City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Planning Board, 23 Feb 2023

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 2.23.2023 Planning Board

Description

2.23.2023 Planning Board

A

A

Good evening and welcome to this uh jam-packed february, 23rd 2023 planning board meeting.

B

I will note for the record I'm going to ask mr simones to sit for miss pagala who's, not.

B

Here this evening, our records require five members of our quorum. We have, I believe,.

B

Seven, six one, two, three four: I guess we have eight so we're good.

B

uh We have a continued public hearing on the accessory dwelling unit proposal for zoning.

B

Amendments, it is the only thing on our agenda this evening. What I'd like to do is have a.

B

Presentation by mr kraknow going through the changes that have been made since last week,.

B

And we'll have some board questions. The public comment will come after that.

B

If there is any interaction required from the public we can have that then above hearing is.

B

Going to be closed, the board will deliberate and hopefully we'll have a vote this evening.

B

So nick, would you be more comfortable presenting from up here what's best for you.

B

Given that there might be technical questions, I'd love to have the two of you peter on one.

B

Side you on the other. So if you're no objection I'd like to have nick up here.

C

Right here, okay, all right, it's different all right, uh nick racknell, principal planner in the playing.

D

Department, thanks for bringing me up on the days um just uh again as a recap, since it's the only.

D

Thing on the agenda: I'm going to spend just a couple of minutes: uh recapping, where we are.

D

And then talk about the revisions, I think most of you are aware this. This has been in front of the.

D

Land use committee, uh which includes, I think, two members of the planning board, corey and and rick.

D

The chairman, uh I think, we've spent at least five or six meetings over several months, developing.

D

The the amendments to the ordinance which was originally adopted in 2017., so this has been.

D

On the books for the better part of six years, I think, in terms of background on the metrics.

D

We've had 37 applications over the last six years. 13 of the units have been constructed.

D

uh There's there's some under construction, some that have chosen not to proceed. uh Probably some.

D

Of them are in a withdrawal status that they, they didn't finish the process and one of the tasks of.

D

The housing navigator is to do some uh background research on why some of these uh applicants that.

D

Have received approvals have chosen not to proceed, and probably cost is, is part of the.

D

Issue when they go out to see what it's going to cost financially to put the unit together.

D

But out of the 13 units, they've been in five different zoning districts from as big as one.

D

Acre down to the 3500 grc, most of them have been in the uh the srb, which has a third of an acre.

D

Per dwelling unit, so that's about seven out of the 13 that have been built are in that district.

D

um Two of them have been adus that are including that are internal. uh Four have been with an.

D

Addition and one has been a hybrid of both an addition and internal, so those are all adus.

D

Not detached the detach we've only had one new detached adu built. There's been many in front.

D

Of the board- and some of them are maybe under construction, but only one of the 13 is a new.

D

Structure, that's detached and five have been the so-called garden cottages that are also detached.

D

But they were existing structures just to give you a sense of what's going on in the last six years,.

D

The average unit size is just under 600 square feet for the attached and detached we've had.

D

Five of the applications that have been approved, I'm not sure how many of them have been built, but.

D

There have been five applications that have come before the planning board that have exceeded the.

D

750 square feet from belle isle being the biggest at 1300 square feet. There's one on central street.

D

That was 900 and 890 on jones I have a 760 which is just over the 750 for uh fields, road and then.

D

One just over a thousand, so those folks needed to come in and use the waiver provision that.

D

Isn't well written and isn't particularly clear to either the board or the applicant.

D

From my experience, looking at it over six years as to what what can be waived and under what.

D

um Part of this of the ordinance, so that's the average unit size over the the six years.

D

Is about 650 square feet again with a lot of those being attached, so with that in mind,.

D

What I'd just like to to summarize, because I think this is really important to repeat the.

D

Policy objectives of what at least the land use committee and ultimately, the city council, giving.

D

This uh task to the land use committee. There were three broad policy objectives which you're all.

D

Well aware of, but I'm just going to repeat them, one is to reduce barriers for people. Applicants.

D

And homeowners to be able to pursue this kind of permit for an accessory dwelling in it.

D

The second was to strengthen the the ordinance, so we would, we would generate out outcomes that fit.

D

In better to the surrounding context, as well as the property and that speaks to the subordination.

D

Requirements in the design review requirements that we've been working on make sure when the.

D

Project is approved and built. It actually fits into the surrounding character so that that's a.

D

Second general uh broad policy objective and then the third is is to make best efforts to make this.

D

Easier to understand, knowing that all three of these things are really hard to do well,.

D

It's a complicated ordinance and it's complicated because we're number one I.

D

Think one of our primary objectives, out of those three is to make sure things fit in and if they're.

D

Going to fit in, we have to be very careful about those subordination uh standards and the design.

D

Guidelines that are in the ordinance, so we have more predictability for the people that live the.

D

More predictability for the applicants and their design team and more predictability for the people.

D

That live next to these proposed adus, so there there are less surprises uh when you're going.

D

Through this process and putting the unit on the ground, so that means more complexity, more words.

D

More language doesn't always result in a simpler ordinance in terms of legibility or or ease of use.

D

So let me just say what the the barrier reduction uh goal, which is the first one.

D

The the biggest change, I think, is removing the lot size requirements for a new detached adu.

D

Right now you have to have twice the minimum lot area of a single family structure in any of the.

D

Zoning districts, where it's allowed so, if you're in a one acre district like bsr b, you've got to.

D

Have two acres today to do a detached new adu, and this will remove that impediment. It's it's.

D

Going to remove the uh need to get dimensional relief through the board of adjustment to take.

D

What would be a conforming lot in all other ways, except it's not twice as big as as the.

D

Zoning district requires so I think, that's probably at the top of the list for a barrier.

D

Reduction, uh the second is we we're trying to introduce this administrative approval process.

D

For what you would con, what one would consider a minor project and make it.

D

Easier than going through, the conditional use permit process to do a so-called minor project.

D

The third is, you know that we've gone to gla the gross living area from the gross floor area.

D

And we've removed the thousand square feet and we've removed the um the waiver provision from.

D

Being available at the planning board to allow a larger unit than 750., we went to gla for living.

D

Area which is the interior of the unit versus gfa being the outside of the unit, including the.

D

Thickness of the walls, so if we keep it at 750, we've actually expanded the maximum size of a.

D

Adu to about 825 830 feet, so there's a slight increase: whether that's a reduction in barrier.

D

uh I think it would be to some properties that are larger and have the ability.

D

To put a slightly larger unit, there, we've clarified, we hope the subordination requirements.

D

And we've made them more sensible. We've made them more calibrated to fitting in with the.

D

Scale, mass volume and height of the principal structure and the surrounding context, hopefully.

D

We've clarified the architectural design requirements so there's more clarity to.

D

The applicant or design team and this this board in administering this ordinance to get people to.

D

Yes, quicker with less money spent dancing around what are now relatively vague design standards.

D

We've clarified the waiver requirements. I think that's a that's a that may not.

D

Feel like a barrier reduction, but if you've got this waiver provision in here.

D

uh That you, you may or may not exercise as a board member. It creates uncertainty to the owner and.

D

Their design team as to whether that's going to be granted, which can can result in inconsistency.

D

In in many people's eyes as to how it's applied, so I think there's clarity in just taking off the.

D

Table as we have the larger units than the 750 square feet of gross living area and then lastly,.

D

uh Well, this actually came up subsequent. This is the only thing that's come up uh to my information.

D

Subsequent of this come going out to you two days ago, one of the members inquired and I think it.

D

Was sent out to everybody where we we now have a 20-foot separation requirement between detached.

D

Accessory structure and the existing principle structure, so 20 feets now the requirement we.

D

Just went to the building code requirement in the document you were given 48 hours ago and you had.

D

That same language last week and on the 30th of january, one of the board members emailed today.

D

A comment as to you know: maybe we should have a number a minimum number, so it's not requiring.

D

Somebody to to dance off to the inspection department to find out with how many windows.

D

They have on the sidewall how close they can get with their their uh their detached new building.

D

So we're going to recommend one amendment that I'm aware of there may be more tonight that we.

D

Have a minimum of five feet: separation between the two structures, but I don't want to get bogged.

D

Down in amendments yet so those to me are all candidates for demonstrating barrier reductions.

D

The second piece about fitting in I think it's clear to you from reviewing this. The.

D

Subordination requirements or standards and the design review requirements are, I think,.

D

Going to take us closer to assuring a fit in outcome than uh than where we are today. Is it.

D

Perfect, I think it's clear it's not, but that's that's. Why we're making amendments from 2017.

D

I think we've made an effort here and reasonably hit the target to remove and reduce any internal.

D

Conflicts or inconsistencies between sections- I think we've we've made an honest effort to.

D

Reduce ambiguity- and I think uh the handbook that's yet to come- will go a long way to make.

D

This easier for the third objective, for people to actually utilize on both sides of the deus.

D

So what what I'd like to do to just finish up my presentation is: go through. Maybe the highlighted.

D

Version that was sent, which shows the changes that were made from the last meeting a week ago.

D

And I separated these highlighted sections into three categories: clerical changes which.

D

Could be grammatical or uh just fixing typos or headers being consistent so again, clerical.

D

Changes that that probably don't warrant much of a conversation, at least in my mind, but they may.

D

The second category are procedural changes. What have we done in the last week to clarify or amend.

D

Or improve the process of getting a conditional use, permit or administrative approval from the.

D

Flag director hold on one second yep, I'm gonna, I mentioned last week we're going to go line by line.

B

And we will do that if everybody wants to or if anybody wants to actually. But if you could make.

B

Notes as nick is presenting, so we can come back to a particular section after he's done, if we.

B

Can make things a little bit more efficient if you want to go line by line, we can, but that's why they.

B

Did this markup that shows the changes from last week. I thought it would be easier for everybody to.

B

Zoom in, but so nick as you can even proceed, but and also the other thing I forgot to mention this.

B

Is a huge bit of teamwork here this document I mean beth has been leading the land use committee.

B

For a great many months, creating this thing and staffs and working really hard on this thing, so.

B

I think it's it's come a long way, but, okay, sorry for the interruption.

D

That's good so the the third and final category for the highlighted changes. So we have clerical.

D

Procedural and then I used the term substantive change of material change, something that actually.

D

uh Is is a significant topic of maybe discussion, so those are the three categories I'm just going.

D

To start at the front page and go through the highlights, obviously the first one there is to.

D

Relabel the p as the permitted use in the table of uses would get relabeled ap, which would be.

D

Administrative approval, given we do not have that currently as a permitting process in the table of.

D

Uses so that that's the idea of the administrative approval, not a substitute for procedural change,.

D

Just uh being clearer on what is required to to gain approval for that particular kind of adu,.

D

So then, you'll see on the next page in the table. We've simply changed the p to ap for.

D

The internal adus that are within a building, so those no changes in anything except the ps, became.

D

Ap, if we go to the next page, uh this is what I would call a substantive change, so you're going.

D

To want to remember this, one and it'll likely be discussed at the end of the the presentation here.

D

What's different about that top line, which is the existing uh structures accessory structures.

D

That are on a property last week in the in two weeks prior, uh the version of this ordinance had.

D

Those also as what we would call an ap. They were administratively approved by the planning director.

D

And what's suggested here uh is that they revert to the conditional use permit. So if somebody has.

D

An existing accessory structure in their backyard and wants to convert it not add to it, and it.

D

Complies to all dimensional requirements, they would still need a conditional use permit to do so.

D

So again I don't want to debate it here, we'll come back to it, but that that's the first of probably.

D

One or two substantive changes from last week, the next one. uh The next number of highlights that are.

D

On that page that go into the existing accessory dwelling unit that doesn't meet the dimensional.

D

Controls that already needs a conditional use permit. All we're doing here is sort of.

D

Wordsmithing the ordinance to make it clearer and perhaps easier when subsequent amendments.

D

Are made that you're not running all over the place, trying to fix numbers in the ordinance.

D

That might be referred to here, but a subsequent amendment forgets to come and fix it and.

D

Then you've got an internal inconsistency, so there's nothing substantive or procedural about.

D

uh The next chain two changes underneath on that page: it's clerical. We can come back if.

D

You have questions uh going down to the supplemental use standards.

D

These all those changes on that page, which are page five on my document, which should be the same.

D

As yours, they are all clerical, they are, there are no substantive or procedural changes. There.

D

Well, there was nothing on page four right. I had no highlights on page four correct, I'm just trying to.

C

Go quickly through the highlights and then yeah, sorry, no um and and again these edits come from.

D

Comments from board members and even members of the public so- and I I think you know who you are.

D

um But I've written them down if anybody ever who's been contributing here to get.

D

Us hopefully, over the finish line, everything on page six in my mind, is clerical. Nothing again.

D

Substantive, this is just cleaning the language up uh being more consistent, hopefully more clear.

D

uh So then we go to page seven same thing: there are three four uh highlighted items: they're all.

D

Clerical and we can come back and and talk about so they haven't changed from last week. There were.

D

Some changes before, but uh these are highlights from last thursday page eight again clerical.

D

All three or four of those highlighted items we can come back to them same on page nine.

D

Go to page 10 same thing uh now. This is where I'm just gonna, throw it out there, because it's.

D

The only suggested amendment to this document that I thought was a good idea that I've already.

D

Discussed about the separation between buildings- I don't know if peter wrote something in there.

D

But we had discussed it today and I was thinking uh we should have a five foot minimum between the.

D

Newly constructed detached accessory dwelling unit and the principal structure or whatever.

D

Is required by the building code, which may be in fact more than five feet, depending on the design.

D

Of the building, but at least give people a clear understanding. They can get as close to five feet.

D

Currently, it's 20., which makes it a little bit harder to put one of these on a narrow.

D

Lot so this is a barrier reduction, maybe not huge, but it is mature. Can I ask a question now.

D

Can I just finish- and we come back to that and oh is that sorry, I'm not the chair, but.

E

Just the rules earlier and I forgot yeah I'd- absolutely make a note yeah. I just made a note.

B

Too, go ahead; okay! Go ahead! Sorry! Sorry, jim! uh Okay! So on page 11. the you see again, administrative.

D

Approval ap, that's clerical. I would uh now we're into the administrative approval process and there.

D

Were questions raised by both the public that some public speakers at the last meeting and board.

D

Members just how it works with an administrative approval and how the notice works, and we had.

D

Already amended that the the in the previous version, the applicant, was charged with notifying.

D

Via certified mail, the butters within 100 feet and the change that's proposed here, which I personally.

D

Think is a good one living in a town that makes applicants for some boards notify a butters. It's.

D

The biggest uh pain in the behind uh you can ask somebody as a homeowner to do uh generating a.

D

Butters list and then go out and do certified mail and get the return receipts and then prove they've.

D

You've, you've mailed it out. We do this for every every application today, in the city hall in the.

D

Planning department, so I think it's a it's a it's reducing a barrier to a homeowner by having us do.

D

It they'll still pay for the postage, but we will prepare the butters list and mail out the notices.

D

uh To take that burden off the owner, and I don't think it's going to be overburdening us, given we.

D

Do it as a regular course of action so that that's a procedural change from last week? The last item.

D

On that page is, is clerical wordsmithing and I'm almost done page 12, . um yeah you could. I label.

D

That top change on page 12 as a procedural change. It's really stating maybe the obvious, but it's not.

D

Obvious so we put it in here, which means, if the planning director deems that the administrative.

D

Approval can't be granted for any reason like it doesn't meet the the subordination requirements.

D

Or the design standards he or she can deny the application or send it to the planning board.

D

For a conditional use permit because somehow it triggers a conditional use permit in their review.

D

So we're wanting to clarify the process for an applicant that they're not guaranteed just.

D

Because they think it's an ap that it's going to come out as approved by the the planning director.

D

Or his or her designee, uh so now we've got the the middle one there on that page is clerical. Then the.

D

Bottom, I'd call it substantive, even though it's a clarification, there were members of the public.

D

And board members, I think, jane brought this up um initially and and andrew was making sure we insert.

D

The words the character of the neighborhood in here so there's some, uh both specific and general.

D

Framework from which to to render your findings when you get to the end of the review process,.

D

So that's the bottom of page 12 on page 13., um I think you know beth picked this.

D

Up and we discussed it in the meeting, uh we discussed uh the the issue of making sure.

D

That the planning board, if we're going to go with the 750 gla and get rid of the thousand.

D

We want to make sure the planning board has no ability to waive that standard. So.

D

We we listed uh the exemptions and what's been added in here- is the size height and.

D

Volume of the building cannot be waived by the planning board. Should this be adopted, so we're.

D

Gonna, it's gonna say what we'll we'll accept and there's no ability without going to the board of.

D

Adjustment which one can always do to get a larger structure, but that's different than a waiver.

D

It's much higher bar the other two changes on that page 13 are are clerical and then the definitions.

D

Again, clerical or just attached or detached those are the two types of adus and then the.

D

Very last page, on 16, at least in respect of this document, was, I think, to the chairman's comment at.

D

The last meeting or the the day before uh the last meeting, talking about condition, space and.

D

Being consistent in defining gross living area, so we cleaned this up. That is a summary of what we've.

D

Been doing since we left here on thursday call end with that, and jim had his hand up first, so.

E

Chair so nick I'd like to get back to the building separation, yep and just trying.

E

To understand the thought process, 2017 dadus needs to be 20 feet from the primary structure.

E

And somehow that posed an issue, I guess, or you feel that this needs to be reduced.

E

To a smaller number and you've chosen five feet, so could you walk me through the mindset of how that.

E

Number was developed and I don't I'm not an expert in building separation. But what first comes to.

E

Mind is fire protection. I think firefighters like to have space. They don't like buildings crowded, so.

E

A little battery, please sure, so we all know that we all know that the building code requirements.

D

Are always going to apply, which includes life, safety and fire separation? So there's a million.

D

Ways to achieve that, you can have a unit with a with a vertical separation and a firewall. That's.

D

Touching right and that meets the the fire safety requirements. If you pull the buildings apart, you.

D

Typically, have your fire separation requirements be dependent on the materials of the siding and.

D

Whether there's fireproofing material, whether it's already plank or cedar, whether you have you.

D

Know 15 is the number that's regularly used for percentage of openings in a wall. If you.

D

If you have 15 or less of openings in a wall for windows and doors, you can be five feet away with.

D

The next structure, if you exceed 15 it steps further away right, so everything's a sliding.

D

Scale in the in the life safety requirements to maintain the minimum level of fire separation.

D

And that's going on every day today, without this ordinance being passed and the 20-foot number I.

D

Probably put that in there in 2017, in the spirit of thinking about detached uh dwelling units.

D

Really being better off if they're not right up against the house, so if you're going to build a.

D

Two-Car garage and put something above it or you know, think of not having a little garden cottage.

D

That's a single story. uh I think you're going to find most people that still come before you with.

D

A detached accessory dwelling unit aren't going to be anywhere near five feet. That's not going to.

D

Be their choice, but if they have a neat little courtyard and they want it tight they'll do it.

D

But uh 20 doesn't allow them to do it, so this is about providing more flexibility from a design.

D

Standpoint to never compromise fire safety because you won't be able to because that's not set by the.

D

This ordinance it's set by the building code. This is allowing an architect or a design team and a.

D

Homeowner, to have more flexibility as to where they want to place the structure and meet all.

D

The subordination requirements meet the design requirements, meet the compatibility pieces and.

D

Prove to you it's in the right spot, but 2020 is, I think, restrictive and excessive to have that when.

D

It far exceeds the fire separation requirements for just any building, not nothing's, going to.

D

Force you to be 20 feet away, even if you have a sheer glass wall with all glass s on the side of.

D

A building they're not going to the life safety code isn't going to force you 20 feet away. 10 is.

D

Probably the maximum so for clarification, what it would say if, if the amendment was agreed to.

B

Would be five feet or whatever the building code required, whichever is greater? That's what that's.

B

What it would say correct, yes, uh the whole reason that we actually use the building code instead of.

C

Putting a minimum was so that the building code could then dictate, and if the building.

C

Code changed. We wouldn't have to change this, so that was the reason for not putting in a minimum.

C

Because we did have a a pretty lengthy discussion about that at land use and it was the decision of.

C

The group that it seemed better to just let it follow the code if you're building something.

C

New and you're putting it a certain distance, you're gonna, have to make sure it's at building.

C

Code, anyways so defaulting to that seemed to be the best answer. So that's why it was done.

D

And- and I would I would hazard to guess, the closest you could ever get is likely five feet.

D

No matter what you do with the two buildings, but it's possible it's three feet, but it's.

D

Not less again, if they're touching and you have a firewall, it's not detached anymore right, so you're.

D

Not even subject to this provision so as soon as you pull that building off of the principal.

D

Structure, I don't believe the building code is ever going to allow you to get closer than three.

D

With no windows, which we shouldn't certainly shouldn't, encourage because it's it's not a.

D

Good look for the most part five feet is: is the minimum when you have openings, so I think it's.

D

Good to have that in as a floor and give people some guidance and, as beth said anything beyond.

D

The five you've got to deal with the the building code, which is the way it works today. So I think we.

D

Meet both objectives, uh putting the five in there does that make sense. Yeah. Yes, it does. Thank you. I.

E

I don't know the building code that well, I don't know it at all. Is there a situation where jim your.

E

Microphone, oh I'm sorry is there a situation where um it would be 10 feet. I mean what would trigger.

E

To be more than five feet or what would trigger it to be less than five well, I am no expert on the.

D

Building code either, but this particular subject matter does come up regularly in the downtown.

D

I don't believe you'd ever get over 10 feet uh with it again. You could have a glass greenhouse.

D

uh Which is 100 open under the code and you could have that 10 feet away. So I'm certain of that.

D

um The the five foot minimum is is gener. It's what's allowed for 15 of the of the wall to be.

D

Windows or doors, so I don't see you getting closer than three and I think three is pretty useless.

D

Space between two buildings anyway, uh so you need five feet to get a wheelchair through there.

B

Effectively and and to put a ladder up, I dealt with you exactly. I dealt with this specifically.

F

In the south end, and it had to do with putting a ladder on right and getting getting a ladder up.

D

Two stories and five feet is the ladder you don't want to go on, but you're right. That is the minimum.

F

That's the answer and that's why and here peter I did speak with shanti wolf today about this and.

G

He said the building code is silent on detached dwellings that are on the same lot. Under the same.

G

Ownership he did recommend that five feet would be good, because that's where you can get a ladder.

G

Up and that, regardless they are, the setback from the building from property lines for the building.

G

Code is five feet, so I think that's consistently. It's consistent. That's exactly what I dealt with.

D

So it it, I think it really makes sense. It sounds like what shanti is saying. Is it doesn't matter.

D

If you're you're, endangering your your yourself or your family, uh you can't endanger somebody on.

D

Another property, but we're talking about adus that are, are setting up a condition where two separate.

D

Families can live on the same lot. We should be holding them to the same standard. The building.

D

Code would apply between two property owners, which is a minimum of five feet. Are there any.

B

Other questions on that particular proposed: okay, um corey. Just a comment really. um I just think we.

H

Just need to clarify that it's for new dads and not in for new buildings. I guess not for existing.

H

So, if you're putting a dadu in an existing structure, that's.

H

Three feet away or something like that. I I think we just need to clarify that. That's all.

D

Yeah, I'm not sure that isn't the section we're in but yeah, let's clarify. Let's make.

D

Sure that's clear yeah because once again, the fire code, if they're renovating a garage to.

H

Turn it in the fire code is going to tell them they got to put a firewall in or whatever maybe.

H

E

Just on um on that level, we also had a long discussion, and it's in here as well, but I.

C

Can't remember exactly where, but nick might, if they're building new and it's going to be.

C

Taller than the primary we actually are requiring them to be farther set back. So.

C

um If it's going to be taller than the primary there was like a percentage, I believe we put in.

C

That it was going to be farther away so that there is more separation. In that specific.

C

Instance as well, the separation requirement is at least the height of the existing building.

B

Okay, other questions.

B

No other questions, I'm sorry! Yes, I want to make sure I heard that correct about a new building on.

E

A lot the separation needs to be as horizontally is, is the height of the building. No, that that, if.

D

The the dadu is taller, so imagine a ranch yeah and the ranch is 12 feet tall to the midpoint of a.

D

Shallow 312 pitch roof. You know shallow roof built in 1950.. uh If you want to build a two-car garage.

D

And put your d8 your adu over top of it. So now you have a two-story structure and you're taller than.

D

The principal normally that's not allowed, but in the case of a single story structure only only a.

D

Single story like a ranch or perhaps a bungalow, is going to be a store and a half, but a single story.

D

Structure, you can put a two-story structure, but it has to be separate from it has to be.

D

Separate from the principle structure, at least the height of the single story structure, so it.

D

Would bump to 12 in that case all right? Thank you. Are we absolutely sure I know what that's the case.

B

With property line setbacks is it also from the principal building? I think so I'm going to look.

D

It up yeah it's what we had talked about, but if it isn't that that you can change it I'll find it.

D

It's definitely that from the property lines right that I'm putting on okay [applause], do you have it.

D

It's uh the front wall, it's two down the front wall of the detaching to you that is not created.

C

Within an existing accessory building shall be set back at least 10 feet further from the front.

C

Front lot line than the existing front wall of the principal dwelling unit. There's another two.

G

Sections down it says when the building containing the detached dwelling is taller than the principle.

G

It's required setback from all property lines shall be increased by the difference in building.

G

Height between the detached accessory dwelling unit in the principal building, so it's just yeah.

D

So that that's the property line yeah right, so it is not separation from the principal building.

D

It's only the property yeah, so this this two story structure that I just described would have to meet.

D

The five foot uh separation, as amended or whatever the building code, says thanks for that. Yeah.

I

I don't think anyone's building more ranches.

I

No, if I want to build beside them. Yeah. The example I was going to mention was on elwyn ave heading.

I

Towards the rye circle, there might be a handful of properties that would be in that category.

B

Okay, what's the pleasure folks, do you did.

B

Everybody read things we're good, we don't have to go line by line.

B

Or is everybody good yeah, you don't have any other questions and we just need to go through the.

B

Public hearings- I have one question yes, um nick on page 11 about the butters notice requirement, yep.

J

For administrative approvals is that um currently, a requirement for other boards for administrative.

J

Approvals, no, uh we don't have any other board. That does a good question and the reason is the htc.

D

Does administrative approvals so we do. We do have administrative approvals, but not this type.

D

uh So it's an excellent question because people that go to the htc or watch it are familiar for.

D

Years now of hearing- oh that's an admin approval at the htc. The admin approval is for very small.

D

Projects as outlined in the ordinance- and it does not require any notice to a butters, it's generally.

D

For field changes to previously approved projects, or something deemed generally by me, incoming as.

D

Very minor and I'll tell you, you know out of the maybe 400 we've done twice. The htc has said nick.

D

You're wrong: we think it's not a minor project, bring it back as a hearing. So most of the time.

D

It works, uh but it's a judgment call by me and as the code official, but there is no notice it.

D

Goes on the agenda and I don't make the decision. I just make a recommendation to the htc and they.

D

Bring it up, they talk about it, they vote on it. That's not what we're talking about here.

D

Despite it having the same label, so that's a good question in this case it goes to the.

D

Planning director, not not the planning board, and there there's notice here to the abutters, unlike.

D

The htc for this kind of administrative approval and it's certified mail, which we do regularly for.

D

All your permits, the htc and the concom and tac. So that's why I think it makes sense we we do.

D

The same thing internally and not put that burden on the applicant to notify a butters. But that's.

D

That's the difference between the hdc and what we're talking about here. Thank you, yeah. Thank you.

E

Sorry, can I guess one more please: um this is a general comment about all.

E

The changes that have been incorporated, since I guess you started last summer.

E

um For me, I see the biggest change in the dad use to reduce barriers. Let's say with the building.

E

Separation and with the lot size in general residence districts, so I was just curious. I.

E

You said that 13 have been built in 13 and six accessory dresses and only one has been a dadu.

E

Is that accurate yeah only one has been as far as I can tell looking at the data yesterday.

D

Yeah, only one that's been built with an occupancy permit being issued is new construction. There are.

D

Plenty under construction or at various points of bidding that are dadus, okay, but only one and.

D

I could I could tell you in a second where it is uh well. Let's go ahead, keep going yeah, that's not.

E

It's not the particular did I'm interested in it's just the fact that.

E

Did the plane department focus on dads because you see a pent-up demand? Have you had lots.

E

Of applications come in the general residence districts that couldn't be built because of these.

E

Restrictions and because of the 20-foot, I'm just trying to understand no the thought process. Sorry.

B

I can help with that a little bit before you speak, go ahead. State statute only allows flexibility.

B

With the detached it pretty, it constrains pretty much with the attached. So with that as a lead-in.

B

Go ahead yeah, so it that's a really good question, jim, because people wonder can wonder you know.

D

Is their pent-up demand for these changes for a detached adu? I don't know that we know that.

D

Answer uh people don't come running in and say boy. If you just changed the zoning, I would apply.

D

Right, that's what I'm trying to say right so, but but it's also common sense that if you require.

D

Somebody on an acre of land with a house to have two acres of land to apply for an adu that a lot.

D

Of people in portsmouth that have conforming lots, they have their acre, they have their third of an.

D

Acre they have their 7 500 or their 5 000, or their 3 500 for the district they're in they.

D

Can't come in and actually ask for this permit unless they have twice as much as it required.

D

So it's highly unlikely we're going to hear a lot of people coming in saying geez. If I you know that.

D

The code's pretty clear what the requirement is, so they don't need to ask if they're reading it.

D

Right generally, but it's common sense that if you ask people to have twice as much of.

D

Of what they already have that conforms you're likely going to see some increased activity if.

D

You remove that barrier, so we don't know how much more traffic we're going to get but it'll probably.

D

Be something and it's and more than that, it makes sense to grant it because it doesn't make sense.

D

To a lot of us to require somebody on a third of an acre with one single family. uh To not be.

D

Able to do an uh necessary dwelling unit that meets all dimensional controls is.

D

Tiny has occupancy requirements, has ownership requirements, annual certification, affidavits.

D

It's not it's not a freestanding single-family house. It's got all this stuff attached to it.

D

And it's small, so that was the spirit and we honestly don't know till we get there right.

F

This this kind of segues from what he said and how you just answered this um handbook, the.

F

User user guide with pictures- let's call it can, can we have input to that from a common.

F

Sense standpoint, because this this was a certain type of document that required a little a lot of.

F

Detail a lot of dovetailing into a lot of other things and a lot of detail that the.

F

Planning department clearly has more access and more knowledge than the general public, but as a.

F

Representative of the general public, I think we could probably do an excellent job with.

F

The handbook- and I would rather I'd like to see the planning board more involved in the handbook.

F

Than we were in this and I'm not saying this was a bad thing because it was detail-oriented but where.

F

Better geared so I would totally agree with that: myself. Okay, uh you guys are the administrators.

D

Other than the planning director of what will be probably not many applications to.

D

The planning director right because we've we've potentially narrowed the field to internal adus.

D

Which? Presumably have little opportunity to offend others, uh all the other adu or.

D

Dadu types are coming here for conditional use permits, so I think it's kind of incumbent on the.

D

Planning department to work with the planning board to make sure you know we'll bring drafts.

D

Of it here and get input before it's the final draft, so because I think you do need to weigh.

D

In people are going to be using that book to come before you, so we all need to know.

D

It well and understand it. That's going to be the first step. This is the supporting exact detail.

F

But that'll be the first step that actually accomplishes our goals is making it easier.

F

And less completely aggressive, so let's add it to our work session details! Okay, thank you. Yes,.

C

0.221 use table to administrative approvals for detached a to use.

C

Within an existing building, when you're not changing anything on the outside, it was.

C

You know it's you've now added a barrier to something that we had removed a barrier.

C

From and I can tell you that the city council is probably going to change it back, anyways.

C

They really didn't think I had allowed enough permitted ones when I showed it to them. First.

C

Time before it came here, so sorry can you say what number it's under the use table 1.221.

B

Top of page three yeah, why haven't, I guess.

B

Corey, well, you guys are. Oh, I saw you doing this. That's okay, yeah trouble up here.

B

um I, when I looked at this I know just while people were reading, I thought, since in the.

B

Rural and sra and srb districts, where two family duongs are not even permitted that made sense.

B

And conversations recently we talked about the fact that yeah I get it's an existing building.

B

um But you are adding a family you're, bringing human beings into a neighborhood you're, changing.

B

Potentially changing the character quite a bit, that was that's the rationale.

B

um That's the exact same thing as it attached I mean if you have an attache you're bringing in.

C

The same amount of people and the same amount of everything, so it's I don't see how I feel.

C

Like it's apples to apples, we're talking about an existing structure where you're doing in a test.

C

Ad attached adu within the existing structure, without changing it or you have an existing.

C

Accessory building and it's going to be within there and it's even going to be 150 square feet.

C

Smaller than what's going to be attached, so I guess I don't, I see it as being almost less.

C

Intense than the attached ones that we're already allowing okay. Well, I understand your point. It is.

B

Different being detached- and there are there's statutory restrictions on the attach that we can't.

B

Do anything about anyway, but I see the difference by having a family unit at the back of a property.

B

It will be treated differently than inside the house. Conditional use, permit, isn't a big deal.

B

It's not like suggesting it needs a variance or anything so whatever the board wants to do.

I

More just like observational comment on that. I guess if, if I see somebody that I know is not.

I

My neighbor walking into my neighbor's house on a routine basis because they live in the attached.

I

Adu or the one that's already inside the structure, I'd be like okay, that person is presumably safe if.

I

I see somebody walking into a garage that is detached in the back of another property and.

I

I didn't know that it was an adu I'd, be like oh that's kind of odd and that may raise questions.

I

um In either case, you would actually know, because you would have been noticed a lot.

I

Of butter yeah, I guess and butters notice- I I agree either way. I guess.

I

The neighborly observation, more than anything.

K

German, yes, I think I would support. I would support the I would support it simply because it it it's.

K

I'm very I'm still very focused on the purpose of these revisions. Number one just removing barriers.

K

And providing more flexibility to me it it's! um It does just that without studying it even anymore,.

K

I'm all about making this easier for applicants to do and removing as many obstacles as we can.

K

It doesn't necessarily mean that, in my opinion, as speaking now as somebody who's done, a lot of.

B

Planning on neighborhoods like this, it is a more of a neighborhood character change. This.

B

Is my personal opinion um and it's not putting a huge barrier in place? A conditional use permit is.

B

Very easy to get as it is: administrative permit is going to take 30 days from the day to notice.

B

So how long will it take for somebody to get on our agenda not much different time.

B

So what it does is, it gives the neighbors a chance to come to this room and speak.

B

And weigh in and bring up things that don't show up, you know and doesn't it wouldn't the.

B

The alternative is if something does show up, as has happened at least once in the last year.

B

It doesn't have to go to the cba for an appeal which then creates more neighborhood.

B

Animosity than might otherwise be the case, it could be resolved into public hearing so.

B

There's there's arguments both ways I get. I get it.

B

Neighborhood character, that was one of the top topics that came to the landings committee when.

B

People were talked to and I think that's a really important aspect of this, so you know.

B

And I I certainly don't pretend to growth control the council, so they can do what they want to do.

B

You want to come back to that topic. Do you guys want to make a decision on that point right now,.

B

We want to go through the public hearing. What do we yeah anything else? Anything else on this document before we go to the public.

K

Well, will we have an opportunity to discuss it more often, absolutely? Okay, absolutely. I think.

F

If any changes get things that we hear from yeah, okay, I'm going to open the public hearing.

B

Let's see we have two folks here, so I'm not going to turn I'm not going to turn on the.

B

Three minute timer, but try to keep it in that range. If you can understand brevity therapy.

D

A

And I live at 726 middle road. um I just want to say that I I think that the changes that.

A

Have been made to this ordinance have made it an overall, better ordinance than what you develop.

A

Well, not you, but somebody developed in 2017.. um I think that these changes allow adus to coexist.

A

With homes within a neighborhood- and I think that's really important- I've been speaking.

A

About this, since the summer, I've been at all the land use committee meetings and.

A

And I've hoped that that what I've said have brought um kind of a different view. That being.

A

Others that are living in the neighborhood- and you know, I don't think that anything that that you're.

A

Going to do you want to create neighborhood wars over and that's happened in neighborhoods over.

A

Things like dad use, so I think you've got to weigh that evenly with with the rights of the.

A

People that are building the da to use- I'm not opposed to dadus. I think dadus are wonderful. I.

A

Think they serve a purpose for people who want their parents to stay out of assisted living.

A

Facilities for people who have children that can't quite make it or pay the rent for a period of time.

A

um I think that what I've heard in watching your your meetings.

A

um With the planning board, there are very few that are being built for open market rentals, so I'm not.

A

Sure how much is going to change with that? Because I just think it's an expensive, expensive, endeavor.

A

To put out that kind of money and knowing that you're not going to get it back for probably 15.

A

Years um so I don't know that that's going to impact, but I do know that it's going to impact.

A

Neighborhoods and so that's my one issue that remains out of my pages- that I started out with.

A

Last summer, this is it um and that's the lot area. um I I think that the infill that you're.

A

Going to do in neighborhoods is going to be a challenge for people living in those neighborhoods.

A

I may be wrong, but I I don't think I am, um I think, to go from saying that you need twice.

A

The lot space just saying that you need half the lot space is a huge reduction.

A

um It's interesting to me: I don't really think about it. Much where I live on middle.

A

Road, because we have big lots- and you could do this- basically without thinking twice.

A

But when you start to look at neighborhoods closer to downtown they're, not even this isn't even.

A

On their radar, because these are not being built because there's not enough lot size for them to do.

A

This so I think when you start to when it starts to happen, and it will that's why you're you're.

A

Reducing it as much as you are, I think there are going to be people that are not going to be as.

A

Happy about the way that their their neighborhoods are being changed. People buy homes in portsmith.

A

For their neighborhoods for their homes, for their lots and you're, potentially going to make some.

A

Some impact again, it's not going to impact me where I live, because you can already build dad.

A

Use pretty easily because of the lot sizes it's going to impact some of your especially downtown.

A

Neighborhoods so I'd just like you to think about it, I don't know whether you would consider maybe.

A

You know the size of a lot and a half versus going from double to half.

A

um It's just a thought and the other thing I guess I still have a that. I have a question.

A

About that came to me, as you were discussing the lot area, are there still um and I'm not going to.

A

Say this right, I'm sure, but are there still a lot coverage regulations that impact the lot.

A

Size that these are on so there's something about 40 percent or something that sticks in my head.

A

Maybe that's not right, but can. Can you maybe explain so that I understand better and maybe.

A

Others will understand better that I'm hoping that it doesn't mean that if you have a very small lot.

A

And you can put a dadu on it that now you're going to have no area at all. Just two buildings shoved.

A

On you know, with your 10-foot setbacks and you're five feet in between the buildings.

A

Maybe that would would help me better understand that, but I um you know of of all of the things.

A

That you've changed. That's that's the one thing that I still have a problem with, um because I I.

A

Think it's going to impact neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you. You will get some answers in a minute.

L

Good evening petrahuda 280 south street, um I guess I would I had the same questions. I.

L

Just like to follow up on that on uh on your page of uh residential and mixed-use districts,.

L

um If you look at the building coverage for the areas and then you look at the lot.

L

And and sides dwelling units, it was a real question in my mind how you can actually do.

L

That, after you extended so um hopefully you'll have an answer to that question.

L

um The next thing um I guess I would also like to thank all of you who worked on.

L

This I I know, there's been a lot of work done. We started at one side and uh we've.

L

Come down quite a bit and I think uh all the work that was done on this was was excellent.

L

um I do have a couple requests and uh questions that remain, so I guess I'd like to uh see if.

L

These could be addressed uh the first thing. um This is just a wording, but uh I would ask.

L

That, on page one, where you put where you have number five and you have foremost among the.

L

Butters concerns are parking, short-term, rentals, neighborhood character, buffering and separation.

L

I would also like you to put somehow in there um about our notification there and over on the other.

L

Side where you put administrative approval, because I think um people need to know that.

L

They are going to be notified in their their um opportunity. Is there for them to say something.

L

Question on so um it was discussed about um 1.21 and 1.22, so um I understand on 1.21 you're.

L

Looking for an administrative approval and a 1.22 you're looking for a cup, but then I would ask you.

L

To take a look at 10 81461, where it actually says review and approval process when section.

L

10.440 indicates that an attached and detached adu is permitted by administrative approval.

L

So I think I guess that my question is: do we have a conflict in these two here you're already saying.

L

You're saying one thing, then you say another thing, so that would be my question on that. If you settle.

L

That later uh I I hope you would update it. um I'm sorry I'm going to go line by line because that's.

L

How I I looked at this um a number 10.81412113. I would um asked that maybe possibly you could.

L

Combine the wording on that and just have have one a lot of these are are very wordy um a 10.814131.

L

So there are no- and this was something that was added and.

L

Your this goes back to the lot stuff and you're actually saying um you're, not putting.

L

Any additional requirements on this. So when you look at the discussion of the the lot sides and.

L

The coverage here I would ask you to put that put that in your in your mind, also and include that.

L

um On 1081422.

L

um Here I guess I I'm just asking for uh maybe a little uh clarification here either the principal.

L

Dwelling unit x or the accessory dwelling unit shall be occupied by the owner. uh The.

L

Owners shall provide documentation, demonstrating compliance to the provision at a city, satisfaction.

L

Just to point a clarification here, please consider clarifying and taking away the unknown.

L

um Satisfy the city, uh if I was somebody I would be, you know asking what they would.

L

Need uh the only thing I would suggest there: maybe the owner shall provide standard legal.

L

Documentation demonstrating such ownership, slash residency ownership, deed, reticency, utility bill.

L

Driver's license something like that, then there would be no question in your mind.

L

uh Next 10 81432: this is the gross living space that we.

L

We heard about earlier so there's there's a little bit confusion in my mind as to we're saying 750.

L

So how to measure the square feet without counting the areas in here of.

L

um uh Storage, shared entries or other spaces uh that would would not be counted so.

L

If you're counting the 750 inside the wall, but in every dwelling you you, you need these spaces.

L

So how would you actually measure that, if you're not going to go above a footprint of 750.

L

That would be a question that I would ask as a person that would be applying here.

L

Plus the other thing I I guess I would like to for you to keep in mind, is, if you do not.

L

Count these there is a distinct possibility that these could be subsequently converted to living.

L

Space, you know, if you have a big closet or you have a big storage area, could do that too.

L

Thing, I don't know if you have anything to do with this, but it occurred to me that.

L

um Where you're asking uh people for the for adus, they one shall be the main residence and one shall.

L

Be subordinate for ease of identification should it be required or defined in in as an adu or a.

L

Dadu that they have a separate address, such as rear or a or b, that would make it a lot easier.

L

To get mail and probably to identify if the owner is living in which unit and what? What.

L

Address that unit is also, uh I would think, uh even if you had a family living in a an.

L

Accessory unit they would want to get their own mail, something to think about on that one.

L

Okay, I'm back to this one on the gross floor area of the building containing a.

L

Dadu shall be no greater than 1600 square feet in close floor area or 75 percent. So.

L

If you could, please clarify the 750 limit there, because if your bottom floor is.

L

Your footprint is 750 and you could go to 1600. Then that means your top floor would be bigger.

L

Than your bottom floor, I'm understanding it right or I'm still confused about it um number.

L

10.814437 and 438- um these are both new that were put in here. This is great. uh The dadu shall comply.

L

With drainage requirements and the second one, the lighting requirements as defined where uh it's not.

L

In here, and what what kind of reference would I use it says um of this ordinance? That's all it.

L

Says a comment uh that was made from mr hewitt's comments here: the da2 shall be comply with the.

L

Minimum separation requirements. um I agree with what uh council moreau said, but a number.

L

In there would be a lot more clear and simple for somebody looking to uh to read this on their own.

L

uh Number 1081450.

L

um First sentence uh very wordy. My question: would.

L

Be, could you just put in there for all any and all uh adu and dad units.

L

Okay, ten eight one, four five one and five two: uh it looked to me that these were all the same thing.

L

And the description that you had in five two could just be incorporated into five one, and you could.

L

Just uh add the projections such as dormers and the chimneys up in the other other area.

L

Just uh a quick thing: uh the next one we already discussed the tens, uh eight one, four six one.

L

um The conflicts with the front page.

L

Okay, so this one ten eight one, four six one one, um I I would ask that you try.

L

To make this the language in here more more simple for the lay person to read.

L

um What you have is for a period of uh at least 30 days following the date of the application of.

L

The city, the applicant, shall post a notice in the form of a sign that describes the adu and.

L

I'm sure you could can read that my my question is: would you consider putting in there at the date of.

L

Any edu application a butter shall be notified of an impending project by both mentions described.

L

Below a the applicant shall post a clearly visible sign provided by the city on all abudding public.

L

Public ways for 30 days describing the proposed application b, the city will mail the same project.

L

Description to all owners within 100 foot of the applicant's property, just a little bit less wordy.

L

Okay and then the next one, ten eight one, four six one two: uh this is notification uh of the butter.

L

So on this one um I am elated that you're actually going to notify alia butters. My question is:.

L

um When this goes to administrative approval, uh if I am in a butter that hasn't a problem or a.

L

Conflict or or a legitimate concern about, what's going on, the only thing it's said in here was.

L

um You could send your comments to the uh the planning director.

L

So, from my perspective, I would say what happens what what do I do who looks at this? Do I even have.

L

The opportunity to go in front of the public and say um they're they're, my neighbor wants.

L

To put this in this, is these are my problems? I have drainage problems, bam, bam, bam, bam or.

L

Is this just going to um be just be looked at by the planning director at what point in time.

L

um Will this go to a a I guess, public hearing would due process or um something that.

L

Planning board would actually take into their process the only suggestion I would have here.

L

Is if on a butter does have a problem, leave it in the um the administrative approval and have.

L

A dual comment: go to the planning director and the planning board option. Two would be.

L

To if to say, if somebody does have an objection to something that was going to be put in here,.

L

To um that would automatically trigger um a notice to the planning board, just suggestions on that one.

L

um Number eight one, four, two three and two four. I would ask if those could be.

L

Combined you're you're, basically saying the same thing about architectural design.

L

And landscaping and open space and all that all that fun stuff.

L

And the last one uh could we look at combining and saying the same thing in 81471 lots of words.

L

In there um and you're kind of saying the same thing in seven one, seven, two and seven three.

L

Just with different topics, maybe you could put it together and make it a little bit more simple.

L

Those are my comments. Thank you very much.

B

Thank you um peter and nick. Do you have any well, the public hearings still open. You can provide.

B

Responses, if you can keep them relatively short, as short as that yeah okay, that was good petra.

B

um There were a whole bunch yeah. There was a whole bunch, I'm going to go back to liza first uh and.

D

Then do my best petra to get through, at least what I I got as the high point of what you said.

D

And then we'll fill in the blanks uh of what I missed, but I think eliza you raise a really.

D

Good question that you've raised before um as to understanding at a minimum, what's going on.

D

Here in respect to the lot area and the coverage in the open space requirements.

D

So I'm glad you brought it up again, so we have maybe a better opportunity to hone in and give.

D

An answer that hopefully makes sense to you and and people that are watching this. I I so first off.

D

The lot area requirements may or may not be an important to the demand. That's out there to put in.

D

These adus, as jim, had asked, but you still need to be a conforming lot to ask for one of these adus.

D

And it's it's not unimportant to realize that most of urban portsmouth, which is most of these.

D

Districts without the rural or the sra, everything really from the srb inward for the most part.

D

Is wildly non-conforming right? The best plot, the best places in america don't meet any of.

D

The zoning requirements or meet very few everybody most people that don't want to.

D

Have cows want to live in the south end or horses, but the south end, it's very rare to.

D

Find a lot that meets the dimensional controls; in fact, they usually meet. None of them and there's.

D

Typically, 10 from height coverage, open space, setbacks, lot area, minimum lot area per dwelling.

D

Unit the depth of the lot, the frontage of the lot so most of the best places in portsmouth.

D

For most of us are way out of whack with our code requirements even today, which means they.

D

Can't come in and do an adu because they don't even meet the existing code requirements. But.

D

If they happen to scrape into that pot of being able to be a third of an acre in the in the srb.

D

Which means I've got a third of an acre with one house on it, where you'd have five in the.

D

South end on that same piece of land and they're, not all burning down or you know, at each other's.

D

Throats for the most part, uh so you don't have an overcrowding situation with as many as 10.

D

Or 15 units per acre in an urban traditional historic neighborhood, so most lots that that.

D

Are in the city are two to three times higher density than the code requires. None of them can.

D

Benefit from this amendment, they still need to go to the boa, and none of them that do qualify.

D

Can do anything to break any of those dimensional controls which are largely more suburban than.

D

Urban, the setbacks we require, even in the gra, maybe even the b, which are pretty small lots.

D

They still have open space and coverage requirements that are pretty low compared.

D

To the first 350 years of settlement in portsmouth, these older neighborhoods.

D

You can't put an adu in any of those lots and violate any of the existing coverage open space.

D

Setbacks height anything without going to the boa, so I don't think we're opening pandora's box here.

D

To a whole raft of adus applications that are going to come in a lot, less people are going.

D

To qualify for this amendment than maybe is perceived because most of those neighborhoods.

D

That you were articulating, rightfully, would be the most concerned about infill are already way.

D

Over the line doesn't mean they aren't awesome places to live, but we set the line so high in the.

D

50S 60s, 70s and 80s in our code that they can't add things without going to the boa. So hopefully.

D

That the swatch is a little bit the concern. As to you know, a thousand lots are going to.

D

Qualify tomorrow, if this is adopted, I don't think that's the case and the ones that will qualify.

D

Are the ones that can support? Adu is the best, because they're larger lots that are compliant.

D

So part, that's part of, I think your question as well. um So if I just hop to some of your questions.

D

You know apologies on the highlighted version. We have two versions right that went out two.

D

Days ago, the highlighted one and the and the track changes document they are the same except I think.

D

Peter put a box around page one because that's not the code amendment, that's simply an introduction.

D

That's not being adopted that first page is, is not part of. What's going to go in the zoning ordinance.

D

So, apologies, if that wasn't so, you had mentioned something about mention a.

D

Butters or notice, it's kind of an introduction to what we're doing here, rather than what will.

D

Go in the code book is what I'm saying: that's not intuitive. When you pick it.

D

Up you're thinking, wow, that's all part of the adoption process. What these barriers and anyway.

D

Your point is well taken, notice is important, it's been since the beginning of the land use.

D

Committee, we've obviously embedded it in the current version, so uh I think what you.

D

Were suggesting petra has been embedded in the ordinance uh that we're proposing to be adopted.

D

um So that excellent catch on the detached, as well as the attached and and again that's predicated.

D

That's predicated on uh whether this version is recommended by the planning board, as drafted.

D

Tonight or as uh councilor moreau said, uh if you go back to allowing uh existing accessory.

D

Buildings to be converted to detached adus by administrative approval, then that word would stay.

D

In there, but you're right, if we go to conditional use, we need to take it out so that you guys will.

D

Need to these people will need to figure it out tonight and make a decision on that.

D

I I you know I I do think there are probably a few dozen ways to wordsmith this.

D

For a long time to get it absolutely perfect, like things like satisfy the city.

D

So I I'm I I don't want to ignore some, some good suggestions and I'd leave. It.

D

To the board as to whether we need to continue to refine the language, I I think for the most part.

D

uh Your many of your comments- uh it could be better, but it's understandable, even if it's.

D

Not perfect, I'm not saying that is a hedge, uh I'm just throwing it out there and I'm not done.

D

Responding to your comments, because the the gla uh question about how you define it within a within.

D

A structure that might be defined by its square footage of a footprint or its gross floor area.

D

Of the volume and then you've got a gla for the gross living area for the unit. Well, those those.

D

Are those, hopefully, are tangible, uh math math equations that you can use the definitions to.

D

Measure, if you're in a a adu you're, not counting the storage areas and and you're, not counting.

D

The unconditioned space and condition space means generally living spaces conditioned it's. It's got.

D

Electricity, it's got heat, uh you can sleep there, you can it it's not an open, breeze way to outside.

D

It's not a three season. Porch. Can people cheat as we discussed? You know, of course they can some.

D

People can do that every day in their structures for any number of reasons, but they're not going.

D

To be coming in here and it's got to pass the sniff test when it gets the permit and there's.

D

Always an enforcement component, the city can take to make sure you're not exceeding just like your.

D

Ownership or your occupancy requirements and your annual certification, the presumption is.

D

People will do what they get permission to do and not break the law, but if they do then.

D

We have a legal department to deal with that, but condition space is how you measure the living area.

D

um I'm not going to go through every last one here, but the ones I I wrote down.

D

um You asked about the maybe I've answered it, but the issue of the the size of the structure, the the.

D

1600 square feet: you didn't really ask where that came from, but maybe that was in your mind, like I.

D

Think you were asking more about the 75 and the uh and the and the 1600 and how that works. And then.

D

How you work at uh accessory dwelling unit inside that you're using gla, so I might have already.

D

Answered it, but the spirit of the 1600 square foot number for what it's worth uh and I'm probably.

D

Repeating myself from last thursday, is essentially envisioning a two-car garage with a set of stairs.

D

To the right up with a door, a person door, a set of stairs that are four feet wide to take. You.

D

To the upper floor above the garage which does not count as gla uh gross living area, you go up.

D

Those stairs it's usually conditioned space from the front door. All the way up. The stairs you're.

D

On the second floor, that would be generally, your adu in the 1600 would allow you the ability not to.

D

Have a 750 square footprint, which would be almost a three cargo. It would be a three-car garage with.

D

A set of stairs you could do that if you wanted and not have an attic space, that's livable or.

D

You could do what's probably more appropriate in most instances, which is a two-car garage, a smaller.

D

Footprint and be able to go into that attic to get a couple of hundred, maybe a bedrooms up there and.

D

You'd still be within the 1600, and the structure would be no smaller or bigger than that roof being.

D

Trusses, instead of living space, so that that's the idea of the 1600 and the 750 square foot.

D

Maximum for the footprint is, you can pick your poison and shape your building in accordance with.

D

Your needs and your lot size, but not exceed that 1600 or 75 percent of the building you're you're.

D

Assisted with the existing structure, does that so well I'll end there, but hopefully that makes an.

D

Ounce of sense- uh and then um you know, I think we could merge the architectural two sections.

D

There, where it, you know, gets into dormers, but I don't know that that's going to make the ordinance.

D

Any better for for making the amendment, but I hear your point and I accept it- uh the 30-day.

D

Piece, the notice I I think it may make sense to have break that paragraph into a one and a two.

D

uh Given how important it is to people how the administrative approval is going to work.

D

So I think petra was suggesting we we say the applicant has to call in one use the sign and.

D

Put it up on as written and then number two uh uh provide notice to the abutters through the.

D

City, so it's bulleted rather than buried in a paragraph, I think that's a good idea given how.

D

Important that new process is for all of all of us and then uh lastly, on my list at least for now,.

D

The the 30-day business about public comment, the spirit at least as drafted tonight, and.

D

Which does not include as temp drafted tonight and an existing accessory building.

D

It only includes an adu, that's going inside an existing building with no addition or expansion.

D

That is so minor in my mind, of a change to a property that it doesn't demand coming.

D

To the planning board, unless the comments that come in indicate that it does not meet.

D

The findings that would be rendered just like this board by the planning director.

D

The planning director has the right to send it here. So, if you're, if your comments to a project.

D

Next door or you don't like the the siding uh that they're putting on the house clearly that would.

D

Not warrant sending it in my mind to the planning board because aesthetically it's it's, it's not to.

D

Your taste and preferences or someone else's, but if you've got a serious drainage issue or there.

D

There's a erosion issue or some something more substantial. The planning director would then use.

D

His or her best judgment to decide whether that should be moved to the planning board and make.

D

That judgment call but remember, nobody's building anything in this draft. I need to clarify that.

B

That's actually not the way it's worded go ahead, then, if the, if the planning director determines.

B

The drainage requirements of the ordinance which are in the requirements if they're met the flying.

B

Director would grant the permit if there's a dispute with the applicant. They either resolve.

B

It between the two of them, where it gets appealed to the board of adjustment. Yes, the planning.

B

Director does not have the discretion to send an ap here. Only conditional use permits can come here.

D

Results in the same implications to the applicant, it's a public process and it goes before people.

D

That sit at this deus, whether they're the board of appeals, board of adjustment or the planning board.

D

It's just a clear, no it, but no and I wanna it's it's correct, but I want.

D

To make sure it's understood, an appeal to the planning director has brings it into this room.

D

In front of the board of adjustment.

L

My question isn't about the applicant. My question is about, is: is the butter if the butter like we.

L

Saw this this summer has an issue with drainage. um How does that get resolved? How who makes the.

B

Decision, as I just said, it gets resolved at the planning director level under an ap.

B

But there is no administrative approval. There is no public hearing on that. No, unless it's.

B

Appealed, if the, if the butter continues to have a problem, it's exactly as nick said, get appealed to.

B

The board of adjustment appeal from from an administrative decision: it's not a variance.

B

It's an appeal from administrative decision, which means the zba would decide if the ordinance had.

B

Been interpreted correctly and and last point on that, please remember if, if this version is adopted.

D

Nobody's building anything so whatever might have happened that I'm not familiar with this year or.

D

Last, I'm pretty sure somebody was building something when that concern was raised. This.

D

Administrative approval, as drafted tonight, does not allow an applicant to build anything.

D

It has to go inside the existing structure, in other words, existed already yeah yeah yeah, the.

D

Only way you'd have a drainage issue crop up, possibly is if they decided to expand their.

D

Driveway to put in parking which, right now, everybody that qualifies for an adu.

D

Can pave half their lot and still has to without coming through any public process.

D

And they have to demonstrate they're meeting the same drainage requirements today you could make.

D

You a four car, paved parking lot beside your house. If you didn't violate the open space.

D

You could do that with without a building permit and without a public process, so this is actually.

D

A higher bar because of the adu bringing it into at least the planning department.

D

Where people paving driveways today, don't even make it into the planning department. Okay, that.

B

That's not on our agenda, so I mean the the point here. Drainage was just one example, but the the.

L

Thing with the with the an internal edu, if you want to call it that you're still as in a butter.

L

You're still going to feel the the effects of the additional parking, the additional density.

L

And and noise and everything else doesn't matter where you, where your house is located, you're still.

L

In a butter to that and you're, it's still going to have an effect on that and if that a butter.

L

Has a problem, I I'm I'm just looking for what recourse and at one point, who makes a judgment.

L

And does this come into public? That's that's where the board of adjustment, if it's appealed.

L

Instead of the planning yep- okay, thank you. Okay! Thank you. I'm there's! Nobody on zoom yeah.

B

Any other last comments, I'm going to close the public hearing.

B

Board deliberation: I did make a note under 10 8 14 44.

B

Incorporate corey's comment and the other comments about building separation.

B

But I know council moreau has a proposed amendment to.

B

The chart, if that amendment is adopted, then the comment that came from the public doesn't need.

B

To be corrected, if it doesn't get adopted, we need to correct something that came up. It was.

B

Noted from the public, but anything else, so I've identified those three items is there anything.

B

Else the board wishes to discuss before we talk about those three in particular. Take your time.

D

I would do the one too.

D

Remember I'd mentioned that, yes,.

H

That's in section 10.814.611 splitting that up into two different sections, yeah yeah.

E

I guess I have one suggestion: it's not a big deal, but getting back to what mr mohana said.

E

About making this future document very easy to read when it when something references say.

E

Drainage or lighting must meet this ordinance be nice to list the exact number of the ordinance.

E

Told him: okay, here's the reason. It doesn't say that, okay, when you, when you incorporate this, I'm.

B

Going to say, extensive numbering system that we have in our zoning ordinance, which is very.

B

Extensive and, in my opinion, unnecessarily extensive when you incorporate those by.

B

Specific reference you have to change it every single time. You make a change whether you make.

B

A change to that section of the ordinance or you make a change to the reference to that section.

B

Of the ordinance it becomes a consultant's full retirement plan. Okay, if you say this by saying the.

B

Ordinance, you don't have to keep making changes now. It does require people to read the ordinance.

B

We've got an entire staff. That can say we know where to. We know where to look for that, which also.

D

Helps consultants yeah, that's. Why could it help just by saying maybe a certain chapter or just.

E

Just give them close, maybe not exactly but near nearby, it's it's! What this this board is going to.

B

Make a recommendation to council: you guys want to put that in you can put it in it's. um It's I'm not.

B

Going to use the term old school, but that that is a term that could be used well. As long as I.

E

Understand there was thought behind the reason why I was left ordinance like that's why? Okay.

B

And it also cuts down on the number of words that people have to read. Because when you read.

B

Requirement 10.835432a4.

B

Everybody, including this guy presenting the council, has.

B

Made a mistake: referencing sections in this ordinance, so it's prone to error.

D

But I agree with jim and I don't.

F

Know: okay, but it's whatever whoever the board wants to do so, I'm you know, I'm.

B

Sorry, I shouldn't shouldn't, make make a joke of it, but it is kind of funny um other comments.

B

And also, if we, if we make that change, it's several things we have to go through tonight.

H

So I'll just say that I guess I'm okay with either way we write ordinance or if we reference the.

H

Section or not, but I just I did want to say you know I am in favor with councilor moreau.

H

Said change back on the um on the detached adus and existing buildings, and I you know I kind of.

H

Was back and forth on it, but then once we started having the discussion on the drainage, um you know.

H

That is something that definitely comes up a lot and nothing's changing I mean once again, you can.

H

Do all kinds of things um that would adversely affect your drainage um that uh that you don't.

H

Have to get any approvals for, and so I I think I think, that's okay and then also just the fact that.

H

um Yes, it is, it is changing the use of that area, but many other things that you're allowed to do.

H

um You could put in a pickleball court, you could have 10 kids, each kid could have a car. I mean.

H

There's so many other things that could happen in a neighborhood that, quite frankly, would be a.

H

Lot more impactful than than this, where this is an existing building, nothing is changing and honestly.

H

I don't think we're going to see many of them at all either um you know I just thinking back of.

H

What we've seen already come before us? You know, there's just not that many um and I think a lot.

H

Of the people that had existing buildings that wanted to get this done, kind of on their radar.

H

We saw kind of a wave of those come through and there hasn't been much recently as far as that.

H

Goes so I'm, okay with you know going with that that change, but um yeah we'll see how those feel.

B

Any other comments.

B

Yes, jim will, um I guess, while we're on the same topic of council moreau's suggestion on the.

E

um I guess it's one, one, two, two one yeah two, two one I for me, it's just in general. I think two.

E

Occupied structures is a lot different than one occupied structure on a property. It's just the.

E

Mindset used to have one structure with people in it. Now we have two structures of people in it and.

E

To me, that's a big enough difference to warrant are changing the character of the neighborhood.

E

To warrant coming to the planning board and the other, the other factor for me too, is I.

E

Noticed that at least in the rural in the single residence districts, duplexes aren't even allowed.

E

They're just flat out not permitted, so I for consistency, I'm not sure how we can deny a duplex.

E

In these zones, but then allow two structures with people in it. So that's kind of where I'm thinking.

I

I would say I have that curiosity as well, but that.

I

Curiosity can be satisfied if there's a explanation or illustration to it.

C

I'm happy to respond. So um if you remember this is what we're talking about when we're.

C

Talking about an existing accessory building in the 600 square feet was.

C

The garden cottages- that's that's how it got folded into detached adus. We do not allow.

C

um Single-Family neighborhoods, we are trying to keep the character, so we don't allow duplexes a.

C

Duplex would sort of equate to two equal sized buildings, or you know much much larger one.

C

um The uh original model code, if we go back to that, to talk a little bit about the um uh lots.

C

Per your per dwelling unit, that was actually a requirement under the model, especially with.

C

The attached that you, don't you can't consider a single-family neighborhood. You know square foot.

C

Port dwelling unit, it's actually against it, so if you have an accessory building, it's already there.

C

It's already doing something whether it houses a car or it houses your lawn equipment, whatever.

C

The case may be so it might not house people, but it's already doing that. So I look at this.

C

As it's not making a major change that wouldn't be the same change if it was inside the building.

C

So I guess I don't see this as being uh and I I agree. I don't think there's probably a whole lot.

C

More of accessory buildings out there that can be converted that don't need to be expanded or.

C

Changed in some way that would put it under the conditional use permit or it just doesn't meet.

C

The dimensional standards of the ordinance, so I feel like there probably are a few of them, but.

C

The few that might be out there that actually can give you only 600 square feet, keep in mind. It's.

C

Also smaller than what the attached is allowed to be, does that help, I think, there's another.

B

Something that might also help if you look at the bottom of page three on the chart under 1.30.

B

Two family dwellings aren't allowed in the rural sra and srb districts. Another gragrb grc class.

B

If you changed one two, two one so that the first.

B

To use became aps, then that would be more con. I mean. Excuse me the other way. I believe those.

B

And make the rest of them aps. That would be more consistent with the rest of the ordinance.

B

My when I looked at it the first time when I looked this three three districts, r sra.

B

And srb, you can't do it too family dwelling, but you could do a accessory down unit as an.

B

Administrative permit that didn't make sense to me and then it evolved into this version.

B

But there is a middle ground and that could be a middle ground where those first two columns.

C

Just the royal, the royal and sra and rsrb correct I can live with that. I can't guarantee. I can.

C

Sell it to the city council, but I can live with that and all the rest would become permanent ap.

B

The other five would be aps that would be consistent with right at the bottom.

B

Because they're already allowed to have two family dwells right.

B

So you can have more people there, because you know accessory buildings can have.

B

You have stuff in them; they don't have people, that's the difference. Yes corey. I just I'm fine.

H

I think I'll be okay with that as well. I just it's a little ironic. Those are the biggest lots. I know.

C

Right exactly those are the ones that have the biggest space. So why does the ordinance not allow.

B

A two-family dwelling that was my, but you know well yeah. Why why the lot size is so big yeah.

B

That's another topic for later discussion. Exactly thank you for that explanation. Are we ready for a.

C

Motion should we go one at a time or do you gonna try to do a okay, I'm gonna. Do it all at once.

G

Can I just clarify the changes that we've made yep I'm gonna go through motion. Does that help.

C

um I make a motion to recommend to the city council uh the zoning as it sits with the.

C

Following changes in 1.221, we will change the uh gra grb grc to be administrative approvals, both.

C

Of those two sections and also mro cd4l1, cd4l2 and mrb would also have administrative approvals.

C

uh The next change would be to 10.814.44 uh the detached edu shall comply with minimum.

C

Separation requirements of five feet or what is established by building code.

C

Whichever is less right, whichever is greater sorry see, I didn't have that word.

C

um The next amendment would be to 10.814.611.

C

There are two forms of notice, both signage and um the notice to the hundred feet and.

C

We will break that out into two bulleted points so that it's clear.

C

Unless, if I have a second, then is there a second second and then um I don't think.

C

I missed anything else that we talked about, but if I had I'm willing to hear it out now.

B

On 8144 beth on, I think, before I mentioned newly constructed detached one four, four, the separation.

C

Newly constructed yes, yes, you can add that in as well.

C

And you're, I didn't understand right yep. Thank you anything else. I missed.

B

Any discussion on motion.

C

It's been a pretty long road, so it's good eight months. It's good here for sure all those in favor.

B

I suppose passes unanimously. I think everybody thanks everybody really and thank you. It's really.

D

Helped it's a better ordinance. Yes thank you yeah and then come back. Oh all, right.