City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Planning Board, 29 Jun 2022

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 6.29.2022 Planning Board Special Meeting/Work Session

Description

6.29.2022 Planning Board Special Meeting/Work Session

A

Good evening, everyone welcome to the planning board meeting.

A

Portsmouth city planning board: uh we have a split agenda tonight. The first is the.

A

Continuation public hearing on the zoning amendments and.

A

Our planning director has a few things she'd like to introduce with respect to this, to.

A

Start things off so thank you, mr chairman, good evening, planning, board members and.

B

Chairman on may 5th, the board received draft zoning code amendments transmitted from the.

B

City council amendments were designed to improve implementation of building height requirements.

B

And do provide some structural foundation cleanups for the code for the amendments that will follow.

B

A work session was held on may 19th to review proposed amendments at that time.

B

Public comment and board comments received and staff worked to provide appropriate updates.

B

Over the next, the following month, after that staff continue to work with individual members of the.

B

Board to address comments and corrections close the loops, make things really clear.

B

Respond to the comments provided on may 19th and in the addition, in addition to.

B

That they worked with community members to address some additional comments and concerns.

B

The fourth version of the amendments was presented at the last meeting on june 23rd.

B

With annotated revisions reflecting both public um comment and board input, the amendments address.

B

Long-Standing issues such as ambiguities in the ordinance that allows artificial filling to.

B

Increase building height, um closing that loophole and offering clarification there lack of clarity.

B

On height standards, for through lots and corner lots, which has created unintended consequences,.

B

Lack of standards to govern civic buildings that propose alteration or additions, which.

B

Currently are not regulated lack of height standards for new streets like foundry place.

B

And adjusting high street haven court building height designation to match a budding properties.

B

The amendments also introduce design guidance for common building components.

B

Modifying the dimensional requirements for a penthouse, so it's located further from the.

B

Edge, so it cannot be seen from the street, I think, set that require setback requirements for rooftop.

B

Rooftop mechanical equipment and solar panels and adding a provision to allow taller decorative.

B

Roof oppertunes such towers to raise cornice or parapets considered as a whole. These amendments.

B

This amendment package results in more predictable, consistent and successful outcomes and provide a.

B

More understandable and implemental code implementable code on the part of staff.

B

And I think it's more understandable on the part of for the community as well.

B

At this point, I'd like to turn it back to the chair. I think thank you very much.

A

At this point, I don't know how many members have had a chance to go through.

A

Everything since last week, but now we have an opportunity for questions.

A

From board members of staff and then we'll have further input from the public, because this is.

A

A continued public hearing so starting with questions from board members I'll open it up.

A

I'll ask a question you time to read or go ahead peter. This is a question not I.

C

Directed specifically to the changes but to the process of changes being discussed, to propose.

C

How who's setting the priorities for the changes that are coming.

C

To us to propose to the city, council, city, council, city council's proposal,.

D

Yes, based off of the goals that were set up by the council back in january and.

D

Is the planning board allowed to have input to those priorities.

D

You can have your input yeah, it's just a matter of it's. It's darts with city council who directed.

D

The land use committee as to what, where to do to then, send the planning board for review.

D

And technical gathering of it and then send it back to city council for approval, so.

E

So as a follow-up to that, the land use committee is advisory and we don't really have to do it.

E

As suggested, I think, there's two processes. What what councilman rose trying to say is the council.

A

Can can give a set of priorities to the land use committee? They could come directly to the planning.

A

Board, in this case, they've gone to the land use committee. um The planning work can also have its.

A

Own volition come up with ideas for amendments and things of that nature, so there are two different.

A

Processes the process we've been following tonight is one that started with the council. I think one.

A

Of the issues in particular dealing with building height came about because of a recognition earlier.

A

This year that there might be a difficulty in interpretation under the existing ordinance.

A

And that that created a need for focus on that. Looking at that part of the ordinance with staff.

A

Some of us and myself included, we realized there were some other things that you know.

A

Needed cleanup, there was a typo on the zoning map, for example, so the things that it sort of became a.

A

Little bit more than what was initially directed by council because of just trying to be do.

A

Duly diligent about it, um I don't know if that helps, but it does and cleanup's a wonderful idea. I.

E

Don't like us being asked to change things. Cleanup is different. Typos um missing things is great, but.

E

Changing things that have bad optics that could appear to benefit people.

A

Okay, well, if that's your comment with respect to something and what's been.

E

My comment on several days and it hasn't been taken out of this- that's my problem.

D

You can recommend only a portion of it.

A

Okay, let's, let's: let's try to keep our comments, uh maybe through me and you know I'll try to do.

A

My best to keep things on track here. Yes, uh mr chair, will be having a presentation tonight. No oh.

A

All right, we, I think the staff could do one, but there's there's not a lot of time allocated to.

A

This so- and I know that we do have people from the public who wish to speak as well.

A

Do you do you feel there's something if you have a question that requires an image, I'm sure, mr.

A

Cracknell could help with that I'm not putting mentally. I was expecting a presentation tonight.

F

So I could hear and see, and hopefully nick would explain- maybe some of the issues I had so if we're.

F

Not going to have a presentation tonight, I just find myself a kind of not feeling comfortable.

F

Understanding all that's been presented to us.

A

All of what's being presented portions of what's being presented because I think.

A

The comment we this this isn't an entire elephant. This can be done in pieces if need be.

E

Maybe we take the easy ones first, excuse me: can we.

E

I mean if we sure start with civic properties, something very simple.

A

Well, I think I think this is more of a work session now. um Do you have questions of staff.

A

Then perhaps you should get public input and then we can talk and decide what we're going to do.

A

Or do you want to just dig into detail just sure I I I find it difficult for us to do.

E

Anything without public input. First, that's why I was suggesting we have public input. Can I suggest.

G

A brief, a very brief um discussion by nick and then public comment.

A

You have a question particularly to focus on just just to summarize just for, and I.

G

Understand that there's a letter here summarizing before us, but maybe in words presented to us.

G

Just to start the process, we seem to be stuck. That's all. Okay,.

H

Does that work that works go ahead, I'm gonna! Do it orally versus a very long powerpoint presentation.

H

Please please, and I think, beverly's hit on many of these uh comments in the introduction, but.

H

There are four parts to the building height amendments that are before you. The first part.

H

Is the building height map and making changes to the building height map? The second is to deal.

H

With corner and through lots and how you will portion building heights that are on that map,.

H

For properties that have multiple building heights, because they're either a corner lot or they're a.

H

Through lot or they're, both that's so that's the second part in clarifying that language.

H

The third relates to the civic properties, the civic district itself, which has a few dozen.

H

Properties in it, which includes non-profit museums, churches they currently are exempt.

H

From about 60 of the dimensional controls that are in the code itself, but the remaining dimensional.

H

Requirements for things like coverage, open space, even setbacks, the front lot line build out. There's.

H

At best ambiguity in the code as to whether those property owners.

H

Need to seek relief or what standards apply for many of these dimensional controls, and I think.

H

It's an oversight of the original language, so we have two choices here. We either fill the.

H

Gaps or we treat them like municipal properties, which are exempt from all dimensional controls.

H

uh So that that's the third part, the fourth part and the final part.

H

Is dealing with the definitions of building height and addressing the issue of backfilling of.

H

First floors to turn them into basements to start measuring from the finished grade. Then there are.

H

Other amendments in here that deal with roof of pertinences the mechanical systems.

H

Decorative elements that would be added to the roof that are uninhabitable and modifying the.

H

Definition of a penthouse to allow it to occur and be exempt not only from the number of stories.

H

Which is the current configuration, but also the building height, so those are that's. What's.

H

In front of you and we've been taking input and if we're not done we're not done but.

H

There's been an attempt here, since this was sent by the committee and the council to incorporate.

H

Input from board members that have spoken up in the past, and certainly that will continue tonight.

H

So that's sort of a high-level summary of the four parts.

A

Thank you and folks have questions now of uh of staff at all.

F

Yes, jim, I have a general question on process. um This is my first go through with zoning changes.

F

In the past has has there been efforts to notify the people whose properties are being rezoned.

F

That this process has started so that they're aware that significant changes may be coming.

A

There's a requirement if there are disaster requirement a limited one that requires direct.

A

Notice of people generally, it's a general notice to all of the public, and when does that usually.

F

Happen: it's it's it's my understanding that if I think I believe that, if it directly affects.

B

I think the answer is a hundred or less that you must notify. I think stephanie is that correct. 100.

B

Or less you must do direct notification if it is more than that, it's considered more area-wide, more.

B

Legislative in nature and less site-specific or quasi-judicial in those cases that it would not be.

B

Required, I think that we spent some time with our attorneys reviewing all of these that may not. I.

B

May not have that perfectly correct, but staff sat down with our city attorneys to eva look at all of.

B

These um together and see which ones might require such a notification. I think nick was involved in.

B

That discussion, like do you, have anything to add to that direct, better notification. Well, but that's.

A

I think that's actually absolutely correct, but the general notification did go out. Yes, of course,.

B

Yes, this does that help, so a general notification went out through.

F

Print media social media is that is in the paper. Okay, just our standard notification procedures. I.

B

Think and that we would have to do for legislative change in zoning. I think the state standard now.

B

Actually for legislative zoning changes allows for you to publish it on the web page as long as it's.

B

On the front page, so there's been a new change to that, but we went ahead and observed both the.

B

Posting on the planning board agenda and also posting in a newspaper of general circulation,.

F

So it's fair to say then, since this do these changes involve more than 100 properties. Is that.

F

Is that fair to say is that why the general notice was satisfied.

B

I believe that's where we concluded at the end: okay,.

A

Any other questions of staff- yes great! So I'm reading the comments from the original here.

E

And we're being asked to change building heights tonight.

E

But the comments say that the building heights are governed by the hdc.

A

In the historic district.

E

Okay, but we're being asked to change a building height in the historic district. Well, there's a.

A

There's there is a there's, a standard, then the history, the htc, can vary that.

A

So the zoning ordinance can say you can go to x, but the htc can say you can only go to y.

A

Because of whatever reasons they may have and that that is in the proposal before us.

E

Okay, but the comments from staff say something a little different, that it says that htc controls it.

A

Within the historic district, okay, yep, that's correct.

A

That's joe, which, which speaks to um I've, shared this opinion in the past. um It speaks to the.

G

Importance of it's not the height of the building that determines the success. It's the design of the.

G

Building that determines the success uh more so than than simply height. You know a fear of.

G

Fear of height is, you know, was tempered with with excellent design and if there's a design review.

G

Board in place that's doing its job properly, then the design should be greatly improved.

H

Could I just add something quick to that for greg's comment: the building height standards.

H

Are set on the map as they are today. This is basically doing nothing, but making explicit.

H

To applicants and the public that the hdc has jurisdiction to set the ultimate height of the.

H

Building between the min and the max, they can't create a new max and they can't go below them in.

H

But it's it's really the state there's. I can't tell you how many times hdc members have asked.

H

In my 11 years, hey how come we have to have a 50-foot building or a 60-foot building everywhere.

H

Okay, that's all great, but yeah these two can. Why don't we go with the lower rather than raising.

E

It, the optics of raising a building height to me, are just horrible, so, for example, over on congress.

E

Or on congress street, why don't we drop it down to 40 like it is on the front instead of go up to 45.

H

uh Well, the front's 45 if congress is 45 feet so that that's what we're going to we're, not.

H

Dropping that yeah anyway other than congress street separating that one founder found replace.

E

The way it's written, why don't we just leave it the way it is all around it. You know 30 feet.

E

Instead of going to 60. right now, everything on foundry place, that's been permitted is 60 feet. We.

H

Are not changing anything with the code other than strapping on the brown line at 50 feet outside the.

H

Overlay district so right now lot 6. The garage is lot one. It's already built 60 feet tall.

H

Lot 2 is a little park, seven thousand square feet lot. Three is a building that isn't built.

H

That's going to be 50 feet didn't use an incentive. It's on the brown line, which is the 50-foot max.

H

And then the corner is almost a 60-foot building that was approved, but we talked about tearing up.

E

From the outer edges of town towards the center of town, everything around there is.

E

Low it not on found what I'm saying is on foundry place, everything is either built at 60 feet with.

H

The exception of ferguson that the place at the corner of bridge everything is either built.

H

Or under a building permit to be built at 60 feet so that you can't see it yet other than the garage.

H

But everything around it has already been approved and a building permits.

H

Been issued for sixty feet in height, so this was simply rubber sheeting. What's on there now.

H

Which is a sixty foot height? So I'm not arguing that. Maybe if, if we went back five years before.

H

Anything was designed, permitted and approved that you could look at doing it differently.

H

But everything that's there on foundry place has already been approved and under a building permit.

H

So that's why we chose what we did and they were all using. The existing zoning, which isn't.

H

30 feet: if it's already permitted, it's really not necessary for us to change all this thing.

H

Well, every street in every street, in portsmouth, that's in a character district should have a.

H

Building height put on it and foundry place didn't exist when we adopted the map. So yes,.

H

It should have it yeah. That's I'm good, just one one quick question nick, I know I don't remember.

A

This a lot, I think it was two meetings ago. We talked about having an overlay with an aerial.

A

Do you remember, did you have a chance to do anything with that yeah and 3d 3d.

A

Presentations, we talked about 3d and I think that was more of a heavy lift. I'd love to see.

A

3D any any progress I mean we have the aerial of the foundry place, neighborhood that I think was in.

H

The presentation last time I do have that that shows- and I think that's what greg pointed out.

H

Last time when he saw that he liked that but like being able to see that, but we have the ortho photo.

H

That shows the existing building footprints and then the height, but it it's not.

H

I I can pull it up. Maybe while the next questions being put together, I can go pull that out of the.

H

Slideshow, if it's helpful, so you have the ortho overlay, you don't have anything 3d. I know those.

H

Colors, I don't have a 3d all the 3d modeling that was done for the buildings that aren't yet built.

H

Some of that's online in the city webpage to look at from the applicants because they were required.

H

To run all those buildings through a 3d model, so they are available, we just didn't produce them.

H

Right so greg. If you want to see what isn't built, that's under construction.

E

I think I think the minutes were clear that I asked for both and we didn't get them yet. Okay,.

A

Any other questions of uh staff.

A

Here I'm going to open it up to public discussion.

A

Anybody from the public would like to speak with regard to this proposed sounding amendments.

I

Good evening rick beckstead 1395 business street. I really appreciate you guys having this meeting.

I

And listening to the discussions, I'm not sure if there's adequate time or if there was adequate.

I

Notification, so I I understand beverly's, you know interpretation as far as with the 100.

I

Residents and then not 100 residents and how we do this, and I feel that I'm living reliving.

I

A nightmare that happened that basically put us into a lawsuit with the cuts avenue with about 35.

I

Or 36 uh houses that are there that I believe and bob could probably tell you that the city.

I

Is still under under litigation, I'm not privy to certain things, but my guess is it's still ongoing.

I

There was no notification, and if there was a notification it was too late and- and we had.

I

Gone and created these these character base areas in town and it was, it wasn't properly notified.

I

And I'm thinking to myself that this is the same thing and you know misspoke or you know, overlooked.

I

Or you know anything like that, I guess could be taken to consideration. My recommendation would be.

I

That the planning board actually have a work session. I think there's a lot of questions. The.

I

Advertising, too was a little sketchy, because I had gone and expected that your last planning.

I

Board meeting that this stuff was going to be addressed, so I guess with the advertising that.

I

Happened then I I pulled up the packet that was almost 800 pages. You know, god bless all of you.

I

For looking at 800 pages and trying to figure that out, but I think the public and the notifications.

I

They got was on the previous one, and I want to remind everybody- and I think most people know.

I

School vacation just started just got out you're talking about some prominent neighborhoods.

I

Neighborhoods that have been looked at from time to time with scrutiny. You do.

I

Have renters you do have families that are in some of these areas that again it's vacation.

I

That this is something that would go and take place in the fall when everybody gets back and not.

I

Right when they get back in vacation, um I seem to think we're repeating ourselves. I've lived.

I

A real good chunk of my life, at least a quarter of my life almost following these processes and.

I

These procedures- and I guess I would probably just ask at the planning board, possibly do something a.

I

Little bit later on, I'm not sure where these ass came from, but every time I look at them.

I

And- and I came back down to familiarize with the areas it's areas that were.

I

Met with development that is going to take place, things that are going to happen.

I

um I know I'm no fan of making amendments to uh some of your um rules um and and.

I

Then meeting a certain type of development that is meant to be there or it has gone and been.

I

Discussed and heidemann is one of those places we all know has been discussed time and time.

I

Again and exactly what this is going to do, I don't think there's enough information for the public.

I

I don't think it's the right time and I don't think you have the right. The information that.

I

You're looking for, I would request a work session in more than 30 minutes.

I

Would probably be more than adequate so again, thank you very much everyone. Thank you very much.

J

Good evening paige trace 27 hancock street- I'm not here as paige trace 27 hancock street this evening.

J

I am here as paige trace, president of the national society of the colonial dames of america. In the.

J

State of new hampshire, we own the moffat, lad house. We are very privileged to own that national.

J

Historic landmark, but I'm trying to figure out who decided that it was necessary with all due respect.

J

To change four different types of zoning with our property, you changed up above.

J

The garden by the hilton garden inn at the top of the garden. You changed it to yellow.

J

Down below in front of the house, it's green across market street, it's green again.

J

And then down at the water, although our property goes all the way from market.

J

To the water, because siri street actually stops at our property line, you changed it to blue.

J

Now I'm sure that someone has a reason for this, I'm trying to still determine who felt.

J

There was a problem with our zoning we're a national historic landmark.

J

We have the last view shed from a private historic 18th century house down to its original wars.

J

Why in the world would we need our zoning change to do something else? Our job is to protect that.

J

Property not to sell it or do something else or allow someone else to do something with it.

J

So I guess for me.

J

I'm here tonight, not because the city told me.

J

There's no transparency. There. The organization wasn't notified. The house wasn't notified.

J

I found out from a fellow past counselor, who was kind enough to send me the information.

J

And I know that counselor moreau with all due respect, you will say well.

J

Your turn to speak is when the city council looks at this, and I say with all due respect. The pie has.

J

Been in the oven, the oven's been on the timer's gone off and it's baked at that point. I am here.

J

Tonight, to ask all of you on the planning board to consider the fact that there was zero transparency.

J

And we, as an organization that owns a national historic, landmark, deserve the privilege.

J

Of being informed that someone decided there was a problem with our zoning, it's the very least you.

J

Could do there's seven national historic landmarks in the city of portsmouth? Ours is one of them.

J

And if anyone had taken the time to realize how our property lays out down on syria straight then.

J

There would be obviously no need to put green and then blue on the water. It makes no sense.

J

We're charged with protecting the property not selling it off, and so I ask all of you please.

J

A little transparency, I don't know that anyone else in town that you've decided.

J

To fix and shore up in the way of non-profits knows anything about.

J

This meeting tonight and I'm sure, if they did they'd, be here.

J

So please, in the future, a little transparency, the transparency that is necessary.

J

For something like this knowledge is power, knowledge makes things, go a little smoother.

J

And I also would say that if the council has decided.

J

That there's a problem with our large holding of land with a water view.

J

In downtown portsmouth, then I'd love to know what the council felt was the issue with our zoning.

J

And I'd like to know with enough time to talk about it, considering that 100 market street is.

J

Five stories and they're our next door neighbor I mean this is spot zoning to my mind and I'm not.

J

A land use official, but what you're doing to us is spot zoning without any notification.

J

And I don't use those words lightly, so please help us out help everyone else in that city.

J

That this is going on with, and I thank you all for what you're doing, and I thank you all on.

J

The planning board for your time, but this is not the way it should be done in portsmouth.

J

A little communication goes a long way and thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else.

C

uh Good evening duncan mccallum 536 state street, uh I have not had the.

C

Opportunity to first of all, let me say this by way of introduction, uh I'm against these.

C

Proposed zoning changes I have not had a chance to study them as careful as I would have liked to.

C

I was made aware that they were on the city's website, but I had to rummage around for them.

C

They were not part of today, this evening's information packet. I think after rummaging around.

C

I finally discovered that they're part of the information packet for the january 23rd meeting.

C

But I only found uh I only discovered that this afternoon, so I haven't had a chance to.

C

Review these in detail, but I can tell you that my preliminary impression is that.

C

Who drafted these things? These look like they were zoning amendments that were drafted by the.

C

Developers because it makes one concession after another to them the thing that arrests me the most.

C

Is the proposal for increase in building height? There should not be any increase in building.

C

Height, if anything, the building height should be lowered because, with increased building height.

C

Comes increased mass and the increased danger of destroying the character at the downtown area. I.

C

In addition, miss trace just mentioned. She uh believes that there was one glaring example of.

C

Spot zoning- I believe I observed several instances of spot zoning in this in this.

C

uh In these proposed amendments uh again, I have not had the time or the opportunity to.

C

Study them as carefully as I would have liked, but uh I uh my overall impression is that.

C

They are bad again, they look like they were drafted by the developers themselves. I guess.

C

In part, because they are so pro-licks, you can't understand the damn things so uh for all of.

C

Those reasons I think that the planning board ought to be excuse me, the planning department.

C

Ought to be sent back to the drawing board on this, and I think that there need to be serious.

C

Reforms on this uh also to touch on a point that was made by one of the earlier speakers.

C

It was mentioned correctly that the hdc does have the authority to deep six, a particular.

C

Project, even though it meets all of the zoning requirements, including that of height, but the.

C

Problem is that in practice the hdc never does it. So uh I just think that that is a fact that.

C

Ought to be taken into consideration, but in any event, I'm here this evening to say that even.

C

Though I haven't had a chance to study this as carefully as I like, I really think. I'm against all.

C

Of the proposed zoning amendments that I see in this package, thank you. Thank you.

K

Good evening peter huda, 280 south street.

K

My first comment is, if you are forced to vote on this tonight in this half hour, that we've gotten.

K

I urge you to vote no on these proposed changes to the ordinance.

K

My belief is this is a blatant attempt to circumvent the boa.

K

And I believe we're looking at spot zoning here. The spots are specifically noted on the first page.

K

I am not very familiar with the zoning, I will admit it, so I did some research and I'd.

K

Like to read to you what I found, what are the differences between spot zoning and a variance.

K

Spot zoning is the zoning of a small irregularly shaped parcel of land differently from the.

K

Zoning of the surrounding land, a variance, is a permission from the zoning board of appeals.

K

To use the land in a way that it was not allowed was not allowed by the zoning ordinance.

K

So what you're doing here is going around the boa and changing the ordinances.

K

So nobody has to go for a variance because it's going to be in here that's wrong.

K

Spot zoning usually does not allow for a particular use of.

K

A piece of land that would not be allowed under the current zoning. This is often done to allow a.

K

Business to locate in the area that is zoned for residential use, a variance is usually granted to.

K

Allow a use that is not specifically allowed by the ordinance which you want to change.

K

But which is similar in use that in uses that are allowed, for example, a variance.

K

Might be granted to allow a daycare center in a zoned area spot zoning may be seen as.

K

A way to circumvent the zoning process, while a variance is a scene as a way to use that.

K

Is not for use that is not allowed, but which is not harmful to the surrounding area. I will note.

K

Two two specific areas in here where this would be harmful. The the note on that should be noted that.

K

Since the beginning of time of the planning board, we have not had to identify public places.

K

But since we have a developer coming forward, that would actually be benefiting.

K

From the change of the height in the various places, I.e, the hanover garage.

K

For mr mcnabb and his new project and the foundry garage for the project that was currently or.

K

Previously, before you that requested a five-story building in the heinemann that would affect.

K

The west end residents vary adversely, as all their houses are two stories.

K

Spot zoning is awfully done without any public input or review. We heard that tonight we saw.

K

That tonight, while a variance must be approved by the zoning board of appeals which usually.

K

Holds a public hearing spot zoning may be done for any reason, while a variance must be granted.

K

For a legitimate reason, such as hardship or the need for a particular use in the area.

K

Spot zoning may be done without any notice to the surrounding property owners.

K

As we've seen tonight, while the variants must be published in a local newspaper,.

K

Spot zoning may be challenged in court, while a variance is usually non-challengeable.

K

And I kept researching and I actually found that portsmouth has a president that was set.

K

On the case of bose versus portsmouth rezoning a 42-acre parcel to light industrial.

K

When it was surrounded by hundreds of acres of residentially, zoned property was invalid. Testimony.

K

Showed no compelling need for more limited industrial land, since the city had over 800.

K

Acres zoned for the purpose and almost 700 acres were vegan. This was noted as a good case of a.

K

Legislative body attempting to use the zoning process to accomplish a particular good for a.

K

Person or group, without paying proper attention to the fact that the land use regulation is designed.

K

To affect the land and not necessarily just the persons presenting presently desiring to use it.

K

So with all of this, and it seems that the planning board has not had sufficient information.

K

Has not had their request fulfilled by the staff. I would urge you to postpone this and wait until.

K

You have more information, as this really looks like spot zoning. Thank you. Thank you. If anybody.

A

Else wishes to speak. I should point out. The entire package has been on the city website for a while.

A

And we appreciate, if you feel it's spot zoning or not, you can just say that you don't have to.

A

Go through the whole explanation of what it is and what it isn't we're we're pretty good at.

A

Figuring that out so next speaker. Thank you, mr chair members of the board. My name is fx bruton,.

L

And I'm here representing coventry assets and they own the building at one congress street.

L

I'd like to speak to the issue of spot zoning, and I think it was highlighted in the examples.

L

That were discussed and in the definitions that typically relates to use changes in terms of your.

L

Changing your ordinance for uses industrial use in a residential zone, things like that, it doesn't.

L

Really relate to what you're talking about tonight so, um and I also like to speak to process, as was.

L

Correctly pointed out by the chair, your process in portsmouth relates to two types of zoning changes.

L

One is to the city council, which in this case they have asked you to look at changes that they've.

L

Considered and give your recommendations, and so that's the process that we're in now is just.

L

The city council, looking for your recommendations for the changes that they have introduced, there is.

L

Another process where the planning board could go through their process and and look at zoning.

L

Changes as well, but that's not what's in front of you tonight so basically with respect to the.

L

Parcel that relates to one congress street. um I think, if you look at the area, the whole area is.

L

A similar color other than this parcel that is now merged, there's two parcels that were merged into.

L

One- and this is only an attempt to make everything in that parcel similar to the surrounding parcels.

L

And I, if you may recall back at your workshop, which was the beginning of talking about these.

L

Zoning changes- I think mr cracknell mentioned that when they were looking at that area, they.

L

Didn't really pay particular attention to that area in the back next to the garage- and this is.

L

An attempt to bring everything to be consistent with what is surrounding so. I hopeful that you.

L

Will make a recommendation to the city council as they requested that you do and again respect.

L

That process, in terms of how portsmouth looks at these changes. Thank you very much. Thank you.

A

D

Esther kennedy 41 pickarina. I think we just heard the answer. Folks, we had a developer here.

D

Asking you to pass it, and he just talked about one property, one issue: now I've heard that this has.

D

Been on the website, it has I'm not disagreeing with that, but I also know tonight's meeting.

D

Was originally scheduled on the website for 6 30 and it got moved to 6.. I also.

D

Know on tonight's meeting the agenda did not say there was public comment.

D

I also know that I expected to come after watching the last meeting.

D

Hearing some of your questions and having some answers from the city, because I truly believe.

D

Many residents do not want more mass and bigger buildings. I had an opportunity to sit on the htc.

D

With mr amita and I've heard him say numerous times, it's about the.

D

Design of the building I would agree. However, I also sitting on the htc.

D

Many times it's hard to say no to a developer when there's such a range, it's hard for them.

D

In many cases, sometimes to do what should be right for portsmouth right now, the way I look.

D

At it with the amount of building we have and the amount of building we have in the pipeline.

D

We have a couple of developers that are making a lot of money on our city. We have a choice.

D

We have a big choice. What do you want portsmouth to be.

D

And I've heard numerous times that we want to keep at a waterfront place. People want to visit.

D

You know I've said to people, we have to decide. What's going to make people come out of boston to.

D

Visit portsmouth and if we look like boston, then why leave it and I don't want to be a dead city.

D

So I ask you to look at the height and if we're going to look at orton's, let's look.

D

At the parking, why don't we do it all? Why are we only doing one thing councilman? Is you know you.

D

Say it came from the city council, but it also came from this land use developed board that was formed.

D

And I guess my question is: if we're really going to look at ordnance changes to our zoning.

D

Then, let's look at everything as a package: let's do have the public be part of the discussion.

D

um When we did with mr correct now when I sat on the acc and we did the zoning for heights and we.

D

Looked at overlay zoning and all that stuff we had public input. We had three days of cigarettes.

D

I guess where are the characters? What's the need to be secret? Is it because.

D

We're catering to developers and not citizens. That would be my question. Thank you.

A

Thank you. um We do have.

A

I know we have. We do have some other folks waiting, so I'm gonna.

A

Miss broward plea. Yes, you may approach uh after you're done speaking. I think.

A

We need to decide what we're doing this evening with this and get on to our next.

A

Matter as best we can but please proceed. I know we have. Your comments were sent in as.

A

Well, but go ahead: my name is elizabeth bratter property owner 159 mcdonough street. I am fully.

M

Aware of what's happening here- and there are many changes that are kind of overwhelming, I.

M

Went to see neck and visited with him to have conversations about things I didn't understand.

M

I think it would be very helpful for all of the people and the public to have a presentation.

M

That explains the reasons behind why the ordinances were changed and the wording of them.

M

Because I found it very helpful, there were some little things I nitpicked about.

M

But, generally speaking, the some of the changes to the ordinances will actually protect.

M

Neighborhoods better, if you understand the wording and what how that change has impacted.

M

Some of the changes came about because of things I complained about, and I know that because.

M

I complain a lot. I call and ask a hundred questions. I want someone to explain the zoning.

M

Ordinances to me, in a way I can understand them. I don't want any gray areas, I'm very black and white.

M

And I want to know when something is written, how is it that they're able to weasel their way around.

M

And get away with it, so I want these ordinances to say what they mean there shouldn't be so much.

M

Gray in our ordinances, so these ordinances are trying to clean up some of that gray.

M

And I think it would be helpful to have a small presentation done by nick or whoever wants to be.

M

The the person who gets to have that lovely job to explain why the wording was changed.

M

In these specific things relating to height, my biggest complaint is two heights on one lot.

M

The way it's written, it's an it's a field day for developers, it's a real field day and I've watched.

M

It I've been watching, I probably have six or seven developments that I've been to every.

M

Single meeting, starting with tac starting hdc environmental, the whole nine yards, I go to all.

M

The meetings I don't skip around I go to all of them, so I think that would be very helpful. I think.

M

That there are two areas here on this that may need to be looked at separately. Number three.

M

Obviously, is raising a lot of hairs, it does for me and number two. I don't concur with nick on.

M

His thinking there are three other parcels along that property um for number two, which I believe.

M

Eventually will come forward and I don't want to have them. Have the carte blanche that they're.

M

Looking that's being presented, so that's all I have to say for now. I would like to see.

M

A presentation done, I think, when zoning changes are made, um you should see the original and then.

M

You should be able to see what was changed and if you look at my letters, I try to do that. I.

M

Show you what was what's there and what's here now, so that you can see how the wording changed.

M

And what are the questions that come about from that? So that would be my suggestion.

M

And I have another meeting too so good night. Thank you just to the point of clarification. There have.

A

Been a number of meetings to talk about this and nick did make a presentation at one of the earlier.

A

Meetings, it was much more detailed with what was being discussed. Some questions came up. Mr mohan.

A

Had some questions as he mentioned earlier, this is not something that just sprang from the earth.

A

This morning and landed on the website tonight, and also by the nature of any proposed zoning change.

A

Landowners will be affected, so the fact that one landowner's property brought a particular matter.

A

To it, the attention of the city that started some of this process, not all of it, but some of it is a.

A

Reality, it's not this isn't. I know, because I've been involved in conversations with staff myself.

A

This is not about trying to cater to a developer, so you may not like it and that's a different.

A

Question and it may need to be voted down. That's a different question, but that's not how.

A

That's not the genesis of why this got written up the way it's been written up. So what's the board's.

A

Desire should we go ahead and table it. We have to continue it if we're going to.

A

Continue it continue all of it. We we could recommend portions of it. I'm concerned that.

A

That's going to require more discussion than we probably have time for tonight.

E

We've been waiting for the cop training for four months. I mean it's time to move on.

A

Any anybody feel otherwise. Mr chair, I would be I'd, be in favor of tabling what we're calling section.

N

One, which is the uh the the height map changes but um recommending to city council two three and.

N

Four, which is essentially the the the actual language change within the ordinance itself,.

A

Any I think all right go ahead. I would be against that because I was reading through.

E

This stuff there's again too many things, but I'm looking at something.

E

10.517 that reduces something by a factor of four with no reasonable explanation. The distance of the.

E

Railing should be from the edge of a building has been reduced from it by four and no explanation.

G

If that was a motion that was made, I I would second at the table the whole thing, because what.

G

We're hearing from people is that they haven't had they don't understand the entire thing I'm talking.

G

About members of the public, so if we're not cherry-picking one thing to discuss and to vote.

G

If the entire thing is in question, then then let's table the whole damn thing: let's not.

G

That's not well, let's, let's do the proper thing if you're making a motion to continue.

A

Let's continue it to the july to a set date meeting. We have to pick a time.

A

This is a public hearing, so we have to continue it to. However, I mean continuing to the next.

E

Planning board meeting isn't my intent I'd like to see exactly what I've asked for before more.

E

Information sitting with each other asking questions we didn't get to do that we get.

E

Presentations, but we don't get to say why I want to know why that particular thing was changed.

A

And that can happen if we continue it, the public continues to be noticed. We continue to have public.

A

Discussion, I think, are you asking we just withdraw the entire thing and not do anything further. What.

A

Do you, I don't think it's ready for consideration. I you can interpret that. However, you want, but I.

E

Don't think this is ready for consideration as a whole as a whole, I mean the only thing I could.

E

Say was we could we could adopt the one number about civic properties because that's a clear hole.

A

Jim, I am inclined to table, postpone whatever the proper word is, but I'd really like to see.

F

A separate meeting with a new presentation- I know that's a lot of work for staff, but I think there's.

F

Been changes, since the last presentation, I think, would really help at least me and the public, which.

F

Is concentrated as a separate meeting for this topic? It's very clean. We don't have to worry about.

F

Time we don't have to worry about poor people waiting for us to finish up. That's that's my.

F

Thoughts, I didn't make a suggestion. Yes, you may um it sounds like in order to make sure we have.

D

Proper process, as far as emotion goes that maybe we want to make a motion to continue it till.

D

Maybe our august meeting, while in the meantime, trying to have either another work session or.

D

A special meeting scheduled, but as long as we at least do it to a set date not to a no end date and.

D

Then maybe try to move it up to a special meeting that we can then notice sometime between now and.

D

That point, so we could continue this to the august 18th planning board meeting with a work session on.

A

July 28th, which is our the second meeting in july, which is for workshop matters, does that make sense.

E

Not me to amend that I I can just tell you, I I'm going to be at the elton john concert on july. 28Th.

A

So well, you can come here. I don't think he wants to come here.

D

Very special in my head: it's the summer, it's the summer, it's hard! Why don't? We um continue it to.

B

The august continue the public hearing and uh continue discussion to the august meeting.

B

Staff will send out a poll for potential dates for a special um work session to.

B

Continue review of the amendments before that's official? Does everybody sound like a reasonable.

A

Idea I like it and then you you've just amended your motion to say that I did my emotion to say.

A

That did we have a second on that. I think we did I'll. Second that and you you agree with that. I I.

G

Do agree with that. I I, if will there be any discussion prior to the vote? I just there's.

G

One other thing I'd like to say: yes, yes, okay, so did you have anything to say about the motion.

A

We're proposing to continue this to august 18th. I think that was the date. I don't think.

A

Yeah, I don't that's a good solution. I don't think it needs much explanation. Thank you and with staff.

A

Working on trying to get us together before that too, please at a public session, sorry to.

F

Be clear this is being tabled to the august 18th meeting, continue continuing, I'm sorry and then.

F

There will be a special stand-alone meeting for this topic for that prior to that yeah. Okay, thanks.

F

Joe you, you might have spoken to this, it's worth repeating and being a little bit more.

G

Firm and clear about it, the idea that I mean we've heard we heard a couple of times tonight.

G

The idea that something's being done in secret here- and I don't want that.

G

Idea to leave the room, it's not I mean the fact that something's being done in secret is.

G

I think we need to address when things like that are said, and I believe that you.

G

Began to address that and you did a very good job at it. It's just worth repeating and firmly.

G

Firmly repeating it, okay, well as a point of clarification, we didn't have a line item notice.

A

On the agenda for public input, but this is a continued public hearing, so by definition, it's for.

A

Public input if people would be more comfortable, seeing a line item saying public input, you know.

A

Fine, but that's what a continued public hearing is public input, which is why we had public input so.

A

Well, you know this was not in any way. There's. I don't think there's anybody.

A

Sitting up here there better not be who's. You know up for secret meetings, so um yeah, yes,.

O

um Although not a voting member in this capacity on this matter, I felt like there were some valid.

O

Points both from members up here, members of staff, as well as members of the public who had spoken to.

O

The residual impact on adjacent neighborhoods, the purpose and and determination to get these certain.

O

uh Changes in implemented, as well as the timing of it all, and sometimes I feel as though we get very.

O

Vision hold on some of these issues and then, when we have these public input opportunities, we do get.

O

Nice letters that maybe share information from a different lens and so to the point that.

O

Mr almeida just brought up as well as you, mr chair, there could be another platform and I.

O

Understand we have to go through certain processes to vote and do these things, but the public input.

O

Scenarios, in my mind, may not necessarily have to be in this setting and they could potentially be.

O

Out on a site, walk or potentially be around this round table where there are more shared images and.

O

Illustrations where people are getting a better and more dynamic, comprehensive view of what we.

O

Are discussing- and I know that shadow boxes and illustrations through a 3d model may help.

O

But nonetheless, these are real changes to a neighboring property that may be 20 feet. High.

O

Versus 60 feet and to me that's I'm a very visual learner, so that could be done in a variety of ways.

O

And so my statement more than anything, is if we do have another meeting at least please consider or.

O

Look at an opportunity to do so outside when it is the summer and we have the ability to go and.

O

Do this like, I feel as though that little bit of extra effort in the next month and a half.

O

About uh may give us punchy perspective in the long run where these changes are.

O

Almost irreversible, to some extent, if we build a 60-foot building versus you know, whatever else so,.

O

That's my sentiment and that's my stance on it and and if that's something that we can do, I'm.

O

More than willing to take the extra two three days or, however long it needs to be to really get that.

O

Full understanding, so I just felt like that. Maybe some of the other folks of the member public and.

O

Staff- and up here may have that shared perspective. I hope at least thank you and our city manager is.

A

Watching and participating by zoom I did you have anything you. Would you don't see on the screen.

K

No I'm here, I'm here, mr chairman, uh I'm I'm listening intently. I don't have any comments.

K

This time, okay, I know we're about to lose you too, so I I want to get this vote.

A

We have to do a roll call vote for this continuance. Everybody ready for the vote.

A

We have a roll call vote. Please definitely board member hewitt, yes, county board, member alameda, yes,.

B

Vice chair clark, yes city manager, connard, yes, chairman chillman, yes,.

B

Councillor moreau: yes, penny board member harris; yes, apparently board member mohanna! Yes,.

E

A

Thank you very much. I.

A

Think that concludes this portion of this meeting. The meeting the public hearing has been continued.

A

To august we will let everybody know when we're going to be meeting to talk about this once we.

A

Have a date and where it will be located whether it's outside under the stars.

A

Or in here, under this beautiful ceiling, we'll now join the conservation position.

B

It looks like they're going to that size.

P

P

In the delay of the meetings.

P

He's good that way.

P

P

Q

I, like it a little cooler.

E

Great way to a summarize.

A

Well, if we're all ready, I guess I'll convene flying board conservation commission. Thank you very much. We have um mr buckley and.

A

I know I don't remember your name miss crystal. That's crystal. um You have a background in the des.

Q

Yep yep and mr buckley is one of the senior counsel from the municipal association evening.

A

I'll turn over to you guys, so the uh the purpose here was to give a general introduction um both.

R

Legally and with the assistance of sandy from environmental perspective on wetland regulation.

R

uh And looking to some degree at some of the details of the portsmouth uh zoning ordinance.

R

And how it regulates, permitted, uses and uses that require a conditional use permit uh under the.

R

Section 10 um at 1017 of the portsmouth ordinance. So what I wanted to do here today was to give.

R

You just a general introduction to the law of conditional use permits and really compare it to.

R

Special exceptions, because we really don't have a lot of guidance in the zoning and.

R

Planning statutes on how conditional use permits are supposed to be treated.

R

Is it like a conditional use permit? Is it like a variance? Well, it's different.

R

Excuse me: is it like a special exception, uh so the intent here is to just give a general introduction.

R

On how the zoning and planning statutes address conditional use permits and how they're managed.

R

And delegated in this instance to the portsmouth planning board next slide.

R

So the invent lane use controls were generally introduced to the zoning and planning statutes.

R

When the entire statutory structure of rosonium planning was reoriented and re-adopted in 1984,.

R

And and the purpose I think, was generally to give more flexibility to zoning regulation.

R

And to create different ways in which um a local land use administrator, mostly in.

R

Most instances is, the planning board can do such thing as timing, incentives, phase development.

R

Intensity and use incentives, transfer of density and development rights, but most important.

R

The last of these requirements, environmental characteristics, zoning, and that is really what.

R

Many people have derived from the authority to have a conditional use permit process to regulate.

R

And address the concern for the protection of wetlands and so what I think in most ordinances.

R

That I've dealt with um in many instances a lot of towns and cities have come to understand.

R

It's more sensible to create a system where, if a development proposal is before the planning board,.

R

Proposing a site plan or a subdivision and there's an impact to wetlands, does it make sense for the.

R

Applicant to first get a special exception from the uh conservation, the the zba and maybe with.

R

Input from the conservation commission, or do you try to to harmonize the whole process? More of one.

R

Regular priority body, so that's in a sense what the conditional use permit process.

R

Allows you to do to allow the planning board to address the wetland impacts as part of the process.

R

Of addressing a subdivision or a site plan, and so the point of view that I bring to the process, is I.

R

Think it is administratively uh more appropriate to have one lane use board dealing with these.

R

Issues and that's why I would imagine portsmouth and many other communities have delegated uh the.

R

Regulation of wetland impacts to uh initial use process from the planning board next slide. Please.

R

So there were additional uh innovative land use, controls that were added since 1984.

R

Probably the most important and most well-known was impact fees which I believe was adopted by.

R

The legislature as an amendment to the innovative languages control statute in 1991, but the village.

R

Plan alternative is another there's another one called the integrated land use development permit.

R

Option uh and inclusionary zoning all were added since 1984. next slide, please so uh in general,.

R

The the statute has a number of important elements: one uh innovative language control.

R

Or conditional use permit process adopted by a city or a municipality first, it really should.

R

Be the case that it's a necessity or seem to be a requirement from the master plan would be.

R

Supported by elements of the master plan number two, uh the innovative land control has to contain.

R

Within its standards that guide the person or board that are going to grant this eup standards.

R

Obviously, are very important and then it has to provide for an administrative process and that's.

R

Typically, designed to either delegate it to the planning board and, if not delegated, to.

R

The planning board, you could have a cup process delegated to select boards city councils and other.

R

Administrative officials, the planning board, has to be involved in the process and I think that's.

R

It just speaks loudly about the paramount role that the plenty board plays in the cup process if.

R

You're, not the administrator. You have to have the ability to comment and participate in the decision.

R

Making process next slide please, however, if if the planning board doesn't administer the permit.

R

Then, of course, there has to be a collaborative uh information sharing between the actual.

R

Administrator and the planning board um and then the planning board's comments to the extent.

R

That the plenty board is not involved have to be incorporated into findings and decisions. So again.

R

That's just emphasizing the fact that the planning board is really an important.

R

uh Administrative role in any cop that may be adopted by a municipality next slide. Please.

R

The the necessity of having standards, of course, is uh similar to as I've compared here in this slide.

R

In other slides to the special exception process, so one of the things we don't have in the zoning.

R

Planning statutes is a definition of what are the things that a cu piece, how it should be handled.

R

And administered um so to that degree I think the fairest way to compare how you deal with the cup.

R

Or the cup process to look at generally speaking, how the zba handles special exceptions and just.

R

For the purpose of completeness, your zoning board of adjustment has.

R

Two really important, probably three, if I should be more complete in the in the discussion authorities.

R

That the zba has to administer um relief under the zoning orders got to have a zba.

R

In order to address the unique characteristics of land to ensure that zoning doesn't affect the.

R

Regulatory taking over taking of property without public compensation, and so the zba under 674 33.

R

Can do three things they can grant variances, they can grant special exceptions and they can address.

R

Administrative appeals, a special exception from my mind, is almost a parallel to the cup, because the.

R

Special exception says we here in our ordinance, are going to allow a particular use as long as.

R

You can satisfy these criteria, whereas compared a variance requires a discretionary judgment on the.

R

Part of the zba does it meet the five criteria for granting a variance, and it's a discretionary issue.

R

But with a special exception- and I think that's similar to a way to look at a cup if the applicant.

R

Can demonstrate compliance with all of the criteria of this of the cup? Then, if I think of the.

R

Administrative body, the planning board in this instance, would have to grant that approval, because.

R

They set up those satisfy those criteria. um So again, I think the point here is that.

R

If you have a cop as compared to a special exception process, the intent to ensure it's.

R

In accordance with the general and specific rules contained in the ordinance next slide, please so.

R

As I've indicated, I think it's fair to say cup conditional use permit is essentially equivalent.

R

To a special exception, um and if you look at the special exception provisions of rsa 674-33.

R

You again have to have these standards that guide the person who grants or administers the.

R

Permits and when the planning board is deciding to grant or deny a conditional use permit a similar.

R

Expectation has to apply, you have to have those standards and if the person satisfies the criteria.

R

Then the cep ought to be granted next slide please, um but when acting on granting a cop application.

R

The board, uh the planning board in this instance can't vary those requirements. They are.

R

Set forth in the ordinance they've been adopted by your legislative body, the city council. These.

R

Are the requirements that have to be satisfied so uh when his eba is addressing a special exception.

R

The same standards apply and that's the the comparison of drawing here between a cup and.

R

A special exception you have to meet each of the requirements and the zba can't vary them.

R

There's been a number of cases on that issue for special exceptions, where a party will ask.

R

The cba I can satisfy five of these criteria, but I'd like you to modify criteria number six and.

R

Zba's are prohibited from doing that. You have to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements.

R

Of the special exception- and I think that would be the same thing true with the cup um that is.

R

That the zoning board, the planning board, could not modify those requirements for granting a cop.

R

Next slide, please um but the but the planning board, when it acts on granting a cup, certainly.

R

Can attach conditions, um so there is an ability, just like the the zba can attach conditions to the.

R

Approval of a special exception when the planning board is acting on the granting of an initial use.

R

Permit uh the planning board could attach a condition, and I did try to draw a parallel.

R

To section 10 1750., uh this is a requirement number six of your ordinance with regards to.

R

The granting of cup for use in a wetland impacting wetland area, the zoning ordinance says that you.

R

Have to provide for a vegetative buffer strip that they will be returned to a natural state to the.

R

Extent feasible as a requirement of training the cup cup, um so I think a condition that would be.

R

Reasonable in that setting would be the planning board saying that the criterion to get that.

R

Return to the uh natural state would be achieved within a certain specified period of time.

R

So the condition is related that that you would assess you would require, is related to that.

R

Particular requirement criteria for granting a special exception next slide. Please um so looking.

R

At portsmouth's specific conditional use criteria, approval criteria. I made a couple of observations.

R

You do have general approval criteria for uh conditional use permits under section 10.

R

243 30, but it's pretty clear that these don't apply to the requirements for granting a wetland.

R

Cup, the only ones that would apply for general development activities are the six criteria set.

R

Forth in 10 1750, but then you have separate cu cop requirements for rights of way or public.

R

And private utilities and rights away, they have separate criteria in 10 1760., the other.

R

One, I think, which was a very prudent thing for the city to have in this regulation, for cups.

R

That they expire with one year of approval, unless a building permit is issued prior to.

R

That date and I think that's a reasonable way to ensure there's actual activity related to the pro.

R

The permit that had been granted under that cup next slide. Please a couple other things I think.

R

Are important to note about uh conditional use permit again, comparing it to a special exception.

R

um uh And differentiating to some degree from a special exception: rsa 675, colon five room, three.

R

uh Contains when you have an innovative land use control, which is what a cup is adopted into 674-21.

R

Which has it minister administration delegated the planning board.

R

Then any decision that uh that is made by the planning board cannot be appealed to the zoning.

R

Board of adjustments, cups are independent, separate decisions made by the planning board that could.

R

Only be appealed to the superior court, these are not matters that can be separately appealed to the.

R

Zoning board of adjustment, but I think you could also incorporate in a process- and this might be.

R

Something to be considered, if you don't have it in your rules procedure already. If someone was.

R

Aggrieved by a decision you made under a cup- and you want to to reconsider your decision.

R

You could permit people to ask for reconsideration, but I think you would have to do that within the.

R

30-Day time period before you would appeal to the superior court. So I think, there's a reason to say.

R

That, um based upon a a a supreme court case, 74 cox, street llc, which stands for the proposition.

R

That any land use board has the inherent authority to reconsider their judgment and decision before.

R

The appeal period runs out, so I think that if you had a situation where someone didn't like a cop.

R

Decision they could apply to the board for asking the board on its own to reconsider the case.

R

uh Or the decision- and you could do so so long as the 30-day peer peel appeal period- had not run out.

R

So that's something to keep in mind and I think it would be a prudent thing if.

R

You wanted to to put that as a part of your rules or procedure next slide. Please.

R

um By the way, I happen to take questions at any time. I don't want to uh rule the the whole.

R

Process here, but uh you know want to let you know happy to take any questions you might have.

A

Coming back then, to your the six criteria in our ordinance. um I think you made it very clear, and I.

A

Agree with you, all six of those criteria must be met in order to grant a cup. That's right.

R

Absolutely you you, they have to be satisfied um to the to the uh expectation or the the consideration.

R

Of the planning board um question yes, um so when you, when you talked about uh conditions.

Q

Or stipulations that can be placed on a cup, I'm wondering boundaries, what the boundaries might.

Q

Be to those stipulations, I think any condition has to be related to the particular criteria.

R

So if you're going to say, like I pointed out before the criteria where you had to.

R

Bring into the um the vegetative buffer that um you could set as a condition of that vegetative.

R

Buffer requirement that the achieve the natural state within a certain period of time as the.

R

Case may be so any of any of the conditions you want to uh add to the granting of the cup really.

R

Should be related to uh one of the criteria, one of the six criteria set forth in the ordinance.

R

So the other thing I wanted to just bring to your attention, I'm sure you've had this kind.

R

Of information shared with you before you know, dealing with wetland regulations, I think there's.

R

A reason to be cognizant of the constitutional limitation on regulatory authority under zoning.

R

And- and I think in particular, there's two sets of constitutional limitations that apply to actions.

R

That would be taken to grant or deny your cfp. The first, of course, is the new hampshire constitution.

R

Part, uh the first part article 12. uh I would just note that I've highlighted the section of that.

R

Part of our new hampshire constitution, no part of a person's property should be taken from him.

R

Or applied to public uses without his own consent or that of the representative body of the people.

R

Which is many times seen as essentially applying the same standards by the u.s constitution. Fifth,.

R

Amendment which provides that not private property should not be taken for public use.

R

Without just compensation, so we are always cognizant as attorneys advising municipalities.

R

That there are uh limits to the regulatory action a land use board can take and a regulation that.

R

So severely impacts the use of property that it constitutes and if, in effect, a regulatory.

R

Taking could create circumstances where just compensation has to be paid so um recognizing.

R

There are, you know, inherent limitations set forth constitutionally in the regulatory process.

R

Of approving, approving with conditions conditional use permits would be something to be cognizant of.

R

Next slide, please so the new hampshire supreme court, taking standards.

R

Most recently have been found in the boulders of stratford llc versus the town of stratford.

R

um And so what the the court currently uses as a standard for addressing whether or taking has to.

R

Has occurred is first to understand the zoning enabling act gives the municipalities broad.

R

Authority to pass zoning ordinance to protect health safety, morals and general welfare.

R

So to determine whether an ordinance is a proper exercise of the town's police power or the city's.

R

Police power you have to uh to withstand a substantive due process challenge a challenge.

R

Suggesting that an action taken by a lane use board was a regulatory taking. uh The question is.

R

Whether the there is that the decision was based upon a rational basis or a rational basis, test.

R

So that inquiry employs the lowest constitutional scrutiny and asks whether the ordinance.

R

Constitutes a restriction on property rights that is rationally related to the municipalities.

R

Legitimate goals, which is um a fairly um uh light level of constitutional analysis, but it's still.

R

Something to keep in mind in assessing you know whether, in a particular set of circumstances.

R

You know what regulation has applied to a particular property uh exceeds what, in our.

R

State court assessment is the rational basis test, but probably more important next slide plea is the.

R

U.S supreme court taking standards- and I think uh next slide- please- um is set forth in palazzo.

R

Versus the rhode island, so there's a lot of uh details here and how the supreme court has given.

R

You some guidance on what is considered in certain circumstances to be an a regulatory taking, but I.

R

Think the the easiest to understand is probably the the first requirement, a regulation that denies.

R

All economically beneficial or productive use of the land could require just compensation, so.

R

You know when a regulation places limits falling short of eliminating all economically beneficial.

R

Use taking, nonetheless, could still occur and it really requires a you know: assessment of a complex.

R

Set of factors you know economic effect on the landowner, the extent of the regulation interferes.

R

With reasonable investment, investment-backed expectations and the character of the government.

R

Action, those are all variables that have to be taken into account, and so there's no.

R

Kind of one bright line rule that says this is a taking. This isn't her. First, this isn't a taking.

R

So, as the court said in that case, these inquiries are informed by the process of the purpose of the.

R

Takings clause, which is to prevent government from forcing people along to bear public burdens.

R

Which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole, so I you know just point.

R

These limitations out, recognizing that you know in every set of circumstances where someone might.

R

Come before the planning board to get a cop for a wetland impact, you just have to judge the degree.

R

To which you know not granting the permission may have such a severe, potentially severe impact on.

R

The reasonable investment expectations of the property owner to make use of their property.

R

And it's just a balancing of the potential harm and I'm sure sandy can point out. You know to the.

R

Particular wetland uh that's being impacted or affected, and you know what is the public safety.

R

Health and welfare benefit from protecting that particular uh wetland area, as opposed.

R

To you know what is the denial or deprivation of the use of that property by the landowner.

R

And you know, there's really no clear, you know line to say this is a taking versus this. Isn't yes,.

R

You have a hand up yeah go back about six or eight sentences. You kind of basically.

E

Said well, if it's economically not feasible to do anything except for build there. Economics.

E

Aren't part of this I mean, if they're, if the site has to be suitable, you can't build in the buffer.

R

uh Well, all I would say is that um I don't know that I can give you a a algorithm that says in.

R

All circumstances you know, if you make a judgment, that a wetland um has paramount importance under.

R

All circumstances that that's always going to be a sufficient basis to say that is a reason alone.

R

To deny the ability of a landowner to make use of their property economic benefits, simply you.

E

Know you got to tell the developer, you can make this building smaller and keep it the.

E

Heck out of the buffer and they say well, then it's not a viable project. Well, that's not our.

E

Problem, you shouldn't have proposed it well and I'm not going to say that um a statement alone.

R

By a developer, that is not a viable project, is alone sufficient to say well, they they're correct.

R

Therefore, you have to grant the cup, I think it's a balance, you know and- and you have to assess.

R

What is the degree of the impact I mean? I think you know there was one case number of years ago.

R

Roe versus the the town of northampton, where the the property was subject to a very significant.

R

uh Wetland conservation area, and in that case, which I'm not sure, would be an outcome today,.

R

When the property owner wanted to develop the the one lot they had for uh as one single family home.

R

They were just denied and told that the property it can be used for wetland protection, but not.

R

Necessarily for the building of a home now whether that was justified based upon the impact that.

R

Would have been brought to that property from that house and the particular wetlands that were being.

R

Potentially harmed, I I can't say, but I cannot say this, that sounds very subjective where, when you.

E

Read there is no alternative location outside the wetland buffer that is feasible or reasonable for.

E

The proposed use, activity or alteration that doesn't that doesn't have that doesn't sound.

E

Subjective, well, are you reading from our ordinance your ordinance? Okay, I'm sorry, but I I you know. I.

R

Think that it's still ultimately a balancing that the board has to undertake a balancing of.

R

The impact on the property owner versus the unique area that's being protected, I mean.

R

If I understand a little bit about wetland ordinances and what they're designed to do.

R

You know if you have a wetland that has high functions and values that it's extremely valuable.

R

You might have more flexibility to say that has to.

R

Be better protected, that's less likely we're going to grant that permission to.

R

Build into the buffer or build in that particular wetland, but we don't have to grant it.

R

Well, I think you then have to be. You have to balance. What is the impact on on that particular.

R

Wetland and if you know the amount of uh the building that's being proposed, would would impact.

R

A very significant wetland you might be able to say either you reduce the sight of the building.

R

Get out of the buffer or get out of the wetland or you don't build it all, so I think it really.

R

Depends upon that, balancing how about important of a wetland structure is being protected.

R

Versus the impact, the economic impact on the on the person who's proposing the project? Yes, so you.

D

Could, if it's, you know talking about a building being a small amount or some small amount not like.

D

The whole building, but a portion of it being in a buffer. There could be mitigating factors that help.

D

Protect the wetland through the buffer that could be required in order to say you meet the criteria.

R

And there could be ways in which um the the building could be modified in terms of its design.

R

To minimize that impact, so I'm I'm not here to say um that there's you know every permit! That is.

R

Proposed, if it has an impact, um can't be approved uh if they can't achieve uh no impact at all. I.

R

Don't think that's would be. I think the balancing process you're supposed to go through make these.

R

Decisions, I mean: that's why you have the cup right. I think I think, there's a disconnect with.

A

Our ordinance, though, I think our ordinance is very constraining because it provides a six criteria.

A

They are given as absolutes. They, you shall comply with all six, the list of uses that can go into the.

A

Wetlands buffer are in 10 10 10, 10 16. I don't know if you had a chance to look at that.

A

And they're very limited and buildings are not part of those except for single family dwellings.

A

Now that aside, I think here the reality here in portsmouth, we have some sites that are.

A

Dirty they've suffered some environmental damage over the years, and we've had developers propose.

A

To do significant, cleanup and there's been a conflict because the damage has been within.

A

The buffer areas and outside the buffer areas, and so as a trade with the city they want to.

A

Sometimes encroach on the wetlands buffer with their buildings but they're, proposing.

A

Significant environmental cleanup, which is an overall benefit, I think our ordinance.

A

Constrains us from doing that, because the way it's written, but all you know from the.

A

Greater perspective of public policy, maybe it should be revised to allow that sort of thing.

R

Yeah, I I I would beg off trying to tell give you specific advice on how you would achieve.

R

A different approach to wetland regulation- I I I'm not in a position here to really guide.

R

You know changes because I know you're already dealing with a number of other zoning changes.

R

uh To your ordinance and either making it uh more flexible uh or more protective of wetlands, so I I.

R

Would I would I would let me read it as a general matter of good zoning policy? Would it make sense.

A

To have an ordinance that does give some discretion ability for the city to.

A

Allow for uh environmental enhancement that may otherwise in an area that was damaged, not damaged.

A

You know you wouldn't you're not going to impact a prime wetland, but that same setback, distance might.

A

Apply on the damaged site, so maybe there needs to be some flexibility and there's lots of hands as.

A

It hands up and I don't want to dominate this yeah. No. I I just actually wanted to comment on.

Q

What you said, because um I've been a member of the conservation commission for 30 years.

B

And I think that what we do when we allow a conditional use permit, particularly in some.

Q

Of the sites that I think you're referencing is based on the fact that the area is not protected.

Q

At the moment- and there is significant impact to or they're going to clean it up anyway, you know so.

M

We have, I think, consistently made the decision that it's going to be better, even though you're.

M

Encroaching on the buffer afterward than it is now, and that's how we make our decisions. I think.

A

I I think, that's a in the greater scheme of things. I think that's a good decision. I don't.

A

Think that's the way the ordinance is written and I know there's some disagreement on that.

A

um Thank you pat uh to that point. Sometimes nature takes things, takes care of things in a better way.

S

Than um when man interferes with their cleanup, so I just want to make that point and I don't think.

S

That the city of portsmouth has actually respected that aspect enough and that's.

S

Why we're sort of in these developmental um arguments, um but also I had a question.

S

What about the motivation um you know, I understand some of the zoning was probably.

S

Written or geared for people who had a property been in the family for fifty.

S

Hundred years whatever, and suddenly they have to um adjust to sort of the modern world and.

S

What is expected of them environmentally, however, what about somebody who knows that their property.

S

Is in the buffer zone, it should be non-buildable and yet they go and buy it with the idea that.

S

They're going to build and they're going to get something passed through all the boards and they.

S

Decide that so is there any kind of legal or or uh I'm, and I'm asking the board shouldn't.

S

That be a consideration of what was the, um what was the incentive or what was the motivation.

S

And should that be something that actually um portsmouth will say: hey well, you bought this.

S

In last two years you knew it was in the in the buffer zone. No, you don't get to do this, um even if.

S

It you know, and also about the six criteria I have to say. I have heard arguments for the exact same.

S

Property, where each side gives their six criteria, why it does not conform and why it does conform.

S

So it's kind of like the supreme court in that oh yeah, it's the law. No, it's it's! It's your own pull.

S

It's your own beliefs um that interfe that that affect these six criteria, you're saying it's cut.

S

You know it, it is not. You can always figure out a way. It's like you can always work the numbers to.

S

Make it say what you want so I have. I have issues with that and and that that's how portsmouth is.

S

Making their decisions because it depends who's on the board and who's. You know what connections the.

S

The um developers come in uh what allies they have and anyway, that's I'll stop now.

R

Let me just say that um when you look at a situation where someone comes to a limitation.

R

That is, they buy into a property that has inherent limitations that can certainly be taken in as a.

R

Factor, on the other hand, just because a property has pre-existing environmental constraints.

R

Doesn't mean that the prior property owner or the current property owner may still have.

R

Some legitimate expect and not economic based expectations to use the property for purposes.

R

Allowed into the zoning ordinance- and yes, it's limited by the zoning orders because has a wetland.

R

Area on it or it would win the buffer, so um I wouldn't say it's you know just because I.

R

Buy into a situation, I'm totally precluded from being able to use that property. I still.

R

Might have some reasonable basis to proceed with some kind of use of the land reasonably under the.

R

Ordinance, but it certainly would something be something you could take into account.

R

In addressing someone's application that they knew when they purchased that it had these inherent.

R

Environmental or wetland limitations and often they purchase at a reduced price because it.

Q

Is a constrained property? That's another thing that comes up so if they buy at a reduced price.

C

And they have a financial up. A condition is financial in nature. To going in then,.

D

I think we're talking about you know innovative land use, that's what a conditional use permit.

D

Is that's where we all started, and it makes it a more and the whole reason these things.

D

Were put in place was for more flexibility, so you say black and white criteria. I say there might be.

D

A mitigating factor that makes it actually reach that criteria, and so there lies our own personal.

D

Opinions so in the end I see our our and I've always seen my job as a land use board. Member.

D

For the now close to a decade, I've been doing this is that it does matter this property going forward.

D

We've always talked about it doesn't matter who owns it at the time it matters. What's going to be.

D

Put there what what can we put in place for the long term, no matter who owns the property and.

D

That it's better for portsmouth as a whole. That's that's the improvement that we're looking for, but.

D

That's just my two just to be clear. I agree there should be some flexibility, but I don't think it's.

A

In there right now and I've written a lot of these regulations myself, it's easy to change.

A

And I just think it needs to be changed. That's all that's phase, three of our zoning changes.

D

Under our plan and languages, but we're gonna, look like we're. Gonna get there anytime soon.

A

Sorry attorney, um I I really have nothing for the data unless you have more questions.

R

To ask of me, but that's the last of the slides I had, and I certainly would would.

R

Be happy to let sandy give her uh view of some of these issues under the wetlands.

D

I'm sorry we're jumping ahead.

Q

Thank you, steve and thank you. Everybody yeah. I also bring 20 years on a planning.

Q

Board to my bes experience, so I familiar with a lot of these issues so um next slide. Please.

Q

I'm going to review um in a slightly different way the cup authority for.

Q

Wetlands, I'm going to talk about buffers in general. Talk about some des related permitting.

Q

Aspects then we'll talk about the cup criteria for approval. There are a couple of things that.

Q

I thought that might be helpful for additional protection and then I'm sure we'll have discussion.

Q

Throughout okay next slide, please, judging from us so far,.

Q

Right so this slide actually kind of reviews. A lot of what steve mentioned about the.

Q

Authority, the cup authority from the rsa and that the planning board you know when.

Q

They administer it and and such so. We sort of went through this, so next slide.

Q

So the um authority for the wetland cep comes from the zoning ordinance and the zoning ordinance.

Q

That is dependent upon the adoption of a master plan which, of course, portsmouth has next slide.

Q

So in your master plan in the brazilian goal section, I noted at least two goals that relate to.

Q

Zoning and wetlands that I've listed here one is about implementing bmps best management practices.

Q

And site design, standards relative to public and private infrastructure and infrastructure can be.

Q

Green infrastructure and then um the uh sub-goal of uh 5.3, promoting effective.

Q

Stewardship but the city's natural resources that by planning properly or permitting things.

Q

Is is a way to steward properties that that may not be owned by the city but are within the city.

Q

Boundaries um next slide. Thank you. um So this is um in this section that you're, probably more than.

Q

Familiar with it outlines the purposes for the wetland protection requirements, thus, essentially.

Q

Describing the functions and values that wetlands provide next slide and in section 10.1014.20.

Q

It more specifically mentions the protections that wetland buffers provide.

Q

To the wetlands.

Q

Q

So there have been uh many studies and many literature reviews of studies to.

Q

uh Try and identify what buffer buffer with widths are effective uh to meet various objectives.

Q

um Kind of melding, the science and implementation of the science is the challenge.

Q

So the two graphics here are from two sources that assembled information from a literature reviews.

Q

And what's interesting, the one at the left is from 1997 and the buffers buffer options for the bay is.

Q

From 2018, so they're like more than 20 years apart and basically it's hard to read the buffer options.

Q

On the bay, but if you um look on the graphic, basically they're very similar in terms of.

Q

um In the range of minimum widths, water quality concerns are typically addressed with buffers.

Q

That are smaller than those that address wildlife concerns, so the water quality issues.

Q

While it depends uh site specifically on we'll talk about it more on slope and soils and such.

Q

And type of vegetation, basically, water quality buffers are on the lower end and wildlife. Buffers.

Q

Are on the bigger end- and um you know, then this doesn't even bring in some of the vernal pools.

Q

Where you um have wildlife that you know moves like a quarter of a mile to the vernal pool, so it.

Q

Goes well in excess of the 300 feet. That's shown here.

Q

Q

So for wildlife buffers are actually core habitat. It's not it's not like.

Q

The extra stuff around the edge- and there is a great study done it.

Q

Buffer zones and beyond- and it was done actually um in massachusetts and with the.

Q

New england focus and basically they looked at the four different groups of wildlife.

Q

Reptiles, amphibians, mammals and birds and looked at those that use upland and wetlands.

Q

And and what parts they use, and so you know 77 use areas um from the wetland edge to 100 feet.

Q

um So you're really encompassing a lot, um but then you also see that you know beyond 100 feet.

Q

To 200 and beyond you, 50 percent of the wildlife, that's using those areas, so the wildlife needs are.

Q

Much greater in terms of buffer width than the water quality needs next slide. So much.

Q

Of this research has contributed clearly to the wetland buffer approach. That's he used.

Q

In portsmouth- and so this is a great graphic that has been produced locally for that.

Q

Next slide, so in most new hampshire communities, buffers are only under protected under local.

Q

Regulation but due to portsmouth's title and coastal location, because.

Q

The state of new hampshire under rsa42a has title buffer zone.

Q

And then also the timing of portsmouth's adoption of prime wetlands made it one.

Q

Of the few communities with prime wetland buffers subject to des permitting essentially.

Q

The prime wetlands uh part of the wetlands law used to say adjacent, and it gave des.

Q

The um flexibility to say: okay, if it's a significant impact.

Q

You know look at a wider area for adjacent and if it was a really minimal.

Q

Impact look at something smaller, so people didn't like that, so they said: okay, let's.

Q

Put in a hundred foot buffer, so then a hundred foot buffer was put into the law. That's when.

Q

Portsmouth adopted the prime wetland buffers or prime wetlands and then at some later time.

Q

The woe was kind of chipped away and they took out des authority for buffers, but anybody that.

Q

Adopted in that, certain time frame still has buffers protected under that prime.

Q

Wetlands part of the wetlands law, the prime wetlands report that's produced as part of the.

Q

Study and designation process actually provides significant information about the functions.

Q

And values for which they were designated and that's something that should always be.

Q

Referred to when looking at potential impacts to buffers to prime wetlands next slide.

Q

So, returning back to the zoning ordinance, these are the six criteria for.

Q

Approval of a wetland cup, and as we.

Q

Discussed already, um basically, all of the criteria listed have to be met.

Q

So uh we'll go through let's next slide, so uh one of the uh the first criterion.

Q

Is the land is reasonably suited to the use, activity or alteration.

Q

In my thought, it would be: does the land fit the activity, use or alteration being proposed.

Q

What are the resources potentially affected by the activity.

Q

Does a parcel pose significant constraints due to natural features such as ledge wetland or streams.

Q

Or existing development, such as including utility rights of whey,.

Q

Other considerations is what is the condition of the buffer and what are the functions and values.

Q

Of the wetland, um as we've sort of alluded to, there's recognition that some of the best land has.

Q

Been developed already, and so what is currently undeveloped often has constraints that maybe.

Q

uh May not be suited to a proposed intensity of use, so um there are.

Q

And this is where uh we're talking about. You know.

Q

Not everything is black and white. You know you have.

Q

Land that it may have been disturbed, I don't want to say that if it's disturbed well then.

Q

We can impact the buffer because um I've always thought well, let's.

Q

Restore it, which actually, I think, with that's um included in the options as well.

Q

Okay, the next slide; okay, so there's.

Q

Criteria number two: there's no alternative location outside the wetland buffer.

Q

That is feasible and reasonable for the proposed use, activity or alteration. So the rest of your.

Q

Zoning ordinance should to some extent um define some of what would be allowed in the general area.

Q

And then, looking at the constraints, some lots may have been developed with a buffer.

Q

On most of the parcel, so I think you have both areas where the land is totally undeveloped.

Q

And then you have areas where you have a parcel: that's partially used that. Maybe someone has a.

Q

House and they want to put on a garage- maybe a pool- uh you know things where you know.

Q

You're, probably not going to move to a new location to put on the garage unless clearly.

Q

There's um a significant impact, you know in the buffer, some lots have we talked about, have.

Q

May have a buffer that uh covers everything except the main structure.

Q

So the alternative, location uh or no alternative location is something where you know you have to.

Q

Look is what's requested, um something that's whether says, feasible and reasonable.

Q

With a lot of the wetlands permitting that des, does um they typically wouldn't let a house.

Q

Fill a wetland uh or for the construction of a house, you couldn't fill a wetland.

Q

But the bigger the footprint you have, the less likely you're going to have a parcel that has.

Q

No wetlands on it, so I think that it's that type of thought process that you um might want to.

Q

Consider when you look at projects, I know some projects are more flexible than others. um Two.

Q

All right um next slide: um okay uh criterion. Three: there will be no adverse impact on the wetland.

Q

Functional values of the site or surrounding properties, so I know that um not all of your.

Q

Buffer impacts, I know that there are criteria for when a functional assessment has to be done, but.

Q

But I would encourage you to really look closely and critically at the functional assessment and.

Q

Whether it was really used to design the project, um sometimes it's like okay. Well, let's check.

Q

The box, we did the functional assessment, but it really wasn't used in the design of the project.

Q

So I think um that's really important and some of the I think that um you sometimes do.

Q

Have peer reviews of the wetland delineations, and I would encourage um for some projects where.

Q

You have concerns that you do peer reviews of the functional assessment, because I see.

Q

Things in functional assessments that are incorrect, um that that understate impacts.

Q

Same quick question sure um in the in the new des rules they they built upon the functional.

N

Assessment, correct, like you, have to there's a whole section that requires.

N

Right so, in other words, if, if you, you know we're considering a cup that requires a des wetland.

N

Standard dredge and fill they're having to go through that functional assessment. They do have.

Q

To do a functional assessment, which is kind of above and beyond what they used to have to.

Q

Or right right, they did excuse me. They only had to do it for like a major impact project.

Q

Before um also the um under the old rules, they had those 20 questions that were sort of.

Q

To some extent, looking at things that you would look at in a functional assessment.

Q

Or kind of an impact analysis based upon you know, functions right.

Q

And values: okay, but sandy's. Your point also that whoever's doing presenting the analysis of those.

A

Functional assessment might want to be have a peer review of that, because.

A

You've seen some discrepancies yeah. I I think sometimes that there are.

Q

That for some projects- and I would.

Q

Probably say either for larger projects or for projects that are, um I don't know.

Q

Maybe- and it's really hard to say since you have some significant habitat here with the the.

Q

Title environment is um just you know, I would say. Definitely if it's a more pristine.

Q

um You know an undeveloped parcel that they're going and developing you know they're also.

Q

I have a recommendation later on about something that.

Q

That would talk about here, but um I think really looking at.

Q

With the functional assessment, also um when they- um and I know you.

Q

Some of these criteria seem to overlap a little bit.

Q

Because in our ordinance, we do require, depending on the size of the impact and whether it's in.

P

The buffer or the wetland we do require different levels of a review or or of a analysis by the by.

P

The consultant, so it is in there to somebody okay. Well, I know you do require functional.

Q

Assessment, except for some of the really smallest impact areas, I did see that um I'd say also um was.

Q

A project designed to consider results and include considerations beyond dimensional considerations.

Q

Because very often consultants are very tied to okay. You say it's a x feet, buffer or.

Q

Or we know that it's going to go to des, so we're going to make sure we make the you know culverts.

Q

Or stream crossings that will go through them, but um they may not really look at the resources that.

Q

They're really potentially impacting beyond that. Sometimes that's what I've observed.

Q

uh Let's see and then is there restoration proposed as part of the project.

Q

That improves any decreased function from the existing disturbance, so um there could be.

Q

Existing disturbance on the property and um while the project may have some impacts in the buffer.

Q

What they're doing helps um restore some of the function that was not there before.

Q

And I know also included in that would be like if you remove impervious surfaces or pavement.

Q

And return that to vegetation.

Q

That may offset any potential adverse impact. That's done, someplace else.

Q

Q

So um alteration of the natural vegetative state or managed woodwind will occur only to.

Q

The extent necessary to achieve construction goals from what I saw it seems to focus on.

Q

Impacts to the more natural vegetated habitats and minimizing those impacts, and I think.

Q

For something like this, a project proponent should demonstrate.

Q

Appropriate restoration of temporary impacts.

Q

And I don't know, I know that you're lucky that you have staff, I don't know, do you all do.

Q

Sidewalks for projects? Yes, all projects, typically, no, not all of them.

Q

Okay, it's a good thing to do, but I'm sure that it's a busy place here to try and do all that.

Q

I'm having trouble just scheduling things with my own little uh conservation, commission.

Q

Okay, four all right.

Q

So some of these, um like I said we talk about whether it's pristine or disturbed.

Q

Do you have invasive species that should be removed.

Q

All kind of considerations in the.

Q

Whether the vegetation is altered or to what extent next slide.

Q

So the proposal is the alternative with the least.

Q

Adverse impact areas and environments under the jurisdiction of this section.

Q

And I know this is kind of what was raised earlier it it's. It's really.

Q

Tough, it's uh always a kind of a balancing.

Q

Of um you know: what are the resources we have? uh What is the proposed development.

Q

How well they mesh with all the information we have from the functional assessment.

Q

Did they really consider the resources um once again or did they just kind of okay? Well, we.

Q

Kind of squeeze things squeeze things down, so we impact less of the wetland or less of the buffer.

Q

But this really should be should rely a lot on the functional assessment.

Q

And how the results are once again reflected in the design of the projects.

Q

You know different construction techniques, adjustments for any.

Q

Time of year concerns such as high flows or or mud season, or when animals may migrate.

Q

Is you know- and I know that you all look at this use of pervious pavement- where that's an option.

Q

And is there once again, restoration proposed that improves.

Q

The functions of the buffer or wetland to offset other proposed impacts.

Q

um Because in some areas that that's, uh that would be a significant benefit.

A

This this criteria, all the things you said I agree with, but the way that's worded this proposal.

A

Is the alternative, the least adverse impact? It doesn't say anything about considering those other.

A

Criteria and it could, we could say this proposal in on balance with the following criteria: results.

A

In a net benefit, impact doesn't say that it says, least, adverse that's, a very strict standard.

Q

That's uh it's it's. um I think.

Q

Well, it's probably comparable to like des, has least impacting alternatives.

Q

I mean these are that's kind of the terminology and it's it's always a a.

Q

Balancing of well what is the least impacting alternative when somebody comes in and wants.

Q

You know 30 houses in a development and you're saying.

Q

You know we really probably should be more like 20.. Well, I think you're.

Q

The consultants tend to look at the the dimensions, the what you require and the.

Q

Size and the buffer and everything and you know they're kind of all set, but.

Q

I think you need to make sure that you have beyond this.

Q

Not not prescriptive criteria but kind of like, including or.

Q

And whether you have options for saying that.

Q

You know buffers to certain resources uh or impacts to the buffer may not be.

Q

Permitted or I mean you know, there are some um if you make it specific enough.

Q

That there's- and I know steve was talking about you know, there's a reason for why.

Q

You need to protect something more, you have the information, that's where the functional assessment.

Q

um Do you have if it's a des permitted.

Q

Thing, do you have the natural heritage bureau data check? Do you know that they're rare species there.

Q

It's it's not just. They up, you've impacted the buffer a little bit, and so.

Q

That's not the least impacting alternative it. You know I was going to say once you get more.

D

Prescriptive, I think your hands are more tied than anything, because you can't guess at every single.

D

Possible scenario: I'm not sure, I'm not suggesting that no, I know, but once you go down that path.

D

You end up paying for it later, because you don't have the developers, whoever it is. That's coming to.

D

You, the homeowner, are going to push it as far as they can and you no longer have that discrepancy.

D

To make decisions based on being a little vague on it in our regulations, it really.

D

It- and I think des has run into that too, once you get into like mitigation and things like that.

D

You start to make it easier for them and harder for us to be flexible to be in both cases. You.

D

Know to help them out or whatever, so I I think it's a dangerous path to go down. I really do.

D

Well, I'm open to the conversation. I think I think I said something I think I heard something.

A

A little bit different, what sandy was saying. What I'm saying is that this is this is a constraining.

A

A little bit of language that the city isn't following, in my opinion,.

A

What I heard you say was that, on a certain site, you may have a site with uh say an amoebic.

A

Form of buffers that all that can be mapped perfectly by all the consultants and have it.

A

Have it impacted up to its edges along the entire perimeter of all that, but then find out that that.

A

Those particular weapons on this particular site have some really special species in habitat that.

A

You know it's unique so perhaps even though they've met all the dimensional criteria, that.

A

Shouldn't be permitted in that instance. Did I hear that correctly? Well, I was I was talking.

Q

Q

Q

If your cup addresses buffers and wetlands, then things beyond the buffer and wetland.

Q

May not be under your purview, I mean the conservation commission, the cup purview.

Q

It could be under the planning board's purview under their regulations, and I don't.

Q

Because you're talking about things that are not in a wetland, I thought I thought you were alluding.

A

To that, with the talking about the quality of the you know, in the functional assessment.

A

In certain sites having a higher functional value and they, therefore they needed more.

A

Protection, maybe I misheard it right, I well. I was thinking in terms of whether an impact to a buffer.

Q

Was something that would be um a valid consideration versus.

Q

You know whether it isn't whether it is a valid consideration, because the resources.

Q

Aren't that significant in that area or whether it's um you wouldn't want to give.

Q

A cup for a buffer impact, because this the resources are high value, did I just say that twice.

S

I'm wondering why you think that that's restrictive, because to me that that's that.

S

Phrase is it lets you incorporate a multitude of things. It is not telling you what to incorporate.

S

So you can say: oh they're, you know there, this is a is an incredibly diverse. Wetlands area say.

S

With lots of species or um or you know, there's some road impact or something I mean it. It seems.

S

I don't understand why this seems restrictive to you and can you, okay, here's here's! I don't.

A

Know, let's assume it's assuming this is just do this quickly. Let's assume the hole here is.

A

Our wetlands buffer and here's a building- and I want to do that- I'm a developer now and I say I.

A

Want to do that when I could do this and it would fit right. I say that says I have to do this well.

A

All I have to do is shift it out, but I've seen I've seen I've seen proposals that do this right.

S

So um are you saying so what, if pulling it back actually helps other things or what, if putting.

S

It in actually helps other land. This way you guys or us whatever can decide. What's going to have the.

S

Least, impact. So that's why I don't understand, because, as soon as I cross, that line I'm affecting.

A

It if I get out of it, I'm not affecting it. So, therefore, this by definition, has the least impact.

Q

That building may have other things no wetlands over here right, but.

Q

That building may need to have other things that go with it that can't fit.

A

Doesn't say that well! Well that doesn't it's! If it's out of wetlands, it's it's.

S

A zoning thing anyway, so, but we're talking about when it is.

S

In the world, then all I'm saying is this: that that says: is that or is it that or is.

S

It you know something like that, um I mean the other thing is: if that buffer is.

Q

If that buffer is impacted already, if you um you know as part of it, you might do some restoration.

Q

Rather than just put the building in, you know, you could put the building out of it and then.

Q

Kind of go: I'm not going to do anything to that buffer. You know that hands off. That's what I.

A

Said earlier, and I think we could say that we don't, it doesn't say that, and I think it should.

P

Peter, can I add something to that. I guess if you look at criteria three, though it kind of ties it.

P

In and it's it's not taking everyone individually, but taking them all as all six criteria that.

P

You have to look at and, if you think about that building getting pushed in yeah if it was nothing.

P

More than a construction project, and in one point in time and you put the building in then yeah.

P

Clearly, that's not the least impact controller, it's less impacting to keep that building out.

P

When you put that building in but then you do some restoration on the site, then your functions and.

P

Values are going to adapt to that and you're going to have a better functional value picture at the.

P

End so what you're trying to do is look at the whole picture and at the end, have you balanced.

P

That, by putting that building in have you created a balance somewhere else on the site, and I think.

P

I do think this gives us that flexibility, I'm sure it could be worded better. I agree.

P

But I think that if you go back to criteria three, where you're looking at the functions of the site,.

P

And think about the functions of that building going in by itself. It might be not the least.

P

Impacting code, but with the other measures that someone might take like pulling phragmites out.

P

Of the buffer or turning impervious surface into porous pavement or something like that, then then.

P

I think you can get to that balancing. At least I think I think I think we're on the same page.

P

I think just I think it's just a matter of perhaps refining the language a little bit.

A

Yeah I I agree. I agree with everything everybody wants to do and see an end result. I just don't.

A

Think that the ordinance does it that's all yeah. I was just curious about your question about.

S

The language so yeah and- and I I don't- I wouldn't read- criterion five as sort of being a dimensional.

Q

Least impact: I would think that that would also take into account the functions and values.

A

Right well see: here's the point: there are cases where the developer will say. I'm.

A

Going to do this and I'm going to do all these other wonderful things, that's great! You could.

A

Still do all those other wonderful things and do this that's my point that would be even better.

A

Right so so that's the least. That would be the light. The least impact, though.

Q

We have no ability to have them continue to do.

Q

All those good things if they're out of the buffer, that's right.

A

Well, actually, I think there are. There are.

A

Ways to do that, but anyway we're getting off track here, right.

Q

All right uh next slide, um so this is the last criterion. Any area within the.

Q

Vegetated buffer strip strip will be returned to a natural state to the extent feasible so.

Q

um I think this criterion is somewhat more of a condition, recognizes the importance of the.

Q

Upwind area nearest to the resource, the wetland or stream, uh which is especially valuable when.

Q

Vegetated in particular for water quality, so um you know it would be things like. You know.

Q

Making sure that any one area is converted to natural plantings, a removal of invasive species.

Q

Because I think the natural state is a natural non-invasive state.

Q

Definitely um so next um slide, so this is just you know, all six criteria that are there, that we've.

Q

Gone through um and next slide, um so the the point I also wanted to make and we've talked about some.

Q

Of these, the challenge is that it requires the criteria require balancing of existing conditions.

Q

Unique and different natural resource sites and a wide variety of proposed projects.

Q

In those varied and unique environments and disturbance conditions and then when you.

Q

You have a lot of flexibility in the criteria. You talk about things being reasonably suited.

Q

Feasible and reasonable no adverse impacts, a little more narrow to the extent necessary least.

Q

Adverse impact to the extent feasible, so there's really a lot of leeway in these and a lot of.

Q

um You know judgment um that needs to be. Decisions need to be made backed by information, so.

Q

It's a challenge I mean this is something that you know a des and wetland permitting um always.

Q

You know they used to have the requirement for the need for the project, and you know.

Q

People used to joke that it was a I want it not. I need it that that often happened. The next slide.

Q

So um a couple of additional considerations for what resource protection. I think.

Q

You may want to consider requiring the natural heritage bureau, data check report or any buffer.

Q

Only impacts, so you know if it goes to des for permitting. The data check report is required. That.

Q

Is um identifying any of the tracked species or exemplary natural communities.

Q

If they're in the vicinity- and they have certain vicinities, they use for different species and that.

Q

Information would be helpful to really assess that functions and values. Information, that's provided.

Q

Also, I don't know to the extent that portsmouth has a lot of intermittent streams, but if you.

Q

Do you may want to add them as a jurisdictional resource, because it is a jurisdictional resource.

Q

For des and having some of those things.

Q

Consistent would be good, it's as I, as the cartoon says, we're you know small, but we do. You know.

Q

Big jobs, what is it? I don't know? Good chores, big chores? Yes, thank you. I haven't memorized, but.

Q

It's uh you know, people tend to think bigger is better. Bigger is more important, they think bigger.

Q

Wetlands are more important, bigger wetlands do a lot of things in a big way, but some of the.

Q

Intermittent streams there, where wetlands or streams are subject to the kind of a wet dry cycle.

Q

That's when you have more nutrients, particularly like nitrogen removed from the water and so.

Q

Those are the things that people think are: oh gee, it's not really wet very often well things.

Q

That are wet all the time. Don't remove nitrogen! It's that wet dry cycle that the microorganisms.

Q

Remove the nitrogen, so that is what I have the next slide and just.

Q

Kind of questions and discussion beyond what we've covered. Thank you.

F

I'll save it uh your experience, I take it. You've reviewed many municipal cop.

F

Performances and requirements are portsmouth six standard or they have common themes or.

F

How would you rate our six criteria.

F

um Put you on the spot, yeah? Well, I I don't. Actually. I I think when I've looked at a lot.

Q

Of people's cups, I've I've done more at the front end because they didn't define wetlands correctly.

Q

Or they thought that they had streams covered, but they didn't because streams are, you know.

Q

So I I can't say that I've looked at the approval criteria. um I think some of them are similar.

Q

But I I think that um yeah, it's kinda, I I don't. I don't have that approval criteria.

Q

Kind of, in my mind that I can remember okay so, but the process is similar, though I mean.

F

The criteria different municipalities used to for their cups. It's it's a similar, stepwise process.

F

They usually have one or more criteria. You have to meet right right, yeah. I I mean um I'm familiar.

Q

With like the town of bow- and there are, you know, a bunch of different criteria and they're also very.

Q

Kind of uh I mean I think there might be a you know- least adverse impact one, and you know a.

Q

Lot of things that once you know just require a lot of balancing, and do you agree with the.

Q

Information that's presented, or what information you have is that consistent and um okay thanks.

D

um I don't know if you're going to be able to answer this, but we we run into.

D

For number two: the alternatives outside the buffer being feasible and reasonable other.

D

Regulations, local regulations, creating obstacles for that to be feasible, like setbacks and.

D

So and lately with accessory dwelling units or certain regulations that they have to position.

D

The building in a certain place that creates um sort of a problem there so.

D

Is there any kind of protocol on that or it just probably must depend on so many things.

Q

Well, I guess um I guess it sort of depends.

Q

Both how often it comes up, uh I mean there are things that um until.

Q

uh China beau, for instance, put shared driveways as okay for up to three houses.

Q

um You know you had to go to the zba and get approval for a shared driveway and.

Q

You know there have been times when the planning board has said we support this, but you have to.

Q

Go to the zba and and and get that address, so um they may not want to go to the cba. But you.

Q

Know um and I guess, if you see things coming up a lot, then that's something that you need.

Q

To kind of figure out how to how do we dress, but I I have not seen a whole lot of that recently or.

P

I just wanted to. I don't know if they they can hear us, but there's three people on zoom.

P

I think the city manager, samantha collins and uh who was the other one um and ted jankowski.

P

um Just wanted to let you know that they're there in case they had questions.

A

Okay, are they raising their hands.

P

Can I ask one more question so one of the things the commission has been interested.

P

In the past- and I don't want to go too far beyond the wetlands or wetland buffer but.

P

Is upland habitat and upland wildlife protection, but if we keep it to the buffer, even is there. I.

P

Appreciate the recommendation about the data check, but that's a data check on data. That's.

P

Known that's out there is there any process like a wetland, functional value assessment first for a.

P

Wetland scientist or an upland scientist of some sort to look for habitat that might be.

P

Unique or special in the buffer, that's beyond the scope of a wetland review. You know because.

P

The wetlands are very wetland. Functional value system is very focused on the wetland area, but.

P

If we're protecting the buffer, maybe there's other things in that buffer that aren't being looked at.

P

That have some value, like nesting, habitat or other wildlife corridors. Things like that is there any.

P

Process that you've heard of or know of that communities have used to try to look beyond just.

P

The wetland functional value itself, but into the habitat of the upland area, adjacent to it right.

Q

I can't think of anything offhand now: the the natural heritage bureau data.

Q

Check will have upland as well as wetland exemplar natural communities, so you will.

Q

Know about that, the other thing is.

Q

You know uh any adjacent communities. What exemplary natural communities do they have.

Q

That could be in yours that you're not aware of um what about.

N

What about the wildlife action plan? Because that that encompasses some bigger right? They do have.

Q

Kind of like a predicted habitat for a variety of species, um so you may look at that.

Q

And I guess the uh other thing would be to um if you had good information on that upland habitat. If.

Q

Even someone wanted to say it, you know I know but like in an oak pine forest or you know whatever.

Q

They could um that would be helpful in identifying uh potential habitats or things that are around.

Q

The natural heritage bureau has um some.

Q

Documents that they've done on, basically, you know identifying the natural communities and.

Q

So those natural communities are not, you know all the exam. Some of them would be exemplary, but.

Q

They're just basically characterizing the type of community. It is. um I know that uh there had.

Q

Been the national heritage bureau was trying to get des to kind of require that, as part of.

Q

Some of their work, but it didn't hasn't quite gotten there, but that is another.

Q

uh Way- and you could ask for information on, you know, characterize the upland according to the.

Q

You know natural hair, you know natural heritage, bureaus natural communities, guidance.

Q

Oh okay, so that wouldn't be available necessarily. But it's something that maybe.

P

Your wetland scientists would do as part of the inventory of the site um the application process.

P

Right they could, um because basically it looks at it's. um It is basically plant-based, but if you.

Q

Had that information, um you know, fish and game could probably tell you what species or using the.

Q

Wildlife action plan what species would likely be found in those types of habitats? Great, thank you.

S

When I read the stuff, you know the submissions that come in and there's that, like you admit,.

S

Somebody mentioned um the check off for like endangered species. You know, does it include.

S

You know these been the sturgeon or whatever have been found, um but I'm always sort of like.

S

Okay, so you have to wait. Till a species is basically on the edge before you consider.

S

Habitat for it and are we you know slowly by but surely you know by not including.

S

All species threatened or not um are we just destroying the habitat so nothing's going to.

S

Be there and you know, yeah the wildlife action plan. So is there anything that didn't I mean the.

S

Buffer zone is only 100 feet and that's pretty and unsubstantial really when you're talking wildlife.

S

As our things have shown, and how many other states are adopting much larger buffer zones.

S

Because of that stuff, but new hampshire's not moving on that, I don't think, um but is there.

S

I mean yeah well the the wildlife action plan, one of the kind of.

Q

Little things that they say quotes is you know, trying to keep common species coming.

Q

Yeah, okay, um um so uh you know is: is there a deer yard on the property.

Q

You know um that's um something um that you know is a feature you might want to protect if it.

Q

Isn't you know uh called out um so does that make sense as if we're you know board members.

S

Thinking about that, even though it's not in the documentation, that's being fed to us well.

Q

You know I mean I, I fully understand what you're saying and agree that you know.

Q

A we we don't know where everything is um you know it may not get reported. um um Had somebody.

Q

Tell me, I just saw my first blannings turtle and I said: did you take a photo of it? No, it's like.

Q

I mean it's good also, I don't know whether you've seen fish and game has developed a whole wildlife.

Q

Corridors that they've modeled and it might be good to look at that and see how that comes up for.

Q

Properties either for conservation planning or for other things, and you know you make it known.

Q

You know put it on your website and just link to it, and you know just you know that.

Q

May be something to consider, uh I mean if you don't specifically spell out wildlife corridors.

Q

You know in the ordinance or some aspects like that that may be something you want to look at.

N

Sandy, just just I know the time is, you know getting towards the end, but real briefly um and.

N

This could be a huge whole presentation. um Could you just just for uh everybody's knowledge? You.

N

Know a lot of times we have applications come in front of us and you know oh yeah we're getting our.

N

Des permits, but not everybody's, aware of just kind of the the new one you know there's this basically.

N

Three major permits, I'm thinking of you know you have your aot, you have your shoreland and you.

N

Have your wetland standard, can you just without going into like you know, major minor and minimum.

N

And all that, can you just kind of quickly go over? You know what the difference between those three.

N

Are so that when, when board members- or you know, people here, oh yeah we're getting an aot? Oh no.

N

We don't need an aot, but we need a shoreline. You know kind of where those jurisdictions sure okay.

Q

um Alteration of terrain addresses primarily storm water, both quantity and quality. If you impact.

Q

A hundred thousand square feet of land uh or if it's within shoreland, if it's 50,.

Q

000 square feet: you have to submit an alteration of terrain, permit um the alteration of terrain.

Q

Permits, I can't remember whether it's since 2019, when they change their rules, but they.

Q

Actually have a kind of a wildlife habitat assessment. That's now part of that.

Q

So so that's alteration of terrain. They have a time frame in which they have to.

Q

Do their review and respond um so sometimes it's pretty quick and what have you but.

Q

And then they give developers like four months or three months for a response because of.

Q

You know often it's a lot of the engineering or redoing things, possibly um so the front part of.

Q

It is a short time frame, but then the response from the applicants are are a little bit longer.

Q

um Shoreland protection is um rsa 483b and that addresses.

Q

Vegetation and and kind of disturbance within um I'm still thinking it's 250 feet.

Q

From the um various you know, I don't want to say water's edge, but they're. You know.

Q

Specific um reference lines um and within certain zones um you can cut.

Q

uh Only certain amount of trees there are points for um to figure out how much of trees you can cut.

Q

And what you can do on the site and um des does overlap like if you need a shoreline. A wetlands.

Q

Permit they they've been trying to coordinate them. I'm not sure where that that process.

Q

Is um and then you know, the wetlands permit is rsa 42a and it was it's been in place since 1967.

Q

For tidal wetlands we kind of preceded the federal clean water act um and then it was expanded to.

Q

1969 for fresh water, wetlands, and so that's really, there's no minimum really. No minimum impact for.

Q

For wetland disturbance, uh there are some types of projects that are covered under um a.

Q

A statutory permit by notification- there's you know, for forestry, that's not pre-development!.

Q

um There's you know, the docks um are, um are under the uh wetlands permitting um and uh yeah they're.

Q

The minute they do have a classification for minimum minor, major and major projects start at 10.

Q

000 square feet, and so that's the point at which also mitigation is required, which should be either.

Q

Wetland, restoration or typically wetland creation is really not in the the cards.

Q

um Or contribution to the arm fund, if they can't identify a restoration opportunity.

N

And then just on and then the the u.s army corps gets to read the court. Yes, the.

Q

In new hampshire, the um new hampshire has what's called a programmatic general permit, with the u.s.

Q

Army corps of engineers, so the corps has to issue permits. You know under section 404 of.

Q

The clean water act, and so since new hampshire has a program basically new hampshire, basically.

Q

Issues virtually all the permits um for the state of new hampshire and the corps.

Q

Kind of does oversight, they'll review; they have greater jurisdiction in some areas and epa reviews.

Q

The they look at secondary impacts, so it doesn't have to be direct impact, not just.

Q

Direct wetland impact that they look at so there are some other things that they look.

Q

At so that's where the the core of engineers and epa kind of has somewhat of a role in there.

E

It sort of sounds like des, and the planning board share the same roles, in other words, we're des.

E

Is trying to protect wetlands, our conditional use permit wants us to do the same thing. Do we.

E

Ever dovetail, in other words, so if, if there's a battle over a conditional use permit in portsmouth.

E

It and let's see it's not appeal within 30 days: it's only recourses is state court, but.

E

Why isn't des involved or are they with us in this process? Well, there's.

Q

When, if, if there's a wetland impact or an impact to a jurisdictional area, that that des has.

Q

The conservation commission has a a statutory advisory role that they can provide comment to.

Q

Des within a certain time frame on that wetlands application, um you know we're you'd be following.

Q

Or or you know, whatever the des rules are saying that they did or didn't meet it or we don't think.

Q

They met it or we don't think it's the least impacting alternative. um Or what have you.

Q

um So des uh the the city can or conservation commissions can provide comments. A des.

Q

And des is required to address all the conservation commission comments. That's concom.

E

I was asking about planning board, so, in other words, do you guys does des get records of all the.

E

Cups that are addressed for wetlands so are, is des available to be consulted on wetlands cups or what.

E

Exactly do you do that can help planting boards? Well, the thing is that if there is that overlap.

Q

I guess where there's the overlap, there isn't the overlap all over clearly, but.

Q

I think if it's not a des jurisdictional area, you're not going to get that they.

Q

They have they have enough on their plates. um You know um it's really.

Q

Now there there are, the thing is that you can provide comments and if your comments.

Q

Impact um or if they're the cup that you give or don't give impacts.

Q

You know their application of des, or whatever I mean obviously there's going to be some adjustment.

Q

One place or another uh diaz isn't involved in a standard conditional use permit. No, no, no. No. I mean.

Q

You know um in the past, I know that and- and it's not very common at least one permitting inspector.

Q

That I knew used to check the planning board minutes to see.

Q

What was discussed on the project um to see if it would help was a.

Q

Decision made was a decision not made, but that's that's not very common. Okay.

A

Thank you thank you for having us yeah great. Thank you very much. Thanks.

D

Thank you for um posting this, inviting the concept, including us, do it more often. Yes,.

D