City of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Planning Board, 30 Aug 2023

Previous Meeting

Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 8.30.2023 Conservation Commission and Planning Board Joint Work Session

Description

8.30.2023 Conservation Commission and Planning Board Joint Work Session

A

Okay good evening, everyone welcome to the august 30th joint meeting of the planning board and.

B

Conservation commission, uh the conservation commission has been working on the portion of.

B

The zoning ordinance dealing with wetlands and I understand kate has a presentation to explain.

B

What the conservation commission has been doing, if you can go through those kate, maybe pause at each.

B

Red line and we can have comment, discussion and advance through it as you go through the document.

C

We have allison want to give this a little about yeah. I just wanted to just make sure.

D

Everyone speaks into the microphones, because, if you don't, no one from home can hear us. Okay,.

E

um My name is allison tanner I've been on the conservation commission for 33 years.

E

um So I'm no longer standing member. In fact, I think I long care longer than peter and a.

E

Lot of other people, but at any rate um we have a sense of frustration because.

E

The wetlands protection is really what we're centered about, and yet we see lots.

E

Of changes happening in the community that we have no jurisdiction over and.

E

um So what we try to do in our efforts is also pay attention to what's happening with the.

E

Climate and see if there were some adjustments that we could make, that would enable us to have.

E

Maybe less flexibility on the part of some of the projects that come in front of us and.

E

So uh that's the place that we started at and we just made a few changes in that regard. Thank you.

F

We're going to kind of do a say a little something, or is that.

G

Introduce ourselves quickly, if you'd like to sure.

G

Father sure um what was suggested just to say something just to give a little background and.

F

Barbara mcmillan I'm the co-chair or the the vice chair, sorry of the conservation commission,.

F

And have been on for a little bit less than allison, probably five or six years less. Maybe.

F

um In a just a little background, I used to work at the department of environmental services on water.

F

Quality education programs and grants for the 319 epa grants and stormwater management and.

F

That's about all I need to say, but just.

B

Just right, uh samantha, collins, uh chair of the conservation commission, my background is.

G

um I have a master's in coastal geomorphology, which is an earth sciences department.

G

um Specifically related to salt marshes and salt marsh restoration, and I was an environmental.

G

Consultant before I started my family a couple years ago, I'm rick tillman, I'm chair of the.

B

Planning board and I'm a licensed engineer in land surveyor land planner. We skip peter.

H

Peter prince of director of planning and sustainability, I've been here 22 years and.

C

Environmental planning and postal zone management as well I'm peter stiths, I'm.

H

The planning manager I've been here six and a half years and stepped to the planning board.

H

And actually, my major in college was environmental studies, some connection.

I

uh I'm trevor mccord, I'm the deputy city attorney.

I

um My degree was in law. I've been here for for four years.

J

My name is andrew simonis. I don't have the title deputy anything. I stopped for a cup of coffee on.

J

The conservation commission for joining the planning board a couple years ago. I have a.

J

Degree in real estate, development, urban design and I work in real estate today and generally have a.

J

Real estate lens on some of these proposals and considerations, so that may differ from.

J

The other side of the table, uh beth moreau, current city, councilor and city council rep.

D

On planning board previous planning board member and like trevor, I have a law degree.

D

I do residential title services for a living, so I do deal with the resident real estate.

D

Side of things, peter harris of planning, board resident of portsmouth for 32 years.

K

Another pointing board for almost three years now and my first term and um met.

K

With the conservation commission at uh when we went to belle isle for that tour and I've had a.

K

Interest and concern about wetlands around the greater portsmouth area and development related.

L

Yeah hi, I I share that sentiment. I'm so glad that we're taking a look at.

L

This thanks for doing the work, um I'm jane bagala. I have a public health degree and an.

L

Mba, I'm retired, I'm just a community member who cares tremendously about the community in which.

L

I grew up, but my undergraduate degree was zoology with a minor in ecology, so.

L

I have a background that understands the science behind some of the stuff.

L

I attended the- I can't remember the name of the conference, but there was a recent conference on.

L

um It was actually saving history against water, whatever rising tides. um I have also been on site.

L

Visits with conservation commission- because this is like my second round of being on the planning.

L

Board and I actually believe that we should be on more site visits, both the planning board and.

L

And you all, because it it's always a learning experience, it always makes the review more.

L

In-Depth so I'm very pro site visits. Thank you very much, though, for doing this work. Yeah hi, my.

A

Name is jim hewitt, I'm a civil engineer and I've been on the planning board for a year and a half.

M

Hi, my name is greg. Mahana I've been in portsmouth for 25 years. Business management background also.

M

A general contractor and a landlord and I've been on the planning board. I've joined with jim.

N

I'm bill bowen, I'm the opposite of allison. I've.

N

Been on the uh this alternate on the planning board for two days.

N

General business background and just a citizen of the city.

O

About a little over a year now so glad to be here, I'm abby gandell I've been on the planning.

P

um You know sorry on the conservation commission for about a year and a half.

P

um My family's lived in portsmouth for 30 years. I've lived in portsmouth for coming on nine and.

P

From early reports, I've been an environmentalist since I was a tiny little girl so um and I've.

P

Taken I majored in english way back when, but I had a lot of zoology classes and since then I've.

P

Taken a lot of science and stuff like that, and I have been living in an environmentally conscious.

P

Life with like no long landscapes and things like that for um for a long time since anyway,.

Q

I'm lynn vaccaro I've been on the commission for about a year. It's super interesting to hear.

Q

These introductions, so thank you for taking time to do that. um I also you know, grew up.

Q

In portsmouth, like jane, my kids go to the same school that I went to elementary school. I have a.

Q

Background in natural resources, I currently work for a new hampshire, fish and game and part of my.

Q

Role is working with communities around great bay, so I've got a little bit of visibility to.

Q

Have some of the other communities handle things like wetland rules which is helpful.

Q

Good, I'm brian gibb, some of you will know me actually probably from the portsmouth page as.

R

I interact with a lot of people there, I'm a retired ceo. I started a group of healthcare.

R

Security companies and I've retired from that I've got an engineering background, an mba. What's.

R

My interest or relevance here I I grew up on a large farm and playing in timbers, and so I have.

R

A great interest in conservation, both in the city and the state, and I own, two 300 acre farms, one in.

R

The midwest and one in texas, so I do have kind of the feet on the ground background on some of this.

B

Thank you very much, so kate share my screen so for a presentation. It's really just sort.

O

Of the line, by line some clarity on what each red line changes within the ordinance that we.

O

Went through and if anyone needs any copies, I have four hard copies left. If anyone needs paper copies.

H

You might want to pull your mic a little closer just. Thank you very much.

O

Okay, great so just for a quick overview of the sort of subjects that we're going over. So we.

O

Know that article 10 is all about environmental protection, um specifically wetland protection, so.

O

We're trying to as allison was saying instill more language around climate impacts and resiliency.

O

Were a bigger change that we're going for which doesn't really have a physical change, but more a.

O

Language change is changing the vegetated buffer area to also saying no cut, which is what it is, but.

O

It's just making it more obvious um we're going to be requiring, hopefully a planting and landscaping.

O

Plan with all applications, which is something that we ask for a lot right now as a stipulation.

O

More language in there around wildlife corridor protections around light, pollutions and noise.

O

Pollutions as well we're going to look at what we already do for a stipulation. A lot is looking for.

O

Mitigations through plantings, if there's going to be any removal of vegetation in the buffer.

O

Or any disturbance and also nofa standards, which is something that we have been putting.

O

In as stipulations for a lot of applications in the last year or two, do you understand what nofa.

O

We can jump into that too, um and you might have to say the the act of the long acronym.

O

For it, too, because I might forget what it stands for, I always get it wrong, but.

O

um So we'll be looking at also the buffer, and so one of the biggest.

O

Changes that we're proposing here today is extending the buffer for further protection.

O

And also looking a little bit into snow storage requirements in the wetland buffer.

O

So the first um big red line- change in here is section 10.1011 number, nine. It's on the first page.

O

So adding sort of that purpose, statement of um to assist in protecting and improving the future.

O

Of portsmouth's resiliency with regard to climate change impacts and maintaining carbon neutrality.

O

We wanted to stop and discuss it. Every any comments, any input, yes growing. I don't think.

M

It's the role of a planning board or the zoning to kind of head towards something. As.

M

Non-Physical as carbon neutrality, I don't think it belongs into selling or in this ordinance.

M

Not very well defined either. Excuse me what was that. Second, it's also not very well defined.

B

Anybody want to pick up on that um andrew had his hand up, but do you you, following up with greg.

D

Suggestion: okay, instead of carbon neutrality, how about supporting portsmouth.

D

um Eco municipality, that's in our master plan right! It's actually one of our policies, yeah.

J

That was going to be along the lines of my comment as well. Just in regards.

J

To the term, maintaining carbon neutrality like we're not covered neutral right now,.

J

So I guess striving for carbon neutrality would be more accurate.

J

At least in this current moment, maybe not future depends so improving the future reports of.

B

Resiliency and striving toward becoming more eco-friendly community, something like that.

B

Well, while adhering to the eco municipality standard, echo municipality, I just think it.

D

Says sort of the same thing, but doesn't you know right? It's not a lightning run correct.

B

This isn't just a planning board discussion, though you guys worked on this, so.

G

So I think you know, one of the reasons we put this in here is.

G

This is just in our our purpose. This is just a very broad overview of the things we would like to.

G

um Impact more with regards to our community and kind of putting it in the purpose is sort.

G

Of a first step, knowing we can't really get into the nitty-gritty with any of this.

G

Further into our regulations, probably at this time, but it gives us kind of a.

G

Jumping off point that this is something that we want to think about going forward.

G

I don't know if you want to try to maintain carbon neutrality and the reason that really comes up is.

E

Because we get a lot of applications where they want to cut down a forest and put in a parking.

E

Lot- and you know that that's literally true and we were looking for something.

E

There is no state enabling legislation at the moment for us to stipulate that people.

E

Put solar carports or something to sort of try to balance out what they're doing.

E

So that was why we put it there and if you feel that the wording supporting portsmouth.

E

This vehicle and municipalities better and it's not less light, lightning rod. That's fine, but I.

E

Just wanted to let you know our purpose when we wrote that what about achieving instead of.

P

Maintaining without being something that you guys, because you said we don't have carbon neutrality.

B

I think if you I've written a lot of regulations and I've got some comments later on, but uh I think.

B

If you typically made the edit that council moreau was suggesting it's inclusive enough to include.

B

What you're trying to do and then, as you get into the body of the ordinance, we should talk about.

B

Tree cutting- and you know trade-offs for that- that's where you really want to hit that hard.

B

If it's a topic that is gonna survive and make it to a final ordnance stage, that's my opinion.

E

Oh I'm good with the wording yeah somebody keeping notes of what we're talking about yeah. I was.

D

Hoping somebody else I'd just like to suggest that, if we're going to change that wording and that.

L

There's a reference there to exactly where that policy can be found. Well, we have under wetlands.

E

Protection, we have for definitions, please refer to article 15, so we could put it into article 15.

B

Everybody good with that.

B

By the way, as we go along, if somebody has something between the red lines raise your hand.

O

Attention of the phrase no cut to wherever you see the word vegetated buffer strip and that's really.

O

Just clarifying the fact that no vegetation removal is allowed in the vegetative buffer.

O

Strip, that's something that was already sort of a rule, but maybe not as obvious.

O

With just the word vegetative buffer strip,.

C

I could add to that that really the vegetative buffer strip is an area.

C

That you're not allowed to cut within. So if we're going to make that change, it was really just to highlight the fact that that's what it means, but we'd have.

C

To change the definition as well to add no cut to the definition, because.

B

In this instance, nocap means all vegetation, no matter brush anything yeah yeah further on in the.

E

Expresses the fact that if you have invasive species that that's.

E

Different that you could potentially go in and removing invasive species.

B

Before we move on just because you said, if we have anything in between on page two.

L

um I it's it's a question that I have you know it's the first bullet under jurisdictional areas.

L

um So if the inland wetland or vernal pool is less than ten thousand square feet, it would.

L

Not be included in these provisions, I I wondered what the vernal pool can be less than ten thousand.

E

Square feet, but we're right: we're talking about an inland wetland, ten thousand feet or greater.

C

So that's where the so it can't be. It can't be smaller than that, and and and what's the rationale.

E

We actually cut it down. I can't remember what it was it was. It was half an acre and the last.

C

Time they went through the ordinance, they dropped it down to basically a quarter acre.

C

um And that's the rationale that the thought is that there is a state regulation that you can't.

C

Fill a wetlands and there's no minimum size on that. So once you get under 10 000 square feet.

C

It kind of falls into the state to watch out for wetlands that are filled, and I think some of the.

C

Thinking is a buffer on a wetland. Smaller than 10 000 square feet would be a pretty massive buffer.

C

Compared to the size of the wetland itself, um so it becomes complicated to protect it. At that point,.

C

I think that was the thinking and yeah and a vertical polish. We don't include.

F

Question because, during our discussions, when we were going over these regulations, there.

F

Was some discussion about having portsmouth have a regulation regarding filling wetlands.

F

In addition to the state's wetland regulation so- and that would be different than what you see here-.

B

Everybody good moving on.

O

So the next one will be in section 10.10 17.20 and it's number 10.. It's the addition of one.

O

Of the application requirements, so we are asking that applicants provide a planting.

O

Plan which will detail the species in the proposed locations of plants that are going to be installed.

O

And so I think this really came about with a lot of conditions and stipulations in the.

O

Last few years, asking for these plans and also staff, has been asking ahead of time.

O

That applicants come in with these right go as a better idea of what's going in and what's gonna.

O

Help to mitigate their application for disturbance.

J

And procedural question: when you have that, and you have a new planting plan, that is substantive.

J

Enough to be incorporated right into like a newer development. Obviously maybe, if the bigger.

J

Size would it be helpful to have a drainage plan for that as well, or are those typically.

J

Combined or included, we usually discuss that. I mean that is part of the plan that comes in.

E

Front of us that we have to decide, you know: how are they, what how are they handling the drainage.

E

On this property and a lot of times, there is no drainage handling at the present, and so the.

E

Person, that's developing. The property is going to add drainage to improve the buffer of the wetland.

E

Whatever so that is part of what needs to come in front of us.

E

um Regard that, regarding the detailed planting plan, one of the other things that there's been.

E

A lot of uh literature put out regarding lawns and the fact that they're really valueless and.

E

They don't support a biodiversity of species, and so we would like people to get out of the.

E

Habit of just putting back lawn when they do things, so we would like to see a planting plan.

B

How big were you thinking how the large an area- let's say a homeowner, wants to do something that.

B

Encourages in the buffer as we get applications like that, all the time, as you well know,.

B

um The entire property, the area is there a limit to the area. The planting plan we're.

E

Very wishy-washy on that I mean we. We try to look at each plan individually and suggest. You know.

E

Blueberry bushes, one every five feet or something like that. You know, but it really depends on the.

E

Plan that we're looking at we're trying to get them to put in native species that will benefit.

E

Wildlife we're trying to get them to put in maybe a wildflower meadow. Instead of planting a lawn, we.

E

Don't specify, but we understand that people like lawns and that they want them. We just would like.

E

Them not to be as extensive as they are on some of these properties, and so that's and again we.

E

Don't have any anything concrete that we can stand on peter. I was just going to say from a mechanics.

C

Standpoint, I think one of the thoughts is also that it often comes up as their their conservation.

C

Christians are viewing an application that there's an impact because of the project they're doing.

C

But there's they haven't really thought about that. The commission might want them to offset.

C

That impact, so this kind of gets them thinking about it when they put the application in what.

C

Does this mean a planting plan? Why am I doing that and so a lot of times the reason they want.

C

A planting plan is to offset the impact from the development, so it's really a placeholder at the.

C

Beginning they might, they might get more detail by asking staff or when they come to the meeting.

C

They'll at least be aware the commission's looking for that and know about it, but um we.

C

Don't have any, I don't think any hard and fast came out of our discussion on what it should be.

B

So is it, would it be fair to say, you're thinking of the areas that are proposed to be impacted and.

B

Possibly areas that have previously been impacted would that be inclusive enough to correct in terms.

G

Of area or a location of planting well in the area that would then be subject to a planning point.

G

Because I think typically, we also try to get the plantings to be. You know, as.

G

Close to the wetland as possible, even if that's not where we would hope you.

G

Know the more impervious service is going or the alteration of train is going, but that's.

G

Where they, we kind of get the best bank or buck in planting them there, if possible,.

E

Yeah plants are much better at um absorbing things that we don't want to go into the wetland.

E

Than lawn, or if they, if they put it on the other side of their house versus closer to the wetlands,.

E

So that's why we try to concentrate in the buffer closer to the wetland putting some plants in there.

F

With applications and maybe have a consultant working with them and they'll say you know.

F

We're going to offset some of our impacts by doing plantings in the buffer and then.

F

They'll also mention that they're going to do plantings in other parts of the property.

F

Not in the buffer- and so you know, we haven't discussed this to figure out in detail what.

F

We want, but for somebody saying we're going to offset our impacts, we want to know what they're.

F

Planning there too, so it's not just the buffer, I'm just trying to think in terms of preparing.

B

An application to for submission: how does the and how do staff find guidance to tell the applicant.

B

What to do? That's that's what I'm struggling with yeah. I mean I like the idea, and I.

B

Like the idea that you're not calling it a landscape plan which sounds more like uh lawn.

Q

If we could like specify that it's you know, it's a planting plan for the buffer area and.

Q

Any additional upland areas that are sort of considered mitigation for the impact.

Q

um You know so, for example, like the portsmouth high school, where they're putting in the tennis courts right and cutting down a lot of trees. They promised to plant x number of trees across the entire. You know high school grounds.

Q

um So that case, where like they, would zoom out a little bit in their planting plant in order.

Q

To mitigate further impacts in the buffer- and I think we want to enable that, but maybe that's.

Q

A little more clear: well, I think one of the things that we don't want to talk about, though, is.

E

Mitigating because we don't want people to think that they can do things in the buffer and then all.

E

I have to do is just put some plants in an area and they'll be good, because we really don't want.

E

Things happening in the buffer at all, but if they, if you know a plan, comes up and they like my own.

E

Property I want to put a a garage up over a place. That's already impacted it's impervious and so.

E

I'm gonna plant, I'm gonna rip up all the pavement, I'm going to plant right up to the edge of where.

E

The the drainage is for the driveway, and so it's that kind of thing that we're looking for and so.

E

You know we're able to talk to the people when they're doing the plan.

E

Because it really is individual, I don't think there's a blanket statement that we can say.

E

Because every plan is so different, every piece of property is different. Well, there's there has.

B

To be discretion for sure, I'm just thinking um so it'd be the areas that would be impacted within.

B

Any areas that are proposed to enhance function of the property, yes, would that cover it yeah.

L

And before you progress, I I I'm sorry, but I just wanted to go back because I did have a question.

L

About the effective date of this ordinance, which is mentioned under permitted, uses the previous.

L

Page so it's 10. 10 16 and it's the number four and it's talking about additions and extensions.

L

To one or two family dwellings that existed prior to the effective date of this ordinance- and I is.

L

It january 1st 1970 or what is the effect of the data I couldn't find it anywhere. uh The wetland.

C

Ordinance started in 1995.. I also saw that that date was there. Okay, um it's later in the document.

E

So rick you're suggesting we put provide a planting plan detailing species and proposed.

E

Location to enhance buffer functions, I think a plan of proposed locations of the impact.

B

And areas proposed to enhance function on the property, okay,.

B

This this come. I've got some comments about the later sections about.

B

How these applications, by what measure they are evaluated for approval? I think this ties into that.

B

Anything else on that or before we get to the next red line.

O

Based on wildlife and habitat protection, so it's section 10.1017.27.

O

And it states we're feasible, the application shall include wildlife corridors and habitat.

O

Protection measures, including, but not limited to curb cuts, slant edge, curbing amphibian tunnels.

O

And space under fences to permit wildlife passage and the use of bird-friendly windows.

D

I'm a little stupid. What's a bird friendly window, it's a window that either has a decal.

E

In it or it's a special type of glass so that the birds see it and they know that it's glass.

E

And they don't run into it, so we're allowing our buildings to get higher and we do have.

E

You know birds, migrating and so to stop that from happening. It would be great if.

E

Developers looked at using either decals or some sort of glass that is visible to birds.

K

It's pretty minor, but it's just something that caught my eye because of when you say slain.

A

Edge carving, do you mean sloped curving? Yes, it's just in the business. It's often called sloped, so.

A

Might be a term you may want to think about using instead of slant, edge.

B

It should just just be required, or just should be, where feasible, because if.

B

Who's who's determining where it's feasible.

E

At this point, it's usually the developer that determines whether it's feasible or not.

E

You know not to our liking, but I mean because the other way to do it is to require it. But.

B

Then provide relief if there are certain conditions that are demonstrated so, okay, so.

B

Well, I'm just the applications out. It's too easy. It's too easy, not feasible.

E

Right, yeah, no, absolutely we hear that a lot with uh course pavers or permeable surfaces.

E

That can't do it there, water table is too high whatever, um so it cut out worse, feasible and.

E

Just put the application shall include well, you know I'm curious. I bet the board has lots.

B

Of thoughts about this one beth, then then jim, I think, do you guys to deal with the wear feasible.

D

Section I say yes take that out, but maybe the application shall include as necessary.

D

And then that way, if it's found to be a necessity, it's not just because it's.

D

Feasible and then I think it gives us a little bit more teeth, but maybe legal might not think that.

B

You could say in the discretion of the board, you know, depending on the application, the.

B

Board may require you could do that as well. I just think it's better than where feasible.

J

Because we can't require bird-friendly windows if they don't conform with htc.

S

I think well, it's the glass alone. Yes and barrier acuity cost s not only to replace the htc district.

K

You need your marvin new character, greg greg had his hand up. Look we take out the word feasible.

M

I don't know how you're gonna have a gate for this thing. I don't know how you're going to.

M

Have a gate for this thing, but I also think it's you know. Anybody's gonna find us an overreaching.

M

Financial burden, you know, having a custom made window to meet htc requirements by vermont.

M

Window that has bird proof glasses going to take that 800 window and make it 1200 bucks.

M

The next thing is not really taking into account the boom in household pets over.

M

Covid, the last three years. Pets have probably tripled, and if you want to raise the fence.

M

That somebody put in to protect fluffy from a fisher cat. You just killed fluffy.

M

Foreign, you put a fence to the ground to keep out wildlife from your household pets and, if you're.

M

Approved to have that fence in your backyard and a fisher cat runs onto the fence which that's where.

M

They live and they eat the dog. I you know, I don't think it adequately takes into account the full.

M

Scope of residence and the boom in household pets over the last three years as a landlord, I rarely.

M

Get an application that doesn't have a pet which is kind of a problem, and I've been a landlord for.

M

30 years- and it's not been this way forever well, I think we also have the issue of a lot of people.

M

That have their emotional support, critters that are probably in their backyard, and they want to.

M

Protect them from the other critters on the other side of the fence, so having a fence six inches.

M

Above the ground doesn't solve the problem. Well, I think that's where what councilor moreau said.

E

Would help us with this in that I'm not quite sure how you phrased it it well, it either could be to.

D

The discretion of the board, as the chairman said, or we could say that it's as necessary.

D

Right, so if the necessity is to keep wild animal out of the yard, then you don't do it right, but.

D

Corridor then it might be. A small tiger takes all the teeth out of the audience. I I really do.

M

Like the idea of not impacting or cutting across a wildlife corridor, you know like deer paths and.

M

Stuff like that, I think you're on the right track. I I really do, but I just think it kind of went.

M

45 degrees off of the intent.

E

Well, I think that if we put councilor moreau's wording that that would.

E

Give the or the leeway to make a judgment call, and the thing is that there are a lot of developments.

E

That have gone in that are in areas where there's a lot of wildlife, and we would rather not.

E

Have them section off everybody's yard, because this is these? Are wildlife corridors.

E

That they're building in and so what can we do, as as a conservation commission to.

E

Help protect that that's what we're looking to do. So, if you have any other suggestions.

E

And there there are, I can, you know, rattle off a few of them actually in my head, where.

E

People are building in what we're wildlife corridors and how damaging fences can be.

B

What was councilor monroe's wording? I said as necessary.

D

You added at board discretion could go either way. I think the key is to.

B

Provide some flexibility because when you say shall that's mandatory, correct counselor.

C

Yes, I mean one way to address: it, maybe is to break it out into different sections. Then you can have.

C

In order to bullet it, I think just giving the list of things and then as necessary.

C

As necessary or as a necessary remember, the board, both those things.

C

Is there if the intent is to protect wildlife corridors? Is there some objective way to determine.

I

If there's a wildlife corridor present, that is sorry to protect, I mean: how do you determine at.

E

The um at the properties, generally, you can see animal scat things like that. You can. You can see.

E

Where there's a corridor, that's not man-made! That, like deer, have been traversing through for a long.

E

Time we've had um west environmental provided us with a pool of study, a.

E

Public undeveloped land study, which told us that there were wildlife corridors in certain areas so.

E

There are a lot of different ways that we could tell that. But when you have a large area of over.

E

40 acres in the city of portsmouth, it's forested, there's wildlife using that area and they're using.

E

It as a corridor to get from point a to point b, wherever there else, there's not disturbed land.

E

And so now we have developments in those areas, so we just are trying to [music] um keep portsmouth.

E

Friend, wildlife, friendly as possible so backing up and following up on trevor's or questions, should.

B

They have should the application requirements include identification of wildlife corridors.

B

For significant wildlife corridors, or it sounds like it's well documented enough.

B

Fish and game have any help with yeah there's definitely maps of like priority wildlife.

Q

Corridors, I'm not sure it would pick up on these, maybe smaller yeah, but maybe the pool of study is.

Q

The thing that we could point to, but that's public undeveloped, land, there's private land right. It's.

C

A tough tough, be a tough requirement to put on everyone. The problem with a lot of these, like a.

C

Lot of projects needed a lot of projects, don't need it. I guess that's. The trick is splitting.

C

That up so there's not a map that somebody could refer to to I mean I know from just going out on.

B

Woodland areas you can see where the deer have been going through and things like that, but.

B

um A regional movement like a regional game trail, that's the kind of thing I think you're.

B

Thinking of right well, in addition to amphibians, using the area of the upland area to get out of.

F

The wetland and it's a breed or lay their eggs, so there's a lot of that too, where.

F

Sort of where the fencing came in with the turtles there's been a lot of work. Statewide.

C

On doing my life, like lynn, was referring to, but at the individual homeowner or develop.

C

You know commercial development scale. It might be tough to find that data for each property.

C

I mean there could be an instance where you require it or something like that. I don't know.

E

So this is where we, we can't really differentiate between.

E

um Someone that's putting in a development of 50 houses and somebody, that's you know putting.

E

A garage up in their backyard, but there obviously is a difference, and so it's the people that are.

E

Putting in 50 homes or whatever that we need to have look at this thing, and so, rather than.

E

Specifying that the individual homeowner should do this, they have a large enough piece of property.

E

Maybe they should but um we're trying to, but I do it the best way we can- and I don't know.

E

How else to approach it? I have a suggestion, I mean in our other ordinances, we define the size.

M

Of the parcel- and so when you look at a half an acre lot, this would be a problem. But if you look.

M

At a 40 acre development, just like she mentioned, which and then you know- and I know where those 50.

M

Houses are and yeah that's in the woods that might have been a good requirement. I'm with you on that.

M

But the way it's written it, it goes down to this level, where I think your intent is really at this.

M

Level and at this level it could work, but at this level it's going to cause trouble. I think that's.

M

um Can you give me a chair? We have some things that apply on on, like our zoning large parcels.

M

We have definitions of large parcels and where other triggers come in, if well,.

B

There's there's differences between single family, residential development, multi-family residential.

B

Commercial development- and you know the tiers of proposal- get different levels of review.

B

I'm with you on the idea and with the commission on the idea of this. I wonder if you.

B

If, for now, we should go through the other, some of the other comments and come back to.

B

This one- and you know think about maybe how we massage this a little bit just as a suggestion.

S

I think there'll be some more as we as we go like the next one that says we're feasible.

O

Below that one about um bull light and noise pollution should be reduced.

O

Includes temporary construction noises such as from blasting.

B

Or the rock hammer that's been behind me for the last two months.

B

Sorry any comments on this one, yes greg. I believe the city already has.

M

Restrictions for hours of when you can rock hammer and blast I mean there was.

M

A development right next to my own home and they were restricted to the hours.

M

And the days that they could do everything it's exactly seven yeah yeah. So I this is.

M

Overly broad, if they want to restrict it different than what the current building rules are.

M

We have to quantify it well, this wording what you can say this is more of a goal. It's like.

B

It's to be encouraged light and noise reduction of noise and light pollution are to be encouraged.

B

As a design measure, you could say that okay.

B

Yeah anything else before kate moves on.

O

So on the next page, section 10.1017.46.

O

It's an additional criteria for how the application will be assessed for approval, and it.

O

States other property constraints, such as setbacks, view corridors utilities, easements etc are not.

O

Justification for needing to cite a project or portion of a project within the wetland buffer.

A

Chair, yes, all right, um I think this could be the most contentious change in the ordinance. I see.

A

Applicants really pushing the limits on this new requirement, so I'd only suggest that legal review.

A

This carefully and make sure it's as airtight as possible, if that's the right terminology.

B

Once we have something for them, we've said it's good to go. Yes, council, [, __, ],.

D

I guess my issue is the wording of this. What is the overall intent because needing to cite.

D

A project is not in me in my mind, I'm not, it doesn't mean, I think what you think you mean.

E

Well, what happens is that people need to build in the buffer because they're sight.

E

Lines or there are other things that they need to take into consideration with their project and.

E

To us, we need to make your project smaller if you want to be able to fit your project on this piece.

E

Of property, and so we're telling them that you, I know you have these other constraints.

E

Put that all into a ball of wax, and you can't do what you're intending to do on this piece.

E

Of property and that's what we're trying to get across the hospital edition being the most recent.

J

Of this, basically, they had a utility easement concern, as well as setbacks, concern aqua along.

J

They're, man-made and you know with the hospital it's like throw up your hands. It never should.

E

Have been built where it is in the first place, but that's right now, but at any rate it. This is.

E

What we're looking for! We want to tell them right up front that don't come to us and tell us that.

E

You you have to build in the wetland because you have a sitecore, a view court or whatever. It is.

E

Not to say that we can't consider it, but the thing is that it's really not.

E

You can be part of our consideration right, so really you want to. I just think it needs to be.

D

Rewarded to the point of that these items, and I'm trying to do this off the cuff, these items are not.

D

Justification for building uh actual structure, because these are all going to be some they're.

D

Building something right, so I'm thinking for structural improvements or structure well, they're.

H

Maybe not to create an impact on the buffer yeah, something like that. I just think that there's.

D

Easier way to word this, so it would just come out a little bit clearer so that any lead person that.

D

Reads: it's going to understand what you're looking for well, we would have to take out, etc that that's.

B

Not a good word to happen um or yeah or like items does anyone know other things that would.

G

What are we missing yeah? What has happened before you? That has setbacks? Few quarters utility.

D

Easements man, I support the utilities, easements and the setbacks, but I think view corridor is.

M

Covered under the economic condition, you know economic considerations, in other words, view.

M

Corridor is is something that you established to raise the value of your property and the uh make.

M

It more valuable make it more preferable and well, I understand we're not going to allow somebody to.

M

Build something in a setback just so they can see something right. This board here. Is that, because.

E

You have to maintain a view. Corridor doesn't mean that you can approach on a wetland to do so.

E

You can maintain the view coorder and you can make your building a little smaller, so that you're not.

E

Encroaching on the on the wetland buffer, that's I agree with you. I just think it could be worded.

M

Better, yes, this is the intent, let's say, you're, building something, whether it's a house or an.

B

Apartment building and there's a potential for a view out across a buffer. That's got a forest on it.

B

And you don't want those trees to be cut. Is that that one of the things you don't want to have happen? That's part of it. Yes,.

B

I'm just I think, the the another project that came before us that still kind of contentious.

G

Is the one on the richie lumber property and I feel, like all three of these things were in play.

G

For that one, including several view, corridors from some of those streets- um and that was one where.

G

You know the the when discussing the project, we can't you know, we can't put it here. We can't put.

G

It here we can't put it here because of setbacks, view corridors utility, easements and yet you know.

G

They we just wanted them to make it smaller so that they were encroaching less in the wetland.

G

We weren't saying that those you know you should go back and try to get. um You know, concessions for.

G

Those it was just make it smaller. So that's that's another project that this has come from for us.

G

One quick, quick thing: we don't talk about specific applications, especially one that's still pending.

S

But I get your points. I get your point completely. Yeah. Yes, beth. I've done it, quick rewrite property.

D

Constraints such as setbacks, view quarters easements, do not justify wetland encroachments.

D

Or wetland buffer encouragements, I guess, is really what we're talking about.

D

What do you think I like? It is a view: corridor quantifiable.

B

Well, with the explanation we just had, we've got some in our regulations.

D

There are easements, sometimes that are on dover, street or uh mcdonough yeah yeah. Certainly.

J

Setbacks and utility easements are quantifiable and have a boundary view. Corridors also have.

J

A boundary, therefore, they would fall under a constrained umbrella. I mean I'm guessing. They.

G

Do they were on plans? Well, you mentioned the view. Quarter. That's existed about in our regulations. I.

B

Was talking about one that I want to create because I wanted, I don't think that's what.

G

We were talking about yeah, no, but I think that that's, but it could be something we would like.

E

To include here, we would like to protect trees on the buffer and so there's other language further.

E

On in this, that talks about uh trees that are greater than six inches at rest,.

B

Should we use your language for now and maybe come back to us if we need to.

D

Ability not to take it out but include all easements, because there might be.

D

Other easements on property that would prevent someone from being able to build in an easement.

D

Like a right-of-way for someone to get to another property or whatnot, so I just think taking out.

D

Other because I just think others, never a good word um property constraints such as setbacks,.

D

If you want view quarters easements, they do not justify wetland buffer encroachments, I think, is.

D

Just the most straightforward way to to read it, but that's just my opinion, which leads us.

B

Right into the next section, which I have some big issues with: oh the next few changes and additions.

O

Are all in the criteria for approval section, so this first one is 10.10 17.50 and it's number.

O

Four, it's an addition, so it now reads alteration of the national vegetative state, where managed.

O

Woodland will occur only to the extent necessary to achieve construction goals. This square footage.

O

Removed of natural, vegeta, vegetation or managed woodland will be replanted with similar or more.

O

Diverse ground cover maintained lawn is not an acceptable ground cover, shrub and or trees.

O

As was existing within the same distance from the wetland that vegetation was removed, where possible.

D

It's a lot of words greg.

M

um Having built in massachusetts on an island next to a pond, they have some really creative.

M

Ways of dealing with what you're trying to say here and one of those is instead of going down.

M

The line of saying maintain a loan is not acceptable ground cover. They allow you to.

M

Put something that they call a meadow but you're allowed to cut it x number of times a year which.

M

Is much it's aesthetic, it solves a lot of your concerns and it's a lot more palatable.

M

Than kind of pigeonholing that the way you the way it currently is, that's that's my.

M

First, one, the massachusetts meadow yeah: try building an edgar town on a pond on the ocean.

P

I have an issue with that, though anytime, you mow a meadow you, um especially if you're doing.

P

It a couple of times a season. You should not um anyway, you're killing you're killing your.

P

Ecosystem, you basically have a longer lawn. um You actually shouldn't be ever mowing a meadow.

P

uh If you want it to sustain it as an ecological um entity, um so anyway, that my two cents there so.

P

If you allow mowing no more metal, it doesn't stay, a meadow, it gets trees in it and it gets invasive.

M

Species in it, so if you don't matter, you get saplings which become trees. It's no longer.

M

A meadow: well, you can take out the saplings individually and you can take out the shrubs.

M

Not cost effectively, so no, then you define what size sapling you're going to cut. Okay, there's.

B

A question about mowing: there's a question about mowing and maybe changing lawn to meadow. What else.

B

Yes, that's square footage. Equal is that is that even it might not be feasible in every case.

D

So I guess I have a problem with putting yeah well, the thing is that that only necessary to.

E

Achieve construction goals is so broad that we wanted to put some sort of limit on it.

E

Because they may decide that they need to take down every tree on the property, which is obviously.

E

Happening in order to achieve their construction goals isn't that a site plan consideration.

J

And is there a, I got a question on that? Yes, it is in part of cycling. Is there other regulations.

M

Above the city that, for example, you can't cut trees in a shoreline setback. You know.

M

Particular you know my experiences in maine. You just can't touch anything.

M

Yeah there's different distances and there's protection for trees in a shoreline. A state.

C

Shoreline buffer, not quite as extreme as no cutting, but you have to balance it and that's.

C

That would apply in a in a title: buffer, okay, but in a fresh water buffer that wouldn't.

M

Necessarily, it wouldn't apply: okay, not from a not from a shoreland perspective. Okay, unless.

S

It's a really big pond. We don't have any of those. Okay um are all title from that point.

B

So the intent, I think and keep in mind this is one of my concerns. This came.

B

Up at the meeting we had last june, as you remember, the municipal association.

B

This list, if you look at the very first language under 10, 10 17 5-0,.

B

The planning board has to find that the proposal complies with all of them. It's a shall comply.

B

It's not discretionary, which is something I I've mentioned.

B

Several times to this board, I want to bring up again tonight, so we need to be.

B

If it's a, if it's part of a shell comply list, there's no discretion.

B

So if we want to have some discretion, we need to word it differently or put it in a different place.

S

Can it's over intensification of a piece of property that there's there's an allowed use.

E

But it's pushed to what we consider to be an unreasonable limit and there's really no.

E

Nothing that we can stand on that tells us that we can fall back on and say, hey.

E

No that's outside the the reasonable limits for the project that you're suggesting and.

E

So that's where it comes into play that it we just say that this is too large for the.

E

Property, but we don't have anything to back us up. You know what I mean. I do know what you mean.

B

My my issue, my big issue with this: these criteria, even before the edits.

B

They apply to the entire city of portsmouth and if you look at the entire city of portsmouth things.

B

Vary dramatically, we have areas and you've seen applications where we've seen properties that.

B

Are horribly impacted by dirty past uses that need to get cleaned up, and that is often used.

B

As a rationale for impacts to the wetlands buffer and other things, cleaning up a really dirty site.

B

Is a good thing in my world and putting that on the back of a developer is an even better thing.

B

I think that that helps- and I know applications have been approved with that understanding. That's.

B

Not what this says should it say that you know I think there should we should treat the forested.

B

Project, let's say the 40 acre site that you mentioned earlier- that has some wetlands that.

B

Has maybe it has a vernal pool in the corner? It's got some really interesting things and.

B

It's got a med, have a wildlife corridor going through it that it should be treated differently.

B

Probably than something that used to be a dry cleaning establishment, you know or something.

B

Like that which we know aren't isn't one of the cleaner uses. Historically, um it's a bigger.

B

It's a bigger reach, bigger, lift, heavier lift if you will, if there's.

B

Idea that people would like to talk about that, I would be happy to work with trevor to come.

B

Up with something to address that, because I think I've seen it with uh some of my clients.

B

Property, I don't do applications in portsmouth, but I have done boundary work in portsmouth and.

B

The other thing that sometimes happens is buffers coming behind buildings that are already existing.

B

So you may have say the north mill pond with a condominium project, but the 100 foot buffer.

B

Comes six feet behind that building should that be treated the same way as.

B

Open you know the entire 100 feet being open. Probably not. I don't think it's more.

B

Complicated yeah, so that's how it's so discretionary! It's very.

B

That's not the way this is worded, though so we're talking about number. Four, specifically, are you.

E

Saying the entire criteria for approval all of 10 10 1750 are shells in to do things properly.

B

According to this ordinance, you have to the lord has to make findings that are in concert.

B

With all of these, and the preceding thing that we just talked about are those those are the.

B

Possible conditions and other criteria by which to judge them.

B

So the bigger question, in my mind, is: should we be.

B

Should this ordinance should the section of the ordinance address the different conditions, because.

B

As as an engineer, somebody who writes regulations that has troubled me to see applications that have.

B

Merit and they're doing a good thing, but they don't conform to this ordinance that that's.

B

A bad fit in my mind, and it should be allowed. We had one just recently and I I mentioned it to the.

B

Planning board, as we were talking about it- and I won't mention it again, because it's an application.

B

Are we allowed to speak with past approved applications as they relate to this? If it's been.

B

Long enough that it's not an appeal and sure it's under construction, okay, sagamore! um You know there.

M

Was a wetland on the other side of the street and the site was within 100 feet, but there was a road.

M

In the middle, and if you tried to apply some of these restrictions in the buffer, which is on the.

M

Other side of the road, which is where the stuff's being built, it's a good project at to your point.

M

And the wetlands on the other side of the street- and you really wouldn't be helping on this side.

Q

Underneath the road to get to that wetland area, you know, so there is a water connection.

Q

Through that culvert that went under the road I mean you could argue that there's.

M

But the standing wetland was on the other side and that that's one of the developments that.

E

Has taken down every single tree and there were very sizable trees on that piece of.

E

Property, it looks devastated, yeah and we go buy it, and the thing is that if there.

E

Was a way that we could at least protected some trees, it looks devastating, but they.

M

Also got rid of all the dead cars and all the garbage that was there for the last 50 years.

B

Well, I yes beth! If we're going to change the criteria for approval in any way, significant.

D

That has been suggested here. I think that we need to put that any proposed development other than.

D

Installation of utilities within a right-of-way shall comply with as many um criteria as possible.

D

I think we need to change that so that it does give us that flexibility, because it's starting.

D

To get to the point that you know all every single one of these things would not even be possible on.

D

Some of the projects that would be one way that that's one way to do it, the other one I I have.

B

Suggested previously, you could add a criteria that provided nevertheless, if the planning board finds.

B

Significant environmental uh enhancement, by virtue of the nature of the project, then it can waive all.

B

Or any of the above, that would give the discretion that we, the board, has actually been using.

B

I don't know if it's too fraud, you know it's good. I think it's good to have direction for applicants.

B

And not have it completely, especially where it's a conditional use permit where this this goes.

B

The only avenue for appeal is court or if it's housing, project housing appeals board. So it's.

E

Well, since you talked about the fact that developed property and undeveloped property.

H

Are two different things? Maybe we have restate that somewhere.

B

Well, that's what I was saying. I mean it wouldn't be too hard to rewrite this section pretty quickly.

B

I mean I've. I've volunteer to do that and give it to trevor for review. Mr chair, we.

I

I've actually been talking over the past couple days with with peter about you know these. These.

I

Edits, I think legal has some different thoughts on how this might. I have some different thoughts.

I

About how this might be restructured as well, I read your memo uh that you wrote a couple years.

I

Ago about this section of the ordinance, I think we have some thoughts about how this might be.

I

Restructured in such a way that it's clear, more clear to applicants, people in the city of fort.

I

Smith and and provides more um understandable, you know people can understand what to expect. I guess.

I

When they're, when they're applying and how to work through it, I think we have some thoughts and we'd.

I

Be happy to work through it and you know, take in all synthesize all the thoughts that have been.

I

That will be and have been espoused here today. So, given that and since you've been a part of.

B

That conversation, would it make sense to take this particular 10 1750 section and convene a separate.

B

Discussion and come back, he says we ought to have more joint meetings. It really should I.

C

Mean I guess I guess that would be fine. I guess my concern is that trying to divide up the city.

C

Into areas that could have impact in areas that couldn't have impacted or divide up a wetland, you.

C

Know kind of score a wetland and decide it can have impact or it can't have impact. I think part.

C

Of the benefit of having that discretion is that you can treat each project on its merits.

C

That's in front of you, instead of putting it into a box in advance, which you know over time, we know.

C

How quickly wetlands change that might not apply, and if we don't keep that updated, that grading is.

B

Completely with you on that discretion, and not trying to I'm not talking about a score sheet.

B

Yeah, no, that would be wrong. Okay, so I think I think I think we're on the same page, yeah.

E

Well, I just have to say that I was around when we wrote the uh wetland ordinance and it has changed.

E

Over time but minimally um we received a lot of pushback on having an ordinance at all and.

E

um You know we were shooting for 125 feet of protection and uh other.

E

Opposition was suggesting, maybe 75, and we you know compromised on 100 and I'm just I just want.

E

Something that we're going to be able to get past the council and that's actually going to.

E

Do what we want, which is to protect the environment as much as possible? So if you.

E

Think that you know the three of you could get together and put something that's better than this.

E

In front of us fine, but it just, I just have to tell you how hard it was to just even get this by.

B

Appreciate that, because this is a conversation, I've been having for years myself, so I.

B

Understand but I'm I'm encouraged by the possibility.

B

So if you want to explain the the other three, I think it is sections or should we bundle.

B

The whole thing, if you looked at, do your comments include what they've already proposed. Do you think.

I

um They do, I would also uh you know, I guess what I'd be some of the items, that legal is.

I

Has comments on um you know. I already know that, but what I, what I guess, I'm here, what I really.

I

Want more is to understand and hear the thoughts of the board of the board and the commission and.

I

Understand where you you all want to go with with this, so I think it'd be valuable to keep working.

B

Through everything, let's go, let's go line by line then, and please explain as they go just jane one.

L

Question just inside the same bullet. um I just really appreciate you know. Even if you reword it.

L

um I appreciate the theme here about you know, trying to um like replace trees that.

L

Were existing so that we don't just get you know a completely leveled terrain everywhere,.

L

Especially with developments, this is for proposed developments, and so maybe we should think of you.

L

Know some minimal size of a tree that needs to be replaced. You know of a certain diameter that.

L

Needs to be replaced, I feel like we are always just pulling teeth, to try to get developers.

L

Particularly to provide any kind of trees that aren't literally spindles that will grow in the.

L

They won't be mature trees, you know for the next 60 years and I don't think that's what we want.

L

So when I see that in here about the trees, I I just think we need to make it more measurable.

L

And I see that there's a chart later, on which I also actually really like.

L

um But there needs to be some wording in there about that. Being a shell.

E

Just a couple of comments on that, and that is that the larger the tree you put in the.

E

Harder, it is for that tree to adapt to the new site, and so I think that's why they go.

E

After the two and a half to three inch caliper trees, because those are much more adaptable.

E

The problem is, though, that we are really losing a lot of trees in the city of portsmouth.

E

And- and is there some way we can stop it from happening.

R

Okay, I'll jump to the next one, which is also in criteria for approval. It's number seven now.

O

um And I'll just state for this- that um we do have a bullet already about.

O

Wetland boundary markers, which is in section 10.1018.40, which is a few pages after this.

O

um That's already in the ordinance so for this um criteria for approval. It's stating.

O

Wetland boundary markers will be permanent, will be permanently placed on site to mark.

O

The wetland and wetland buffers as appropriate and assistant educating.

O

The community on sensitive wetlands well and boundary markers are available available for.

O

Purchase through the city of portsmouth planning and sustainability department.

E

It's a requirement. I mean we just across the board, it's under a list of criteria that the.

B

Board is supposed to find before approval, so I think it may be. It already exists somewhere.

B

Else, yeah yeah. I think it's in the wrong section yeah. I think it is too I I think it needs to be.

B

Just needs to be moved and and what we, what we say in the section of the ordinance where we do.

C

List it is that the the applicant- because you know someone might have a wetland buffer 30 feet from.

C

Their house or some might have a wetland buffer in their living room, so it doesn't always make sense.

C

To put it at the edge of the buffer, so we asked in the when we did it before we asked they show it on.

C

The plan that they submitted so then the boards have a chance to review it and decide if there's.

C

Enough, if they're in the right location- and so I can't remember why we added this one. In addition,.

C

Yeah, I think we also wanted to sort of advertise the fact that we want applicants to purchase our.

O

Boundary markers that we want to sort of have a similar look across the city, so that they're.

O

Recognizable, so we put in a little section advertising that they should be at least.

O

Approved by the planning department, or that you should purchase them directly from the.

O

Planning department, so it should just say: city markers are required, yeah, and maybe we put it.

C

To the application requirements section rather than a criteria for approval, good.

D

Place for it, I think I think the next one goes in that area. That section as well. How did the.

B

Commission talk about the permanent nature, because wetlands boundaries do change more.

F

Without major human intervention, I think when we said I think, when they.

C

Said permanently placed meant like a not just a little plastic stake, yeah.

B

I get the idea- maybe we can have a better word for that.

D

Instead of permanent just.

D

Nervous um the mowing of the meadows, they say every three or four years: okay, so sorry.

P

Guys you know, I was just very embarrassed at myself. No problem no worries. Thank you.

O

So are we going to think about moving that to application requirements? Is that yeah? I think so. That's.

O

If there's nothing else, I will jump to the next one, which is another criteria for approval on.

O

The next page number eight, and that is just based on no for standards so um requiring.

O

Northeast organic farmers, association standards for organic land care and those will be followed.

D

And that also should move.

B

Yes, andrew um more of a material comment, but figured it's a good time to bring it up.

J

From my experience on the conservation commission, as well as from proposals that we've seen uh there.

J

Are certainly a healthy component that are just your one-off, homeowner property owner that are.

J

We're doing some work and they have to come for the the board and ask for some sort of relief.

J

I do feel as though it's a great opportunity to educate property owners and create some sort.

J

Of distribution, material that goes into maybe descriptions of nofa standards or why we looked.

E

At the conservation commission website, no, it's there. Okay, we have all kinds of literature there.

E

Including the nofa standards yeah but like so I guess the enabling factor is like them coming to.

J

The board and saying I don't know what this means. You know, I'm happy to abide by it, but I don't.

J

Really know what I'm about abiding by. um So it's a good opportunity to like allow them to leave.

J

With something like a nice little goodie bag of like information, say hey thanks for being a good.

J

Steward of your land, here's all the stuff that we'll need to maintain it, um and it's not only for.

J

Conservation affairs, but also just fyi, the city of portsmouth, is doing some of these eco municipality.

J

Practices and we'd really appreciate and encourage you to follow the same. uh Welcome to portsmouth.

E

So you're talking about a goodie bag for when people buy property enforcement, I mean sure if you.

J

Want to go that route, but nonetheless, when they come before the conservation commission and they.

J

Hear all these terms and this vernacular can be confusing to a lot of people, particularly people.

J

That may not even making their own proposals to have an engineer or an attorney. Do it the.

J

The parting gift for them would be all of these educating materials. To then say, hey.

J

Whether it's you, that is running this property or a tenant or a condo owner or a future owner.

J

Right, it's just it's good to have on hand, and it's now printed in paper in their hands, saying.

J

Like here it is right here you can't miss it yeah, but you see, I think that, rather than.

E

Having it printed in their hands that they can just go to the website and nobody will do it, I.

E

Can look at the information? Nobody will do it. Maybe you can present it to them differently.

K

Save the paper use the website, but it comes out with you know. Their tax.

K

Bill or or something you know when they go to apply it's an online thing. Well, we do send out.

E

um In fact, I think we were looking at doing it again. I need to do it again. I have a brochure.

E

That talks about anybody, that's got a wetland buffer in their house. Anybody that's on wetlands.

E

We send out a little flyer that says this: these are the things that you need to pay attention.

E

To and it has descriptions as well as images on there that show you what it is that we're we're.

E

Talking about so people that have wetlands do have that that comes in the mail to them.

E

um Yeah, I just don't like having more paper. That's all right sure find that.

H

If you could, people use their phones and go to ohio qr code, push that to social media.

K

I think we can make. We could give a reference to the conservation commission website, but um and.

B

I know we've we've had conditions where we've said to use these standards for fertilization.

B

um How broad I just show my ignorance, how broad are the nofa standards and by incorporating.

B

Another document by reference: what are we bringing into the city zoning? Well, the thing.

E

Is that it we also sort of clarify, uh in another section the fact that low nitrogen low phosphate.

E

Fertilizers are the only things that can be used and no pesticides or herbicides in the wetlands.

E

Offer are allowed so we we specify that, but we would like people to go further because they.

E

Have lawns that are not in the wetland buffer and so that if they can follow these standards, it'd.

E

Be better for the environment overall, so we can't stipulate that somebody with a lawn in the in the.

E

Front of their house: that's not in the wetland buffer, follow these standards, but we would just.

E

Recommend them to them, so I mean yeah. I think the no standards sort of give them more information.

F

About how to meet those requirements of the about fertilizer and pesticides, so I get the question: is.

B

Are they encouraged or required and then do they? Do they treat a half acre site differently than.

B

A hundred acre site there's a farmer's standards, so I assume they contemplate large parcels as well.

E

They do is it if the developer, if the developer just applied to whatever piece of property you.

E

Have it's very easy to just translate it, but is it? Are they I'm just my this is my.

B

Ignorance, are they equally applicable to a half acre site, downtown as they are to.

E

Yes, I mean it depends on what the happy acre site is like. But yes, yes, yeah, it's escaping practices.

F

As a requirement or as an encouragement, so how do you enforce it as a requirement? Was our problem.

B

Well, if you incorporate a document by reference, is, is there a? Is there a single nofa? There is a.

C

Doctor there's a document that has this title and it's available on their website and it's subject.

C

To change, obviously, because anything subject could change, but they have it. It needs to say it so it.

B

Needs to give a date or as may be amended or if it's from the legal perspective, if you're.

I

Going to make it a requirement um you should you should really uh reference a specific document.

I

Because it's an issue of notice, you know how are people going to know what document it is.

I

That they have to follow, you know think about the building code, the food code, things like that, it's.

I

A specific version of the code that is that is adopted if you're going to make it a requirement.

I

um If it's, if it's just encouraged, that's that's that's different, but if it's a.

I

Requirement you have to put people on notice what it is that they will have to comply with.

P

More, I mean the information has been very bad in our country over all the toxins and things.

P

Like that, and so the nofa includes, I believe it includes environmentally safe things now, sometimes.

P

We find things aren't safe, so the it has to be sort of something that moves and keeps up with.

P

Current information, as opposed to you, know, setting rules about something that you know in five years.

P

We find out no, that was really not the wrong, um or that was not the right ratio of whatever to you.

P

Know whatever you know, pesticide to square foot or you know not pesticide, but you know whatever.

P

um The lawn nitrogen or whatever I don't know sorry, um but is there some is there a way in.

P

Which it can, because the nofa updates their information, if you tie it to their information.

P

Can you can you keep a a fluidity that that keeps up with again it's you know, we're we're. You know. I.

I

Understand those concerns and they're definitely really good concerns, but we're up against like.

I

Constitutional concerns, as well and and notice of what people will have to comply with. You know.

I

I mean the same could be said about the food code. The food code is is change that changes.

I

All the time, the building code changes all the time, we're constantly finding safer ways to.

I

Build things safer ways to handle food and we do amend the ordinance from time to time to update.

I

You know the building code, the electric code, the food code as the international standards change.

I

um So so I, if this were to be a requirement, I would, I would recommend again choosing a static.

I

Document and then put it let's see if it is the act that we would have to amend it again. Okay,.

P

As the nofa standards change, okay and that's not a big deal sort of- I mean it's not a huge hurdle.

I

It would be what we would have to do: yeah. Okay, so is there only one nofa standard for organic land.

B

Care document, I think I think this is the title to say: that's literally the title yeah, it is.

R

Published in 2017 yet- and it's existed specifically when you go there.

R

Yeah, okay, so maybe putting it in quotes just to make it clear that it's a specific document.

B

Yeah, it should probably have a date reference, and- and would you not recommend having as may.

B

Be amended from time to time, or I would not. I would not recommend that I would recommend.

I

Doing passing another ordinance change, if you wanted, I mean you could theoretically.

I

You could concede you know, we don't know what that organization does. You could see if it changes that.

I

Conservation, commission, this planning board the city council- may not agree with.

B

So the actual specific date and document is on the conservation commission website.

E

uh The actual the link to it, the document or a link to the document, I think it's a link, not sure.

C

So I I think it's a good point about the location in the ordinance and it has to move. We have.

C

Standard stipulations, in our tax approvals, we don't really have a set here. We could create this.

C

As one or we could try to find another place in the ordinance we can, we can look at that. I moved.

B

The same place as markers the same application requirements, that's a requirement. I agree.

G

I'm sorry bill. Excuse me, is this throughout the city or is this in the wetlands.

B

Wherever there are wetlands and wetlands buffers.

C

But but that's there has been some discussion about moving having something throughout the.

C

City, if that was the case, it would wouldn't be in the wetland ordinance it'd, be in a city.

C

Ordinance but that's a different conversation, I think. Maybe I misunderstood, what did you mean.

B

For trees and things- or this is wetlands this- this is a wetland section, but what was your.

B

Question, how did you mean the question this provision only relates to within the wetlands.

N

Yes, but if we made an ordinance, it could become city-wide right. That would be different, yeah.

N

At some point on things like this, is there a cost assessment of what it might mean.

B

P

To the property question property owners, you mean.

M

Well, it's an overall economic impact won the cost of enforcing it as a city, and it's also you know.

M

Overall economic impact is a bigger word and we're we're. Economic considerations are not.

B

Sufficient reasons um you know they're basically excluded we have to. We should be careful about.

B

That, if something, I think that was was specific application to the applicant, I think the question.

M

Was more about the economic impacts to the city to the city in enforcing this? Creating it and.

M

How much is going to cost to make it happen? I think, would be the generic word.

B

Well, if the, if the applicant has to put up markers that are provided by the city.

B

And are pretty permanent and it's gone through the process of providing all the information. I.

B

Don't think there's that much the city has to do that. It's not already doing right so.

M

Are those markers sold to the applicant or are we giving them to them? We're selling.

G

Them we sell them to them. That's sort of kind of I think, where this whole thing's going is.

M

If the cost is borne by the applicant in some way, yeah not on the taxpayers,.

B

I think we're back to you, kate,.

O

Next, one is, if you um wording changes in section 10.1017.831.

O

um I'll just go through the whole kind of a big paragraph, but you'll see where the.

O

Red lines are: where can I just? Can I just jump in on this, because I think this is.

C

Important to give a little background on this, this section falls within a section.

C

10 10 17.80, which is the wetland protection plan, and the wetland protection plan is for.

C

Projects of more than five acres with a with more than five residential structures, it only.

C

There's only one in portsmouth that has this wetland protection plan in place. It's hillcrest.

C

Estates, because that's how they operate there to make it so that every time they bring in a.

C

New mobile home, they don't have to come in for a wetland conditioning experiment. We came up with a.

C

Ordinance section that other other you know mobile home parks or places where this type.

C

Of housing is isn't contemplated, would have a more of a comprehensive approach to looking at.

C

The wetlands on their site- and so when you think about this section, this is for the individual site.

C

Plans they do at that park, but it's not like an individual wetland permit application. So it's.

C

Just for one site at a mobile home park in this case sorry, okay, go ahead. That's great explanation.

O

It's added that no blasting is required. um So to start no net increase in impervious surface.

O

Within the wetland, buffer building structures or other impervious surfaces may be constructed.

O

Expanded or relocated within the wetland buffer provided, provided that no blasting is required.

O

No new impervious surface shall be within 50 feet of the wetland boundary and any new area converted.

O

To impervious surface shall be compensated for at a one-to-one ratio by the conversion of existing.

O

Impervious surface within the wetland buffer to vegetated open space, which we changed to.

O

Just planted areas instead of lawn or planted areas, such compenser compensatory, open spaces.

O

Does need to be shown on the approved weapon projection plan and shall be shown on the permit.

O

Permit site plan submitted with the building permit application rewarding changes there.

B

That's bad, so I just want to make sure I'm understanding, because you've changed this.

D

50 to 100 feet and then 25 to 50 feet. That's coming we're going to talk about.

C

That in more details, it's the start of this section has that in it? Yes right! No, I know.

D

So I guess I I guess I really need to know what the rationale is.

D

um About changing those the foot, because I know there's going to be a lot of pushback.

D

From residents about this, especially at the council level, so I think we need to.

D

Make sure that we really have our ducks in a row as far as the reasoning behind why.

D

Putting more strain on homeowners in the buffer is important. That's that's why I'm asking this.

D

Question about what it might be worth going to the next slide, then, because it it goes into.

C

Detail on what you're, referring to the changes that are in the vegetation management section.

C

So I think there was it's up to this yeah. I think we we skipped over one. I think, on right.

B

Under the requirements requirements, that's where I was yeah submission requirements.

D

One eight two one, eight two one, the 50 I've got if mine says 50-100 without a.

B

The 50 isn't stricken, as I guess that was supposed to be stricken and changed to 100.

D

That's what I was trying to figure out [applause].

H

It's between 50 and 100 feet between 50 yep. That's where the new buffer would be the area.

O

Between 50, and so it is between the limited cut area, so right now is it the limited cut area is.

B

How is it now 50 feet right just so now, you're doing the whole hundred.

C

The limited cut area goes out and extends out to 100 feet now. Well, no, currently, it's it's between.

C

50 and 75 feet from the edge of the well and the change is to go from 50 to 100 feet, so it adds 25.

C

Feet so it expands to the full the full width of the buffer from 50 feet. Instead of just a.

C

75 feet of the buffer where's, the limited cut area is it. It starts at 50 feet currently and.

C

Goes to 75 feet so so there should have been a 75, oh and I'm looking at this 75 in there.

D

Now I'm looking at the vernal pool, sorry, the inland, the in the wetland. It's it's! It's 50 to.

C

One it's 50.: well! Is it 25 right now it's 25 to 50.. So if you look at the table and.

C

In section 10, 10 18.20, it spells it all out. I think we're back on we're at the.

H

Beginning of the wetland protection yeah, I was going back under 10 10 10 17 82. One.

B

Eight two one: it's the same standard and it's spelled out in the table, but that would be a.

C

Mistake yeah, so it's just a typo, just okay, I'm just trying to understand it. uh Limited cut.

C

C

So where it was, this is where I am yeah yeah, I'm just looking at the table, so it was 25.

G

To 50 and now it's 50 to 100. yeah, so we're just.

O

Missing a range right there, 50 to 100 5200, is isn't changing it to 25 to 50.

G

There is currently 25 and 50.. I understand the thought. Is there science behind the numbers.

E

The more areas that you have, the more protective you can be of the wetland and the more you have.

E

As a planted area, it's that much more protective of the wetland and there is science behind that.

B

Is it has it been a problem, I'm just doing little devil advocate here. Has there been a problem with.

B

The existing dimensions, the problem is that we have um people cutting down trees in the buffer.

E

That we would like to protect, and so that's why we moved it out to this point, because right now the.

E

Limited cut area went right up to 25 feet, which meant that you could cut anything out of there.

E

And we're trying to come up with some way to protect more area. I mean we have nothing.

E

To say about upland areas, the upland areas can be deforested because we have nothing.

E

In our power to you know, negotiate that, but but this will allow us to at least.

E

um You know have a little more power about cutting trees down, even if they're, only in the buffer.

P

They say 250 feet, so this is the compromise that that you know we're making. I mean if you.

P

Many communities had not for decades but they're finding that 250 is a recommended wetland buffer.

P

Is that where the state got its shoreline protection dimension? Because that's 250.

C

Interventions 250, but within that the shoreland buffer, I think, is 150 so and.

C

Then, within that there's the cells and yeah, it gets really complicated.

C

Well, just so, everybody understands we're not talking about what the the vegetative buffer strip.

C

Is what we call it right now and it's the so. You have the edge of the wetland, the wetland itself.

C

And the from the edge of the wetland to 25 feet into the upland next to the wetland right now is.

C

A vegetative buffer strip that we're changing. We want to change to no cut. I just hit a buffer strip.

C

Which, basically means you can't cut anything in there except invasive species, as allison mentioned.

D

And that's for 50 feet and then the next 50 that's for 25 right now. But the proposal is to.

C

Move that to 50 feet so there'd be no cutting within the first 50 feet of upland. Next to a.

C

Inland wetland, a tidal wetland, um vernal pools, are different. We won't go into that right now and then.

C

Instead of starting at 25 feet, you're starting at 50 feet with the limited cut area and a limited.

C

Cut area then, will extend to 100 feet and what that requirement is you can't cut more than 50.

C

Percent of the trees greater than six inches dbh, so you can cut all the vegetation except.

C

For the tree is greater than six inches dbh and you can only cut what I think half of those so.

C

It still allows you to cut some trees, allows you to control the vegetation from 50 to 100, whereas.

C

Before it was um from 25 to 75 and then from 75 to 100, there was no controls on vegetation. So you.

C

Could basically cut all the trees and the right now you can cut all the trees in the first 25 feet.

C

Going towards the wetland and then half the trees, the next 25 feet and then nothing 25 to zero. So.

D

I think I understand the changes better now yeah, it's basically just extending the vegetative.

C

Cut the no cut area 25 feet further out and then the limited cut area 25 feet further up.

C

Or 50 feet for the run, I guess yeah.

B

The explanation just gave peter where's that written it's it's in the table on 10 18.

C

.21.20 1018.21 yep and vegetation management, so it's the performance standards for wetlands.

C

Got my conditional use permit.

B

And the explanation you had about cutting half and all that, where where's that.

C

Oh- and I think we changed it to any tree- is that where you change it to right, 50, which we used to.

O

Have and now it's not it's half now, but it's proposed to be all so, protecting all the trees.

Q

Six inch diameter.

B

Three talks about the buffer, but aren't you recognizing that the distinction between the.

B

No cut and the vegetative the way you described it as different in my head. The way, the way that's.

B

Not worded, the no cut is, is an 18.22 um or no there's a definition. Actually, we don't have sex.

C

In article 15., which has the definition of the vegetative buffer, but it's basically, you have.

C

To leave all the vegetation that shall remain in the right now in the first 25 feet, all vegetation.

C

Shall remain in that vegetative buffer strip and then the limited cut area is where you're.

C

Allowed to cut some of the trees, in this case the sum of the trees or the trees smaller than.

C

In the change right now, it's it's half the trees. Greater than six inches can be cut. The changes.

C

Only the tree is less than six inches can be cut in a limited cut area.

C

If they're six inches or bigger they're all supposed to remain, you have to keep them.

C

It's a location and a number, so would it so does the vegetated buffer now become the no.

B

Cut so if you just call it the no cut, that's just to yeah, it's the same. If you have the no cut, then.

B

You've got the limited cut, correct and the buffer straddles both all of it. Yeah yeah, that's right.

Q

It's definitely more objective too, I would say it's like it's very clear right. The 50 rule was.

Q

Very fuzzy right: if you're, a new property owner, you can then cut 50 percent and then property.

Q

Changes hands. You can cut another 50 of the tree. You know like there's where's the starting point.

Q

Is confusing um where's? This is, I think, pretty direct yeah be harder enforcement too yeah.

B

So it's really the way you describe this plus, in addition, larger trees. You.

B

Don't touch them in the buffer. The way this is written right.

M

I guess it's a follow-on to the other question, but are these numbers derived from.

M

Other ordinances in our geographic area or in the vicinity or or and are currently in.

M

Use in either other cities or states in the neighboring area, or are they arbitrary because.

M

For the to follow on what beth said, to get city council to sign off on this.

M

You're gonna have to come up with some more justification than you made. These numbers.

M

Up because their biggest battle and everybody is running on it, right now is housing, and this we are.

M

Intimately familiar with the buildable land in the city of portsmouth, it's it's been hashed over for.

M

The last two years- and this would take that long- determined number and do a lot of damage to it.

Q

Would it, though, I mean, are you considering some areas in the buffer zone to be buildable currently.

M

No, I mean this: isn't this isn't changing the 100 foot buffer? That's considered unbuildable, but it's.

M

Adding infinite number of criteria that are going to change, approvable, conditional use permits and.

M

The buffer zone, so I think it will reduce buildable luts a comment I mean, but we're.

E

Only looking at what's in the wetland, okay, we're not talking about, and so what's in the wetland.

E

Buffer is not buildable, so here, okay, that's not correct. We have approved numerous things in the.

M

Last two years that were existing things in the wetlands buffer. That made no sense and they came.

M

To us and they created additional housing and cleaned up the buffer. This is clarifying really.

C

Just to clarify that the section we're talking about is a is a vegetation management section, so.

C

It's how the buffer is managed. It's not so the board still has the ability to approve.

C

A conditional use permit to cut down the entire forest all the way up to the edge of the wetland.

C

And into the wetland, if they so choose, so it doesn't take away your discretion to approve.

C

A conditional use permit it says within that buffer. You are only allowed to cut.

C

You know you're not allowed to cut any of the big trees in that buffer once you control that buffer.

C

So it's I you know your your point is your point is the reason for the change. If we have that.

M

Discretion to change it on an application, then why do we have to change the numbers.

C

So this is changing the way, the vegetation's management so the way people manage their buffer.

C

On their property, with the goal of trying to protect more trees, I guess that's the bottom line.

P

They're a lot more strict about letting things get built or people messing with.

P

The buffer, I believe at least that was when I was down there and kittery- has a six inch.

P

um Tree policy cannot cut any tree in all of kittery, whether it's in a buffer or not.

P

um uh So, for you ask for neighborhood things, those are two that I know of offhand right. Won't.

B

Allow you to use machinery to cut in certain areas near the buffer yeah. It can only be hand.

B

Yeah, it's very restrictive, which is actually a really nice analysis of upper width. That.

Q

Have that in hand, I guess when you're talking to the council just to see how portsmouth compares.

Q

There's a there's, a good numbers that have 100 foot buffer and then there's obviously a portion.

Q

That have no buffer rules, I think to greg's point: it's going to be dependent on the conversation.

B

We had earlier about the earlier criteria, because if, if the board has the discretion that it's been.

B

Exercising and and the conservation commission has been recommending, applications that in.

B

My opinion didn't conform with some of those criteria. So again I think we've been looking.

B

At things that provide overall environmental benefit as a good thing, and so if the regulation.

B

Is in conformance of that, then everybody should be happy and allow more housing. So.

B

Any other we sort of jumped around a little bit on.

B

Cuts and no cuts and.

B

Would it make sense to change and just use a simpler language and have the no cut and limited.

B

Cut, I mean just change the name altogether, no cut limited cut. Sure I think so I don't know I mean.

C

Yeah yeah because it originally was just vegetated, if you say no cut it kind of, makes it clear to.

B

Me what can't do anything yeah? Can I ask a just a question? Is there a reason why that why no cut or.

I

The now why vegetative buffer strip is a defined term but limited cut area is not a defined term.

I

Is there, is there a historical reason behind that or is it there is? I can't remember what it is.

E

What the limited cut area is it, I think, just no cut, I mean vegetative buffer strip. I think.

C

I'd, have I don't know so you could find it do you have it? No. Thank you, mr chair foreign.

Q

And I think when the time comes we can provide. You know some references for.

Q

The signs behind that just make that offer certainly out there.

B

So, are we up to snow or yeah? I think we got to go just down to the fertilizer.

O

Section where we added in um that the use of fertilizer use some fertilizers other.

O

Than low phosphate and slow release, nitrogen fertilizers added in in compliance with nova.

O

Standards is prohibited in any part of a well and buffer. um Then we can get into.

O

Snow standards, but I don't know if we want to hash over nofa standards in this section.

O

Sort of just cites them again here in this section.

C

Yeah, I think we're up to snow, wouldn't.

B

It be simpler, just to say, fertilizer shall comply with nofa standards. Yes,.

B

Snow, let's do it all right next page, and I believe this is the last one from the.

O

Conservation, commission, it's on snow requirements, section 10.1018.50, so an application with parking.

O

Lots and or roadways must designate and mark with signage in the field. Snow storage areas.

O

Outside of the 50-foot wetland buffer, snow storage, areas outside of the buffer snow.

O

Starts areas are outside the buffer and uh recorded correctly are not possible comma.

L

Perfect then they must be transported. Additionally, a winter maintenance plan must be submitted and.

O

Work must be performed another another, oh, must be performed by green snow pro certified companies.

M

Could you tell us about what green snow pro is because we have been holding up the no salt thing.

M

In our recent approvals, but what is green snow pro so green snow pro is a program that is run through.

F

um I think unh t-squared technology transfer- originally, um I don't know where it is at now.

F

But it's overseen by new hampshire department of environmental services and they basically created.

F

The program so that different people that do snow winter maintenance activities would be.

F

Trained and then they would learn how to use less salt and still get the same results that.

F

You know make area safe without using so much salt, and then they also need to track how much.

F

Salt that they use as part of the certification and they take ongoing training. So there are other.

F

Cities merrimack has this in their regulations too, and there's other cities that do in towns.

F

And it was set up with enabling legislation and has been tested through the legal system.

M

And the first sentence just to be clear: parking, lots or roadways. So it's not driveways correct.

F

We did that on purpose. That's what I'm thinking, because you couldn't get joe with a snow blower.

M

And a pickup truck trained, it was my thinking. Okay well, and I guess too right yeah. That would.

D

Be difficult, I guess when you put in roadways but you're talking about private roadways. Yes,.

D

Parking lots and roadways.

B

What about pickleball courts? Well, I wonder, if is there? Is there any other companies out.

C

There shouldn't have or equivalent or is that not something they used to have equivalent, but.

C

Other communities yeah the equivalent was because they were green snow pro was new.

D

The question would be private parking lots. Do I mean what, if it's a parking.

D

Lot for a two unit, building it's three or four spots like is there a size that would.

D

Trigger this need, because you might find a small business owner or the small you know.

D

Or work stay-at-home work that is required to have three or four parking spots under.

D

Our parking regulations might find this onerous. So that's why I'm just to be the.

D

Devil's advocate, you know: should there be a certain size of lot in order to trigger this.

C

I don't remember if we discussed it, we discussed with size in particular. No, I.

E

Think we just wanted to not have it the onerous on the residential somebody's.

E

Driveway right, there's parking lot a fine term yet.

B

Oh, no, I'm serious, I mean I'm sure you are.

D

I think if you have you know a three unit building and you park four cars behind it in a residential.

D

It would be hard for them to come up with somebody that would be able to do this. That's kind of thing.

D

I'm thinking about, is it just really small how many green pro green snow pro people are there.

B

Are there a lot? I don't know how many are on the spreadsheet, but it's so it's not like the.

B

Two guys who say I'll give you this one and I'll do over here monopoly now, there's a spreadsheet.

F

And it's listed on and there's hundreds you know in in different communities, even so.

E

I want to find out: the community might actually want to require it of anybody.

E

That does plowing on the area. What, if it's just I'm thinking outside the box? What if it's.

D

On the tenants who live in that building, because it's only a three-year building.

D

With four or five parking spots to actually remove the snow themselves, they won't okay,.

D

Part of the release and they're but they're not going to know about the standard right, so I guess.

C

Right so you want to put it like I mean, should we put like half an acre or an acre? I don't know.

D

I don't know I'm just I'm yeah. You could sort of size of the parking lot. You could put a number of.

C

Units in the building you could put an amount of parking spaces right. I just think you should why.

C

Don't we just put that for consideration into what really true along that line.

M

um This is for new applicants right about existing conditions.

C

This right, so that was one thing that I was thinking about, was we're in the conditional.

C

Use permit section- and this sounds like an enterprise city-wide, but it's really.

C

Just for a proposal, that's before the board to review. That is a condition. You know. I've lived.

M

Full cycle from when the city said they would never approve another pud. Ours was the last.

M

One 25 years ago and now you're approving them again and that's exactly what this applies to.

M

Is because it's private road quote unquote, but as I live in a phd with nine houses in it and.

M

We just use a company, that's got three guys and he's a very organic kind of guy and he's.

C

Never mentioned this kind of thing. He might be a certified. Anybody surprised if he wasn't.

M

I'd be surprised, they didn't offer it to us already and we've been using them for.

M

20 years, so I'm just concerned about this as being restrictive for a guy like me that hires plow guys.

E

Well, the thing is that there have been a couple of developments: they've got that have gone in that we have specified that they use green snowflow, okay, snow pro, and they.

E

They agree, so it's not a problem like the scatical landscaping, that's a big green stone and they.

F

Actually teach some of the classes, oh cool, because that's who plows my parking lot at my house.

K

All right, thank you. So when we reconvene, then you guys can bring back some additional.

B

Thought about this, we'll talk about the other section that we talked about earlier. Was there.

B

Anything else that we had to, I think we covered several of the other ones. Did we get everything.

K

To go back to except the one we wanted to go back to from the beginning. That's.

B

What I was that's why I was asking the question.

O

That's section 10.1017.27.

C

Oh, we can look it. We can look at other options for that. One too.

C

What all these other communities have done? It.

B

You know it might feed into the other the criteria too, but um that may be a and since.

B

You're cross-pollinating, both groups, you can open form yep yeah, I just I, the city of dover.

C

To stop is updating their wetland ordinance and I just received it today, so I haven't.

C

Had a chance to go through it, but looking at other communities might be beneficial.

B

Any other comments.

B

Thank you guys for starting this, mr chair. Yes, um I just have a few generic comments. If, on the zoning.

A

Orange in general, if we're going to make these changes, would it be possible to include page.

A

Numbers on the whole zoning ordinance, because I think the ordinance itself is two or three hundred.

A

Pages and it's very hard to reference a particular thing, because there's no page numbers, so I didn't.

A

Know if that was a big ask, or if there's a reason why the ability to have numbers now.

D

Search the pdf for that section, number and it'll bring you right to it.

A

True, I just don't know why I can't be on the paper version too. I think the I think the issue is that.

C

When you update a section of the ordinance re-paginating, the entire document is much.

C

More complicated than just adding a new section in so it's that that's the basic you know it's.

C

It's more about not printing having to reprint huge huge, you know and repat, because you have.

C

To repatignate the whole thing every time you add a section, but one you know, there's a solution to.

C

That which we're already we're getting to is we're going to have a online ordinance.

C

A different way to manage the ordinance and it probably will have page numbers similar to dover,.

A

Or rochester's exactly the e360 yeah, I think it's cool, maybe not necessarily them, but one of those.

C

Types of ordinance they're, one of the contenders, several all right- super yeah. uh My next comment is.

A

um You know the concom does very important work and we read what you folks give us.

A

Because we have to approve, you know many of the wetlands ordinances and when we get a package.

A

For a meeting you know it could be a thousand pages long, so what I think would help at least.

A

Me was would be if the concom vote on a particular issue was in the in our packet. Instead of just.

A

The concom approved it'd be helpful. If it we knew if it was a 7-0 vote or four three or three four.

A

So I didn't know if that could be another change we could make. So do you want like comments as to.

E

Why somebody didn't prove something? Yeah that'd be great. I I would just start with what your.

A

Vote was, and it would, it would key us at least me into looking at the issue more carefully of.

R

Four three votes: a lot different than a 7-0 gives us context. I mean we, we do that. Does it just not.

G

Get into their package, it's usually in the memo. I thought it was in the memo. It's usually in the.

D

Memo is whether or not it was unanimous or whether or not it was split in our comments, but I realized.

A

I think it's usually approved or not approved. I don't think there's a vote number in the in the.

A

Plenty board packet. I know I've seen unanimous, but I I don't know that I've seen split votes.

S

I assume you guys don't always vote unanimously. Correct, there's been several things that have come.

D

To us that have been split votes, so yeah I've seen them in there many times. So again, it's just simple.

A

Things just whatever you, the concom vote is to the planning boards. It would be really helpful sure.

Q

I wonder what that is. Communication looks like because, on the boards like what you actually.

Q

See I mean, obviously you see the yeah. We usually include some stipulations with.

Q

Our approval, yeah and then do you see like, like all of the minutes from the discussion.

M

We really do look at it like what were they thinking before exactly it came to us and then.

M

What were they thinking before it came to us and how did they get to this conclusion? Are we.

M

Missing something yeah, yes, they're carried into the memo yeah. He wasn't exaggerating, sometimes.

B

The packages are like council packers gigantic too, but we get. We can get loans to you. We have.

E

Asked to see the whole works, so we probably had something very similar to what you get and we we.

E

Have to go over with a magnifying lens. Yes, you gotta dig. I scrolling through 240 feet exactly.

Q

I think that is another thing that I know dover has been looking at too is providing they're calling.

Q

A little bit more justification or rationale behind the recommendation that goes to the.

Q

Planning board, I mean it's required now by status, yeah yeah, and then we could help generate that for.

S

B

So we'll send a poll out for another meeting to get together to.

B

Finalize or advance this hopefully finalize it.

C

In terms of timing on getting oh sorry, I'm just gonna make one offer. You know. Obviously.

Q

This these, these these guidelines are very restricted right to just the wetland buffer.

Q

Area, but if there are any concepts in here that you feel like should be elevated and and.

Q

Instituted city-wide, I think that's something that we would be fully supportive of. You know.

Q

Whether it's the snow pro or the fertilizers or sort of a tree ordinance, you know things.

Q

That could we could take these ideas and zoom them out. If folks wanted to, we would help you.

B

Well, one other thing I'll add we did formally start the master plan update process recently.

B

Which has only been that that's all we've done, but conservation commission input on that is going to.

B

Be very valuable and desire desired, so think about it. It's great thank you. I was just going to ask in.

C

Terms of timing, you know um how you know we're going to work on some things here internally, so.

C

I guess I'm not look, I'm just hoping we don't. We have a little bit of time yeah, it might be.

H

If not next week or next month, yeah tomorrow this year, foreign.

B

Figure it out, but yeah, okay.

B

No, it's not the only uh not the only thing happening on the third floor. No.

E

However, I do get sick to my stomach. When I see some of the applications come in front of us.

B

I feel your pain. Excuse me. I feel your pain.

M

We sometimes ask: what were you thinking when they bring them to us too?.

B

Anything else are we, okay, we're gonna turn the meeting. Thank you very much yeah. Thank you.