

E

Greater than 75 percent, so if you have a one-story ranch and you're building, uh you can't it'd be.

A

It'd be really well, that's right, it wouldn't have been yeah. We wouldn't meet the code requirements.

E

For ceiling height and everything else, I would imagine so it would yeah it would have to be.

B

A small report it would have to be 75 percent of whatever that structure is it's subordinated.

G

Yeah to get to that right because there needs to be a remedy for.

G

The ranch right and at the same time we don't want three thousand square foot right. D.A.D.

E

Right two and a half story right right next to the ranch yeah. So I understand just.

G

I set anything pretention here and you guys can correct me if I'm wrong is that.

G

This isn't the dadu it's the structure in which it's housed correct. That's important, 75,.

G

Isn't just what's inside if you build a two-car garage or carriage house and put the the adu in it.

G

I thought the intention here was that we'd be no higher as a placeholder than 75 percent of.

G

The volume height or footprint of the principal structure again to meet the subordination.

G

Because you wouldn't want to see 3 000 square feet strapped onto the adu, and now you have a.

G

Right, I'm just thinking you know, the principal structure is 12 feet tall right. No, I got the.

G

Ranch bar we'll look at the ranch, um you could say you could say something like uh no taller than.

D

75 percent of the building height or 20 feet, whichever is larger, yeah yeah. I think I just.

B

Got what you're saying essentially yeah yeah so there's there's a solution to the ranch problem. I.

G

Also think we need to be clear. It's the aggregate gross floor area, not just the adu inside something.

G

That could be, I don't think, we've. I don't think we have clarified that and that kind of tips into.

B

You know the problem I think, with with using this is a silver bullet, for that is that.

B

Essentially, somebody could come in and build that big accessory structure, because we don't.

B

Have a limitation on the structures and then potentially add a dedu later to it, if we're so, it.

B

Can be something that can be now then it could be. You know converted, so it's it's it's a little bit.

B

Problematic because the real issue that where the real issue is how big should accessory structure.

B

Be relative to the and that that is problematic has been probably yeah. That was the goal of this.

G

Even if it's the wrong, I mean otherwise, it's nonsensical, because if you have a larger structure.

G

What how would you ever interpret this 75 thing, so I think the intention, even if it's not the.

G

Way, we want to finish it up and I don't mean the number or the the the ranch problem, but.

G

I think that's the idea of subordination of the accessory structure versus just the adu inside it.

A

I think we really need to take on the accessory structure issue. I know it's sort of outside our.

A

Scope, but it really leads into this, because a person could build a four-car garage and that's.

A

Going to be much bigger than the ranch house and then try to put a detached adu on it, and I just.

A

Think that they go so hand in hand that I think dealing with that now would be better. I think the.

B

Thing to do, I think then, in this one to be more clear about that to say the the uh rose floor area.

B

The detached and including the structure for which it you know and all other areas within the.

B

Structure that you know would cannot make you know, exceed this requirement. Grossville area typically.

C

Means the entire building and the that this came up with an application that we don't have to talk.

C

About specific ones, but outside of walls yeah, it's the outside walls, not just the defined that way.

C

The accessory portion accessory dwelling unit inside it, so I think that needs to be clarified.

C

And then you know if I buy that ranch and I want to put a two-story colonial on it, you.

C

Know and then put my detached or attached, that's a whole separate application. That's.

C

Fine, it seems to me it could be fine if things are met, so I think, maybe back to the having a.

C

Tiered approach to different circumstances of you've got an existing condition where it's a.

C

It's a 19th century structure that are usually not ranch, burgers they're taller because that's.

C

What they did back then and that's a lot of portsmouth, not an issue, but if it's shorter.

C

How does that address? Should that be a little bit? Different set of performance criteria are.

C

They proposing to change it, um but also especially the the definitions. I don't know, did you get into.

C

Gross floria or it's written the way you said it yeah it's standard language. That's already there.

G

You reread it I I brought it up in a meeting and yeah, I'm not sure yeah. So I think for.

B

Clarification on this one, I think, really making that distinction for a ranch, because I think that.

B

Would be that would be, I don't think that was unintended. We didn't, I don't think we meant to.

B

Try and make it a little short building, so I think that's one. We need to clarify and then the other.

B

Thing, I I think is that we, if we do mean to say the entire structure without having to get into.

B

Wordsmithing about terms just say that just be very clear, so that when someone looks at that, if.

B

They're building a new structure that you know the attached to the dad portion of that is combined.

B

With the entire structure to and has to meet the subordination requirement, if we mean to say that.

B

Let's just say that so isn't isn't the bigger picture for those who don't understand. Dimensional.

C

Things if you have an attached one, it's supposed to be a little bit back and a little bit. You know.

C

Subordinate to the main structure, if they're detached same thing, it's going to not dominate.

C

The lot it's going to be something that is, but if it's part of the child, it's the child of the main.

C

House, which is the parent, that's true for the dadu, but it's not true for accessory structures.

B

And that, because we don't have- which is why we're having this kind of when it's folded together.

B

We really need to say when it's folded together, this is going to apply. This standard applies when.

B

They're folded together, we can't fix that other thing. You still put a four-car garage with you.

B

Know- and that's not going to be we're, not that's how you game it. That's how you go. I think we need.

G

To think about a segmentation clause, because you could put the garage in front of the house.

G

And then come back and ask for an adu and I think that's not the intention of what we're trying to.

G

Do here so it would be good for us to think about how or make the garage, so we can prevent somebody.

D

You can't do that the way we've written it. I understand that so it's I'm just putting.

G

It down there for something we might want to think about. Does this prevent somebody? Does this prevent.

B

Somebody from putting a four-car garage in and then a year later coming in and that's just the.

B

Question coming in saying: well, it's there now, you know you can build an 8 000 square foot accessory.

D

Structure, but if we, if we say what rick was saying about just you know, looking at the entire.

D

Structure say that define the entire structure. I think that's the way to do it to say where an adu.

B

Is enclosed in a larger structure, this standard childhood? So you almost changed the language of.

D

523 saying the building height footprint and volume of the entire structure containing the.

D

Dadu should be that's it that's the best, so they need a variance to take something larger.

G

Later, if they segment it yes, so how do we deal with someone putting the garage in front of a.

G

Single story structure still captures it. How does that capture it? If it's not the 75 percent part.

G

Just the placement of the building, I think we've identified the problem. I'd suggest we move on yep.

B

Let's get on it: okay, that's a good problem. All right we'll keep moving, but we do think that's.

B

An important sort of, and I'm glad we're spending some time with it, because that is an important.

B

Component of subordination- and I think that we all agree that that's one of the intents.

D

And just just to go back to what we had in the table, this issue about any requiring any variance.

D

I guess it doesn't require variance to construct yeah. It would require a variance at that point.

D

It wouldn't it would because it doesn't meet the standard right, but it doesn't mean okay, so.

E

Not to throw another go ahead, real real, quick. uh Just I don't know. Maybe it's captured somewhere.

E

Else in the ordinance but uh corner lots and through lots. So if you you know because we're.

E

Talking about the forty percent uh front, uh the facade and principal front of the front yard and.

E

All that, if you have a corner lot, and I think of the the one that came before us when dodges.

E

That you know basically, how does that then get addressed? um I just want to make sure that we're.

E

Still, you only use the principal front yard, which is the address assigned to the lot that finds that.

E

So we only presumably that's the front door so as long as they meet the setbacks on the side yard or.

E

For that edu and say they get a driveway permit to come in off that side yard.

E

I'm just trying to you know think of that's a good way. You got to test it. You got to test it. That's.

C

What you're doing yeah that's good yeah? No, I think we need to need to sketch these options and see.

C

You know what I've, if there were students available I'd, give it to students and say.

C

How can you game this see what they come up with? Well, I think that corey's doing a good job.

G

Just looking for loopholes, thank you. That's a good.

B

Oh yeah, thank you, corey. That's a good! That's a good point. Thank you.

B

um Moving forward, we have again the architectural standards, as we talked about before, um really.

B

uh Bringing those into the same section creating that parallel construction in the uh detached adu.

B

Section as well uh the d8, this is a change. The d.a dues shall be separated from the principal.

B

uh Dwelling unit again that that same language, that consistent language.

B

By at least it said, 20 feet, we thought 10 feet to bring it closer rather than push it.

B

Out towards the abutting property, we weren't sure why that standard would be so bring it a little.

B

Closer to the print to the principal dwelling unit, and essentially hopefully through that.

B

Minimize some of the impacts to the um to the budding property trying to get those impacts. As.

B

Close to the principal dwelling unit, where the owner lives so that they can manage it as well.

G

And I think the key two words in that sentence are at least it's: it's not saying shelby, ten.

G

It's at least ten, so if you've got a wide lot, you can continue to put it where you want. It.

G

So it's also as much about allowing people in portsmouth to be able to do adus where they might.

G

Not have a wide lot and that 20 foot separation requirement. It requires a variance to to address.

G

On the narrow line, I'm just wondering: why do you even have to have to have the separation.

G

I mean well you're going to need five feet in the building code anyway, so right so well, five, it's.

G

Pretty pretty tight to have an accessory dwelling unit, five feet off your house, architecturally.

G

Can be done but yeah yeah, I mean obviously yeah. The constructability gets really difficult. I'm.

E

Just wondering: are you saying, as long as it meets fire code separation, that it's that's really.

B

That's your issue, make it work yeah, because if you're, you know eight feet, do you have to.

E

I guess you know if you're, if you're within eight feet or something like that, do you then just.

E

Put a little grease, it doesn't even have to be a real breezeway, just uh facade, and then it's.

C

There's the separation like this and then there's corner to corner distance, which is.

C

You know corner to corner at five feet, even isn't as much of a problem necessarily especially.

C

Depending what you're doing as opposed to this so, but if they can make it work, I don't know.

G

It's not a magical number, uh but five feet seems tight, tight, yeah architecturally. I guess that was.

G

My question: is it more of an architectural thing than anything else at that point because should.

C

That be something that you give the applicant the opportunity to show something different under a.

C

Different set of criteria, maybe that triggers a conditional use permit if you want to propose less.

B

I mean I don't know I I I will look down here.

B

For the purposes of moving forward, would would you like to see this move to five feet? You know.

B

Or would you or would you like? Well then you wouldn't need it at all. We wouldn't need it.

B

Do we need it at all the building code? Should we just eliminate this.

B

And see if they can make it work, architecturally.

E

Yeah because it has to be subordinate still, so it has to be the subordination standards.

B

Has to be you know, all those things have to be in place. The building code will.

B

Essentially, I I but, for my part, I always liked if it is in the building code. I'd like to you know.

B

At least state that because then they as they start to go through it, they won't start with it.

B

They'll start with zoning before they get to the building, because we know that it's in there for uh for fire code separations, but it just always surprises me in portsmouth. You know lots is so.

E

Weird that you know the way people get things to work is always so interesting, so you know.

B

And we could just say just needs to meet building code standards.

B

So we'll say I think, meeting building code standards, minimum separation.

B

Meet minimum separation requirements required by the building code: yeah? Okay, what you don't even.

C

Need to say well I like to say it because I'd like to learn about this before they read code.

G

Oh, if you just made it five feet, that would do that with maybe less words but.

C

Yeah, I couldn't code, might change too so yeah.

A

Yeah right I say: building coaches, because if it does change, then we don't have to change right.

A

So that's a good clarification um and then there's that administrative, and that was a cross-reference.

B

That rick was mentioning earlier um essentially explaining what administrative approval means.

B

Moving on to 1081470, when section 10.440 requires the conditions hermit for attached.

B

Or detached adu, the planning board should make the following findings.

B

This is really just the findings. Some of the findings were duplicative of the standards.

B

But we tried to as we work through these findings, make sure that.

B

We've captured any opportunity for public input and also compliance with the standards, but without.

B

Duplicating the standards, so that was some clarification. We added um the adu complies.

B

With the standards there, it is that it's met all the standards above um uh and then most of these.

B

Are essentially what was in place before? I think we there's that principle dwelling unit again.

B

Repeated um the adult not result- and this is moving on page 11- will not.

B

Result in excessive noise traffic parking or congestion. You know we have parking standards.

B

That are uh called out very specifically, we've actually cross-referenced and added.

B

Reminding that you have to meet the minimum parking standards.

B

The other things are really hard to measure, especially at the outset. So we have codes that.

B

Really manage noise to certain degree traffic. I think that we don't require a traffic uh study.

B

For uh these types of dwelling units, nor even for a single family dwelling unit, so these are hard.

B

Things to really for a planning board to decide whether this is going to essentially tip the scale.

B

And it's not a standard that we put other types of dwelling, which I have a higher.

B

Impact a single family dwelling unit to the same test so than an adu. So these we just.

B

Eliminate that as something that's really a little too hard for them to make a decision.

B

At the outset so and then the other findings are essentially the same. So then we just jump.

B

Into garden cottage and then some corrections to the uh to the section's reference. Thank you.

B

And then similar to what we presented in the table, a garden cottage shall not be, and.

B

I'm on page 12 now shall not be larger than 600 square feet, gross floor area.

B

An accessory building, that's proposed, to be converted to dwelling unit that exceeds 600.

B

Square foot 600 square feet gross floor area, including the residential and non-residential.

B

Uses so there is that little capture piece, saying if you you're not going to if it if it exceeds.

B

That, including, if it's a garage and you want to say, hey now, it's a garden cottage, this part of it.

B

This is going to essentially capture those will be deemed a detached accessory dwelling unit.

B

And shall be reviewed by the code official applying to board as applicable.

B

So this doesn't allow a conversion. You cannot call at a 600 square foot unit within an.

B

Existing four-car garage and say this is now you know we're going to count the whole structure.

B

And then it's an existing accessory building should not be expanded vertically horizontally.

B

Other than the additional front entry not to.

B

Not to exceed 50 square feet or side rear deck, not to exceed 300 square feet, except the planning.

B

Board may grant a cup, so this is that trigger. If you would like to make that existing structure.

B

A little bigger, but you can never make it bigger than 600 square feet. That is really the cap.

B

Otherwise, you're an accessory dwelling unit, a detached accessory dwelling in it.

B

And- and I think the reason we offer those clarifications is that there's.

B

Been confusion about whether that was subject to modification and now that's been cleared up.

B

For this one anyway, uh 10.815.401 section 10.440 indicates a garden.

B

Cartridge is allowed by right, then there's that administrative clarification once again.

B

uh And then the plan, um when a conditional use permit is required the plan. Then it's just the.

B

Same standards that we applied before, there's really no I'd, say.

B

Substantial change to these standards that the planning board has previously looked at.

B

And then in granite condition, use permit for garden college. The planning board may.

B

Modify a standard set forth in section 815, 32 or 10.81533, provide that the board finds.

B

The modification will be consistent with the required findings in section 10.815.4.

B

Not withstand the above provision, the planning board may not allow a garden.

B

um I think it should say garden cottage to exceed the 600 square foot. So there we're saying.

B

That, although these other standards may be subject to modification by the planning board, this.

B

Is not one of them? It has to go into a different category that has actually been as it has. It has.

B

We've stumbled on that one a little bit. What is what is subject to modification? What's not.

B

And I believe there is yes, the last one is the. um Is it 16 yep page 16. rick you gonna, take that one.

B

Sure, just it's just another um exemption, because we exempt single-family uh dwellings from the.

D

The um parking in the front yard and we're just saying you know if if the single family dwelling.

D

Had a guarded garden, cottage or excessive dwelling unit, it wouldn't lose that exemption.

D

Because that applies to two family dwelling also, so it's just making it consistent there and then.

D

On page 18, um just getting back to the again, this is like the third or fourth time we're saying.

D

It if it's larger than 600 square feet, it's a detached accessory dwelling unit in the definition.

C

Did you give any thought this is a and I'll shut up after this one? Did you give.

C

Any thought to maybe simply simplifying it. I mean it seems to me: do we need garden cottage.

C

We really have attached detached and you get two kinds of detached, probably.

C

Whether it's an existing building or a proposed building, would it be simpler right.

C

My sense is, it would be a lot less words to just not have a separate classification, because now.

C

You've got a type of garden, cottage that isn't a garden cottage anymore. Now it's a detached.

C

But if they're detached they're detached and if they're attached or attached.

D

Again, the idea behind garden cottages was to say if you've got a small, very small building.

D

That you're not expanding or under under the revisions, if you're, only expanding a little bit.

D

That doesn't comply with the side yard setbacks, for example the rear setbacks.

D

You know a shed or a garage, it complies with the setbacks.

D

For an accessory building, but not for a principal structure, it was just to allow those to happen.

D

I'm sure we could do it a different way, but then you'd start getting into. When do you decide to.

D

Allow a larger accessory dwelling unit to sit within the setbacks, and I guess that was that.

D

Was just a concern? I also think that um it was a clear distinction when we basically said you.

B

Couldn't expand it because it's basically saying this is already there. You can't expand it, but it's.

B

You know this recognizes the development pattern, but because we did get comments about that's not.

B

You know some of these are not livable structures, they need a little more space. We opened that.

B

Up a little, the distinction was clearer if, if implemented as this is a you cannot, if, if we had.

B

Implemented faithfully and said you can never be more than 600 you're, just dealing with whatever's.

B

There you cannot change it and that's, I think kind of maybe was the original intent, but we've sort of.

B

Let it slide a little bit and we said you can't change it. You can add a deck or a front entrance.

B

But you're not changing it's already there we're going to recognize that it's there we're going to allow you to convert it when we open that up a little bit, the distinction is not as it's not as.

B

Clear because now we've basically allowed for an expansion where, before we were trying to recognize.

B

Existing conditions, but I think it does also within the way it's written, does recognize what.

B

Is unique development pattern that I haven't seen any other jurisdiction? I've worked in where we do.

B

Have a lot of detached garages and we're trying to recognize that development pattern and create some.

B

Sort of uh I'd say a mechanism forward for those that that is minimal yeah. I think you.

C

Can still do all that and it's not dependent on the label. That's that's my only point. I think it.

C

I think, instead of having eight pages, you might be able to do it in four or five, but just a thought.

G

You know I mean, I think if I hearing you correctly, a potential remedy to that issue would be to have.

G

A detached uh accessory dwelling unit up to 600 square feet that doesn't comply uh potentially.

G

With any of the dimensional controls, it's called an existing building. It's called existing building.

C

You've got okay yeah, but it has non-conformities, which is the goal of why garden cottages are in.

G

There maybe there's a third category uh to to detached in order to eliminate garden cottages.

D

Yeah you I could see, I could see that the idea of it takes takes a little bit.

D

More rewriting, but you can take it, which is fine with me, he's getting paid by the hour.

D

No, I I could see, as you say, an existing accessory structure does not have to comply with the side.

D

Yard setback requirements or any dimensional- I mean right now: they're exempt the garden cottages.

C

They're, almost all non-conforming, so if I'm a citizen coming to the town hall, I don't know.

C

Anything about any of this, I'm not an engineer, I'm not an attorney. I don't know any of this stuff and.

C

You know nick tells me, I've got a garden cod and I'm going. I do. I've got a garage.

C

I got a shed where's, my garden cottage, you know it's just it's an educational thing and.

D

Actually, I think I think that would be much easier to do. If you go to the subordination, I mean define.

D

What an accessory structure is to begin with, you know to say so that somebody can't build.

D

A four-car garage that extends into the setback and then convert it. Then two years later come back.

D

And try to do a dadu, but I think there's, I think, you're right. I think there is a there's, a solution.

D

That would make that simpler um and uh dealing with an existing non-conformance and, however,.

C

I can send you, I can send you a quick, you know bullet points to you can play with and see what.

C

You think would be great, but I guess that's. I guess that would be that's a big change in.

D

The ordinance, so I guess, if we, if we it's, not a ch, it's just it's a simplification. It's the same idea.

D

No, no, I agree with my simplification. I agree. I mean it's just changing the categories where we've.

B

Gone in and tweaked them, but I do. I think that I think I think the problem is you know is that we.

B

In the expansion it does seem to look more like a just just a regular, detached adu. That's a that's.

B

A smaller existing category and should be a subsection of that. I understand that.

B

Definitely send what you want, and then we can just you know, follow up with uh you know with a couple.

B

Of units, well, I'm not going to send it unless there's idea that people want to see it, you know.

C

I mean send it yeah I mean I I I would defer to the. I would love anything to be more simplified.

A

So I think it's worth taking a look at fair enough and at the same time I think that to.

D

Do this, if we're going to do that, I think it'd be good to look at the definition of accessory.

D

Yeah accessory structure, this conversation has made me realize we do have to absolutely define.

A

That better, because I do think that that becomes a really big problem and honestly, it looks odd to.

A

Have a tiny little cottage of a house in a giant three-car garage like that. We don't really want.

A

That in our city, I don't think at least I hear you want the house to be the primary structure. You're.

A

Looking it's changing the character, changing the character it is, it doesn't got 100 acres in there.

C

Right full of cows, I don't care if you want a giant barn behind your tiny cottage I'll go for it.

A

All right all right, we'll we'll work on that, a little bit more and uh just bringing back to the.

B

Questions as we've rounded out uh is there any real concern about allowing those detached adus.

B

Administratively, the way they're proposed right now, I think, there's question also still on the.

B

Table about the districts, whether we'd like to take a look at uh you know, as proposed whether.

B

We'd like to open up all the districts or maybe consider not opening all those districts up. You.

A

Need us to give you a decision between option one and option two right option: one option two, but.

B

Then also, I think, in both option one and option two. We have essentially um well detached only.

B

Has one option- and I think so, there's one question about is it do we feel comfortable with allowing.

B

um And I think it was g1 g2. There was a question raised about whether in a detached I'm sorry, I'm.

B

Sorry and detached whether that should be attached. Yes, we need an answer about option. One option.

A

Two, yes, I mean I'm in favor of option two myself, um because I think it just spells it out.

A

Slightly better, but that's just me: what does everyone see? I'd lean towards that.

A

Just speaking to your microphones, people.

G

I heard what you said about the g1 g2 and I'm sitting here racking my brain as to why we'd.

G

Want to encourage single-family homes in those two districts and by extension, why would we want adus.

G

Is it worth revisiting or not taking that on, because it's it's not maybe before us in scope, but.

G

But not having them in the g1 and g2, with an understanding we're going to go back and.

G

Evaluate the table it uses in a in a subsequent review for the g1 and g2, because it may not matter.

B

You think not change it now and take it up later. Make them ends now.

G

And with the understanding, we need to first go back and look at the g1 g2 understand it better.

G

Because I I don't even working here, understand it well enough to make an informed decision as.

G

To whether single families should be there to take it off the table for everything, the.

G

Projects we've all seen in in those districts like cinemagic, trying to imagine a single family home.

G

You know in that district and it's not working. So that's just food for thought. Rather than choose.

G

An option that keeps it in there maybe choose one that takes it out because we're not quite sure yet.

G

So we better understand exactly because I I mean I remember when we were having the discussions.

A

Around the g1 and the g2, it really boiled down to. We wanted sort of cluster neighborhoods.

A

But would a cluster neighborhood be sort of the kind of neighborhood you want.

A

To have with the density that density allowed in the g1 g2 as part of that zoning, it seems highly.

G

Unlikely we'll ever get single-family homes, even if we wanted them. So that would be so so.

D

If for yours, if I'm understanding what you're saying we would change right now,.

D

Accessory dwelling, it's we allow by conditional use in g1 and g2.

D

And, rather than make them permitted, we'd make them no, no everywhere it's food for thought.

B

So it is, it is right now for detached it's a no and we've moved it to a p and for attached. It's.

B

A cup, so it's it's just basically no across the board for those districts until we have.

B

A stronger unders is that what I'm hearing for both I think it would be both attached.

B

And detached so just move that to until we have a better understanding of truly a single family.

A

Home in that district, actually, though, just throw a monkey wrench on it realize right.

D

Because state law requires us to allow them wherever we allow single family dwellings.

A

Oh so we have to so, we should put them as a cu for the attached and then detach can be no yes, okay,.

A

We have to okay because then they're already there right there they're already there, because.

A

They have to be if we allow single family use, because because understand that we don't have.

A

To allow detached we don't in detach, but we do in the attach so cus unattached and no so it's.

A

Really it's essentially the status quo. Leave it the way it is yeah. It's the status quo. Okay,.

C

Back to your question, beverly speaking for myself, I'm conceptually I'm in favor of allowing.

C

More administrative approvals, but I think we need to get more of the details figured out.

C

That's all um yeah, I don't. I don't know that we're ready to say that today, but I'm certainly ready to.

C

Say conceptually sure what details I mean I mean, I know that we're talking still about trying to iron.

B

But where do you feel like we need to beef it up a little bit we talked about. We talked about.

C

Possibly having a tiered set of conditional use permit criteria, I think that ties right back into.

C

What's? Administrative and, what's not so in having that conversation, you'll decide that this this.

C

Doesn't even get us to that table of tiered uses. This is something that just comes to your desk.

C

I just don't know: we've had that conversation yet.

G

And probably, by extension, based on my notes, making sure we're all really clear and.

G

Comfortable on the subordination standards, so so staff can do that effectively without.

G

Having problems, I mean the accessories, the whole accessory building definition of subordination. I.

C

Think we, I think we all it's like you know, you know when you see it, but we haven't written it.

C

Yet so I do feel I mean I do I mean I guess I'm trying to understand because I don't want to over.

B

Complicate it so that it's it's difficult for staff, I feel like the subordination standards.

B

Are pretty close, I mean close to what I would look for. I would understand how to implement those and.

B

I would it seems to me that we would want those subordination standards to be across the board.

B

You know whether it is or not, and then the other thing, the architectural standards we may still.

B

Need to refine those, because I think that those are pretty. You know pretty straightforward right.

B

Now I don't know if we need additional beef there to beef it up a little bit, but I would understand.

B

How to implement those, so I don't know that I want to introduce a lot of tiering that adds a lot of.

B

Complication to the code, but if it is our intent that we are wanting to give you know, we don't want.

B

To allow them, because we want more what before, we will allow them by right. What is missing that.

B

What before, we will allow those by right under a certain size if they meet all subordination.

B

All the architectural standards they have met dimensional standards or sought dimensional relief.

B

Because we can't say you can't get a variance, then what is it that we want to see more happen before.

B

We will allow those by rights with captain's eyes, their middle subordination requirements, which I.

B

Think are you know, I think that you can. You can take a look at a plan set and understand if it's.

B

Set back enough, you can take a look to see if the facade, actually, you know, based on the dimensions.

B

Provided I could implement those standards, the architectural standards- I I think I could.

B

Implement those based on the language that we've added look at the windows. Look at the sighting.

B

Look at the details. Look at the pitch things like that. These are things that I could, I think, are.

B

Pretty basic, so if it met all those standards, what additional standards are needed in that.

B

Permitted by right that are not there now, if, if we were to because that's what I'm hearing and that.

B

Is an extra level of complication? I just don't for that by right. I just don't know what we're missing.

B

There, no I'm, certainly not suggesting complication, I'm guessing simplification and I think we're.

C

Saying the same thing just differently, I think I'm in agreement with you that all the things you said.

C

Sound completely logical, and I think you probably could go upstairs and.

C

Do it, but what if you don't? Let's say you go home and take another job tomorrow and somebody else is.

C

Sitting up there, maybe they're not fully cognizant of all the conversations you've had it needs to.

C

Be in writing. We just talked about a number of changes today that could be small could be a.

C

Little bit larger than small, it's just details, so conceptually I'm completely with you and it may be.

C

That we're an hour away, we may be 20 minutes away. We may be a week away from having consensus, but I.

C

Just think there needs to be some details working out. That's all! Okay! I think some details have been.

B

Raised, I think that and they're public things. I think we can work on yeah, so so rick um going to.

D

The to the the table of uses on page two, uh the second for the attach accessory dwelling unit.

D

Let me see if this is really where your, where your head is at.

D

I'm thinking that if we were to kind of fold garden cottages into detached accessory dwelling.

D

Units we might be inserting another line above 1.221, which would be up to 600 square feet in an.

D

Existing accessory structure, that kind of thing is that the kind of tearing you're thinking of.

D

Yeah; okay, that that helps. Okay, I thought you went tearing up the standards.

C

I did I meant that as well, but we can then we can.

D

Put the standards for those in the text exactly we have a new piece right: yeah, just okay got it.

A

A

All right, so I think we've gone through all of your questions. Have we um do we want to administer.

B

The proof uh attached adus, even the ones that result in expansion- I think, are you satisfied with.

B

The way the attached are are laid out allowing those and the question I had before you was.

B

For attached, we have cups if they're, if they're more than 700 square feet, but I.

B

Think when you picked 1.212 and keeping it as a conditional use permit and not allowing any.

B

Attach that are more than 700 square feet to be allowed by right. That was just a question.

B

The impacts are lower. I think we just thought we'd pose it. We've opened.

B

We've opened the door there, we haven't opened it up all the way for attached and are you.

B

Comfortable just where it's at right now as sort of a this is where we want to go from here.

B

So I guess I'm asking you is a cup uh for uh greater than 750 square feet that meets all the.

B

Performance standards is that where we want it or do we want it by right and I think we're proposing.

B

As a conditional use, if you would like to open that up wider, you can.

A

For more than 750 square feet, no, I think we need to leave that as a condition.

C

Yeah, I agree. Okay, that's why I like the way option. Two reads:.

A

Other than changing permitted to conditional use for the up to 700 square feet for garden, one and.

A

uh Gateway one and two, I think, all the rest work very good. Okay, uh an elimination of bedroom, not no.

B

One has any consternation about that: the bedroom requirements. No that's good with that, and then I.

B

Think uh defined subordination for all accessories. I think we did talk a lot about refining some.

B

Of the language to make sure we understand what that means for adus, if we're not going.

B

To grab it through accessory structures, we are definitely going to say what we mean for adus yeah.

A

Some of the notes that I took down is um making sure we look at this and make sure that, as.

A

Corey pointed out that we don't want to burden the smaller lots um with the way.

A

The standards read and accessory structures in the 75 subordination really taking a look at.

A

Truly accessories, I think we need to just go out and define that appropriately and I think.

A

It's going to be worth the extra effort to do it. Are you saying maybe to tackle it through.

B

The accessories just to go in and define accessory structure, okay yeah, as opposed to sort of within.

B

The context of an adu: this is how we're going to look at it, or do you say as they go out and really.

A

Define accessory structures, I think we need to take a look at that. I think that will really then.

A

Prevent us from having issues down the road with new accessory structures. Okay, I understand.

A

Everyone yeah, I worry about you- know people do some great big accessory whatever, wherever they.

E

Want to do it and then they just giant workshop that then they created they say. I want an adu.

E

Two years later and wow well, I I want to offer some clarification there, because I think we can.

B

Close that gap within the eight within the context of the ad regulations is the intent. What you're.

B

Saying is to we want to close the gap for large accessory structures. It's an important distinction.

B

It's it's because we can end that and it we're going to count the entire structure as part of.

B

You know that all parts of that building will be counted. Your adu cannot exceed the certain require.

B

Building size we can, we can fix that here, but is the intent of what I'm hearing is that we do. We.

B

Want to fix, say that all accessory structures need to have meet some subordination standards.

B

That I'm I want to make sure I understand that's the way. I understand it because.

G

I think you might want to differentiate between residential and non-residential districts.

A

Yes, I would agree with that. You would like to add that to the scope yeah, I think, to.

A

Residential districts, we need to add that to the scope yeah so for residential districts. Okay,.

C

This isn't a rural standard. You know, rural new hampshire had a standard having.

C

Big house back house little house barn- this isn't rural new hampshire.

A

We don't have those we don't have a lot of those. I say the rural districts do what are going on.

G

Right now, I think we defined in our smaller lot in certain districts. I think that we have a special, a.

A

Special understanding of the accessory structures- oh my god, I can't talk. Sorry, I didn't get enough.

A

Sleep, we knew what you meant all right, so we will add that to the scope and tackle it both ways.

A

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Are we done with our discussion. We are good because I.

A

Know it's getting very late, so it was a worthwhile discussion though, but I think we'll bring these.

A

Back with those updates to our next meeting to do that and now we will open it up to the public.

A

Anyone in the room that would like to come up and speak just come speak at a microphone. Please.

G

And thank you very much.

H

Good morning elizabeth browder property owner 159 mcdonald street.

H

This is excellent stuff. After having been to a lot of these meetings,.

H

It really is great. I do have some things I wanted to bring up. Of course, when I look at 10 814 433, I.

H

Have no clue what you're talking about just to let you know that from a a regular person who's not in.

H

This stuff, that that to me is very confusing: I'm not really sure what you want me to do um on.

H

I just have notes everywhere. There is the the biggest concern that just tell is that 1081433.

A

Yes on page, so it talks about that it should be race recessed at least 18 inches inches from the.

H

Front wall of the principal then and then, if it's a, if it's an attached, an attached garage, it should.

H

Be at least 10 feet back from the front wall. So if it's already an existing attached garage.

H

You're not going to be able to move that back is kind of what I'm thinking, but this is only about.

D

Construction of an attached garage- okay, all right! That's fine! All right! I just thought that was.

H

Kind of confusing, so for me um in regards to the automatically permitted ones, I don't have an issue.

H

With that, as long as it requires part of that permitting- and you could put it in under 10 814.

H

That you, that person has to provide a better letters from whoever. However, far.

H

Out, you think, should be allowed to have comet, because I'm thinking in the.

H

In the grc neighborhood along mcdonough street, there are some garden cottages back there and I.

H

Think to myself: how would the and they literally sit right next to or almost in the neighbor's yard,.

H

I mean because you're sharing the fence is the wall of the garden cottage. So if you put somebody.

H

To live in there, as opposed to before you used it for your junk or you may have sat in there on a.

H

You know, put screening up and sat in there. That's different to have somebody in there living 24.

H

Hours a day and the other piece of the pie that comes with, that is, if I move into a single family.

H

Like if I move into an area, that's a single family, home area and now I have kids and I'm concerned.

H

I know all my neighbors, so I feel quote unquote safe. We won't talk about what that means to me, but.

H

And now you're going to have a rental unit in the back, which starts out for grandma and then becomes.

H

A rental unit now you have strangers coming in my neighborhood all the time and therefore I think.

H

It's really important that neighbors, it be expel, explain to them somehow from the city. What does.

H

This mean, in other words, grandma, can move in there now and everybody's excited when grandma moves.

H

In and you're helping out your family, but when grandma moves out and they have that empty space.

H

That now can create income, and a lot of people need that income to be able to pay their taxes.

H

Some people, as they get older, that's a way for them to do that, but neighbors need to understand.

H

That that would that's what an adu means. It has the potential to become an income property.

H

So that's just part of that and I thought 1018 81460 would do that.

H

So I already talked about that, um so I know that code will do the standards of requirements for.

H

Plumbing and stuff- and I know that architecturally it it's a great idea- to move the structure away.

H

But when you start to move structures away and you're going to add plumbing to it now.

H

That really raises the expense a lot. So you know when you're moving that thing 10 feet.

H

Away from the back of the building or whatever the different requirements are, you have to think.

H

About the fact that that you're going to have to move this you're going to have to have sewage.

H

Back there and plumbing for sure and those are big expenses to to add to a structure so just to think.

H

About the cost factor, I know that 10 feet out yeah right now, we've moved it as close as we can move.

B

It yeah I'm just saying just that's something to think about, because it's it's just another thing.

H

When I think about larger garages, one way to to control whether they're, using that storage space.

H

As the second part of that unit or another bedroom would be to require a wall be put there.

H

And they can't access those other parts of the building, so the the accessory dwelling has to.

H

Have a closed wall with no door that goes into the rest of the garage, so the garage has to have.

H

Its own entrance and it and it can't it, can't get in touch. You can't access the storage area.

H

Or whatever they want to call it the gym or whatever, so it's actually isolated. The fire.

H

Department is going to want a egress window added to that, but to me that would be one way to control.

H

The idea of now I have a set, I have a four car garage and I'm going to put that accessory unit.

H

In one of them and then I'm going to add two other bedrooms to that, because it's.

H

Now going to be a three bedroom which I'm not going to tell the city about and we're going to.

H

Have the one bathroom, so it's all set because we're going to have connecting rooms so that.

H

Would be a way to do that um in section 10, 814 522, you define what the facade means for an adu.

H

And I was just curious as to whether you want to just put that in the definitions.

H

Or at the beginning or somewhere else, so that it's throughout the whole.

H

um Thing that was what I was just thinking to tidy up a little.

H

um And drainage issues were something that people brought up um and I don't see anything listed in.

H

The standards for planning, I'm sure that comes into code, but I think, as people begin into this.

H

They need to understand that drainage is going to be something they're going to need to look at.

H

So you talked about that. You want to mention some things about the code and the five feet.

H

It might be helpful to include the concept of drainage so that they know that so those are.

H

My oh and the oh and the g1 clusters it there's a development in dover which, in the middle, has.

H

On the bottom, it has all the commercial stuff and then above it it has apartments.

H

Then the next it kind of goes out. So then the next section is condos. um You know two or three unit.

H

Condos and then the next section out is single family homes, so you can create those in those g1.

H

Type, I think they call it something else there, but it's under that kind of g1 thing, so you can create.

H

Single-Family homes, if the developer is graceful about it, you can create them further out, so it is.

H

Something that you're going to have to consider, no matter what that's mine. Thank you. If I could just.

B

Address one comment about the drainage: I would recognize that's starting to come up more and.

B

More, even with addition of one single family code doesn't require that we submit that for drainage.

B

Review I have talked to the building um the chief building official and he said that he's starting.

B

To look at those, and I think, we're starting to see more stipulations coming out, the planning board.

B

Saying we'd like to go ahead and have you do some drainage calculations to be reviewed? um I think.

B

That it's it's something! That's that it's not just about adu's! It's about any time we subdivide and.

B

It's it's a real issue. I appreciate you bringing it up, it continues to show up. I don't know that.

B

We found a silver bullet for dealing with that for single family homes, but it's definitely something.

B

We're trying to figure out without creating a big burden, review burden for public works, but trying.

B

To figure out this issue about drainage for small additions, because the patterns are changing.

B

I think that we're having more frequent events, I think storm water management is becoming important.

B

For even small additions, I appreciate that concern, so the other thing, too, is that if you get.

H

Actual letters from the butters, a butters who have drainage issues with their neighbors are going to.

H

Put that on their left likely I mean if they don't well, you know that's a problem. We already have.

B

A problem this is going to make it worse kind of right that kind of stuff, and I notice I've noticed.

H

That at many meetings, I've gone to the people who have water issues tend to show up and and.

H

Be very loud, yes, so, um and I get that because I have one one of my properties has that issue and.

H

It's been an ongoing problem because nobody is in charge of the water. I think once it gets made.

H

Then you're stuck with it, I think that's valid. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you thanks. Anyone else.

A

Hi, can you can you hear me? Oh, we have one more person in off in the uh room and then we'll get.

A

To you, okay, sorry thank you, peter 288, south street, so um and following me here, I'm speaking to you.

I

As a resident that could possibly have an adu or ddu and also on a butter to someone and my biggest.

I

Concern um I'm going to tie this in with the questions you had at the bottom of the page here.

I

The biggest question I have here is: how are you going to get the abutters.

I

Notified if you go directly- and maybe I don't understand this correctly- but if you go directly.

I

Through an administrative approval, without going through the planning board and having public input.

I

How would I, as in a butter, have any idea that this has come through until somebody starts.

I

Digging in their backyard, so that's that's a big concern here. For me, the the other concern is that.

I

As you as you go through this and put it through the planning board, there's.

I

A certain process that people are definitely aware of so I would ask, from my perspective,.

I

That um everything, whether it's administrative or not, just like the hdc.

I

Also just runs through a meeting, and the public is advised and the second set of eyes being.

I

The planning board looks at this, and the public has basically two chances to have input on this.

I

Also, I have a question on on 10814-232.

I

It's great that you put here that this you will have to have to comply with being the principal.

I

Of place of residence, it is not said how the city is going to enforce that or when they.

I

Are going to force that, are you going to look at that every year? Is there some kind of compliance.

I

That is going to be required here that, as was previously said you're, you know you could have.

I

Grandma move out and somebody move in if the some, if somebody else still is going to live there,.

I

How are you going to verify that? Are you going to look at the deeds? Are you going to look at records.

I

I think it should be said upfront that this will be followed and and needs to be complied with.

I

The other thing that I do, I have a problem with. I went to the back and I'm looking at the at the.

I

Parking here, so I guess I I need to know who has point five of a car.

I

Logically, to me, this doesn't make any sense if you're going to have any type of accessory.

I

Dwelling, whether it's attached or detached um the goal here, is to have a person in there.

I

uh 500 feet: it's probably one person, one car so to require 0.1.5.

I

Of a parking space, especially when you're getting down into our neighborhoods here anywhere, is.

I

It just doesn't make any sense to me even um 500 feet: 500 700, you could have two people there.

I

Especially in today's in today's families and stuff, like that, you definitely probably go up.

I

Here so I would ask you to look at this, especially when it comes you're going down into neighborhoods.

I

And residential areas, this also affects all of the abutters and and basically anybody around.

I

The area, especially if there's small commercial facilities around I speak from experience here.

I

And those would be, those would be some of the comments I have I have so far. I would.

I

um I would support making this more simple and I really like the suggestion that was made to just.

I

Define it between accessory, and so um those would be my comments. My main concern is: uh is a butters.

I

And not just having someone look out their window and see a bulldozer in the back, and things are.

I

Things have moved forward and they haven't had a chance to say anything. Thank you. Thank you.

A

All right- and I believe we have one person at least two hands on the line. So um if we could bring.

F

My apologies, but one suggestion or request I have is that you would consider in the case.

F

Of an attached adu, where it's my understanding that you need to have um almost like a breezeway.

F

Some sort of conditioned space between the adu and the primary house, so, let's say someone's.

F

Building a 600 square foot adu and it's being connected by a little eight foot, long breezeway.

F

In terms of the lot coverage, I would ask that you consider having so instead of say.

F

um You know the 600 square feet plus that little let's say 48 square feet, breezeway all that empty.

F

Space on either side of the breezeway be counted as well, because, as in a butter, it's not just going.

F

20 feet off the back of that property. It's going 28 feet off in terms of you know your views and.

F

Just general space- and you know neighborhood character and things like that in most cases.

F

It probably wouldn't make a difference, you're not talking about much area, but it could um and I to.

F

Me it it merits consideration, because it's not so much just the size of the actual adu. It's how far.

F

Out it's going into the property and, as you all know, in portsmouth um for most of us, we don't.

F

Have much in terms of views and being able to see a way so anytime, that's being cut into. I think we.

F

Want to try to minimize that mike. Could you please give us your full name and address for the record.

F

Sure it's michael mcnealy and I'm at 205 wyver street. Thank you very much. Yeah m-c-n-e-I-l-l-y.

A

All right, and if you have nothing else, we will.

A

Bring liza forward; that's it thanks thanks mike. Thank you.

J

Are you ready for me yep? We can hear you okay. Thank you, sorry about this. I'm driving back from.

J

The cave: well, I'm not driving, thank goodness, but somebody else is driving so we're over the side.

J

Of the road, so I could kind of say my thing and I apologize if I'm repeating. um What's.

J

Already been said, it was a little hard to hear you all this morning, um so I'll do my best.

J

So my first question just give us your name and address eliza hue at 726 middle road.

J

um The first question I have is kind of a general question. I know that in this second phase, two, this.

J

This, this is only one part of phase two and the other part involves assisted living and.

J

Senior housing is that going to be addressed in this phase before it goes on any further to.

J

Wherever it goes next or um or is that not being discussed anymore, and why was that taken off.

J

The table one of my questions so now, as I moved into the adu and again, if I'm, if I'm.

J

Repeating anything you've already addressed, I apologize I'll, go I'll, go back and watch the.

J

Watch the film again, um I'm questioning about the definition of assad um and I'm just wondering if.

J

The facade is just the floor that the adu resides on. So if there's a three-story building garage.

J

On the first floor, two stories above it are you counting the facade as just the second floor, where.

J

The adu actually is residing, or are you counting it as those the facade of those three stories.

J

And I I would really like you to be more clear about that in the ordinance.

J

My second question is um about the aagu. um I seem to read it that the building height of the edition.

J

Of the 8 adu shall be quote less than the building height of existing dwelling unit.

J

And I just wonder whether this is the best way to phrase that, as you seem to have gotten.

J

Into some trouble with the dadu and the beat building height being less than- and I know you.

J

Fixed that now so I'm wondering whether you should look at fixing it for aadu as well.

J

I'm also wondering why you're reducing the separation of dadu and the principal dwelling.

J

From 20 to 10 feet and I'm assuming that's because you're trying to put them from the smaller.

J

Lots and therefore you need less space between them, but that was just a question. um It sounds.

J

As if this all this administrative approval of these, um I know I I heard that say earlier that.

J

The building, not inspector, but I forget his name- is going to be doing a lot of looking at this. But.

J

It's going to put a lot on the planning department and I just hope you all are prepared for that.

J

The in 10.8 14.74, the 80 adu, will maintain compatible relationship to adjacent properties.

J

And quote will not significantly reduce the privacy of adjacent properties.

J

I'm just wondering how how you're going to judge that, because that seems pretty subjective to me.

J

I'm guessing that butters are going to say it's. It's impacting our privacy.

J

And I'm just wondering how you're going to qualify that yeah.

J

Another thing was in the neighborhood group forum, one of the women in that.

J

Forum was very concerned about drainage and runoff. I haven't had any experience with it.

J

But but I don't see that mentioned anywhere in this document and I'm just wondering whether.

J

That needs to be addressed, as it was a concern for one of the um one of the neighborhood reps.

J

I'm wondering also- and they have a question about this- maybe somebody can get back to me what a home.

J

Occupation use is, as it's described, for um for a principal, the prince, neither the principal.

J

Unit of the adu or the adu shall be used for business, except that the property owner may have a.

J

Quote occupational use and I think that that's worth.

J

um It seems to me- and I may be totally wrong about this- that the current ordinance says.

J

Two parking spaces for per adu unit. I may be wrong, but that's what I remember grieving at one point.

J

Parking was identified on a survey by the eye of others as a chief concern. I think that was.

J

Tough on the list actually um so now you've taken away the maximum number of bedrooms.

J

So if you granted a cup for let's say a thousand square feet, uh you could conceivably have three.

J

Bedrooms and a thousand square feet um and you're only quad required to have 1.3.

J

uh Parking spots for those three bedrooms- and I understand I read in there that it's rounded up.

J

To two or the nearest next number, I wonder why you don't just say two, because 1.3 is always.

J

Gonna have to be rounded up to two, so just say two and um and what that does is for parking.

J

If they only need two spots and you've got three bedrooms, um that's that's a.

J

Concern and maybe that's addressed in there and I'm just not reading it right.

J

J

So I don't necessarily agree with the eliminating of the number of bedrooms, because I think that.

J

Parking needs to be taken into consideration. You seem to think well, members of the committee.

J

Seem to qualify. It is not that big a deal to take that out, but I think for our butters and for the.

J

Neighborhood, it's going to add more people more need for parking, um more noise, potentially maybe.

J

um So I I'm not sure that I agree with that being taken out um and let's see.

J

And then I just want to finish up by telling you the things that I find.

J

Very good about your new ordinance, just this positive, um I really like the.

J

Better definition of architecturally consistent, thank you nick, because I'm sure you had a hand in.

J

That um I like the way, that's defined and and that there are examples given, I think, that's important.

J

I like the fact that the building height footprint and volume of the dadu shall be no greater than 75.

J

Although it sounds like through your discussion that maybe there's some clarification, that needs.

J

To be made because people may have different ideas of what that means, and I like keeping.

J

The yearly renewal schedule to renew for a dadu, then you have to keep applying. I think that's.

J

Important because I know that you had a discussion previously about whether or not that was necessary.

J

And I also really really like the fact that you've basically removed the term clearly subordinate.

J

From that ordinance um anywhere and have qualified it, so I thank you very much for.

J

All your work, it's obviously obvious you've done a lot of work, I'm hoping that this will will remain.

J

In this committee for at least another month, so that you can, we can see what changes have come.

J

From the comments that have been made and that we can further have some time to look at that.

J

So, thank you for all your work. I appreciate it. Thank you eliza thanks. Thank you. If we have no.

A

More hands online or inside so um yeah. It was my intention that we would bring back, hopefully.

A

A clearer view at our next meeting and go team. Thank you for all your hard work. Thank you. So much.

A